Please allow me to get this straight. The average daily tidal height around New York City is about 6 feet per day. Around the world this tidal range is as little as a few inches, to a couple feet in the middle of the ocean and as high as 30+ feet in the Bay of Fundy.
We are told that melting glaciers AND an expanded volume of ocean due to its warming (for fun, go check out the actual data on this and examine what the actual consensus is on these predictions and past increases) are going to be something like two-feet over the course of this century at the high end of the IPCC range and closer to a half-foot on the low end. Of course, folks are suggesting these are too-low, and that when the Antarctic ice sheet drops into the oceans, the 30 foot sea level rise would doom us. But let’s take 2 feet. Now, understand that I am conflating topics here, but we are being told that an increase in sea levels of 2 feet is going to be catastrophic, when most cities experience triple that rise each and every day.
You might say, “well, we are built out to the edge of that 6 foot rise right now, so another 2 feet would sink us.” And I’d simply suggest that if we cannot handle a 2 foot level sea level rise over the course of 100 years, well, we’re pretty inept. Here is an image of a 10 foot high dike around the island of Pellworm, which did not take 100 years to build, even when it was done with horse and hand.
(photo credit Von Michael B. Schlüter)
Wouldn’t Manhattan be pretty spectacular with one of those wrapped around it? And just think of all of the jobs to be created from building it. By the way, wouldn’t it make sense to employ every unemployed American right now to build these around the entire country? Would you take on $2 trillion more debt right now in exchange for ending this worry about global warming? Of course, we’d still get the latter, but hey, I’m not the one who’s too rigid to compromise here. I’d seriously suggest someone in the Republican Party offering this up as a deal to the left, and I am sure we’d end up at, “but we have a moral obligation not to allow sea levels to rise at all.” Fine, then send Americans to the islands around the world to build these too.
On a similar note, the “bad” cases suggest that temperatures on average will increase by 4 to 5 degrees over the next century. Yet American domestic migration patterns are heavily in favor of these changes. For example, the annual average temperature is over 10 degrees higher in Phoenix than it is in New York City. And better than that, the average daily variation in temperature in most places is in the 10 to 15 degree (F) range, easily within the range of increase we are expected to see over 100 years. I find it odd that it is going to be catastrophically crippling to deal with this – EVEN IF such an average temperature increase alters the way we grow crops and the way that insects affect us.
The current “alarm” community would have us believe that the human race is so powerful and so brutal as to have a catastrophically bad impact on the planet due to our misuse of science, incredible thirst for motive power, and our lust for new stuff. Yet this same community would also have you believe that this very same powerful force of humanity is going to be utterly hobbled by higher sea levels and warmer temperatures that are going to occur over the course of a century. This seems at best a little lacking in imagination, don’t you think? And of course, none of this says anything about our human ingenuity to avoid the “problem” in the first place. Whose vision of the world is actually optimistic?
You’ll notice I’ve said nothing about the planet not warming or anything about the feedback effects of CO2 or anything like that. But you can bet a dollar for a doughnut that nonetheless this post will be cited as evidence of denialism and justification for “planet wrecking capitalism” by “opponents.”