* https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
* https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
I'm not saying there is an intentional attempt to bamboozle readers. It's just hard to judge the report on such a short time scale.
EDIT: I'm not a climate denialist, but I have many people in my life who are. I was really looking forward to showing them this website but refrained knowing that they would come back with the argument I mentioned.
Sure, if we knew nothing about Earth's climate (and also didn't have plenty of other ways to measure historic sea level), only having 50 years of measurements might be misleading. But we know that sea level is rising and we know why it is rising. We have a very strong hypothesis as to what's happening and we see this hypothesis confirmed again and again across a very wide range of subjects that otherwise have no relation to one another.
On top of this, we do have plenty of other measurements for historical sea levels that all indicated yes, sea level is raising they just aren't perfectly apples-to-apples "actual measurements" so it wouldn't be perfectly honest to include them in this chart.
aren’t?
"In this episode we explore the “Climategate” scandal that erupted from leaked emails and code snippets, fueling doubts about climate science. What starts as an investigation into accusations of fraud leads to an unexpected journey through the messy reality of data science, legacy code struggles, and the complex pressures scientists face every day."
He goes into the code/data that is seemingly the root-cause of a lot of "it's all a hoax." I found it pretty informative, as to how climate data is gathered and processed (by the scientists). And the limitations therein. He's simply trying to explain the cause of climategate, rather than advocate any view.
It's also a great example of a tech/dev investigation into root-cause analysis, of someone else's code. So it's interesting from that point of view, even if you're less interested the climate side of it.
This stinks of circular reasoning. It's bad logic because climate deniers use it and climate deniers are wrong because they only ise bad logic.
The reason the other measurements you mentioned can't be included are often that the measurements are or equal or greater distance between eachother than this entire set. Including this data in one of those sets would demonstrate that there are plenty of times in history where the sea level changed the amount it has in the last 50 years.
If we know so much about why it's rising, what's with all the measurements? We don't "know" nearly as much as you're implying. The reason we don't go around measuring healthy humans body temperature is because we know what it is. The entire purpose of the measurements is to increase understanding.
Current forecasts of Y temperature rise would lead to X sea level rise rely in a static model of all other variables. It should be obvious that the climate is anything but static, considering the entire argument is about climate change.
It's perfectly reasonable to criticize this kind of extrapolatory thinking without denying the fundamentals of climate change.
In history? No. Sea levels have never been higher in the written record.
In geologic history? Of course. No serious scientist argues otherwise. The point is returning to those levels means abandoning Baltimore, Houston, much of Los Angeles and most of Miami and multi-trillion dollar projects to protect San Francisco, New York and Boston.
Here’s my problem with all this stuff. All the science says LA, NYC, etc. are going to be underwater. Not maybe, not in the worst case, no. All the reporting says this is pretty much a forgone conclusion, and has for many years.
So why have these cities not started working on erecting (say) 50ft tall “future-proof” sea walls? Even if they end up not being needed, it _seems_ like this is the type of climate change mitigation step that would be a prudent thing to do. Certainly more so than the whole lot of nothing currently being done. Surely LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?
A bit longer:
Good luck sourcing that from taxes. People vote, and those projects would A, fall to graft, B piss off many in your voter base both as a consequence of the graft and the general disagreement over their value.
The answer is you would see the people who greenlit the projects voted out and the projects would be scuttled.
People can say they know this is a problem but because its in the abstract most of your voter base just won't go for it and it's squarely in a "people don't actually vote in their best interest" type of problem.
It's a riot trying to get a few new MTA tunnels approved and needed repair and modernization for the NYC subways is always basically just out of the question.
So 50 ft sea walls? Yeah people would actually be under water and still doubting the need for them.
Because we don’t need to yet? Also, a sea wall doesn’t block, it deflects. Protecting Manhattan means deflecting those surges to e.g. Long Island and New Jersey. That’s a difficult conversation much easier had after a hurricane washes away some of the opposition (and/or generates urgency in the core).
> LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?
Yes, but they’ll do what those states do with their own climate risks: wait for a catastrophic failure that ultimately costs more but unlocks federal funding and so costs less locally.
The height is concerning regardless but the rate of change is the link to anthropomorphic climate change. If it's shown that this rate of change is not unprecedented, the link to human causes is less solid.
I'm not here to say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and that humans aren't likely responsible for current and future warming, I'm pointing out that there are plenty of people who believe the same as me but to a degree that is not supported scientifically.
The data fits the co2 hypothesis great but Baysian reasoning also must account for other models that fit the data as well and must even include the prospect that there are other unknown causes that could produce the effect, as there clearly are given the thoroughly precedented nature of our current situation.
That would be a good point, if that was what I was arguing but it's clearly not. I am pointing out that this is a common form of argument used by climate deniers, and then, independent of that fact, demonstrating why it's poor logic. My argument regarding why the logic is poor has nothing to do with the fact that's it's a commonly used line of reasoning in climate denial. However the classification of the logic as such is useful to help people quickly identify the common set of erroneous methods used that show up very frequently in online discussions (and sadly, very commonly on HN).
Climate denial arguments do tend to use faulty logic in a similar vein to the way creationists tend to use faulty logic, because the evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis is so much greater the easiest way to "attack" that hypothesis is through poor use of logic. But clearly that does not imply that all logic employed by people in these camps is inherently faulty.
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
Except for all the evidence from trees and Antarctic ice cores, sure. We couldn’t forecast hurricanes at all until the 1950s, and even then barely until the age of satellites, so 1970 makes sense as a starting point for high-frequency data. But let’s not pretend the lower-frequency data don’t exist. To the extent there is bamboozling afoot, it’s from the climate deniers.
Knowing that many of the places I love, which formed me, will soon be under water gives me a kind of sadness which doesn’t go away.
Now imagine the flack that would happen if you say took the Bronx and subject it to border security checkpoints and let the people have materially significantly worse sewer and other living conditions. People would call it a travesty and a dark mark on nyc as a whole for allowing such a thing to happen to its own people.
Yet over in SD that very situation happens with all the commuters and trade that goes on between there and TJ. And people don’t bat an eye to it, if only to blame TJ for the sewer situation.
Annexing wouldn't work because a new city would pop up along the new border. The border is the attraction.
Some funding was allocated
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/epa-administrator-vis...
https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/11/19/biden-fundi...
It's not a question of the Fed "helping", it is a federal issue, just as much as TX, FL, AZ etc. spending federal money on any other transborder matter. The sewage is caused by Mexico (not SD) and affects as far up as LA, and it's a federal and foreign-policy issue as much as a local issue for the SoCal counties.
I don't know much about SoCal water treatment, here's a useful explanation [0] + infographic [1] from EPA.
As to arguing that a couple of hundred million in federal funding to do something useful that improves both SD and TJ (quality-of-life, tourism, watersports, etc.) is unthinkable, compare to the waste in the ICE budget for FY 2025: $10.5 billion, several billions of which is being spent on privatized prisons for unnecessarily holding people up to 18 mths (when Congress could simply e.g. expand H-2A/B visas for the agricultural/manufacturing/services workers which the US is dependent on). TJ is essentially the outsource manufacturing hub on the US's doorstep, and will be increasingly so when some manufacturing moves back to N America (e.g. from China), we might as well constructively engage with reality. Really this decision should be non-partisan and a no-brainer.
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/usmca-t...
[1]: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/images/2021-08/concerns-map...
People do view this as a major issue but comparing it to the Bronx when it’s in another country drastically oversimplifies the issue. I’m sure many people would be unhappy for the US gov to spend money on Mexico…
I doubt the environmental impact was positive, but the point I am trying to make is that I wouldn't be surprised if current infrastructure was just left to be swallowed by the sea.
However, based on what I understand of the human race, I think nothing will be done to prevent the issue. I guess the closest thing I can think of off the top of my head would be tsunami damage. Though that is probably not a good comparison still. I am curious what environmental changes can be observed in pre/post tsunami ecosystems. I suppose I will have to look into this when I have more free time...
Honestly, I am rather jaded when it comes to climate change. Humans are very reactive and less... proactive. I would argue that much of these environmental concerns could and should have been addressed decades ago. Thus, by the time cities are swallowed by the sea, I believe it will be too late for us to do anything. As in, whatever ecosystem that could be affected will probably already be affected by other downstream issues, if not completely destroyed already.
Though, I once had an environmental science professor that had a tongue in cheek saying, "Dilution is the solution to pollution." While unlikely as it may be, I am going to have my fingers crossed that hopefully any ramifications will be diluted enough. (I know they probably won't be.)
1) force to shut the dams (MOSE) almost always during the year.
2) ruin the lagoon ecosystem
3) create uncountable damage to the city of Venice, and nearby islands.
4) possibly displace tens of thousands of people.
Now it is urgent and critical still, but we have far fewer options for remediation.
Kind of like how changing your cars oil is urgent once you cross the service date. You don't immediately see any downsides, but they are accumulating, you can't roll back the damage, and total failure to change the oil is eventually catastrophic.
^ this interested me, apparently it’s due to geological uplift combined with regional water patterns. The regional water patterns are due to winds and the ENSO cycle, which can mask long term effects. Apparently it will increase faster once Antarctica starts shedding in earnest.
I bring this up because the same people who would deny that this is a problem will also be amongst the people who will take a "check" from the federal and/or state government to mitigate any issues that arise from it. And it's, at least partially, that reality that keeps people from actually trying to mitigate it with their own actions. I'm not saying people consciously are sitting there saying that, but I do think it's an underlying belief.
For instance, is this guy or gal (https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/florida-most-expen...) going to pay for the levy or whatever solution keeps the water from inundating their property without first lobbying the government to take care of it for them?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-spends-a-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/fema-cal-oes-announc...
Edit: this is interesting because now that I've read about it it seems the gov is paying fair market value for the land. Do you know if that's for the land value only or are the improvements part of it? Seems like a decent solution actually, but it does beg the larger question: what happens when it's thousands of homes?
Have to imagine Palisades and Eaton fire folks are agitating for this exact same deal. The costs, in comparison to PV, will be extreme.
It's $42m and homes in that region are $1.5m+ so that's under 50 people.
Actual details are here: https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22752/Voluntary-Pr...
Why do you think it's a decent solution? I think these things should be a home insurance concern so that we don't provide de-facto home insurance only for beachside property.
Probably. Despite our partisan poisoning, our coastlines are split across red states and blue states. A unified coastal defence bill probably has political purchase. (Though not under MAGA/DOGE.)
There are large groups who don’t deny the risk, but question the cause, or simply think it’s not a viable solution to stop the economy, or not treat sick people with grid-taxing medical equipment, or deny automobiles to people who must commute to earn a living, or ban certain foods, and so on and so on.
I really wish we had always been on solar and the Model T had been electric for the same cost. Unfortunately, the supply chain and economy just didn’t support that. Bummer. Let’s focus a bit less on moralizing and instead turn our attention to fixing the challenges at hand.
I know someone who is very far left, and yet insists on driving a vintage car that is a lot worse for the environment than a neighbor’s F150. We’re all filled with contradictions and regrettable hypocrisies.
It’s the challenge of our time. How can we live how we want to live, whatever that means individually, in a way that is sustainable and avoids a system of state rationing?
At least in the US, pretty much nobody of any consequence is advocating for any of those things.
> How can we live how we want to live, whatever that means individually, in a way that is sustainable and avoids a system of state rationing?
It's an extremely complex problem, but for the most part what we need to do is understood. Stop burning fuel for energy by implementing renewables and nuclear, and retiring coal and NG; and switch to electric cars, trucks, and trains. Those two things alone would almost eliminate half of US carbon emissions. There's a long tail of much more difficult problems to tackle after that, but accomplishing just those two would buy a ton of time to address that long tail. That's why everyone serious is focusing on those two problems and not like, artificial meat or whatever.
The problem is that no one wants to willingly sacrifice their own wants or needs for the greater good, which makes sense. Why should I suffer for 8 billion people I don't know? The scale is just too large to comprehend as a basic human.
We need to focus on fixing our local area and living as much within what it can provide as we can. It's easier to understand. It's easier to see the impacts.
But it doesn't solve the problem of human caused climate change.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't see a way out of this that ends with anything but the complete and utter collapse of civilization as we know it before 2100.
I believe that we will no longer possess the technology to access this comment well before that time, and we'll see a return to feudal/tribal lifestyles with a much diminished population.
I just hope it happens after my bloodline has already died out, and none of my kids or grandkids will have to experience the shit show. But I have little faith of that. I think the collapse will come within my kids' lifetime, and that's very depressing.
It doesn't have to be that way, it's just that our owners chose it so they can live in opulence 'til the end.
And many people take that as building walls and aggressively rounding up anyone who tries to sleep in a park.
It's not about sacrificing for the future, it's about seeing a better way to live our life.
You say this, but if you think that is suffering, wait until clean water is a limited resource. You aren't going to be running away to Mars. We can't even fix the very simple issues on Earth.
The technology just isn't there, and I don't think it will be there by the time we need it.
Clean water is already a limited, and fought over resource. The water wars in the US will start in either Colorado or Texas within 50 years. I'm calling it now. There will be actual violence.
The problems we have are primarily problems of production. If production is adjusted, consumption will adapt if it is managed well.
Even for the middle-aged, climate damage might really make their retirement vastly different from todays pensioner life. If insurance is exorbitantly expensive (due to massive pay-outs year-after-year), safe place to live are scarce and expensive (due to neglection to build housing in safe areas for decades), then a lot of money has to be spend on basics. Property prices (and insurance) have a massive impact on any base-level pricing of everything, but mostly essentials: shelter and food.
Its even worse for the younger generation who will struggle to build up wealth, when growth is impossible due to regular wipe-outs of massive amount of wealth due to disasters, not to speak of wars triggered by mass migrations out of places that are untenable to live.
Yes, the ugly truth is that it’s hard to find people that have static or principled values on anything, and most are kind of transparently looking for ways to force things on others.
A place where you can see this very clearly is issues of bodily autonomy: one side of the political spectrum wants to force the other side to get vaccinated and the other side wants to force people into unwanted child birth. These are of course very different things, but both are ultimately coercive, so it’s not about the right to choose in either case.
States autonomy vs federalism, bail outs, are similar. Almost no one has any real preference for it one way or the other on principle, it just depends on how they think they might be able to use it as a cudgel and how it will increase or diminish their own bottom line.
One side and one side only rejects the mere idea of climate change, defunded FEMA, defunded NOAA, favors the oil and coal lobbies, etc. I could go on and on and on. I do not hold the Democrats in my heart, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous.
Finally, perhaps it's time for Americans to start reasoning in positive freedoms: maybe my freedom to not die of preventable diseases or to not live in a shitty overheating world surpasses yours to not get vaccinated or drive an oversized SUV to go to Walmart and back.
This is revisionism at best, disinformation at worst.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1048939858/osha-biden-vaccine...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_administration_COVID-19_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_...
Maybe read what you link next time?
If you're interested, I'm also not talking about who passed what laws, I'm talking about average people, and what they say about what they want, and what they say their reasons are. If you don't see hypocrisy in that all the time, then either you're not talking to very many people, or you're so deeply into groupthink that you're just not capable of making any honest appraisal at this point. If you want to start calling a dislike of hypocrisy and a desire for more integrity in more people "bothsideism" and spewing all this vitriol then I guess you can do that, but I'm not sure it will have any positive effects.
Again, I don't hold the democrats in my hearts, but this kind of "enlightened centrism" is useless and in very poor taste in our current state of affairs. Also, please refrain from accusing anyone daring to express their opinions clearly that they are under the influence of "groupthink" or imply they are socially defective.
I do have some advice though. If you want a stronger left, then you should probably stop using a label like "enlightened centrists", because this is just one of the ways that the left alienates their own allies for not being orthodox enough. Similar to what the right calls RINOs. It's not productive, it's immature playground politics, like when middle-schoolers get mad at their friends for not hating their enemies "enough" to be real friends. Instead of thrashing around trying to work out whether someone is on your "side".. maybe just listen to what they are saying and evaluate it on those terms
except of course you are talking about just one party here :)
Like, they’re often not opposite, they’re just different.
One group is saying “no, we don’t want the government to pay for that, in that way, or at all” and another group is saying “you aren't acknowledging this is a problem at all or are apathetic or plain evil”, which isn't a useful way to gain friends and influence people
but the stances generally aren't opposite about the existence of the problem, but the sides do get entrenched until the party line becomes denial instead of merely about the financing
A hard watch but also a must see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIZAdCtKT_g
I will wager $1000 of my own money right now that if the exact same methodology is used to measure sea level in 10 years, as was used at the publication of the study, and if the editors do not apply any “offset” to sea levels, that in 10 years the sea level will have risen less than 50% of their predictions at more than 50% of stations.
Applying any offset for any reason or changing methodology will invalidate the bet.
I’ll try to set up a Kalshi market.
If climate change studies should be used to influence public policy, then they must be empirical, repeatable and have predictive value.
tw04•1d ago
burkaman•1d ago
hammock•1d ago
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
I think the main missing element was that the social media companies didn't even claim to be coerced by the government whatsoever and have consistently stated they moderated content as they saw fit on their own platforms (which, again, is their 1st Amendment right)
renewiltord•1d ago
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
I wonder if these multi-billion dollar companies have anyone on staff who is aware of the company's 1st Amendment rights (they do).
Edit: jcranmer's comment reminded me to be explicit on this: it is in fact illegal for the government to coerce private parties to regulate speech. That's why it's important that those private parties never claimed they were coerced, and there's given that they agreed with some requests and didn't with others, there's no evidence whatsoever they were coerced.
jcranmer•1d ago
renewiltord•1d ago
sorcerer-mar•1d ago
You somehow know that the platforms were coerced despite them never claiming it, and they were specifically coerced by threats that were never actually stated!
Super neat.
renewiltord•1d ago
sorcerer-mar•23h ago
renewiltord•23h ago