The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

1,600 people died needlessly here in 2005 when hurricane Katrina hit new Orleans, because it is below sea level. Everyone said they lived their whole lives or how ever many years there and didn't think it could happen to them.
History tells us any time it's man versus the sea the seas always win, it's only a matter of time.

All dams are safe until they wash away a city, then you hear about how unsafe they were and all the problems they had.

They died because plans to upgrade the dams had been postponed for 40 years, and then some other simple measures on top of that.

We do have water boards to prevent that kind of neglect. Typically a water board governs a piece of land that shares a common defense against water, like a polder system, and the adjacent water bodies.
Water boards can consist of parts of different regions and provinces, but the people within a water board share a common interest in maintaining the dikes that protect them.

[oil pan 4]

Sounds like a lot of work to delay the inevitable.

I avoid tall building because they are in the big cities. I can't stand big cities.
I would take being mortar fire in Afghanistan than be in nyc.

[sendler]

New Heinberg essay.
.
https://undark.org/article/ted-nordh...acity-ecology/
.

"Optimism is essential; it draws us toward the best possible futures. But when it turns into wishful thinking, it can blind us to the consequences of our present actions. In the worst potential case, the results could be collectively suicidal."
.
https://www.postcarbon.org/our-people/richard-heinberg/
.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Sounds like a lot of work to delay the inevitable.

I avoid tall building because they are in the big cities. I can't stand big cities.
I would take being mortar fire in Afghanistan than be in nyc.

It is more about monitoring evaluating and addressing known risks with effective measures.

Sometimes even the smart lose out. But most disasters have an element of blatant neglect.
Ignore crucial maintenance, ignore historical flood data? You'll get wet.
Ignore all the carbon we're pushing into the biosphere, gradually building up? Jury is still out, but it is going to do bad things.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I avoid tall building because they are in the big cities. I can't stand big cities. I would take being mortar fire in Afghanistan than be in nyc.

Yeah, I'm with you. Mortar fire sounds exhilarating, while NYC traffic is a nightmare.

Point is, we all have to evaluate our own risk tolerance, and be as objective in the process as possible. Some people have an unreasonable fear of heights, to the point that they are uncomfortable being in tall buildings. In the same way, it's possible to have an unreasonable fear of dam failure, to the point of avoiding spending time below them.

If you drive a vehicle, you're already putting yourself at many orders of magnitude more risk than living below a dam. That is to say, driving should give you the tingling feeling of danger well before that feeling occurs due to living below a dam.

Dams aren't a new and unproven technology. They are very well understood now.

[oil pan 4]

Since the sea levels are supposed to rise something like 10 feet in less than 100 years I would propose the possibility that building a society below sea level is unsustainable.
Since all the money, time, resources, energy, labor could be used for literally anything else on a place that is not below sea level.

[sendler]

This is what I said about New Orleans after much of it was washed away. It makes no sense to waste 100's of $Billions of insurance payments to build again in the same area. Take that money upland somewhere and start over. Build a new city from scratch and take the opportunity to make it modern, efficient, and resilient as the state of the art.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Since the sea levels are supposed to rise something like 10 feet in less than 100 years I would propose the possibility that building a society below sea level is unsustainable.
Since all the money, time, resources, energy, labor could be used for literally anything else on a place that is not below sea level.

It's more like 10" in 100 years. Slow enough that it should catch nobody that is paying attention by surprise. BTW, that's roughly what it has already risen in the past 100 years, and you don't see old folks with PTSD from the Great Sea Rise.

Originally Posted by sendler

This is what I said about New Orleans after much of it was washed away. It makes no sense to waste 100's of $Billions of insurance payments to build again in the same area. Take that money upland somewhere and start over. Build a new city from scratch and take the opportunity to make it modern, efficient, and resilient as the state of the art.

I'm all for people being free to build wherever they want, and insurance companies deciding what risk they are willing to take on. Just no FEMA money or insurance bailouts when Katrina 2.0 hits. The new levy has probably been so overbuilt now that there is little risk.

[Xist]

How to rebuild New Orleans:
1. Charge other cities and adjacent states to dispose of their garbage.
2. Compact the garbage into building blocks.
3. Raise ground level well above sea level.
4. Put down fresh dirt.
5. Build on top.

[oil pan 4]

It's only 10 inches in 100 years, then why is everyone freaking out over this.
I remember after the movie water world in the 90s people though the sea levels would rise hundreds of feet as the polar ice caps melted by 2010.