Environmental impact of our hobby

[Destination: Moon]

If I'd be alive then, you'd have a sizable wager. Global warming is a genuine slow moving disaster, but Manhattan is not going to be inundated in 50 years.

It was slow - it isn't now. There are many heat sinks teetering that will be unleashed in the next 5 or 10 years. Things will change ever faster. It's already happening

 

[Chromatischism]

If I'd be alive then, you'd have a sizable wager. Global warming is a genuine slow moving disaster, but Manhattan is not going to be inundated in 50 years.

Hmm...

A warmer world with warmer waters and a disturbed jetstream makes highly unlikely events more likely.

 

[HiFidFan]

Hmm...

A warmer world with warmer waters and a disturbed jetstream makes highly unlikely events more likely.

If I'd be alive then, you'd have a sizable wager. Global warming is a genuine slow moving disaster, but Manhattan is not going to be inundated in 50 years.

Yeah, I'm not so sure. Like @Chromatischism pointed out, I think NYC is in the crosshairs of global warming. It may not be permanently underwater in 50 years, but heavy flooding is already a problem.

 

[Destination: Moon]

Yeah, I'm not so sure. Like @Chromatischism pointed out, I think NYC is in the crosshairs of global warming. It may not be permanently underwater in 50 years, but heavy flooding is already a problem.

And that's a gigantic problem for places that have enormous infrastructure and even habitable space that's below ground.

 

[Destination: Moon]

Hmm...

A warmer world with warmer waters and a disturbed jetstream makes highly unlikely events more likely.

We ran out of alphabet this past hurricane season

 

[Blumlein 88]

It was slow - it isn't now. There are many heat sinks teetering that will be unleashed in the next 5 or 10 years. Things will change ever faster. It's already happening

Here is a map of NYC in 2100 if we get 6 feet of sea level rise by then. The IPCC prediction for this tops out at 3.3 feet. Some models predict higher. As you see even at 6 feet NYC isn't permanently flooded. And this is 79 years from now not 50. So I stand by the idea NYC won't be underwater in 50 years. The darker blue areas are dry now and will be wet by this 6 feet projection.

 

[Wes]

If I'd be alive then, you'd have a sizable wager. Global warming is a genuine slow moving disaster, but Manhattan is not going to be inundated in 50 years.

Significant portions of Manhattan will be inundated by 2050. That is not a guess; it is from the best models the insurance co.s can come up with. And they have money at risk. Wall St. firms are already relocating power and network infrastructure to roofs or higher fllors, and out of the basements of skyscrapers.

Recall that parts of lower Manhattan inundated by Sandy.

This is not a slow, creeping effect. Storms surge and those will be higher.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Significant portions of Manhattan will be inundated by 2050. That is not a guess; it is from the best models the insurance co.s can come up with. And they have money at risk. Wall St. firms are already relocating power and network infrastructure to roofs or higher fllors, and out of the basements of skyscrapers.

Recall that parts of lower Manhattan inundated by Sandy.

This is not a slow, creeping effect. Storms surge and those will be higher.

Is the claim flooding will be worse in 50 years or that Sandy like problems will be common? Okay. Do low lying infrastructure need to be moved higher in level? Yes. Is the claim that Manhattan will be under water? Nope, don't think so, not in 50 years. It may get rinsed pretty often.

It is like the rash of articles last year saying most of the earth would reach wet bulb temps of 35 C (95 F), and humans can't function at that temerature. True, but we aren't predicting that outcome for a lot longer than end of the century.

 

[Chromatischism]

Manhattan was underwater in 2012.

Don't look at the resting water level - it's the surge that kills the city.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Manhattan was underwater in 2012.

Don't look at the resting water level - it's the surge that kills the city.

Well it didn't kill it in 2012.

 

[Rottmannash]

I never said I have proof, Indeed I have none. But the lab theory has merit and is gaining traction as we learn more (with no help from China). To dismiss the theory in the absence of any provable alternative is ignorant, dangerous, and hardly 'science'.

Is the virus genetic code going to change just because we do more research?

 

[kevin52]

Irrelevant. Humans (or much of life) did not exist when CO2 was an "order of magnitude higher".

The problem is not only the current level (which is higher than at any time during the last few million years) but also the rate of change. The rate of CO2 rise and the rate of heating is much, much faster than at any time in the last few million years (at least). The planet has never had to adapt in such a short timeframe, which is one of the reasons we are seeing another mass extinction underway.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

So physics changes of CO2 changes based on the presence of humans?

 

[RayDunzl]

Wonder why he's the former CDC director...

Because the position is a political appointment nominated by the Executive Branch and approved by the Senate.

We just had a change in the Executive, remember?

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/nominations.htm#:~:text=The United States Constitution provides,are not herein otherwise provided

https://www.cdc.gov/about/history/pastdirectors.htm

 

[JeffS7444]

I'm hearing a lot of passion about the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly, but I get the sense that no one has the stomach for making personal sacrifices to make it happen. Mostly, people want stuff which allows them to maintain their level of consumption but feel virtuous about it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is the virus genetic code going to change just because we do more research?

Does the genetic code definitively rule out a lab based leak as the origin? I don't think so.

 

[Jim Matthews]

Mostly, people want stuff which allows them to maintain their level of consumption but feel virtuous about it.

Guilty, as charged.

My biggest change has been in buying fewer, larger containers of the stuff we regularly use at home. A smaller garbage can is our weekly measure.

Where I disagree is when those of us who already have plenty start telling those with little that they shouldn't want more.

 

[HiFidFan]

Is the virus genetic code going to change just because we do more research?

What?

 

[mhardy6647]

I hardly think you mentioning 2 people who said something on a podcast citing scientific proof.

yeah, if nothing else, we need to evaluate the control podcast.


PS The development of the COVID counterpoint to the environmental leitmotif of this thread is most entertaining.

 

[Ron Texas]

yeah, if nothing else, we need to evaluate the control podcast.


PS The development of the COVID counterpoint to the environmental leitmotif of this thread is most entertaining.

WTF does COVID have to do with someone obsessing over the trivial amount of electricity listening to music consumes, or climate change for that matter? If anything, listening to music keeps us out of our cars and reduces carbon.

 

[Jim Matthews]

yeah, if nothing else, we need to evaluate the control podcast.

The problem I have with either Weinstein Brother is that as much as I want to glean something from their (apparently) reasoned discussions, I typically come out more confused when they have finished.

The way I figure it, if you can't explain it to a toddler or Labrador retriever - you don't really have a handle on the topic.

It *feels* like intellectual discourse, but it *smells* like a barnyard.

By contrast, Mark Blythe the economist.