Comment on Sea-Level Rise from Glenn Doty
I’m taking the liberty to republish this comment Glenn wrote on social media, as I think it brings clarity to the discussion of sea-level rise associated with climate change. – Craig
This (model of sea-level rise) is fun for the sake of curiosity, but it is not constructive for the current political debate.
The likely sea-level rise in the next century is between 1-2 meters. Split the difference and call it 5 ft. There will be monster storm damage, greater tides, droughts, floods… greater weather variability affecting vulnerable crops, and FAR worse migration problems from a flood of climate refugees… Those are the stakes.
We don’t need to worry about issues that are at least 5 centuries away (between 2100-2200, the sea level rise will be 2-4 times as great as this century, and the next century might see another 2-4 times that… and the next 2-4 times that…). We need to get through the next century, and work on laying the foundation for further changes a century beyond that… That means mitigation – reducing emissions; accommodation – glassing in farmland, building massive desalination plants and water distribution pipelines, sea walls, dredging, etc…; debt reduction for further flexibility and preparation in the future; and massive investments in education and R&D to find new innovative and disruptive solutions both to help mitigation and accommodation in decades to come.
We don’t need to worry about a 60+ meter sea level rise. That will occur long after our children’s great-great-great-great-great grandchildren are dead… and those great-great-great-great-great grandchildren may not even come to be if we don’t worry about the real impacts that we are going to face within the next few generations.
Glenn: Thanks for this. FWIW, I totally agree that it’s pointless to worry about events that could unfold more than, say, 50 – 100 years from now, given the incredible impact that unknown events are almost certain to cause within those time spans.
Craig,
Glenn’s comment reminds me of the popularity for Cli-Fi movies produced at the height of the Climate cooling, then warming, then changing, fervor between 2004 and 2014.
Films such as ‘Waterworld’, ‘Gasland’, ‘2012’ , The Day After tomorrow’, ‘Absolute Zero’and the visually stunning, but preachy, ‘Avatar’.
These films hark back to a long line of apocalyptic films, books and prophesies fascinating humans for at least 7000 years.
The 1970’s film ‘No Blade of Grass’, preached apocalyptic famine and collapse of civilization to a generation of students and leftists who absolutely believed the Club of Rome scientists and the UN’s prediction 1978 would be ” The Year the Stork Passed the Plough” and irreversible world famine would result.
(although some of my university contemporaries were bemused by the absence of a different definition of “grass” in the film).
While some of these films are obviously superior to others, the passage of time is seldom kind to the message of the films, and end up illustrating the folly of making apocalyptic predictions.
Doomsday prophets once relied upon the ‘Will of God or Gods” to convince followers. Today’s pundits claim “scientific modeling” etc, to authenticate and gain credibility for their prophetic pronouncements.
What these predictions all have in common, is the age old messages of morality plays. The message is always the same, Mankind, (especially the more successful members), is arrogant, wicked, immoral, greedy, selfish and needs to get comeuppance in the form of a cataclysmic event.
Naturally, this sort of message finds a ready audience with those members of society who feel powerless, embittered, envious, insecure, of a puritanical nature or adhere to leftist ideology.
“That’ll larn ’em”, is a strong motivation among those who feel powerless or unappreciated in every society. This sort of individual is attracted to leftist ideologues preaching alarmist, apocalyptic predictions, or old fashioned morality plays.
Sea level increases and decreases are a hugely complicated and currently little understood phenonmenon. Coastline evolution and movement is not necessarily connected to generalized rises or falls in sea levels.
A “Bad Moon” may well be on the rise, but salivating about apocalyptic predictions has less to do with “science” than an old fashioned desire by some adherents to see the people they envy or disagree, get their “comeuppance”.
In time, with a lot more research we may gain a better understanding of the oceanic 70% of our planet.
In the meantime, endless speculation about this sort of nonsense excuses would be advocates and pundits from getting off their armchair pulpits and doing anything useful for a better environment !
Well, we have the enormity of the science on one side, and a cynical, sarcastic, purported Australian lawyer troll on the other. I’ll let readers sort this out for themselves.
Craig,
First, thanks for the compliment.
🙂
Second.. because this was a repost of my commentary, I actually took a few seconds to read the blather of your troll. For the first time, I was struck by the tragedy of it all.
Can you imagine being so confused in life that you cannot tell the difference between Sci-Fi movies and actual scientific research and analysis? Of course it would make you skeptical of science… If you actually believed that science was going to produce anti-gravity and time travel and jacketed anti-matter power production and space folding… and nothing like that ever came about.. You’d become skeptical of the ability of science.
I had never thought about it like that before.. but someone truly uninformed/uneducated that couldn’t tell the difference between cheesy sci-fi movies and scientific rigor would naturally be in a constant state of confusion… and that person would naturally hold science in disdain.
What a truly sad life that would be…
Craig and Glenn,
Good grief, so much venom and bile ? How very unscientific !
Certainly not the most objective of responses from people who claim to uphold the principles of courtesy, open minded tolerance and unbiased inquiry. (these are qualities you demand from others).
I observe neither response contains any scientific information to support your predictions, just a condescending reference about ” enormity of the science”.
The phrase you choose is an interesting insight into how you have turned “science” into a sort of doctrine for a new religion or belief structure. In your version, ‘science’ is rigid, monolithic and needing ‘High Priests’, acolytes and devoted adherents to interpret.
In fact “the enormity of science” is, by it’s nature, constantly changing, evolving, challenging, full of wildly differing theories conjecture and debate.
Scientific discovery can’t be confined to justify the narrow restrictions of your, or any political ideology.
Sadly, I don’t see any actual science from either of you!
In Glenn’s case that’s not really important, but Craig, as an advocate for clean(er) technology, you should at least take an interest in developments in that field, even if they don’t concur with your political agenda.
What saddens me is like so many leftist advocates, you appear to have lost interest, or actively oppose, any new clean(er) technology that conflicts with your chosen political/doctrine. You seem lost in a bitter time warp, longing for the glory days of the early Obama era.
Be honest with yourself,when was the last time you reviewed, examined, studied any new clean technology development or innovations outside your fixed comfort zone ?
I invited your interest and opinion on the work performed by a team of young researchers at Melbourne, Australia’s RMIT University. The research has enormous potential to dramatically change the lives of billions of people and reduce pollutant atmospheric emissions by 70%.
Once you would have eagerly sought more information, yet today you show no interest. Instead, you prefer to re-hash Glenn’s doomsday predictions ?
The world of Clean technology is passing you by, while you remain locked in a backwater, preaching to a few ‘true believers” refusing to debate, evolve or broaden your knowledge.
I genuinely have no wish to be sarcastic or cause you necessary discomfort, my object is to re-invigorate the passion you once displayed for the advancement of all worthwhile clean(er) technology and the environment.
Leave the name calling and gratuitous abuse to the President and his detractors, they’re better at it 🙂 .
Glenn,
Good grief, of course no one takes works of fiction as reality, but popular movies can be powerful forms of political propaganda.
This is especially true, when dressed up as documentaries (Gasland etc). Such books and movies can influence the opinions and attitudes of the “Man in the Street” and often reflect the film makers political/ideological convictions.
Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, Gulliver’s travels, Birth of Nation, triumph of the will, The Victim, are just few examples of authors using fiction to propagate ideas or stimulate the imagination of the public to understand a message.
Such movies can often change attitudes or at the very least, reflect changes in attitudes, while capturing the popular mood.
The fact you think I hold “science in disdain” or claim I believe Sci-fi film to be factual depictions reveals a desperate need in you to dishonestly misrepresent and denigrate others.
It also reveals you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes “science”. Unfortunately for you, “science” is not the rigid doctrine you seem to believe it to be.
I don’t wish to be gratuitously impolite, but just claiming your limited grasp of “science” represents the sum total of scientific thinking or knowledge, is not just arrogant, but ludicrous !
The very first thing I learned as a young advocate, was those who resort to name calling, swearing, derogatory abuse, and sneering at others, were insecure.
I also learned to understand such people had no real passion or knowledge of their chosen subject. Such people live in fear of being found out as charlatans.
Because they lack any capacity for innovative, creative or even original thinking, they develop a desperate need to be “right’ , this always means choosing some particular doctrine and becoming a staunch adherent or “true believer”.
The sad fact is such folk will always be betrayed, as human knowledge moves on, often what was yesterdays “truth” becomes tomorrow debunked myth.
Staunch advocates, are often left behind. Increasingly, hey substitute abuse, condensation and personal attacks against others who no longer accept the old doctrines, and the “advocates’ become increasingly fearful of being exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who never possessed any real knowledge.
Calling someone a “troll” doesn’t make them a “troll”, but it does reveal a lot about your own insecurities.
It would be far more impressive if you replied with objective “scientific ” rebuttal, revealing a deep knowledge of the subject matter and commanding respect. (but that’s not really your style, is it?).
But why not ?
In all sincerity, I ask you to consider the possibility that your time may have been more gainfully employed expanding on your original claims with some real scientific information, original thoughts, objective analysis or well researched insights ?
You could even have contributed a snippet of information about a new and positive development in Clean(er) technology, might have been more productive, eh ?