The savings we'll get for not having to move NYC and Miami when the ocean rises?
Or perhaps the BILLIONS we currently send overseas for oil? Keep the money there AND not rely on an unstable region...which lowers the BILLIONS we have to spend on the military....etc.
With the problem that we know we're doing something on a massive scale that hasn't been done before.
That 'something' is directly increasing the concentration of a known greenhouse gas.
So it's possible that the spikes in the past were natural and this spike is man-made.
Which means, we've already used up our 'buffer' of safe warming...if the natural processes kick in and start their warming too, we're really screwed.
One scenario involves spending money to make ourselves more efficient and self sustastaining...the other involves the massive collapse of society as we know it when the earth can no longer support us.
What anti-competitive behavior? He's perfectly capable of setting up his own Youtube that allows this type of activity.
Google has terms of use likely imposed by the copyright holders and frankly because Google makes money off the ads and his service removes the page views from their servers.
There's the common sense argument that I think you're making and I agree with, but legally Google is going to be quite justified in this behavior.
fair enough, but given his own admission that this is him and only him, i.e. not a corporation or large group, I suspect his ability to do that for any length of time is fairly limited.
In any event, the post I was responding to was saying Google would have to block the 'users' of his service from accessing Google.
because 'people' aren't browsing google, HIS site is. It specifically says his infrastructure does the work so all google does is block his servers and then it doesn't work.
It's is wildly unlikely someone will drown because they were caught unaware the water rose a meter over a century.
But it's quite highly likely that Florida will be declaring more and more natural disasters with greater and greater frequency since storms that now have an added foot, 2 feet or meter to build on are increasingly destructive.
And YOU will be paying for that since it's a 'national' emergency.
It puts money INTO the private sector. How exactly does paying private companies to build infrastructure take money 'out' of the private sector?
What we tried in 2009 was sized for a specific size recession. Shortly afterwards we got new data that showed this recession was significantly worse than originally estimated. So the infrastructure plan was too 'small' for the problem and didn't do enough. On top of that, 30% of the 'stimulus' was tax cuts that didn't help anybody but the recipients.
Let me know what about this sequence you disagree with:
1. When the economy is in recession, both the consumers and the private sector are pulling back
2. If the consumers aren't buying, the private sector won't be hiring, yes?
3. If you give more money to private sector via tax cuts, they will pocket the money to pay bills because they aren't selling stuff due to #2 (some expenses/bills still exist, but they won't be expanding)
Now you can wait until people start buying again, which means they need jobs. How do they get jobs is businesses aren't hiring? It's a chicken and egg situation. Jobs need demand but demand needs people with money which needs people with jobs.
OR you could do this:
4. Paying companies to build things is 'increasing' demand since the government is artificially buying stuff. (see below)
5. #4 creates incentives for companies to hire to fill that demand.
6. Companies pay employees who now start spending because they have a job and income coming in. (you have to eat, pay rent, utilities, etc)
re: #4, we need 'infrastructure' for society to exist as we know it. So it isn't really 'artificial' spending but it is deficit spending on something you need to do anyway. Just like you pay for a college education, few people pay cash upfront. It's an investment in the future that pays for itself over time. Roads, power grids, water systems, etc all do the same thing. They allow society and the private sector to operate and bring us the gains to grow our economy.
Right now, interest rates are so low as to be zero so it's essentially free money to pay back at no interest later. So since we need to redo much of our infrastructure and we need jobs and it's cheaper than it's ever been, why not do it now?
Um, saying that the harbor isn't that large when the entire ocean is spilling into it makes NYC *more* vulnerable.
Lower Manhattan is at significant flooding risk in a major storm, it's only a few feet above sea level.
The NYC area is at increased risk because of the right angle the coast line forms at that point. When a storm comes up the coast rotating counter clockwise, it's pushing the storm surge directly into that right angle. The water has no where to go but in and up.
So we don't have oceans, just persistently flooded places?
And sea level rise has been going on since there were, ahem, seas. Erosion moves mountains into the oceans, thus raising their levels. It's completely natural. Except that in recent years we've seen it increase at rates faster than ever seen previously.
Something must have changed...could it be higher temps and melting ice?
Another good example of anthropomorphic sea level rise is industrial irrigation. We're pulling trillions of gallons out of deep aquifers and it isn't being replenished. All that water is going somewhere and that somewhere is the oceans.
To your point, there are plenty of places on the East Coast that shouldn't be built on...like the barrier islands of North Carolina and the entire beachfront of South Carolina.
We tax payers subsidize those homes because they are given low cost insurance compared to what it would actually cost to insure homes that have a high likelihood of being destroyed every 10 years or so. There are calls to not allow new construction but they aren't terribly widespread, just like there wasn't terribly widespread complaints about New Orleans other than 'hey it might not be smart...'.
But none of those places need 'active' defenses like the low places in New Orleans. Everything is 'above' sea level.
Actually New Orleans itself wasn't built below sea level. The French Quarter survived Katrina just fine (obviously relatively 'fine') but it didn't flood. New Orleans was EXPANDED into below sea level areas, but it wasn't built there from scratch
but in theory shouldn't the entire ocean level rise and fall together?
"In theory there's no difference between theory and reality...in reality it's the other way around";-)
One of the points made was that salinity levels, localized temperatures and other factors can play regional factors. If a current is flooding in warmer water to an ocean and it goes up by even a little bit there will be a coinciding increase in the volume of that ocean water. If salinity changes, I'm assuming (I don't know) there is likewise a change in volume.
Now, sure normal temperature and saturation processes will return that to equilibrium eventually, but how long does it take to do that on a scale of an ocean? Could be decades assuming the ongoing current input continues (even without change).
I also thought parts of the east coast, mid-atlantic I think, were sinking in response to the mid-west area rebounding back from ice age depression. Think about a table tilting with a pivot point somewhere in the middle, as one end goes up the other goes down.
Also consider that gravity isn't uniform. It does fluxuate minutely from place to place. You obviously don't notice this day to day since it's so small, but again with the scale of an ocean it might be significant enough to cause a lower amount of compression of the water column. And factor in that maybe a gravitational difference is related to how the molten core of the earth is orientated and being molten might change from time to time.
I don't know any of these things specifically but those are just off the cuff possible reasons that might explain why ocean levels would be different locally.
Slashdot Mirror
The savings we'll get for not having to move NYC and Miami when the ocean rises?
Or perhaps the BILLIONS we currently send overseas for oil? Keep the money there AND not rely on an unstable region...which lowers the BILLIONS we have to spend on the military....etc.
The money is going to be spent either way.
With the problem that we know we're doing something on a massive scale that hasn't been done before.
That 'something' is directly increasing the concentration of a known greenhouse gas.
So it's possible that the spikes in the past were natural and this spike is man-made.
Which means, we've already used up our 'buffer' of safe warming...if the natural processes kick in and start their warming too, we're really screwed.
One scenario involves spending money to make ourselves more efficient and self sustastaining...the other involves the massive collapse of society as we know it when the earth can no longer support us.
You'd seriously rather gamble on the latter?
Because your federal tax dollars will be propping up the state as it deals with ever rising sea levels?
What anti-competitive behavior? He's perfectly capable of setting up his own Youtube that allows this type of activity.
Google has terms of use likely imposed by the copyright holders and frankly because Google makes money off the ads and his service removes the page views from their servers.
There's the common sense argument that I think you're making and I agree with, but legally Google is going to be quite justified in this behavior.
fair enough, but given his own admission that this is him and only him, i.e. not a corporation or large group, I suspect his ability to do that for any length of time is fairly limited.
In any event, the post I was responding to was saying Google would have to block the 'users' of his service from accessing Google.
because 'people' aren't browsing google, HIS site is. It specifically says his infrastructure does the work so all google does is block his servers and then it doesn't work.
I know, I've lived there. If Charleston had a decent tech base as of 1995 I'd have stayed, Blackbaud not withstanding :)
:)
Just because 'they' don't consider it a pressing national issue doesn't mean it isn't
As for sea-level rise due to aquifers, I'd be as much worried about aquifer depletion as about sea-level rise.
Gubdummit! One natural disaster at a time! Take a number and wait yer turn like everybody else.
;-)
Tides in South Carolina routinely affect land 100 MILES inland. Just because 'you' are high and dry doesn't mean it's not a pressing national issue.
You know what? You could run for office and do a better job....or could you?
It's is wildly unlikely someone will drown because they were caught unaware the water rose a meter over a century.
But it's quite highly likely that Florida will be declaring more and more natural disasters with greater and greater frequency since storms that now have an added foot, 2 feet or meter to build on are increasingly destructive.
And YOU will be paying for that since it's a 'national' emergency.
Only if you monetize carbon release. Or basically a Carbon Tax...care to ask the GOP what they think of their idea these days?
Except places like South Carolina where the 'tide' is active even 100 MILES inland.
What if Jesus sent you scientists warning you what you were doing was bad?
It puts money INTO the private sector. How exactly does paying private companies to build infrastructure take money 'out' of the private sector?
What we tried in 2009 was sized for a specific size recession. Shortly afterwards we got new data that showed this recession was significantly worse than originally estimated. So the infrastructure plan was too 'small' for the problem and didn't do enough. On top of that, 30% of the 'stimulus' was tax cuts that didn't help anybody but the recipients.
Let me know what about this sequence you disagree with:
1. When the economy is in recession, both the consumers and the private sector are pulling back
2. If the consumers aren't buying, the private sector won't be hiring, yes?
3. If you give more money to private sector via tax cuts, they will pocket the money to pay bills because they aren't selling stuff due to #2 (some expenses/bills still exist, but they won't be expanding) Now you can wait until people start buying again, which means they need jobs. How do they get jobs is businesses aren't hiring? It's a chicken and egg situation. Jobs need demand but demand needs people with money which needs people with jobs.
OR you could do this:
4. Paying companies to build things is 'increasing' demand since the government is artificially buying stuff. (see below)
5. #4 creates incentives for companies to hire to fill that demand.
6. Companies pay employees who now start spending because they have a job and income coming in. (you have to eat, pay rent, utilities, etc)
re: #4, we need 'infrastructure' for society to exist as we know it. So it isn't really 'artificial' spending but it is deficit spending on something you need to do anyway. Just like you pay for a college education, few people pay cash upfront. It's an investment in the future that pays for itself over time. Roads, power grids, water systems, etc all do the same thing. They allow society and the private sector to operate and bring us the gains to grow our economy.
Right now, interest rates are so low as to be zero so it's essentially free money to pay back at no interest later. So since we need to redo much of our infrastructure and we need jobs and it's cheaper than it's ever been, why not do it now?
You're arguing that Standard Oil and company towns were good for us? Just wow.
We did the free market for utilities. It didn't work. You should know history, cities had the sun blotted out for all the overhead wires - literally.
Or having 14 water supply pipes from different providers...some things aren't free market compatible.
or at the very least MULTIPLE lines into each development so that one downed line doesn't take out the area...
But that would require money for infrastructure investment which would create lots of jobs which would help the economy...
Which is why the GOP is against it...
Um, saying that the harbor isn't that large when the entire ocean is spilling into it makes NYC *more* vulnerable.
Lower Manhattan is at significant flooding risk in a major storm, it's only a few feet above sea level.
The NYC area is at increased risk because of the right angle the coast line forms at that point. When a storm comes up the coast rotating counter clockwise, it's pushing the storm surge directly into that right angle. The water has no where to go but in and up.
There is a difference. The animals that destroyed their habitat died off. The ones whose innate behavior let them live within their habitat survived.
Which we'll be is still up for debate.
The land moved up/down but the water didn't change it's 'level'.
So we don't have oceans, just persistently flooded places?
And sea level rise has been going on since there were, ahem, seas. Erosion moves mountains into the oceans, thus raising their levels. It's completely natural. Except that in recent years we've seen it increase at rates faster than ever seen previously.
Something must have changed...could it be higher temps and melting ice?
Another good example of anthropomorphic sea level rise is industrial irrigation. We're pulling trillions of gallons out of deep aquifers and it isn't being replenished. All that water is going somewhere and that somewhere is the oceans.
Humans ARE having effects on the planet. Period.
To your point, there are plenty of places on the East Coast that shouldn't be built on...like the barrier islands of North Carolina and the entire beachfront of South Carolina.
We tax payers subsidize those homes because they are given low cost insurance compared to what it would actually cost to insure homes that have a high likelihood of being destroyed every 10 years or so. There are calls to not allow new construction but they aren't terribly widespread, just like there wasn't terribly widespread complaints about New Orleans other than 'hey it might not be smart...'.
But none of those places need 'active' defenses like the low places in New Orleans. Everything is 'above' sea level.
Actually New Orleans itself wasn't built below sea level. The French Quarter survived Katrina just fine (obviously relatively 'fine') but it didn't flood. New Orleans was EXPANDED into below sea level areas, but it wasn't built there from scratch
but in theory shouldn't the entire ocean level rise and fall together?
"In theory there's no difference between theory and reality...in reality it's the other way around" ;-)
One of the points made was that salinity levels, localized temperatures and other factors can play regional factors. If a current is flooding in warmer water to an ocean and it goes up by even a little bit there will be a coinciding increase in the volume of that ocean water. If salinity changes, I'm assuming (I don't know) there is likewise a change in volume.
Now, sure normal temperature and saturation processes will return that to equilibrium eventually, but how long does it take to do that on a scale of an ocean? Could be decades assuming the ongoing current input continues (even without change).
I also thought parts of the east coast, mid-atlantic I think, were sinking in response to the mid-west area rebounding back from ice age depression. Think about a table tilting with a pivot point somewhere in the middle, as one end goes up the other goes down.
Also consider that gravity isn't uniform. It does fluxuate minutely from place to place. You obviously don't notice this day to day since it's so small, but again with the scale of an ocean it might be significant enough to cause a lower amount of compression of the water column. And factor in that maybe a gravitational difference is related to how the molten core of the earth is orientated and being molten might change from time to time.
I don't know any of these things specifically but those are just off the cuff possible reasons that might explain why ocean levels would be different locally.