US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Montanan]

San Diego Union Tribune

Beach erosion, bluff collapse, flooding: What a foot of sea level rise could mean for San Diego

BY JOSHUA EMERSON SMITH
PUBLISHED FEB. 18, 2022 UPDATED FEB. 21, 2022 3:11 PM PT

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...rise-san-diego

Snipets:

The San Diego region has started bracing for the inevitable impacts, some of which are already here: crumbling seaside cliffs, eroding beaches and periodic flooding along stretches of its 70-mile shoreline.

While local leaders have reassured the public the issue is in hand, some fear it’s not being taken seriously enough. Topping the list of concerns are the stability of train tracks along the Del Mar bluffs and beach erosion in places such as Oceanside and Carlsbad. Add to that fears about coastal real estate, buried nuclear waste and even the long-term viability of San Diego’s downtown airport.

. . .

The Eastern Seaboard is predicted to get hit the hardest, with rising seas up to 14 inches in some areas. California’s coast is expected to see impacts materialize slightly slower, with around 8 inches of rise by midcentury. These rates are influenced by everything from ocean currents and temperatures to sinking lands.

. . .

Del Mar bluffs

Perhaps the most pressing concern when it comes to rising tides in the San Diego region are the crumbling cliffs along Del Mar, atop which are precariously perched railroad tracks that service both freight and passenger trains.

Experts say, if something isn’t done to address the issue, another foot of sea level rise will spell doom for the only rail connection between San Diego and Los Angeles. Erosion from waves, coupled with urban runoff, chews away at San Diego’s coastal bluffs at a rate of 6 inches a year on average, according to local researchers. However, coastal retreat can also happen suddenly, up to 20 feet at once in some cases.

However, officials have said they are capable of only temporary fixes. San Diego Association of Governments, SANDAG is now working on a roughly $3 billion project to relocate the tracks inland by 2035. “We have a problem out there right now,” said Keith Greer, principal regional planner with SANDAG. “We need to do the engineering and get the construction moving. It all comes down to funding.”

Image link of the precarious positioning of the rail line along the top of the bluffs.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/d...g-jbg-0205.JPG

. . .


Beach erosion
Beach erosion is a major issue for San Diego’s relatively narrow band of sandy coastline. Another foot of rising seas promises to dramatically complicate efforts to preserve these iconic shores, which are a significant part of the region’s more than $19 billion annual tourist economy.

. . .

Ocean waves naturally eat away at California’s cliffs, creating new sand as seas advance. However, that equation has been upended in places such as San Diego, where often-opulent waterfront houses line long stretches of public coast.

Cities from Oceanside to Imperial Beach have tried to slow this natural process by dredging massive amounts of sand from lagoons and other sources, pumping it onto their beaches. In some places, communities have built seawalls, which prevent cliff erosion but at the cost of submerging shoreline under the advancing tide.

The alternative is what’s known as “managed retreat,” where homes and other structures are removed in order to maintain the shoreline. Leaders in Imperial Beach have talked about this possibility, but more affluent areas have largely sidestepped the conversation.

. . .

El Niño events can create a temporary foot of sea level rise that provide a glimpse into the future, Merrifield said. “Those are the times when beaches really erode. That’s when you start to see cobble on the beaches. That’s kind of a scary look into the future. Are we going to end up with a cobble coastline?”
. . .

San Diego airport
The San Diego International Airport and the surrounding Midway District will be particularly vulnerable to flooding as tides rise, according to researchers. The area is bordered by not only San Diego Bay to the southwest but the San Diego River to the north.

[Montanan]

20 Islands That Will Disappear in Your Lifetime
Michael B. Sauter and John Harrington - Oct 10, 2021

24/7 Wall St. identified the islands that, as a result of the ongoing sea level rise, are likely to lose substantial landmass by the end of the century.

The severity may vary locally, but it is a global issue nonetheless. At the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, a spokesperson for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: “Some countries will flat-out disappear.”

Because of differences in water temperature, tectonic shifting, and the Coriolis effect, Ocean and sea levels are not rising evenly. In some parts of the world, therefore, especially in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands, as well as the East Coast of the United States, water levels had already risen faster than in other parts of the world. In addition to the islands at risk, there are some very highly populated cities in these places that are similarly at risk for inundation.

#1

1. Federal States of Micronesia
> Population: 113,815

The average rate of sea-level rise worldwide has been about one-tenth of an inch (3.1 mm) per year since 1993. But sea-level around the Federated States of Micronesia, which consists of four main island groups -- Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae -- is rising at three times the rate. The sea level is rising at more than 10 mm -- nearly half an inch -- a year. Parts of the country are at risk of disappearing because of coastal flooding, erosion, and storm surges.

Some parts of Micronesia are volcanic mountains and well above any potential sea level rise, but many of the smaller islands only lie a few feet above sea level at their highest point.

Reference article for the remainder of the list.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by lestersails

You guys are killing me - I am going to hemorrhage from laughter. Does the word 'irony' ring any bells?

Obfuscation is the last resort in a losing argument.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Obfuscation is the last resort in a losing argument.

Denial is not an argument.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

anyone with "diesel" in their username is likely biased on such topics.





you said "save the earth". Let us be clear on one thing. This has nothing to do with saving the earth and never did: it is about saving ourselves.

Same argument was used to justify slavery

It is impossible to match the energy density of a small nuclear reactor such as what powers the martian rovers and other spacecraft that could easily power a small boat.

Let me know if I make comments that are not facts.

Lets hear more about the "carbon tax". How much is it where you live? Where I am in the United States there is no carbon tax. Consider it costs $1200 per ton to capture co2 from the air and store it permanently with current technology is this a reasonable tax? What about the fact that oil could be used for tens of thousands of years to produce synthetic materials like sails and rope but instead it is wasted on combustion engines that for the most part we could do without? It seems to me that the carbon tax for fuels should be a lot higher than $1200 per ton to discourage this wasteful use of just burning it away.

Most uses of engines are nonessential, and the uses that are essential (food production and delivery, emergency services) are only the case because of past decisions and planning. What about the fact that the 1% cause half of aviation emissions? What about those same 1% that: "World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam" You must justify this extreme level of inequality to justify the use of diesel power in a pleasure boat when you could just use the sails instead. Then I hear "boomers" whine that they couldn't fly to iceland for 2 weeks because of covid when it is clear to me they should not be allowed to fly anywhere ever again and that would be just fine. The same goes for combustion engines in yachts: you don't need to use one anymore ever again, and that would be just fine. synthetic sails can achieve the equivalent of thousands of miles per gallon to power small boats. What if people 500 years ago had wasted all the worlds of resources and your life today was extremely difficult instead, what would you think of them?

Let me know which statements are not facts so we can improve the quality of information here. Many of my statements are opinions: I am only interested in incorrect facts.

[QUOTE=seandepagnier;3580461]anyone with "diesel" in their username is likely biased on such topics.

Your name point is an ad hominem argument. Please stick to the point.

you said "save the earth". Let us be clear on one thing. This has nothing to do with saving the earth and never did: it is about saving ourselves.

You argue about semantics. "Earth" in this context means the civilization and wild life that inhabits the planet. The rocks and ground of which the geologic earth are made are quite indifferent to climate matters. It should already be understood that this discussion is of importance to living things. Please do not introduce arguments based upon semantics that you should be able to comprehend. If you cannot comprehend this, you not capable to participate in the discussion.

Same argument was used to justify slavery

Entering slavery into a discussion on energy technology is only a side discussion that has nothing to do with the essence of the matter. If you insist though, petroleum powered machinery reduced need of manual labor, thus reducing incentive to have slavery in the more civilized countries. But we still have a forum of slavery in the world with much of our manufacturing done by slaves and sweat shop laborers in certain repressive countries.


It is impossible to match the energy density of a small nuclear reactor such as what powers the martian rovers and other spacecraft that could easily power a small boat.

NASA and other space agencies have virtually unlimited budgets to produce such nuclear powered machinery for their very specialized applications. Is it economical to produce versions of this for industry and consumer market? Can small scale wide spread nuclear power systems be safely and practically made and deployed? Can widespread nuclear fuel and devices be commandeered for weaponized purposes? Will these devices be resilient against leakage and nuclear contamination that lasts many thousands of years?

Let me know if I make comments that are not facts.

Lets hear more about the "carbon tax". How much is it where you live? Where I am in the United States there is no carbon tax. Consider it costs $1200 per ton to capture co2 from the air and store it permanently with current technology is this a reasonable tax? What about the fact that oil could be used for tens of thousands of years to produce synthetic materials like sails and rope but instead it is wasted on combustion engines that for the most part we could do without? It seems to me that the carbon tax for fuels should be a lot higher than $1200 per ton to discourage this wasteful use of just burning it away.

I know that fuel prices have risen significantly since the carbon tax was introduced in my province. I cannot quote figures, but I think that it was 7%. Exact figures are not essential. Whether 3% or 30%, money is being taken from people and this effectively reduces their income. The tax will be incremented upward over time and will reach drastically high levels. This taxation is causing inflation. Producers of goods and services who are able to are passing the tax costs to consumers. But grain farmers must dry their crop with propane or natural gas. They have no alternative, yet their costs have gone up to the tax. But they cannot increase their price, as it is set by world markets. Farm tractors run on diesel with no alternative. This increase food productions costs without solving anything. People who must commute to their job still live the same distance from their work regardless of the tax. They cannot afford to move closer. Most cannot find alternate transportation. Most cannot afford a new electric car. And the technology may not suit their needs anyway. The tax is only a burden with no benefit.

Capturing and storing C02 is not necessary, so cannot fit into the discussion. CO2 does not cause significant warming. Warming induced by solar variation causes dissolved CO2 to be liberated from the oceans. As a scientific experiment, open two bottles of cold soda pop. Put one back in the fridge and leave one out in a warm room. See which one goes flat sooner.

If you understood the basics of petroleum refining and petrochemical industry, you would know that when raw petroleum is refined, it is separated into various components each of which have limited uses. Some are good only for fuel, and little else. Some are good only for asphalts used to pave roads or make roofing. And only limited components are good for making plastics. Plastics are largely derived from natural gas. The ethane is stripped off to make the precursors of plastics. It may not be practical or possible to make plastics from the gasoline, diesel, or aviation fuel components.

The petroleum industry produces a diverse stream of products. If demand for one product drops significantly, balance would be lost.The economics of the industry would drastically shift, and it could end up that the entire industry could become uneconomical to produce anything, and would shut down. Without alternatives, civilization would quickly deteriorate. Without a market for gasoline and diesel, it might be impossible to make asphalt for electric cars to drive on.

Most uses of engines are nonessential, and the uses that are essential (food production and delivery, emergency services) are only the case because of past decisions and planning. What about the fact that the 1% cause half of aviation emissions? What about those same 1% that: "World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam" You must justify this extreme level of inequality to justify the use of diesel power in a pleasure boat when you could just use the sails instead. Then I hear "boomers" whine that they couldn't fly to iceland for 2 weeks because of covid when it is clear to me they should not be allowed to fly anywhere ever again and that would be just fine. The same goes for combustion engines in yachts: you don't need to use one anymore ever again, and that would be just fine. synthetic sails can achieve the equivalent of thousands of miles per gallon to power small boats. What if people 500 years ago had wasted all the worlds of resources and your life today was extremely difficult instead, what would you think of them?

Agreed, much of the use of petroleum is certainly non essential from a utilitarian perspective. Nobody needs to take a vacation aboard a cruise ship. Few of us really need to own and operate a recreational water craft that has an engine. Some people live near water though, and their boat is their essential transportation. Your statements about sails completely replacing engines are total nonsense. The wind certainly does not blow consistently to make total wind power practical. Engines as a supplement to sail make tight maneuvering safer and more practical for recreational craft. Engines make water transport much more practical and reliable. Perhaps you would be happy to return to the days of sailing vessels when no engines existed and travel by sea was difficult and unreliable, and conditions aboard were primitive and unhealthy. Many ships and boats were lost at sea. Many crew and passengers died in the unhealthy conditions of poor hygiene and long arduous voyages.

Many of our land vehicle trips are not essential. We do not need to go to ball games or concerts. We could travel a lot less aboard aircraft. But if we start telling people how to run their lives and introduce even more forced behavior, we are bringing in a strange form of repressive living. It would be some strange combination of communism and fascism. Would you enjoy living in communist North Korea or China for instance? Perhaps you can wear the same Mao suit every day. All this just to solve the non existent man made climate change issue would certainly a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps we should scrap all modern technology and return to the horse and buggy era of the early 1800's. Would this please the man made climate change dupes? Citing OXFAM is invalid. This is a division of the UN. The UN IPCC has lost credibility by using fraudulent data from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. This was exposed during the climategate scandal in 2009. Leaked emails revealed the fraud.



We were scared decades ago that the world would run out of oil imminently, but it has not happened. It seems that oil production is limited only by man's ability to explore for and extract it. We are not likely to run dry any time soon. Over time, realistic alternatives will be developed. Rushing to invest in inadequate technologies as we are now doing is the real waste. The main developments have been wind turbines and photo voltaics which are extremely costly, extremely inefficient, and do have environmental consequences. They only produce part time and are really intermittent sources that cannot be relied upon. Electric vehicles are ahead of their time until conventional nuclear is able to be replaced, and coal and petroleum fueled generation plants have a reliable and cost effective alternative. Charging "nonpolluting" electric vehicles with hazardous nuclear generated power is not safe. Charging them with coal and petroleum produced electricity is counter productive. And of course feasible batteries must be developed.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Dieseldude;3580538]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

anyone with "diesel" in their username is likely biased on such topics.



Let me know if I make comments that are not facts.

Warming induced by solar variation causes dissolved CO2 to be liberated from the oceans.

OK

Solar variation has no current impact on climate.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

Using carbon isotope analysis of the ratios of C14, C13 and C12 the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to the burning of fossils fuels.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-caused-humans

The GHG qualities of CO2 have been known for two centuries.
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

BTW Oxfam is not part of the United Natiions.

[scottmc59]

None of these doomsday prophesies ever come true. Look at the predictions in the movie, Earth in the Balance, none of it came true. The population bomb book in the 1960s predicted mass global starvation by the 1990s. Never happened. And this ocean level nonsense, global warming (which is now called climate change due to a lack of warming) and on and one, just false hype. And, consider the source, never believe anything on CNN, ever.

[seandepagnier]

Entering slavery into a discussion on energy technology is only a side discussion that has nothing to do with the essence of the matter. If you insist though, petroleum powered

Using the exact same arguments to justify something that is unjust is relevant here. History of human selfishness and entitlement is repeating itself.

NASA and other space agencies have virtually unlimited budgets to produce such nuclear powered machinery for their very specialized applications. Is it economical to produce versions of this for industry and consumer market? Can small scale wide spread nuclear

It sure is affordable for the wealthy but they are not allowed to have personal nuclear power. Why can't they have private reactors? They have private jets, so why not?

I know that fuel prices have risen significantly since the carbon tax was introduced in my province. I cannot quote figures, but I think that it was 7%. Exact figures are not essential. Whether 3% or 30%, money is being taken from people and this effectively reduces their income. The tax will be incremented upward over time and will reach

It does not reduce everyone's income, only those who choose to buy products that cause more emissions than most. If you don't want to pay income tax, don't have any taxable income. If you don't want to pay sales tax: don't buy things subject to it. If you dont want to pay property tax: don't own any property. If you don't want to pay carbon tax: stop buying diesel.

the proceeds from carbon tax reduce the other taxes, and therefore does not take money from everyone, instead it gives back to those who pollute less. If it does not, the issue would be how the tax is used, not the tax itself.

But grain farmers must dry their crop with propane or natural gas. They have no alternative,

Somehow grain farmers managed before these existed. There are many alternatives.

yet their costs have gone up to the tax. But they cannot increase their price, as it is set by world markets. Farm tractors run on diesel with no alternative.

I sailed to countries without any diesel power, and they had an abundance of food with food forests of hundreds of species of plants growing per acre. It is wrong to grow only a single species of crop over a wide area. These people are able to harvest enough food with only hand tools with minimal amount of labor and without destroying the soil. With industrial agriculture there will not be any soil left in 60 years. The people there told me they did not like cruisers showing up with engines in their boats and were well aware of global problems. In another country the fisherman used only sail power and were only allowed to throw spears as nets and elastic cord were outlawed. If it had not been, they would not be able to maintain the resources there in a stable way.

The industrial system of food production is not sustainable and cannot continue, there is no real point in trying to justify it or make excuses for it. 30-40 percent is wasted, and the people themselves eat on average more than twice as much as what is healty.

People who must commute to their job still live the same distance from their work regardless of the tax. They cannot afford to move closer.

The writing has been on the wall for 50 years. There has been more than enough time for people to adapt. A carbon tax will encourage people to adapt faster.

Most cannot afford a new electric car.

electric cars are completely the wrong direction for the future. The numbers do not work out. There isn't enough lithium to go around or a way to power them either. They are incredibly inefficient as a means of transportation, and it is impossible to limit warming to 1.5C if serious investment is made in electric vehicles. They are an excuse to tell people that they can continue a car-based society without drastic changes in the future when this is impossible, and a way for old people today to deny reality, absolve themselves of guilt for the future they will not have to live in and not make any change to their lifestyle.

Capturing and storing C02 is not necessary, so cannot fit into the discussion. CO2 does not cause significant warming. Warming induced by solar variation causes dissolved CO2 to be liberated from the oceans. As a scientific experiment, open two bottles of cold soda pop. Put one back in the fridge and leave one out in a warm room. See which one goes flat sooner.

I cannot complete your experiment because soda is a poison to the body: I do not purchase it, and I also do not believe in or use refrigeration. Regardless whatever the outcome of this "experiment" it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion nor does it prove anything.

If you understood the basics of petroleum refining and petrochemical industry, you would know that when raw petroleum is refined, it is separated into various components each of which have limited uses. Some are good only for fuel, and little else.

If you understood the basic chemistry involved you should know that any of these hydrocarbons can be converted to any of the others using catalytic processes. It is a waste to burn it in engines as it is a complete waste to react nuclear material just to power steam turbines. If you cannot do better, then leave it in the ground and wait until technology is developed to fully utilize it. It is like burning the rainforest for charcoal.

Some are good only for asphalts used to pave roads or make roofing. And only limited components are good for making plastics. Plastics are largely derived from natural gas. The ethane is stripped off to make the precursors of plastics. It may not be practical or possible to make plastics from the gasoline, diesel, or aviation fuel components.

ethane being one of the lighter carbons can be produced from the heavier ones by cracking them from catalytic reactions. The heat used for this should be concentrated solar energy.

The petroleum industry produces a diverse stream of products. If demand for one product drops significantly, balance would be lost.

I don't think you are using the word "balance" according to its definition. We should instead produce useful products for the next tens of thousands of years such as sails.

Without a market for gasoline and diesel, it might be impossible to make asphalt for electric cars to drive on.

Thanks for making this point for one of many reasons why electric cars are not appropriate: There is no reasonable way to maintain the roads for them.

Agreed, much of the use of petroleum is certainly non essential from a utilitarian perspective. Nobody needs to take a vacation aboard a cruise ship. Few of us really need to own and operate a recreational water craft that has an engine.

so we agree.

Some people live near water though, and their boat is their essential transportation. Your statements about sails completely replacing engines are total nonsense. The wind certainly does not blow consistently to make total wind power practical. Engines as a supplement to sail make tight maneuvering safer and more practical for recreational craft.

Engines do not make boats safer. Engines are a hazard. Most boating accidents occur because of engines. There is no issue maneuvering craft without engines.

Engines make water transport much more practical and reliable. Perhaps you would be happy to return to the days of sailing vessels when no engines existed and travel by sea was difficult and unreliable, and conditions aboard were primitive and unhealthy. Many ships and boats were lost at sea. Many crew and passengers died in the unhealthy conditions of poor hygiene and long arduous voyages.

engines do not improve hygiene. Today with technology advancements navigating under sail is easier than ever before.

Many of our land vehicle trips are not essential. We do not need to go to ball games or concerts. We could travel a lot less aboard aircraft. But if we start telling people how to run their lives and introduce even more forced behavior, we are bringing in a strange form of repressive living. It would be some strange combination of communism and fascism. Would you enjoy living in communist North Korea or China for instance? Perhaps you can wear the same Mao suit every day. All this just to solve the non existent man made climate change issue would certainly a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

This is not about communism or facism. It is about equality. A very tiny fraction of the worlds population is oppressing everyone else for their conveniences. Most people have never flown in an aircraft. Your argument is like saying that it is repressive to take away someone's slaves, and people sure did think that when it happened and even thought they deserved compensation. The reality is they deserved a lot more punishment than they received.

Perhaps we should scrap all modern technology and return to the horse and buggy era of the early 1800's. Would this please the man made climate change dupes? Citing OXFAM is invalid. This is a division of the UN. The UN IPCC has lost credibility by using fraudulent data from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. This was exposed during the climategate scandal in 2009. Leaked emails revealed the fraud.

The UN is obviously a force of evil, but this particular claim about how the 1% live is not untrue. The IPCC has lost credibility for many reasons. It does not change the fact that the worlds resources are not distributed equally. Why should someone born in canada have the "right" to cause someone in micronesia to suffer but not the other way around?

We were scared decades ago that the world would run out of oil imminently, but it has not happened. It seems that oil production is limited only by man's ability to explore for and extract it. We are not likely to run dry any time soon.

This is well understood.

Over time, realistic alternatives will be developed. Rushing to invest in inadequate technologies as we are now doing is the real waste. The main developments have been wind turbines and photo voltaics which are extremely costly, extremely inefficient, and do have environmental consequences. They only produce part time and are really

the environmental consequences of wind turbines are a few percent of natural gas. wind power is the only energy source we have today that is capable of sequestering carbon from the air and reversing more negative effects than it causes. using photo voltaic would basically break even with current technology.

intermittent sources that cannot be relied upon.

The wind can be relied on to transport boats for thousands of years. The sun can be relied upon, if it did stop: our fate would be sealed.

Electric vehicles are ahead of their time until conventional nuclear is able to be replaced, and coal and petroleum fueled generation plants have a reliable and cost effective alternative. Charging "nonpolluting" electric vehicles with hazardous nuclear generated power is not safe. Charging them with coal and petroleum produced electricity is counter productive. And of course feasible batteries must be developed.

feasible batteries exist: I am using one right now.

You argue about semantics. "Earth" in this context means the civilization and wild life that inhabits the planet. The rocks and ground of which the geologic earth are made are quite indifferent to climate matters.

Actually, the earth itself is a living organism that will shake humanity like a bad case of fleas if we continue on the current trajectory.

It should already be understood that this discussion is of importance to living things. Please do not introduce arguments based upon semantics that you should be able to comprehend. If you cannot comprehend this, you not capable to participate in the discussion.

If you cannot comprehend the significance of collective consciousness and the concept that consciousness extends well beyond cellular life, I am not sure your opinions are of much value. It is a completely relevant point that anyone who uses "diesel" in their boat's name, or user name is most certainly biased. Breathing diesel fumes decreased your cognitive abilities.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Using the exact same arguments to justify something that is unjust is relevant here. History of human selfishness and entitlement is repeating itself.

It sure is affordable for the wealthy but they are not allowed to have personal nuclear power. Why can't they have private reactors? They have private jets, so why not?

It does not reduce everyone's income, only those who choose to buy products that cause more emissions than most. If you don't want to pay income tax, don't have any taxable income. If you don't want to pay sales tax: don't buy things subject to it. If you dont want to pay property tax: don't own any property. If you don't want to pay carbon tax: stop buying diesel.

the proceeds from carbon tax reduce the other taxes, and therefore does not take money from everyone, instead it gives back to those who pollute less. If it does not, the issue would be how the tax is used, not the tax itself.

Somehow grain farmers managed before these existed. There are many alternatives.

I sailed to countries without any diesel power, and they had an abundance of food with food forests of hundreds of species of plants growing per acre. It is wrong to grow only a single species of crop over a wide area. These people are able to harvest enough food with only hand tools with minimal amount of labor and without destroying the soil. With industrial agriculture there will not be any soil left in 60 years. The people there told me they did not like cruisers showing up with engines in their boats and were well aware of global problems. In another country the fisherman used only sail power and were only allowed to throw spears as nets and elastic cord were outlawed. If it had not been, they would not be able to maintain the resources there in a stable way.

The industrial system of food production is not sustainable and cannot continue, there is no real point in trying to justify it or make excuses for it. 30-40 percent is wasted, and the people themselves eat on average more than twice as much as what is healty.

The writing has been on the wall for 50 years. There has been more than enough time for people to adapt. A carbon tax will encourage people to adapt faster.

electric cars are completely the wrong direction for the future. The numbers do not work out. There isn't enough lithium to go around or a way to power them either. They are incredibly inefficient as a means of transportation, and it is impossible to limit warming to 1.5C if serious investment is made in electric vehicles. They are an excuse to tell people that they can continue a car-based society without drastic changes in the future when this is impossible, and a way for old people today to deny reality, absolve themselves of guilt for the future they will not have to live in and not make any change to their lifestyle.

I cannot complete your experiment because soda is a poison to the body: I do not purchase it, and I also do not believe in or use refrigeration. Regardless whatever the outcome of this "experiment" it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion nor does it prove anything.

If you understood the basic chemistry involved you should know that any of these hydrocarbons can be converted to any of the others using catalytic processes. It is a waste to burn it in engines as it is a complete waste to react nuclear material just to power steam turbines. If you cannot do better, then leave it in the ground and wait until technology is developed to fully utilize it. It is like burning the rainforest for charcoal.

ethane being one of the lighter carbons can be produced from the heavier ones by cracking them from catalytic reactions. The heat used for this should be concentrated solar energy.

I don't think you are using the word "balance" according to its definition. We should instead produce useful products for the next tens of thousands of years such as sails.

Thanks for making this point for one of many reasons why electric cars are not appropriate: There is no reasonable way to maintain the roads for them.

so we agree.

Engines do not make boats safer. Engines are a hazard. Most boating accidents occur because of engines. There is no issue maneuvering craft without engines.

engines do not improve hygiene. Today with technology advancements navigating under sail is easier than ever before.

This is not about communism or facism. It is about equality. A very tiny fraction of the worlds population is oppressing everyone else for their conveniences. Most people have never flown in an aircraft. Your argument is like saying that it is repressive to take away someone's slaves, and people sure did think that when it happened and even thought they deserved compensation. The reality is they deserved a lot more punishment than they received.

The UN is obviously a force of evil, but this particular claim about how the 1% live is not untrue. The IPCC has lost credibility for many reasons. It does not change the fact that the worlds resources are not distributed equally. Why should someone born in canada have the "right" to cause someone in micronesia to suffer but not the other way around?

This is well understood.

the environmental consequences of wind turbines are a few percent of natural gas. wind power is the only energy source we have today that is capable of sequestering carbon from the air and reversing more negative effects than it causes. using photo voltaic would basically break even with current technology.

The wind can be relied on to transport boats for thousands of years. The sun can be relied upon, if it did stop: our fate would be sealed.

feasible batteries exist: I am using one right now.

Actually, the earth itself is a living organism that will shake humanity like a bad case of fleas if we continue on the current trajectory.

If you cannot comprehend the significance of collective consciousness and the concept that consciousness extends well beyond cellular life, I am not sure your opinions are of much value. It is a completely relevant point that anyone who uses "diesel" in their boat's name, or user name is most certainly biased. Breathing diesel fumes decreased your cognitive abilities.

You do not see reality on suggestions to avoid taxation. Income taxes, sales taxes, and carbon taxes effect everyone. It is not possible to live without earning and exchanging currency to which such taxes apply. Barter on a large scale does not work. Specifically, carbon taxes apply to more than fuel alone. All things are produced and transported using fuel that is taxed. Goods are no longer delivered by horse, so nobody escapes carbon taxes on truck fuel. The producers and retailers add the cost of this to the prices that they charge purchasers. If you do not own property, you pay rent, and landlords increase rent to recover their carbon tax costs, and you still pay utilities that are subject to carbon taxes.

How does this new carbon tax reduce overall taxes? It is a new charge that is in addition to all existing taxes. When it was introduced, sales, income, and property taxes were not decreased. And what is it achieving? We still need to heat the same buildings and travel the same distances. Everybody cannot afford to spend many thousands of dollars on EV's and retrofitting their house with the latest greatest heating system. When the carbon taxes came in, the run away inflation that we are now suffering began. It is like we have returned to the bad old days of the 80's when inflation was rampant.

You think that the sun as a source of electricity is reliable. In fact photo voltaics are only part time producers. They are expensive while elephants at night and during cloud cover. If you approximate useful day light as 8 hours per day, the best that they can do is about 33% percent. And take away cloudy days, and you would do well to get 25% production time. What intelligent person would buy some costly necessity that they can only use one forth of the time? Would you have a house that you can only live in for one forth of the day? With such dismal efficiency, solar is extremely costly. Wind turbines are similarly plagued with calm days and storm days when they must be taken out of service. They are similarly costly symbols with little practical value. Nuclear, coal, and petroleum generators must be kept at idle constantly, ready to throttle up when wind and solar go out of production because boilers can take many hours or days to flash up and bring on line. Considering this, wind and solar are only expensive symbols that actually increase need of conventional power. The overhead energy costs of conventional plants on stand by defeats wind and solar production.

Do you think that farmers can go back to old methods in a modern world? Why not talk to some farmers and find out about farming to understand the constraints under which they operate? Should farming return to using horses and all manual labor? How would this enable the volume of food production required now compared to the days before high mechanization of farming that began about the early 1900's? It might seem appealing to return to the good old days. I sometimes wish that this were possible. But the good old days are gone old days. The reality is that civilization has changed to become highly mechanized and highly technological over the past 200 or so years. It is just not feasible to tear down infrastructure and start over. Farmers cannot earn a living farming 30 to 100 acres with a horse team and crew of costly part time labor. Even at $20 per hour, a small crew of ten workers on ten hour days would cost $2000 per day. Over 100 days of prep, planting, and harvest, the labor cost would be $200 000. And what will these people do to earn a living the rest of the year? Do you think that 30 or even 100 acres can sustain enough business to recover this cost? And will workers that are capable be available? The infrastructure for primitive farming methods no longer exists. Where can enough skilled black smiths to keep the horse teams on shoes be found? Where are the skilled harness makers? Where are the experienced ox yoke makers? Even numbers of skilled teamsters have been reduced to a few hobbyists. Where are the livery stables for horse teams traveling long routes? A hitch post cannot even be found outside a local shop. All this capability has been lost. How many decades would it take to build up sufficient numbers of trained horses and oxen?

At least we agree on the impracticality of electric vehicles. This is good reason to continue with petroleum powered vehicles for which there is no viable replacement yet. It is possible that a practical replacement will be developed, but investing hugely in the present EV technology is extremely wasteful. As for petroleum refining, there are limits on the practicality of cracking the heavier components. Turning heavy asphalts into plastics seems to be impractical.

You refuse to consider basic science. You will not even acknowledge that cold water holds large amounts of dissolved CO2, and warm water holds little. Without understanding this key climate mechanism of the oceans, you cannot even begin to understand climate variation, so are unable to discuss the matter.

You discredit yourself. Anyone who believes that the inanimate geologic earth that is made of rocks and ground is a living thing is not scientific. Your statements show that your strange set of ideals blind you from reality. Without a sense of reality, please do not even bother to reply. I will not continue to respond. I have better things to do than to argue logic against such folly.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Obfuscation is the last resort in a losing argument.

And there was I always believing Abuse was the last resort of a failing argument..

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Denial is not an argument.

The difference being I didn’t deny anything by simply asking for quantifiable data and conclusions based on more than a set of assumptions plugged into a model.

Why asking for verifiable evidence equates to “denial” is an interesting thought process

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Let me know if I make comments that are not facts.

Happy to oblige.

petroleum powered machinery reduced need of manual labor, thus reducing incentive to have slavery in the more civilized countries.

No, recognition of its fundamental immorality ended slavery.

CO2 does not cause significant warming.

Hoo boy. Wrong.

Carbon tax ... money is being taken from people and this effectively reduces their income.

Funny. When there's a market- or geopolitically-driven spike in fuel price, everyone shrugs. Impose a fuel tax to moderate use and to fund cleanups ... then it's "what about the poors??".

The petroleum industry produces a diverse stream of products. If demand for one product drops significantly, balance would be lost.The economics of the industry would drastically shift, and it could end up that the entire industry could become uneconomical to produce anything, and would shut down. Without alternatives, civilization would quickly deteriorate.

"Use gas, or civilization is dooomed!" That's a solvable technical problem, nothing more.

Citing OXFAM is invalid. This is a division of the UN. The UN IPCC has lost credibility by using fraudulent data from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. This was exposed during the climategate scandal in 2009. Leaked emails revealed the fraud.

Gummint-hating paranoia and a long-disproved denier myth are not convincing arguments.

Over time, realistic alternatives will be developed. Rushing to invest in inadequate technologies as we are now doing is the real waste.

I love how the second sentence contradicts the first. "Alternatives will be developed, but we shouldn't fund development."

The main developments have been wind turbines and photo voltaics which are extremely costly, extremely inefficient, and do have environmental consequences.

They have less environmental consequences than fossil-fuel, watt-for-watt. And thanks to investing in development, these alternatives are now competitive with fossil fuel, even without subsidies. The energy storage problem will be solved.

But thanks for the rundown on the denier arguments. Amazing how these zombie falsehoods still walk the earth.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Montanan

San Diego Union Tribune

Beach erosion, bluff collapse, flooding: What a foot of sea level rise could mean for San Diego

BY JOSHUA EMERSON SMITH
PUBLISHED FEB. 18, 2022 UPDATED FEB. 21, 2022 3:11 PM PT

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...rise-san-diego

This is a fabricated emergency. The line went in in 1888.

About 0.8 feet from 1888 until now (2020).

Looking closely at the NOAA chart, see that from 1940 until 2020, this tide gage shows a SLR of 0.075 meters.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=9410170

Now take a look at this track-roadbed repair in 1938 on that line. The coast line has always had this characteristic look and closeness to the coast, for passenger draw and ridership effects. This was intentional at the time, from the promoters.

https://www.kshs.org/km/items/view/213784

If you want even less excitement-look at NOAAs chart for Los Angeles.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=9410660

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

You do not see reality on suggestions to avoid taxation. Income taxes, sales taxes, and carbon taxes effect everyone. It is not possible to live without earning and exchanging currency to which such taxes apply.

Really? I managed to avoid all taxes for more than 10 years. I now pay mostly sales tax due to my personal choices. I could choose to live without paying taxes again in the future. Mostly because I do not agree with how the taxes are used, not the fact that there are taxes. If everyone did this, the corrupt government would lose power. If you pay significant taxes, it is not only hurting you, but hurting everyone else as well as it empowers an unjust system.

Barter on a large scale does not work. Specifically, carbon taxes apply to more than fuel alone. All things are produced and transported using fuel that is taxed. Goods are no

every time I travel the 10 miles each way to the store, I see many old people driving large vehicles with just 1 person. A food delivery truck by contrast burns < 10 gallons per person per year and supplies what is essential for life for hundreds or thousands of people in a single trip. The cost to transport the food is a small fraction of the total cost. Charging twice or even three times as much for food and making it un affordable for people to operate diesel engines would be well worth it. Yesterday I am up the mast, and powerboats pass 10ft away on purpose. People who use engines are impatient, lazy and selfish, and engines power vehicles at speeds that kill every day.

longer delivered by horse, so nobody escapes carbon taxes on truck fuel. The producers and retailers add the cost of this to the prices that they charge purchasers. If you do not own property, you pay rent,

I know people who grow their own food. They do not rely on trucks. It is a choice, and the cost (<10 gallons per person per year) of extra carbon taxes is not significant. I do not own property or pay rent. You are making false assumptions.

and landlords increase rent to recover their carbon tax costs, and you still pay utilities that

I have never paid any utilities (or any other bill) Yet again, it is a choice.

How does this new carbon tax reduce overall taxes?

It probably doesn't in the corrupt government of canada that wastes money on police. If the money were evenly redistributed to the population, average levels of consumption would have no increased cost.

It is a new charge that is in addition to all existing taxes. When it was introduced, sales, income, and property taxes were not decreased.

It is not my fault that your government wastes the revenue generated from taxes. income tax did not used to exist, why not get rid of it? Why have any taxes?

e and s And what is it achieving?
When the carbon taxes came in, the run away inflation that we are now suffering began.

we have runaway inflation in the USA and no carbon taxes. It is not from your carbon tax which at this time is nominal and < 5% of the true cost anyway, it is only a token value and has no meaningful effect.

You think that the sun as a source of electricity is reliable.

Everyone knows it is, or there would not be food. I would not gain all of my electricity every day of the year from solar panels. In overcast winter days I produce enough.

Nuclear, coal, and petroleum generators must be kept at idle constantly, ready to throttle up when wind and solar go

This is entirely false. It is entirely reasonable to vary the voltage, price, and many other metrics to adjust electricity demand to match a widely varying supply. Without sun/wind for days it may be un affordable to use a washing machine: also fine. Most of the world doesnt have one either. The concept of stable power is about privilege and entitlement not necessity. I wait for the right wind/tide, and industry can wait for clear weather when solar production is plentiful. As it is, too many goods are produced and most of them end up in a landfill in < 2 years. Houses are too big, and so on. Living in excess is not respectable, and consuming all the oil in < 500 years is absurd and not enough time to develop alternatives. Consuming the oil over a 50,000 year period by reducing the rate of consumption to 1-2% would ensure the survival of civilization as there would be time to adapt and develop alternatives as well as time for species to adapt and evolve.

Do you think that farmers can go back to old methods in a modern world?

Do you realize how few people are involved in food production when it is one of the requirements for survival? The old methods were not all good. There are new methods that are better but not the ones you speak of.

At least we agree on the impracticality of electric vehicles. This is good reason to continue with petroleum powered vehicles for which there is no viable replacement yet.

Most of the world does not use cars and I do not either. So there is good reason to abandon them entirely. EV having half the impact of petro power is just no where near good enough and should not be seriously considered.

You refuse to consider basic science. You will not even acknowledge that cold water holds large amounts of dissolved CO2, and warm water holds little.

I can acknowledge cold water holds more co2. Consider the main reason (until now) the sea level is rising. From thermal expansion as the sea temperature is increasing. Over time the ocean's ability to sink co2 is reducing.

You discredit yourself. Anyone who believes that the inanimate geologic earth that is made of rocks and ground is a living thing is not scientific.

So you have no concept of how consciousness works. It is true that the earth itself is a living being. Even a boat is created, lives and dies. Many on this forum can understand that, and if you cannot, it discredits your perspective.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The difference being I didn’t deny anything by simply asking for quantifiable data and conclusions based on more than a set of assumptions plugged into a model.

Why asking for verifiable evidence equates to “denial” is an interesting thought process

You're setting an impossible standard. We don't have a spare Earth or two, and the time to experiment with them. Climate modeling is all we got, but modeling works, and is used in many areas that we depend on. Waving climate modeling away is denial.