Warming also allows invasive insects to move further north which have been decimating the forests of Alaska, Canada and Washington. Dead trees become fire tinder.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/fidls/sprucebeetle/sprucebeetle.htm
Are you being intentionally dense?
Coastal land has buildings on it. If we lose that land we lose those buildings. We can build new buildings but we still lose the buildings that was on that coastal land that we lost. That is a loss of assets for the world. If humanity loses these assets humanity loses prosperity. It doesn’t get any clearer.
People didn’t want to rebuild New Orleans because it was a poor risk. It is likely to be destroyed again. But wherever it’s residents moved probably experienced a gain in property values and human capital.
Think why that may not be true.
Besides species being wiped out and the food chain affected,…
Just looking at property, where is the money going to come from to rebuild?
Yes, everyone could pick up and move as some new area becomes a “tropical paradise” and another becomes a denuded moonscape. However, events like that tend to lead to mass extinction of animals and great suffering and hardship for humans. “Tropical paradise” means the spread of malaria and west nile. It’s not just all fun and games.
Just because the price of something increases doesn’t mean prosperity has increased. If you buy a house for 200K and after 10 years it becomes worth 400K it doesn’t mean it’s a better house. It’s still the same house. This is very simple and fundamental. Property values increasing doesn’t increase human prosperity.
At this point there’s no way I can’t believe you’re just being intentionally dense so I’m done.
Me too.
Here is a pretty concise explanation of the “wavy jet stream”
http://news.rutgers.edu/news/climate-change-driving-brutal-winter/20150217#.VaNF1dpViko
Sorry, V, I’m not intentionally being dense. If people lose housing and office space along the coast, you are saying that society cannot be prosperous? They cannot rebuild similar accommodations inland to serve their needs?
I understand that Joe Smith may lose his house, but why would he lose his job? And if he has a job, he can rent something inland, and the inland property owner makes money and can build a bigger house for himself. It’s not a loss of wealth overall, but a transfer of wealth to inland areas.
I cannot even begin to comprehend how this concept is so difficult.
Yes, you can rebuild similar accommodations. But you’ve lost the housing and office space along the coast without any return.
" At this point there’s no way I can’t believe you’re just being intentionally dense so I’m done"
I don’t think there is any point in being insulting and condescending. I think if someone is asking an honest question, trying to get real answers from something they have been wondering about, if you don’t have anything to share, then don’t bother.
Asking questions and getting answers is pretty much the point of conversation. People have different viewpoints. Educating and debating is far more effective than putting people down.
Agriculture also takes more than a certain length growing season and water. The thing that really can’t be altered for the better in anything but geologic time is the presence of topsoil. The Palouse in Eastern Washington is such amazingly productive wheat country for two reasons: It has enough rainfall to grow yearly crops without a summer fallow and it has all the topsoil from central Washington that was scoured by glaciers and deposited beautifully in one place. Topsoil can blow away in a flash (read The Worse Hard Time if you haven’t already) but you can’t import it. The best that you can hope for is alluvial soil deposited by rivers but increased flood control measures are already having a negative impact on that.
Why would jobs go away just because buildings fall into the sea? If Joe builds cars, there is still the same market for cars. Sure, if his plant was destroyed, there might be a lull while another plant is built or expanded. But the people needing cars don’t disappear. The only way I can see it being a problem is if a tidal wave or hurricane destroys an entire city. Otherwise, a rising sea level will be observable and people can slowly move inland as the level increases over time.
@busdriver11, we are going to take your assets away, but you can keep your job. You move to Spokane.
You are even?
This…
On the subject of soil quality, do you have any idea about the prospects of northern Alberta and central Saskatchewan? If there was climate change that made it warm enough to grow grains, would the soil be suitable?
You’re right. I’m sorry Bay. Just a bit frustrated.
"@busdriver11, we are going to take your assets away, but you can keep your job. You move to Spokane.
You are even?"
Probably so, actually, if looked at in a non-personal, general sort of way. Cost of living is far lower in Spokane than Seattle. However, it would be a more accurate example if you said that you are going to take my real estate assets away, because global warming would not take away my retirement accounts, just my property.
Then again, I’m not saying that I agree, or that I have any argument with anyone on this thread. I am saying that if people are going to engage, than why not be informative and helpful, instead of condescending?
Sea levels have risen and fallen cyclically for MILLIONS of years. Warming may be occuring faster now than historical cycles, but we’re a fairly bright species with opposable thumbs. We’ll adapt. We’re smarter than the average stegasaurus.
If sea levels rise, then unattractive areas further inland become attractive beachfront property. None of this is occuring overnight like the global warming alarmists would lead you to believe.
@busdriver11, let’s say I have a $1 million in cash and $1 million brand new house I just built. I have a net worth of $2 million.
There is an earthquake and my house is destroyed. No earthquake insurance. I rebuild the house and it costs $1 million and the house is worth $1 million.
My net worth is now $1million. I lost $1million. Substitute earthquake disaster for some kind of climate change disaster.
The result is the same. A loss of $1 million.
You aren’t even. If you want to move to a cheaper area, sell your place first.
How dare you insult stegosauruses like that…?
The polar vortex impacted Alberta and Saskatchewan pretty significantly. “Global Warming” doesn’t mean the every place will be just a little bit warmer and climate zones will neatly shift 2 places to the north. The Arctic is warming which makes the climate and hence the weather (NOT the same thing) get wacked (not a technical term) in other places but not necessarily in a nice, neat, predictable way.