Sea levels and impact on the United States.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

As a follow-up to airiefairie's excellent post on March 11, 2012 ("The drowning country: a case of climate migration"), I wanted to share a new report that has been released in the interim.


NBC Nightly News featured a new scientific report suggesting significant changes in sea levels will impact the United States much sooner than thought. The report entitled Surging Seas

finds the odds of “century” or worse floods occurring by 2030 are on track to double or more, over widespread areas of the U.S. These increases threaten an enormous amount of damage. Across the country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide — a level lower than the century flood line for most locations analyzed. And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2 to 7 more feet of sea level rise this century. [see graphic below]

The report has been made available online, and Climate Central has designed a super elegant and user friendly interactive map to see what impact sea level changes will have on your own community. The map draws its information from a peer reviewed study. And it uses the National Elevation Dataset, a product of the U.S. Geological Survey.



The effects of a five foot sea rise on my home town of Hampton, Virginia. The solid blue line indicates the current shoreline, gray shows the areas affected by rising sea levels with the interior blue line the new coast line. The "city" of Poquoson would be completely wiped out. This portion of Virginia is called "Tidewater" and it would be affected the most because of the low laying tidal flats and swampy areas. On a personal note, two weeks ago, my insurance agency dropped home coverage due to my proximity to living near a flood zone in Brooklyn. The letter cited increased risks from hurricanes and other issues associated with climate change (i.e. rising sea levels).

Here what happens to Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens (5 foot rise):




This is the full feature from NBC Nightly News (you *MAY* have to refresh your browser page to reload the embedded video correctly ;)

Comments

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Haha!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

After being told to "shut up," you bet it does. Flame bait doesn't get called out, but the person that reacts to it is. Got it.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Shut up!




:P

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I know I saw your villain photo at the post office yesterday! I'm calling out the FBI on you!

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Honestly - I *dont* see a meaningful difference between them.

Where you could argue "shut up" is not a big deal, so likewise could I argue "you jerk" is along those same lines.

Noone likes being told to shut up and no one likes being called a jerk. Where's the difference?

and honestly -- do you believe the "intent" of his sentiment was any less direct than mine? I dont know why you believe that, but I guess that would be your perrogative.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

**twirls evil mustache**

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

THIS is so appropriate I had to show:

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

The answers you're looking for with this objection lie in information theory, actually. If you're a computer type this should work well for you.The Shannon entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)) of a climate model or of a historical dataset is essentially the amount of actual information contained in it. Not proportional to the length of the data, but to the length of the shortest program one could write to print that data.

Models where the algorithm itself contains more information than the information contained in the accurate component of their 'predictions' of past data, are to be suspected of being post-hoccy.

Models where the algorithm manages to create more 'correct' data than it itself contains, are nearly certain to have demonstrated at least a partial algorithmic underpinning of the climate dataset.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

I admit, I'm rather curious as to the argument that says telling someone to
"shut up" is less harmful than calling them a "jerk"

And I'm fairly certain his telling me to Shut Up wasnt meant
as benevolence, but "jerk" is apparently up there with the f-bomb
and kicking puppies.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

It was a continuation of your argument that nobody can debate something unless they're specifically trained in it.

I'm sorry if "shut up" was rude. Next time I'll just tell you to close your mouth or hush.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Nteresting, I'll have to review this.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yep, tempers flared, everyone has moved on. Everyone is happy now. YAY ;) (I hope)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Shut up.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Thanks, although to be honest I actually
have more of an objection to not having *both* of us being spoken to -- rather than what was said in this case


But anyways...onward and upward...

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Since what I 'believe' about an intent is a very subjective thing, and intent cannot be easily interpreted through the written medium, I would prefer to take things in the simplest possible way. And it is very simple: no name calling. It makes things simpler.

If you believe calling people jerk is just fine, that would be your prerogative. But the moment they come complaining, I would have to do something about it. So I would err at the side of caution in such situations.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I hope so too, but something tells me that it is just an episode in a very long saga.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Here are two situations.

1)

A: You don't know nothing, so shut up!
B: You are flame-baiting. Please stop.
A: Fine.
Me: (stays silent)

2)

A: You don't know nothing, so shut up!
B: You're a jerk!
Me: Don't call people names, please.
B: But he told me to shut up!
Me: OK but still, no name calling, please.
B: But he told me to shut up! Why didn't you tell him to not tell me to shut up?
You: Why are you not telling people to not tell people to shut up?
Me: Guys, no name calling.
B: I still don't get it.
A: (rubs hands) Hehehe....

Which one sounds better? ;-)

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

<3

:-)

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

And such context is that cut and dried?

If you had to "do something about it" and you honestly believe that only I would be at fault in such an exchange -- I posit either the rules or their intent/interpretation would be flawed.

If we want to believe that rudeness is A-OK, but a named response is bad... then that seems problematic of much more than just *me*


So I err on the side of caution, but not to the point where I'm afraid to take it up at the appropriate time to whomever is involved and argue it.

I believe what is being described here to be one-sided enough that I would be willing to argue it, even if I lost.

Hopefully we wont find ourselves there.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Again, in the interest of fairness since you brought it up:

Why is telling me to "shut up" just fine and dandy again?

You acknowledge there are subjective elements to the discussion here, and that "name calling" is bad. But WHY is name-calling bad?

Usually it's because it's "rude".

So why again am *I* the only one who was spoken to? If you're going to be in a position of having to "do something about it" -- exactly why should I be understanding of the guy who says "Shut up" not even being looked at??

I'm honestly curious as to how the dispensement of fairness has been determined.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The guy who actually started the rudeness so to speak? He not only participated -- he *initiated* it.


But again *I* am the one with the warning?


Nice...

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

If someone tells you "don't be silly" and you respond with "you're such an idiot", and then you argue that these two are equal, or that "you're an idiot" even constitutes arguing-it. I would be willing to argue that it is not. Further, I do not think why you should be afraid of anything, since neither I nor anyone else has threatened you in any way. I thought we were having a conversation. If we weren't, you would have known by now.

That said, I do share your hope. It wasn't such a big deal as it may sound.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Or the THIRD option:

Where you speak to BOTH of us....
we BOTH comply

and it goes well.


I honestly dont appreciate being singled out, especially when I was **respoonding** to a rude comment.

Somehow the rude comment is OK but my response was bad?


Sorry -- but no matter how you lay it out, it's unfair.

At least speak to BOTH of us on the matter... and since you havent seem to have done that as pubicly as you've done with me -- I actually have a problem with this.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Direct insults are simple to detect. Subtler remarks are harder to interpret. That is the only reason. It is a matter of scales. I am sure there are a myriad of ways to respond to a remark you deem inappropriate, ones that do not boil down to slur.