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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

When I hear "I'd have to do something about it" -- that comes across as a threat.


and when "shut up" = "dont be silly" then I would agree with your point. Except, they're not, so I'm not really following you there.


It wasnt a big deal except you keep calling just me out -- and you're downplaying the rudeness of his comment -- which also is something I keep asking WHY you feel it's not a "big deal"?

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

I did do something about it - I expressed my opinion why it was inappropriate. I do not believe I need to do anything beyond that at this point - what else did you think I would have done?

I answered your latter question in the neighboring comment.

I think you are taking this too personally. I see a slur - I react. I cannot give a much more complex explanation for that, frankly.

[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]

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.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Is it REALLY hard to find the insult in "shut up"?

Honestly -- this is something that takes interpretation?


Sure I could have responded differently. But the point I keep making that I feel you're ignoring is there were *ALSO* different ways he could have **initiated** a response to me in the first place.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of "scales and intensity of a slur" (wow, this sounded so pompous, like a book title) - so I think it would be appropriate if I shut up at this point. Something I should have probably done a long time ago. :-)

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The difference:

I wouldnt have told you to, nor would I say such a thing and be surprised
if someone said *hey!* over the comment.


I appreciate your feedback but I hope you see my objection as well. Thanx again