Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the way they're presenting these climate change effects I'm thinking this can only be a localized good thing for Norway.
Their ground will also start to disappear as sea levels rise. So there are up sides and down sides for them.
Now consider the southern USA. They will also lose land as sea levels rise. And the same changes that make Norway more fertile and liveable make them less fertile and liveable.
So the overall affect is:
* Bad for everyone on average
* Bad for most people because they picked the best places/ways to live (often costal ones) under the old model and invested in those and now will have to move/change all that
I think we're about to see the current populous/rich areas realise they're fucked, and smaller colder places are the new them. How will the US feel when the corn belt moves north of the US-Canada border and it has to import food?
> Their ground will also start to disappear as sea levels rise.
Sea level rise is an irrelevance as far as costs of climate change are concerned. Particularly to Norway.
Gets talked about because it's easy to explain to children, not because our great grand kids will be underwater due to the third of a meter rise in sea level.
The rich countries have all sorts of ways of mitigating effects of climate change, the big losers will be India, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. Which will also contain half the world's population by 2100.
Yes, and that's good news if you're Canadian or Siberian. But the vast majority of people live in places that will NOT become more fertile. So bad news over all.
And even for Canadian/Siberians there are a lot of issues that mean it's not just a blessing. Fancy a 400% immigration rate? Fancy no more ski-ing and having to buy aircon? Fancy no trees when insects normally killed by frost destroy them all?
"it will be ok for some people on average over a long period" could be worse but it's not good news...
This is confirmation bias at its best. Yes, Norway has barely any land affected by sea level rise. Because it's a mountainous country. Good job, gold star to you. But you left out the fact that the vast, vast majority of Norway's population lives on the coast where sea level rise does matter. Almost no one lives in the mountains.
Additionally Norway is highly dependent on the gulf stream to remain habitable, which could also be disrupted by Arctic ice melting.
Interesting point about the corn belt moving. Having a rough look at temperature isotherms and the location of the corn belt, it looks like it will take > 10F of warming to move it to the Canadian border. So it will likely only become an issue if we fail to address climate change this century.
Of course that is an average, North America could see a below or above average change in temperatures in that time. And with Crops, there is more than just temperature, there is also sunlight levels and rainfall and soil fertility etc.
I am not saying "corn will move x miles per year every year exactly until it crosses the border". More that places that can grow crops will change. So farmers will have to change their crops (or move) and people will have to change what they eat and places that are used to having an abundance may find they cannot grow anything. All of that is expensive and difficult and disruptive. This is the problem with any change, even a net good change.
With this also being a net negative AND an international change, it will be hard to manage even if we do suddenly find a huge amount of wealth and political will to help us...
That's an oddly specific question given sea levels have "only" risen 15-25cm since 1900 and most piers are more than 25cm above previous sea levels (and less than 120 years old). You will soon get your wish soon though, we're raising sea levels by 3.7mm PER YEAR. And that rate is only going up.
>Between 1901 and 2018, the globally averaged sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or 1–2 mm per year on average.[1] This rate is accelerating, with sea levels now rising by 3.7 mm per year.
I have no stake here; but he asked for a photo, and you replied with a Wikipedia link and an animation. Surely you understand the difference of evidence to him right?
Sure, if you are saying that you can’t see the difference that two photos of similar tides just like you can’t a photo of the curvature of the earth that would be a good argument.
Like I say, I don't know of any piers built only 1 foot above sea level (they start flooding as soon as there were waves no?), and built about 100 years ago... If you do please share!
I found a whole batch of videos for you, hope this works! I have seen people literally displaced because their house is gone, and it's astonishing to me that this information is suppressed to the point that people on the other side of the world holds your position.
