You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Luke_A_Somers comments on [QUESTION]: What are your views on climate change, and how did you form them? - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: VipulNaik 08 July 2014 02:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (143)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 16 July 2014 07:10:17PM 0 points [-]

Higher sea level from ice falling into the water results in the air being lowered since the ice became denser in the process.

Comment author: mwengler 17 July 2014 05:49:30AM *  0 points [-]

Clever, yes. However, it also comes with the opening up of relatively low lands that were previously covered by ice. AND, I have read that a significant fraction of sea level rise is due to the ocean water expanding since slightly warmer water is not as dense as slightly cooler water, which would serve to push the atmosphere up.

I think if you totted it all up, you would see a small loss of value in the land area available, but much smaller loss in value than in land area lost. That is, the remaining land would have higher value per hectare on average for a few reasons.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 17 July 2014 07:37:12PM 3 points [-]

I have read that a significant fraction of sea level rise is due to the ocean water expanding since slightly warmer water is not as dense as slightly cooler water, which would serve to push the atmosphere up.

The air is warming too, and the expansion of the air will make it less dense, which utterly swamps the effect from the expansion of the water.

That is, the remaining land would have higher value per hectare on average for a few reasons.

Really? I see that the other way around.

Beaches are valuable, and it will take a lot of time or money to make them at their new sites.

Estuaries provide a lot of ecological services and are basically flat. Having them be at the wrong depth will screw up those services.

Many cities (concentrated value) are right down on the water, and it will be muy expensive to save them and enough of their outlying areas that they remain convenient (which was a large part of why they were cities in the first place).