• Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    At the risk of being nerd sniped, I wonder if that’s true or false. The intuitive answer is with higher sea levels more land would be understaer, meaning the land area has decreased and so its area should decrease; in some cases lowlands like Florida or islands would completely disappear. But low lying basins flooding and turning into bays might offset that…Call XKCD.

    • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Aside from that, if all the current waterfront property goes underwater, then previously undesirable land will slowly become more valuable, once we know where coastlines will land (it depends on when and at what temperature warming starts to flatten out). When that happens, it becomes another avenue for wealth transfer to the rich.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      We need to remember that flaming ball of nuclear death in the sky that’s cooking us; that’s the important nuclear warming.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Pretty much. It’s like listening to two people trying to have a detailed conversation about a book, but one of them didn’t read it, and read a review of some other book instead, and the second didn’t read anything at all, and is just confabulating.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Well, people who don’t have oceanfront property right now will have one soon without having to move. /s

  • paw@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I mean new ocean front property is somehow more if you don’t reomve the lost property. /s