|
|
|
|
|
|
by shaboinkin
409 days ago
|
|
|
Sure, but we’re talking about hundreds of miles of coast line all being affected, within various regions as the article points out, at relatively the same time. Thousands of coastline if we want consider a worst case rate of increase.
The leaching of whatever is soaking into the water will likely occur in localized areas at similar rates. It seems reasonable to me it’ll introduce shock to the ecosystem if considered in geological timescales. |
|
|
However, based on what I understand of the human race, I think nothing will be done to prevent the issue. I guess the closest thing I can think of off the top of my head would be tsunami damage. Though that is probably not a good comparison still. I am curious what environmental changes can be observed in pre/post tsunami ecosystems. I suppose I will have to look into this when I have more free time...
Honestly, I am rather jaded when it comes to climate change. Humans are very reactive and less... proactive. I would argue that much of these environmental concerns could and should have been addressed decades ago. Thus, by the time cities are swallowed by the sea, I believe it will be too late for us to do anything. As in, whatever ecosystem that could be affected will probably already be affected by other downstream issues, if not completely destroyed already.
Though, I once had an environmental science professor that had a tongue in cheek saying, "Dilution is the solution to pollution." While unlikely as it may be, I am going to have my fingers crossed that hopefully any ramifications will be diluted enough. (I know they probably won't be.)