For one, plants don't build cities, so if we have to deal with sea level rises than that's a problem for our buildings. The same with any increase in natural disasters: it's easier for a tree to grow again after a hurricane than it is to rebuild an electrical grid.
We could deal with it, the issue is that civilisation entails cooperatively working to deal with it as opposed to going to war and killing everyone the second your crops fail.
I'm a bit stupid, but I understand if we are dropping 6.4M cubic miles from space, there will be an increase in water level, but if the 6.4M cubic miles of water was already present in the system, just frozen, how does it increase the total sea level? There is no net change in volume right?
Sea ice floats in the sea. When melted ... it's still floating in the sea, as water. There's no net sea-level change, at least not from contributed ice.[1]
Land ice sits on land. When it melts, most of it flows to the sea.[2] That increases the total amount of water in the oceans, and hence, sea level. The total rise if all Antarctic and Greenland ice melted would be about 60-70m (200-230ft).[3]
________________________________
Notes:
1. There are other effects, including thermal expansion (water expands slightly as it warms), and centripetal effects (water can flow more than continental crust does, and would spread out slightly more at the equator than the poles with more liquid water in the oceans). Those effects are comparatively small, though not fully negligible.
2. The exception would be enteric basins which have no outlet to the oceans, in which case melted ice flowing into these would form lakes. Examples of enteric basins include the Great Salt Lake and surrounding former Lake Bonneville, the Dead Sea, and Death Valley. Note that as glaciers melt, there's a rebound effect in continental crust, and regions presently below sea level or which would otherwise form enteric basins might not after that rebound effect is taken into account.
I've never said this about anyone in tech, but I feel Louis Rossman should run for the Senate, or the House.
I've kept an eye on him for years, and think he's honest, and trustworthy. He does not appear to be a sellout in the slightest.
Becomming a politician doesn't sound like the life he wants, but we need guys like Louis running our country.
(It's not that crazy. A few years ago Zuck thought he had a chance in politics. His yes men put him on tractors in the midwest with a cowboy hat. I even think they had him sucking on a stick of wheat? All I knew is they picked the wrong guy. Zuck was a joke on so many levels though,
--even then. How a young man can make so many ugly decisions so quick is beyond me. I guess that's why he's a 1 percenter? Nice fair people don't become wealthy. He was just about his money, and his narcisstic life. Louis seems just honest, and cares about what's fair. He never asked to be the spokesman for Right to Repair. He was just, like I was, irritated over pricy items we can't fix.)
Zucc has 2% of all wealth owned by American Millennials. Singlehandedly. The other 98% is owned by everyone else in his generation.
1 percenter? Yeah technically he's in the 99th percentile, but technically he's in the 50th percentile as well....
Edit: Rossman, a successful business owner and YouTube personality, is clearly a 1 percenter as well. Just to further illustrate what a silly thing that is to say about the Zucc.
An opportunity to improve fire stations across the world to handle battery fires. Also pretty sad that beta adopters of new tech like this get hit with shit like this. I wonder if batteries are going to get demonized like nuclear energy.
