Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on May 08, 2018, 09:31:25 AM
-
Okay, this is warm (also, the volcano needs to be sued for its carbon footprint):
https://youtu.be/R2D23AlZmt8?t=23
I feel bad for people losing their stuff, but I had to laugh a little because of an article I read. Residents from the area were "demanding" answers on what was happening and what would be done. It's a freakin' volcano. It's the Earth telling us that we're puny. However, if you do want to bring it back to human terms and our penchant for cramming planetary timescales into human lifespans, there is a reason the land in that part of Hawaii is like half the price of anywhere else.
Which, to bring it back to my dig at global warming, is what the Earth tells us about our self-importance. Volcanoes will erupt over the next billion years. The temperature will change (sometimes drastically - ref: volcanoes, asteroids, etc.) over the next billion years. The planet, and the solar system for that matter, don't really care what humans think about it.
-
Residents from the area were "demanding" answers on what was happening and what would be done.
I have a theory; this really isn't new. It's just that the pre-"civilized" administrations had enough sense to toss these people into the volcano and make up a story to justify it.
-
Hawaii was made because volcanoes erupted. WTF do people think happened?
-
Them: "The lava is eating my stuff. Do something!"
Me: "It's a volcano. You built your house on the flanks of an active volcano. What do you expect."
Them: "Yeah, but DO SOMETHING!"
Me: ...sets up time lapse camera and reactivates YouTube account...
Brad
-
R2D2 NOOOOO!!!!!
-
People just gotta go with the flow. When the flow is go you gotta go!
-
Fox news showed a clip of a lava flow approaching a metal fence, the kind usually used to keep cattle from straying. I admit a fleeting ridiculous thought; "anyone thinking THAT is gonna stop a lava flow is nucking futs!"
It really didn't seriously occur to me there really were people who actually believed we COULD stop a volcano! [tinfoil] [popcorn]
-
Didn't Tommy Lee Jones manage it with Jersey barriers in LA a few years ago?
-
And a BUILDING!
-
Global warming is Google's fault: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/08/googles-massive-carbon-footprint-fingered-with-new-online-tool/
-
If Hawaii were a part of Italy, volcanologists there would be at risk of arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for failing to predict with 100% accuracy the time, direction, and volume of all lava flows, the timing and magnitude of earth tremors, and the venting of toxic gasses.
-
I feel bad for people losing their stuff, but I had to laugh a little because of an article I read. Residents from the area were "demanding" answers on what was happening and what would be done. It's a freakin' volcano.
I was at the doctor the other day, and they had a television on. Video of a guy being interviewed about the volcano, complaining because no one told him that this would happen when he bought his house, and someone needs to be held accountable for the fact that his neighborhood is, well, gone. Nurse and I were both laughing at that one.
-
(https://preview.ibb.co/dEtBDn/I_039_msignifigent.jpg) (https://ibb.co/eW3pzS)
Pretty much sums up my thoughts on humanity's impact on the earth, universe and everything else.
Volcano gives no shits about dust specks.
-
(https://preview.ibb.co/dEtBDn/I_039_msignifigent.jpg) (https://ibb.co/eW3pzS)
Pretty much sums up my thoughts on humanity's impact on the earth, universe and everything else.
Volcano gives no shits about dust specks.
One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes....
(Well, they're all my favorites. Mr. Watterson had a very unique perspective.)
-
One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes....
(Well, they're all my favorites. Mr. Watterson had a very unique perspective.)
I thought I heard he was a philosophy guy and most of the comics addressed some philosophical issue of one kind or another. Either way, they were usually good reading.
-
Hey CNN - now do climate change. :rofl:
This latest volcanic activity in HI is becoming the poster child for my whole "the planet doesn't notice you, puny humans" spiel. Maybe I don't remember, but I don't recall this dumbshit "control the lava" stuff in previous instances in HI. People mostly just ran away, because, lava. The whole "stop climate change" nonsense has really bled over to make people stupid in many other areas.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/05/09/cnn-gets-mocked-over-explainer-on-why-people-cant-stop-lava/
-
Them: "The lava is eating my stuff. Do something!"
Me: "It's a volcano. You built your house on the flanks of an active volcano. What do you expect."
Them: "Yeah, but DO SOMETHING!"
Me: ...sets up time lapse camera and reactivates YouTube account...
Brad
That.
There are roughly 3.7 million sq miles in the US to build a house and live on, most of which isn't next to an active volcano.
-
That.
There are roughly 3.7 million sq miles in the US to build a house and live on, most of which isn't next to an active volcano.
I say that about the people who build $1 million homes 200 feet from the boundary of largest portion of the Earth, which happens to be a three dimensional body of dynamic fluid, then complain when it fluctuates 0.0000000000001% and destroys their home.
-
(In my best post Katrina voice) The real problem is because Trump doesn't care about Hawaiians.
-
Hey CNN - now do climate change. :rofl:
This latest volcanic activity in HI is becoming the poster child for my whole "the planet doesn't notice you, puny humans" spiel. Maybe I don't remember, but I don't recall this dumbshit "control the lava" stuff in previous instances in HI. People mostly just ran away, because, lava. The whole "stop climate change" nonsense has really bled over to make people stupid in many other areas.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/05/09/cnn-gets-mocked-over-explainer-on-why-people-cant-stop-lava/
I figure last time the lava didn't hit those people's neighborhood.
-
Mother Earth should be forgiven for urping and farting now and then.
-
I have a theory; this really isn't new. It's just that the pre-"civilized" administrations had enough sense to toss these people into the volcano and make up a story to justify it.
See, that's the problem. They should have been throwing 6 virgins libtards a month in the volcano since humans began living in HI. That's why the volcano is erupting. He's pissed that no one has been feeding him.
-
Hey CNN - now do climate change. :rofl:
This latest volcanic activity in HI is becoming the poster child for my whole "the planet doesn't notice you, puny humans" spiel. Maybe I don't remember, but I don't recall this dumbshit "control the lava" stuff in previous instances in HI. People mostly just ran away, because, lava. The whole "stop climate change" nonsense has really bled over to make people stupid in many other areas.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/05/09/cnn-gets-mocked-over-explainer-on-why-people-cant-stop-lava/
Comment:
Maybe if they try yelling "BY THE POWER OF GREYSKULL"
:lol: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
On the plus side of Pele reminding Hawaiians who's in charge, we were planning on eloping to Maui in September. Hopefully this'll drive down prices of flights and the hotel.
-
While we marvel at thag volcano, it’s worth considering that the amount of material pumped into the air by human beings every year absolutely dwarfs that from volcanic activity.
We may feel puny, but our industrial operation works on a scale that is not.
-
Or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
The effects of volcanic eruptions on recent winters are modest in scale, but historically have been significant.
Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.[3]
In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887–1888 included powerful blizzards.[4] Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the "Year Without a Summer" of 1816.
A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783[5] blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island's livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the Icelandic population. Northern hemisphere temperatures dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption. However Franklin's proposal has been questioned.[6]
In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601–1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany, wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.[7]
In 1452 or 1453, a cataclysmic eruption of the submarine volcano Kuwae caused worldwide disruptions.
The Great Famine of 1315–1317 in Europe may have been precipitated by a volcanic event,[8] perhaps that of Mount Tarawera, New Zealand, lasting about five years.[9]
The extreme weather events of 535–536 are most likely linked to a volcanic eruption. The latest theorised explanation is the Tierra Blanca Joven (TBJ) eruption of the Ilopango caldera in central El Salvador.[10]
-
Or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Those are even puny. Humans may be injecting more carbon yearly over the last 50 or so years, but again, tiny, tiny timescales. Volcanoes are all about blowing their loads spectacularly and causing cataclysmic events every few million or few hundred million years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528142827.htm
Also, nearly a billion years ago, a cascade volcanic eruption turned the Earth into a giant snowball, as in completely glaciated, for a couple hundred million years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-idea-on-how-earth-became-a-giant-snowball/
Even the current minimal volcanic we're experiencing (pretty much everything since humans have been around is minimal, volcano-wise) is being upped quite a bit as we learn all the ways that volcanoes offgas.
https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
-
Or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Wait, how does that refute the point? Volcanoes absolutely do change weather by injecting tons of material into the atmosphere.
That activity, which we know causes weather changes, is puny compared to the multiple gigatonnes of carbon that get pumped out by humans every year.
-
Those are even puny. Humans may be injecting more carbon yearly over the last 50 or so years, but again, tiny, tiny timescales. Volcanoes are all about blowing their loads spectacularly and causing cataclysmic events every few million or few hundred million years.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528142827.htm
Also, nearly a billion years ago, a cascade volcanic eruption turned the Earth into a giant snowball, as in completely glaciated, for a couple hundred million years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-idea-on-how-earth-became-a-giant-snowball/
Even the current minimal volcanic we're experiencing (pretty much everything since humans have been around is minimal, volcano-wise) is being upped quite a bit as we learn all the ways that volcanoes offgas.
https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
From your last link, the mighty volcano puts out:
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons.
Meanwhile those puny humans put out:
LONDON (Reuters) - Global energy-related carbon emissions rose to a historic high of 32.5 gigatons last year, after three years of being flat, due to higher energy demand and the slowing of energy efficiency improvements, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-carbon-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2017-idUSKBN1GY0RB (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-carbon-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2017-idUSKBN1GY0RB)
Human impact on the planet is demonstrably not minuscule, whether you believe the scientists who work on climate or not.
-
Assuming that the IEA isn't part of the Chicken Little global warming religion and hasn't altered the data, why haven't these massive amounts of emissions caused immediate catastrophic changes, dwarfing the earlier volcanic events? Climate alarmists have been making gloom and doom predictions for decades, but they never seem to pan out.
-
Back to the caves all us upper paleolithic hunter-gatherers! Save the planet! [tinfoil] [popcorn]
:facepalm:
(Geeeesh. Deselby even ruins perfectly good volcanic eruptions! :laugh: )
-
On the plus side of Pele reminding Hawaiians who's in charge, we were planning on eloping to Maui in September. Hopefully this'll drive down prices of flights and the hotel.
Isn't planning to elope an oxymoron?
-
Isn't planning to elope an oxymoron?
Lol, not if you don't tell anyone who was expecting an invite to a wedding until you get back... ;)
-
Lol, not if you don't tell anyone who was expecting an invite to a wedding until you get back... ;)
Thankfully we will all be there.
-
Thankfully we will all be there.
:laugh: As someone born and raised in NJ, my fiancee was already surprised enough when I told her that Jocasse was likely carrying each time we've had dinner with him. I don't know how she'd react to being surrounded by this bunch of yahoos.. let alone on our honeymoon. :lol:
-
:laugh: As someone born and raised in NJ, my fiancee was already surprised enough when I told her that Jocasse was likely carrying each time we've had dinner with him. I don't know how she'd react to being surrounded by this bunch of yahoos.. let alone on our honeymoon. :lol:
Yeah, it probably won't start things off on the right foot.
Especially when she learns we are expecting you to put us up in your hotel room.
-
:laugh: As someone born and raised in NJ, my fiancee was already surprised enough when I told her that Jocasse was likely carrying each time we've had dinner with him. I don't know how she'd react to being surrounded by this bunch of yahoos.. let alone on our honeymoon. :lol:
Shivaree?
-
Assuming that the IEA isn't part of the Chicken Little global warming religion and hasn't altered the data, why haven't these massive amounts of emissions caused immediate catastrophic changes, dwarfing the earlier volcanic events? Climate alarmists have been making gloom and doom predictions for decades, but they never seem to pan out.
Maybe it is because carbon is not the driver for the effects that have been seen from large volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes put all sorts of stuff into the atmosphere.
-
Assuming that the IEA isn't part of the Chicken Little global warming religion and hasn't altered the data, why haven't these massive amounts of emissions caused immediate catastrophic changes, dwarfing the earlier volcanic events? Climate alarmists have been making gloom and doom predictions for decades, but they never seem to pan out.
Because the “immediate” effects of volcanic activity you’re talking about weren’t over night either. It’s not surprising that we don’t have “the day after tomorrow” in real life.
There’s barely a hundred years of this much carbon in the air. The incremental effects like sea level rise and melting ice seem significant when compared against changes that took millennia.
My point is that if you believe in the night power of volcanoes to change weather, it stands to reason that pumping several gigatonnes more crap into the air than all the volcanoes on earth could have an effect. T
The scale of carbon pumped into the atmosphere is not minuscule, not even compared to the most powerful forces in nature. Yet you’re writing off the scientists who study its effects as quacks because “the earth is huge”.
-
Maybe it is because carbon is not the driver for the effects that have been seen from large volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes put all sorts of stuff into the atmosphere.
What effect do you think all that human produced carbon has? If none...what about the earth negates the experimentally proven greenhouse effects of the gas?
-
What effect do you think all that human produced carbon has? If none...what about the earth negates the experimentally proven greenhouse effects of the gas?
Trees. They breathe CO2.
Aside from that, there is scientific dispute as to just how "proven" the alleged effects of so-called "greenhouse gases" are.
-
Trees. They breathe CO2.
Aside from that, there is scientific dispute as to just how "proven" the alleged effects of so-called "greenhouse gases" are.
CO2 absorbs light and emits heat. That’s certainly not in dispute and can be measured in a lab. I’d be interested to hear any theories about why CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn’t do that or why it’d make no difference.
You’d think if trees were soaking up all that human made co2, it wouldn’t have shot up 40 percent as a component of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
-
Shivaree?
Lol, now that's an unpleasant sounding tradition I'd never heard of before. Though, I suppose that how much fun it is depends on which end of the shivaree you're on.
-
CO2 absorbs light and emits heat. That’s certainly not in dispute and can be measured in a lab. I’d be interested to hear any theories about why CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn’t do that or why it’d make no difference.
You’d think if trees were soaking up all that human made co2, it wouldn’t have shot up 40 percent as a component of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
HOLY CRAP! it shot up 40%!?!?!? WOW! With it that high, how are we getting enough oxygen to breathe?
After all, what percent of the atmosphere is CO2 now?
-
It's not "the Earth is huge". Time is "huge". We're in an essentially dormant era of volcanic activity. All the volcanic activity since humans have been around is the butterfly flapping its wings. Real volcanic activity is the examples in my first two links, which are the hurricane.
Over the last half century, humans input more carbon than volcanic activity (not counting other volcanic outputs). At least that we know of. As my third link indicated, we may only be discovering the tip of the iceberg of current volcanic output as we begin to understand it better.
In the end, it goes back to anthropogenic activity being nothing more than statistical noise over half a billion years. If you want to worry about "global warming" flooding Los Angeles, that's fine, but that's a human problem. That doesn't affect the Earth at all, only puny humans. When you consider that 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth are extinct, maybe it will help put it in perspective. Humans would need to be around for millions of years to equal catastrophic volcanic output, which happened over millions to hundreds of millions of years.
As for "climate scientists". If you're using them to prove a point, it's "some climate scientists", since other climate scientists, especially planetary climatologists and physicists, would argue a different thesis. Ref: Freeman Dyson, who knows closed systems better than anyone else on the planet.
-
HOLY CRAP! it shot up 40%!?!?!? WOW! With it that high, how are we getting enough oxygen to breathe?
After all, what percent of the atmosphere is CO2 now?
Small. But in 20 million years apparently it hasn’t been this high.
Why is it unreasonable to suppose that activities which outstrip natural forces by several orders of magnitude are causing changes to the weather? Especially when one of two greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is the thing being driven up?
CO2 absorbs light and emits heat. This is one the main reasons the earth isn’t freezing. Now there’s all of a sudden a huge increase in it compared to the past few million years and you’re claiming it’s ridiculous to make the argument that it’s causing global warming.
The amounts aren’t insignificant compared to any natural measure. The substance has a proven hearing effect. But claims that it causes more heat on earth are silly because the numbers in ppm look small.
Not sure that stands to reason man.
-
It's not "the Earth is huge". Time is "huge". We're in an essentially dormant era of volcanic activity. All the volcanic activity since humans have been around is the butterfly flapping its wings. Real volcanic activity is the examples in my first two links, which are the hurricane.
Over the last half century, humans input more carbon than volcanic activity (not counting other volcanic outputs). At least that we know of. As my third link indicated, we may only be discovering the tip of the iceberg of current volcanic output as we begin to understand it better.
In the end, it goes back to anthropogenic activity being nothing more than statistical noise over half a billion years. If you want to worry about "global warming" flooding Los Angeles, that's fine, but that's a human problem. That doesn't affect the Earth at all, only puny humans. When you consider that 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth are extinct, maybe it will help put it in perspective. Humans would need to be around for millions of years to equal catastrophic volcanic output, which happened over millions to hundreds of millions of years.
As for "climate scientists". If you're using them to prove a point, it's "some climate scientists", since other climate scientists, especially planetary climatologists and physicists, would argue a different thesis. Ref: Freeman Dyson, who knows closed systems better than anyone else on the planet.
Worrying about whether the fuels we burn today will flood Los Angeles or cause human extinction is reasonable in my eyes. The fact that both might happen anyway over the next few million years isn’t an argument for knowingly causing them.
I get where you’re coming from. Changes do happen that will make all our best efforts moot, and it looks like Freeman Dyson has (while accepting that CO2 causes warming) argues that the models climate scientists use can’t be accurate, and at the same time that global warming might be positive. Those are reasonable speculations but it’s nice to see other scientists actually running numbers.
-
Worrying about whether the fuels we burn today will flood Los Angeles or cause human extinction is reasonable in my eyes. The fact that both might happen anyway over the next few million years isn’t an argument for knowingly causing them.
Sure, it's reasonable to discuss, and I'm all for "climate planning" to the extent we look at how placing future infrastructure to account for potential future changes. We have been pretty crappy at that over the last few hundred years, again, because humans have a problem seeing past a few generations or that there was a time when humans couldn't have even breathed the Earth's atmosphere. We were crappy at it for thousands of years beforehand as well, but older infrastructure was (mostly) easier to move or rebuild. When Death Valley turned from temperate paradise to blazing desert, the native inhabitants there just packed up and moved over time. That would be a bit harder to do for NYC. And certainly I'm not in favor of tire fires as a power source. I'm all for exploring alternative energy reasonably without the ZOMG!.
I get where you’re coming from. Changes do happen that will make all our best efforts moot, and it looks like Freeman Dyson has (while accepting that CO2 causes warming) argues that the models climate scientists use can’t be accurate, and at the same time that global warming might be positive. Those are reasonable speculations but it’s nice to see other scientists actually running numbers.
Dyson's (and other scientists in the appropriate disciplines) speculations are that the models favored by one side of the argument use faulty data and need work. The creators of those models would argue that the models that refute them use faulty data. That's one of the points. People are just as sure of their models now (across the spectrum) as people were about their models in the '70s. In the end though (IMO) it's all a "human" argument versus a "planet" argument.
-
People are just as sure of their models now (across the spectrum) as people were about their models in the '70s.
Do you mean back when the problem du jour was ZOMG! forecasts of an impending ice age, rather than global warming? THOSE '70s?
-
Do you mean back when the problem du jour was ZOMG! forecasts of an impending ice age, rather than global warming? THOSE '70s?
In fairness, those models were crude compared to what we have now. These will be crude to whatever the models are in 2050. The biggest problems are attempting to integrate millions of years of data into any model when we only have under 200 years of instrument measured data. The farther back we go - tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, we introduce exponential error propagation in how those temps are estimated. It can turn 1/10th of a degree into a growing variable.
And then of course, whatever the result, you have to interpret it. That leads to things like the Freeman Dyson argument, where in the "global warming scenario", the thesis is positive impacts outweighing negative impacts.
-
CO2 absorbs light and emits heat. That’s certainly not in dispute and can be measured in a lab. I’d be interested to hear any theories about why CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn’t do that or why it’d make no difference.
You’d think if trees were soaking up all that human made co2, it wouldn’t have shot up 40 percent as a component of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Actually that CO2 "absorbs light and emits heat" has been disputed. Graphing the results of observations concerning cause-effect have shown that CO2 increases usually closely follow temperature rises.
With regards to volcanic activity and greenhouse gasses, keep in mind a good proportion of the planet's volcanoes are beneath the ocean, and their output is unknown and very likely unquantifiable.
-
On the plus side of Pele reminding Hawaiians who's in charge, we were planning on eloping to Maui in September. Hopefully this'll drive down prices of flights and the hotel.
Perhaps Pele is sending you a message ??
-
Actually that CO2 "absorbs light and emits heat" has been disputed. Graphing the results of observations concerning cause-effect have shown that CO2 increases usually closely follow temperature rises.
With regards to volcanic activity and greenhouse gasses, keep in mind a good proportion of the planet's volcanoes are beneath the ocean, and their output is unknown and very likely unquantifiable.
Also, I recall it being mentioned here some years back that CO2 only actually absorbs light across a limited wavelength and that the total effects of CO2 hit a maximum at a concentration a little higher than we are now. The "end of the world as we know it" predictions assume other factors will kick in to continue temperature increases.
Also, I think I saw that CO2 has been higher than it is now (not sure when). We were actually approaching a record low of atmospheric CO2 before the industrial age, (low enough that plant growth could be affected).
-
Sure, it's reasonable to discuss, and I'm all for "climate planning" to the extent we look at how placing future infrastructure to account for potential future changes. We have been pretty crappy at that over the last few hundred years, again, because humans have a problem seeing past a few generations or that there was a time when humans couldn't have even breathed the Earth's atmosphere. We were crappy at it for thousands of years beforehand as well, but older infrastructure was (mostly) easier to move or rebuild. When Death Valley turned from temperate paradise to blazing desert, the native inhabitants there just packed up and moved over time. That would be a bit harder to do for NYC. And certainly I'm not in favor of tire fires as a power source. I'm all for exploring alternative energy reasonably without the ZOMG!.
Dyson's (and other scientists in the appropriate disciplines) speculations are that the models favored by one side of the argument use faulty data and need work. The creators of those models would argue that the models that refute them use faulty data. That's one of the points. People are just as sure of their models now (across the spectrum) as people were about their models in the '70s. In the end though (IMO) it's all a "human" argument versus a "planet" argument.
Very little that we build today is meant to last more than 100 or 200 years (or less). Much of it could be maintained to last longer, but too many factors we can't predict or don't know prevent building to last longer plus cost is always a factor. We all can't build our houses out of stone blocks nor can we all own land that is stable enough.
If the oceans were to rise a few feet, we would just rebuild further inland. The change would be likely be gradual and most infrastructure would be rebuilt in that time anyway. The economic incentive to maintain industry and ports on the coast would mean those things would be rebuilt. Likely new areas would become that best shipping ports and old port areas would be abandoned to become good fishing areas. Honestly, it would all probably be rebuilt piecemeal as things are affected by hurricanes and other storms that already happen. Flooded cities would rust away within decades and people would move as industry moved.
The biggest issue I have with the predictions is the more ambitious predicted major changes in 10 or 20 years when there was no real evidence for that. If this is going to happen, it will happen on many decades to hundreds of years. We have time. Which means 1) we have no idea if our industry in 100 years will look anything like it does now, and 2) we may not be able to differentiate change due to global warming from natural changes that would have happened anyway.