More Than 400 U.S. Cities May Be 'Past The Point Of No Return' With Sea Level Threats

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What are the solutions? Everyone talks about it like it is "settled science". What are the solutions?

(yes, I read your other thread)

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Did you not read the final half of the OP? It clearly says that while those cities are effectively doomed, we CAN act to stop more cities from being doomed.

So global warming and rising sea levels are a global issue. But dealing with it locally can not only prevent a global problem from getting worse but prevent future issues? That's more that a little crazy and senseless but hey, whatever helps people push their beliefs.

Who said anything about dealing with it locally? Doing something means that things need to be done globally.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Well I wonder what happen to that proposition to start taxing farmers for cow farts.

Cows in Montgomery, Ala. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a plan to charge a fee for air-polluting cows and hogs. The proposal was one of several drafted after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling found that greenhouse gases the animals emit through flatulence or belching amounts to air pollution. It would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog

I tell you what, Make clima change a national security like the politicraps profiteers wants and that is exactly what is going to happen and by law you will go to jail for even hinting that global warming is a scam

www.cbsnews.com...

DOesn't say when its going to happen? Guessing you dont think too much huh? I could they accurately access that kind of information when the weather channel cant call man made weather correctly

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well then, what do you think will cost less: building adequate levees and dikes for 414 cities to maintain their populations and then even more on the subsequent cities that fall underwater as nothing is done or spending it on reducing carbon emissions so that we can save as many cities as we can?

Not sure why we don't just take a page from China and start building land. Kind of silly that we haven't started already if this is a definite outcome in the near future. I would say that equates to poor planning by our government and it would seem they either don't believe their own CC agendas or they just don't care and believe other communities are going to be willing to just take everyone in.

We saw how well this worked out after Katrina....add 413 more cities in and if there is no plan....oh well.

nvm my bad

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Did you not read the final half of the OP? It clearly says that while those cities are effectively doomed, we CAN act to stop more cities from being doomed.

So global warming and rising sea levels are a global issue. But dealing with it locally can not only prevent a global problem from getting worse but prevent future issues? That's more that a little crazy and senseless but hey, whatever helps people push their beliefs.

Who said anything about dealing with it locally? Doing something means that things need to be done globally.

And not a single plan adddresses that realistically. We cannot force any other country on board, maybe a few big ones that work together but no way are emerging countries jumping on board at the moment, a lot of it has to do with money. They don't have it and we don't either. So we can preach global solution all day. But realistically it's a pipe dream. So in reality we would be working locally to address a global problem. It's beyond ridiculous but whatever helps push the views.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

So your response is that since we can't get the whole world on board, we should do nothing?

There is also the fact that this has happened before, and it wasn't during the manmade craze like now. I am wondering how they explain the other cities that are underwater and that have been underwater well before carbon emissions were speeding things up, or are those conveniently forgotten in their argument to make more money from fear?

Not saying I don't believe we don't have a hand in it, just saying I don't believe we have sped anything up as this has happened before and is a natural cycle for the Earth I believe.

That was towards another post at bottom of first page. it didn't quote for some reason

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Various factors affect the volume or mass of the ocean, leading to long-term changes in eustatic sea level. The two primary influences are temperature (because the density of water depends on temperature), and the mass of water locked up on land and sea as fresh water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, polar ice caps, and sea ice. Over much longer geological timescales, changes in the shape of oceanic basins and in land–sea distribution affect sea level. Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by more than 125 m, averaging 6 mm/yr, as a result of melting of major ice sheets.[17]

en.wikipedia.org...

I was watching a PBS show about the NC coastline and it's changes and hidden treasures and I was amazed to hear that the coast has risen more than 30 feet over the last several thousand years. So Sea level rise is inevitable, and building a city on the edge of an ocean only proves that the engineers who designed it were really, REALLY bad at research. Seas are going to rise until we enter the next ice age and more ice starts to form and everything cools down a bit. But to suggest that AGW or whatever the catch phrase is today, is solely responsible, is not at all accurate. (based on historical evidence)

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What are the solutions? Everyone talks about it like it is "settled science". What are the solutions?

(yes, I read your other thread)

... Your cheap shot notwithstanding, I don't admittedly have many solutions. I wish I did. I'm still trying to convince people that it is a real thing. Seeing how you deliberately used a term that you knew I didn't like, I see that you fall in that camp as well.

a reply to: Choppz

Ok. I'll edit my post then. Sorry about that.

Believe this is the TOOL mentioned but missing from the article ...

i like how they say New Orleans is doomed, fact is New Orleans has been fighting a losing battle ever since it was first built.
it is in a natural flood plain and is below sea level always has been. they run pumps 24 hours a day to keep it dry been doing that for a long time. shouldn't even be included in the report.

just using it to play up the global warming BS.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
There is also the fact that this has happened before, and it wasn't during the manmade craze like now. I am wondering how they explain the other cities that are underwater and that have been underwater well before carbon emissions were speeding things up, or are those conveniently forgotten in their argument to make more money from fear?

Not saying I don't believe we don't have a hand in it, just saying I don't believe we have sped anything up as this has happened before and is a natural cycle for the Earth I believe.

Well if you have processes that have done it before working to sink the land, then you add man-made ones to the process the math says that it can only speed up. That is unless you are using some fuzzy, non-euclidean math.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That is why now has become a human inconvenience, but the best way to approach the problems is on solutions, laws, bills and whatever, profit first, then fight the problems when it happens, that is the approach, make all the money you can make first worry later on the choice to use it for fixing the problems or keeping it

Meanwhile the costal areas will go underwater regardless, hell you better start thinking about what kind of flood insurance you should get if you have expensive property in the coast, after all this time is not about rebuilding because is not going to be land to do so.

Time to migrate to the mountains.

Anyway, doesn't China have lots of Ghost cities all over their land? that should be a good start, the government here should start creating cities for the future to move populations out of the coast.

a reply to: network dude

Stop confusing the narrative. Man made climate change and natural climate change work in tandem to do their destruction. Though man made climate change has effected the climate MUCH differently than the Earth's natural processes should be effecting it. Hence it is real.

Yeah right sell me a bridge.