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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some people are not going to realize what's happening until it's in THEIR front yard, and even then, they will put on their scientist hat (as they do here) and their political blinders, and claim it's natural and not caused by anything humans do.

They don't know how bad it's going to get FOR THEM.

They think they know better than the vast majority of scientists who have been warning us for years. They'll move to higher ground and blame someone else. They'll move to a cooler climate and blame someone else. They'll adapt the best they can to the drought, water quality, agricultural practices, grocery prices, floods, energy demands, shorter winters, ecosystem chaos... and they'll blame someone else.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

That only holds true if the correlation between carbon increase and melting of the ice sheets is a linear correlation.

isn't that what the models say though? How else would you be able to calculate the 75% you mentioned?
remember, you can't have it both ways.

I didn't calculate it. Remember, I didn't know what the number was originally. I just provided a source from what was said. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into detail about how that number was arrived at either.

For the record, I don't doubt warming at all. I do doubt how much affect we have over the enormity of Nature. I feel certain we can screw up things on a local scale within minutes, but to screw up the planet, takes a lot more effort than we seem to have. But I could be wrong. Time will tell, and sensationalizing possibilities is something we like to call Hyperbole.

Like I said earlier in the thread, if reforestation of trees in the Americas can cause an ice age in Europe, humans should be able to affect the climate to a considerable degree too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I must have missed something. I do acknowledge that the seas have risen and will continue to rise. UNLESS, we have a drastic change in climate. I honestly have no idea what the future holds, and my point is, neither do 97% of scientists. they have theories and ideas.

And building on a sea shore that has historically risen for the last 20 thousand years, thinking that it won't affect you is a bit daft. (and all that has happened without a single cow fart)

reading the comments from die hard climate change proponents, there is no ambiguity or possibility of begin incorrect. Go look at all the comments. You see one prevailing theme, certainty.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Why does anyone need a consensus on man made climate change? If it's terrible, then fix it.

Unless people are going to have to suffer with the solutions. Then you'd want people to believe.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I think every citizen needs to sign a contract saying whether they do or do not believe that climate change is an issue that the human population and their governments need to address and spend tax money or surcharges on.

Then, when their home or city is wiped out and they come whining for help, those who checked the Do Not Believe and Do Not Use My Money box get no assistance.

How's that?

Probably good as long as no money is taken from those people at all. Not one penny in additional costs for it. They can up and expand home owners insurance or let that money collect some interest and then be prepped to go at it alone. None of the we will take your money but you can choose not to take help.

Lets not get into that stupid "my tax money" BS argument. Pretend yours goes to war and I'll pretend mine goes to climate change, k?

And as for insurance? What do you mean? "They can up..." Who is "they?" And whose insurance is going to cover climate change? It already doesn't cover floods and other acts unless you have riders you pay up the nose for. Or you have government supplemented insurance if you're in a high-risk zone. Not sure what you're getting at here. You're either insured or your not. It's not an expandable thing.

You started it. I responded. That's fine, don't believe, don't want help, then don't pay tax increases for it. they can expand or increase home owners insurance...pretty self explanatory. Not hard to follow. You can always buy additional coverage for things like flood, etc.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

I won't be convinced of man made climate change until I see the solutions proposed. You can't sell me on a problem and not a solution.

Why not? So the evidence isn't real that a problem exists until a solution to it can be brainstormed? So by your reasoning if tomorrow NASA discovered a near-Earth asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth, that wouldn't be true until we can figure out how to stop it from hitting the Earth.

This is why I doubt man made climate change. The government and every follower of it wants everyone convinced, so when they DO offer a solution (probably having to do with global government, or taxes and loss of freedoms) then they'll have everyone on board with it. And it'll be a fait accompli.

The government is already proposing solutions... Conservatives such as yourself like to rail on and on about politicians such as Al Gore and things like carbon credits. You are painting a double narrative. You are complaining that the government is trying to get 100% acceptance of the theory to pitch its solution, but at the same time you likely also complain about carbon credit programs as well.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I read all that. That wasn't the point of why I linked the article though. I only linked that article to show that he has changed his opinion on climate change. Obviously he still disagrees with federal influence over climate change, he's a Conservative. I thought that should go without saying. Thanks for the red herring though.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Unfortunately that would be an unenforceable / void contract, due to lack of consideration among a myriad other reasons.

What happens to the people who would check the box that they DO believe in "climate change", then the Government taxes the hell out of all the citizens to address this "climate change" - and the cities don't fall into the ocean in their lifetimes / for the next century? How about the folks that check the don't believe box take over all assets of the believers and the believers work in nuclear power plants / coal factories / mines, to pay back the public debt that has been accrued to fund global warming scientists and subsidize alternative energy companies to keep them afloat?

a reply to: network dude

Actually in my opinion the man role in clima change is the inconvenience that it will cause when mass areas of populations had to be moved from their nice expensive beach front to inland

The real state business worked itself in a multibillion empire that their sole purpose is to create areas of livable space in order to make profits.

When water starts to claim all that real state is not going to be a problem for earth, but for the human populations in the area, that is why we the people have to pay for it, all of us, that is how the government wants to take the approach.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some people are not going to realize what's happening until it's in THEIR front yard, and even then, they will put on their scientist hat (as they do here) and their political blinders, and claim it's natural and not caused by anything humans do.

This. We can measure the effects of man made climate change in real time (the fact that each subsequent year is a record heat year is a testament to this). Climate change IS effecting people in the States, and those very same people are STILL denying that it is happening.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you DO think that taxes are part of the solution. Then yes, I'm not for your solution.

I don't get into the climate change topic to much. I agree we need to really strive to stop polluting our planet. One thing I immediately thought of was all the ancient underwater cities that already exist. So I tend to think a good portion of the rising sea level is just natural.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Clima change is affecting humanity, no the earth, the earth will do what it has done for millennia, but now the complain is about how its affecting people, no the other way around.

Floods do not affect earth, it affects humans, Krazysh0ts, if affects the economy, it affects the living environment, all that is man made, that is why we are so much of a problem, because humans wants their way of life, their comforts and convenience, when that is changed people doesn't want to deal with.

Now the solutions given are nothing but that solutions with not way to implement them because one side wants to keep their profiteering ring while another side wants to start a new one.

At the end, is going to be us, yes us individuals to deal with earth cycles and move on.

Humans are not an inconvenience to earth, earth clima is what has become and inconvenience to humans.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: network dude

Actually in my opinion the man role in clima change is the inconvenience that it will cause when mass areas of populations had to be moved from their nice expensive beach front to inland

The real state business worked itself in a multibillion empire that their sole purpose is to create areas of livable space in order to make profits.

When water starts to claim all that real state is not going to be a problem for earth, but for the human populations in the area, that is why we the people have to pay for it, all of us, that is how the government wants to take the approach.

Agreed.

www.carolinacoastonline.com...

this article mentions the houses that were condemned at a coastal area near me. they built on a point of a sand bar. Absolutely BEAUTIFUL views, but when you can fish from your bathroom, you may not be happy with your choice of building lots.

This is the kind of thing that you have to look at with a "what kind of long term thinking went into this?" mindset.

And again, seas have been rising for long before we started the first motor.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do wonder how many of those cities were below sea level regardless. They point new Orleans out as a big one. I'm curious how many cities on that list were because of our own doing before the global warming fad hit.

New Orleans

In the first half of the twentieth century, mechanical pumping technology enabled the draining and subdivision of the city’s back-of-town swamps. The reclamation of these soggy areas had an unexpected consequence: it made ground levels fall.

This process, called subsidence, occurred through different mechanisms. Organic matter in the soil oxidized, so soil volume was reduced. As pumping extracted water from the ground, soil particles collapsed onto each other. The removal of the cypress swamps brought an end to soil creation through organic decomposition. Finally, the levees that had been constructed along the length of the Mississippi to stop flooding prevented the replenishment of soil by alluvial material.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, the city had become a giant sink. Ground levels had fallen to as low as twelve feet below sea level; the city was completely surrounded by levees; and the only way to remove water from drains and sewers was by pumping it over the levee to Lake Pontchartrain.

Right, enough is enough.Abolish that damned sun.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you DO think that taxes are part of the solution. Then yes, I'm not for your solution.

What? Don't put words in my mouth. I said that solutions exist. Just because they are unfavorable to you doesn't mean they don't exist and I have at no point during this thread put my support behind ANY solution for climate change.

a reply to: network dude

Is very interesting, because I grew up in an Island, when we have hurricanes we don't lose our beaches like it happens here in the coastal areas of the US, the topography is different, here in the US specially the gulf and east coast is mostly man made or let say man enhanced with billions of dollars in restorations to keep the pristine touristic sandy beaches looking good for the summer seasons money making, but when a hurricane decides to visit those areas it takes no time for the sea to take back for a while what used to be part of the sea to begin with.

People only feels the force of the sea claiming the land during natural disasters, meanwhile they live in a man made paradise with beautiful man made beach fronts and expensive property.

All that as long as is tax payers paying for the millions of dollars of restoration.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

The history of New Orleans and how it seats in the Mississippi delta will tell you why when a hurricane hits them they get flooded, man arrogance on how to control nature and natural areas in this earth is an inconvenience to nature.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I'm not saying that the building of New Orleans was all that good of an idea, but it's already been built. Plus it's only one city out of the 414 that it says are doomed. The article also specifically mentions Miami, who's problem comes from the fact that the ground underneath the city is too porous.