Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Climate Refugees Pt. 2

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Wed 04 May 2016, 16:06:24

AgentR11 wrote:Yeah, you don't need to go all that far up the Hudson to get well clear of SLR of any scale; but it must be gradual or the traffic pattern will be a disaster as it shifts.. 30mi N there's plenty of workable space at 400+ft above MSL.

Environmentalists won't like slicing the tops off of some of those hills, but ....


It's a matter of infrastructure. Why rebuild, especially when there won't be any money to do so when you can pickup and plunk down in a place with the necessary resources. Even though they'll be stressed with the additional burden.

Most key corporations already have major offices in some of the larger inland cities. It's just a matter of upper management letting everyone go and having the last janitor left lock the door and swim out.
Last edited by Lore on Wed 04 May 2016, 16:12:31, edited 1 time in total.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 04 May 2016, 16:08:32

And then there is this...take the money and run
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... state-boom

How Climate Change Is Fueling the Miami Real Estate Boom - Bloomberg

As a city sitting virtually at sea level, Miami has been called ground zero for the problems posed by climate change, a place where rising sea levels threaten its future existence. The latest forecast of sea level rise from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for example, predicts that by later this century, global sea levels will be two feet higher than they are today, quite possibly higher. Under that scenario, the nuisance flooding in Miami that periodically comes with high tides will be a daily affair, the storm surge impact of hurricanes will be amplified, and lower-lying areas of the city will be uninhabitable. That’s actually not the worst of it: Under higher sea levels, the Biscayne Aquifer—where southeast Florida draws its drinking water—will increasingly suffer from saltwater intrusion, a problem for which there is no foreseen solution other than the investment of billions of dollars in water treatment facilities.

As bleak as this future would seem to be, few with real skin in the game in Miami—residents, real estate investors, and companies—are backing away from long-term investment. Exhibit A: Miami has been undergoing a nearly unprecedented surge in real estate construction, with planning discussions centering less on who will leave first and more on how high new projects can be built. Among the projects under way, for example, is an 80-plus-story behemoth in Brickell Center, the city’s urban core. If Miami is on the verge of being a modern-day Atlantis, those who would have the most to lose are apparently not buying it.

Why this apparent deafness to the dire warnings? Well, here’s a paradox. If one talks to developers and city commissioners in the area, it’s hard to find evidence of overt denial of current and future risk; Miami was a city, after all, almost completely destroyed by a hurricane in 1926, and most concede that a recurrence is a matter of when, not whether. Likewise, few deny that the city’s unique geography makes it vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels. It’s a long-term problem that the planning commissions of Miami and Miami Beach acknowledge exists and threatens to get worse.

Where locals disagree with outsiders, however, is about how best to deal with the problem. Rather than sounding alarms and cutting back on development, there’s an implicit sense that the best approach may be, ironically, to do the opposite. And while a strong case can be made that this behavior has no rational basis, it may represent Miami’s best long-term hope for dealing with the threats posed by climate change, one that other cities might be advised to mimic: The best strategy, in fact, may be to foster a collective belief that there’s no threat—or at least not one serious enough to lose sleep over.

Before I explain why, let me first address the two standard explanations for the building boom, explanations that are indeed part of the puzzle. The first is that real estate developers, by their nature, are gamblers with short planning horizons. In the late 2000s, the real estate and equities crash quickly wiped out many builders. One might assume that would have made them skittish. To the contrary, the quick recovery that followed taught most that big risks are worth taking, and are survivable. While developers today may concede that sea levels are rising, it’s a risk that lies well beyond their investment horizons, and in any case is dwarfed by the more immediate risk of a returning recession.

The second explanation is that many of the buyers for all the new condo units are cash investors from Latin America, and the risks of Miami real estate—overdevelopment, speculation, environmental unsustainability—remain small relative to similar investments back home. No one is saying that real estate isn’t risky in Miami, or that sea level rise is fiction. What they are saying is that all investment carries risk, and development there is a bet they’re prepared to take.

But there’s another rational reason why even risk-averse residents in South Florida might, paradoxically, hope that buyers and sellers remain collectively naïve, or at least act as if they are, about the risks of sea level rise. South Florida relies almost exclusively on real estate taxes to fund public infrastructure. If the threat (or reality) of sea level rise suppresses property valuations, there will be less public money to address the risk. As an illustration, the head of public works for Miami Beach recently argued that the city would be wise to accelerate its investments in storm water drainage improvements ($100 million now and $400 million planned) simply because the city has the tax base to afford it—something it could not necessarily count on in the future.

Because buyers and sellers in Miami Beach have yet to connect the dots between nuisance flood events and the future consequences of sea level rise, property buyers continue to be drawn to the area, and development projects continue unabated—both of which are essential for a continued healthy tax base. If and when buyers and sellers do connect the dots, everything changes: Doing so could spark a rapid downward wealth spiral that, once initiated, would be difficult to reverse. Lowering property valuations would reduce the city’s tax revenue which, in turn, would leave it with less money to shore up the city against sea level rise. The city would then be forced to choose between two losing remedies: increase taxes on those who choose to stay, or decline to make the needed improvements. Both, of course, would only exacerbate the problem. Miami’s best move at that point would be to go hat in hand to the state and federal government for a bailout, but that seems unlikely. Quite aside from the “I-told-you-so” reactions that such pleas might evoke, almost all coastal communities would be facing similar problems and asking for commensurate help. Miami Beach as we know it now could cease to exist long before the Atlantic reclaims Collins Avenue.

Given this, South Florida’s best shot at coping with the long-term environmental threat may be a strategy that no doubt seems perverse to environmentalists: aggressively foster a collective belief that sea level rise is not something we urgently need to worry about. South Florida is potentially facing a huge adaptation bill down the road, and paying for it will require a healthy tax base. Keeping that tax base flush depends on a cooperative equilibrium where buyers and sellers maintain an optimistic view that it’s tomorrow’s problem, one that will be easily tackled when the time comes. This keeps the coffers filled and provides the resources needed to pay for the engineering adaptations required to keep the game going.

In this light, Miami’s construction cranes aren’t monuments to climate change denial. Quite to the contrary—they’re the instruments that may, indirectly, allow the city to survive global warming. Controlled ignorance, in some cases, can be a good thing.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Wed 04 May 2016, 17:07:21

Boy, if this editorial doesn't sound like a plea to keep the charade up for continuing the good times rolling. Yes Miami, go ahead and throw the good money you have left after the bad.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Wed 04 May 2016, 18:57:54

pstarr wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:
dohboi wrote:-snip-
Either supply peer-reviewed research that proves the contrary, or stfu.


Sorry, but that is NOT how science works. It is a natural phenomenon until you provide proof that it is not. I provided evidence that land lost to ocean rise has a long and well-recorded history. Can you prove that what is happening now is the result of AGW? (Recall that evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW. The globe has been warming on schedule since the last Ice Age ended at the end of the Pleistocene.)
It's not even normal ocean rise. Subduction of the community is a consequence of normal sediment compaction. Totally ignored by the frantic-warming crowd.


Like scientists don't take such minor considerations into account? :roll:
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 04 May 2016, 19:03:04

KaiserJeep wrote:.... evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW.


Actually, it is.

The anthropogenic global warming theory predicts that as humans burn fossil fuels and release CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will warm.

And indeed the planet is warming, just as the AGW theory predicts.

KaiserJeep wrote:The globe has been warming on schedule since the last Ice Age ended at the end of the Pleistocene.)


Thats actually not true.

There have been a number of warm and cold intervals since the end of the last ice age. For instance beginning about the year 1700 the world entered a "Little Ice Age". The little ice age ended about 1850-1900, probably because AGW was beginning as massive amount of coal were burned in England and then in other countries as the industrial revolution really got rolling.

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22790
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 04 May 2016, 19:40:38

Actually, it is.

The anthropogenic global warming theory predicts that as humans burn fossil fuels and release CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will warm.

And indeed the planet is warming, just as the AGW theory predicts.


Actually it is not. In order for you to say the theory is correct you have to have eliminated all other possibilities. Given the models predict much more warming than is recognized and much of the recent literature points to a climate sensitivity (temperature response to a doubling of CO2) that is on the very low end of the assumptions in the full range of models means there is cause for questioning the theory. It may or may not be wrong but the fact it has been shown to come up short means it can't be accepted as is, at least not if you have any scientific bent.

The little ice age ended about 1850-1900, probably because AGW was beginning as massive amount of coal were burned in England and then in other countries as the industrial revolution really got rolling.


Or it might have something to do with a plethora of other variables ie. lows in solar energy input, increased volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation ....all of which have been proposed in the scientific literature and not to this point in time disproven. This is a case of multiple working hypotheses, you cannot not get rid of any of them until you have proven them false.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7229
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 04 May 2016, 19:49:54

Move 'em all to Detroit, solve two problems at once. :-D
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 04 May 2016, 19:58:07

rockdoc123 wrote: In order for you to say the theory is correct you have to have eliminated all other possibilities.


??????

Thats not how the scientific method works.

The proof of a scientific theory is that it explains the observations better then any other alternative theory.

The AGW theory predicting the earth will warm as CO2 is released into the atmosphere does an excellent job of predicting current global warming.

If you have an alternative theory that predicts current global warming better then the AGW model, then lets hear it

Cheers!

Image
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22790
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 04 May 2016, 20:13:04

Thanks, Plant.

I generally don't bother with people who are so benighted as to still (pretend to?) question science that has been confirmed by every established scientific body on the planet who has anything to say about it.

But I appreciate your efforts.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 04 May 2016, 20:47:16

Soooo, just to kinda try to be a little clear here:

Are you claiming that there is no evidence of GW?

Or are you claiming that there has been no sea level rise?

Or are you claiming that GW hasn't contributed to sea level rise?

Or are you claiming that, even though GW has lead to global sea level rise, that global sea level rise somehow has played no role in the sea covering this island?

Hard to figure out which dots you are having difficulty connecting, especially when we don't know if you can't even see any of the dots!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 May 2016, 20:55:08

Plantagenet wrote:
rockdoc123 wrote: In order for you to say the theory is correct you have to have eliminated all other possibilities.


??????

Thats not how the scientific method works.

The proof of a scientific theory is that it explains the observations better then any other alternative theory.

The AGW theory predicting the earth will warm as CO2 is released into the atmosphere does an excellent job of predicting current global warming.

If you have an alternative theory that predicts current global warming better then the AGW model, then lets hear it

Cheers!

Image



The idea that the unproven AGW theory in any way complies with the scientific method is hilarious.

Image

You are in compliance with the scientific method (note the singular "the" because there is only one method, and without variants) when you have completed all the steps, and not before.

That means that to "prove" the AGW theory (aka hypothesis) you would need to perform a planetary-scale experiment, remove all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and see if the planet cools off. Alternatively, you could find an identical control planet, except that the inhabitants have never burned fossil hydrocarbons, and compare their temperatures. Until you do so, by definition, it's just an unproven theory about climate.

I am not making this up, that is in fact the Scientific Method. If you do not complete the process, you have just a theory, there is no "proof" and no way of disproving such a theory either.

Look it up if you don't believe me.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 04 May 2016, 21:09:10

dohboi wrote:Soooo, just to kinda try to be a little clear here:

Are you claiming that there is no evidence of GW?

Or are you claiming that there has been no sea level rise?

Or are you claiming that GW hasn't contributed to sea level rise?

Or are you claiming that, even though GW has lead to global sea level rise, that global sea level rise somehow has played no role in the sea covering this island?

Hard to figure out which dots you are having difficulty connecting, especially when we don't know if you can't even see any of the dots!

You're not paying attention to what he says.

He acknowledges the fact that there is warming.

He's saying there isn't absolute proof there is AGW.

He's saying evidence of GW doesn't PROVE that it is AGW.

...

As far as the absolutes, this is correct. (I believe in AGW -- I'm making a point about the disagreement, not being an AGW denier).

Now, I disagree with him on the science discussion. Like Plant said, until there is a peer reviewed theory that explains the warming we're experiencing BETTER than the (well documented) AGW theory, that according to the scientific method, the AGW theory is the best one we have (i.e. is deemed "correct" by the scientific community UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE).

KJ incorrectly argues that any theory is invalid until it is proven conclusively. This isn't how science works. (NO theory is ever proven beyond any doubt. It is ALWAYS open to investigation. This is a major thing that differentiates the scientific method from religion). No credible scientist is saying AGW is an absolute truth. They're saying the preponderance of the evidence (strongly) points to AGW currently.

ANY theory can be proven wrong at ANY time by a better, peer reviewed, theory. However, saying that, for example, "gravity is wrong because (until recently) no graviton was detected" is nonsense. Gravity is still the best theory for the way matter attracts other matter on a macro scale, even if we're hazy about the exact nature of gravitons, until a better peer reviewed theory comes along.

Note that a group of scientifically illiterate blog sites spouting intuition, paranoia, etc. doesn't constitute a valid peer reviewed theory.
Last edited by Outcast_Searcher on Wed 04 May 2016, 21:16:06, edited 1 time in total.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7251
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 04 May 2016, 21:15:41

KaiserJeep wrote:....to "prove" the AGW theory (aka hypothesis) you would need to perform a planetary-scale experiment, remove all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and see if the planet cools off.


Thats already been done. Mercury has lost its atmosphere, and it is very cold on the side facing away from the sun.

And nature has performed an even better experiment for us--- Consider the planet VENUS. It has extremely high surface temperatures. Why?---Because its atmosphere is rich in CO2. This clearly demonstrates that lots of CO2 in a planetary atmosphere causes lots of warming..

The physics involved in this problem are very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CH4 is a greenhouse gas Their physical properties are well known. Add them to an atmosphere and they will absorb heat. E-Z-P-Z.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22790
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 04 May 2016, 21:29:57

Now, I disagree with him on the science discussion. Like Plant said, until there is a peer reviewed theory that explains the warming we're experiencing BETTER than the (well documented) AGW theory, that according to the scientific method, the AGW theory is the best one we have (i.e. is deemed "correct" by the scientific community UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE).


this is completely wrong. Any theory once it has had any doubt shed on it needs to be rejected and reworked. That is the basic tenant of scientific endeavours. You are completely wrong on this. I'm a scientist, something I know a bit about.

KJ incorrectly argues that any theory is invalid until it is proven conclusively. This isn't how science works. (NO theory is ever proven beyond any doubt. It is ALWAYS open to investigation. This is a major thing that differentiates the scientific method from religion). No credible scientist is saying AGW is an absolute truth. They're saying the preponderance of the evidence (strongly) points to AGW currently.


which actually does not matter. The preponderance of theory pointed to the sun revolving around the earth, that there was no such thing as plate tectonics and on and on. The point about scientific discovery is that theories are presented and tested, if there is any evidence whatsoever that the theory comes into question it has to be rejected.

ANY theory can be proven wrong at ANY time by a better, peer reviewed, theory. However, saying that, for example, "gravity is wrong because (until recently) no graviton was detected" is nonsense. Gravity is still the best theory for the way matter attracts other matter on a macro scale, even if we're hazy about the exact nature of gravitons, until a better peer reviewed theory comes along.


regardless of your analogy the idea that a theory must be correct because there is no other better competing theory is complete nonsense. As pointed out if a theory does not hold up to all tests or any holes can be found in it then it must be rejected and reworked. This is extremely basic. The idea that scientists who point out failings in the current models/theories are not to be listened to unless they can come up with alternate theories is ridiculous. That is not how science works. If you don't believe me then educate yourself by reading various journals that have papers and discussion on those papers. It is exactly enough to show there is a key failing in a particular theory based on observational evidence to disprove it. You do not need an alternative theory.

Note that a group of scientifically illiterate blog sites spouting intuition, paranoia, etc. doesn't constitute a valid peer reviewed theory.


how about literally hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers that point to inadequacies in the "conscensus", how about the IPCC AR5 which also points to the uncertainties?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7229
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 04 May 2016, 21:59:35

"Any theory once it has had any doubt shed on it needs to be rejected and reworked"

Absolute and utter BS.

But then, what else would one expect from such a source.

This is the guy that didn't think warm water could possibly exist below colder water layers in polar regions.

Totally not worth even interacting with such belligerent cluelessness.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 04 May 2016, 22:01:37

Plantagenet wrote:-snip-
And nature has performed an even better experiment for us--- Consider the planet VENUS. It has extremely high surface temperatures. Why?---Because its atmosphere is rich in CO2. This clearly demonstrates that lots of CO2 in a planetary atmosphere causes lots of warming..

The physics involved in this problem are very simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CH4 is a greenhouse gas Their physical properties are well known. Add them to an atmosphere and they will absorb heat. E-Z-P-Z.

Cheers!

Nope, try again. Mercury never had any atmosphere to speak of. Venus is uninhabited, no fossil fuel burning. Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune - and several of their moons - have detectable, in some cases large amounts - of both carbon dioxide and methane in their atmospheres. You cannot point to any of the other planets and claim that confirms AGW because they are all different from Earth. You need an identical control planet without FF burning.

I understand the greenhouse effect, even remember quite well the two bell jars in 7th grade, one filled with carbon dioxide and one with nitrogen, which we used in an actual scientific experiment to confirm that the Greenhouse Effect happened when we shown a 500w infrared lamp on them. But the fact that the Greenhouse effect is real, and working on at least six planets and moons, one of which is the Earth, does not prove AGW.

The idea that the effects of carbon dioxide on climate have been modelled "quite well" is also ludicrous, because none of the climate models work very well most don't even agree with global temperature changes within an order of magnitude, and have no significant digits, except for one created by created by a scientist we discussed in an earlier thread - it works well, and predicts global cooling in our near future.

Carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures both stimulate plant growth in the Temperate Zones where most humans live. For now, I'm calling any (perfectly natural) warming in an El Niño year a good thing. When the perfectly normal La Niña follows and cools beyond average, we'll probably lose the gains we made during El Niño.

Forget any arguments based upon prevailing scientific opinions, either. I have pointed out many times that one single scientist was correct in the past and all others were wrong. Their names were Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Maxwell, among others.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Wed 04 May 2016, 22:24:15

Same ole argument. Uncertainty has nothing to do with what we do know and since there are no real absolutes in the physical sciences it comes down to the measure of certainty.

As in my old analogy on aerodynamics, we don't have to know everything about the science of flying to feel confident about boarding a plane.

If we relied on the Judith Curry definition of science certantity we'd still be pounding rocks today.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Sixstrings » Wed 04 May 2016, 22:31:14

KaiserJeep wrote:What I find interesting is the phrase "The resettling begins". It is not as if these events have not happened throughout recorded history, or are associated with AGW.

I observed land lost to sea level rise in the barrier islands of Alaska in the 1970's: https://seagrant.uaf.edu/map/climate/docs/sea-level.php

I observed the king tides washing over the Marshall Islands in the 1960s when my father was stationed there: http://www.wsj.com/articles/pacific-islands-take-steps-to-counter-rising-sea-levels-1448934453#:Rz4MOUrfJ1QbsA

I saw shacks sinking into the Louisiana swamps in the 1950s: http://grist.org/climate-energy/lost-louisiana-the-race-to-reclaim-vanished-land-back-from-the-sea/

The Atlantic barrier islands from Florida to New England are regularly submerged by storm surge: https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/stories/atlantic-epa

In fact History is replete with well-documented lands lost to rising waters: http://listverse.com/2015/02/28/10-forgotten-lands-submerged-by-the-ocean/

Yet all anyone has to do is suggest that this is a new and alarming development associated with AGW, and you all start bleating like the sheep you are. Ever heard of a place called the Netherlands, reclaimed from the ocean in the Middle Ages with pumping windmills, that grows tulips?


Well said, sir. Logic, reason, and truth are beautiful things. Even if they are "inconvenient" truths.

Did you catch what I did, in the article at the start of this thread? If one actually reads that article, it says right in the article that the erosion was caused by oil and logging companies cutting channels. And then, hurricanes.

Hurricanes are normal and not climate change.

Something that is caused by loggers cutting channels -- is not "climate change."

But HUD can just give a resettlement grant, and call it "climate change" -- yet it does not address what actually caused the erosion.

Housing and Urban Development gave a "climate change" grant -- the fact a grant was awarded, does not in and of itself, prove effects from climate change.

It's like -- the way to get something funded, is to just put a popular name on it. Want to get Republicans to pass a bill? Call it "The Biggest Patriot in the World Freedom Act."

Want Democrats to pass a bill? Call it "Climate Change Resettlement Act."

Is the former really related to freedom? Is the latter really related to climate change? Not necessarily.

P.S. I do agree with climate change though, it's just that I don't think it should be used to pass a whole bunch of other things that's got nothing to do with AGW. It's just people putting "climate change" label on stuff, to get funding.

Personally I'm not a AGW denier -- but I'm not going to drink the entire climate change group koolaid about it, either. I think it may actually all work out -- I saw an article recently that said there's been a global boom in plant growth in the last fifteen years. Isn't that a good thing? Weren't we all worried about the rain forests and deforestation, in the 80s?

Well, thank goodness for the climate change, it's helping the rain forests. And Florida doesn't even have any hurricanes anymore, which is weird, but nice.

I dunno, maybe this stuff works out.

Look at this thread -- people are so off the rails about "climate change," that they think it's odd there's condos on Miami Beach. There's been condos on Miami beach for the last fifty years. And the beach is still there.

If a person ran around all the coastlines of florida, yelling about "the water's coming, it's gonna swamp your condos" -- it would take a lifetime. Because that's how much coastline florida has, and how many condos it has.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests