It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

No, people migrating to areas where governments don't have to tax their citizens to oblivion to build massive walls and the like is what is needed here.

Nature changes, things move to better areas. It's how it works. Fighting nature never works out well in the long run.




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



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.


he hasn't changed anything, show me where he denied that global warming/ cliamate change even those who don't like him constantly say he was is a denier. your statement that he changed his tune and said that... well here are your words.

from your OP


Maybe that's why ole Jeb changed his tune about Climate Change. Jeb Bush Now Says Humans Contribute To Climate Change It's amazing what the impending threat of your home being underwater does to your desire to deny science all so you can see more zeros in your bank account.


he has been saying the same thing form the start, even when he was Governor of Florida. your comment makes it sound like he is 100% on board, that global warming/ climate change is man made and we need to pass laws to stop it.

here is another article right up your ally,from May of this year.



On the other hand, Jeb’s doubts about the reality of human-caused climate change seem to have grown as the science has become more and more settled — a trend that has shown itself in the majority of Congressional Republicans. And despite the Academy’s current warnings of extinctions, migration, et cetera, he recently said he does not think climate change is “the highest priority” — though he did add, “I don’t think we should ignore it, either.”
Jeb Bush And George W. Bush Have Drastically Different Views On Climate Change



your are using deceptive tactics to make it sound like he said something he didn't.
my pointing out your deceptive tactics are not a red hearing and go to the point as why should we accept anything you say on the subject.
i showed he has been consistent in what he says and has for a long time.





edit on 14-10-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: TrueBrit
Nature changes, things move to better areas. It's how it works. Fighting nature never works out well in the long run.



Nor does assisting nature in fighting us.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have the feeling that when the sea rises most of the panhandle of Florida will go under water.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We humans have been fighting nature all our lives, thinking in our human arrogance that we can beat nature, manipulate it and changed.

It's not so, nature will win at the end and in every turn.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I really don't care here. The whole Jeb Bush bit was an afterthought to the meat of my op. If that is all you are hung up on in this thread, then we have nothing to discuss here. I'm not going to defend a position that I care little about and is irrelevant to the total message of the OP. If you want to believe I was being deceptive there, I can't stop you, nor do I care to spend a bunch of time correcting you. I pointed out you were wrong, if you want to call me a liar then fine, but as long as you insist on typing giant posts about a red herring, I'm going to ignore you.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We humans have been fighting nature all our lives, thinking in our human arrogance that we can beat nature, manipulate it and changed.

It's not so, nature will win at the end and in every turn.



Man made climate change isn't fighting nature though. It's altering it so that humans can't live in certain places in the world anymore.
edit on 14-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


That's cool. I am not about to go through all cities but when you list 400 cities and the problem of being under sea level had nothing to do with global warming but try and blame it. The writer comes off as a clown. Quite honestly.
edit on 14-10-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, the article acknowledged many of those things:

"Even in a best-case carbon emissions scenario, 98 percent of populated land in New Orleans would be below the future sea level," Strauss said, because it's so flat and low-lying. "So it’s really just a question of building suitable defenses or eventually abandoning the city."

Those defenses could include higher levees around the city, but that's not an ideal solution, Strauss said.

"How deep a bowl do you want to live in?" he asked. "We already saw with [Hurricane] Katrina what can happen when a levee is breached, and the higher the water gets and the taller the levee gets, the more catastrophic a levee breach would become."

Conditions in New Orleans could be even worse than the study predicts, he noted, as it didn't take into account the fact that New Orleans is already sinking.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




but as long as you insist on typing giant posts about a red herring, I'm going to ignore you.


that's all you can do because you know you lied, it's not a red herring and you know it, your trying to deflect and it can't be a after thought because it came in the middle of your post.

so ignore away you have no other way to counter the truth.


edit on 14-10-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Yep you got me. Are we done here?



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know that your point of view on how humans are affecting nature is different from me, but I agree that humans have a big impact in earth changes, but no because we are causing natures change, but because that change will affect what humans had created in earth.

Nature have always been there, has always been changing and the only reason we are feeling this changes now is because we are in natures way.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, the article acknowledged many of those things:

"Even in a best-case carbon emissions scenario, 98 percent of populated land in New Orleans would be below the future sea level," Strauss said, because it's so flat and low-lying. "So it’s really just a question of building suitable defenses or eventually abandoning the city."

Those defenses could include higher levees around the city, but that's not an ideal solution, Strauss said.

"How deep a bowl do you want to live in?" he asked. "We already saw with [Hurricane] Katrina what can happen when a levee is breached, and the higher the water gets and the taller the levee gets, the more catastrophic a levee breach would become."

Conditions in New Orleans could be even worse than the study predicts, he noted, as it didn't take into account the fact that New Orleans is already sinking.


So we point out a city that is underwater in the top part of the article as if global warming is the culprit. Then further down acknowledge the problem really isn't global warming with one city we make a point to call out at the top of a global warming article....brilliant.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks


My solution is before implementing laws and taxes and pissing away trillions of dollars on a global scale problem that won't be won't be solved unless a workable global scale solution is agreed to by the globe then we aren't solving anything. I know that no matter what the topic is, people want to do something just so they can feel better that they did regardless of results. To me it's a waste and very foolish. Not to mention in the end the real problem with man made global warming is man and an increasing population. . And I have yet to hear anyone sack up and say how to deal with the root problem.


The solution is pretty obvious I'd think. We need to progress to new sources of energy that don't contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and those energy sources need to be cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

Carbon offset schemes are not going to cut it:

1. The programs are already being abused.
2. The efficacy of most of the current remediation projects is questionable.
3. There's nothing to stop companies from passing along the costs of penalties to customers rather than addressing their CO2 output.

We've dumped literally trillions of dollars in wars to purposefully destablize the ME and the result is lots of dead and maimed people and less security for most of the planet. We subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of billions of dollars a year. We can drop billions a year on the "War on Drugs" the results of which have been hugely detrimental. We've even managed to spend who knows how much to fund a domestic surveillance behemoth that's robbed of us our right to privacy.

Yet we seem unable to find a way to direct substantial tax dollars into funding research that could:

1. Eliminate CO2 emissions.
2. Provide cheaper, more abundant energy.
3. Spur the growth of new industries that will create jobs.
4. Reduce other types of pollution responsible for things like smog and acid rain.
5. Prevent future ecological disasters and preserve pristine wilderness.
6. Give the US a technological edge in the coming and inevitable shift away from fossil fuels.
7. Increase global security.

And lets not forget about the developing world and the billions of people out there who would love to be using as much energy as the rest of us. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Why would we even consider carbon offset schemes? Ironically for the same reason that we're stuck on stupid when it comes to alternative energy — pressure to not disrupt the massively profitable corporations whose business models are ripping up the planet to extract commodities whose prices they collude to control and which we cannot currently do without. I've seen carbon offset schemes compared to the Catholic church selling indulgences in medieval times.

Now it seems like our best hope might be in the form of a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin developing a fusion reactor (which is probably being built primarily to power laser weapons) because apparently we can't "sack up" enough to do anything else.
edit on 2015-10-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


Nature have always been there, has always been changing and the only reason we are feeling this changes now is because we are in natures way.


Just a heads up. This is a provable statement. Do you have any evidence that all these drastic changes we are seeing are SOLELY the fault of nature? Or, as I suspect, you are just letting your preconceived opinions dictate your facts without thoroughly vetting all the evidence? Because the evidence that scientists have been collecting says you are wrong. Completely wrong.
edit on 14-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
OHHH NOOO Not Chicago!!. We have a neighbor that has no idea that the water will have to rise nearly 600 feet before Chicago is doomed. She thinks water is water. I gave up trying to splain it to her.




posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, the article acknowledged many of those things:

"Even in a best-case carbon emissions scenario, 98 percent of populated land in New Orleans would be below the future sea level," Strauss said, because it's so flat and low-lying. "So it’s really just a question of building suitable defenses or eventually abandoning the city."

Those defenses could include higher levees around the city, but that's not an ideal solution, Strauss said.

"How deep a bowl do you want to live in?" he asked. "We already saw with [Hurricane] Katrina what can happen when a levee is breached, and the higher the water gets and the taller the levee gets, the more catastrophic a levee breach would become."

Conditions in New Orleans could be even worse than the study predicts, he noted, as it didn't take into account the fact that New Orleans is already sinking.


So we point out a city that is underwater in the top part of the article as if global warming is the culprit. Then further down acknowledge the problem really isn't global warming with one city we make a point to call out at the top of a global warming article....brilliant.


Erm... At no point was it pointed out in the article that ANY city is currently underwater. The article is saying that as future sea levels rise because of man made global warming, it will make the already barely tenable situation of keeping the water out of New Orleans untenable, but at no point is it said that any of this cities are currently underwater.

ETA: Plus the article SPECIFICALLY says this is all taken into account WITHOUT considering that New Orleans is sinking. So if you add that to NO's situation, things are worse.
edit on 14-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Reallyfolks


My solution is before implementing laws and taxes and pissing away trillions of dollars on a global scale problem that won't be won't be solved unless a workable global scale solution is agreed to by the globe then we aren't solving anything. I know that no matter what the topic is, people want to do something just so they can feel better that they did regardless of results. To me it's a waste and very foolish. Not to mention in the end the real problem with man made global warming is man and an increasing population. . And I have yet to hear anyone sack up and say how to deal with the root problem.


The solution is pretty obvious I'd think. We need to progress to new sources of energy that don't contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and those energy sources need to be cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.

Carbon offset schemes are not going to cut it:

1. The programs are already being abused.
2. The efficacy of most of the current remediation projects is questionable.
3. There's nothing to stop companies from passing along the costs of penalties to customers rather than addressing their CO2 output.

We've dumped literally trillions of dollars in wars to purposefully destablize the ME and the result is lots of dead and maimed people and less security for most of the planet. We subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of billions of dollars a year. We can drop billions a year on the "War on Drugs" the results of which have been hugely detrimental. We've even managed to spend who knows how much to fund a domestic surveillance behemoth that's robbed of us our right to privacy.

Yet we seem unable to find a way to direct substantial tax dollars into funding research that could:

1. Eliminate CO2 emissions.
2. Provide cheaper, more abundant energy.
3. Spur the growth of new industries that will create jobs.
4. Reduce other types of pollution responsible for things like smog and acid rain.
5. Prevent future ecological disasters and preserve pristine wilderness.
6. Give the US a technological edge in the coming and inevitable shift away from fossil fuels.
7. Increase global security.

And lets not forget about the developing world and the billions of people out there who would love to be using as much energy as the rest of us. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Why would we even consider carbon offset schemes? Ironically for the same reason that we're stuck on stupid when it comes to alternative energy — pressure to not disrupt the massively profitable corporations whose business models are ripping up the planet to extract commodities whose prices they collude to control and which we cannot currently do without. I've seen carbon offset schemes compared to the Catholic church selling indulgences in medieval times.

Now it seems like our best hope might be in the form of a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin developing a fusion reactor (which is probably being built primarily to power laser weapons) because apparently we can't "sack up" enough to do anything else.



It's also obvious that a global problem can't be addressed if not done globally. Basically if a neighborhood wants to clean up the neighborhood and only a section of the owners take care of what they need to do , the neighborhood will still look like crap and overall there was no solution. Basically we want to patch one of 300 holes in a dam and say we solved the issue.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Actually, the article acknowledged many of those things:

"Even in a best-case carbon emissions scenario, 98 percent of populated land in New Orleans would be below the future sea level," Strauss said, because it's so flat and low-lying. "So it’s really just a question of building suitable defenses or eventually abandoning the city."

Those defenses could include higher levees around the city, but that's not an ideal solution, Strauss said.

"How deep a bowl do you want to live in?" he asked. "We already saw with [Hurricane] Katrina what can happen when a levee is breached, and the higher the water gets and the taller the levee gets, the more catastrophic a levee breach would become."

Conditions in New Orleans could be even worse than the study predicts, he noted, as it didn't take into account the fact that New Orleans is already sinking.


So we point out a city that is underwater in the top part of the article as if global warming is the culprit. Then further down acknowledge the problem really isn't global warming with one city we make a point to call out at the top of a global warming article....brilliant.


Erm... At no point was it pointed out in the article that ANY city is currently underwater. The article is saying that as future sea levels rise because of man made global warming, it will make the already barely tenable situation of keeping the water out of New Orleans untenable, but at no point is it said that any of this cities are currently underwater.

ETA: Plus the article SPECIFICALLY says this is all taken into account WITHOUT considering that New Orleans is sinking. So if you add that to NO's situation, things are worse.


Under sea level then. But you want to be technical if you srebeneath sea level you are underwater. You just have things in place to prevent flooding. But it was still a brilliant trick. Adding a city that has many issues pre global warming fad to a list of cities in a global warming article. Again curios how many other cities listed fit the same category
edit on 14-10-2015 by Reallyfolks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you have any data that prove that what is been happening with the propaganda of man made clima change is real and not something made for the sole reason of creating a problem that actually is been there but now has become very profitable.?

Earth has always been changing, but now those changes that are actually part of nature has become an agenda.A priority, a political main topic, an economical opportunity, all that is a fact

Cima change is a trillion dollar agenda.




top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join