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

a reply to: stormcell

I agree, is going to happen, but my problem is with the way the government and profiteers are approaching this subject, no on how to help and working on it like other countries are doing, here in the US the profiting comes first and wait until the coast is gone to blame people for it.

For the profiteers is trillions of dollars already invested and more to be made before the coast disappears.

Now is the time to prepare and try to model the future.

Can we build sea walls in some places? Where are populations likely to move? Where should we move from and not to? Are we prepared for higher more destructive storm surges or higher Tsunami risk?

Serious questions.

I think some places like Chicago, Dallas, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, should prepare. Not only is it a threat but an opportunity, if they are smart.

It's not paranoid or Doom porn to say, don't buy a house in New Orleans, or to try to predict where migrations will happen.

It doesn't help when lawmakers bring snowballs to congress and say there is no Climate Change and that earth isn't getting warmer. That's not even the debate. The Debate is whether man is causing it and the best steps to take to mitigate, not just reducing carbon but sea level rise and migration.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I already posted the 1.7 trillion reason, up to 2011, by now the trillions are growing, how about that.

You did? I didn't see any links from you linking corruption to Climate Change. I've seen a lot of reasoning and words from you though, but no actual proof.

Plus, I didn't see you go over the links you asked for about Climate Change corruption and the deniers being the ones who are likely on the take. Why aren't you considering that the fossil fuel industry is spending tons of money to DENY Climate Change? It certainly paints a more realistic narrative than the ENTIRE Democratic party having co-opted most of the world and almost all of the scientific community into believing a lie so that it can take money from tax payers.

a reply to: amazing

Well put.

The changes we make now can be very beneficial to some in imminent danger and to all for the future.

They can also be an opportunity to be better, provide jobs, and do things smarter even if the worst doesn't happen.

Of course, then they'd be arguing about something else...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy, you always going to see what you want to see, pity.

And by the way, when the coast be gone we will be long gone.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Weren't we supposed to be in domed cities because of pollution and overpopulation and a destroyed ozone layer,by now?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy, you always going to see what you want to see, pity.

And by the way, when the coast be gone we will be long gone.

What I want to see? You didn't post ANY links! There is nothing for me to see there. You IGNORED the ones I posted even after you specifically asked for them. And you are accusing ME of being overly biased? Eff that! You haven't argued honestly with me since you started in this thread.

Heck, this post itself is just a deflection from anything in the topic. You are now attacking me instead of the argument.

I've been making every effort to talk to you respectively and honor your requests for evidence, but you just keep repeating yourself over and over again (with copy/pastes I might add) without backing anything you say up. And now you are accusing me of not paying attention. Seriously THINK about what you are accusing me of will you?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

We probably woulda been if we hadn't taken some steps. And we still might be. That's the point.

a reply to: olaru12

There's PLENTY of room in Death Valley...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: johnwick

The point is that WE are causing these changes. The climate wouldn't be DOING the things its doing if it weren't for human society and its emission wastes.

There is no proof of this besides models built by those getting paid to make these claims.

Historic data fully refutes all these claims.

As it has happened many times before man was even here.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: johnwick

The point is that WE are causing these changes. The climate wouldn't be DOING the things its doing if it weren't for human society and its emission wastes.

There is no proof of this besides models built by those getting paid to make these claims.

Uh... Yes there is TONS of proof of this... If you'd bother to read the link I provided on how those models are created, you'd know that those models are created BASED on the evidence we have for climate change. They aren't just pulled out of thin air.

Historic data fully refutes all these claims.

No it doesn't.

As it has happened many times before man was even here.

This isn't the same thing as what happened before.

a reply to: johnwick

I grew up in northern New Jersey/New York in the 60s-70s. We could hardly ever even see the sky due to the pollution haze. Same for the smog in California. Acid rain killed our lakes. Some of them are still dead. We managed to get a handle on that. Thing is, no one could really deny that stuff...it was in plain site. Then again, so is this.

The flora and fauna in the hardest hit regions are already adapting or dying trying. Some humans seem to be the only ones who don't want to see it. And, like BH said, won't until it hits them. By then it could well be too late.

ETA: Who says it happened before? You are arguing that this is cyclical. Sure some things are...until they aren't.Where is your proof that this is exactly like what has happened before? You don't have any because this has never happened before. The world population has never been this large before (that we know of), and our abuse of resources has never been at this level before, and we didn't frack the earth and introduce poisons into our food and pollute the water and kill off life like we do now before.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Or....is it possible when an ice age ends the temps rise????

Oh no couldnt be that, i mean if i unplug the fridge it isnt like every hour the temp will rise constantly....ih ya, that is exactly what would happen.

Your arguement is proof of nothing but the fact temps increase once an ice age ends.....

And your argument is a bunch of words without any evidence backing it up.

So in your oppinion when an ice age ends the temps shouldnt rise?

Because rising temps is what ends the ice age btw....

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: olaru12

There's PLENTY of room in Death Valley...

For your information....

Death Valley is -280 ft. below sea level and could also be flooded in the future.

You gonna welcome all those coastal inner city dwellers to Colo Sgps???


what then....? Perhaps lubbock or Amarillo.....

www.nps.gov...

a reply to: johnwick

Only to someone who wants to consider things so simply. Science doesn't work with such simple answers (plus it also doesn't just assume things are true it proves them first THEN says they are true). If the Ice Age were just ending naturally then the world wouldn't be heating up as fast as it is heating up. This is the problem that scientists identified over 100 years ago when they first hypothesized about global warming. They said that human effects must be contributing to the climate as well. Since then, we've uncovered more and more evidence showing that to be the case. The climate is warming FASTER than it should be.

One thing that has just recently crossed my mind that I'm afraid to research is all the nuclear plants near coasts that might wind up underwater. Will it be possible to shut them down safely and remove the radioactive material before they are in the ocean? Not to mention all the other industrial infrastructure with all its contaminants that will also become part of the ocean floor just off the coastlines.

The pattern I'm seeing from the pro people causing global warming crowd is obey or die. Apologies if I'm not as wordy as others. Just because you may threaten me, I'm still not going to blindly obey your masters on this subject.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Reallyfolks

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.

I agree with the first sentence and I stand by my answer. I'm not talking about a piecemeal effort — some hodgepodge of one-off wind and solar farms and the occasional dam — but rather something like fusion.

With the right technology, there's no need to compel adoption through artificial means, the rest of the world will be scrambling for it because it's superior. We don't even have to speculate about it, we have a modern example:

Look at the roll out of generation from fission. The Atomic Age kicked off in 1933 when Leo Szilard first hypothesized nuclear chain reactions and a mere dozen years later we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the US, the first nuclear plant opened in 1958 and ground was broken on the last reactor in 1974. In under 20 years, we rolled out an entirely new technology that currently accounts for 20% of our country's electrical generation capacity. There are 29 other countries that have nuclear plants and those plants generate about 11% of the world's electricity. This is for a technology that has all sorts of dangers and hazardous byproducts and once again relies on relatively exhaustible resources (fissionable material) and at a time when the pace of technological advance wasn't nearly what it is now.

Why is it preferable to believe that we should collectively throw our hands in the air and pretend that there's nothing to be done because... China?

Even if your argument was supposed to be completely valid, why is it a reason not to seek better alternatives? What about all of the other reasons to move on from fossil fuels that aren't related to global warming?

It's a win-win all the way around. No more worrying about oil fields in some middle eastern desert or our economy moving at the whim of organizations like OPEC. No more sulfur emissions from coal fired plants resulting in acid rain that eats the clear coats off our damn cars. It makes sense all the way around, so if it helps people getting past their political programming, ignore global warming and embrace progressing beyond fossil fuels for the myriad of excellent reasons that aren't related to CO2 emissions.

I'm not saying throw up your hands. I'm am saying come with a solution that the global community can and will do to fix the problem or anything we do isn't solving anything except for costing a lot of money with no real results. Unless we are to set standards and threaten to bomb any country not following them

Beyond that great solutions and technology doesn't need to be forced. It tends to be voluntarily embraced. Better, cheaper, a recognized value and so on.

But seeing as how we have neither of the first two then the root problem with man made global warming is man. Too many of them. What's the plan?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have an idea for a new series for youths and adults:

The Drowning Games
You heard it here first, folks.
My muse has spoken.



The reason for "doing something" is not just to spare the other vulnerable cities, but also to SLOW IT DOWN (at least enough, that perhaps in the future we might figure something else out; just my extrapolation).

a reply to: DBCowboy

This is bull#. All I'm asking you to do with this thread is to believe the evidence I'm presenting here. I've said several times already that I'm not presenting solutions. Just evidence. There is no "obey or die" here. That is a false narrative that you are painting because your confirmation bias refuses to let you honestly analyze the evidence presented to you. Heck you even asked me if I had any solutions and I answered that I didn't.
www.abovetopsecret.com...