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.

 

Stay or go? Some towns eyeing retreat from sea

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

LOS ANGELES (AP) – Years of ferocious storms have threatened to gnaw away the western tip of a popular beachfront park two hours drive north of Los Angeles. Instead of building a 500-foot-long wooden defense next to the pier to tame the tide, the latest thinking is to flee.




But after futile attempts to curb coastal erosion — a problem expected to grow worse with rising seas fueled by global warming — there is growing acknowledgment that the sea is relentless and any line drawn in the sand is likely to eventually wash over.


Stay or go? Some towns eyeing retreat from sea



In the U.S., the starkest example can be found in Alaska, where entire villages have been forced to move to higher ground or are thinking about it in the face of melting sea ice. Hawaii's famous beaches are slowly shrinking and some scientists think it's a matter of time before the state has to explore whether to move back development.


I think this story is kind of neat. People have been shooting down all of the "Global Warming" issues, and it has already made a huge difference in some areas. Maybe this will open up the eyes of TPTB. I highly doubt it will, but maybe it will at least open the eyes of people around the world. I think it is too late now to do anything to stop this, but every little bit will help.

Do you think people can do enough to stop or slow down Global Warming?

How far do you think sea levels will rise by the year 2050?




posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Interesting, but there is only a certain amount of frozen water on the planet. If there is enough to raise the oceans 70cm, then that's basically the limit, it doesn't matter whether that is in 5 years or 40 years. You ain't getting more water than there is.

On the global warming, I would agree, the planet is heating up. I attribute this to higher thermal conductivity due to an increase in the number of molecules per cubic meter in space (you know the way a thermos works right). Entering a galactic arm will do that as has been commented on a number of times by NASA. Of course I don't know how trustworthy they are, but I know governments are not. So if the answer to fixing the global warming problem is some government solution involving taxes or Cap and Trade, we can forget that, it's not going to help. Nothing was ever fixed by increasing taxes.

The world has gone through this many many times. If civilization is doomed to repeat the past cycles of the earth in which case we might be doomed, so be it. Everything has its time and civilizations fall.

But cheer up, the worst is yet to come.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Interesting, but there is only a certain amount of frozen water on the planet. If there is enough to raise the oceans 70cm, then that's basically the limit, it doesn't matter whether that is in 5 years or 40 years. You ain't getting more water than there is.

On the global warming, I would agree, the planet is heating up. I attribute this to higher thermal conductivity due to an increase in the number of molecules per cubic meter in space (you know the way a thermos works right). Entering a galactic arm will do that as has been commented on a number of times by NASA. Of course I don't know how trustworthy they are, but I know governments are not. So if the answer to fixing the global warming problem is some government solution involving taxes or Cap and Trade, we can forget that, it's not going to help. Nothing was ever fixed by increasing taxes.

The world has gone through this many many times. If civilization is doomed to repeat the past cycles of the earth in which case we might be doomed, so be it. Everything has its time and civilizations fall.

But cheer up, the worst is yet to come.

Cheers - Dave


Me think your number are a bit off Here

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).

www.wunderground.com...

science.howstuffworks.com...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

edit on 2-6-2012 by Trillium because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2012 by Trillium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Sea levels rise and fall, we are just now finding ancient cities that sunk beneath the waves. For example in India off the coast of the modern city of Darpa Darpa, the mythical city of Darpa (where according to Hinduism their God Krishna lived) was recently found during an environmental survey. The last time that area was above sea level was 1500 BC, during the last ice age.

Another example is in Florida. Off the coast there are coral reefs, coral only grows at a given depth. but if you go out deeper in the ocean away from the beach you will find ancient coral reefs on the bottom, plus if you also go inland from the beach you will find ancient coral reefs on dry land. And since we know at what depth coral will grow at we know for a fact that the sea level has been high and lower that in is at present.

Our planet has been here for billions of years and human recorded history only goes back about 5000 years. Make statement that man is responsible for climate change when you only a few hundred years of climate data is some what irresponsible.

Humans always want to feel self important and feel like they are in control of things. Its easier to fell safer when you have the illusion of control, then realizing you have no control and are at the mercy of nature.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trillium

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Interesting, but there is only a certain amount of frozen water on the planet. If there is enough to raise the oceans 70cm, then that's basically the limit, it doesn't matter whether that is in 5 years or 40 years. You ain't getting more water than there is.

On the global warming, I would agree, the planet is heating up. I attribute this to higher thermal conductivity due to an increase in the number of molecules per cubic meter in space (you know the way a thermos works right). Entering a galactic arm will do that as has been commented on a number of times by NASA. Of course I don't know how trustworthy they are, but I know governments are not. So if the answer to fixing the global warming problem is some government solution involving taxes or Cap and Trade, we can forget that, it's not going to help. Nothing was ever fixed by increasing taxes.

The world has gone through this many many times. If civilization is doomed to repeat the past cycles of the earth in which case we might be doomed, so be it. Everything has its time and civilizations fall.

But cheer up, the worst is yet to come.

Cheers - Dave


Me think your number are a bit off Here

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).

www.wunderground.com...

science.howstuffworks.com...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

edit on 2-6-2012 by Trillium because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2012 by Trillium because: (no reason given)


OK, my error, I was taking my numbers from the north pole/greenland etc. which is about 70 cm's. If the Antarctic were to melt along with everything else and all the water went to the oceans, then yes, 60 to 70 meters would be the increase so 200 feet is about right.

However, I guess my point is that you or I or anyone else can't do a damn thing about it at this point in or technological history. We can't control where our planet, Sun or solar system travels and we certainly can't move nebulas or clouds of gaseous moderatly dispersed molecules out of the way because we are "special." We just have to ride it out. I think it's arrogant and "dark ages" egocentric to believe that we as a species are changing the environment so dramatically that in 10 to 50 years our collective actions will be more powerful than "mother nature." So really, the only thing to do if it looks like we are gonna get flooded out on seaboards is to move inland.

One thing to also consider is that water through evaporation will also be taken up and dropped over land as well. I am not sure what the ratio is as far as water in oceans and water on land (lakes, rivers, etc.) but I would think a large fraction of that water would end up in lakes and rivers, so an actuall 200 foot rise would be pretty unlikely.

It might actually be a good thing, much of the corruption in this world sits well below an average of 200 feet above sea level, the City of London, New York, Washington DC, The Vatican, etc., it's a shame we can't just keep the corrupt in place LOL. See, there's always a silver lining ;-)

Cheers - Dave
edit on 6/3.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


I agree earth is warming up and coastal living will retreat. But im not sure the entire earth would ever be completely covered with water. History has shown earth goes in and out of warming and cooling trends. From what I have read I believe we are in the last part of the heatup trend. Im leaning towards a mini ice age on the horizon.



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join