Florida Keys Deliver a Hard Message: As Seas Rise, Some Places Can’t Be Saved

[iceberg]

See OldLady the New York Times is a lying rag of bullshit. Read their article in the OP. Guess what? The Keys aren't sinking under "rising waters". The problem is with EROSION. I've provided an excerpt and a link:

There is a total of 36.3 miles of beaches that line the Florida Keys and attract both tourists and marine life. Unfortunately, 10.2 miles of this, or 28% of the beaches that line the Keys are deemed critically eroded.

Erosion - Coastal Issues in the Florida Keys

I didn't hear them lying anywhere, K9. I read your article, too, which talks about erosion, not flooding. The erosion of beaches is a big deal down there, where tourism is king. Saving beaches is important. I don't understand what makes you think that erosion of a beach would cause a strip of road to flood at high tide each winter? If you read the article, there is no doubt that the ocean is beginning to creep back over the Keys. That is not caused by erosion. Coastal cities everywhere are seeing it.

Yea? When are they going to be flooded by, 2160?

If that was your attempt at an explanation for why erosion causes repeated flooding, I think you failed.

Erosion eats away at the bottom, drags dirt and sand out to sea which then undermines that which is above it and causes it to collapse and flood.

Is it your belief that the Gulf of Mexico has risen 3-5 feet in recent years?

You called me to this thread, so I came and I commented. I would not have come into a global warming thread because I do not know a whole lot about it. I give my trust to the scientists and the thermometers world wide that agree the planet is warming rapidly, the ice is melting and (perhaps entirely coincidentally?) there is flooding now in low lying coastal areas where that was only seen before during extreme high tides.

I don't understand why the right needs to contradict and deny that. Do ALL of you have stock in BP? What on earth is your problem with doing what's necessary to limit C02 emissions? We have noggins for a reason. Try using yours.

can't speak for everyone but i carry doubts as

1) i do believe things are changing. but i do believe they've been changing since the planet was first created and will continue to change. with or without us. the incessant need to blame mankind is ignorant to me. that said, yes we should do more to clean up what we do know is "bad" - plastic in our oceans and affecting our eco-system. lets put money into that and not into giving it to other countries to not do anything.

2) in my own lifetime both extremes have been predicted. and were wrong.

3) al gore. he fudged enough data to try and prove a point (right or now) and that cast doubt on everything.

 

[james bond]

This is the libs warning due to global warming. They do not understand Archimedes Principle. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets it.

View attachment 293448

'KEY WEST, Fla. — Officials in the Florida Keys announced what many coastal governments nationwide have long feared, but few have been willing to admit: As seas rise and flooding gets worse, not everyone can be saved.

And in some places, it doesn’t even make sense to try.

On Wednesday morning, Rhonda Haag, the county’s sustainability director, released the first results of the county’s yearslong effort to calculate how high its 300 miles of roads must be elevated to stay dry, and at what cost. Those costs were far higher than her team expected — and those numbers, she said, show that some places can’t be protected, at least at a price that taxpayers can be expected to pay.

“I never would have dreamed we would say ‘no,’” Ms. Haag said in an interview. “But now, with the real estimates coming in, it’s a different story. And it’s not all doable.”'

Florida Keys Deliver a Hard Message: As Seas Rise, Some Places Can’t Be Saved

That’s hilarious. Time to buy a $15M mansion on the beach!

I would bet $15 M that you do not have $15 M.

Obamas bought above -- Forget Global Warming and Rising Sea Levels - Obamas Buying $15 Million Martha's Vineyard Mansion on the Ocean.

 

[james bond]

This is the libs warning due to global warming. They do not understand Archimedes Principle.

As nobody has ever said melting icebergs will raise sea level, you're just displaying your abject ignorance of the topic.

Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets it.

He's wrong. Tyson. If all the floating icebergs melted, sea level would rise very slightly. Though I think Tyson does understand that, and that he's just dumbing it down a bit for the general public.It's like saying the earth is "round" instead of "ellipsoidal".

It's a bit complicated, why a melting iceberg raises sea level very slightly. It has to do with icebergs being fresh water, and the ocean being denser salt water. Icebergs floating in fresh water would not raise the water level when melting.

It seems you do not get erosion and not rising sea levels. You, yourself admitted the sea levels aren't rising.

...

And that's being directly observed. As is always the case, AGW theory is being confirmed by the hard data.

It's GIGO. AGW isn't true. Thus, it does not cause anything. Sea levels naturally rise and fall with the weather. So, if coastal cities like Miami Beach, LA Basin, Guangzhou-Canton, etc. are in danger of flooding, I suggested building dikes to control it. If you don't like it, then don't live in coastal cities. We've always had local flooding due to extreme weather. Fortunately, for my hometown, S♥n Francisco, it has foggy, but moderate weather.

 

[mamooth]

It seems you do not get erosion and not rising sea levels.

As that sentence makes no sense at all, I am unable to respond to it. Your thought processes are quite muddled.

You, yourself admitted the sea levels aren't rising.

If you can't debate me, just admit it. Don't make up stupid lies about what I supposedly said.

Now, let's get back to what you ran from.

Why did you make the idiot claim that erosion could cause sea level to jump up and flood coastal roads, roads that had not sunk downwards any?

Why did you make the idiot claim that it would take 3-5 feet of sea level rise to flood a coastal road?

 

[Leo123]

This is the libs warning due to global warming. They do not understand Archimedes Principle. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets it.

View attachment 293448

'KEY WEST, Fla. — Officials in the Florida Keys announced what many coastal governments nationwide have long feared, but few have been willing to admit: As seas rise and flooding gets worse, not everyone can be saved.

And in some places, it doesn’t even make sense to try.

On Wednesday morning, Rhonda Haag, the county’s sustainability director, released the first results of the county’s yearslong effort to calculate how high its 300 miles of roads must be elevated to stay dry, and at what cost. Those costs were far higher than her team expected — and those numbers, she said, show that some places can’t be protected, at least at a price that taxpayers can be expected to pay.

“I never would have dreamed we would say ‘no,’” Ms. Haag said in an interview. “But now, with the real estimates coming in, it’s a different story. And it’s not all doable.”'

Florida Keys Deliver a Hard Message: As Seas Rise, Some Places Can’t Be Saved

What everyone should know is that if all the ice on LAND (Antarctica, Greenland, mountain glaciers around the world) were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly.

IF and asteroid the size of the moon crashes into Earh...no more Earth. If, if,if,if,if,if

 

[alang1216]

IF and asteroid the size of the moon crashes into Earh...no more Earth. If, if,if,if,if,if

An asteroid the size of the moon crashing into Earth is a very remote possibility, its only happened once in the past. An asteroid the size of a grain of dust crashing into Earth probably happens every minute. The former is rare but catastrophic, the later frequent but innocuous. There is a whole range of events in between and managing risk is a serious business. Large asteroids fly by every year or so, it is only a matter of time we get hit by something significant. It won't kill us all but will do some damage. Is it worth developing a capability to intercept such asteroids even though it may never by used? Probably. Global warming is also a risk. Is it worth taking measures to mitigate its effects? Probably.

 

[Leo123]

IF and asteroid the size of the moon crashes into Earh...no more Earth. If, if,if,if,if,if

An asteroid the size of the moon crashing into Earth is a very remote possibility, its only happened once in the past. An asteroid the size of a grain of dust crashing into Earth probably happens every minute. The former is rare but catastrophic, the later frequent but innocuous. There is a whole range of events in between and managing risk is a serious business. Large asteroids fly by every year or so, it is only a matter of time we get hit by something significant. It won't kill us all but will do some damage. Is it worth developing a capability to intercept such asteroids even though it may never by used? Probably. Global warming is also a risk. Is it worth taking measures to mitigate its effects? Probably.

An asteroid is a clear and significant risk. Global warming is not a proven risk. My point is that we don't totally change our society because of 'what if' possibilities. If you're going to worry about a climatic catastrophe it would make more sense to focus on an ice age.......IF it may ever happen but there is no sense to totally up-end your societal progress and energy sources that have improved the Human condition.

 

[alang1216]

An asteroid is a clear and significant risk. Global warming is not a proven risk. My point is that we don't totally change our society because of 'what if' possibilities. If you're going to worry about a climatic catastrophe it would make more sense to focus on an ice age.......IF it may ever happen but there is no sense to totally up-end your societal progress and energy sources that have improved the Human condition.

Why is an asteroid a "clear and significant risk" but climate change is not? Both have a long and continuous history and pose significant risk.

 

[Leo123]

An asteroid is a clear and significant risk. Global warming is not a proven risk. My point is that we don't totally change our society because of 'what if' possibilities. If you're going to worry about a climatic catastrophe it would make more sense to focus on an ice age.......IF it may ever happen but there is no sense to totally up-end your societal progress and energy sources that have improved the Human condition.

Why is an asteroid a "clear and significant risk" but climate change is not? Both have a long and continuous history and pose significant risk.

"Climate Chage" as defined today has to do with human-caused Global Warming. When scientific findings could not support that, the name was changed to "Climate Change" and that is what I was referring to. Also please read that I wrote it would make for sense to focus on a possible Ice Age which, we have seen in the past, is actually capable of life extinction where it occurs. In other words, trying to link Global Warming to Climate Change is dishonest.

 

[mamooth]

"Climate Chage" as defined today has to do with human-caused Global Warming. When scientific findings could not support that, the name was changed to "Climate Change" and that is what I was referring to.

And it's a fake story. The Bush admin changed the name, because they thought "Global Warming" sounded too scary, and they wanted to downplay the problem. And most of us rational people still use "Global Warming" when talking strictly about temperature, as it's more direct.

Also please read that I wrote it would make for sense to focus on a possible Ice Age which, we have seen in the past, is actually capable of life extinction where it occurs.

No, it's not rational, being that there's no possibility of an ice age in the next 25,000 years. In stark contrast, we know global warming is happening now, and that humans are causing it, and that it's causing harm.

You're failing at the risk-benefit analysis. You're focusing on things with zero risk, while ignoring the observed major risks.

 

[james bond]

It seems you do not get erosion and not rising sea levels.

As that sentence makes no sense at all, I am unable to respond to it. Your thought processes are quite muddled.

You, yourself admitted the sea levels aren't rising.

If you can't debate me, just admit it. Don't make up stupid lies about what I supposedly said.

Now, let's get back to what you ran from.

Why did you make the idiot claim that erosion could cause sea level to jump up and flood coastal roads, roads that had not sunk downwards any?

Why did you make the idiot claim that it would take 3-5 feet of sea level rise to flood a coastal road?

It's already been explained in the links. You are such a dumbass that you could not read and understand it. IOW, flooding happens, but it's not caused by AGW. Thus, I have provided one solution to control the flooding and help keep our water clean. You have not demonstrated your idiotic claim of AGW. Moreover, the rich Dems continue to fly in their private jets. Go tell those guys about AGW , you dumbass.

 

[mamooth]

It's already been explained in the links.

You made that up. None of your links have explained why erosion will magically cause the oceans to leap upwards and flood coastal roads that haven't sunk down any. Reality says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

You are such a dumbass that you could not read and understand it.

If you understand it, explain it for everyone, in your own words. If didn't lie about how it's in the links and how you understand it, that should be easy.

However, if you did lie, you'll now have to deflect somehow. Please proceed.

IOW, flooding happens, but it's not caused by AGW.

That's right, it's caused by your magical jumping ocean. Oh wait, that's not it. It's caused the higher sea levels, which are caused by AGW.

Thus, I have provided one solution to control the flooding and help keep our water clean.

"Pray harder" is not a solution.

You have not demonstrated your idiotic claim of AGW.

The tidal gauges and satellite measurements have demonstrated it. And that's triggered you, because your religion states it can't be true.

Moreover, the rich Dems continue to fly in their private jets.

As that's completely irrelevant to the science, you look particularly desperate and stupid now.

Go tell those guys about AGW , you dumbass.

If all the data didn't say you were lying on behalf of your cult, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on such stupid deflections. But it does, so you do.

We point to the science, because we can. You can't, so you deflect by screaming at people.

 

[james bond]

You made that up. None of your links have explained why erosion will magically cause the oceans to leap upwards and flood coastal roads that haven't sunk down any. Reality says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

How can I make it up if it is explained in the links? Then you go on an start making stuff to explain how I am wrong.

As for the rest, your comments are more of the same. I'm interested in fighting erosion, air pollution, and having safe water to drink and use. All I have to do about AGW is ignore it and not vote for stupid politicians who do.

 

[mamooth]

How can I make it up if it is explained in the links?

It's not explained in the links. That false claim is part of your fraud.

I pointed out that if you were making it up, you'd be unable to explain your what your kook theory even was, despite being prompted to do so.

You're unable to explain what your kook theory even was, despite being prompted. You're clearly making it all up.

Nobody knows what you're babbling about, not even you. You're just preaching your sacred religious belief about how AGW can't be real, and you don't care if there's zero evidence for your kook claim. You have faith,so evidence is not required.

 

[SSDD]

Has the water actually risen there or are they just anticipating that it will rise? And if it's risen there, then it should be safe to assume that's risen everywhere else too, right? Is New York City about to go under too?

There is this thing called "erosion". Sometimes, the ocean's currents and waves rip dirt away and wash it out to sea. Sometimes, the ocean creates islands, only to destroy them later. Is it possible that this is what's occurring in Key West, just like it occurs everywhere else?

It s models...models from top to bottom...the fact that the models don't agree with tide gauges that have been in place sometimes for centuries is irrelevant..in the minds of alarmists, model output is the same as empirical data.

 

[bripat9643]

Has the water actually risen there or are they just anticipating that it will rise? And if it's risen there, then it should be safe to assume that's risen everywhere else too, right? Is New York City about to go under too?

There is this thing called "erosion". Sometimes, the ocean's currents and waves rip dirt away and wash it out to sea. Sometimes, the ocean creates islands, only to destroy them later. Is it possible that this is what's occurring in Key West, just like it occurs everywhere else?

Even the ICCP estimates that sea level will rise only by 6 inches by the end of the century. I can't imagine how that is going to drive anyone out of Key West.

 

[SSDD]

Has the water actually risen there or are they just anticipating that it will rise? And if it's risen there, then it should be safe to assume that's risen everywhere else too, right? Is New York City about to go under too?

There is this thing called "erosion". Sometimes, the ocean's currents and waves rip dirt away and wash it out to sea. Sometimes, the ocean creates islands, only to destroy them later. Is it possible that this is what's occurring in Key West, just like it occurs everywhere else?

Even the ICCP estimates that sea level will rise only by 6 inches by the end of the century. I can't imagine how that is going to drive anyone out of Key West.

They apparently envision sea level rising enough to swamp entire city blocks over night...How they square their tales of doom and gloom and refugees from the coast with the reality of sea level rise of 3mm per year is beyond me. It is clear evidence that they are not in touch with reality..

 

[skookerasbil]

It's already been explained in the links.

You made that up. None of your links have explained why erosion will magically cause the oceans to leap upwards and flood coastal roads that haven't sunk down any. Reality says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

You are such a dumbass that you could not read and understand it.

If you understand it, explain it for everyone, in your own words. If didn't lie about how it's in the links and how you understand it, that should be easy.

However, if you did lie, you'll now have to deflect somehow. Please proceed.

IOW, flooding happens, but it's not caused by AGW.

That's right, it's caused by your magical jumping ocean. Oh wait, that's not it. It's caused the higher sea levels, which are caused by AGW.

Thus, I have provided one solution to control the flooding and help keep our water clean.

"Pray harder" is not a solution.

You have not demonstrated your idiotic claim of AGW.

The tidal gauges and satellite measurements have demonstrated it. And that's triggered you, because your religion states it can't be true.

Moreover, the rich Dems continue to fly in their private jets.

As that's completely irrelevant to the science, you look particularly desperate and stupid now.

Go tell those guys about AGW , you dumbass.

If all the data didn't say you were lying on behalf of your cult, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on such stupid deflections. But it does, so you do.

We point to the science, because we can. You can't, so you deflect by screaming at people.

Nobody cares about the 3mm s0n.

d0y

 

[james bond]

How can I make it up if it is explained in the links?

It's not explained in the links. That false claim is part of your fraud.

I pointed out that if you were making it up, you'd be unable to explain your what your kook theory even was, despite being prompted to do so.

You're unable to explain what your kook theory even was, despite being prompted. You're clearly making it all up.

Nobody knows what you're babbling about, not even you. You're just preaching your sacred religious belief about how AGW can't be real, and you don't care if there's zero evidence for your kook claim. You have faith,so evidence is not required.

AGW doesn't happen because we have periods of warming and cooling. The false part is libs doing anything about it, but beotch and argue like you are doing now. I doubt you do anything about it . For example, how do you get to work? Show us your report card from the utility company .

OTOH, I plant cover grasses and am for reinforcing dams where I live. I've watched as the Department of Water Resources released water from the dams and suddenly there is a class 3 river in front of me. I linked to learning about dikes like that in the Netherlands for San Francisco in this thread. All this while you just sat on your arse and argued .

 

[james bond]

Here's what Florida is doing about erosion -- Erosion and Coastal Management in Florida - Beachapedia. At least, they didn't beotch about AGW like the mass media.