The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

Yes SkookerASSbil, "No one cares"

USA Today
Trump’s skepticism aside, the Navy is taking climate change seriously

Trump’s skepticism aside, the Navy is taking climate change seriously
Gerald Harris, Medill News Service - June 28, 2018

TAMUNING, Guam — The Trump administration has vigorously downplayed the threat of global warming, insisting that the science is still unproven.

But an increase in the number of severe storms combined with rising sea levels and surface temperatures are forcing the U.S. Navy to adjust to the mounting threat of climate change.

The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act has ordered the Pentagon to identify the top 10 military bases threatened by climate change for the Navy and the other service branches by November.

The congressional mandate requires the Defense Department to examine each threatened military installation for the effects of rising sea tides, increased flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires and thawing permafrost over the coming 20 years.

While the Navy has a long history of responding to weather-related catastrophes, a world-wide increase in extreme weather and climate-related civilian unrest has led to more requests for assistance from the Navy.

The demand could hamper naval readiness, said Ann C. Phillips, a retired rear admiral who spent 30 years in the Navy and is now a member of the advisory board of the Center for Climate & Security, a non-partisan think tank.

“If you’re doing a humanitarian response, you are not doing in all likelihood the mission that you’re supposed to be — whether that is training, preparing to deploy or actually being on deployment,” Phillips said.

Some of the United States’ most important overseas bases are seeing the effects of climate change first-hand.

The U.S. territory of Guam is home to Naval Base Guam, Andersen Air Force Base and 12,000 service members and their families.

“By reputation Guam has the largest fuel capacity than any place in Asia, largest weapon capacity, so Guam is the base which the United States can project its power to this part of the world without asking anyone’s permission,” said Robert Underwood, the outgoing president of the University of Guam and a former Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

While Guam’s problems aren’t as severe as some naval facilities, including flood-prone Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, Guam has been threatened by warming waters, damage to coral reefs, rising sea levels and diminished drinking water.

According to Austin Shelton, an assistant professor at the University of Guam and director of the Sea Grant research program, Guam is facing multiple challenges.

“Not only do we have to think about these local stressors, we also need to think about the global environmental impacts that we are experiencing in the Pacific islands – such as increase in frequency and intensity in storms, rising sea level, and rising seas surface temperatures,” Shelton said.

According to a report by the Center for Climate & Security released earlier this year, 200 military installations participating in a vulnerability assessment have already been affected by storm surge flooding.

A 2008 assessment found that only 30 military sites faced elevated risks because of sea level rise.​
 
Last edited:
This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.

Union of concerned scientists? Are you kidding? I am laughing great big horse laughs in your stupid face. Here...let me provide you with a couple of photographs and some correspondence received by a voting member in good standing of the union of concerned scientists...






It is little wonder you are a top shelf dupe thunder...you can't differentiate between a real science organization and a fly by night group of scammers who will let anyone in who can pony up the initiation fee. What a buffoon.

Although, maybe they let the dog in to the organization to bump up the average IQ of the membership...she looks more intelligent than most of the warmers I have had the displeasure of speaking with.
 
This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.

The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)
Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)
....
We must prepare for the growing exposure of our military bases to sea level rise.
Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century.

Military bases at risk
18 military installations are included in this analysis. Each location's changing exposure to flooding is projected through the end of the century:
Key findings
The military is at risk of losing land where vital infrastructure, training and testing grounds, and housing for thousands of its personnel currently exist.
[.....]
  • By 2050, Most of the installations in this analysis will see more than 10 Times the number of floods they experience today.
  • By 2070, Half of the sites could experience 520 or more flood events annually- the equivalent of more than one flood daily.
  • [*]By 2100, eight bases are at risk of losing 25% to 50% or more of their land to rising seas.
  • Four installations—Naval Air Station Key West, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Dam Neck Annex, and Parris Island—are at risk of losing between 75% and 95% of their land by the end of this century.
  • Flooding won’t be confined to the bases. Many surrounding communities will also face growing exposure to rising seas......
No. Nothing to see here.
 
This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.

Union of concerned scientists? Are you kidding? I am laughing great big horse laughs in your stupid face. Here...let me provide you with a couple of photographs and some correspondence received by a voting member in good standing of the union of concerned scientists...






It is little wonder you are a top shelf dupe thunder...you can't differentiate between a real science organization and a fly by night group of scammers who will let anyone in who can pony up the initiation fee. What a buffoon.

Although, maybe they let the dog in to the organization to bump up the average IQ of the membership...she looks more intelligent than most of the warmers I have had the displeasure of speaking with.
The UCS was ONE of about TWENTY Links I posted including Righty WashingtonExaminer. (NY Times, NatGeo, etc) and oft citing Militray policy and documents.

Any rebuttal 12 IQ asshole?

NO CONTENT Just a Juvenile JPG show.
 
Last edited:
This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.

Union of concerned scientists? Are you kidding? I am laughing great big horse laughs in your stupid face. Here...let me provide you with a couple of photographs and some correspondence received by a voting member in good standing of the union of concerned scientists...






It is little wonder you are a top shelf dupe thunder...you can't differentiate between a real science organization and a fly by night group of scammers who will let anyone in who can pony up the initiation fee. What a buffoon.

Although, maybe they let the dog in to the organization to bump up the average IQ of the membership...she looks more intelligent than most of the warmers I have had the displeasure of speaking with.
The UCS was ONE of about TWENTY Links I posted including Righty WashingtonExaminer. (NY Times, NatGeo, etc) and oft citing Militray policy and documents.

Any rebuttal 12 IQ asshole?

NO CONTENT Just a Juvenile JPG show.

You never discuss. You mostly rant. I GAVE YOU the problem with the UCS article in my 1st post in this thread. How the MILITARY was given $BILL of GW money and OUTRAGEOUS estimates of sea level requiring INCHES/year to even get to the MINIMAL projections by 2100 -- when the CURRENT and past rates are closer to a 0.1". Couple that with the fact that since those estimates were made -- it's been found MORE LIKELY that any rise in sea level like that would come from VOLCANIC heating of the Antarctic shelf ice --- NOT GWarming.

Take a breath. READ the posts. And try doing more of the Discussion thing..
 
The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
ie, Norfolk.
Sea Level is rising 3mm avg, but about 20mm from Virginia all around to the Gulf Coast.
People Notice.
I notice in the Florida Town of my winter home, as do Millions in that state, and others, which now regularly Flood at King Tides and from even small weather events.
We are seeing it on the West coast as well. A place I thought less vulnerable.

Why don't you go post some irrelevant Graph/Scandal/Conspiracy or some other Denialist BS that tell me it ISN'T happening!
I'm sure you can find Another hundred or two.
There's "tons" of anecdotal/misleading stuff/"pauses"/etc in the Denier Blogs and the "1000 Papers" no doubt.
`

tumblr_lsrul412Pk1qbazqao1_640.gif


`
 
Last edited:
The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
ie, Norfolk.
Sea Level is rising 3mm avg, but about 20mm from Virginia all around to the Gulf Coast.
People Notice.
I notice in the Florida Town of my winter home, as do Millions in that state, and others, which now regularly Flood at King Tides and from even small weather events.
We are seeing it on the West coast as well. A place I thought less vulnerable.

Do you ever bother to look up anything, or do you just gobble up whatever unskeptical science and the legion of concerned scientists tell you? Let me guess...you are a gobbler.


Here....Fort Norfolk circa 1935



Here...Fort Norfolk 2014




And we could go right down the coast, to key west and back up and follow the coast right around to Texas looking at historic photos and modern photos of the water front that show practically no difference. If your area is flooding at king tides, it is due to sinking land, not rising seas. Try a bit of critical thinking...it is a bit more work, but it beats the hell out of being a dupe.
 
The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
ie, Norfolk.
Sea Level is rising 3mm avg, but about 20mm from Virginia all around to the Gulf Coast.
People Notice.
I notice in the Florida Town of my winter home, as do Millions in that state, and others, which now regularly Flood at King Tides and from even small weather events.
We are seeing it on the West coast as well. A place I thought less vulnerable.

Do you ever bother to look up anything, or do you just gobble up whatever unskeptical science and the legion of concerned scientists tell you? Let me guess...you are a gobbler.


Here....Fort Norfolk circa 1935



Here...Fort Norfolk 2014




And we could go right down the coast, to key west and back up and follow the coast right around to Texas looking at historic photos and modern photos of the water front that show practically no difference. If your area is flooding at king tides, it is due to sinking land, not rising seas. Try a bit of critical thinking...it is a bit more work, but it beats the hell out of being a dupe.
So to be clear..

1. You WHIFFED on my last post pointing out Your Bashing UCS was meaniningless in light of my 20 Other Links (NyTimes, NatGeo, WashingtonExaminer, etc)
GAME OVER


2. You didn't respond to anything else in the Entire Meaty thread, including my article at the top of this page.

3. Your new post suggesting I can't/don't "look up anything" is also belied by my previous posts. Some with Google Lists.

4. What do your pictures show or not show?
Had I or anyone suggested a Biblical Flood?
Can one see how much sea level rose in your pictures?
Or see if Piers/other shoreline construction been Rebuilt (higher) since 1935?
So your Stupid pix mean Nothing.
Your last Two posts: JUVENILE JPGs - Debate for kids - or simpletons trying bury reason.

One can only imagine how much Contradictory Info you had to Ignore to find some innocuous/useless pix. Hundreds/Thousands of articles talking about the problem.

Since you imply you are good at looking up, then you must be willfully blind or dishonest.
ie
Norfolk Base Sea level
norfolk base sea level - Google Search

About 7,070,000 results (0.53 seconds)
Search Results (pg 1 in Total/Unfiltered)

Rising Seas Are Flooding Virginia's Naval Base, and There's No Plan ...
https://insideclimatenews.org/.../military-norfolk-naval-base-flooding-climate-change-...
Oct 25, 2017 - Joe Bouchard, a retired captain and former Base Commander, has become a proponent for helping Norfolk adapt to sea level rise. Credit: ...

U.S. Military Prepares for Sea-Level Rise and Other Climate Change ...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-...
Feb 7, 2017 - Norfolk, Virginia
Ten times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing ...

Norfolk Prepares For Battle With Rising Sea Level | WUNC
wunc.org/post/norfolk-prepares-battle-rising-sea-level
Mar 20, 2017 - When President Donald Trump visited a shipyard at Newport News, Va. this month, he told an audience of sailors and shipbuilders that the ...

Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases : NPR
Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases
Mar 31, 2017 - For the Navy, one of those threats is the sea itself. Reporter Jay Price of member station WUNC visited a spot in Norfolk, Va., where sea level ...

Is Rising Sea Level Threatening Norfolk Naval Base and the ...
https://townhall.com/.../is-rising-sea-level-threatening-norfolk-naval-base-and-the-che...
Aug 26, 2017 - Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when thenaval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood ...

Norfolk: A case study in sea-level rise: Physics Today: Vol 69, No 5
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3163
Sea level in Norfolk has risen 46 cm in the past 100 years. ... With the naval base, nearby Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia ...

Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report
https://www.navytimes.com/.../rising-oceans-threaten-to-submerge-128-military-bases...
Jul 29, 2016 - Based on these calculations, the report says a three-foot sea level rise ... for the Navy: In addition to Norfolk, flooding threatens Naval Station ...

5 things that could affect the future of Naval Station Norfolk | Virginia ...
pilotonline.com › News › U.S. Military News › Virginia Military News
Jun 30, 2017 - Naval Station Norfolk is threatened by the very water that makes it an ideal location. Norfolk has one of the fastest rates of relative sea level rise ...

Hampton Roads sea level rise is accelerating, report says ...
pilotonline.com › News › Local News › Environment
Mar 12, 2018 - In its breakdown for contributors to the Norfolk region's sea level rise, the report's team cited that sinking of land as a key factor, but also pointed ...

On the Front Lines of Rising Seas: Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global...and.../sea-level-rise-flooding-naval-station-norfolk
Jul 27, 2016 - Naval Station Norfolk within the Hampton Roads metropolitan area—a sea level rise hot spot, where natural subsidence, low-lying topography, ...


More: Covering the approximate period encompassed by your Worthless pictures

Hampton Roads sea level rise is accelerating, report says
By Dave Mayfield - The Virginian-Pilot - Mar 12, 2018

....The report card from the institute, which is part of the College of William & Mary, evaluated 32 localities along the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coast. All of the projections are based on records compiled at federally operated tide stations. The station at Sewells Point in Norfolk stood as the proxy for Hampton Roads. Its records go back to 1927.

At the Norfolk gauge, sea level rise has averaged about 4.6 millimeters per year, about a Foot and a Half over the 91 years. The annual increases have accelerated over the past decade, with last year’s coming in at more than 5.1 millimeters, the institute reported.
...
The report concentrates on how much higher tide levels in 2050 are likely to be than in 1992, a frequently used benchmark year for such forecasts. For Norfolk, the increase predicted over that time span would end up as 0.49 meters, or more than 19 inches, with about a half-foot of the increase already having occurred. The increase by midcentury would put Hampton Roads in a second-place tie with Pensacola, Fla., for the highest rate.​

You Sleezy Wack Job.
Again.
Who knows how to "look up anything"?
Who almost certainly did, and had to Dishonestly Ignore it, instead posting many meaningless pictures in consecutive childish attempts to bury reason with your coloring book.

You CLOWN.
`
 
Last edited:
.

1. You WHIFFED on my last post pointing out Your Bashing UCS was meaniningless in light of my 20 Other Links (NyTimes, NatGeo, WashingtonExaminer, etc)
GAME OVER


Do you always engage in such blatant mental masturbation? Bet you do..don't you. Self aggrandizement...but we have already talked about that in depth and why you do it....haven't we thunder?
 

Do you always engage in such blatant mental masturbation? Bet you do..don't you. Self aggrandizement...but we have already talked about that in depth and why you do it....haven't we thunder?
You were GUTTED and WHIFFED on my post completely.
You are an asshole/troll and should NOT be here.


TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.

Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change - JAN 18, 2018

The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a rapidly warming world is bringing with it alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.

Indeed, Trump's own secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, was hailed before taking office as the "lone green hope," due to his recognition of global warming's clear and present danger.
[......]​
 

Do you always engage in such blatant mental masturbation? Bet you do..don't you. Self aggrandizement...but we have already talked about that in depth and why you do it....haven't we thunder?
You were GUTTED and WHIFFED on my post completely.
You are an asshole/troll and should NOT be here.


TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.

Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change - JAN 18, 2018

The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a rapidly warming world is bringing with it alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.

Indeed, Trump's own secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, was hailed before taking office as the "lone green hope," due to his recognition of global warming's clear and present danger.
[......]​

The military says sea levels are rising......give us more money.

I'm convinced. How much more money do you feel we should give them?
 
TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.
Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change - JAN 18, 2018

The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a rapidly warming world is bringing with it alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.

Indeed, Trump's own secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, was hailed before taking office as the "lone green hope," due to his recognition of global warming's clear and present danger.
[......]​
The military says sea levels are rising......give us more money.
I'm convinced. How much more money do you feel we should give them?
Hey One line TROLL, Quipster, NON-contributor..
Is that your 1st or 30th Wise crack of the day?
1000th of the Month?
Round numbers will be fine.


I propose we give the military what is needed to prevent Bases from Flooding (which they already are) and going under.. and take them seriously, as they/the Navy especially, is most affected.
The Pentagon also realizes the potential for displacement/unrest due to rising sea level.
Completely reasonable to the People are are most affected Interested, who can't afford to Deny Reality as [inland] Trolls like you.



EDIT to the persistent TROLL Toddster below.
I won't answer your Idiot Posts/Trolls Until and Unless I want to bump this thread to the top. I'll wait til it drifts down the board first.
Thanks your your help and UNWITtingly being my straightman.

`
 
Last edited:
TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.
Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change - JAN 18, 2018

The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a rapidly warming world is bringing with it alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.

Indeed, Trump's own secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, was hailed before taking office as the "lone green hope," due to his recognition of global warming's clear and present danger.
[......]​
The military says sea levels are rising......give us more money.
I'm convinced. How much more money do you feel we should give them?
Hey One line TROLL, Quipster, NON-contributor..
Is that your 1st or 30th Wise crack of the day?

I propose we give the military what is needed to prevent Bases from Flooding (which they already are) and going under.. and take them seriously, as they/the Navy especially, is most affected.
The Pentagon also realizes the potential for displacement/unrest due to rising sea level.
Completely reasonable to the People are are most affected Interested, who can't afford to Deny Reality as Trolls like you.
`

Great ideas!

Now how much do we have to spend to prevent the water from rising?

Round numbers?
 
Great ideas!

Now how much do we have to spend to prevent the water from rising?

Round numbers?
Ahh yes, the thread has drifted down
Time NOW for a reply to my straight man.. and troll... Toddster.

I don't think any amount of money can stop the sea level rising in the next few decades.
We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.

BTW, How many (round numbers) similar ridiculous trolling posts have you made?
(Instead of harassment they're intended to be, I use them to promote my threads when they slow.
Keep em coming)
`
 
The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
ie, Norfolk.
Sea Level is rising 3mm avg, but about 20mm from Virginia all around to the Gulf Coast.
People Notice.
I notice in the Florida Town of my winter home, as do Millions in that state, and others, which now regularly Flood at King Tides and from even small weather events.
We are seeing it on the West coast as well. A place I thought less vulnerable.

Do you ever bother to look up anything, or do you just gobble up whatever unskeptical science and the legion of concerned scientists tell you? Let me guess...you are a gobbler.

Here....Fort Norfolk circa 1935



Here...Fort Norfolk 2014




And we could go right down the coast, to key west and back up and follow the coast right around to Texas looking at historic photos and modern photos of the water front that show practically no difference. If your area is flooding at king tides, it is due to sinking land, not rising seas. Try a bit of critical thinking...it is a bit more work, but it beats the hell out of being a dupe.


I agree with your position, but I think you could have found better examples. I lived in the Tidewater area for many years and never even heard of this place.
 
Great ideas!

Now how much do we have to spend to prevent the water from rising?

Round numbers?
Ahh yes, the thread has drifted down
Time NOW for a reply to my straight man.. and troll... Toddster.

I don't think any amount of money can stop the sea level rising in the next few decades.
We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.

BTW, How many (round numbers) similar ridiculous trolling posts have you made?
(Instead of harassment they're intended to be, I use them to promote my threads when they slow.
Keep em coming)
`

We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.


Or.....we could invest in something that works at providing reliable energy.....nuclear.
 
Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop seas from rising? (Oh and thanks Obama for fucking that up too)

A. $17 trillion
 
We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.


Or.....we could invest in something that works at providing reliable energy.....nuclear.
2/3 of New Industry money is going into Wind and Solar.
Eventually what you say "really works" WILL be the back up.
Right now plenty of room to expand the good stuff. whose reliability and storage capabilities are also improving yearly.
`
 
Great ideas!

Now how much do we have to spend to prevent the water from rising?

Round numbers?
Ahh yes, the thread has drifted down
Time NOW for a reply to my straight man.. and troll... Toddster.

I don't think any amount of money can stop the sea level rising in the next few decades.
We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.

BTW, How many (round numbers) similar ridiculous trolling posts have you made?
(Instead of harassment they're intended to be, I use them to promote my threads when they slow.
Keep em coming)
`

We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.


Or.....we could invest in something that works at providing reliable energy.....nuclear.
Fuck nuclear. Too expensive, too dangerous, too dirty. No waste from solar and wind energy. And it is getting cheaper every day.
 
We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.


Or.....we could invest in something that works at providing reliable energy.....nuclear.
2/3 of New Industry money is going into Wind and Solar.
Eventually what you say "really works" WILL be the back up.
Right now plenty of room to expand the good stuff. whose reliability and storage capabilities are also improving yearly.
`

2/3 of New Industry money is going into Wind and Solar.

I know. With enough stupid mandates and enough stupid subsidies, people waste money on lots of stupidity.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top