Miami fighting to hold back the Ocean

[Dot Com]

Insurance costs will be destroying Miami well before it goes under the waves for good. After a couple good storms, insurance will be too costly for anyone but the most wealthy. Housing will get abandoned, the tax base will dry up, and so the flood control infrastructure will decay, hastening the process.

I suppose they could try to turn Miami into a sort of Venice, but that would take time and money and planning by serious people. Meaning it won't be proposed until it's too late.

So Frank, I suggest you invest now. So you can lose you shirt. Unless you manage to snag a government bailout. Being a conservative, you're no doubt very talented at that.

Is that because Florida is the only one of our 57 states with a coastline?

Aren't you the funny one?

 

[tinydancer]

Global warming stalled in 1998. Warming scientists have admitted this.

So what's causing this erosion?

Is anyone actually working on this without bringing bullshit reasons into play?

 

[mamooth]

Is that because Florida is the only one of our 57 states with a coastline?

It's because Miami averages about 3 feet above sea level. And because the everglades to the west will be underwater as well, meaning the water will be coming in from all sides, and also from beneath through the porous limestone. Other large cities have some low lying areas, but none of them is as totally screwed as Miami.

 

[Uncensored2008]

{Let’s understand that the world’s mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Ferenheight (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution… nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can’t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now.}

Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims - Forbes

 

[PMZ]

Global warming stalled in 1998. Warming scientists have admitted this.

So what's causing this erosion?

Is anyone actually working on this without bringing bullshit reasons into play?

There is zero scientific evidence that AGW is not following the consequences of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations exactly as predicted.

If you disagree, post the evidence.

 

[PMZ]

{Let’s understand that the world’s mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Ferenheight (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution… nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can’t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now.}

Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims - Forbes

What nature does to earth is completely out of man's control. Therefore it is irrelevant.

AGW is caused exclusively by what humanity does and therefore is completely and solely ours to control.

The science linking atmospheric GHG concentration with AGW is as certain as gravity. The science linking atmospheric GHG concentrations with fossil fuel consumption, just as certain. The only uncertainty is how long it takes the earth to transition from any given GHG concentration to another. And the exact weather response to any change in climate.

So there are very limited choices for humanity.

Learning what can and can't be done to mitigate what could be catastrophic costs to civilization, vs doing nothing, was decided 25 years ago with the formation of the IPCC.

Now that climate science has been lifted from infancy, we can and have started, but only started, addressing limiting the process of putting all of the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels, back in the atmosphere from which it came, and recreating the pre-carboniferous climate, and the attendant costs of relocating civilization to adapt to that climate.

It is so simple once the political bullshit is swept away.

 

[Politico]

Don't hold it back. Just go to sleep and let the warm water of death wash it away.

 

[PMZ]

Global warming stalled in 1998. Warming scientists have admitted this.

So what's causing this erosion?

Is anyone actually working on this without bringing bullshit reasons into play?

{Let’s understand that the world’s mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Ferenheight (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).

Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution… nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can’t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now.}

Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims - Forbes

You have intermingled two completely unrelated things.

Whatever nature does to earth's climate in unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is whatever it is.

What mankind does to the climate is neither. Now that the IPCC has reached a competent level of climate science, we know the cause and effect of AGW, if not perfectly, adequately.

Because nature's effect is random, it's undeterminable as to whether, in the future, it will add to or subtract from AGW.

So, there's no sense in considering it.

We can calculate from any assumed future fossil fuel consumption, how much OLR will be further reduced. We can calculate from that, how much warmer the earth has to get to restore energy balance.

We will need much more science before we can calculate long term weather forecast to know how many years it takes for stable energy balance to be restored from any further perturbation, and what the transition will look like in terms of precipitation, winds, local temperatures, extreme weather, sea level, ice and snow extent, etc. All of the things that might require mitigation by relocating, rebuilding, additional protection.

One other thing is certain. Fossil fuels are in limited supply and will have to be replaced by sustainable energy at some rate over the next lifetime or two.

We are relying on the IPCC to determine the least expensive rate of conversion. We are relying on the engineers, investors, builders, and government involved in the energy business to figure out the optimum replacement technology.

 

[PMZ]

Don't hold it back. Just go to sleep and let the warm water of death wash it away.

Here's an alternative.

 

[westwall]

Miami's rising water problem - CNN.com Video

All the while, the GOP bangs their drums calling global warming a lie.

It's called beach erosion and it has been going on for decades because all the rivers that used to support the beaches were dammed up. Here's a very good, very old video that explains it for the ignorant propagandist...

 

[mamooth]

Ocean rise without AGW would have been around 6 cm over the next century.

With AGW, 10-20 times as much.

Just pointing out the difference between "natural" and "manmade" here.

And beach erosion existing is a red herring, since no one ever claimed it was all due to AGW.

 

[PMZ]

Miami's rising water problem - CNN.com Video

All the while, the GOP bangs their drums calling global warming a lie.

It's called beach erosion and it has been going on for decades because all the rivers that used to support the beaches were dammed up. Here's a very good, very old video that explains it for the ignorant propagandist...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqT1g2riQ30]Beach: A River of Sand - YouTube[/ame]

If you can't see any difference between your video and the Miami video, time to get your wiring checked.

 

[bripat9643]

Ocean rise without AGW would have been around 6 cm over the next century.

With AGW, 10-20 times as much.

Just pointing out the difference between "natural" and "manmade" here.

And beach erosion existing is a red herring, since no one ever claimed it was all due to AGW.

Horseshit. Sea level has been rising by 7 inches per year for the last 200 years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ocean rise without AGW would have been around 6 cm over the next century.

With AGW, 10-20 times as much.

Just pointing out the difference between "natural" and "manmade" here.

And beach erosion existing is a red herring, since no one ever claimed it was all due to AGW.

Horseshit. Sea level has been rising by 7 inches per year for the last 200 years.

It's been at a steady 7 for about the last 600 years.

 

[Abraham3]

Horseshit. Sea level has been rising by 7 inches per year for the last 200 years.

It's been at a steady 7 for about the last 600 years.

You want to try that again?

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

A number of other data types are used to estimate sea level over preceding ages. Some of them are:

Geological - e.g. raised beaches, wave-cut shelves, transgressive sequences
Biological - e.g. shells, tree stumps, corals, salt marshes
Man-made - e.g. Ancient Roman fish tanks, Crusader wells in the Palestine, middens

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html#fewthousand

 

[Uncensored2008]

Horseshit. Sea level has been rising by 7 inches per year for the last 200 years.

It's been at a steady 7 for about the last 600 years.

You want to try that again?

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

A number of other data types are used to estimate sea level over preceding ages. Some of them are:

Geological - e.g. raised beaches, wave-cut shelves, transgressive sequences
Biological - e.g. shells, tree stumps, corals, salt marshes
Man-made - e.g. Ancient Roman fish tanks, Crusader wells in the Palestine, middens

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

That graph is a complete and utter fabrication, as you know.

There has been zero significant change in the increase in seawater since 1990 - another hockey stick fraud by the AGW cult.

THIS is why a I point out that what you frauds do is anything but science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is that because Florida is the only one of our 57 states with a coastline?

It's because Miami averages about 3 feet above sea level. And because the everglades to the west will be underwater as well, meaning the water will be coming in from all sides, and also from beneath through the porous limestone. Other large cities have some low lying areas, but none of them is as totally screwed as Miami.

So Florida IS the only one of our 57 states that's in contact with an ocean

Hmmmkay

Thank you

 

[PMZ]

Horseshit. Sea level has been rising by 7 inches per year for the last 200 years.

It's been at a steady 7 for about the last 600 years.

You want to try that again?

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

A number of other data types are used to estimate sea level over preceding ages. Some of them are:

Geological - e.g. raised beaches, wave-cut shelves, transgressive sequences
Biological - e.g. shells, tree stumps, corals, salt marshes
Man-made - e.g. Ancient Roman fish tanks, Crusader wells in the Palestine, middens

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

That graph is a complete and utter fabrication, as you know.

There has been zero significant change in the increase in seawater since 1990 - another hockey stick fraud by the AGW cult.

THIS is why a I point out that what you frauds do is anything but science.

Why don't you offer some evidence that what you wish to be true actually is?

 

[hoosier88]

Well, you can't hold back the ocean. If sea level is rising steadily & has been for centuries, then it was v. foolish to build up anything on FL's peninsula. The FL peninsula - TMK - is mostly limestone, v. permeable material that's easily eroded by water, & especially salt water. (Hence the sinkholes, problems getting potable water down the peninsula, etc.) Given that, it's no wonder that USAF closed down the SAC (?) airbase - Homestead? - rather than rebuild it after a hurricane demolished it years ago.

We should take a tip from the repeated flooding of homes/farms/buildings along the MS river floodplain. If people have flood insurance, it pays off once. No rebuilding allowed in FL, unless above a designated high-water mark in the FL panhandle. If people insist on rebuilding in situ, they're on their own. They can find their own flooding, etc. insurance.

As for Epcot & all the high-rises - I'm sure they'll make dandy submarine bases. We still need to keep an eye on the Caribbean, after all. EPCOT would make a nice radome, don't you think? The rest of the state would make a nice marine national park.

 

[Abraham3]

Horseshit. Sea level has been rising by 7 inches per year for the last 200 years.

It's been at a steady 7 for about the last 600 years.

You want to try that again?

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

A number of other data types are used to estimate sea level over preceding ages. Some of them are:

Geological - e.g. raised beaches, wave-cut shelves, transgressive sequences
Biological - e.g. shells, tree stumps, corals, salt marshes
Man-made - e.g. Ancient Roman fish tanks, Crusader wells in the Palestine, middens

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

That graph is a complete and utter fabrication, as you know.

There has been zero significant change in the increase in seawater since 1990 - another hockey stick fraud by the AGW cult.

THIS is why a I point out that what you frauds do is anything but science.

If you want to call me and the folks who plotted that data liars, you better get your ass hot collecting some evidence asshole.

I doubt you could make out 1990 on that plot. The point of that was to refute your (Ms Uncensored) claim that the rate of increase had been steady for 600 years. Did you even look at the scale on the upper plot here? The horizontal axis is 3,000 years. Be that as it may, why don't we have a look at what sea level has actually been doing more recently:

This only goes to 2005 or so, but that's 15 years past the point where you claim it had leveled off. These data don't look like they leveled off dude. That plot was put together by the Permanent Service for Sea Level. Read about them at File:Recent Sea Level Rise.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you think they're just not a trustworthy source, let's see what you've got. Let's see the source that tells you sea level hasn't budged in 23 years.