91–100 of 113 posts
If you can sell the last apartment in a condo tower, who cares that a day later the rising tides rust out the elevator components?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years That is wishful thinking. The clear consensus is that we can't, and that it's not a close call.
Sources please. The clear consensus is that AGW is real. That is a far cry from saying that there is a clear consensus that it must be dealt with ever, let alone that it must be dealt with in the near-term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sources please. The clear consensus is that AGW is real. That is a far cry from saying that there is a clear consensus that it must be dealt with ever, let alone that it must be dealt with in the near-term.
There's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with, however, there is a clear consensus that if we don't deal with it (which is a quite possible scenario) then places like Florida Keys will cease to be inhabitable within the next 50-100 years.
If you mean that there is no political consensus in the United States, yes, that's true beyond a doubt.
If you mean that there is no consensus among scientists and experts in the field, then that's wrong. There is and has been a clear consensus that we "must" act urgently.
Why is humanity still pumping unsustainable levels of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when all the science points to that being a road that leads to catastrophic consequences which we can't predict?
Second, even if coordination can be solved, by and large the groups/areas that can make a meaningful reduction are not the groups/areas that will bear most of the consequences, there's no such thing as a single, aligned direction of interest/benefit for humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the part where the report was discussing the last 10 years, not just the current year.
The above linked article does the same thing the OP does, that is makes a statement about Miami then points to flooding on Miami Beach . Miami is mainland and Miami Beach is a barrier island, yet the increased flooding is only ever claimed on Miami Beach the barrier island, ignoring the fact that the mainland is sea level but sees no increased flooding nor as kls points out there is no increased flooding in the Flori…
> the linked article is very clear the increased flooding is attributable to tide (lunar) events for the most part. ... it will be interesting to see if flooding begins to decline as the moon begins to move away from the Earth
That is not what the article says. The article does not at all attribute the increased tide height to lunar activity; the words "moon" and "lunar" do not appear in the text. Everyone says this is a long-term problem and they do not mention any possibility of improvement due to the moon.
> the island lost land that used to soak up rain water like a sponge
The water causing the floods is coming up through the ground from the sea, not coming down from the sky. Rain isn't an issue.
> if this were a natural phenomenon caused by climate change as opposed to over development and tide events, Miami and the Keyes would see increase flooding as well but these studies appear to be limited to Miami Beach.
What is that based on? The article explains the reason that Miami Beach is affected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with, however, there is a clear consensus that if we don't deal with it (which is a quite possible scenario) then places like Florida Keys will cease to be inhabitable within the next 50-100 years.
> There's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with If you mean that there is no political consensus in the United States, yes, that's true beyond a doubt. If you mean that there is no consensus among scientists and experts in the field, then that's wrong. There is and has been a clear consensus that we "must" act urgently.
However, if we're looking at the actions of everyone who might actually deal with it, then there's a clear consensus that we're actually choosing to face the consequences instead.
"Must" implies a degree of certainty, a statement that we will have to deal with it one way or another, and thus we will deal with it - however, that doesn't seem to be the case here, it is quite plausible that we will choose to not deal with it properly. It would be nice if we acted urgently, but there's no "must" there - it's quite likely that we will not do so.
If we want to use the word "must" then it might be more appropriate to say that irreversible climate change is the thing that must occur, given the current global political 'climate'.
If you look at various financial crises throughout history, you'll see that even amid increasingly clear evidence of problems, the status quo is surprisingly sticky. Things move along as normal, and everything seems fine until suddenly... they don't. In hindsight things seem obvious, but at the time it's difficult to know if you are merely flirting with the edge, or you've actually gone over it. Miami real estate (an…
It is a long title as is, but should read Miami Beach . Rising sea levels are an interesting question for barrier islands like Miami Beach and Florida as a whole. Though its important to also understand some of these articles unfairly paint sea level rise and climate change as responsible for a new phenomenon, the truth is Miami Beach has always flooded (during full moons water can rise right up through the ground).…
The article clearly states that already; the point of the article, for which it provides ample evidence, is that the flooding has become much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with If you mean that there is no political consensus in the United States, yes, that's true beyond a doubt. If you mean that there is no consensus among scientists and experts in the field, then that's wrong. There is and has been a clear consensus that we "must" act urgently.
Scientists have a clear consensus that if we don't do it, then we'll have certain consequences. However, if we're looking at the actions of everyone who might actually deal with it, then there's a clear consensus that we're actually choosing to face the consequences instead. "Must" implies a degree of certainty, a statement that we will have to deal with it one way or another, and thus we will deal with it - however,…
> if we're looking at the actions of everyone who might actually deal with it, then there's a clear consensus that we're actually choosing to face the consequences instead.
Very many are denying that climate change is happening, or falling back to denying the consequences, or falling back to saying there's nothing we can do about it.