Environment Study Predicts That Coastal Flooding Is Imminent And We Are Powerless To Stop It!

[nilhil_glory]

http://www.architecture2030.org/current_si...tal_impact.html

check that out

[Destroit]

Wow...crazy shit. I still can't believe there's retarded people out there who believe that it isn't happening...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Thankfully, there are not that many of them. ofcorse, I'm labeled as one of them because I don't buy the hype that it's "mans" fault nor do I buy the "consensus". To buy that "man made" crap you have to ignore the majority of climate science and to buy the consensus you have to only count the minority of climate scientists that signed on to it.

But more on topic.. I wonder how much cash these people were paid by the anti-coal lobby for this information. I mean... everyone talks about how anyone that doen't support the man made consensus theory must be taking money from big business... but like... according to every article I have read.. big business has dumped about 50 million into anti-global warming "studies" where as the pro-global warming groups have invested about 10 times that amount.. I'll see if I can find the numbers...

[angusfergus]

First off, the premise behind that book is that man-made climate change is an undisputed fact. This is false, but I'll stay off that for now. This book is showing the differences a rise of one meter in sea level would cause. I'll use Atlantic City as an example. It purports to show how about 1.5 meters would devastate Atlantic City, NJ. But wait! Atlantic City's DAILY tide fluctuation goes as high as two meters over the average. So what we're saying is, that Atlantic City should be flooding EVERY DAY right now. In other words, this book of 'what could happen if global warming doomsday sayers ARE right' doesn't hold water.

[Msterbeau]

First off, the premise behind that book is that man-made climate change is an undisputed fact. This is false, but I'll stay off that for now. This book is showing the differences a rise of one meter in sea level would cause. I'll use Atlantic City as an example. It purports to show how about 1.5 meters would devastate Atlantic City, NJ. But wait! Atlantic City's DAILY tide fluctuation goes as high as two meters over the average. So what we're saying is, that Atlantic City should be flooding EVERY DAY right now. In other words, this book of 'what could happen if global warming doomsday sayers ARE right' doesn't hold water.

What if you add the 1.5 meters to the 2 meter high tide?

Global warming is happening. Like it or not. Whether it's the result of humans or nature taking it's course is subject to debate. What's not subject to debate is that humans are contributing, to some degree. Air quality and other environmental damage are also occurring due to the amount of CO2 and other substances that get pumped into the atmosphere. It's irresponsible to fight against improving or getting rid of these pollution emitters.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

While that is all true... There is a great deal that we can not do, nor should we even waste the time, energy and money trying to. We are dumping shit loads of money into the "it's man's fault cause".. I cant find the links right now.. but it's like 50million... all that money is going into advertising and paying off scientists to say it is our fault. Where as only about 8million has been spent by the big corps to get people to say it's not man's fault.

We should stop that shit. Thats 58million we could have used to cut down old growth trees (that do very little to take CO2 out of the atmosphere) and plant young trees (that remove 100 times the CO2 as the old trees). Thats 58million we could have used to create algea ponds (that also are great removers of CO2) How many gas stations could have been convereted to carry 85% Ethanol for 58million?

BTW.. just a little piece of fact people seem to either ignore or not see... Most of the warming is already done. I'll see if I can find the articles to back myself up.. but all the scientists talk about the earth warming by .. I think it's 3 degrees over the warming period... whaqt gets glossed over... is thats pretty much done... it's only sopposed to get about .5 degrees warmer before the cooling starts.

Really.. what bothers me is the picking and choosing people do on this subject. People tend to tryr to just ignore parts that dont support thier view of things. For example.. the Sun. I bet I can find 20 websites saying the Sun has nothing to do with the current warming trend. I can also find about the same number sayinig it's the main reason. Then I'll find about the same number that actually give some numbers and real perspective...(these all seem to be done by scientists without political aendas or funding that may get cut) That say the Sun is a major contributor to global warming but not the main cause. They also tend to be the ones that say it's not Man's fault but we did play a large part. Climate scientists put the Sun's influance at somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the global warming trend. Those are the same numbers man gets.

and another thing... Global Climate Models. Fuck them. I'm not sure how they can ever be considered a real scientific tool for predicting anything. Why? Clouds. Not one of the global climate models can simulate clouds or cloud formation. Nor do they take into account changes in the amount of cosmic rays that hit the planet do to fluctuations in the Earth's electromagnetic field. (which are what forms clouds).

No one is looking at all the rise in volcanic activity either and how much dust and gases they put out...

I'll stop babbling now

[angusfergus]

For those dismissing the sun's influence, I'll cite my source as http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

I'll skip right to the important part, feel free to check out the whole thing as I have.

Conclusion

70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.