h a l f b a k e r ySuperficial Intelligence
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Global warming is projected to cause the submergence of Miami and all of southern Florida within the next 100 to 200 years.
Have you ever driven along Interstate 95 southward in the direction of Miami? At several points along the route, with the Atlantic shore only 5-10 miles to the east, you'll
see several artificial hills, 50-feet high, several hundred meters wide, and maybe up to a half mile in length. How do I know they're artificial? Because they're hills in Florida. And they're exactly rectangular in footprint. And their sides have exact slopes of about 25 degrees.
What they are is wastedumps.
Until the issue of Yankee trash became a big political issue in Maryland and Virginia, NYC was shipping its waste 400 miles down I-95 (or via seagoing barges) to dump south of the Mason-Dixon line. Why not ship it a bit farther south, on barges, and build lots more potential islands in the coming Florida Archipelago? Why not add Boston's and Philly's and Baltimore's as well? What, those northern cities have a good use for trash? I don't think so.
You could buy thousands of acres of rural Florida for several million dollars, promote it as a waste dump site to defray your investment, and then wait for the water to rise. Well, ok, it might be your grandkids who'll have to boat out to their island, but just imagine the cash they'll be making in tourism!
Okay, it sounds like a flaky idea. But it's a better investment than worrying about the ecological fragility of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. They'll soon be just a shallow passageway between the Orlando and Miami reefs!
Housecleaning
http://whyfiles.org...ch/images/house.mov
[thumbwax, Oct 06 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Is There a "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming?
http://216.239.39.1...lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8
In short, no. [waugsqueke, Oct 06 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
"No Scientific Consensus on Greenhouse Warming"
http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/noscicons.html
Wall Street Journal, September 23, 1991 [waugsqueke, Oct 06 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Global Warming
http://www.ecwa.asn...nfo/grnhsbrief.html
A perhaps more balanced (and up to date) discussion of global warming [suctionpad, Oct 06 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
greenhouse effect
http://www.accessto...ate/9711/gwarmg.htm
science hard at werk [DeathNinja, Oct 06 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
"Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus"
http://www.carleton...ndzen/lindzen1.html
The author, Richard S. Lindzen, is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That carries a bit of weight with me. [waugsqueke, Oct 17 2004]
Disinfopedia/PR Watch: Richard S. Lindzen
http://www.disinfop...=Richard_S._Lindzen
OPEC paid him to write that. Now, that doesn't mean that what he writes is wrong - but you're hearing about this guy's opinion because there's an industry who wants you to hear it; and you're not going to hear from equally distinguished colleagues who disagree with him. [jutta, Oct 17 2004]
Fat literature research on climate change
http://www.newscien...arth/mg18624934.300
Not enought science? Here's another plateful [moomintroll, Apr 01 2005]
No consensus on Chicago air pollution
http://www.wbez.org...-one-toxic-20-89426
Read between the lines: Chicago IL no is air pollution!! [pashute, Mar 23 2014]
[link]
|
| |
Do you believe everything you read? |
|
| |
// Global warming is projected to cause the submergence of Miami and all of southern Florida within the next 100 to 200 years. // |
|
| |
Baloney. It's bad science. There are about a hundred years worth of statistics over the course the hundreds of millions of years the planet's existed, on which to base a theory. An impossibly small sample and useless, scientifically speaking. Easily dismissed and really rather ridiculous that it's given any credence at all. |
|
| |
I have a theory that the people that disbelieve global warming are probably all descendants of the people who told Columbus he would fall off the edge of the earth. |
|
| |
Florida Schmorida. If you're going to make land make it right by Manhattan Island. There's some valuable real estate for you. Just start at Battery Park and keep on moving out. You might need negatively numbered streets. |
|
| |
What [waugsqeke] said. Perfectly valid point. I don't burn things for fun (well maybe..) but I certainly wouldn't want to predict global weather changes that are inherently chaotic based on a 100year sample. Liebniz got this one right. |
|
| |
I believe global warming may happening. I don't believe we can do anything about it. During 99% of the Earth's history, it's been a lot warmer than it is now. Ask any paleontologist. We should spend the money that is now being wasted on global warming on something more doable, like saving the ozone layer, or preventing an asteroid strike. |
|
| |
Or stocking my fridge with beer and pork chops |
|
| |
Atmostpheric CO2 levels and temperatures have been rising for the last 20000 years. However, the question is whether this has anything to do with man or if it's just the natural cycle of things. What is true is that we are certainly affecting global N and C cycles. What we don't know is the long term effects. |
|
| |
//If all of the ice in the Arctic ice cap melted the effect on ocean levels would be exactly nil.// |
|
| |
There are a lot of glaciers within the arctic circle which will also melt as the temperature rises, adding to sea levels. |
|
| |
And as for the attitude that we can't prove global warming, I would tend to take the word of the scientific community, where following a lot of research by some of the finest minds in the world (cough) the common consensus is that it is being accelerated by anthropogenic sources of carbon. |
|
| |
//The so-called 'common concensus' is a media myth.// |
|
| |
I would have to disagree. While there are a few academics who will argue that an enhanced greenhouse effect is either not occurring or is purely a natural phenomenon, most do agree that there has been a steadily growing impact from man-made greenhouse gases. If anything the media tends to attach to the few who argue against "global warming", as they (a) provide balance in an argument and (b) provide comfort to those who generate large quantities of greenhouse gases (i.e. Americans). |
|
| |
A straw poll of the scientists in my office has confirmed this analysis (3 vs 0). |
|
| |
That is not to say that the earth will necessarily grow warmer. An increase in the ability of the atmosphere to hold in heat could in fact push us towards an ice-age instead. |
|
| |
// most do agree that there has been a steadily growing impact from man-made greenhouse gases. // |
|
| |
I find it odd that scientists would agree with a statement for which there is no measurable scientific way to determine the accuracy. If there is anything to agree with, it is the possibility that there might be something to the theory and it is work investigating further. But there is simply not enough evidence in existence to state the case one way or the other. |
|
| |
[Waste of time entering the discussion, krel, despite my repeated requests for you to leave me the fuck alone - you just can't help yourself. I will not respond.] |
|
| |
//100 years of evidence//
//not enough evidence in existence//
Bullshit. |
|
| |
There is plenty more evidence than 100 years worth of weather data. Core samples from glaciers can tell us about the history of that hunk of ice. By examining the tree rings on a 1000 year old redwood, one can deduce the average weather conditions over a longer period. And so on, and so on. There is lots and lots of this kind of data to tell us what average weather conditions were like going back thousands of years. |
|
| |
Eloquently put [krelnik]. |
|
| |
[Waugsqueke] there is a definite and identifiable effect of CO2 (or other "greenhouse gas") concentrations on the ability of the gases in our atmosphere to hold in heat - this is easily demonstrated in the laboratory. What is less easy to demonstrate is the impact changes in CO2 concentration will have on Earth, due to the range of complex interactions present. Computer models (which you may scoff at, but which certainly provide qualitative if not quantitative results) demonstrate that increases in CO2 concentration in the order of those we are currently experiencing will result in a significant rise in mean temperatures (in the order of 1 to 5 degC, I forget the exact values). |
|
| |
The important point is that all this is occurring over a timescale of a couple of hundred years. Previous movements in CO2 concentrations, and climactic changes driven by other events, have generally occurred over millennia. Those that did not resulted in mass extinctions (e.g. late Cambrian extinction believed to be caused by rapid changes in temperature from methane release into atmosphere). You may want to bury your head in the sand, or you may have an alternative theory on what will happen to Earth's climate if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. However unless you can produce an alternative theory, and back it up with sound arguments and observations, then the "common consensus" will be that you are wrong. |
|
| |
The only thing that the greenhouse effect does is generate more lush plant growth over the planet, which in turn will consume more CO2 and produce more oxygen, which eventually will re-balance out the atmosphere. |
|
| |
//Let's Save Florida// - why? I've never been but I know people who have, and haven't really enjoyed it (other than a trip to Cape Canaveral). |
|
| |
suctionpad, yes I am familiar with the CO2 greenhouse effect, and indeed, it does exist, I agree. I don't necessarily accept that the human effect of CO2 production since the industrial revolution is creating that effect at this time, however. There is no evidence that it is. |
|
| |
Recommend further discussion on this be taken to overbaked. Someone will post a link, I'm sure. |
|
| |
Indeed [Waugs]...
but would suggest the sudden spike of CO2 over the last few hundred years, coinciding with human population growth and industrialisation, is quite a coincidence if nothing else.
(ahhh...the last word) |
|
| |
The Greenland ice sheet is pretty big (2.6 million cubic kilometres), and more susceptible to melting than Antarctic ice. |
|
| |
PeterSilly, the reason we want to save florida is not because anybody enjoys it. I can think of two reasons for saving Florida: (1) to keep the Cuban refugee transits down to a manageable distance of less than 200 miles, and (2) because when we have a massive shallow reef where Florida used to be, some goofball will post a half-baked idea here that we should level the Rockies and bulldoze the excess across the South to fill in where Florida used to be. I'm just trying to help Cubans and avoid silly ideas here. Oh, excuse me PeterSilly, I mean "inane ideas." |
|
| |
Fact: The planet is getting warmer. This can be documented through a number of empirical measurements. |
|
| |
Questionable: Whether or not we are causing it. |
|
| |
The problem is people confuse arguments over one with arguments over the other. Regardless of the truth of the second point, the conditions which will lead to this idea being viable are present. Hell, most of Florida is only 8 feet above sea level. So we can't bone it on scientific grounds, except perhaps the grounds that garbage is unfit to live on. |
|
| |
If we're using energy in any fashion, we're contributing in some degree or another. It all ends up as heat. The only thing one needs to do to quantify our impact is compare our total energy usage with the total amount of natural energy. Simple. |
|
| |
>Fact: The planet is getting warmer. This can be documented through a number of empirical measurements. |
|
| |
Fifth, over what timeframe? It's getting warmer here on the US West Coast as the sun rises, but it is Fall, so it's getting cooler, but the last few years seem to have been getting warmer, but maybe over the last 7 decades, things have gotten cooler, but it's been a while since the last ice age, and ultimately I guess Earth will get a lot warmer as we crash into the sun before it goes supernova? |
|
| |
Point is, one cannot state as fact an assertion witout some sense of the timeframe involved. We humans are pretty darned self-centered. |
|
| |
RS, maybe not quite so simple. What are we doing to change earth's albedo (i.e. reflective qualities?) |
|
| |
2+2=4.
The fact that someone may question this does not make it questionable. |
|
| |
And - what 5th Earth said. This idea's weaker point is how you can pack the garbage down well enough to make it a suitable base to put buildings on later. Foundations would constantly be subject to settling as garbage decomposes, erodes differently, etc. |
|
| |
Better tell those Seoulites not to build on those trash hills they have that are only 20 years mature. (Come to thing of it, Koreans are prone to erecting department stores that have a tendency to spontaneusly un-erect.) |
|
| |
Anyway, who's gonna quibble over a few centuries? To paraphrase that baseball movie" "If you wait long enough, they will build." |
|
| |
Just out of curiosity, since this is an old
discussion that has been revived over
the years, have any of the former 'global
warming sceptics' been swayed by more
recent data, or vice versa? |
|
| |
I'm about as convinced of it as I was convinced that we'll all starve to death when "The Population Bomb" was published. |
|
| |
Well, I do get peckish sometimes. |
|
| |
I didn't know about the trees in the
Amazon being net producers of CO2 -
interesting. Link? |
|
| |
There is sufficient reason, from cost to efficiency to politics to health, and without regard to global warming, to reduce use of fossil fuel. Not to mention the current (though probably passing) fad that it may actually be running out. |
|
| |
[longshot] //From reading the article.../
/ Oh, well, if you're going to cheat.... |
|
| |
[longshot] //we'd just move to where the waves couldn't hit us// - you wouldn't be sitting in a country with a lot of spare real eastate, by any chance, would you? Rather than, say, the UK, or Holland? |
|
| |
Damn, I promised myself I Wasn't going to get dragged into this. But since I'm here: the 'not enough evidence' argument could conceivably be maintained for another couple of global cycles, I guess. By which time we'll all be dead. Furthermore, two of the biggest scientific endeavours undertaken have focussed on this stuff - the IPCC and the MA (link)which both reported in the last year or so. Whether there is a human factor in these climate changes is a rapidly-closing open question. |
|
| |
Nobody knows what will happen as the climate changes. Lots of scientists (must resist the temptation to call them 'little wizards') are working very hard to model this, but I suspect that at the moment your guess is as good as theirs. The predictions vary all the way from nuthin' to an unstable equilibrium which may already have been tipped (= your grandchildren are already doomed). Either way, it seems to me to make sense to minimise my ecological footprint on the world. |
|
| |
Okay, no more from me, I promise. This belongs elsewhere. |
|
| |
Well, I still think that on global warming, we still have the case of the oil industry paying folks with PhD's to say 2+2=5 or that we don't know what 2+2=?. |
|
| |
2+2=4. The fact that someone may question this does not make it questionable. Paying someone to question it and publish the question does not make it questionable. The VAST majority of research (that is not funded by the oil industry either directly or indirectly (as in Dick Cheney's decision on who to fund)) on the subject of global warming shows that human behavior is having a large negative effect. |
|
| |
Yes, there are other factors. Does that mean that human behavior is not a factor that is significant, and within our control? |
|
| |
It's a "robbing of the commons" if I ever saw one. |
|
| |
I have heard that some rich builders ahve erected some man made islands in miami, in the shape of the world. The continents anyway. And very rich people have houses on them. Very valuable indeed. |
|
| |
Who doesn't want to visit an island of trash in what was once a city? |
|
| |
For those of you who are cynics about global warming, it's a contentious issue, however these are facts (from a palaeoclimatologist colleague of mine - I work in a very much related area but I thought I'd let him have the final word). |
|
| |
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased exponentially over the last 200 years. |
|
| |
Whilst CO2 levels have been higher in the past, the rate of change has never been so fast. |
|
| |
The change in CO2 levels is due to fossil fuel burning - the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 has dropped over the last 200 years. This can only be due to biogenic (photosynthetic) material entering the atmosphere ie fossil fuel burning. |
|
| |
Increased CO2, by basic physical chemistry, *has* to increase global temperatures. The Earth has been warmer in the past. The Earth will survive it. The question is whether civilisation will survive. What we don't know is how the global system will deal with this. However, are we willing to wait and find out? |
|
| |
While I doubt this would save Florida, I'm all in favor of dumping our trash there. |
|
| |
I'm not a big fan of Florida in general, but my island of Key West (Florida) is the best place in the whole universe. Unfortunately it’s only 18 feet above sea level at it’s peak (called Solares hill). In order to help it buoyantly stay above sea level, I drink a bottle of wine every day and bury the cork in the back yard. If anyone wants to help me save Key West let me know. |
|
| |
If they were going to give the world an enema, they'd stick the nozzle in Florida. My hatred of Florida aside... |
|
| |
I like the idea of dumping trash in Florida...whatever the reason, or outcome. |
|
| |
Why this enthusiasm for trashing Florida? |
|
| |
You know that whenever a dump gets flooded with water, it gets washed into the rivers and lakes (in this case it's oceans) and then it causes a master catastrophe.... I voteth, nay! [-] |
|
| |
Chicago IL no is air pollution. C Link... |
|
| |
//t gets washed into the rivers and lakes (in this case it's oceans) |
|
| |
All the rivers run into the sea, but the sea is never full, from whence the river came, thither they return...((optional) Imperium)... |
|
| |
gotta love that article: "Illinois is in the top 20 worst polluting States" ... there's only 50 something of them to begin with, what idiot decided "20" was a profound number ? |
|
| |
OK, this may be 6.6 years late, but I can't let that
pass. "Voteth" would, if anything, be the third-
person - "He voteth". |
|
| |