U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2018, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Dayton, OH
570 posts, read 232,160 times
Reputation: 2358

Advertisements

I think the point was that both Cal State Northridge and Wright State are not highly ranked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2018, 03:39 PM
 
7,727 posts, read 4,452,166 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
As to the whole bit about weather, I don't mean to inject politically laden diatribe, but... whatever happens to global temperature averages and increases in sea-level, wealthy coastal communities - of the sort that I've been lauding in my posts - will figure out a way to cope. They will not diminish in cultural stature, even if they diminish in literal physical stature. Regarding specifically our local weather, perhaps I am blinded by contempt and personal vitriol, but I find the winters to be getting harsher - not milder. Nearly every year in recent memory, we have a "polar vortex", during which it is colder in Dayton than it is in Moscow or St. Petersburg (Russia) - places with whose cold I'm quite familiar. While the overall planet-wide trend may be more warmth, it is entirely possible that large swaths of the planet, such as the American Northeast and Midwest, may actually get colder.
I think you are very, very wrong about this. Perhaps Manhattan and a few other cities can build sea level rise defenses, but most of Florida and other southeastern coastal areas will be swamped. They'll try to get the rest of the U.S. to subsidize projects in Florida and it will become untenable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.c386a55582c2

Read post 15 and especially post 16 in the linked thread, and definitely read the linked materials (the Guardian article about Harold Wanless, chair of the Univ. of Miami geological sciences department, especially is disconcerting). E.g., Miami Beach already has committed $500 million in an attempt to adapt to sea level rise, yet likely still is doomed. Unlike Manhattan's bedrock, southern Florida is built on porous limestone, that reportedly dissolves in sea water.

Les Wexner abandons GOP

If you consider the methane threat, the situation is much, much more dire than generally is understood.

The tax burden in NYC could become even more burdensome, and what about less densely populated areas such as on Long Island? Who wants to live behind high dikes instead of beautiful beaches???

The population migrations to the Midwest could be crushing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2018, 04:29 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 4,637,282 times
Reputation: 12501
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
I think you are very, very wrong about this. ...

The population migrations to the Midwest could be crushing.
Environmental catastrophe is a serious threat, and I don't mean to diminish it. But perhaps perversely, the more dire such threat, the more us rural Midwestern landowners are going to benefit. In every crisis, there's a sliver of middlemen and opportunists, or if you like, war-profiteers. What would it be like, to become one of them?

So, in this instance, I would gladly be proven to be wrong. I would gladly be jeered as the histrionic fool who bloviated about the Midwest real estate market lagging for decades, if/when eventually the trend reverses owing to climactic conditions. But what if I'm not wrong, and the trends that first started in the 1970s hold for the entire 21st century, and beyond? What if the US becomes like one of those second-world countries, with a gleaming capital and perhaps a handful of other prosperous and thriving cities, with everything else becoming decrepit "provinces"?

Let me give another analogy - and admittedly, an extravagant one... or perhaps not. Suppose that it's 1991, in the USSR, and the nation is about to disintegrate. We are in a midsized city in Siberia, which specializes in a combination of heavy industry and military research. Our city was artificially created, carved out of the tundra by government fiat. Foodstuffs and nearly everything else has to be brought in by rail. We manage because we fulfill a crucial government function, according to the centrally-planned economy. Then one day, a few months later, the Soviet flag is lowered from the main flagpole in Red Square, and the Russian flag rises. Suddenly there's no defense industry anymore. Soldiers aren't getting fed or clothed, and in that context, who cares about missiles or submarines? Massive smelting-furnaces go idle; who cares about tonnage of stainless-steel or whatever, when consumers want fresh food and Western stuff? Suddenly our city is bereft of its reason for existing. All of the national resources are concentrated in Moscow, and maybe a few secondary cities, or resort-towns on the Black Sea coast.

In this scenario, there's not much that the city fathers could do, to reverse the decline of the city. Tax-breaks won't lure businesses. Incentives won't motivate workers. Anyone with any skill or labor-vitality would board the next train to Moscow, never to come back. The only ones who remain are the sick, the elderly, the desperate and the clueless.

Decades pass. The earth warms. Italy, Spain and Turkey becomes arid deserts, impossible to farm. Polar ice melts, to the point where ships can sail from Korea to Norway through the Arctic, without icebreaker escort. The Baltic warms, to the point where it's the new Black Sea. Tundra becomes forest, and a billion acres that formerly only hosted pines and birches, can now grow tomatoes and even grapes. What of our Siberian city? Will it grow? Will the people who boarded those trains to Moscow as teenagers, return to our city as pensioners?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2018, 06:09 PM
 
7,727 posts, read 4,452,166 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Environmental catastrophe is a serious threat, and I don't mean to diminish it. But perhaps perversely, the more dire such threat, the more us rural Midwestern landowners are going to benefit. In every crisis, there's a sliver of middlemen and opportunists, or if you like, war-profiteers. What would it be like, to become one of them?

So, in this instance, I would gladly be proven to be wrong. I would gladly be jeered as the histrionic fool who bloviated about the Midwest real estate market lagging for decades, if/when eventually the trend reverses owing to climactic conditions. But what if I'm not wrong, and the trends that first started in the 1970s hold for the entire 21st century, and beyond? What if the US becomes like one of those second-world countries, with a gleaming capital and perhaps a handful of other prosperous and thriving cities, with everything else becoming decrepit "provinces"?

Let me give another analogy - and admittedly, an extravagant one... or perhaps not. Suppose that it's 1991, in the USSR, and the nation is about to disintegrate. We are in a midsized city in Siberia, which specializes in a combination of heavy industry and military research. Our city was artificially created, carved out of the tundra by government fiat. Foodstuffs and nearly everything else has to be brought in by rail. We manage because we fulfill a crucial government function, according to the centrally-planned economy. Then one day, a few months later, the Soviet flag is lowered from the main flagpole in Red Square, and the Russian flag rises. Suddenly there's no defense industry anymore. Soldiers aren't getting fed or clothed, and in that context, who cares about missiles or submarines? Massive smelting-furnaces go idle; who cares about tonnage of stainless-steel or whatever, when consumers want fresh food and Western stuff? Suddenly our city is bereft of its reason for existing. All of the national resources are concentrated in Moscow, and maybe a few secondary cities, or resort-towns on the Black Sea coast.

In this scenario, there's not much that the city fathers could do, to reverse the decline of the city. Tax-breaks won't lure businesses. Incentives won't motivate workers. Anyone with any skill or labor-vitality would board the next train to Moscow, never to come back. The only ones who remain are the sick, the elderly, the desperate and the clueless.

Decades pass. The earth warms. Italy, Spain and Turkey becomes arid deserts, impossible to farm. Polar ice melts, to the point where ships can sail from Korea to Norway through the Arctic, without icebreaker escort. The Baltic warms, to the point where it's the new Black Sea. Tundra becomes forest, and a billion acres that formerly only hosted pines and birches, can now grow tomatoes and even grapes. What of our Siberian city? Will it grow? Will the people who boarded those trains to Moscow as teenagers, return to our city as pensioners?
Your scenario is sadly very possible. Everybody becomes poorer, but some areas are RELATIVE beneficiaries.

E.g., the prospect of inundation increasingly will torpedo Florida real estate prices versus Dayton. Don't believe me? It may already be happening.

https://www.zillow.com/miami-beach-fl/home-values/

https://www.zillow.com/dayton-oh/home-values/

Obviously, if the U.S. and the world becomes more serious about forestalling man-made climate change, the flight to the Midwest may not be as hasty.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...democrats.html

Having personally read many of the scientific reports about man-made climate change, I've noted repeatedly qualifiers that forecasts don't incorporate the impact of methane. It's likely IMO that rather being alarmists, climate change scientists have been much too conservative in their assessments. If I'm correct, this will become obvious over the next decade as the great thaw creates a rapid and massive increase in atmospheric methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

https://www.methanelevels.org/

Last edited by WRnative; 09-28-2018 at 06:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2018, 06:58 PM
 
6,481 posts, read 3,606,453 times
Reputation: 8753
Coastal cities may have an issue but it's not like the entire coastal states are going to sink, even the worst projections are just talking about a relative sliver of coast line being lost. What Does U.S. Look Like With 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise? | Climate Central Miami may be in trouble but every other major coastal city in Florida would be relatively OK even at 10' of rise. Beachfront property just moves in a bit. NYC will be fine. Miami and New Orleans are the two big ones at risk.

If it was that extreme the great lakes would just become part of the Atlantic and spill over and have another permanent great Dayton flood too. East coast would flock to Appalachia if anything. Not low lying Dayton.

Last edited by notnamed; 09-28-2018 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2018, 08:42 PM
 
7,727 posts, read 4,452,166 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Coastal cities may have an issue but it's not like the entire coastal states are going to sink, even the worst projections are just talking about a relative sliver of coast line being lost. What Does U.S. Look Like With 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise? | Climate Central Miami may be in trouble but every other major coastal city in Florida would be relatively OK even at 10' of rise. Beachfront property just moves in a bit. NYC will be fine. Miami and New Orleans are the two big ones at risk.
Ridiculously wrong, and what makes you think sea level rise will be limited to just 10 feet???

Likely you're vastly underestimating the problem, if the worst fears of at least one scientist studying the problem are realized. Harold Wanless is chair of the geological sciences department at the Univ. of Miami, and he studies the impact of the accelerating Greenland ice melt on southern Florida sea level rise. Read the last paragraph of post 17 in this thread carefully.

Les Wexner abandons GOP

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...elizabeth-rush

One hundred feet of sea level rise would swamp NYC, only 35 feet above sea level, and Wanless says at the current rate of ACCELERATION of sea level rise, doubling every seven years, we actually can expect over 200 feet of sea level rise by 2095. Fifteen feet of sea level rise by 2100, which Wanless estimates as likely, probably assuming we come to our senses in the near future and make serious efforts to mitigate man-made climate change, would inundate most of southern Florida and other East Coast coastal areas.

Significantly populated areas of Florida have elevations of less than 5 meters (about 16.5) feet; Miami (and many other Florida southeastern coastal cities) is less than 7 feet above sea level. Just 50 feet of sea level rise would inundate most of southern Florida. Of course, sea levels would rise much more than this during King Tides or hurricane storm surges.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...uthern-florida

Also, the Carolinas have been inundated far inland in two of the last three years by 500-year flooding (Hurricane Mathew and now Florence). How long will these 500-year flood plains be considered habitable or perhaps even farmable?

<<She added that the fact that so many massive flooding events have occurred in recent years is notable. "Farms that are flooding a lot are not even in 100-year flood plains.">>

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/...ce/1410031002/

Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
If it was that extreme the great lakes would just become part of the Atlantic and spill over and have another permanent great Dayton flood too. East coast would flock to Appalachia if anything. Not low lying Dayton.
Why do persons just make up things when with the internet it is SO, SO EASY to research topics?

If all of the global ice melts, and if warmer oceans expand, it does appear Lake Ontario, which is only 243 feet above sea level would be vulnerable. Lake Erie, however, is 570 feet above sea level. Total ice melt would raise ocean levels by about 80 meters (about 265 feet). Ocean thermal expansion also could be significant, but I haven't seen that quantified.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Dayton's elevation is 738 feet above current sea level.

What I focus on is Wanless' calculation that the rate of sea level rise is doubling every seven years. How bad will the negative impacts become before we aggressively tackle the problem? Will we wait too long and natural methane releases will overwhelm our ability to do anything about it???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2018, 10:17 PM
 
6,481 posts, read 3,606,453 times
Reputation: 8753
Sorry, worst case scenario for this century is 10 feet. Pretty sure your property value won’t matter to you after that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 10:42 AM
 
7,727 posts, read 4,452,166 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Sorry, worst case scenario for this century is 10 feet. Pretty sure your property value won’t matter to you after that.
Worse case scenario for this century is NOT 10 feet, but 100 to 200 feet, as I've repeatedly documented. Again, if the rate of sea level rise IS doubling every seven years, and we continue to do too little to check fossil fuel burning, we will see much more than 10 feet of sea level rise, perhaps even by 2050. As noted repeatedly, Univ. of Miami scientist Harold Wanless says that at the current increasing rates of sea level rise, if unchecked, we'll see closer to 200 feet of sea level rise. If Wanless is correct, we'll see much higher levels of sea level rise even by 2030 than currently anticipated; by then, our nation may take man-made climate change much more seriously, but our response sadly may be much too little and certainly much too late.

Please read the Guardian article about Harold Wanless' research again. He says that, BASED ON THE EMPIRICAL DATA, the current rate of sea level rise is doubling every seven years in southern Florida (sea level rise is not consistent across the entire planet). This is such a serious OBSERVATION, government scientists and policy experts should be examining the accuracy and implications of his observation with great scrutiny. If Wanless is correct, which appears likely just examining what information is available to us, we should be making the reduction of fossil fuel burning a top national priority. Instead, we have a President and Republican Party encouraging an increase in fossil fuel burning. It's madness IMO.

Human beings inevitably don't want to consider worse case possibilities. However, empirical data is much harder to sweep under the rug, even though Republicans have done their best to do so by suppressing climate change research funding, wiping clean many government websites discussing the issue, reassigning or terminating government scientists who have warned about the impending catastrophe, even banning the use of words such as "climate change."

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...e13576691.html

DOE Climate Office Bans Use of Phrase

Do you approve of the suppression of scientists and scientific research in the Trump administration?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/c...e-adviser.html

When a highly reputable scientist such as Wanless makes a simple empirical observation -- that the rate of sea level rise is doubling every seven years -- I don't want the observation and its consequences ignored or mocked.

Please explain to me why YOU aren't concerned about his empirical observation and subsequent extrapolation that results in the inundation of Florida and significant population areas of the East Coast within 80 years. I either want Wanless debunked -- someone to prove that sea level rise based on empirical data is NOT doubling every seven years, or that his extrapolation showing well over a HUNDRED FEET of sea level rise by the end of this century is wrong.

Wanless, in a good use of the scientific method, once observing the acceleration in sea level rise, went further and sought out the causes, which include thermal expansion of rapidly warming oceans and the acceleration of the disastrous ice melt in Greenland.

Why is Wanless wrong? Why are the federal and Florida governments ignoring him?????

Why are Ohioans so complacent about hundreds of billions of federal spending (too often enabled by deficit spending which effectively is borrowing from future generations of Americans) being diverted from states such as Ohio to fund response, recovery, and prevention efforts dealing with climate change consequences? If Wanless is correct, as a nation, we're just throwing good money after bad, while neglecting infrastructure spending that could be better used in relocation and enhancing infrastructure in states such as Ohio.

Last edited by WRnative; 09-29-2018 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 12:33 PM
 
6,481 posts, read 3,606,453 times
Reputation: 8753
I’m not personally concerned because I’m on the west coast with a mountain range between me and the ocean and have no plans for children.

But yes I think what the Trump administration is doing is criminal and we should be investing much more to combat climate change. Heck, even if you do believe it’s a “Chinese hoax”, what’s the harm in making us more efficient with cleaner air and water?

I just think a great migration to Dayton in our lifetimes is far fetched. There are a lot of places at elevation that are more desirable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2019, 08:04 PM
 
8,452 posts, read 8,754,139 times
Reputation: 10524
just saw a re-broadcast of this, and it's a GREAT documentary.

I hope all the posters here actually saw it, not just replying to other posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top