U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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 05-12-2015, 03:46 PM
 
9,183 posts, read 9,159,768 times
Reputation: 11521

Advertisements

There's a New Yorker article by Jonathan Franzen that I thought might interest you.

In the twenty-three years since the Rio Earth Summit, at which hopes for a global agreement ran high, not only have carbon emissions not decreased; they’ve increased steeply... Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama was frank about how much action the American political system could deliver on climate change: none. Without the United States, which is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, a global agreement isn’t global, and other countries have little incentive to sign it.



For the article:

The Other Cost of Climate Change - The New Yorker

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2015, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Coastal Georgia
36,944 posts, read 45,385,657 times
Reputation: 61433
"To be human, is to be guilty". BS.
My feeling is that global warming, or cooling, is a natural process which man cannot control or cause. The earth has taken care of itself for a billion years and will continue to do fine, with or without us.
Species come and go, and at some point humans may be one of them, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,306,782 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
There's a New Yorker article by Jonathan Franzen that I thought might interest you.

In the twenty-three years since the Rio Earth Summit, at which hopes for a global agreement ran high, not only have carbon emissions not decreased; they’ve increased steeply... Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama was frank about how much action the American political system could deliver on climate change: none. Without the United States, which is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, a global agreement isn’t global, and other countries have little incentive to sign it.

People still believe this nonsense? I mean seriously... Anyone who still thinks the Earth is heating up must have been nodding off on heroin for the last three winters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 06:12 PM
 
12,667 posts, read 9,907,010 times
Reputation: 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cida View Post
There's a New Yorker article by Jonathan Franzen that I thought might interest you.

In the twenty-three years since the Rio Earth Summit, at which hopes for a global agreement ran high, not only have carbon emissions not decreased; they’ve increased steeply... Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama was frank about how much action the American political system could deliver on climate change: none. Without the United States, which is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, a global agreement isn’t global, and other countries have little incentive to sign it.



For the article:

The Other Cost of Climate Change - The New Yorker

That's an oversimplification. Emissions are increasing, but at the same time, many countries have now pledged to cut their emission drastically by 2050. As to whether they will follow through is a trickier matter, and I'd argue that just emissions data is not the only thing to consider but also what will happen going forward.

Even if much of the Western world cuts CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, the developing world will continue to ramp them up, so even with real effort in the West we will see increasing emissions for a while to come.

I certainly have no intention of buying real estate in the Florida Keys, once Greenland really starts losing a lot of ice it will be too late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 09:41 PM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,942,502 times
Reputation: 2153
Remove the word "keys" from your statement and that is where I am. Not just the Keys will be gone...

If Greenland melts, Georgia and Alabama are gonna get a whole lot more ocean front property.

Just because the mid-west and NE US had a bad winter doesn't mean it was like that all over. It was a very warm winter here for Alaska. In fact most of the time, the NE and Mid West was much colder and got a lot more snow that we did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 09:05 AM
 
12,667 posts, read 9,907,010 times
Reputation: 9429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
Remove the word "keys" from your statement and that is where I am. Not just the Keys will be gone...

If Greenland melts, Georgia and Alabama are gonna get a whole lot more ocean front property.

Just because the mid-west and NE US had a bad winter doesn't mean it was like that all over. It was a very warm winter here for Alaska. In fact most of the time, the NE and Mid West was much colder and got a lot more snow that we did.
Greenland is unlikely to lose all its ice this century, but if emissions have not peaked within the next 20-30 years, it will certainly be a major contributor to sea level rise, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), finally includes a decent compilation of climate science research on.

The IPCC AR4, which came out in 2007, had a set of sea level rise projections which included only the thermal expansion of the oceans and runoff from melting ice sheets and glaciers, but not the loss of chunks of ice resulting from mechanical breakdown of ice caps and ice sheets, such as Greenland and possibly also West Antarctica.

To quote the climate science report directly,"The range excludes future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow, which is not parameterized in the current ice sub-models."

But the newer climate report, the AR5, has revised models which account for this, and this dramatically has increased sea level rise projections.

However, they are still projecting less than 1 meter in sea level rise by 2100 even under an aggressive emissions scenario.

In this case, most of Florida will still be above water, the southern part of the state excepted. The Everglades will be the first thing to go underwater while still on the main peninsula, basically becoming a huge lake.

It is a very real possibility that this will happen this century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 10:04 AM
 
Location: alabama.
2,322 posts, read 1,747,511 times
Reputation: 4700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post

If Greenland melts, Georgia and Alabama are gonna get a whole lot more ocean front property.
.
bring it on .. I`m 950 feet above sea level
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Washington State
18,202 posts, read 9,441,746 times
Reputation: 15505
What does past the tipping point mean? It seems like any warming is creating better plant growth so more food.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Overland Park, KS
187 posts, read 189,818 times
Reputation: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
Remove the word "keys" from your statement and that is where I am. Not just the Keys will be gone...

If Greenland melts, Georgia and Alabama are gonna get a whole lot more ocean front property.

Just because the mid-west and NE US had a bad winter doesn't mean it was like that all over. It was a very warm winter here for Alaska. In fact most of the time, the NE and Mid West was much colder and got a lot more snow that we did.
I've been hearing alarmist lines like this for 30 years. In elementary and middle school, in the 90s, they tried to teach us that Miami and other coastal cities would be underwater already at this point of the 21st century.

For one, climate change can't really be proven to be the sole result of man-made causes. We simply do not have reliable data dating far enough back to develop accurate trends. We know the planet has generally warmed and cooled in cycles, and the sea levels have risen and fallen in cycles as well.

Second, policies, taxes, and fees will only serve to line the pockets of greedy politicians who feed off of alarmist buzz.

Third, why is change so feared? Even if all of this comes true and the oceans rise, temperatures increase, etc; if history has proven anything it's that mankind will persevere. We are intelligent creatures, we will adapt to our new living situation and thrive, and maybe even drive us further into space exploration or oceanic living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2015, 10:03 PM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,942,502 times
Reputation: 2153
The climate is changing... Why are we changing is the biggest issue... If the tides were not getting higher, Miami Beach wouldn't need gigantic pumps to keep the ocean water out. Why is this an issue now? What changed?

I don't really think Florida is going to be under water anytime soon, definitely not my lifetime.. And probably not in my kids either. And even now, with issues with minor flooding, millions are being spent to prevent flooding.

Obviously at one point in history Florida was completely under water and at one time the entire shelf around Florida was above water... Are we really that naive to think that the current land mass we know as Florida won't change, unless we do things to prevent that change? I am not talking about turning off all the power and banning gasoline either. I am talking about building dams and pumping water.

No matter which side you are on, someone is there to make money off it. Whether you deny that change or not.

FWIW, I moved away not because I am afraid my house will be under water. I moved away because as I got older, I became more and more heat intolerant and it is much more enjoyable for me to live in an area that never gets that hot. And I am 600+ ft up above sea level. High enough to not worry about a Tsunami, but low enough that the ice/snow actually melts in the summer.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:45 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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