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.
High tide in Miami has changed 9 inchs in the past 100 years......except for 4 areas that have sunk about 3 inches...."subsidence"....they were all bay bottom fill pumped up to make artificial land..and are still compacting and sinking
Except high tide in South Florida looks like the flood gates opened on dry days.
Just this past year the Outer Banks were slammed with Rt 12 still closed. Islands changing and losing shoreline. Homes on pylons are now unable to be used at high tide.
Storms have more energy to feed from because of warmer temp.
Sounds real good. The ground is sinking. Not caused by higher sea water levels which are infiltrating fresh water sources in all of South Fla..
Try not to conflate two different things....
Salt water is infiltrating coastal freshwater wells for three main reasons..
fresh water is being pumped out faster than it can percolate back in..
..canals and draining the Everglades cut off the water that would have percolated...and inland wells are pumping that out
9 inchs of sea level rise in 100 years would have also contributed to that....but fresh water sits on top of salt water...if the fresh water was there...it would have pushed it up
..there used to be fresh water springs bubbling up in Biscayne Bay...coming from the aquifer
The main causes of saltwater intrusion are happening way inland and have nothing to do with sea level rise
null hypothesis: no impact from humans on climate change (and sea rise)
alternative hypothesis: significant impact from humans on climate change (and sea rise)
Which is more dangerous?
1) type 1 error - liberals saying there is an impact when an impact truly doesn't exist
2) type 2 error -- Trump supporters and other GOPers saying there is no impact when an impact truly does exist
null hypothesis: no impact from humans on climate change (and sea rise)
alternative hypothesis: significant impact from humans on climate change (and sea rise)
Which is more dangerous?
1) type 1 error - liberals saying there is an impact when an impact truly doesn't exist
2) type 2 error -- Trump supporters and other GOPers saying there is no impact when an impact truly does exist
Given their way, climate change activists might well crash the world's economy, plunging billions into poverty regardless of how bad climate change turns out to be. And if it does turn out to be very bad, a poorer world will have less ability to adapt, and new technologies that might have countered harmful changes would never be developed.
On the other hand, if the effects of climate change become more and more apparent, denial that any problem exists will become increasingly untenable and those who hold to such a position will be increasingly marginalized. So the danger from the right, while troubling, seems the lesser threat.
"Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”"
March, 2000, Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
So what? He was wrong, or just premature.
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.
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.
