So you mean that people who live on coral reef islands (atolls) have to worry about flooding from the ocean?
I mean, come on! What is there to possibly worry about?
No I mean that people have lived on these islands for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years will now find them uninhabitable due to the sea level rising.
In the near future the US East coast will begin fighting to keep their cities out of the ocean. Picture a New Orleans type situation along hundreds of US Cities.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
20 Big U.S. Cities that Should Worry About Sea Level Rise
Baltimore Boston Houston Jacksonville LA Long Beach Miami New Orleans NYC Oakland Philadelphia Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco San Jose Seattle Tampa Virginia Beach DC
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
People haven't lived on the same coral reef for 100,000 years --- islands and reefs have been coming and going for eons. The Hawaiian Islands are eroding below sea level and will eventually collapse into the ocean -- though not likely for a few thousand years.
The fact is that geologic formations change over time and so do climate patterns --- and there is NOTHING we as humans can do to cause it or stop it.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
The Hawaiian Islands are eroding below sea level and will eventually collapse into the ocean -- though not likely for a few thousand years.
DVOR seems to make up facts to fit the agenda, regardless of if they are true or not. If the facts don't agree... MAKE UP NEW ONES!
Note to DVOR: Because Mauna Loa and Kīlauea are active volcanoes, the island of Hawaii is still growing. Between January 1983 and September 2002, lava flows added 543 acres to the island.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Huge chunks of the Hawaiian Islands have been sliding into the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of thousands of years. (SF#101) Geologists classify these slides as either "slumps" or "debris avalanches." Slumps move just a few inches a year but are prone to bigger, jerky adjustments. Debris avalanches are fast cascades of rocks and soil. In Hawaii, both varieties of movement can involve massive blocks of real estate. In the huge Nu'uanu debris slide, stone blocks 6 miles across tumbled 30 miles out to sea. Both slumps and debris slides may create colossal tsunamis. (Tsunamis are miscalled "tidal waves," but they have nothing to do with tides and do not behave like tides or wind-driven waves.)
When large pieces of the Hawaiian Islands slip into the ocean, the entire Pacific Rim is smashed by the resulting tsunamis. In New South Wales, Australia, there is geological evidence that part of this coast was scoured by a Hawaiigenerated tsunami 100,000 years ago. The postulated wave started out about 375-meters (½-mile) high in Hawaii. By the time is reached Australia, it was about 40 meters high. (SF#85)
Worse waves may be on tap. A 4,760 cubic mile chunk of the Big Island (Hawaii) is breaking away at the rate of 4 inches per year. This is the Hilina Slump, and it is said to be "the most rapidly moving tract of ground on Earth for its size." The Hilina Slump can move much faster. At 4:48 AM, November 29, 1975, a 37-mile-wide section suddenly dropped 11½ feet and slid seaward 26 feet. The result was a magnitude-7.2 quake and a 48-foot-high tsunami. This was a minor of the slump. If the entire 4,760-cubic-mile block decided to break off, it would probably create a magnitude-9 quake and a tsunami 1,000-feet high. All the coast-hugging cities of the Hawaiian Islands would be swept away. And LOOK OUT Australia, Japan, and California.
Huge chunks of the Hawaiian Islands have been sliding into the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of thousands of years. (SF#101) Geologists classify these slides as either "slumps" or "debris avalanches." Slumps move just a few inches a year but are prone to bigger, jerky adjustments. Debris avalanches are fast cascades of rocks and soil. In Hawaii, both varieties of movement can involve massive blocks of real estate. In the huge Nu'uanu debris slide, stone blocks 6 miles across tumbled 30 miles out to sea. Both slumps and debris slides may create colossal tsunamis. (Tsunamis are miscalled "tidal waves," but they have nothing to do with tides and do not behave like tides or wind-driven waves.)
When large pieces of the Hawaiian Islands slip into the ocean, the entire Pacific Rim is smashed by the resulting tsunamis. In New South Wales, Australia, there is geological evidence that part of this coast was scoured by a Hawaiigenerated tsunami 100,000 years ago. The postulated wave started out about 375-meters (½-mile) high in Hawaii. By the time is reached Australia, it was about 40 meters high. (SF#85)
Worse waves may be on tap. A 4,760 cubic mile chunk of the Big Island (Hawaii) is breaking away at the rate of 4 inches per year. This is the Hilina Slump, and it is said to be "the most rapidly moving tract of ground on Earth for its size." The Hilina Slump can move much faster. At 4:48 AM, November 29, 1975, a 37-mile-wide section suddenly dropped 11½ feet and slid seaward 26 feet. The result was a magnitude-7.2 quake and a 48-foot-high tsunami. This was a minor of the slump. If the entire 4,760-cubic-mile block decided to break off, it would probably create a magnitude-9 quake and a tsunami 1,000-feet high. All the coast-hugging cities of the Hawaiian Islands would be swept away. And LOOK OUT Australia, Japan, and California.
HUH! The more of Hawaii that goes into the ocean, the higher the ocean rises!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
DVOR seems to make up facts to fit the agenda, regardless of if they are true or not. If the facts don't agree... MAKE UP NEW ONES!
Note to DVOR: Because Mauna Loa and Kīlauea are active volcanoes, the island of Hawaii is still growing. Between January 1983 and September 2002, lava flows added 543 acres to the island.
Note to BoxofCrap -- It is a phenomenon that is being studied by scientists at a number of universities around the world, and it affects other islands in the Pacific as well. The Hawaiian islands are made of one kind of rock -- volcanic rock -- and volcanic rock ERODES over time due to the forces of water. Eventually, enough of the rock erodes from below the ocean level for a volcanic island to begin sinking and eventually disappear under the ocean's surface. It is not a process that happens overnight -- and I specifically wrote that it takes thousands of years -- but of course, an ignorant left-wing, hell bent on insisting he or she alone knows everything about science wouldn't understand that the LARGER POINT being made is that in the NATURAL ORDER - Geology is constantly being transformed/are changing, and climate patterns are constantly being transformed/are changing.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Note to BoxofCrap -- It is a phenomenon that is being studied by scientists at a number of universities around the world, and it affects other islands in the Pacific as well. The Hawaiian islands are made of one kind of rock -- volcanic rock -- and volcanic rock ERODES over time due to the forces of water. Eventually, enough of the rock erodes from below the ocean level for a volcanic island to begin sinking and eventually disappear under the ocean's surface. It is not a process that happens overnight -- and I specifically wrote that it takes thousands of years -- but of course, an ignorant left-wing, hell bent on insisting he or she alone knows everything about science wouldn't understand that the LARGER POINT being made is that in the NATURAL ORDER - Geology is constantly being transformed/are changing, and climate patterns are constantly being transformed/are changing.
it just CAN'T be a natural/nature occurrence. There must be a demon behind EVERYTHING!! And in the case of the greeny nutcase sheople....it's every living being on this earth!!! the sheople have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing that there is a human demon behind every corner....and the GOV ALMIGHTY will fix it!!! POOR BAST@RDS!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The carbon crisis is just one more way for the liberal progressives to redistribute wealth to those they believe were taken advantage of years ago and allowed the USA to become wealthy. There will come a day when the pendulum will swing the other way by necessity and the screaming will be heard world wide.
While the scientific consensus has been getting stronger over the last two decades, there has also been a consistent attack on consensus, casting doubt.
Results of the most comprehensive analysis to date of peer-reviewed climate research, covering 21 years of 'global climate change' or 'global warming' papers. We found 4014 abstracts stating a position on anthropogenic global warming. Of these, 97.1% abstracts endorsed the consensus. Among the 10,356 authors of these papers, 98.4% of scientists endorsed the consensus. This analysis of peer-reviewed research demonstrates a consensus of scientists and a consensus of evidence; a useful resource for those seeking to communicate the scientific consensus.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Consensus means NOTHING scientifically. The consensus of scientists once thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Of course, the left wing nuts want everyone to believe that if a consensus of the scientists that they allow to speak agree on something -- than everyone has to agree to it. No wonder our students are falling so far behind in science, we have let the left wing nuts create the science curriculum and run the classrooms for too long.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Consensus means NOTHING scientifically. The consensus of scientists once thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Of course, the left wing nuts want everyone to believe that if a consensus of the scientists that they allow to speak agree on something -- than everyone has to agree to it. No wonder our students are falling so far behind in science, we have let the left wing nuts create the science curriculum and run the classrooms for too long.
No that's not true. Any Scientist can have any view he wishes. It just happens those who've looked into climate change have (97%) come to the same conclusion.
Tomorrow the science could be proven wrong, and the earth may be proven flat, but I don't think so.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
* Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute and author or editor of several publications on climate change, including the two volumes of . October 2012 The Myth of the 98 Percent By Joseph L. Bast * Do 98 percent of climate scientists really believe in man-made global warming? A little research reveals that the often-cited figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two different studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them believe or allege. Doran and Zimmerman The first study, by Doran and Zimmerman, appeared in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009. You can retrieve it at http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf . This article reports the results of a survey, but it was a meaningless one. The researchers – a professor at the University of Illinois and a graduate student – sent a two-minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists. The survey asked two questions: “Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered “risen” to question 1 and 82 percent answered “yes” to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent “98 percent of climate scientists believe” sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” A little research reveals the often-cited“98 percent” figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them claim. -2- Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless. Even worse than the sample size, though, is the complete irrelevance of the questions asked in the survey to the real debate taking place about climate change. Most skeptics would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would. At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions. The survey by Doran and Zimmerman fails to produce evidence that would back up claims that there is a “scientific consensus” about the causes or consequences of climate change. They simply asked the wrong question. And the “98 percent” figure so often attributed to their survey refers to the opinions of only 79 climate scientists, which is not a representative sample of scientific opinion
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland Institute and author or editor of several publications on climate change...
So who is the "HEARTLAND INSTITUTE"? Of course Shadow knows who they are... Scientists? NOPE! They are a Libertarian Political Marketing Group who specializes in "MESSAGE". If you want to put a "message" out to the public that supports Libertarian causes, (Not SCIENCE) then the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE is the place to go.
These @ssholes know nothing of Climate Change... They are Political Marketers, and apparently the do a good job of propaganda... they got Shadow to buy into their "MESSAGE"!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
No different than you posting opinions from every left wing media source. Your 97% of scientists agreeing is like most of what you post , not accurate.
Logged
