Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Are we facing a "Waterworld" future?

by MartyLK / March 26, 2006 1:21 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Are we facing a "Waterworld" future?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Are we facing a "Waterworld" future?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Also hurricanes???
by Angeline Booher / March 26, 2006 1:45 AM PST

I heard one prediction that the northeast would be a "water world" should a high category hurricane hit there. Googling, I found this:

The 1938 hurricane was the strongest tropical system to strike the northeastern U.S. in recorded history, with maximum gusts of 186 mph, a 15- to 20-foot storm surge and 25- to 50-foot waves that left much of Providence under 10-15 feet of water.

Forecasters at AccuWeather.com say that patterns are similar to those of the 1930s, 40s and 50s when storms such as the 1938 hurricane, the 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricanes and the Trio of 1954--Carol, Edna and Hazel--battered the coast from the Carolinas to New England.

Because a hurricane of this magnitude has not made landfall in the northeastern U.S. in nearly 60 years, few Americans are even aware that hurricanes can and do directly impact this part of the country...


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600283/posts

Where I live we often have had trorrential rains from the bands of hurricanes south of us. I assume a powerful hurricane in the northeast would do the same for a wide area. there.

I can't find a link, but the rates for flood insurance have risen, at least in my area. Though the FL, MS, and LA flood insurance claims had an influence, the mid western flooding of several years ago made even a bigger impact. I live on a river.

Though I believe global warming is a distinct possibilty, I won't get into that argumant. Happy

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
It happens every time...
by MartyLK / March 26, 2006 2:18 AM PST
In reply to: Also hurricanes???

when the climate doesn't do what is expected the scientists go into a frenzy of theories and speculation. Even going to the point of claiming they know what will happen next...doomsayers, I call them. They can't even consistently predict the weather from one day to the next.

Oh well, they have to hang on to their funding some kind of way. Putting out doom scenarios to the public is one way to insure their viability. Happy

Collapse -
Response.
by Angeline Booher / March 26, 2006 4:37 AM PST

There may not be many members here who were living in 1938. I was, and there were some newsreels from RI. Even given that, I think of the northeastern states more as being subject to ''northeasters'', not powerful hurricanes.

In my state, Reelfoot Lake was created by a series of earthquakes in 1811-1812. Now, not a lot of thought is given now to the possibility of another major earthquales in Tennessee. But Memphis sits on a major fault line that runs through the state. (There have been minor ones where I live in Nashville.) There has not been much done to prepare buildings there for another event. I don't think it is a ''doomsday'' attitude to give it some thought.

There used to be no warning when a tornado was approaching. Now lives are saved because there now are. Those scientists spent year working on it.

There were voices raised to warn that the levees would not hold in New Orleans in a Cat 5 storm.

But California and Alaska have taken more steps to make their highways and buildings withstand earthquakes.

Florida has improved their building codes.

Experience is a good teacher. Also are the scientists who work to make us as safe as possible from natural disasters. So, if the National Weather Service is tracking a major hurricane that looks like it will make a direct hit on the northeast coast, the residents there will be grateful for the warning.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
You mean this flood, Angeline?
by Brent Welch / March 26, 2006 2:57 AM PST
In reply to: Also hurricanes???
Collapse -
I think so.
by Angeline Booher / March 26, 2006 4:01 AM PST

That may have been the year that flooding continued down through other states. (The Mississippi River?)

Some places had flood walls, others did not. Those that did not blamed the ones that did for funneling all of the water toward them.

Citizens worked together to fill sand bags.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
An interesting op-ed piece on the topic
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 26, 2006 4:56 AM PST
The most dangerous WMD of them all -- It's the threat of self-induced climatic chaos.
(Chronicle login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

>> A BELEAGUERED president stubbornly insists on staying the course even as his staunchest allies abandon him. I'm not talking about Iraq, but global warming.

Here's a case where virtually everybody is acknowledging a weapon of mass destruction ? the threat of climate chaos ? but still President Bush refuses to take action. When the evangelical community, Bush's stalwart base, called for climate action last month, the news grabbed headlines. But the more important Bush defectors on this issue are some of the world's largest corporations, including British Petroleum, General Electric, DuPont and Cinergy. So, the question arises: Why does Bush persist in his increasingly lonely stance?

The answer may lie in the difference between realpolitik and ideology. Many corporations initially opposed climate action as a practical matter, because of its perceived costs. The Bush administration's opposition seems to derive from its ideological hostility to international treaties and the United Nations on the one hand and environmentalists on the other. <<

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Collapse -
Or Bush's hostility
by dirtyrich / March 26, 2006 6:49 AM PST

could be due to the dubious nature of the science behind the climate debate and the sure financial losses that would be suffered if policies were enacted.
Businesses are just coming around because they're found ways to make money off the debate and resulting policies, not out of some sort of newfound environmental awareness.

Collapse -
"dubious nature of the science" is an absurd statement, DR.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 27, 2006 12:26 PM PST
In reply to: Or Bush's hostility

The National Academies of Science of more than a dozen ountries have now signed onto documents attesting to the reality of global warming. As that piece mentioned, many American corporations now also accept the facts, rather than sticking their heads in the sand. There is simply no doubt at this point that global warming is real, and largely manmade -- the ice samples showing CO2 levels over the last million years make that perfectly clear, except to those who continually deny the facts for political expediency. Sicnece is completely against Bush's stance -- maybe that's why in this case (as in so many others) Bush ignores science, and even tries to deemphasize it in our curricula. Never mind that science is the ofundation of our economy and out future!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
So then...
by J. Vega / March 27, 2006 12:43 PM PST

So then solar and/or volcanic activity have nothing to do with it, or is it that it's hard to blame the activities of the sun and core of the earth on Bush?
I find it interesting that you are against emphasizing reading and math in school. I don't see your objection, a comic book format is not optimum for school textbooks, science or any other subject.

Collapse -
Hi, J.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 28, 2006 10:12 PM PST
In reply to: So then...

Of course volcanism can have something to do with it -- but the last major volcanic eruption (of a scale to have an effect on climate) was Pinatubo. The other key factor is the level of the C-14 isotope in the C02 in the atmosphere. If the C02 were derived by a natural process, then the C14/C12 ratio would be that characteristic of nature in general. OTOH, if it comes from burning fossil fuels (as the vast majority does), it will have a much lower ratio, since the C14 in fossil fuels has been decaying since the plants that decayed into oil were alive, millions of years ago. And that's what's found. The ratios in all those ice cores, OTOH, are precisely what's expected of a natural process.

And I didn't say I was against emphasizing reading and math in the schools. I said I was against doing so to the exclusion of all else. One answer is to de-emphasize athletics and lengthen the school day, so you can do BOTH! And the school year should also be lengthened -- we have the longest school vacations in the world; most other countries have two shorter vacations about six months apart. Our current "all summer off" mode was established when we were primarily agrarian nation and the kids were needed to work the fields in the growing season.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) So, relax and enjoy the opportunity for a good swim.
by Kiddpeat / March 27, 2006 2:54 PM PST
Collapse -
You present the science ...
by Evie / March 27, 2006 9:13 PM PST

... in far more certain a light than they themselves do. PARTICULARLY any human component from CO2 emissions.

Talk about absurd!

Collapse -
Evie, it's logic 101
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 27, 2006 10:03 PM PST

The C02 levels today are the highest in the last million years, which includes times when there was MUCH more volcanism than there is currently -- the major natural source of C02 (apart from massive forest fires such as thouse though to have accompanied the dinosaur-extincting meteor strike). What's different in the last 100 years from the preceding million that might possibly be relevant to greenhouse gasses? The level of fossil fuel usage, that's what! And the public is now catching on, despite years of intentional obfuscation and outright deception by conservatives and business:
Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job? Some Claim Disinformation Campaign Attempted to Create the Impression Scientists Were Broadly Divided

>> The vast majority of scientists has determined global warming to be a real threat. So why has it taken so long to convince Americans? Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries.

"The point of this campaign was not necessarily to persuade the public that global warming isn't happening," Gelbspan said. "It was to persuade the public that there is this state of confusion." A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, "Victory will be achieved when ? average citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science." To redefine global warming as theory ? not fact ? the industry funded research by "friendly" scientists. <<

But progress is being made: Poll: 75% of Americans Want More Federal Action on Global Warming.

>> A majority of Americans of all political beliefs are dissatisfied with what they perceive as weak federal leadership on global warming and energy issues, according to a public opinion poll released today. At the same time they support the growing number of state and local efforts to rein in climate change problems and to tap alternative fuel sources, the poll found. <<

As J. Leno put it last night "85% of Ameericans now believe in man-made global warming. The other 15% work for the Bush Administration."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Jay Leno! There's an authority!
by EdH / March 27, 2006 10:08 PM PST
In reply to: Evie, it's logic 101

Polls again, are not science. Consensus is not science.

Collapse -
No, EdH He's not an authority -- he's a mirror of the public
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 27, 2006 10:23 PM PST

Just another example of how far out of touch with reality (and science) the "no global warming" ostriches are. There's simply no reasonable doubt anymore -- and no matter how many times y'all claim that there is, it doesn't make it so. Sadly, we've now probably lost any chance we might have had to moderate the disaster that looms over us, and particularly the generations to who we leave a tragic legacy.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Excuse me?
by Evie / March 27, 2006 10:31 PM PST

Jay Leno is a mirror of the largely uneducated public (in matters of science) that are influenced by the mainstream media's hype over the climate and the environment.

It begins with subtle statements of fact in kids science books re: human caused global warming.

The globe may well be warming. That we have caused it by burning fossil fuels and/or can do anything to change it by reducing sheep farts in New Zealand is something that IS widely debated in the REAL scientific community.

Collapse -
He's a mirror of ............................
by Kiddpeat / March 28, 2006 1:02 AM PST

Jay Leno!

I guess Dave Letterman is an equally valid answer.

Neither one is especially bright. They are, after all, comedians. They're not supposed to be intelligent.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You have to be stupid to be a comedian?
by Diana Forum moderator / March 29, 2006 5:39 AM PST
Collapse -
Well, you don't haaaave to be, but, in the case of Leno and
by Kiddpeat / March 29, 2006 7:57 AM PST

Letterman, .........................

Bob Newhart and Bill Cosby are two examples of intelligent comedians. Would you compare Leno or Letterman to either of them?

Collapse -
no reason to talk about it if
by Dragon / March 28, 2006 2:50 AM PST
Sadly, we've now probably lost any chance we might have had to moderate the disaster that looms over us, and particularly the generations to who we leave a tragic legacy.

If this is true, it was probably true six years ago. But Bush has been pushing low-emission technology, especially coal, for some time, now. Maybe we should be talking to the Congress and Senate, asking why they haven't taken action?
Collapse -
I know Teddy Kennedy has taken action. He has opposed
by Kiddpeat / March 28, 2006 1:02 PM PST

the development of wind power on Cape Cod. Not in my back yard!

Collapse -
If you call ...
by Evie / March 27, 2006 10:15 PM PST
In reply to: Evie, it's logic 101

... propaganda success, then I guess "progress" is being made.

If it's the CO2, then how to explain that the planet was MUCH warmer thousands of years ago when the CO2 concentration was far lower? There is no direct correlation.

If you're looking for something else different, how about widespread agriculture? Or just the population of humans?

NOBODY can explain why IF CO2 is the cause of global warming, Kyoto exempted developing countries like China, India and Brazil. There you have the TRUTH of what is behind this hoax.

Collapse -
You get all the science information from Jay Leno?
by Kiddpeat / March 27, 2006 10:58 PM PST
In reply to: Evie, it's logic 101

THAT explains a lot!

Collapse -
Even if what you say is true...
by EdH / March 27, 2006 11:15 PM PST
In reply to: Evie, it's logic 101

and we stop all industrial production today, will that make China and India halt their march toward modernization and massive consumption?

If there's going to be a solution, it has to be proactive. I like my idea of distributing a lot of particulate matter into the upper atmosphere by massively nuking the Middle East, but there may be other solutions.

Should we run it by Leno?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Don't see the exit strategy on this either
by Diana Forum moderator / March 29, 2006 6:12 AM PST
Collapse -
I can't give credence to the idea...
by MartyLK / March 29, 2006 12:19 PM PST

that humanity has as big an impact on the earth that many doomsayers and discontents would have us believe. They've been watching too much Star Trek and way too many Sci-Fi movies.

Everything about what we know says everything not only on planet earth but also in the universe is cyclic. There are cycles of all kinds not just yearly ones. There are vague, barely understood, processes happening on good old planet earth.

To the impatient and self important scientific and geological analysts of all things global related, the ones who would rather jump first on the, "humanity is destructive" bandwagon just to have some kind of feeling of being a part of something, it could appear that the earth is falling apart and into chaos and it just has to be the fault of humanity. They would like to irresponsibly throw that dust cloud into the air and see what happens. Status quot is just so boring, as it is.

Collapse -
No, but it might be fun to live in a waterland resort.
by Kiddpeat / March 26, 2006 5:34 AM PST

Time Magazine, the inventor of 'write the news as I want it to be'. Forget reality. The political agenda is all there is.

Oh my God! The sky is falling! Hmmmmm, I wonder if I could get that on video.

Devil

Collapse -
See, I told you so!
by EdH / March 26, 2006 10:55 AM PST
LINK

Here's my prediction:

That does not mean the researchers are predicting a 20-foot ocean rise by the end of this century;

will magically morph into,

Researchers are predicting a 20-foot ocean rise by the end of this century!
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) And people don't believe I have psychic powers!!
by EdH / March 26, 2006 10:57 AM PST
In reply to: See, I told you so!
Collapse -
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH
by Evie / March 26, 2006 9:40 PM PST

Sorry ... had to get that out of my system Wink

What a hysterical piece of ''reporting'', and soooooo non-biased at that!

Ask any scientist worth his salt if Kyoto would have done ANYTHING. It wouldn't. Most signatory nations cannot meet their goals, and meanwhile China, India and Brazil are exempt. It is a political treaty to bring about economic equity in the world by limiting economic performers. What they don't want to acknowledge is that if the US economy tanks, so too does all the money for the UN to putter around dreaming up ''economic development'' plans, and global pollution will increase as manufacturing, etc. is moved to China et.al.

The Senate voted 98-0 in a ''sense of the Senate'' vote re: Kyoto. QED. If there's global warming, we can't do anything to stop it, so we better learn to deal with it. Beginning with the fact that species come and go (and have for centuries upon centuries) and we just don't need to be all living on the coastline in these modern times. There may well be some countries that are not meant to be as populus as they are -- Indonesia comes to mind, and the (not global warming induced) tsunami should be a wakeup call for that.

All this nonsense about Katrina and global warming. I've seen the pictures of Galveston in 1900. NOLA should never have been built up as it was, PERIOD. The same could well be said for the NE coast perhaps. But since I experienced my first CT hurricane while living within visual distance of the LI Sound, I've known we could be hit, and seen the pictures of the ''big one''. Providence is above sea level. If flooded by a hurricane, surge, etc., unlike NOLA the waters would subside. I hope everyone in the area carries the proper insurance, and realizes the risks of living where they do. Again, if 1938 happened today -- mass hysteria about global warming. But it happened then! We've been living in la la land during the ebb of a 40-50 year cycle of hurricanes/storms. Many didn't plan very well in that time.

Evie Happy

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.