SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   American Cities and Climate Change: When is Enough, Enough? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240370)

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 8:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 8695879)
You do realize that 30 degrees from the equator encompasses half of the solid angle of a sphere?

Again, my claim is that there is huge amount of surface area that is too cold for human habitation. I realize it is not the majority of the surface, but it is enough to offset the area lost due to rising sea levels elsewhere.

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8695907)
Social Darwinism then! Let the weak(er) perish! :cheers:

Nobody has to perish. Global climate change and animal/insect migration is a relatively slow process on the order of decades. Also, there will still be plenty of areas cold enough where these tropical diseases wouldn't matter. Maybe not Mississippi or Florida, but Chicago and Ontario will be just balmy.

iheartthed Sep 23, 2019 8:15 PM

Lol, I am amused by the optimism. We still don't have a vaccine for the plague, which killed half of Europe over 600 years ago.

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8695920)
Lol, I am amused by the optimism. We still don't have a vaccine for the plague, which killed half of Europe over 600 years ago.

Plague can be treated with antibiotics. It is irrelevant to climate change anyway. The hysteria is that places like Chicago, which will have Washington DC weather, will all of the sudden have malaria and Chagas or whatever. People in Washington DC are not having mass pandemic in 2019. We will be fine. It is not the end of the world.

pj3000 Sep 23, 2019 8:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695917)
Nobody has to perish. Global climate change and animal/insect migration is a relatively slow process on the order of decades.

I get what you're saying, but we're not seeing insect migration, in the case of emerging viruses in certain areas, to be very slow right now. The Mediterranean as an example. And outbreaks are not a slow process at all unfortunately. I'm not an alarmist by any means, however the strong potential for infectious disease aspect of a warming planet is something that is often not considered.

iheartthed Sep 23, 2019 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695930)
Plague can be treated with antibiotics. It is irrelevant to climate change anyway. The hysteria is that places like Chicago, which will have Washington DC weather, will all of the sudden have malaria and Chagas or whatever. People in Washington DC are not having mass pandemic in 2019. We will be fine.

Quote:

Over the weekend, health officials in several states reported more cases and deaths linked to the Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) virus. The number of cases, while still small, is set to make 2019 the worst recorded year for EEE in recent history—and it may be a sign of things to come in an ever-warming climate.

In Massachusetts, health officials this past Friday reported the death of a man in his 70s from EEE, the second death and also the 10th human case of EEE seen in the state this year. That same day, officials from Michigan reported that an eighth human case of EEE was spotted within their borders; the state has also seen three deaths linked to EEE. New Jersey officials also reported the discovery of two more cases among residents, adding to another case found in August, and Connecticut reported its first fatality and second case as well.

In total for 2019, there have been over 25 confirmed or suspected cases of EEE reported across six states, along with at least seven deaths. It’s not clear yet whether all of these cases represent the most severe form of the virus—an infection that reaches the brain and nervous system that kills a third of its victims. But typically, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the country sees an average of seven severe EEE cases annually. And this is almost certainly one of the worst years of EEE recorded in decades.
https://gizmodo.com/a-brain-infectin...ead-1838370317

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 8:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8695935)
I get what you're saying, but we're not seeing insect migration, in the case of emerging viruses in certain areas, to be very slow right now. The Mediterranean as an example. And outbreaks are not a slow process at all unfortunately. I'm not an alarmist by any means, however the strong potential for infectious disease aspect of a warming planet is something that is often not considered.

I am not disputing there will be no consequences to climate change. People will have to adjust. Heck, perhaps we will be relocating people from the Florida panhandle over the next 30-50 years as that area will slowly get flooded. We also will have to build additional anti-flood infrastructure in certain cities (NYC and Boston for example), which is completely technologically doable, even under the worst projections. But the whole doomsday hysteria that we have 12 years left (or is it 10 years now?) literally reminds me of those end of the world cults. Its just bullsh*t panic and alarmism.
I personally think plastic is a much bigger problem, and will be the next environmental frontier after we transition to renewable energy sources over the next 10-20 years.
Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8695938)

This virus is so rare that almost no resources are put into research.

pj3000 Sep 23, 2019 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695942)
I am not disputing there will be no consequences to climate change. People will have to adjust. Heck, perhaps we will be relocating people from the Florida panhandle over the next 30-50 years as that area will slowly get flooded. We also will have to build additional anti-flood infrastructure in certain cities (NYC and Boston for example), which is completely technologically doable, even under the worst projections. But the whole doomsday hysteria that we have 12 years left (or is it 10 years now?) literally reminds me of those end of the world cults.

Yeah, the doomsday stuff is silly. And it distracts from looking at the real issues through a measured lens to determine best paths forward.

iheartthed Sep 23, 2019 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695942)
This virus is so rare that almost no resources are put into research.

But mosquitos are the single biggest (animal) threat to humans. The more we are in contact with mosquitos, the greater our chances of mortality. This has been true for all of human history.

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8695950)
But mosquitos are the single biggest (animal) threat to humans. The more we are in contact with mosquitos, the greater our chances of mortality. This has been true for the all of human history.

Well I guess that is the deal breaker for human civilization. We are all doomed. Time to build my climate change bunker and stock up on MREs!

iheartthed Sep 23, 2019 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695956)
Well I guess that is the deal breaker for human civilization. We are all doomed. Time to build my climate change bunker and stock up on MREs!

Extinction by mosquito isn't even the worst case scenario. :)

bilbao58 Sep 23, 2019 8:48 PM

.

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 8:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilbao58 (Post 8695968)
This is a joke, right?

No it's not a joke. The point of the post is that shorelines change, always have, always will and there's nothing we can do to preserve the shoreline of the year 2000 forever and ever and ever.

Now whether the shoreline was 100 miles away or 225, that's not the point. The ancient shoreline is what we call the continental shelf and that shoreline really wasn't that long ago -- it was a rapid, intense warm up that resulted in sea level rise in the order of hundreds of feet.

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8695947)
Yeah, the doomsday stuff is silly. And it distracts from looking at the real issues through a measured lens to determine best paths forward.

We actually should be very optimistic about the predictions. Afterall, the worst case scenario would've been a rapid global cooling/next ice age. A 20 mile wall of ice descending from the poles would've been a much harder problem to deal with. Perhaps not human extinction (humans already survived previous ice ages), but a possible big population or even civilizational collapse. This global climate change phenomenon ensures that we will be fine for a solid 100+ years more.

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilbao58 (Post 8695968)
This is a joke, right?

Where Houston is today was much further inland, but also much of the northern latitudes were under miles of ice

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8695935)
I get what you're saying, but we're not seeing insect migration, in the case of emerging viruses in certain areas, to be very slow right now. The Mediterranean as an example. And outbreaks are not a slow process at all unfortunately. I'm not an alarmist by any means, however the strong potential for infectious disease aspect of a warming planet is something that is often not considered.

RE: Outbreaks

Airplanes and the modern world are the reason why a pandemic will likely happen again.

Gantz Sep 23, 2019 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8695976)
Where Houston is today was much further inland, but also much of the northern latitudes were under miles of ice

For ~99% of the time over the past 2 million years, New York was under 2 miles of ice.

mhays Sep 23, 2019 9:05 PM

I like this reasoning. Along the same lines...what's wrong with war, since people have always died?

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8695990)
I like this reasoning. Along the same lines...what's wrong with war, since people have always died?

True, peace is an anomaly, Mans natural state is war.

https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aMZboPR_700b.jpg

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695985)
For ~99% of the time over the past 2 million years, New York was under 2 miles of ice.

Yes we are in the inter-glacial of a very old ice age.

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays (Post 8695990)
I like this reasoning. Along the same lines...what's wrong with war, since people have always died?

You complain, then offer no solutions -- because there are no solutions given the fact that the climate has rapidly changed long before mankind was heating soup on a gas stove.

pj3000 Sep 23, 2019 9:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695982)
RE: Outbreaks

Airplanes and the modern world are the reason why a pandemic will likely happen again.

Yes, most likely. That’s the part that can potentially be exacerbated by emerging diseases... since we’re already seeing some unexpected outbreaks in developed Mediterranean and middle eastern nations, where there’s obviously lots of travel to and from Europe and the US.

jtown,man Sep 23, 2019 9:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695974)
No it's not a joke. The point of the post is that shorelines change, always have, always will and there's nothing we can do to preserve the shoreline of the year 2000 forever and ever and ever.

Now whether the shoreline was 100 miles away or 225, that's not the point. The ancient shoreline is what we call the continental shelf and that shoreline really wasn't that long ago -- it was a rapid, intense warm up that resulted in sea level rise in the order of hundreds of feet.

It seems some people think the world was created(;)) as it currently is and it must always remain that way.

Hell, even in East Arkansas we used to be under the ocean...

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8696008)
It seems some people think the world was created(;)) as it currently is and it must always remain that way.

Hell, even in East Arkansas we used to be under the ocean...

Just 20,000 years ago, most of the entire state of Utah was under water. The Great Salt Lake used to be incredibly massive.

But, Climate Change dried it all up.

--I'm going to go block traffic in SLC and demand for them to restore these wetlands, now!

E] One good thing about Climate Change is that Area 51 is now on a dry lake bed. Had the Climate not Changed, where would we store the recovered UFOs and dead Alien bodies?

JManc Sep 23, 2019 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz (Post 8695975)
We actually should be very optimistic about the predictions. Afterall, the worst case scenario would've been a rapid global cooling/next ice age. A 20 mile wall of ice descending from the poles would've been a much harder problem to deal with. Perhaps not human extinction (humans already survived previous ice ages), but a possible big population or even civilizational collapse. This global climate change phenomenon ensures that we will be fine for a solid 100+ years more.

Humans during previous Ice Ages and major climatic events were much hardier. I suspect a future Ice Age would thin the modern human population quite drastically.

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 9:26 PM

Never any love for Lake Missoula

https://radicalbotany.files.wordpres...e-missoula.jpg

Obadno Sep 23, 2019 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8696015)
Humans during previous Ice Ages and major climatic events were much hardier. I suspect a future Ice Age would thin the modern human population quite drastically.

I'd argue that a global cooling trend would be much more dire than a warming trend, overall warming weather tends to be better for humans and civilization, cooling trends typically cause mass starvation and civilization collapse.

Just based on the last couple times it's happened

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8696016)

The evidence for a flood of biblical proportions has been steadily gaining ground. Rapid melt, rapid climatic change.

iheartthed Sep 23, 2019 9:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8695982)
RE: Outbreaks

Airplanes and the modern world are the reason why a pandemic will likely happen again.

In addition to airplanes being huge sources of greenhouse gases, maybe human mobility will also add to it. But we've got plenty of mosquitos here in North America to spread disease. There were no planes to blame back in the Dark Ages, but plenty of mosquitos, ticks, and rats.

Actually, civilization/urbanization is the easiest way to spread disease. We're more sanitary than we used to be, but we still constantly get each other sick. Then there are other potential sources of mass disease, like the water supply. The worst case scenarios could be really bad...

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8696018)
I'd argue that a global cooling trend would be much more dire than a warming trend, overall warming weather tends to be better for humans and civilization, cooling trends typically cause mass starvation and civilization collapse.

Just based on the last couple times it's happened

Heck yeah. The evidence is out there as well. When we have cold hiccups, the world descends into starvation and chaos. Mankind has been around for a long time, yet it was only in a warm period that we flourished -- why is that?

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8696021)
In addition to airplanes being huge sources of greenhouse gases, maybe human mobility will also add to it. But we've got plenty of mosquitos here in North America to spread disease. There were no planes to blame back in the Dark Ages, but plenty of mosquitos, ticks, and rats.

Actually, civilization/urbanization is the easiest way to spread disease. We're more sanitary than we used to be, but we still constantly get each other sick. Then there are other potential sources of mass disease, like the water supply. The worst case scenarios could be really bad...

So when I was in Charleston, I went on a horse and buggy tour. The original settlements of the area were on John's Island, on the Southside of Charleston Harbor.

However, those settlements were plagued by mosquito born diseases and it was determined that the tip of the peninsula [present day Charleston] is better due to the constant breeze/air flow that suppresses the mosquitos.

That's how Charleston was founded.

badrunner Sep 23, 2019 9:43 PM

You learned about past ice ages and sea level changes from climate scientists ;)

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8696036)
You learned about past ice ages and sea level changes from climate scientists ;)

True. Along with geographers, geologists, cartographers, historians, oceanographers and common sense.

badrunner Sep 23, 2019 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8696040)
True. Along with geographers, geologists, cartographers, historians, oceanographers and common sense.

Cartographers? Historians? lol
Common sense told you that North America was under a mile of ice in prehistoric times? :)

Paleoclimatology is the field you're looking for. You haven't even scratched the surface. You certainly don't understand the science, but apparently fully accept their findings, citing them as evidence multiple times in this thread.

That's just hilarious to me. I can just imagine Sun Belt going to a conference of climate scientists and excitedly "informing" them about ice ages and Milankovitch cycles :haha:

Scientific illiteracy at its finest.

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8696056)
Cartographers? Historians? lol
Common sense told you that North America was under a mile of ice in prehistoric times? :)

Paleoclimatology is the field you're looking for. You haven't even scratched the surface. You certainly don't understand the science, but apparently fully accept their findings, citing them as evidence multiple times in this thread.

That's just hilarious to me. I can just imagine Sun Belt going to a conference of climate scientists and excitedly "informing" them about ice ages and Milankovitch cycles :haha:

Scientific illiteracy at its finest.

This is the SSP response we all knew was coming.

"You can't possibly know jack diddly squat because _____. Meanwhile I have no solutions to anything, therefore you're wrong and I'm right."

pj3000 Sep 23, 2019 10:29 PM

Yeah, I always find it interesting and a bit baffling when people (not specifically on this forum nor in this particular thread) steadfastly cite the findings of paleoceanography/climatology and geophysics that ice ages are cyclical as 100% gospel truth, yet at the same time deny any possible human activity-induced effects on the climate. Even though the most prominent scientists in those fields who’s research they casually cite warned about that very thing.

badrunner Sep 23, 2019 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8696061)
This is the SSP response we all knew was coming.

"You can't possibly know jack diddly squat because _____. Meanwhile I have no solutions to anything, therefore you're wrong and I'm right."

Well you obviously do know a few things that you selectively learned from those pesky climate scientists :)

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8696074)
Well you obviously do know a few things that you selectively learned from those pesky climate scientists :)

Nobody but you, has said or suggested they haven't learned anything from climatologists, so what is the point in your posts? Nothing?

:P

badrunner Sep 23, 2019 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8696072)
Yeah, I always find it interesting and a bit baffling when people (not specifically on this forum nor in this particular thread) steadfastly cite the findings of paleoceanography/climatology and geophysics that ice ages are cyclical as 100% gospel truth, yet at the same time deny any possible human activity-induced effects on the climate. Even though the most prominent scientists in those fields who’s research they casually cite warned about that very thing.

I like how they cite ice ages and interglacial warming periods like they're dropping truth bombs or something, as if climate scientists (or anyone with a high school education) have never heard of such things :haha:

Apparently, Sun Belt thinks that climate scientists believe the sea level has always been constant and temperatures have been static since the beginning of time. Good thing he's here to educate them with his latest important findings (that he learned from cartographers lol).

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8696108)
I like how they cite ice ages and interglacial warming periods like they're dropping truth bombs or something, as if climate scientists (or anyone with a high school education) have never heard of such things :haha:

Apparently, Sun Belt thinks that climate scientists believe the sea level has always been constant and temperatures have been static since the beginning of time. Good thing he's here to educate them with his latest important findings (that he learned from cartographers lol).

Sun Belt never said that, you did. Lol.

However, many SSP posters seem to think that the current shorelines should remain in place forever. That's why we read posts of building sea wall defense for New York on this site.

lio45 Sep 23, 2019 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8696114)
Sun Belt never said that, you did. Lol.

However, many SSP posters seem to think that the current shorelines should remain in place forever. That's why we read posts of building sea wall defense for New York on this site.

Actually, now that we have a Manhattan built there, yes, we're going to want to keep that shoreline there forever from now on.

Similarly, the natural state of affairs in the PNW is that a megaquake knocks everything down every few hundred years; now though, we might want to look into ways to defuse them, as we've built cities there in the meantime.

Not everything natural is always automatically good. Sometimes artificial is better ;)

Sun Belt Sep 23, 2019 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8696151)
Actually, now that we have a Manhattan built there, yes, we're going to want to keep that shoreline there forever from now on.

Right, and that's why it's a crisis in today's perspective of the world. How will modern man figure out a way to curb the 18,000 years and counting continuation of rising seas with our recently constructed cites of 250 years.

It's not a crisis, it's been happening steadily.

jtown,man Sep 24, 2019 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8696015)
Humans during previous Ice Ages and major climatic events were much hardier. I suspect a future Ice Age would thin the modern human population quite drastically.

No doubt they were hardier. But they didn't have indoor heating, electricity, the car, or technology to increase agricultural production. We'll be fine.

RavioliAficionado Sep 24, 2019 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8696212)
No doubt they were hardier. But they didn't have indoor heating, electricity, the car, or technology to increase agricultural production. We'll be fine.

We'll be fine in the sense that humanity as a whole isn't even remotely threatened and indeed the population is likely to just continue rising. However it will be an economic headwind that will drag down our development.

pdxtex Sep 24, 2019 1:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan (Post 8692779)
As a geographer, with a focus in urban and regional planning, I wonder why people choose to remain in large, disaster-prone metro areas. I'm talking about extreme natural disasters that occur nearly every year. These extreme weather events, that are exacerbated by impervious surfaces in urban areas are obviously going to continue to occur!

What gives?

Certainly demographics play into certain populations' abilities to move out of hazardous areas, but (aside from denial of the existance of climate change) why do certain demographic groups choose to remain in such susceptible areas?

I, of course, live in a state that is highly proned to natural disasters. However, I love Alabama, I love Birmingham, and I love the Tennessee Valley. None of us can truly escape all natural disasters, but when you see the catastrophic flooding like we're seeing with Imelda, I wonder what coastal residents think when the rebuild time after time.

Is Houston just an exceptional city?

Is Miami Beach just too beautiful?

Is Charleston too precious to sacrifice?

Is New Orleans too important of a port to allow the Mississippi to run its natural course?

its like people who ride motorcycles. you know shit is going to go bad one day but you keep on riding until that time. ive met plenty of people who gave it up after that "one" crash. if i lived down south and my home was wrecked by hurricane, id probably cash and move up north a bit. at least away from the coast. in the case of portland and the pacific nw, we know earthquakes are a reality but that big one might be tommorrow or 500 years from now. geographers dont really know. ill be dead in 40 years so im willing to roll the dice. hurricanes happen year after year so those people are more daring.

Sam Hill Sep 24, 2019 1:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8696158)
Right, and that's why it's a crisis in today's perspective of the world. How will modern man figure out a way to curb the 18,000 years and counting continuation of rising seas with our recently constructed cites of 250 years.

It's not a crisis, it's been happening steadily.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but no one has the right to their own facts.

It's a fact that the current, pressing issue we refer to as "global warming" or "climate change" has not been happening steadily for 18,000 years. That's a fact. The abrupt, rapid rise in temperature that is happening now is, in fact, unprecedented. It started around the start of the industrial revolution, and there has been an extremely rapid acceleration in recent decades. Again, I ask, have you ever seen the godamned hockey-stick graph? Stop with the "18,000 years" nonsense. I'm sorry but you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself every time you make that "18,000 years" comment. It implies that the change is gradual and natural, and reveals that you are completely unfamiliar with the science and have almost no understanding of the issue. The same goes when you make bewildering, nonsensical points about the scientists having yet to decide on a specific temperature to "cool the earth" to. What??????

It's a fact that there's a consensus among climate scientists that this extremely rapid rise in global temperatures is unprecedented and is caused by human activity. That's a fact. Look up the damn word. If you think it's not a fact, you are misinformed and need to get off those nutty right-wing websites and start taking in information from trusted, credible sources.

If you went to 98 consecutive cardiologists, and they all told you your blood pressure is too high, then finally, the 99th cardiologists told you it's not, would you somehow think there isn't a consensus among the experts that your blood pressure is too high and just assume the outlier is correct? That's insane!

Dear conservatives: You don't have to fall in line with every single conservative belief just because you're conservative. You can be pro life, pro small-government, pro 2nd Amendment - or whatever - without having to put so much effort into finding reasons to deny facts and science all because you can't bring yourself to admit your side might be completely wrong and those damn liberals might have been right all along, when it comes to just this one particular issue. Please consider the fact that this conservative vs liberal tussle over climate change that lives within our unfortunate partisan gridlock, is a uniquely American phenomenon. The rest of the world has chosen to believe the experts. Our political leanings should not determine whether or not to accept a mountain of scientific findings. This isn't demand side vs supply side economics; this is black and white. Please open your mind, consider the idea that you might be wrong, venture outside of your bubble, and carefully study the science that's being presented by what you consider to be "the other side" until you begin to gain a real understanding of it. I did. It becomes really obvious really quick which side is credible.

Steely Dan Sep 24, 2019 1:59 AM

Boys, take it to the current events shit hole.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.