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)

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 4:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.