Our Sinking Cities

[mhays]

That's fair, to a point. Every coastal city is vulnerable, including hilly cities like mine where only limited areas are at significant risk in our lifetimes. A handful of cities are at large-scale risk, with large areas that might become uninhabitable or require massive outer protections and/or parcel-by-parcel reconstruction, with issues related to both ocean water and rain water.

[Obadno]

Calm down you zealots I didnt say anything that isnt agreed on by the "scientific Community"

I know you are all trained to attack if anyone falls out of line but luckily for me I dont honestly care what you have to say.

As the guy above me stated most of the insane "end is nigh" stuff you read on climate change comes from sensationalized articles based off much more sober studies and analyses that are meant to rile people up for clicks. (Like most tings)

[mhays]

Yet you differ from the scientific consensus with dismissive posts.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

I'm astonished that the highrise building boom in Miami is not only maintaining pace, but actually seems to be increasing. I mean obviously there is no need for people to be moving out en masse in the short term or anything, but I certainly wouldn't be investing millions in the place! Are people there just in denial about the future climatologists have forecasted for it?

I've been asking myself the same question.

A Canadian business partner of mine had a few Miami Beach properties when I met him (many years ago). He eventually sold them because he listened to me

(My point was, when you see a problem on the horizon for an asset of yours, don't wait until recognition of the problem is widespread/inevitable before you sell. He agreed.)

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yet you differ from the scientific consensus with dismissive posts.

I am a heretic Blasphemer! PLEASE LORDS OF SCIENCE FORGIVE ME

I can dismiss whatever I want.

[mhays]

Of course you can. Obviously.

But we need to base policy on real data and analysis, and we will where/when adults are in charge.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've been asking myself the same question.

A Canadian business partner of mine had a few Miami Beach properties when I met him (many years ago). He eventually sold them because he listened to me

(My point was, when you see a problem on the horizon for an asset of yours, don't wait until recognition of the problem is widespread/inevitable before you sell. He agreed.)

Very sound advice! I'm no investor but it just makes common sense to me as well.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's fair, to a point. Every coastal city is vulnerable, including hilly cities like mine where only limited areas are at significant risk in our lifetimes. A handful of cities are at large-scale risk, with large areas that might become uninhabitable or require massive outer protections and/or parcel-by-parcel reconstruction, with issues related to both ocean water and rain water.

That's the problem with the reporting. A USGS report could conclude Seattle might be due for a significant earthquake within the next 50 years and the media will run away with: Seattle could be destroyed with a monster quake by 2070. Yes, Seattle is at risk but the science stops short of creating a plot for a straight-to-video disaster movie. It does a total disservice in trying to gain a consensus.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

Of course you can. Obviously.

But we need to base policy on real data and analysis, and we will where/when adults are in charge.

Nothing I have said is against real data or analysis. Irrational fear about climate change is foolish and used for political agendas.

Or do you really believe that the world is ending ?

[mhays]

You said we know two basic things. We actually know far more than that, in terms of broad scientific consensus.

As far as I can tell, your arguments against "orthodoxy" are about ignoring scientific consensus. Your ilk have started to acknowledge warming and CO2 as related, but appear to be playing rear guard to cast doubt where possible. This matches the industry playbook.

PS, I've said nothing to suggest that I believe the world is ending. Did I not just point out that hyperbole is a bad thing?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

You said we know two basic things. We actually know far more than that, in terms of broad scientific consensus.

As far as I can tell, your arguments against "orthodoxy" are about ignoring scientific consensus. Your ilk have started to acknowledge warming and CO2 as related, but appear to be playing rear guard to cast doubt where possible. This matches the industry playbook.

PS, I've said nothing to suggest that I believe the world is ending. Did I not just point out that hyperbole is a bad thing?

The orthodoxy is absolutely this socially enforced nonsense where somebody can say "I don't think these cities are going to be underwater like this clearly hyperbolic article is saying" and the zealots glom on to denounce them as a heretic further makin assumptions about what "that person" believes or wat positions they hold.

its not only about climate change but lots and lots of things. Its not really a big deal there is ALWAYS an orthodoxy and always people like me that revel in poking it.

[mhays]

Then on that we can agree.

[MolsonExport]

No obad?

[Altoic]

Although not a plan relating to rising sea levels, Miami has introduced new plans to thwart storm surge.

Originally the Army Corps of Enginners proposed a large wall stretching along Brickell and continuing along the coast. Tidal gates were also proposed.





But, that was obviouslly met with backlash -

“They haven’t had a chorus of acceptance for structures,” said James Murley, the county’s chief resilience officer.
"“We had people say ‘I’d much rather flood than look at that gate every day’,” said Rachel Rhode, manager of the Environmental Defense Fund’s climate resilient coasts and watersheds initiative. "

Now, there are new solutions. Originally the Army Corps would not listen to much except solid walls or gates that'll protect the city from surge, now they're listening to "comprehensive benefits".




"The most significant shift between the first version of this study, also called the Back Bay study, and the latest version is a focus on nature-based solutions (like coral reefs and mangrove plantings) and elevating and protecting individual buildings, and a shift away from larger structural protections like walls."

[Innsertnamehere]

Looks $$$$$$$$$

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Looks $$$$$$$$$

CHeaper to do this than try to move cities. Also a better use of money than most "Climate Change" programs which are complete blackholes of corruption and siphoning public funds.

You want to fight climate change? Build nuclear power as much as possible. Research Fusion and get it actually working at scale.

Wind and solar will NEVER..... N E V E R generate enough electricity to replace natural gas and coal. it is literally Impossible.

Somebody will now say "AhCthcUalLY" If you build a 10 square mile photovoltaic cell in the desert it cold power the whole country or some such nonsense.

That is using the most advanced solar technology we have with extremely high rates of efficiency and it would be astronomically expensive which is why it has not been done.

[mhays]

Photovoltaics, cold fusion, and nuclear are seeing innovation at a high rate.

Why haven't we seen photovoltaics on a large scale? For one, 2020 tech wasn't as good as 2023 tech. And 2026 tech might be far better.

What you think is "literally impossible" isn't. It's impossible with today's tech. But new stuff is getting far more efficient and cost effective. In truth we'll always have a mix of sources, but it appears that solar can and should be a far larger piece than it is.

Knee-jerk dismissals aren't any smarter than unfounded optimism.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Photovoltaics, cold fusion, and nuclear are seeing innovation at a high rate.

Why haven't we seen photovoltaics on a large scale? For one, 2020 tech wasn't as good as 2023 tech. And 2026 tech might be far better.

What you think is "literally impossible" isn't. It's impossible with today's tech. But new stuff is getting far more efficient and cost effective. In truth we'll always have a mix of sources, but it appears that solar can and should be a far larger piece than it is.

Knee-jerk dismissals aren't any smarter than unfounded optimism.

When photovoltaics become as (or near) energy dense as fossil fuels, I think there will be wider demand and increased economies of scale will make them more accessible.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Obadno

CHeaper to do this than try to move cities. Also a better use of money than most "Climate Change" programs which are complete blackholes of corruption and siphoning public funds.

You want to fight climate change? Build nuclear power as much as possible. Research Fusion and get it actually working at scale.

Wind and solar will NEVER..... N E V E R generate enough electricity to replace natural gas and coal. it is literally Impossible.

Somebody will now say "AhCthcUalLY" If you build a 10 square mile photovoltaic cell in the desert it cold power the whole country or some such nonsense.

That is using the most advanced solar technology we have with extremely high rates of efficiency and it would be astronomically expensive which is why it has not been done.

well err, umm, AhCthcUalLY it is easier to just move the city. miami is nothing but a bunch of residential anyway, so its no real loss. and its not like there is a nuke plant or big factory or major businesses, or ones that would be hard to move on a dime anyway. plus it will be a slow process outside of major storms. miami would just adapt for awhile and then shut itself down gradually as flooding persisted, and the people would go live elsewhere if need be. by that time it wouldnt be the only place with those issues either. oh wait, now i see there are a couple nuke plants down there. never mind, go build the barrier walls miami.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

well err, umm, AhCthcUalLY it is easier to just move the city. miami is nothing but a bunch of residential anyway, so its no real loss.

Unless people and businesses merely relocated to another city (or cities) which is highly unlikely, to 'move' Miami would cost trillions because residences, businesses, infrastructure, commercial buildings, utilities, etc would have to be rebuilt elsewhere. It's why discussion of abandoning New Orleans leading to and after Katrina was academic. You just don't abandon major American cities.