CF_Fighter
Member
Agreed I don't want to move, I love this damn town way too much.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
No need for Bugs Bunny, south Florida may be gone within a century.
- Thread starter speculawyer
- Start date
- Status
Agreed I don't want to move, I love this damn town way too much.
speculawyer
Member
Well, it is not going to happen for a long time. But increasingly worse storm surges are what is going to get Florida. Eventually insurance rates will just get too high. There will probably be a big hurricane eventually that causes a massive amount of damage and people will question if it is really worth rebuilding to the same degree.
CornBurrito
Member
Guys, South Florida is the non-shitty part of Florida.
Nope
Alligatorjandro
Banned
They also have zombies.
CornBurrito
Member
Except yes. South Florida has all the Northerners. North Florida has all the deep south aspects.
The Librarian
Banned
"Failed Science"
All of Florida is shitty. Some parts are just marginally better than others.
– A Floridian.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
laesperanzapaz
Member
Randolph Freelander
Member
But what about the Heat
The lights on that party get dimmed next year.
Nope. The people making that graph failed math.
For sustained geometric growth in sea level you need an exponential growth in ocean volume.
As you increase the sea level you need increasingly more volume to maintain that rate of increase.
4/3 Pi R^3 and all that.
Not gonna happen.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
yes, we do. By walling it off and continuous pumping water out, much like modern day new york does, but it's no guarantee flooding cannot, or will not, occur at some point.
It just decreases the chance of it happening.
Sure, if you'd have a linear growth, you'd need exponentially more volume. But we're talking EXPONENTIAL GROWTH! Then it's like linear increase in volume.
if x = y, then y = x.
It's simple maths, man.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Thats whats bad about about Florida in general. The Northerners that move here.
jamesinclair
Banned
Be interesting to see how the housing market and insurance market respond.
looks like the wedge. probably the craziest shorebreak i've ever seen
What the hell...
LaserBuddha
Member
If I ran Paramount I'd be fast-tracking Escape From Miami right now.
That some Floridans still could escape north because they climbed it.
SarcasticD
Member
Well look on the bright side.
Miami Heat won't be around no more.
Miami Heat won't be around no more.
let's not get carried away
CyclopsRock
Member
No idea if this is going to happen, but if it doesn't then it won't be the first time a scientist has made a dramatic claim about climate change that turned out to be false. It harms the cause dramatically, IMO.
The Librarian
Banned
If you don't understand what science is, sure.
Silent_Bomber
Banned
Lex Luthor real estate plot?
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't understand how your post relates to what I said? 'Sure' what?
GoddyofAus
Banned
Queue the same Climate Denialists in our current governments calling for a "South Florida Tax" once it becomes obvious that they were terrible liars.
turnbuckle
Member
sigh...
science harms the cause - knee jerk cynicism, ignorance, and apathy must be doing great for it.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm confused - you don't think I'm right? You really don't think that when a scientist makes a dramatic claim that turns out to be false, it harms the cause? I discussed this at length in another thread and I don't want to sound like I'm banging on about it, but a climate scientist from a research unit in the UK said about 10 years ago that, within a few years, kids wouldn't know what snow is. It still snows here often. The UK Met office has overestimated the mean temperature for 12 of the last 13 years. Global Warming was a big thing In the 80s and 90s but it's now changed to climate change because the changes in the environment manifest themselves in other ways than just temperature - but it means that what people were told to fear for a long time hasn't materialised, since the mean temperature of the earth hasn't really changed in the last decade or two.
Personally, I think climate change is happening and that it's man made - but, in light of the above, you don't need to be partaking in 'knee jerk cynicism, ignorance and apathy' to read this article and just roll your eyes.
Correct
This doesn't seem nearly as cavalier a prediction. So far, ice shelf melting (and subsequent sea level rises) have exceeded even climatologists' pessimistic consensus estimations.
While of course these predictions might be wrong. you can't reasonably expect alarm bells to only ring once we are 100% sure that disaster is coming; at that point, the disaster is already occurring and raising an alarm is completely worthless. Deciding on when alarms become efficacious is a much more complicated discussion than people give it credit for. How likely does an event need to be for alarms to be a good idea? How significantly does that likelihood vary based on how severe the potential problem is? Should smoke detectors be turned in to fire detectors, and only sound an alarm when your house is already burning down?
With that said, I do agree there is a problem of communication here, but I think primary component of that problem is the press, not the scientists in question. The scientists quoted in this article seem to be talking in probabilistic terms, as they should. Journalists take a concept like "there is a statistically significant probability that sea levels will rise high enough over the next 100 years to submerge low elevation cities like Miami" and reporting it as "Miami is doomed."*
*Note: these are not actual quotes from the article, just general summaries of the positions being presented for convenience.
CyclopsRock
Member
I agree entirely with everything. It likely was the journalist (but still, this is Rolling Stone, not National Geographic - there was an obviously nonscientific audience that this was aimed at). And indeed, Scientists should be free yo make mistakes, revise their hypothesis and change their stance in light of new data, findings, theories etc. That's necessary for progress to be made. But it does make it slightly hard to swallow comics like that above which show anyone who doesn't believe everything a 'scientist' says as being some sort of intentionally ignorant idiot - scientists make mistakes too, and that's fine.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Last time we had a story on those I said "thank god that doesn't happen here" soon after I not only found out the largest in US history was in my state(Alabama) but in the same little city I live in.
The Librarian
Banned
Because from that post you don't understand what science is. A science can't make "dramatic claims." She can only tell us what the data says. Science isn't infallible, it's experimental and revisionist.
turnbuckle
Member
Not necessarily all three (it may be out of one of them - in your case it's cynicism). Should this information not be reported then?
Reporting studies and data that have a potential devastating outcome isn't damaging to the cause if the cause is to inform the public. The kind of folks that are disillusioned with climate change because of something someone said that didn't or hasn't yet panned out will roll their eyes at even the most objective and neutral scientific reporting on the matter. Should this not happen within a century doesn't mean the trend isn't steering in that direction and we shouldn't let other bold claims that haven't been true (I still know what snow is, lol) deter us from being open to other scenarios. It's one thing if the science if flimsy and alarmist, it's another to highlight realistic threats from data and observation.
That said, as Opiate mentioned earlier a lot of the problem comes from the nature of how scientific news is reported.
radios shipping overview
Member
Might as well pick one of the two. They're the only states that exist between PA and CA, if you ask most Easterners.
- Status