is climate change a hoax? $2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?

[SR71 + 6]

$2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?

i am old enough to remember the ice age scare of the 70's therefore i am skeptical

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-31/martin-armstrong-coming-mini-ice-age

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-29/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-scientists-expect-global-cooling

i think i have read here a comment referencing the effect of the  incident solar energy and the effect of distribution of clouds over water and land, and arguing that either has a greater inflence on climate than all the human activities combined, let alone the burning of fossil fuels and the increased level of CO2.

i am not here to criticize one point of view or the other. 

i am just skeptical of the "accepted Science" gurus.

in general " accepted Science" means the exact opposite: Science that does not want to be subjected to scrutiny that is

i would like to get links to meaningful articles and to avoid the propaganda. i can easily find propaganda everywhere thank you.

 i chose this forum hoping to avoid excessive propaganda

thank you

 

[Red + 252]

If you do not believe the science, then you should have a reason.

What is it?

[Meredith Poor + 883]

"$2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?" Start drilling down through the alphabet soup of national laboratories - ARL, BNL, ORNL, PNNL, NREL, JLAB, ANL, SNL, SRNL, NIF, etc. All these are in the United States. A bit more research lists similar initiatives in Germany, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Spain, and so forth. Even Russia and China now routinely publish in scientific journals.

The research topics are all over the map, but a lot of them are focused on energy, materials science, biology or biotech, instrumentation, supercomputing, and so forth.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

"What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power."

 

Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud to Increase Governmental Power

 

 

There is a serious question that no one wants to address. How did Al Gore create the global warming scare and earn hundreds of millions of dollars in the process? Before Al Gore, science was worried deeply about what we are experiencing today — global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek magazine published an article in which they sounded the alarm bell and proposed solutions to deliberately melt the ice caps:

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.”

This sounds very similar to today’s proposed solution of putting particles in the atmosphere to deflect the sunlight to reduce global warming.  Indeed, TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977, cover featured the cover story, “The Big Freeze.” They reported that scientists were predicting that Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit. Their cited cause was, of course, that humans created global cooling. Then suddenly the climate cycles shifted and it began to warm up.

There was this core group of people who seemed to enjoy all the attention they were gathering by predicting the end of civilization caused by humans. As the temperatures began to warm, suddenly they had to switch the dire forecasts from global cooling caused by humans to global warming caused by humans.

Al Gore came to the rescue. Global cooling meant that government should stockpile food for everyone, but that would cost money. Switching to global warming would create a different agenda that they were familiar with. Like smoking, they could tax it to HELP people. Of course, when they did stop and tax revenues began to decline, they introduced taxes on e-cigarettes and didn’t try to deter people from smoking.

With global warming, they could tax everyone for things they did every day from driving a car to heating and cooling their homes. Suddenly, global warming was a lot more profitable for government than global cooling. The alarm bell stopped ringing that warned of a continued global cooling, seen between 1945 and 1968, that was creating a new Ice Age.

Al Gore took the position of Vice President under President Bill Clinton. In that capacity, with Bill Clinton chasing women, Hillary became the de facto President and Al Gore was given free rein. No other Vice President enjoyed that power until Dick Cheney under George Bush, Jr.

Gore set out to enact policies that would alter government and our future by placing humankind in harm’s way. Gore directed all funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority for the United States Government. Gore created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, and the “Scope of Activities” was dramatically altered. Gore directed that the agenda was to be EXCLUSIVELY a global warming agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He claimed there would be NO DEBATEregarding the science behind the new agenda. Gore deliberately silenced all opposition.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development was to focus EXCLUSIVELY on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting the U.S. economy to his agenda. The Council shifted from economic development to environmental development even though it would reduce economic development. Gore flipped the purpose of the Council to a global warming and then set about his agenda to create a crisis to increase government control and power. That can only happen when there is a crisis, which Gore then manufactured.

To pull off the new agenda, Gore’s strategy set out to purge the government of anyone who disagreed or opposed his agenda in any way. He instilled, not the fear of God, but the fear of Gore throughout the high-ranking government officials in the agencies that included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their funding would be cut unless they adopted Gore’s agenda.

...

What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power.

[Red + 252]

The only people who use Al Gore when discussing climate science are those who remain ignorant of climate science. 

[Red + 252]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 Indeed, TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977, cover featured the cover story, “The Big Freeze.” They reported that scientists were predicting that Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit. Their cited cause was, of course, that humans created global cooling. Then suddenly the climate cycles shifted and it began to warm up

You might think that Tom, who castigates MSM at every opportunity and claims to read twice as fast as most people, would not make basic mistakes when posting...  like not linking to something which was obviously FALSE. 

Apart from Tom showing on a regular basis he has no idea about climate science, the Time article was about weather events.  It began as follows:

WEATHER: The Big Freeze

Monday, Jan. 31, 1977

Why had the rain turned white? Startled millionaires wintering in their baronial mansions in West Palm Beach, Fla., peered closer last week at the miracle that was falling from the skies and discovered—could it be?—yes, the substance was snow, the first ever reported there. Since mid-November, pedestrians in Dallas, unaccustomed to such hazards, have been slipping on sleet-slicked sidewalks. Meanwhile, a series of blizzards has smothered Buffalo this winter with an astonishing 126.6 in. of snow.

From the Dakotas and Minnesota, across the icy Great Lakes of the Middle West and down...

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/16/2019 at 8:58 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

"What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power."

 

Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud to Increase Governmental Power

 

 

There is a serious question that no one wants to address. How did Al Gore create the global warming scare and earn hundreds of millions of dollars in the process? Before Al Gore, science was worried deeply about what we are experiencing today — global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek magazine published an article in which they sounded the alarm bell and proposed solutions to deliberately melt the ice caps:

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.”

This sounds very similar to today’s proposed solution of putting particles in the atmosphere to deflect the sunlight to reduce global warming.  Indeed, TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977, cover featured the cover story, “The Big Freeze.” They reported that scientists were predicting that Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit. Their cited cause was, of course, that humans created global cooling. Then suddenly the climate cycles shifted and it began to warm up.

There was this core group of people who seemed to enjoy all the attention they were gathering by predicting the end of civilization caused by humans. As the temperatures began to warm, suddenly they had to switch the dire forecasts from global cooling caused by humans to global warming caused by humans.

Al Gore came to the rescue. Global cooling meant that government should stockpile food for everyone, but that would cost money. Switching to global warming would create a different agenda that they were familiar with. Like smoking, they could tax it to HELP people. Of course, when they did stop and tax revenues began to decline, they introduced taxes on e-cigarettes and didn’t try to deter people from smoking.

With global warming, they could tax everyone for things they did every day from driving a car to heating and cooling their homes. Suddenly, global warming was a lot more profitable for government than global cooling. The alarm bell stopped ringing that warned of a continued global cooling, seen between 1945 and 1968, that was creating a new Ice Age.

Al Gore took the position of Vice President under President Bill Clinton. In that capacity, with Bill Clinton chasing women, Hillary became the de facto President and Al Gore was given free rein. No other Vice President enjoyed that power until Dick Cheney under George Bush, Jr.

Gore set out to enact policies that would alter government and our future by placing humankind in harm’s way. Gore directed all funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority for the United States Government. Gore created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, and the “Scope of Activities” was dramatically altered. Gore directed that the agenda was to be EXCLUSIVELY a global warming agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He claimed there would be NO DEBATEregarding the science behind the new agenda. Gore deliberately silenced all opposition.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development was to focus EXCLUSIVELY on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting the U.S. economy to his agenda. The Council shifted from economic development to environmental development even though it would reduce economic development. Gore flipped the purpose of the Council to a global warming and then set about his agenda to create a crisis to increase government control and power. That can only happen when there is a crisis, which Gore then manufactured.

To pull off the new agenda, Gore’s strategy set out to purge the government of anyone who disagreed or opposed his agenda in any way. He instilled, not the fear of God, but the fear of Gore throughout the high-ranking government officials in the agencies that included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their funding would be cut unless they adopted Gore’s agenda.

...

What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power.

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by NickW
As Red says - this was about 'weather'

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/15/2019 at 9:49 AM, SR71 said:

$2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?

i am old enough to remember the ice age scare of the 70's therefore i am skeptical

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-31/martin-armstrong-coming-mini-ice-age

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-29/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-scientists-expect-global-cooling

i think i have read here a comment referencing the effect of the  incident solar energy and the effect of distribution of clouds over water and land, and arguing that either has a greater inflence on climate than all the human activities combined, let alone the burning of fossil fuels and the increased level of CO2.

i am not here to criticize one point of view or the other. 

i am just skeptical of the "accepted Science" gurus.

in general " accepted Science" means the exact opposite: Science that does not want to be subjected to scrutiny that is

i would like to get links to meaningful articles and to avoid the propaganda. i can easily find propaganda everywhere thank you.

 i chose this forum hoping to avoid excessive propaganda

thank you

 

Yes, Global Warming AKA Climate Change is a hoax designed to cause more government control of nations around the world, more money for the elites who can manipulate industries and economies. If global warming was real ocean levels would actually be rising rapidly rather than in the minuscule amounts that they are. The wealthy elites are busily investing in waterfront real estate around the world while promoting the fear of global warming. 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

[Janet Alderton + 124]

I am astonished by anti-science rhetoric. Scientific conclusions are not always right, but, over time, the process is self-correcting. Using a Newsweek article from 1975 about Global Cooling is just silly. 

Without the scientific method, we would not have internal combustion engines or computers.

Investment in science yields high returns.

https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/BESat40/BES_at_40.pdf

I can vouch for this myself. One of our graduate students founded a bioscience supply company that used his basic research findings into RNA. My husband and I invested $50,000 in the startup and later cashed out with over $5 million. 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Janet Alderton

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

I am astonished by anti-science rhetoric. Scientific conclusions are not always right, but, over time, the process is self-correcting. Using a Newsweek article from 1975 about Global Cooling is just silly. 

Without the scientific method, we would not have internal combustion engines or computers.

Investment in science yields high returns.

https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/BESat40/BES_at_40.pdf

I can vouch for this myself. One of our graduate students founded a bioscience supply company that used his basic research findings into RNA. My husband and I invested $50,000 in the startup and later cashed out with over $5 million. 

 

Janet, nobody that belongs to this community is against science. Everyone is against false scientific theories and claims. The problem is that everyone should analyze the various theories and argument for themselves. Many billions have been raised and spent to promote the belief in global warming. No other theory has been promoted by a massive propaganda campaign. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but not to their own facts. 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

Edited February 18, 2019 by ronwagn

[Janet Alderton + 124]

25 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yes, Global Warming AKA Climate Change is a hoax designed to cause more government control of nations around the world, more money for the elites who can manipulate industries and economies. If global warming was real ocean levels would actually be rising rapidly rather than in the minuscule amounts that they are. The wealthy elites are busily investing in waterfront real estate around the world while promoting the fear of global warming. 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

Sea level is rising quickly and it is threatening our national security.

See this from Military.com:

DoD Could Start Funding Off-Base Infrastructure Fixes for Sea Level Rise

 

 

An aerial view of Norfolk Naval Station (U.S. Navy photo/Petty Officer 2nd Class Christopher Stoltz)

8 Feb 2019

The Virginian-Pilot | By Peter Coutu

In the face of rising seas and frequent flooding, the Department of Defense could soon start pitching in money to fix roads and other vulnerable infrastructure needed to access military bases.

After years of examining the impacts of climate change and working to mitigate the future effects on bases, the most recent national defense authorization act set the stage for the military to ramp up spending in civilian communities. It also placed the Defense Department at the forefront of dealing with sea level rise in the federal government.

"It's a wise investment for the Department of Defense to help fund adaptation projects that directly benefit a base, or to prevent the deterioration of the community around a base," said Joe Bouchard, a former Commanding Officer of Naval Station Norfolk. "To me, all of this is very encouraging -- long overdue, but I'm glad, finally, this is happening."

Though the last Congress largely punted on dealing with climate change, a specific bipartisan consensus emerged, where legislators agreed that military resilience was important.

Two of the key legislative changes were led last year, in part, by two of Virginia's Congressional members -- U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, and former U.S. Rep. Scott Taylor, a Virginia Beach Republican.

Taylor, who lost a bid for re-election last fall to Democrat Elaine Luria, authored an amendment that allows the Defense Department to pay for repairs to roads damaged by recurrent flooding and sea level rise or that mitigate the threat in the future.

When proposing the change, Taylor said he had roads like Hampton Boulevard in mind. Research shows that the main road to Naval Station Norfolk could start flooding daily by 2050.

Often, there is a mutual interest between communities and nearby bases, Taylor said. Most in the armed forces live off base, and military installations are often key drivers of local economies.

So, it makes sense that the two would work together -- because if sailors can't get to a base, he said, the community won't have one for very long.

The idea, he said, is to give the Department of Defense the chance to defend critical assets in the community, which was largely prohibited before.

"It's a big deal," Taylor said. "Number one: It's something that's in stone now."

Bases throughout the country could be vying for money in the coming years because virtually all military installations will be impacted by the changing climate's impacts, according to a recent federal report.

On the coast, when sea level rise accelerates, more roads will be regularly inundated, possibly blocking access to bases for the members who live in the community. Hampton Roads could see roughly a foot-and-a-half increase by 2050.

And as this happens, there will be a strong mission justification that the military needs to improve access so people are able to get to work, said John Conger, director of the Center for Climate and Security.

"If you make the base resilient but fail to make the community resilient, essentially the base is still in a lot of trouble," Conger said.

For Hampton Roads, the move comes as two Joint Land Use Studies are being conducted to identify where military personnel live and the roads they take to work, essentially pinpointing what infrastructure is most important for the region's bases.

The other major change, a new pilot program, provides broad authorization for spending money on infrastructure projects off base. While some work in civilian communities was funded before, it had to be specifically authorized -- meaning the scope was very limited.

But now, through the Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program, the Secretary of Defense may make grants, cooperative agreements and supplement funds to help state and local governments improve community infrastructure that enhances the military value, resilience, or family quality of life.

The state or local government needs to contribute at least 30 percent of the funding for any project unless it's in a rural area or for reasons related to national security. The pilot program, which will exist for at least 10 years, has no funding yet. Kaine, on the Armed Services Committee, supported the initiative.

"I'm hopeful that this provision ... will help the Department of Defense and the communities that surround military bases work together to protect critical infrastructure," Kaine said.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

20 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

Using a Newsweek article from 1975 about Global Cooling is just silly. 

Hi Janet.  At the risk of stating the obvious, using a Newsweek article from 1975 is presented as evidence of how past predictions have ended up.  As you say, science is self correcting, and all most of us here are saying is: think of what repercussions there could be if they are wrong, once again.

[Janet Alderton + 124]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Janet, nobody that belongs to this community is against science. Everyone is against false scientific theories and claims. The problem is that everyone should analyze the various theories and argument for themselves. Many billions have been raised and spent to promote the belief in global warming. No other theory has been promoted by a massive propaganda campaign. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but not to their own facts. 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies

So is our Defense Department in on the hoax? Coastal military bases are threatened by sea level rise. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

Sea level is rising quickly and it is threatening our national security.

See this from Military.com:

DoD Could Start Funding Off-Base Infrastructure Fixes for Sea Level Rise

 

 

An aerial view of Norfolk Naval Station (U.S. Navy photo/Petty Officer 2nd Class Christopher Stoltz)

8 Feb 2019

The Virginian-Pilot | By Peter Coutu

In the face of rising seas and frequent flooding, the Department of Defense could soon start pitching in money to fix roads and other vulnerable infrastructure needed to access military bases.

After years of examining the impacts of climate change and working to mitigate the future effects on bases, the most recent national defense authorization act set the stage for the military to ramp up spending in civilian communities. It also placed the Defense Department at the forefront of dealing with sea level rise in the federal government.

"It's a wise investment for the Department of Defense to help fund adaptation projects that directly benefit a base, or to prevent the deterioration of the community around a base," said Joe Bouchard, a former Commanding Officer of Naval Station Norfolk. "To me, all of this is very encouraging -- long overdue, but I'm glad, finally, this is happening."

Though the last Congress largely punted on dealing with climate change, a specific bipartisan consensus emerged, where legislators agreed that military resilience was important.

Two of the key legislative changes were led last year, in part, by two of Virginia's Congressional members -- U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, and former U.S. Rep. Scott Taylor, a Virginia Beach Republican.

Taylor, who lost a bid for re-election last fall to Democrat Elaine Luria, authored an amendment that allows the Defense Department to pay for repairs to roads damaged by recurrent flooding and sea level rise or that mitigate the threat in the future.

When proposing the change, Taylor said he had roads like Hampton Boulevard in mind. Research shows that the main road to Naval Station Norfolk could start flooding daily by 2050.

Often, there is a mutual interest between communities and nearby bases, Taylor said. Most in the armed forces live off base, and military installations are often key drivers of local economies.

So, it makes sense that the two would work together -- because if sailors can't get to a base, he said, the community won't have one for very long.

The idea, he said, is to give the Department of Defense the chance to defend critical assets in the community, which was largely prohibited before.

"It's a big deal," Taylor said. "Number one: It's something that's in stone now."

Bases throughout the country could be vying for money in the coming years because virtually all military installations will be impacted by the changing climate's impacts, according to a recent federal report.

On the coast, when sea level rise accelerates, more roads will be regularly inundated, possibly blocking access to bases for the members who live in the community. Hampton Roads could see roughly a foot-and-a-half increase by 2050.

And as this happens, there will be a strong mission justification that the military needs to improve access so people are able to get to work, said John Conger, director of the Center for Climate and Security.

"If you make the base resilient but fail to make the community resilient, essentially the base is still in a lot of trouble," Conger said.

For Hampton Roads, the move comes as two Joint Land Use Studies are being conducted to identify where military personnel live and the roads they take to work, essentially pinpointing what infrastructure is most important for the region's bases.

The other major change, a new pilot program, provides broad authorization for spending money on infrastructure projects off base. While some work in civilian communities was funded before, it had to be specifically authorized -- meaning the scope was very limited.

But now, through the Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program, the Secretary of Defense may make grants, cooperative agreements and supplement funds to help state and local governments improve community infrastructure that enhances the military value, resilience, or family quality of life.

The state or local government needs to contribute at least 30 percent of the funding for any project unless it's in a rural area or for reasons related to national security. The pilot program, which will exist for at least 10 years, has no funding yet. Kaine, on the Armed Services Committee, supported the initiative.

"I'm hopeful that this provision ... will help the Department of Defense and the communities that surround military bases work together to protect critical infrastructure," Kaine said.

Janet, look where this base is built. Of course, it will have water damage due to storm surges. Do not confuse storm surges with ocean rise. Global warmists are always talking about weather events and blaming them on global warming while they simultaneously roundly condemn their opponents for doing the same thing!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

 

[Janet Alderton + 124]

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hi Janet.  At the risk of stating the obvious, using a Newsweek article from 1975 is presented as evidence of how past predictions have ended up.  As you say, science is self correcting, and all most of us here are saying is: think of what repercussions there could be if they are wrong, once again.

The repercussions would be cleaner air and water and longer, healthier lives. Investing in energy efficiency pays for itself over time.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

So is our Defense Department in on the hoax? Coastal military bases are threatened by sea level rise. 

 

Yes, generals are just as bad as other government employees. They want their promotions too. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 minute ago, Janet Alderton said:

The repercussions would be cleaner air and water and longer, healthier lives. Investing in energy efficiency pays for itself over time.

Then give 70% of your millions to the effort.  Don't wait, get right to the front of the line and write your check.  I won't be beside you.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, ronwagn said:

 

Yes, generals are just as bad as other government employees. They want their promotions too. 

Especially retired General that go on to consultancies.  I quote: "It's a wise investment for the Department of Defense to help fund adaptation projects that directly benefit a base, or to prevent the deterioration of the community around a base," said Joe Bouchard, a former Commanding Officer of Naval Station Norfolk. "To me, all of this is very encouraging -- long overdue, but I'm glad, finally, this is happening."

[Janet Alderton + 124]

15 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Janet, look where this base is built. Of course, it will have water damage due to storm surges. Do not confuse storm surges with ocean rise. Global warmists are always talking about weather events and blaming them on global warming while they simultaneously roundly condemn their opponents for doing the same thing!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

 

No storm surge is involved in "Sunny Day Flooding". 

 

 

 

 

 

Cities around the US are flooding at high tide and on sunny days at record rates — here's what it's like

Kevin Loria

 

Jun. 12, 2018, 9:42 AM

 

Kevin Loria/Business Insider

Sea level rise is threatening coastal cities around the world.

If you live in a city like Miami, New York City, or Charleston, the evidence is apparent if you head to the right neighborhood during high tides — especially those known as king tides. These are the highest tides of the year, and they coincide with full moons during spring and fall.

King tides themselves aren't caused by sea level rise, but as the highest tides of the year, they show how sea level has already risen over the past century — the neighborhoods they flood on sunny days now didn't flood like this decades ago, even during high tides.

In 2017, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that cities around the country experienced a record number of flooding events related to high tides, according to the National Climate Report. More than a quarter of coastal locations tied or set new records for the number of flooding days. And in 2018, flooding on the US coastline is expected to be 60% higher than it was just 20 years ago.

Perhaps most importantly, high and king tides are a preview of what's to come as seas continue to rise. What happens during high tides now will happen on a regular basis in the future.

As sea level rises, waters come back up through storm drains and wash over barricades. They flood houses and roads. And in many cases, they may be full of bacteria and potential pathogens.

Most cities recognize the situation at this point and are doing everything they can to try to beat back the rising tides. But seas will continue to rise as warmer oceans expand and glaciers melt. It's likely that neighborhoods and even some cities will be uninhabitable far sooner than many think.

 

Annapolis, Maryland: Sea level is rising faster along the East Coast than in many places. In Annapolis, tides can cause the Chesapeake Bay to flood the city.

Mary Calvert/Reuters

Seattle, Washington: King tides sometimes cause Puget Sound to rise to discomforting levels in Seattle, as is shown here in 2011.

AP Photo/Elaine Thompson

Boston, Massachusetts: Boston set a new record for the number of flooding days the city experienced in 2017, with higher sea levels making high tide flooding more common, especially when storms were in the area.

AP Photo/Bill Sikes

Miami, Florida: Miami and other cities in Florida are experiencing some of the most severe sea level rise and tidal flooding.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Miami, Florida: In the last 10 years, flooding events have increased in frequency by 400% in Florida.

Kevin Loria/Business Insider

In Miami, the sea level has risen about 10 inches from 1900 to today. But it's expected that sea level there will be up to 17 inches higher than 1900 by 2030 and 86 inches higher than 1900 by the end of this century. Some geologists think those projections are far too low.

Galveston, Texas: Galveston set another record for most flooding days in 2017, along with Boston; Sabine Pass, Texas; and Atlantic City and Sandy Hook in New Jersey.

Dwight C. CM/ELD/JDP/REUTERS

Miami Beach, Florida: Miami Beach is trying to engineer solutions to sea level rise, installing pumps and raising roads and buildings.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Miami Beach, Florida: Many experts think much of South Florida will be underwater by the end of the century, especially if global emissions aren't rapidly cut.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Hollywood, Florida: People often have to navigate flooded roads in Florida.

AP Photo/Lynne Sladky

Broad Channel, Queens, New York: In parts of New York City, tidal flooding fills the streets once a month, sometimes more frequently.

NYC Department of City Planning

San Francisco, California: Many places haven't seen dramatic flooding yet, but high tides combined with recent weather show how quickly waters can spill over the walls.

AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Norfolk, Virginia: Floods in the Norfolk and Hampton Roads area threaten to make the largest naval base in the world inaccessible.

Courtesy Steven McAlpine/First Street Foundation

Hampton Roads, Virginia: It's possible that the base — and the jobs that come with it — will have to be moved.

Courtesy Steven McAlpine/First Street Foundation

Hampton, New Hampshire: Some neighborhoods and cities can be protected for a time with environmental restoration procedures or engineering solutions. But in other places, people will eventually have to retreat.

AP Photo/Jim Cole

[Janet Alderton + 124]

13 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Then give 70% of your millions to the effort.  Don't wait, get right to the front of the line and write your check.  I won't be beside you.

I have been giving away my millions.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Interesting stories Janet but one of the first cities to go would be Washington D.C. I am sure that these floodings have been going on for centuries and are related to King Tides and storm surges. Venice, Italy is a very old city and has been flooding for many decades. St. Augustine Florida has a large sea wall at the Fort there. It shows no apparent change in water level. I will be concerned when the elites stop building on the coasts and start moving to higher ground. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_tide  

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by ronwagn

[Janet Alderton + 124]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Interesting stories Janet but one of the first cities to go would be Washington D.C. I am sure that these floodings have been going on for centuries and are related to King Tides and storm surges. Venice, Italy is a very old city and has been flooding for many decades. St. Augustine Florida has a large sea wall at the Fort there. It shows no apparent change in water level. I will be concerned when the elites stop building on the coasts and start moving to higher ground. 

 

My house is 200 feet above sea level on my shoreline property. Probably high enough not to be impacted by tsunamis. I am giving up trying to convince you that the consequences of Climate Change, even if not a sure thing, are so severe that we must move away from fossil fuels. I am fine with natural gas as part of the transition. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Weather changes. The California drought and almost all Western drought is over. We now have an abundance of water in almost all parts of the United States. Winter is not yet over.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/17/global-warming-news-california-officials-warn-skiers-stay-home-too-much-snow/

Global Warming News: California Officials Warn Skiers to Stay Home, Too Much Snow

227

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

My house is 200 feet above sea level on my shoreline property. Probably high enough not to be impacted by tsunamis. I am giving up trying to convince you that the consequences of Climate Change, even if not a sure thing, are so severe that we must move away from fossil fuels. I am fine with natural gas as part of the transition. 

Well, I appreciate that you value natural gas as part of the solution! I am glad you are 200 feet above and can watch without fear except for local roads. You were wise to buy on high ground!  I believe that renewables and new technology of all kinds can help reduce CO2 levels as well. I am always open to new ideas. Believe me, if renewables can beat natural gas for cost/benefit I will be ready to change my tune.  Maybe you and I are not as far apart as you think. 

[Janet Alderton + 124]

27 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Weather changes. The California drought and almost all Western drought is over. We now have an abundance of water in almost all parts of the United States. Winter is not yet over.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/17/global-warming-news-california-officials-warn-skiers-stay-home-too-much-snow/

Global Warming News: California Officials Warn Skiers to Stay Home, Too Much Snow

227

 

You are confusing weather with climate.

The heavy snow has made my road impassable for vehicles for 10 days. But I am patient. The snow is beautiful and welcome news for our water supplies. 

Edited February 18, 2019 by Janet Alderton
grammar