NASA: Moon 'Wobble' In Orbit May Lead To Record Flooding On Earth (cbsnews.com) 117
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Every coast in the U.S. is facing rapidly increasing high tide floods. NASA says this is due to a "wobble" in the moon's orbit working in tandem with climate change-fueled rising sea levels. The new study from NASA and the University of Hawaii, published recently in the journal Nature Climate Change, warns that upcoming changes in the moon's orbit could lead to record flooding on Earth in the next decade. Through mapping the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) sea-level rise scenarios, flooding thresholds and astronomical cycles, researchers found flooding in American coastal cities could be several multiples worse in the 2030s, when the next moon "wobble" is expected to begin. They expect the flooding to significantly damage infrastructure and displace communities.
While the study highlights the dire situation facing coastal cities, the lunar wobble is actually a natural occurrence, first reported in 1728. The moon's orbit is responsible for periods of both higher and lower tides about every 18.6 years, and they aren't dangerous in their own right. "In half of the Moon's 18.6-year cycle, Earth's regular daily tides are suppressed: High tides are lower than normal, and low tides are higher than normal," NASA explains. "In the other half of the cycle, tides are amplified: High tides get higher, and low tides get lower. Global sea-level rise pushes high tides in only one direction -- higher. So half of the 18.6-year lunar cycle counteracts the effect of sea-level rise on high tides, and the other half increases the effect." But this time around, scientists are more concerned. With sea-level rise due to climate change, the next high tide floods are expected to be more intense and more frequent than ever before, exacerbating already grim predictions. The study says these floods will exceed flooding thresholds around the country more often, and can also occur in clusters lasting more than a month. "During curtain alignments, floods could happen as frequently as every day or every other day," the report adds. "Almost all U.S. mainland coastlines, Hawaii and Guam are expected to face these effects."
While the study highlights the dire situation facing coastal cities, the lunar wobble is actually a natural occurrence, first reported in 1728. The moon's orbit is responsible for periods of both higher and lower tides about every 18.6 years, and they aren't dangerous in their own right. "In half of the Moon's 18.6-year cycle, Earth's regular daily tides are suppressed: High tides are lower than normal, and low tides are higher than normal," NASA explains. "In the other half of the cycle, tides are amplified: High tides get higher, and low tides get lower. Global sea-level rise pushes high tides in only one direction -- higher. So half of the 18.6-year lunar cycle counteracts the effect of sea-level rise on high tides, and the other half increases the effect." But this time around, scientists are more concerned. With sea-level rise due to climate change, the next high tide floods are expected to be more intense and more frequent than ever before, exacerbating already grim predictions. The study says these floods will exceed flooding thresholds around the country more often, and can also occur in clusters lasting more than a month. "During curtain alignments, floods could happen as frequently as every day or every other day," the report adds. "Almost all U.S. mainland coastlines, Hawaii and Guam are expected to face these effects."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overpoppulation (Score:5, Informative)
How anyone gets flood insurance for these places I'll never know.
Allow me to fill in the gap of your ignorance: flood insurance is heavily subsidized. Yeah, that's the entire reason we're building in stupid places that flood because the government pays out when it floods.
You might think, "that's crazy, but why?!" and the answer is politicians are idiots and have been since at least the 1960s.
Re:Overpoppulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians aren't idiots. Well, not because of this, anyway. Who lives right by the water? Mostly rich people. Rich people have money, which they're willing to give to politicians to get flood bailouts.
Personally I think the idea of a house with the living area over a boat house would be awesome, but apparently rich people don't.
Re:Overpoppulation (Score:4, Insightful)
The easiest solution is stilt houses. In Australia there are parts that just flood about once a decade regardless. Old country with hard soils. So the people just build the houses up high on stilts. I've seen places where the stilts are almost a storey high.
The problem is property developers are idiots and dont bother with the stilts, and some poor guy, new to town, buys a new house and then 2 years later wonders why the couch is now floating around the loungeroom.
All of this by the way is why the insurance companies are so vocal about the need to mitigate climate change. Yes in some places its subsidized, but if the entire east and west coast is flooded, no amount of govt subsidized insurance is gonna pay for that without bankerupting the entire country many times over.
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest solution is stilt houses.
That happens in Hawaii, too.
Re: Overpoppulation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have floating houses here in the Netherlands.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be a bit more modern than that, perhaps no habitable zones on the ground floor and you mount you batteries on the first floor and have those solar panels installed. As long as your house stays up, and you panels intact, your good to go, lights and power, fridge and cooking, water might get a bit tight though.
You also have to think about tidal forces in the atmosphere, the atmosphere will be much thicker where the moon is than on the other side. Then you have to throw in stronger forces on the planet
Re: (Score:2)
Stilts are difficult and expensive in areas like the popular parts of Florida with soft soils and sinkholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Stilts are difficult and expensive in areas like the popular parts of Florida with soft soils and sinkholes.
Then what do they build the houses on? I'm assuming it's a concrete slab. If you can lay down a concrete slab and then put a whole house on it, what's the problem with putting stilts and then a house? As far as sinkholes go, is it really still that hard in this day and age to find out if there's a cave underneath the ground you want to build on? Don't we have ground penetrating radar, drills, various acoustic underground imaging systems, etc.? Or is it basically just caves everywhere and whether you get a s
Re: (Score:1)
Yes it is that hard this day in age to find sinkholes. Not only are they forming farther down than one is likely to find out from ground penetrating radar, the real problem is they are not t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, on slab. And because a slab distributes the weight over a much larger area. Stilts need to anchor somehow. Then stilts on a slab, back to that distributed weight. Since the stilts would be much more psi, you need thicker concrete, which itself weighs more, distributed over less area, which then starts to sink.
That's what footings are for. Any foundation needs footings in sections where weight is concentrated. There does not really seem to be any good reason why a house on stilts would need more footings than if the house were sitting directly on the slab. (technically the house on stilts might weigh a little more due to the weight of the stilts, but not that much more).
Yes it is that hard this day in age to find sinkholes. Not only are they forming farther down than one is likely to find out from ground penetrating radar, the real problem is they are not there initially. The lime, carbonate, or other such rock dissolves forming a cavity. It wasn't there before. There is also that many places the water being held underground is part of the support structure and drought wakes it weak. Then there is also torrential rains that have been increasing in that drought/soak cycle climate change is bringing that is not good for the stability of any soil.
Karst features that large do not form that fast. You are talking about processes that take thousands of years. You are correct about water in the
Re: (Score:1)
That's what footings are for. Any foundation needs footings in sections where weight is concentrated. There does not really seem to be any good reason why a house on stilts would need more footings than if the house were sitting directly on the slab. (technically the house on stilts might weigh a little more due to the weight of the stilts, but not that much more).
I don't build in Florida, or in swamps up here for that matter, so I can't elaborate on the footing requirements building in swamps or former swamps. I was saying what I did know from when I asked the same question to someone that owns a construction company in south Florida. Seemed like a no brainer to me too. Apparently not.
Karst features that large do not form that fast. You are talking about processes that take thousands of years. You are correct about water in the cave providing structural support though. The caves themselves are already there though, the sinkhole opening up is just a matter of the roof being weakened and collapsing.
Yes, those would be the deep ones that aren't being found with gpr. Not all sinkholes are karsts, but they certainly are the ones that swallow up whole houses and end up on the new
Re: (Score:2)
Larger sinkholes were what I was thinking of. Although I suppose it is true that smaller disruptions under the foundation are also a problem. A house doesn't have to be swallowed up for it to basically be ruined. I've heart of entire developments where the developers buried all of the stumps that they removed from the site and built the houses over them. Then when the stumps rotted out, the foundations sank unevenly and cracked, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"no amount of govt subsidized insurance is gonna pay..."
You don't know how the US government works, do you?
Re: Overpoppulation (Score:2)
Many in Bangladesh would agreeâ¦
Re: (Score:3)
Politicians aren't idiots. Well, not because of this, anyway.
Right, not idiots, corrupt pieces of shit who give zero fucks about the consequences of their actions so long as they can become richer.
Obviously this is #notallpoliticians, but that one has to clarify that really proves the point
Re: (Score:2)
It's silly to expect people, particularly *all* people, to act in a way that is opposed to their incentives. If voters vote for politicians who are corrupt but have money for nice ads on TV, well, that's what the people want.
I think one of the problems with the US is that everyone believes they're going to be rich one day. Raise taxes on the rich? No way, one day that's going to be me! Make it super expensive, or illegal, to build right on the water? No way, I'm going to have that beach house any time now!
Re: (Score:2)
Who lives right by the water? Mostly rich people.
Rich people live by the water, usually quite high up where they can look down and out. The majority of them are completely unaffected by floods.
Re: (Score:2)
Many communities arose near rivers because that was the only transportation and a good source of water. And it's not just rich people, if you look at major cities you often find a river flowing through them. The rich areas in the cities are generally not near the river because that's where the industrial parts of town grew up. Rich people like to be up on the hills.
Now outside of cities it's try that some like to be near river water front, but someone who really is wealthy will want to be on a bay or lak
Re: (Score:1)
You might think, "that's crazy, but why?!" and the answer is politicians are idiots and have been since at least the 1960s.
No,actually politicians aren't idiots, they're unethical. The real idiots are the people who think voting for scoundrels can ever accomplish anything. The problem is politicians simply reflect the ideological state of the population, and most people are far too selfish and greedy to really care. Just look around at the consequences of our irresponsible and unsustainable lifestyles.
It was a perfectly good biosphere, until humanity's insatiable greed corrupted it. :(
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit different in the UK, the assistance is limited and people in places that flooded even once are pretty screwed long term. Their houses mostly become worthless because even if that flood was once 30 years ago when the local council screwed up and directed water the wrong way it still affects insurance and comes up on searches when people are looking to buy.
The reason flood planes still get built on is because of NIMBYs. In the UK we have an additional problem that many people don't want anything bu
Re: (Score:3)
Plains. And here I thought only Americans couldn't spell....
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.
Mark Twain
Re: (Score:3)
It's more than that. Here is how it works in Calif. In addition, cities, through their zoning authority, let developers build in these areas. The profit is privatized, and taxes go to the cities and counties. When the floods come, the cost is borne by the state and federal taxpayer, not the developers or the cities.
Re: (Score:2)
flood insurance is heavily subsidized.
There was a PBS program about how civil engineers walk a delicate balance when preparing flood maps. These are updated now and then to show potential of floodings due to changes in weather trends, geography (i.e. less natural wetlands), worn out or new levees, etc. But it gets real political because such maps can tank real estate prices or flood insurance coverage.
Why build in flood prone areas? Because if govt places restrictions on such areas people will complain "muh freedoms!"
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians have been manipulative since the first came out of the primordial ooze. It's just more obivous now with greater communications around the wrold. They're ot idiots, they're just doing the math.
A politician generally is not interested in the well being of the citizens, but in getting their votes. Votes are easily manipulated, either scare the voters or pay them. In this case the voters are being bribed. If there's no flood, the politician gets credit for saving them money, if there is a flood
Re: (Score:3)
Let's also not forget that one of the first things considered at most building sites is drainage. All the roads, parking lots and buildings tend to be set up so that water that would normally soak into the ground instead gets a more direct route into the local stream, river, lake, etc. That means that water that would naturally gradually reach the body of water basically arrives all at the same time. That's the main reason why hundred year flood levels are basically meaningless, for example. In other words
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, I get that. It's crazy. I was just saying that it's actually even worse than that, because all of the development makes the flood zones so much larger.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that I should add to this that I have actually lived in a house next to a river in a flood plain and it did actually flood as far as the house while I lived there when I was a child. The house was designed for it though. It was on a raised area of land, and was basically built on stilts It never actually flooded into the house, just under it (although the detached garage did get flooded. What I found disturbing, visiting it decades later, is that the farmland it was located on has since been develope
Re: (Score:1)
and of course we wiped out the beavers aren't people just so wonderful? :(
"Beavers have alleviated flooding, reduced pollution and boosted populations of fish, amphibians and other wildlife, according to a five-year study of wild-living animals in Devon." ~ https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I visited an out of state property with my brother in law, who had purchased it. He's a gun enthusiast/Republican type and wanted to wander the property with guns and shoot at things. When he saw a beaver dam upriver (his property line stops at the river, so it was not on his property), he naturally immediately started shooting at it. That's illegal of course, but what are you going to do. Later he shot a squirrel. He cut off its tail for amusement, but we didn't eat it. He seems to be pretty typical of ten
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, interesting. I appear to have been downmodded as offtopic on this last comment. Since the poster I was replying to had made a comment about loss of beaver dams leading to increased flooding and my comment was a personal anecdote about watching someone (it was actually several someones since others joined in) just take aim at a beaver dam and start shooting at it the moment they saw it, it seems to me like it wasn't really offtopic. I can't help feeling like it was because I happened to mention that my
Re: (Score:2)
One of the first things for site design, anyway.
That used to be true, but it is not anymore. Calculations have to be done to provide retention and/or detention of stormwater so that a certain amount and rate of rain will no
Re: (Score:2)
One of the first things for site design, anyway.
Right, one of the first things considered at most building sites. Whatever you're building, you want water to go elsewhere.
That used to be true, but it is not anymore. Calculations have to be done to provide retention and/or detention of stormwater so that a certain amount and rate of rain will not overload the systems.,
Sure, except that, as you point out yourself, the actual requirements are probably not sufficient to really prevent the problem. Add to that the calculations done for the site will frequently not be sufficient to even meet the requirements, with corners cut, etc. Then there's the maintenance issue you mention. Then there's all the development that's already completed without those requi
Re: Overpoppulation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Building in flood zones has nothing to do with overpopulation, but everything to do with shortsightedness, greed and stupidity.
In Switzerland, we are currently drowning in rain. Some cities are flooded, just like the were 16 years ago in the last round of floods. People will take their insurance money, and rebuild in the *same* damned spot. Just like the did 16 years ago.
Why doesn't everyone just buy a Tesla?
Oh yea, money...
If you let people build there, and it's much cheaper. What did you expect them to do?
Not everyone can "just buy a new house" someplace more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In almost any given area, you can build houses and other structures to survive most floods.
The issues people have are anticipating the possibilities and the costs of doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to avoid building a house anywhere that might get a tornado most of the landmass in the USA would be off limits. The individual level of risk for a house getting hit by or taking damage from a tornado, even in the areas with the most tornado activity, is pretty tiny. However if you build in a flood plain and the area floods, then you are going to get flooded. Depending on the flood zone those floods might happen a lot more or less frequently than other areas. Sure floods tend to happen less freq
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricanes (Score:2)
The NOAA [noaa.gov] data sure makes it look like the number of hurricanes has gone down, but that's just for the US. So i tried to find a list of all Atlantic hurricanes, and wikipedia [wikipedia.org] had the most concise list i could find.
Based on that it looks like the Atlantic had a brief dip in hurricane intensity in the 70s and 80s, but both the total number of storms and the number of major hurricanes has increased since then.
Comparing the two, it seems like the U
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Overpoppulation (Score:1)
Re:Overpoppulation (Score:4, Funny)
Luckily for the rest of us the article says it's only going to happen in the USA.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that a correction event will happen soon that takes care of our overpopulation problem?
Good news, everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
They get flood insurance for those lowland building sites, in the US, by relying on the subsidy I pay for my flood insurance. In the Phoenix area. For 50-year flood threats from poor drainage in the desert. Caused by marginal engineering and population growth.
And my house foundation is 6 inches below flood level. Six Inches. Yes, that is enough to destroy the house.
Oh, and my current flood insurance premium is 44% that of my homeowner's hazard insurance. Not because of the threat, but because of surcharges
Re: (Score:2)
And my house foundation is 6 inches below flood level. Six Inches. Yes, that is enough to destroy the house.
So have you considered putting up a wall around the house? I don't know what your property is like, but if it's only six inches you have to worry about, couldn't you build a two or three foot stone or concrete wall? You could have a raised path that crosses the wall to get to your house, or some steps up the wall to a low plaform and then down again, or you could have a gap in the wall to walk through and sandbag just that area during a flood, or you could go fancier and have a wall section that raises or l
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people are building in flood zones due to "overpopulation". People build in flood zones to save money, developers get greedy, people are stupid, cheap flood insurance, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/0... [nytimes.com]
This is a big deal coming from a newspaper that claims it's time to * abolish * the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The only real problem we have is far too many people. If we had, say, stable 500M, this planet could be pretty pleasant for the foreseeable future and we could have a high-tech civilization as well. Instead people breed like crazy and turn it all to shit.
Stupid Fucking Headline (Score:2, Insightful)
The actual, scientific explanation is "Climate change to lead to record flooding in a few years. Moon moving around a bit and changing high tides like it always does just means it's not happening right now but will be in like three or four years." Which is to say, the moon has barely anything to do with it, it wouldn't happen without the earth getting hotter.
Reason you were downmodded (Score:1, Troll)
Your pointed out clickbait. Slashdot is rocketing into the shitter because the so called editors gleefully demonstrate how much they despise readers. Either the editors own the site or no one else is looking.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the alarmists aren't claiming more than 3 inches rise in the last quarter century. These massive destructive tides could be fully THREE INCHES greater than last time the moon wobbled.
Run for the hills.
Re: (Score:2)
Who modded this troll has their head broken.
Re: (Score:2)
It is like saying that a Woman who had cut to a major artery died because of her period that was happening at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the things I considered (Score:4, Interesting)
25 years ago when I bought my current house:
Quality of local schools. (excellent compared to the last house's school district. Kid graduated and went to an excellent technical college, with lots of credits from High School)
Distance to the nearest nuclear plant. (from the West, about 100 miles)
Height above sea level (like 500 feet)
If you're buying seaside properties, I hope you have a lot of insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't always help to buy elsewhere. In the UK places that have not flooded in modern history sometimes flood because the defences elsewhere ended up directing water to them. Changings to nearby farmland, rivers, and even new housing developments all affect it. Sometimes it's down to water companies not maintaining drainage properly, we had that near where I live many years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Some call it property on the mountainside, I call it property on the future seaside.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you're buying seaside properties, I hope you have a lot of insurance.
That's the thing. With the Federal Flood Insurance Program, factory workers in Middle-America subsidize the insurance for millionaires and billionaires to have seaside mansions at the elite coastal towns.
It's the insurance of-last-resort because the properties are effectively uninsurable on the market.
Add to that that many of these mansion owners are beneficiaries already of the military-industrial complex and Wall Street and noti
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried (Score:2)
The Forest Service [rollingstone.com] will handle it.. And the oceans can't get much higher without spilling over the edge. The sky is not falling
Dire (Score:3)
Tragic. Simply tragic. BeauHD hang your head in shame. This is insulting. Or perhaps it's a spoof, but you don't display the intelligence for that mode.
Build a Wall? (Score:1)
Perhaps Donald Trump can build a wall to protect us all and get the moon to pay for it?
Moon wobble (Score:1, Troll)
So this "moon wobble" happens every 18 years or so anyway? And it's our old friend climate change that turns this minor event into the latest apocalypse. From the hype-mongering headlines it seemed like the moon was going to jump out of orbit, dance around and shake it's arse in our face, just to mess us up. I think the faith people have historically had in science, is being undermined and used up for the sake of hype, clickbait and political scare tactics..
BS (Score:1)
What a load of BS. This isn't News for Nerds, and neither is the wobbling of the moon Stuff that Matters.
What bugs me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. We've had reports of 'unusual' flooding events except they weren't unusual until developers somehow got approval to build on what was a know flood plain.
Politics and greed are as much to blame for the current state of affairs as anything.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're missing: the number and severity of floods and fires (not just in value lost, but in acres destroyed) is rising. That's why these events are being linked to climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
forest fires don't just happen in the US, you know...
Re: (Score:2)
The cause for both the heat waves in the US/Canada west, and the flooding in northern Europe, are likely due to shifting jet stream patterns. Neither of these are "normal weath anomallies"! These are abnormal and outliers. The shifting of the jet streams may be natural, but it is very clear that a increase in ocean temperatures will affect the jet stream. The weather is a dynamic system and a rise in temperatures is not going to cause a uniform effect spread out evenly around the world but will instead
Re: What bugs me (Score:2)
Climate models too conservative ... (Score:2)
Sorry to break it to you, but ...
Climate models are too conservative. In other words, they are optimistic and present the best case scenario. And it seems that reality is much worse than we thought.
Watch this short analysis [bbc.com], and you will see that the media is not hyping things at all. Not enough anyway.
This would be expected (Score:2)
...during any of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, I'm not sure why we're shocked/surprised that it's going to happen during this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Bankers do not lose money... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wobble? (Score:5, Funny)
A elderly retiree wobbled gingerly into an ice cream shoppe and carefully,
slowly climbed up onto a counter stool.
He wheezed for a minute, then ordered a chocolate sundae.
“Crushed nuts?” asked the server.
“No,” he answered.
“Bad knees.”
Re: (Score:2)
Layout problems, but it reminded me of my current earworm. What the second dragon said when the first dragon complained that the bar was too warm:
"Shut your mouth."
No, I'm not telling you to stop typing. It's just an earworm. It's Jimmy Carr's fault, and he had to think about it, too.
*sigh*
I feel like I have to do the entire joke to avoid possible offense:
Two dragons walk into a bar. The first dragon says, "It's too warm in here."
So the second dragon says, "Shut your mouth."
[You see, there was this heckler
Oh goodie! (Score:2)
See, it's just the moon that causes all that climate stuff, no need to change anything, after all, we can't influence the moon right?
Huh? No of course I didn't read the article or at least the summary, it says right there "the moon is to blame", that's good enough for me. Spare me the details, I have a mall to be at!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! It says right there the moon is to blame and I can continue driving my beloved SUV!
I don't need to hear any more. I have heard what I wanted to hear.
Higher by how much, exactly? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are parts of the US that will be fuucked by a couple extra inches.
Re: (Score:2)
But the GP is right. The numbers are the important things. Not "Things are bad and getting worse." Too much of this "news" is "believe me when I say".
There should be some measured metric. What percent increase of homes are now impacted with their basement flooding? What percent increase in "severe flooding" is expected? Without these, the news isn't much better than comedy sniplets. One half stresses "climate change" and the other doesn't. The answer is in the middle but no one is saying it.
If you RE
Re: (Score:2)
So the move the moon guy was right? (Score:2)
In the same way *rump was right about light and internal disinfectant.
As in, not right at fucking all.
Better cancel the moon (Score:3)
That appears to be the solution to everything that happens that someone doesn't like these days. Cue the Space: 1999 theme song.
And a week later.... (Score:2)
I read this here on /. after being peppered with it in nearly all my other feeds.
So, Slashdot is now 'stuff that mattered'?
No sympathy (Score:2)
People whine about sea rise of a couple inches, yet hurricanes and other ocean storms can bring surges of many feet. The area I live saw 'minor' hurricanes two years in a row, and the exact same homes flooded each time. Except for a few owners smart enough to rebuild taking storm surge into account. There are homes
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the assessment of stupidity in building in known flood zones. There has been a lot of trouble though with flood zones changing because of human activities. The flooding in Houston a few years back was in part because land that worked to absorb extra rain runoff was allowed to be developed. When the rains from the hurricane came, the runoff ended up rushing into downstream neighborhoods instead of being captured. The new construction is where all the money is going and so it'd take a suicidal po
Martha's Vineyard Denizens (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the last ice age... (Score:1)
Since the peak of the last ice age 21,000 years ago, the seas have been continuously rising without the benefit of mankind. To take 100 years of climate data and conflate that into the Earth is dying is complete and utter disingenuous alarmist bullshit. But keep paying your carbon taxes and offsets. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. Fools.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It had too much to drink.