APP - even some global warming doubters want preparations for stronger storm surges

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
it is past time to prepare our coastlines against stronger storms and rising sea levels

Some still insist that climate change is a hoax, but the vast majority of Americans believe the globe is warming, a new survey finds — and they want to prepare for the worst.
In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking.
The survey asked about climate-change beliefs and support for adaptation strategies to help coastal areas cope with the rising sea levels and frequent, intense storms that a warmer world could bring. The results showed that 82 percent of Americans are in favor of preparation.
"Few people believe these preparations will harm the economy or eliminate jobs," survey director Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, said in a statement. "In fact, more people believe that preparation efforts will help the economy and create jobs around the U.S., in their state and in their town than think these efforts will harm the economy and result in fewer jobs in those areas.
"But people want coastal homeowners and businesses that locate in high-risk areas to pay for these measures," he said.
The survey found high levels of belief in global warming, with 82 percent of respondents agreeing that Earth's temperatures have risen over the last century. People tended to see efforts to hold back Mother Nature as futile, Krosnick said. Instead, they preferred preparation strategies that would reduce exposure to risk. For example, 48 percent of respondents supported sand dune restoration, and 33 percent favored replenishing eroding beaches with sand.
At the same time, 37 percent said structures should be moved inland to protect them from flooding and storm surges, and 33 percent supported the construction of sea walls. [Weather vs. Climate: Test Yourself]
The most popular policy suggestions were the strengthening of coastal building codes to minimize damage from storms and flooding (supported by 62 percent of respondents), and the prevention of new construction close to the coast (supported by 51 percent).
"The question is, how does public support for preparation translate to action?" said Meg Caldwell, executive director of the Center for Ocean Solutions, which co-commissioned the survey.
"Our impulse is to try to move quickly to put communities back together the way they were after devastation. But that impulse often leads to doubling down on high-risk investments, such as rebuilding in areas likely to experience severe impacts," Caldwell said in a statement. "To move toward long-term resiliency for coastal communities, we need to seize opportunities to apply new thinking, new standards and long-term solutions."
Krosnick presented the results of the survey March 28 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

http://news.yahoo.com/even-doubters-want-prepare-global-warming-203510651.html
 
If you want to prepare move inland. Problem solved. You don't have a right to live where you want at others expense. And it is a hoax. You have been played. But it is easier for you to continue to believe a lie rather than admit you were duped.

It isn't as bad as you think. I finally realized that for years I was duped by the GOP. They aren't conservative constitutionalists. They are no better than the democrat party.

If I can do it so can you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
it is past time to prepare our coastlines against stronger storms and rising sea levels

Some still insist that climate change is a hoax, but the vast majority of Americans believe the globe is warming, a new survey finds — and they want to prepare for the worst.
In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking.
The survey asked about climate-change beliefs and support for adaptation strategies to help coastal areas cope with the rising sea levels and frequent, intense storms that a warmer world could bring. The results showed that 82 percent of Americans are in favor of preparation.
"Few people believe these preparations will harm the economy or eliminate jobs," survey director Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, said in a statement. "In fact, more people believe that preparation efforts will help the economy and create jobs around the U.S., in their state and in their town than think these efforts will harm the economy and result in fewer jobs in those areas.
"But people want coastal homeowners and businesses that locate in high-risk areas to pay for these measures," he said.
The survey found high levels of belief in global warming, with 82 percent of respondents agreeing that Earth's temperatures have risen over the last century. People tended to see efforts to hold back Mother Nature as futile, Krosnick said. Instead, they preferred preparation strategies that would reduce exposure to risk. For example, 48 percent of respondents supported sand dune restoration, and 33 percent favored replenishing eroding beaches with sand.
At the same time, 37 percent said structures should be moved inland to protect them from flooding and storm surges, and 33 percent supported the construction of sea walls. [Weather vs. Climate: Test Yourself]
The most popular policy suggestions were the strengthening of coastal building codes to minimize damage from storms and flooding (supported by 62 percent of respondents), and the prevention of new construction close to the coast (supported by 51 percent).
"The question is, how does public support for preparation translate to action?" said Meg Caldwell, executive director of the Center for Ocean Solutions, which co-commissioned the survey.
"Our impulse is to try to move quickly to put communities back together the way they were after devastation. But that impulse often leads to doubling down on high-risk investments, such as rebuilding in areas likely to experience severe impacts," Caldwell said in a statement. "To move toward long-term resiliency for coastal communities, we need to seize opportunities to apply new thinking, new standards and long-term solutions."
Krosnick presented the results of the survey March 28 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

http://news.yahoo.com/even-doubters-want-prepare-global-warming-203510651.html

I think state government leadership in Florida still believes global warming is a hoax, and they would rather spend their time banning school textbooks and trolling liberals than spend time on governance and oversight of the state's infrastructure and climate preparedness
 
I think that Ian was just one of those storms, much like the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, that occurs periodically over a long period of time that isn't predicted or planned for. It exceeds what's expected.

That has nothing to do with Gorebal Warming, and everything to do with human hubris and not looking at things in terms of decades and centuries rather than the last few years, if that.

Florida is much like the Netherlands in many areas. The state could start to construct dykes and levees to prevent storm surge and flooding, but hasn't because of the infrequency of these situations in many areas. If you look at the storm damage from Ian, it's mostly from storm surge and flooding, not wind and rain. Buildings mostly survived the intense winds and rain only to succumb to flooding and storm surge.

This is really little different that what Japan experienced with the Fukushima earthquake and following tsunami. The earthquake was survived with little really serious damage. The massive tsunami overwhelmed the in-place systems to prevent it.

This is in stark contrast to Puerto Rico where substandard building code and poorly installed infrastructure overwhelmed the island.
 
Exxon scientists knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels and pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere would result in global warming.
 
Exxon scientists knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels and pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere would result in global warming.

There's little difference between that and the tobacco industry knowing that cigarettes are deadly, but playing it down. Except this time it is the whole planet that is being affected. The puzzling thing is why the Reichtards continue to deny deny deny. Why? It's not as though anything will be expected of them, unless of course they live in an area that will be affected by wildfire, drought, storms, flooding, heat waves. :rolleyes:
 
There's little difference between that and the tobacco industry knowing that cigarettes are deadly, but playing it down. Except this time it is the whole planet that is being affected. The puzzling thing is why the Reichtards continue to deny deny deny. Why? It's not as though anything will be expected of them, unless of course they live in an area that will be affected by wildfire, drought, storms, flooding, heat waves. :rolleyes:
People in general, and Rightwingers in particular, are reticent to admit they were wrong.
.
You can barely find a Republican on this board who will admit anti-war liberals had good judgement about the folly of the Iraq invasion.

We have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s, and even though it is obvious now there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.
 
It seems more likely than not that CO2 emissions are impacting climate. To what degree is basically impossible to know. We saw the many failures of early predictive models that likely, at least partially, necessitated the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

There's no reasonable way to cut CO2 emissions in the near or even distant future, so all we can do is prepare for the changes: storms, rising sea levels, etc.
 
...necessitated the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

It has been called 'climate change' at the highest levels of government and science for more than 40 years, at least since before 1988, when the world's foremost scientific consortium on the issue was established, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988).

It was conservative political pundits who wanted to emphasize climate change over global warming, because aesthetically it didn't sound as bad.
 
It has been called 'climate change' at the highest levels of government and science for more than 40 years, at least since before 1988, when the world's foremost scientific consortium on the issue was established, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988).

It was conservative political pundits who wanted to emphasize climate change over global warming, because aesthetically it didn't sound as bad.
Global warming is a more accurate description although not accurate. ‘Regional warming’ is better. There has been no change in the Köppen climate classification of any region in the world for centuries to my knowledge.
 
Exxon scientists knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels and pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere would result in global warming.

That's been known about since the time of Arrhenius, shit for brains. However the effect is quite small and well known, it has been gossly exaggerated by alarmist scientists and the UN. Prof. Richard Lindzen stated it best in 2012 in a presentation given in the House of Commons.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

 
There are some forces more powerful than the entire ingenuity and drive of humanity........mother nature being the most significant. We have as much chance of stopping, or at least minimizing, storm forces as we did in trying to create new coral reefs using tied together old tires and dumping them in the ocean......which was a very stupid idea to begin with.

preparedness certainly is a positive, however, most people are unable to accept that level of responsibility for themselves, preferring instead to have government do it, and we all know that government has a very ugly history of managing things.

We also have to look at the emotional weakening of the maturity level of humanity. 50 years ago hurricane Ian would have been accepted and then afterwards, the damage and recovery dealt with afterwards like just another serious storm. Nowadays we have the chicken littles of the world/country demanding that people do what they are told or suffer the consequences, that we are too weak and frail to undergo such a massively devastating storm because of climate change........it's almost like they are trying to fear monger and whip up hysteria for a political agenda.
 
Again you just can't being an arsehole! Do you even know who Arrhenius is and what he was famous for, probably not.

I'm more interested in why I have been predicting global warming for 20 years, while you have been predicting global cooling for many years, and the threads are there to prove it.
 
I'm more interested in why I have been predicting global warming for 20 years, while you have been predicting global cooling for many years, and the threads are there to prove it.

There is very good evidence to state that a Dalton or even a Maunder minimum is in the offing, stop being such a prick ffs. It has nothing to do with CO2 and
radiative forcing.
 
There is very good evidence to state that a Dalton or even a Maunder minimum is in the offing, stop being such a prick ffs. It has nothing to do with CO2 and
radiative forcing.

You seem to have been the board's most infamous predictor of the imminent onset of global cooling.

How long have you been making that prediction? 20 years? 30 years?
 
You seem to have been the board's most infamous predictor of the imminent onset of global cooling.

How long have you been making that prediction? 20 years? 30 years?

Take it up with your fellow Russian Prof. Valentina V. Zharkova. She has been predicting a Grand Solar Minimum since 2013 and starting around 2020 and finishing in 2050.

Northumbria University · Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering
BSc, MSc , PhD, FRAS

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina-Zharkova
 
Take it up with your fellow Russian Prof. Valentina V. Zharkova. She has been predicting a Grand Solar Minimum since 2013 and starting around 2020 and finishing in 2050.

Northumbria University · Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering
BSc, MSc , PhD, FRAS

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina-Zharkova

This is the only thing that needs to be said about credibility:

I have predicted global warming as long as I've been on the internet.

For the past 15 years you have been predicting the imminent onset of global cooling.
 
Back
Top