From: "Mark" 

Thanks John, for clarifying your viewpoint. Yes that is an extremely dodgy
spot and it was dodgier still before they added sand, the waves used to
break over the sea wall (it's roughly 8-12' high and about 4-6' wide)
regularly (now just in storms) as their was no sand on the other side at
all in spots! 

"John Beckett"  wrote in message
news:gnq6q2l9qj7o82o72cdb2p7o1t24sm2nud{at}4ax.com...
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news::
>> Wow, 74 yards! And to think you guys have been wetting your pants over a
>> few
>> inches to date.
>
> I'm not the doom-sayer you think I am. I'm just trying to get Geo to say
> something consistent and plausible.
>
> I outlined the fact that changes to our weather MAY have significant
> effects. Further, if any significant effect occurs, it is likely to cause
> a BAD result (I'm not saying "74 yards of water", I'm saying
that if you
> change a complex system, it's very likely you will not improve on it as
> far as current life is concerned).
>
> In response, Geo trots out nonsense about how it would be a bonus if
> Antarctica became inhabitable. That's when it is appropriate for me to
> point out the 74-yard rise in sea level problem.
>
>> it's not an "Inconvenient Truth" type deal with false
drama about NYC
>> and every other coastal city being inundated with
"yards" of water in 24
>> hours or less
>
> Yes - I haven't seen "Inconvenient Truth" but I did see a
story where they
> showed an extract, and it appeared that the film might give the impression
> that you would wake up one morning with wet feet.
>
> OTOH I'm pretty sure that people like Geo aren't being realistic about the
> massive disruptions to society that would result from significant
> inundation. No government or insurance system could compensate a large
> number of coastal people. There really could be some very ugly results.
>
>> For example, people that live here:
>>
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sea+Bright,+NJ+07760&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=40.384867
,-73.972149&spn=0.003784,0.01075&t=h&om=1
>> right now, are IMHO, crazy.
>
> Nice map! I hadn't known about that particular piece of geography. It does
> look exceptionally dodgy. A big wave at king tide might be a problem.
>
> I would expect quite a few places to be unfriendly if sea levels rise even
> a little, or if storm surges increase. Maybe some of Florida, or New
> Orleans.
>
> To summarise my position: By all means claim that:
> 1. There may never be significant problems; or
> 2. There won't be significant problems for many years; or
> 3. Fiddling with human emissions wouldn't help.
>
> But (message to Geo) please do NOT claim that:
> 4. It would be great if Antarctica became inhabitable; or
> 5. Millions of people could just move if they got wet; or
> 6. ADM will make rice that grows in sea water if necessary.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5