Florida Keys Prepare For Sea Level Rise

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Florida Keys Prepare For Sea Level Rise

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 2, 2013 @05:04PM from the good-excuse-to-get-out-of-florida dept.

An Associated Press report details how the Florida Keys are starting to prepare for seasonal flooding and rising water levels overall. "A tidal gauge operating since before the Civil War has documented a sea level rise of 9 inches in the last century, and officials expect that to double over the next 50 years." Flooding used to be a much rarer occurrence, but now many businesses are finding it necessary to have plans in place to deal with it. "The Keys and three South Florida counties agreed in 2010 to collaborate on a regional plan to adapt to climate change. The first action plan developed under that agreement was published in October and calls for revamped planning policies, more public transportation options, stopping seawater from flowing into freshwater supplies and managing the region's unique ecosystems so that they can adapt, too." The Keys are one of many places beginning to seriously evaluate their options for dealing with flooding after witnessing the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy.

101 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And all I know... by niftydude · 2013-07-02 17:15 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWiAuIygfl8

And all I know is the sun is shining, yet we fight all thought the night
While the 'burgs are melting and the sea is rising
I don't know so I ask them why

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
1. Re:And all I know... by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-02 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  I used to internally ask myself the following two questions quite frequently: "Who am I? What exactly am I here for?"
  The first question is easy, but the second is disconcerting when encountered on Slashdot.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:And all I know... by Thud457 · 2013-07-03 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  More sophisticated societies ask Where shall we have lunch?
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
3. Re:And all I know... by X0563511 · 2013-07-03 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  You are a shill. Your purpose is to serve as fuel for an exothermic chemical reaction. Please go die in such an exothermic reaction - it is your destiny.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Options by drinkypoo · 2013-07-02 17:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Keys are one of many places beginning to seriously evaluate their options

Like relocation to higher ground? Awesome vacation spot, not such a good idea to move in. Of course, I support people being able to live in inherently unsafe places, the only time I get grumpy is when people get disaster relief and spend it on rebuilding in those places. I'm not against the relief, I'm against it being so damned temporary.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:Options by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-02 17:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The Keys are one of many places beginning to seriously evaluate their options
  Like relocation to higher ground?
  They should move to North Carolina, where the legislature outlawed sea level rise.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:Options by Capsaicin · 2013-07-02 19:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They should move to North Carolina, where the legislature outlawed sea level rise.
  Too right. I can't fathom these Global Warming advocates... who in their right mind actually wants catastrophic climate change?!!
  I say we vote to keep the climate just as it is thank you very much.
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
3. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  Thing is, they don't want catastrophic climate change. They are hoping like hell *someone else* will experience it, and they want to benefit from unpaid consequences today.
  It's rather like the slash-and-burn psychopath CEO types: rape now, sell this afternoon, saddle the sad morons who work there with the fallout tomorrow.
4. Re:Options by GrumpySteen · 2013-07-03 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Flooding caused by rising sea levels isn't catastrophic enough for you? RTFA.
5. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Flooding caused by rising sea levels isn't catastrophic enough for you?
  
  Sure, the story talked about that. But what caught my eyes was "has documented a sea level rise of 9 inches in the last century, and officials expect that to double over the next 50 years". It's a typical climate change non-story.
6. Re:Options by rtb61 · 2013-07-03 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  Dim as only a Republican oil lamp can be. Yes we know all major coastal cities have only a fifty life span, at the end of that time they are abandoned and everyone relocates to one of the spare earth coast lines. Proportional king tides and storm surges are also nothing to worry about, same for a rising water table bringing salts closer to the surface where they can contaminate fresh water supplies and poison salt intolerant vegetation.
  Nothing is as stupid as stupid proud to be stupid. You might as well say fuck they next generation they can all die, as long as I get mine now. Even your own.
  most people take pride in trying to leave the world a better place than what they got, why, because humanity that's why. Those that don't, well, psychopath, that's why.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
7. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  In addition, no, I would not consider flooding by rising sea levels to be catastrophic - especially given the time frame it happens over (centuries). One can merely move to higher ground. There is a lot of higher ground throughout the world. And if for some reason, you want to stay in the same place, then you can build your own higher ground on the spot.
  
  If a lot of people wandered into the ocean at a normal beach during low tide and stayed put and drowned as the tide moved in, we probably would consider that a "catastrophe", but we wouldn't blame those deaths on the tide.
8. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  The Keys are one of many places beginning to seriously evaluate their options
  Like relocation to higher ground? Awesome vacation spot, not such a good idea to move in. Of course, I support people being able to live in inherently unsafe places, the only time I get grumpy is when people get disaster relief and spend it on rebuilding in those places. I'm not against the relief, I'm against it being so damned temporary.
  ..and the disaster relief is used building just another shitty building that breaks.
  when they could be using it for building houses one feet higher up from the ground. fucking rocket science!?!?
9. Re:Options by drinkypoo · 2013-07-03 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, the story talked about that. But what caught my eyes was "has documented a sea level rise of 9 inches in the last century, and officials expect that to double over the next 50 years". It's a typical climate change non-story.
  It takes a special kind of stupid to not believe that eighteen inches of sea level rise will cause significant effects. As well, "Over the next 50 years" means nothing. Anything that happens in the next five years also happens in the next fifty. Note that ice on land is still melting faster than expected. That means sea level rising faster than expected. But I would appreciate it if you would move to The Keys.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:Options by drinkypoo · 2013-07-03 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  ..and the disaster relief is used building just another shitty building that breaks.
  when they could be using it for building houses one feet higher up from the ground. fucking rocket science!?!?
  One foot of stilts won't fix what's wrong with key west. One tsunami and the whole thing is gone, just gone. One good offshore seismic event, one big splashdown... byebye. Again, I'm not against people living there, I'm just against The People footing the bill.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
11. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  tell that to Bangladesh.
12. Re:Options by minstrelmike · 2013-07-03 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  What about the cost of moving? Note that you cannot sell your land/property to pay for moving. it is a total loss. That is a catastrophe, a slow-moving one but catastrophic nonetheless.
  
  And the cost of migration is terrible. Folks in the Florida Keys can move to someplace else in the USA such as Colorado.
  
  Folks on independent island archipelagos such as Togo or Micronesia can move to any country that has room to take them which at my last count stands at Zero.
13. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Dim as only a Republican oil lamp can be. Yes we know all major coastal cities have only a fifty life span, at the end of that time they are abandoned and everyone relocates to one of the spare earth coast lines. Proportional king tides and storm surges are also nothing to worry about, same for a rising water table bringing salts closer to the surface where they can contaminate fresh water supplies and poison salt intolerant vegetation.
  The grown ups here are speaking of an 18 inch sea level rise over 50 years. While that might cause some degree of increased harm from storm surges or a bit of salt water intrusion into water tables, it's not going to cause us to abandon cities. Nor are we leaving future generations to die since an 18 inch sea level rise isn't much.
  
  most people take pride in trying to leave the world a better place than what they got, why, because humanity that's why. Those that don't, well, psychopath, that's why.
  If you're really interested in all that, then advocating tackling real problems like poverty, corruption, desertification, disease, overpopulation, etc. As I understand it, about a million people die from malaria each year. Ending that would save 50 million or so people over the next fifty years (as well as helping hundreds of millions by ending chronic malaria) and have a much more profound positive effect than any climate change mitigate proposed to date (most which are more harmful than merely doing nothing about climate change).
  
  You speak of leaving the world a better place. Step one towards that would be abandoning the climate change hysteria. Start by not making the world a worse place.
14. Re:Options by interkin3tic · 2013-07-03 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I support people being able to live in inherently unsafe places, the only time I get grumpy is when people get disaster relief and spend it on rebuilding in those places
  Would you be less grumpy were it to be shown that relocating everyone would be more expensive than rebuilding and improving? Granted, rebuilding has direct and predictable costs to the taxpayers, while it's difficult to quantify and predict the expense of everyone in affected areas moving inland, so I don't know that we'll be able to get simple numbers on that.
15. Re:Options by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2013-07-03 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Those real problems you list are important, but so is climate change. We always have multiple people working on multiple problems. Its too difficult to convince everyone of the most important thing to do first, so we just let them use their free will and what not to tackle the problem they find they can best make an impact on. Often in human development, we discover something by accident that ends up being a better solution to a problem than those in the field have come up with. Heck, even in physics there are scientists that study universes that obey laws of physics very different from our own, with the understanding that things they do discover may be applicable to our own. I think climate change will be very similar. In trying to reduce greenhouse gasses, they'll increase the efficiency of energy production, distribution, and the end use of it. That's something we can all benefit from, even if every credible scientist in the world who has spoken on the subject is wrong and we have nothing to worry about.
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
16. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  What's this about "catastrophic climate change"? Did someone finally come up with some evidence to support that claim? Of course not. It's just an AC repeating the party talking points about psychopath CEO types.
  There is about as strong scientific consensus on human influenced climate change leading to drastic consequenses as there is for evolution. But, since a lot of people reject evolution too I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the deniers.
17. Re:Options by fizzer06 · 2013-07-03 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Even if the sea is rising (or the land is sinking), what 'cha gonna do about it?
18. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  about a million people die from malaria each year. Ending that would save 50 million or so people over the next fifty years
  Given that the world population is a concern with regards to climate change, it is not in the best interests of those who want to slow climate change to stop malaria.
19. Re:Options by sjames · 2013-07-03 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  So how about when they live in a safe place and then others make it unsafe by altering the climate?
  All too often the disaster relief money is enough to repair what you have but not enough to move elsewhere (given that your property just took a huge hit in resale value due to being a declared disaster area).
20. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  No, they should move to California, where they vote on science.
21. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  There is about as strong scientific consensus on human influenced climate change leading to drastic consequenses as there is for evolution. But, since a lot of people reject evolution too I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the deniers.
  The most insidious thing about the campaign to convince the brain-washed masses that "global warming" is real is the way it sneaks in the lie that world is shaped like a ball.
22. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  I say we vote to keep the climate just as it is thank you very much.
  Why is this modded funny? As long as there is a provision for how the law makers intend to keep the climate the way it is now, sure seems like a solution to me.
23. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  If you're really interested in all that, then advocating tackling real problems like poverty, corruption, desertification, disease, overpopulation, etc.
  Excepting only the last, our best projections expect climate change to exacerbate each of the problems you list.
  As I understand it, about a million people die from malaria each year.
  A specific prediction is that the malaria belt around the tropics will widen. If you want to help fight malaria you could start by "not making the world a worse place," i.e. by radically curtailing fossil fuel use.
  You speak of leaving the world a better place. Step one towards that would be abandoning the climate change hysteria ...
  No, step one would be moving away from fossil fuel use since not to do so will worsen all the concerns you have as you are attempting to repair them. That is not to say we ought to abandon our efforts at malaria eradication, at political reform and improving the health and education status of women (and this relieving overpopulation) around the world, at fostering opportunity to allow people to lift themselves out of poverty etc. And there are enough humans on the world to allow more than a single task to be undertaken at any time. However to knock down with your left hand what your right hand has just built is foolishness.
  I really don't understand why you have such a massive emotional investment in ignoring our best available science? Is this some kind of misplaced political tribalism? Seriously, what is your problem dude?
24. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  What about the cost of moving?
  What about it? We move all the time. It's not that expensive.
  
  Note that you cannot sell your land/property to pay for moving. it is a total loss.
  Well, don't hold it for a century after you move out then. Why storms and such will occasionally destroy land (such as cutting a large channel through former beach property), most such degradation is over decades or centuries. At that point, it's not much of a factor.
  
  Folks on independent island archipelagos such as Togo or Micronesia can move to any country that has room to take them which at my last count stands at Zero.
  They can move to Australia, New Zealand, or the US. All three have plenty of room and a history of taking in people from the Pacific Islands.
25. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Those real problems you list are important, but so is climate change.
  Far more important than climate change. Let's keep perspective here.
  
  As to the rest of your post, why should we squander a vast amount of our wealth and infrastructure on climate change while ignoring these more important problems? My view is that climate change mitigation simply is not worth doing at the current price. The opportunity costs of it are an indication of the terrible human cost that it has.
  
  In trying to reduce greenhouse gasses, they'll increase the efficiency of energy production, distribution, and the end use of it.
  
  The thing is that isn't our highest priority. Why are we doing that at the expense of our bigger problems, for example?
26. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Given that the world population is a concern with regards to climate change, it is not in the best interests of those who want to slow climate change to stop malaria.
  1. We want to slow climate change, inter alia to stop the spread of malaria. We want to slow climate change so that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people don't die as a result of a depleted planet by century's end.
  2. Those places in the world where population growth has slowed do not in general suffer from malaria. Malaria is neither a desirable nor an effective population control measure. What is it the west has that causes us to have less children? Let's try that instead.
  3. It is "in the best interests" of the vast majority of our species "to slow climate change."
27. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the world population is a concern with regards to climate change, it is not in the best interests of those who want to slow climate change to stop malaria.
  That's an ignorant point of view. The problem is that malaria affects far more people than it kills. Glancing at Wikipedia, I see 200 million cases of malaria each year and only 1 million deaths each year. Further, a number of those infections are chronic, meaning they'll reoccur over many years, crippling the person each time they manifest. A disease which kills a small number of people, but harms 3% of the world's population each year is not an ally of population control advocates. It merely makes the overpopulation situation worse by creating a considerable relatively unproductive subgroup who is frequently weakened by the effects of the disease.
  
  Malaria also increases the incentive in countries with endemic malaria to have more children so more children survive and can provide for the parents.
28. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Excepting only the last, our best projections expect climate change to exacerbate each of the problems you list.
  But not by much. Further, if you deal with those problems, you also eliminate most of the harm that climate change is supposed to do. Such as responsive and effective disaster response greatly reduces the effects of the "extreme weather" harm that is supposed to be an aspect of climate change.
  
  I really don't understand why you have such a massive emotional investment in ignoring our best available science?
  The best available science is crap. That's why.
29. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  We want to slow climate change so that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people don't die as a result of a depleted planet by century's end.
  This is yet another non sequitur. Climate change has nothing to do with resource depletion.
  
  Also, it's worth mentioning that hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths aren't much compared to the deaths from "poverty, corruption, desertification, disease, overpopulation".
30. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  It takes a special kind of stupid to not believe that eighteen inches of sea level rise will cause significant effects.
  
  Whatever. I just see this as another example of the irrational hysteria that surrounds "climate change".
  
  Note that ice on land is still melting faster than expected.
  I have to disagree. The people who expect ice to melt faster are making that claim. Nobody else is.
  
  That means sea level rising faster than expected.
  Except that we don't actually see this happening, I note.
  
  But I would appreciate it if you would move to The Keys.
  I'm not interested in living there. This irrational request doesn't reflect well on you.
31. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  And why should we harm the future of humanity for the special interests of Bangladesh?
32. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  There is about as strong scientific consensus on human influenced climate change leading to drastic consequenses as there is for evolution.
  
  No, there isn't. There's a decent consensus that global warming is partly man-made, but that's a far cry from your assertion that it leads to drastic consequences or the support that evolution has. To the contrary, all this debate is because there isn't such a consensus.
  
  And I find it enlightening how the argument is based on consensus, not on evidence. Evolution is supported because it has a vast amount of evidence supporting the theory. "Climate change" is supported because there's a substantial funding bias towards research that gives lip service to such issues.
33. Re:Options by Barsteward · 2013-07-03 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  "You might as well say fuck they next generation they can all die, as long as I get mine now. Even your own."
  
  I'm afraid that IS the attitude of a climate denier, they'd rather NOT be safe than sorry.
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
34. Re:Options by Barsteward · 2013-07-03 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  "Far more important than climate change" let me fix that for you......
  
  Far more important than climate change in my life time, i'll be dead in 50 or so years so it won't be a problem to ME
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
35. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  Even if the sea is rising (or the land is sinking), what 'cha gonna do about it?
  Stand on stilts.
  Even if the sun goes down at night, what'cha gonna do about it? Of course the sea is rising you mal-informed twonk.
36. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-03 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  Far more important than climate change in my life time, i'll be dead in 50 or so years so it won't be a problem to ME
  If that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother considering any of these problems I listed. None of them are problems (well aside from corruption) for me or people I care about. But if you rationally consider this stuff, then you have to put climate change pretty far down the list because a) it's not urgent, and b) it doesn't actually cause that much trouble.
  
  I don't know why people regularly accuse me of not caring about the future. If they really did care about the future and rationally think about it, then they too would have lowered the priority of dealing with climate change.
37. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-04 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  If that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother considering any of these problems I listed. None of them are problems (well aside from corruption) for me or people I care about.
  A brief look at what you listed would reveal that to be false. Those problems you listed do affect you or people you care about. Those other problems affect the economy. You are a part of the economy, so those problems do affect you.
  Instead of "if that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother", it's more like that "if those problems you listed didn't affect you, you wouldn't be mentioning them"
  Besides, why would you want to consider problems that don't affect you? That's the problem with the "think of the children" AGW advocates you're arguing against. They're arguing for problems that really don't affect them, but *might* (with very little proof) affect some future generations.
  
  I don't know why people regularly accuse me of not caring about the future.
  Because if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck...
  As I demonstrated, the issues you listed aren't only about the future. They do have short term affects. When it comes to global warming, which has no short term effects, you have consistently refused to care (more). That's why people concluded (rationally I might add) that you are not what you claim to be
  But again, there's nothing wrong with not caring for the future, or caring for other people. It is not from the benevolence of the baker we get our bread.
38. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-04 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Those problems you listed do affect you or people you care about.
  I assure you they don't.
  
  Those other problems affect the economy. You are a part of the economy, so those problems do affect you.
  Impoverished people are a small part of the economy. Sure, if their world was greatly improved, that would be a great economic "rising tide" that would be some help. But if their lot isn't improved, it won't change my world noticeably.
  
  Instead of "if that were my attitude, then I wouldn't bother", it's more like that "if those problems you listed didn't affect you, you wouldn't be mentioning them"
  I see you're saying below "Because if you look like a duck...". So how come you gloss over this? Those problems don't affect me or mine despite your lazy assertions to the contrary. They merely affect a lot of people in the world unrelated to me in any way. Yet I still care. Connect the dots sometime.
  
  I admit that the proposed mitigation solutions for global warming would affect my world substantially and adversely. I do have an interest in such. My view on "climate change" is simply that it's a pretext for creating powerful bureaucracies and control of society. Advocates have cycled through a variety of flimsy arguments and evidence while simultaneously endorsing expensive and poorly thought out actions.
  
  If you're advocating action that is a tremendous sacrifice for society, then you should have more going for it than some weak climate models which haven't been tested against solid climate data (that is, date like the solid satellite data we've been collecting for a meager thirty years) and various fallacies and biases (such as Pascal's wager - can't afford not to act, observation bias - unusual weather becomes "extreme weather" caused by global warming, argument from authority - the IPCC does this a lot, and argument from consensus - the infamous "97%" survey).
  
  As I demonstrated, the issues you listed aren't only about the future. They do have short term affects. When it comes to global warming, which has no short term effects, you have consistently refused to care (more). That's why people concluded (rationally I might add) that you are not what you claim to be
  You may have demonstrated this, but you haven't demonstrated that global warming has long term effects that we need to act on whether now or later. I also believe at some point you need to let future generations have some responsibility for their own well-being. I think it's ridiculous to advocate all this sacrifice now just so that future generations might have slightly better climates.
39. Re:Options by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2013-07-05 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you completely misunderstood my post. Lets try over the top sarcasm to drive the point home.
  What are you doing *right now*? Are you working on ending malaria? If not you are doing it at the expense of millions of people dying right now!!!! What is you job? If its not researching malaria drugs, then quit it NOWWW! Go back to school, mortgage your house for tuition, live in a cardboard box, to study. No TV, No Food other than corn meal and road kill. Everything else is a waste of money that only kills millions a year by not solving the problem of malaria!!!!
  
  --
  Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
40. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-05 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  I assure you they don't.
  That means as much as Obama assuring the American people that everything government does is legal and constitutional.
  
  Impoverished people are a small part of the economy. Sure, if their world was greatly improved, that would be a great economic "rising tide" that would be some help. But if their lot isn't improved, it won't change my world noticeably.
  Incorrect. Much of the goods you buy (from food to oil to various stuff made in China) are made in regions filled with impoverished people (some of them might be even be directly involved in the production of those goods). If something were to happen to those impoverished people, that would affect the economy in those areas, affect the production of the goods you buy, and you will see it reflected in the prices.
  Also, you're ignoring the other things you listed. Diseases, for example, do not choose to only target the poor or people who won't affect you (unless if you are bubble boy or something...)
  
  I see you're saying below "Because if you look like a duck...". So how come you gloss over this?
  Why not? Me saying you look like a duck compliments with my statement here. Both statements are saying that you care about the present, not the future, and you look like a duck (a person who cares for the present, not the future)
  
  Those problems don't affect me or mine despite your lazy assertions to the contrary.
  Ad homemim. Calling my assertion "lazy" does not refute my assertion.
  
  If you're advocating action that is a tremendous sacrifice for society,
  if
  I'm not advocating that. You have me confused with other people you've been arguing with who wants something done about climate change or AGW or rising sea waters or whatever.
  What I said was that:
  1) the things you say don't affect you, actually do
  2) as such, the other people are correct that you don't care for the future (thus the reason you keep being accused of such... the glove fits)
  3) it is OK to not care so much for the future. You don't have to try to present yourself to care for the future.
  In fact, I'll add one more thing: the next time somebody calls you for not caring for the future, just smile and accept it as a compliment. Be proud that you're not some emotional "think of the children" care bear.
41. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-07 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  What I said was that: 1) the things you say don't affect you, actually do
  2) as such, the other people are correct that you don't care for the future (thus the reason you keep being accused of such... the glove fits)
  3) it is OK to not care so much for the future. You don't have to try to present yourself to care for the future.
  Ok, so you said that. It is a remarkable waste of your time and effort to say things that are so divergent from reality, but hey, say whatever you want. I'll just remark on them briefly for your future personal betterment.
  
  For point 1), slightly higher prices for goods is an effect, but not much of one. So yes, you are technically true that I am affected to some minuscule degree by everything bad that happens in the world. But the lion's share of the harm of these things falls on the people who are directly affected by them. Some of these things actually have their benefits. For example, impoverished labor is cheaper than labor that doesn't have to work hard to survive day to day. That can result in cheaper goods for me.
  
  Point 2) is a non sequitur. No one can have perfect knowledge of the future, so there will always be something that affects us, but which we don't think will affect us. So everyone can in your logic be considered to not care about the future.
  
  And further the act of caring about the future is independent of one's knowledge of the future which is what makes this a non sequitur.
  
  As to point 3), I'm merely stating my beliefs on the matter. I care about the future and I'm more than capable of determining my beliefs on the matter. I find it puzzling that you make such vastly bad attempts to dispute that assertion.
42. Re:Options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, so you said that. It is a remarkable waste of your time and effort to say things that are so divergent from reality, but hey, say whatever you want
  No, it is not, and I am more than capable to determine that.
  
  I'll just remark on them briefly for your future personal betterment.
  Ok, so you said that. It is a remarkable waste of your time and effort to say things that are so divergent from reality, but hey, say whatever you want.
  
  For point 1), slightly higher prices for goods is an effect, but not much of one. So yes, you are technically true that I am affected to some minuscule degree by everything bad that happens in the world.
  That minuscule degree is still leaps and bounds above the negative impacts (if any) of AGW.
  
  But the lion's share of the harm of these things falls on the people who are directly affected by them.
  
  Which doesn't change that you are still much more impacted by the things you mentioned than by AGW.
  
  Some of these things actually have their benefits. For example, impoverished labor is cheaper than labor that doesn't have to work hard to survive day to day. That can result in cheaper goods for me.
  That's a broken window fallacy. If I was an AGW advocate (and I'm not) I could use the same logic to argue that funding AGW research today has benefits (erm... my contractor friends get rich?)
  
  Point 2) is a non sequitur. No one can have perfect knowledge of the future, so there will always be something that affects us, but which we don't think will affect us.
  
  No, your defense here is the non sequitur. It doesn't matter that we don't have perfect knowledge, what matters is that you had enough knowledge to believe that issues you listed have more immediate need for attention than issues relating to AGW.
  As I demonstrated, it doesn't take much knowledge to show how the issues you listed do have immediate impact to us. So it's not a stretch to say that AGW proponents (which again, I'm not one of) can come up with similar conclusions. And just like how I did it, they'll conclude that you care more about immediate issues than future issues like AGW.
  Thus, the glove fits.
  
  further the act of caring about the future is independent of one's knowledge of the future which is what makes this a non sequitur.
  Again, it is your rebuttal that is a non sequitur. People cannot read your mind and know whether or not you care, they can only judge you by your actions/words. As I explained, your actions/words do not give you the appearance of one who cares for the future, since the issues you value over AGW are ones with immediate effects (no matter how minuscule, it's still more than AGW). So again, look like duck; talk like a duck.
  
  As to point 3), I'm merely stating my beliefs on the matter. I care about the future and I'm more than capable of determining my beliefs on the matter.
  You're free to believe whatever you want. I was just explaining that what you believe you are and what people see you as are two different things.
  
  I find it puzzling that you make such vastly bad attempts to dispute that assertion.
  Your assertion was that (paraphrasing) "if I didn't care for future, I wouldn't care for those issues I listed"
  To dispute your assertion, I showed that the things you listed don't really demonstrate you to be a future-caring guy. I showed that those issues actually have immediate benefits. You even AGREED that they do, even if technically
  So I'm amused how you call my attempts to be "vastly bad", when, AFAIC, they have successfully disputed you. And *I* am fully capable to determine whether or not I have succeeded.
43. Re:Options by khallow · 2013-07-08 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's a broken window fallacy.
  Need I remind you that the traditional scenario of the broken window fallacy was very beneficial for the glass makers? What made it a fallacy was claiming that what was good for the glass maker was good for society.
  
  Which doesn't change that you are still much more impacted by the things you mentioned than by AGW.
  Well, I suppose that is true. But as I note above, impact is not the same as harm.
  
  No, your defense here is the non sequitur. It doesn't matter that we don't have perfect knowledge, what matters is that you had enough knowledge to believe that issues you listed have more immediate need for attention than issues relating to AGW.
  Again with the non sequiturs. Your assertions do not follow from your premises. For example, just because I don't believe that AGW is something we need to deal with now, doesn't mean that I always will feel that way. I think that dealing with "my" list of issues first will be better in the long run than doing anything significant about AGW. But that doesn't mean that I'll still advocate that strategy in fifty years or a century, should I live that long.
  
  You're free to believe whatever you want. I was just explaining that what you believe you are and what people see you as are two different things.
  Well, the problem here is not with me, but your perception of me. I can't fix that. Only you can.
  
  To dispute your assertion, I showed that the things you listed don't really demonstrate you to be a future-caring guy. I showed that those issues actually have immediate benefits. You even AGREED that they do, even if technically
  Again, this is a non sequitur. Just because something has a near future benefit, doesn't mean that it doesn't also have a far future benefit.
perspective by stenvar · 2013-07-02 17:28 · Score: 5, Informative

To put this into perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_keys

The Florida Keys have taken their present form as the result of the drastic changes in sea level associated with recent glaciations or ice ages. Beginning some 130,000 years ago the Sangamonian Stage raised sea levels to approximately 25 feet (7.5 m) above the current level. All of southern Florida was covered by a shallow sea [...] Starting about 100,000 years ago the Wisconsin glaciation began lowering sea levels, exposing the coral reef and surrounding marine sediments. By 15,000 years ago the sea level had dropped to 300 to 350 feet (110 m) below the contemporary level.
The Florida keys are an environment that's neither stable nor safe from flooding, and when you live near the water, you have to live with the fact that you need to move sooner or later. Even without anthropogenic warming, there would have been substantial sea level rise over the last century, and these precautions would be necessary and prudent.
1. Re:perspective by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-02 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  Even without anthropogenic warming, there would have been substantial sea level rise over the last century.
  Could you explain how that follows from your quote?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:perspective by garyebickford · 2013-07-02 18:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I don't know the specific geology of the Keys, but most places with ocean interfaces are either raising or lowering with respect to sea level. For an example of short term movement, the shore of Japan close to the quake and tsunami in some cases is feet lower than it was before the quake because as the pressure built up over centuries, that land bowed upward, and when the stress was released the land dropped again. And on the Oregon coast there is a shallow marsh that before January of 1700 was a cedar forest, but it dropped six feet in that earthquake.
  Other areas are dropping or rising more gradually. Many Pacific islands would be gradually going under water over the next few centuries regardless of the global sea level change.
  Basically, the entire surface of the Earth is a bunch of scum piles being shifted around on an ocean of semi-liquid material, bumping into each other and tilting in various ways. As the Asian and Indian Ocean plates collide and tilt up to form the Himalayas, the other ends of those places are dropping. And there is now evidence that the Atlantic plate is cracking in the middle, offshore of Portugal because of similar activities.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
3. Re:perspective by stenvar · 2013-07-02 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  The article says:
  
  The Keys and three South Florida counties agreed in 2010 to collaborate on a regional plan to adapt to climate change.
  But whatever they do to "adapt to climate change", they would have to do anyway even if there were no anthropogenic warming.
4. Re:perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  But whatever they do to "adapt to climate change", they would have to do anyway even if there were no anthropogenic warming.
  That doesn't even begin to make sense. If we assume certain additional sea-level rise from AGW then they would have to do concomitantly more than they would from any possible non-AGW sea-level rise. Nor have you explained how your claim re non-AGW sea-level rise followed from information provided in your quote.
5. Re:perspective by vilanye · 2013-07-02 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  The keys that you can drive to are all flat with most 15 ft or less above sea level, not counting buildings. Go past key west, and there are some hilly ones in the Dry Tortugas park
6. Re:perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 21:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  ...the entire surface of the Earth is a bunch of scum piles being shifted around on an ocean of semi-liquid material, bumping into each other and tilting in various ways
  Generally, yes, but that ignores the fact that there are no plate boundaries nor obvious tectonic processes operating within any distance of the Florida Keys that can account for more than the most inconsequential sea level change over the last 150 years. In short, the keys are tectonically stable. A nine inch in rise in sea level over the last hundred years or so is consistent with the change in global sea level over the same period.
  More generally, many ocean/continent boundaries are active margins, but far from all of them. Consider as counter examples the east coasts of North America and South America, the west coasts of Europe and Africa (despite evidence for incipient subduction off Western Europe, as it certainly doesn't currently dominate tectonic regime there), three sides of Australia, the east coast of Africa, the entire coastline of Antarctica, the northern coast of North America along the Arctic Ocean, and most of the northern coasts of Asia, are all passive margins. These areas as not devoid of tectonic activity, but it's usually mild compared to areas around the Pacific Ocean and other active continental margins.
  It may also be worth observing that some parts of the world, especially Northern Europe and parts of North America, even where the tectonic environment is mild, are still isostatically rebounding upwards following the last glacial maximum. The ice sheets were so massive that they depressed the continents underneath them. Now that the ice has melted, the land is slowly rising back up from the viscous mantle upon which the continents float. In those places, with the land rising, local sea level may be falling. Isostasy can also locally affect other areas where there's a lot of geographic relief, such as in high continental plateaus where erosion unloads the land surface, or where high relief upstream contributes large volumes of sediment. The Florida Keys are not, however, subject to these processes.
  The global average sea level, or sea level measured against an artificial reference point, is called eustatic sea level. Over hundreds of millions of years tectonic processes can affect eustatic sea level, but on shorter time frames the tectonic variation averages out: if rock is rising in one place, it's falling in another, so the contribution to sea level changes by tectonic processes are generally only local. For example, the sea level in the Florida Keys won't be affected by changes in the local sea level along the coast of Japan.
  The biggest general contributor to most sea level change on the timescale of our species is climate, not deeper geologic processes. There is a minor component related to the thermal expansion of seawater, which accounts for probably about half the currently observed sea level rise, but the dominant longer term factor is variation in the amount of ice sequestered in continental ice sheets -- like the those that once covered much of North America and Europe, as well as the extant Antarctic ice sheets and Greenland Ice Sheet. Broadly speaking, throughout geologic history the amount of water impounded in continental ice sheets will tell you more about eustatic sea level than any other single factor. Back through the Pleistocene, if you had to guess how much water covered any random point on the globe, knowing the level of glaciation would on average give you a better answer than anything else. Sea level tracks very closely with glaciation.
  You can look at the Greenland Ice Sheet as a remnant of the much larger Pleistocene ice sheets in the northern hemisphere during the last glacial maximum. The Greenland Ice Sheet contains enough water that if it were to melt or flow in to the ocean, eustatic sea level would rise a couple dozen feet even without contributions from other reservoirs. Since the late Pleistocene, eustatic sea level has ris
7. Re:perspective by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-07-02 23:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The key word here is anthropogenic I would guess. Nobody can deny that there is global warming, we're in an interglacial period, where I'm sitting now used to be under a kilometer depth of ice, the main discussion is how much of it we are responsible for.
8. Re:perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  it's not about the bulk signal as much as it is about the sudden altering of the rate of change.
  look up "isostatic rebount"
  quickly adding signal to that in highly populated cities of the world is a social problem, not a geologic one.
9. Re:perspective by HiThere · 2013-07-03 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  This doesn't follow from the quotation, however:
  I don't know about the Keys in particular, but many places where we have pumped either oil or water out of underground resivoirs are sinking. Usually, but not always, slowly. (Undergound coal mining has the same effect, but the collapses tend to be more sudden and dramatic.)
  Now parts of the Gulf have had lots of oil pumped out of them. Probably not near the Keys, but I don't know for sure. (It certainly affected New Orleans.) Agriculture has also extracted lots of underground water from many areas. IIUC, this is a part of the reasons that the Everglades is drying up, but the aquifer could also extend a considerable distance underground...perhaps as far as the Keys.
  Additionally, islands generally subside over time. Look at the sizes of the Hawaiian Islands, as you move backwards from the most recent (still building) island of Hawaii eastwards and northerly the islands grow older and smaller. This is because they have worn away over time. And the Hawaiian Islands are volcanic rock, not the mess of largely compacted sand that is the Florida Keys. (Not knowing, I suspect coral to have played a large part in the creation of the Florida Keys. But corals are having a hard time as the oceans become more acidic. Additionally invasive species (from the pacific) are destroying Atlantic corals. The Florida Keys may be too far North for that to be affecting them, but I'm not sure.
  So there's LOTS of reasons to expect the Keys to be unstable. And none to speak of to expect them to be stable.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
10. Re:perspective by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-03 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  The key word here is anthropogenic I would guess. Nobody can deny that there is global warming, we're in an interglacial period, where I'm sitting now used to be under a kilometer depth of ice, the main discussion is how much of it we are responsible for.
  Last I read (which was several years ago), there is forcing from both directions: toward cold due to the winding down of the interglacial, and toward the hot due to anthropogenic causes.
  The "toward the hot" is stronger than the "toward the cold" by something on the order of one watt per square meter, IIRC.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
11. Re:perspective by Alef · 2013-07-03 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  The fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide that comes from fossil fuels can be measured, as can solar radiation influx, cloud cover, albedo etc. Calling it a discussion is a bit of a stretch to say the least, unless you by "how much" are talking about decimal places. What is being "discussed" (and by "discussed" I actually mean simulated and experimented on) is mostly how strong various feedback mechanisms are (such as increased tree growth, which buffers CO2 but also might reduce Earth's albedo, decreased snow cover, which also reduces the albedo, release of methane deposits when permafrost melts, and so on), and exactly how many fractions of degrees they ultimately contribute to -- up or down -- in future climate.
12. Re:perspective by minogully · 2013-07-03 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  This is seriously one of the best comments I've read on Slashdot on this topic. It's a shame that you aren't modded higher.
13. Re:perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  you explicitly use variations of the phrase "I don't know" several times in your rambling.
  It wasn't really necessary, we figured it out.
Re:Just asking questions. by Ziest · 2013-07-02 17:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Shouldn't you be at your AA meeting?

--
Another day closer to redwood heaven
Re:Just asking questions. by Tynin · 2013-07-02 17:31 · Score: 1

after reading your comment, then re-reading the subject line of "just asking questions", it finally made me realize you are a troll that is channelling the likes of glenn beck.
Re:Just asking questions. by ZarathustraDK · 2013-07-02 18:42 · Score: 3, Funny

When are these folks going to blame their breathing on Obama and stop their socialist respiration which supports the agenda of the illuminati?

--
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Re:Well duh! by Barsteward · 2013-07-02 19:11 · Score: 3, Funny

but .. but ...but...but... climate change is a lie....... the sky is falling, not the water levels rising.... (maybe that'll be a good rationale for the climate change deniers of this planet)

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Re:Just asking questions. by vilanye · 2013-07-02 19:13 · Score: 2

I lived in Key West for several years. It is a fun place, the entire keys are great. Mainland Florida can sink into the ocean for all I care, just leave the keys alone. They are pretty open to anyone, as long as you aren't an ignorant, uptight redneck. Decent rednecks are welcomed.
No need for worries. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 19:13 · Score: 0

Jesus will save Florida.
1. Re:No need for worries. by geirlk · 2013-07-02 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I guess they've taken water over their heads then.
  Bless the sea, and get baptized every time the flood comes.
2. Re:No need for worries. by gtall · 2013-07-03 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yah, it is odd that Jesus cares so much about Florida. Hey, maybe He's saving it for the Rapture. I know a few people I'd like to send off the planet first. You can book ahead, you know. And I'm fairly certain you can book people other than yourself for the trip.
3. Re:No need for worries. by Zero__Kelvin · 2013-07-03 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Jesus will save Florida."
  When did he go over to the dark side?
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
We can fix it! by Arancaytar · 2013-07-02 20:11 · Score: 0

Everyone just concentrate really hard on disbelieving climate change! That'll do it.
Re:Just asking questions. by geirlk · 2013-07-02 20:13 · Score: 1

I love Key West! It's the only place in the entire US I feel entirely at home.
Eeeeek! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 22:30 · Score: 0

:: runs around, lisping and flapping my arms around like a common faggot ::
It's ManBearPig!!! It's ManBearPig!!! We're doomed! The science is settled, the science is settled! Won't anyone think about the planet?
No Where To Turn by b4upoo · 2013-07-03 00:21 · Score: 2

For those that don't know the Florida keys are only a few inches above ocean levels even before the 1800 era. An 18 inch rise in sea levels would put the keys under water. these keys stretch for well over 100 miles and involve hundreds of islands. The area is also vital as a nursery for sea life. A slight rise in ocean levels is a clear cut disaster.
1. Re:No Where To Turn by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  A clear out disaster for who? Probably not for the fish.
  Truth is, Humans have no natural claim to land ownership.
2. Re:No Where To Turn by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who recently lived in the keys for many years, this statement is off by an order of magnitude. If you had said a few FEET, you would have been accurate. I am pretty sure that a "light chop" didn't send waves crashing through our yard and don't recall needing a step ladder to get up onto a dock.
TOURISTS ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 01:22 · Score: 0

Do the sea level rises correlate with increased tourism?
Are we sure it's not just due to more tourist body's in the water causing displacement ? ;)
Normally I would say 9 inches is optimistic.
1. Re:TOURISTS ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  oh just come out and say it, it's God's judgement for the Gays gaying the place up and driving the U.S. Navy with it's clean-cut young men out of Key West.
the first one blew away. the second one sank into by Thud457 · 2013-07-03 01:43 · Score: 4, Informative

It's all about the storm surge
two thirds of Key West was underwater during Wilma.
That used to be a once in a generation thing. Then it's going to be every 20 years. Then every 5. Even if it doesn't turn into New Atlantis, that's gonna put a real crimp in the island lifestyle.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Not what I saw there by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 01:45 · Score: 0

In 1989, 1991 & mid 90's, I saw tidal flats covered by sea water in Florida Keys. In 2005 & 2006, I saw same flats dry during several weekends in FL keys & locals said flats were only covered in a few storms per year.
In 2006, we tried to buy a tour near Crystal Springs but cashier said water was too low, tour had not been done in 2 years due to low water. Asked for more info, cashier said her glass bottom tour boat had not been able to enter state park due to low water, except briefly during very high tides for over 2 years. Now she is cashier, not tour owner & captain. About 8 years before, she said 3 tour boats had done that tour daily when water was deep enough.
We asked in south Everglades National Park, Nov. & Dec, 2006, locals said glades had not been properly water filled in several years. Walking in what used to be swamp lands did not enhance by belief in rising sea levels.
So maybe documented sea level rises are only where liberals are concentrated?
1. Re:Not what I saw there by jbengt · 2013-07-03 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know about the keys, but the everglades' water levels are dropping because of a combination of less rainfall than in the past (climate change?) and agricultural and other diversions of the water that should be flowing into the everglades. It has nothing to do with sea levels.
2. Re:Not what I saw there by belgo · 2013-07-03 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  You don't say which flats you're specifically talking about. The Lower Keys, and the bayside area north of the Middle and Upper Keys, are full of tidal flats, that are generally covered, or nearly so, at high tide. But 'covered' in the sense that you can cross them with anything bigger than a kayak, no. Or perhaps you're referring to Florida Bay, which itself receives a lot of input from The Everglades, and yes, would definitely be lower now.
  The Everglades hasn't received its natural supply of fresh water ever since Alligator Alley was built and the 'river of grass' was more or less dammed up.
  Crystal Springs isn't even on an ocean, it's fed by the Floridan Aquifer; The unceasing withdrawals from same are linked to those wonderful sinkholes, and of course lower springwater levels.
  For what it's worth, my home, Big Pine Key, may as well be the Mississippi of the Florida Keys, there aren't any liberals around here. But you don't know what you're talking about.
Still blaming Sandy by g0bshiTe · 2013-07-03 02:08 · Score: 0

Why is the media so stuck on hurricane Sandy? Bigger hurricanes have hit the east coast down to the gulf and typhoons larger have hit the west coast, is it because of where it hit? Oh you weren't prepared sucks to be you. Living near the coast you should be ready, just because you haven't seen a hurricane hit your shore in 100 years or more doesn't mean the next one won't hit you head on.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
To bad the entire state doesn't sink.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 02:31 · Score: 0

at one time, with these idiots on it.
Re:Just asking questions. by fyngyrz · 2013-07-03 02:40 · Score: 2

They threw him out when he accused the doughnuts of spying on anyone with more than a 30-day token.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Faster rise than the rest of the ocean by tompaulco · 2013-07-03 02:46 · Score: 2

MSL has risen 7.7 inches in 135 years in the rest of the world, but somehow has risen another 1.3 inches in the Keys in less time. I suspect that they are experiencing ocean water rise in conjunction with the natural eroding away of the islands themselves. You certainly wouldn't want to build any permanent (in terms of centuries) buildings on those islands.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Rolling Stone Article about Florida/ Water Leves by turp182 · 2013-07-03 02:48 · Score: 1

Here's a good article from Rolling Stone specifically about Miami, but it certainly applies (more so) to the Keys:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620

--
BlameBillCosby.com
Re:Well duh! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 03:49 · Score: 0

All things being status quo.

climate change is a lie
Oh dear, do I have to remind you of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_Lake_Missoula]Glacial Lake Missoula again.
Move by Gothmolly · 2013-07-03 05:22 · Score: 1

Just clear them out - they're going to be flooded eventually, and paid for by the US taxpayer. The Keys have 1 foot in the grave and the other on the corpse of a poisoned manatee. They're an ecological and financial disaster waiting to happen.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:Move by belgo · 2013-07-03 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Lower Keys dweller here!
  I appreciate the sentiment and all, but I am not going to move. I promise not to make any insurance claims or anything else that would upset the mainlanders and drag them away from their shopping malls, tv shows, and whatever else they do for fun. Also, my boat stays pretty dry and has two working bilge pumps. I do not seem to be in danger of sinking.
Been there, Fl keys by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-03 05:42 · Score: 0

And, I know for a fact that about all that most of those people will do down there is get their rainboots out..
partition the waters by mostadorthsander · 2013-07-03 05:48 · Score: 1

like sectors on a hard drive...partition the waters...
Re:the first one blew away. the second one sank in by belgo · 2013-07-03 11:02 · Score: 1

Even though I do agree that our sea level is rising here in the Keys, this is a bit alarmist. Most of the Keys is 1 meter or less above sea level. My yard is about 4 feet, in fact. This means that we often disappear from the map for a few days in any appreciable storm surge. This isn't novel, and certainly isn't once-in-a-generation. In fact, it's already every 5-10 years, and we're overdue. I furthermore fail to see what hydrological difference will be made by an additional, say, 5 inches of water, vis-a-vis storm surge.
I do, however, agree that we're all sinking. That's why I rent here, and won't buy a house that doesn't float.
Re:Well duh! by Barsteward · 2013-07-03 19:03 · Score: 1

remind me of what? it melted didn;t it???

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)