If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Geographic)   You have 85 years before the coast is flooded. Tell your grandchildren   (news.nationalgeographic.com) divider line 183
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

19298 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2004 at 5:20 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



183 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-11-09 10:22:08 PM
<bullhorn>
Alright everyone, we're gonna need everyone to take 10 giant steps back. Thanks.
</bullhorn>
 
2004-11-09 10:26:29 PM
who cares about my grandchildren? i'll be old and senile or dead
 
2004-11-09 10:31:09 PM
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it oughta be....
 
2004-11-09 10:32:58 PM
I'll be around then.
 
2004-11-09 10:34:56 PM
Cool - my condo will be beachfront property!
 
2004-11-09 10:42:43 PM
Better stock up on hydro (or whatever they called it in "Waterworld")
 
2004-11-09 10:44:28 PM
Eh. I don't expect to live to the age of 108. But if I do, I'll bring my swimmin' trunks!!
 
2004-11-09 10:55:48 PM
Holy shiat, quit sitting here on Fark and do something!
 
2004-11-09 10:58:53 PM
85 years should be enough time to set up a nice sandbag barrier.
 
2004-11-09 11:04:58 PM
farked. anyone have a cached version?
 
2004-11-09 11:05:07 PM
Yep, between global warming and the fossil fuel crisis we're in deep doo doo.
 
2004-11-09 11:07:38 PM
Yep, between global warming and the fossil fuel crisis we're in deep doo doo.

Or not. We were supposed to be doomed in 1974. Then in 1979. Then again in 1984. 1998. Now it's sometime next century.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.
 
2004-11-09 11:42:55 PM
Though the global temperature on average has risen in the last hundred years, in the last 50 or so years it has been in fluxuation between periods of warming and cooling and right now we're in a cooling phase. I personally spoke with one of the engineers that designed the satellites that measure global temperature.

Suggested reading:
Earth Report 2000, Ronald Bailey (editor)
Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, Jay H. Lehr (edtor)
Science Under Siege, Michael Fumento
Sound and Fury - The Scence and Politics of Global Warming, Patrick J. Michaels
Apocalypse Not - Science, Economics, and Environmentalism, Ben Bolch and Harold Lyons
Free Market Environmentalism, Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal
The Doomsday Myth, Charles Maurice and Charles Smiithson
Eco-Sanity - A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism, Joseph L. Bast, Peter J. Hill, and Richard C. Rue
The True State of the Planet, Ronald Bailey (editor)
Man and Nature, Hans F. Sennholz (introduction)
The Green Crusade - Rethinking the Roots of Environmentalism, Charles T. Rubin
Climate of Fear - Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming, Thomas Gale Moore
Hard Green - Saving the Environment from Environmentalists, Peter Huber
Climate Alarmism Reconsidered, Robert L. Bradley Jr.
Challenging Environmental Mythology - Wrestling Zeus, Jack W. Dini
Clearing the Air - The True Story of the War on Air Pollution, Indur M. Goklany
Hot Talk, Cold Science - Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, S. Fred Singer

Remember, politicians are not scientists, though they try to pass themselves off to know more about the state of the Earth than they actually do. Just because a cause seems noble - that of protecting our environment - doesn't mean that people won't lie about it. I'm not saying that there's no lies coming from the opposite direction, but as I said, it's all mostly politics and it seems that people have become too entrenched in the liberals vs. conservatives thing and have started to disregard the science itself.
 
2004-11-09 11:57:04 PM
The Earth changes. Long after people are gone, the Earth will be here, changing. Nothing is permanent, occaisionally not even within your lifetime.

So coastal communities will have to be moved further inland. Boo hoo. It'll be a great time to replan Infrastructure.
 
2004-11-10 12:35:37 AM
Weaver95:

Normally, I disagree with you, but I think that here, you're right. Let's completely ignore ALL of the SCIENCE that says that the world is warming up until we're COMPLETELY sure. Then, 50 years from now, when it's too late to do repair the harm that global warming has caused, we'll all look back and say, "Ha, we should have known better...it was right there for everybody to see. Well, now we're farked."

Global warming is currently one of the most accepted scientific theories since atomic theory (God, I hope I don't have to explain theory vs. hypothesis to people here). If you had any clue about science, you might argue with people that the CAUSES of global warming are not completely known. Even though you don't aruge this, if you start to, I would counter that in most things in life, one takes pro-active action even if you're not sure, e.g., we give antibiotics if there's fluid in the lungs even if we're not completely sure if it's bacterial.

We should do the same with global warming. We have a good idea of what is probably causing it, and taking steps to reverse it, while potentially being financially painful, will have many positive long-term effects even if doesn't recerse global warming.

Weaver, I'll tell you what....on politics we're on equal footing. But I swear, I will never step to you about coding as long as you don't pretend to have a clue about science. Because apparently you do not.

/not a climatologist, but still know that you're wrong.
 
2004-11-10 12:38:26 AM
BTW, I realize that my previous post was 4x longer than one which most farkers are willing to read, but I really dislike it when clueless people question science. So I hope you'll forgive me.
 
2004-11-10 12:47:26 AM
thenotzak

Doing Google searches on most of the titles you referenced, I see that most of them are carried by websites that specialize in books for conservatives and that all of the books I checked are not written by Ph.D.s, let alondeclimatologists

Now, let's apply Occam's razor here: Are all of the world's most respected scientific journals, i.e., Science, Nature, et al. bastions for liberal tree-huggers? Or are you just picking sources that tell you things you WANT to believe?

Hmmm....

You can't be good at science if you approach problems with the answer already figured out, which you apparently have.
 
2004-11-10 12:57:57 AM
Now would probably be the time to mention that I'm a liberal. It's understandable that they would be carried by conservatives, but my point here isn't party politics.
 
2004-11-10 01:11:23 AM
Ok, well, then that bastard engineer from Lockheed Martin lied to me. He had graphs and stuff. He designed the satellites that... ah, fark it. Whatever. I'm already in the shiatter for being socially very liberal but a big fan of capitalism (I just don't like socialism, it doesn't work - captalsm is flawed but it's the best system we have).
 
2004-11-10 03:39:52 AM
Weaver95:
We were supposed to be doomed in 1974. Then in 1979. Then again in 1984. 1998. Now it's sometime next century.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever.


I guess you miss the point then. It's not like a timebomb where everything bad will happen at once, on a predictable date. That doesn't mean things aren't changing. And to ignore them is pretty selfish, just because you personally won't be here in 60 years.
 
2004-11-10 05:29:37 AM
The results could be catastrophic for polar people and animals


I've got a friend who has bi-polar disorder. Will this be doubly catastrophic for him?
 
2004-11-10 05:33:38 AM
"I've got a friend who has bi-polar disorder. Will this be doubly catastrophic for him?"

I had a girlfriend who was bi-polar. Frigid no matter which way you hump her.

/plainly stolen from one of my favorite comedians
 
2004-11-10 05:33:42 AM
 
2004-11-10 05:41:04 AM
 
2004-11-10 05:41:18 AM
On the bright side of things at least we'll no longer need to use this:
 
2004-11-10 05:43:54 AM
First we have to worry about global warming, then cooling, then warming, then cooling.

blah blah make up your freakin minds blah blah.....
 
2004-11-10 05:44:22 AM

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.


YEAH. It's like that ozone thing they were screaming about 25 years ago and how it was going to rip a hole in the... what? it did?

Awwwwwwwwwwwww CRAP!
 
2004-11-10 05:47:52 AM
Not to worry. Glacioeustatic rebound is still occurring, so it'll all even out in the end.

Now, Yellowstone Caldera and its 600,000 year periodicity...now that's a worry (currently sitting at ~615ka).
 
2004-11-10 05:50:35 AM
As a resident of Ohio, I welcome the increase to my property value having the ocean in West Virginia will bring.
 
2004-11-10 05:54:29 AM
While searching for WaterWorld references, I came across this sweet Atari 2600 WaterWorld game:

Dodge the octupi


Mysterious dungeons


Finally, the hardest test in Waterworld, swim from one side of the screen the other



/good times
 
2004-11-10 05:56:52 AM
Well, atleast we as a nation have decided to re-elect President Bush.

We should be safe.
 
2004-11-10 05:59:55 AM
meridian - ah yes, kids needed some imagination back then, before all this new-fangled "first-person" stuff came up.

/now this potato is the moon, and that cockroach there is Buzz Aldrin ...
 
2004-11-10 06:00:34 AM
This has to be the result of human activity. Because the temperature of the earth has NEVER varied in the past.
 
2004-11-10 06:00:37 AM
the earth is in a real calm faze the last couple thousand years or so,this is a living (as in active) planet.
change,without which we would not be here,is needed. yes if the levels rise,it will be a big pain,people will suffer but life will not end.

most of the early humans living areas are now under water,people have always centered around the coasts (most of the time) and we do the same.

there is a problem with how we treat our planet, but the earth has been around for a lot longer than us,and had much bigger problems than humans to overcome. the only worry is how the effects will inpact humans (once you break it down)

we worry about food/air/water, these are our concerns
but in the long run,the earth in all likelyhood will be around long after we are gone,with life still here......

/life as we know it could end tomorrow,its always been that way
// we are not the first,or the last lifeforms that will infest earth
 
2004-11-10 06:06:15 AM
but in the long run,the earth in all likelyhood will be around long after we are gone, with life still here......

...or it could go the way of Mars and be a desolate rock until the sun burns out an vaporizes it in the process.

Yeah, what a pointless battle. Hummers and CFCs for everyone!
 
2004-11-10 06:07:27 AM
Oh great not again. Cue Weaver95 to post and run.

Frequently asked questions about the science of climate change.

E.3 What could be the consequences for global sea levels?

Response: Experts project that the average global sea level will rise 9 to 88 centimetres by 2100. This rise is primarily due to the combined effects of melting glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms.

Explanation: As the oceans warm, the seawater expands. This alone could cause sea levels to rise between 10 and 40 cm by 2100, depending on how fast the heat penetrates into the ocean. Furthermore, mountain glaciers around the world are expected to continue to melt, adding another 5 to 15 cm of water to the ocean level as the water runs off to sea. Finally, slow changes in polar ice sheet thickness and extent could modify sea levels. Experts estimate that the combination of these factors could cause a rise by 2100 of between 9 and 88 centimeters, with levels continuing to rise centuries thereafter as all three factors continue to catch up with warmer global air temperatures and changing precipitation patterns.

Today, about 46 million people are at risk from flooding in low lying coastal areas, where 50 to 70% of the worlds population live. A 40 centimetre rise in the sea level would increase those whose land will be at risk from serious flooding or permanent inundation by up to 200 million, even after expected population growth is incorporated into the projection. Adaptation measures, such as the installation or enhancement of protective sea walls and dikes, can help reduce the impacts on people. However, such measures will be costly. Estimates for protection of U.S. coastlines, for example, range from US$20 billion to US$150 billion. Furthermore, such protection will still leave an estimated 80 million additional people vulnerable to flooding during storm surges.

/30 cm ~ 1 foot
 
2004-11-10 06:10:14 AM
its bushes fault
 
2004-11-10 06:12:34 AM
Suggested Reading: Fark.
Well, I personally have no use for polar bears, being that they are like, monstrous cutesey things that will eat you if you try to snuggle with them and all... well, except for my PS2 Dangerous Hunt game. But I do live here in Sunny Fla and my backyard IS a swamp, so this only looks to deepen my waterfront so that it is ultimately navigable. YAY!
/ignorant and blissful
 
2004-11-10 06:14:04 AM
85 years? The rapture will have happened by then so no worry!

See you all in Arizona Bay.
 
2004-11-10 06:14:46 AM
Cool. I'll be on an island.

/futures on island's will be going through the roof soon.

(any takers?)
 
2004-11-10 06:15:42 AM
equusdc,

what do you think should be done? how would you make the world a better place? for that matter anyone else here.

as long as you eat cooked food,heat and cool your home,flush the john,and travel farther than you can walk,your part of it.

"the sky is falling!" would be a more dangerous and fearful thing,than "the ice is melting!"
unless of course you like ice tea,and cant make ice.
 
2004-11-10 06:30:57 AM

Climate change is a fact of life. The Earth is not a static system, and it's not unusual to see wide variations in the Earth's climate, even in short time frames. Automatically blaming climate change on human activity is ludicrous, because it is unknown how human activity would affect the climate, much less whether any current changes are a result of that activity.


Computer models of the atmosphere/climate are very inaccurate. Even computer models of hurricanes, which are well-known and only involve a relatively small part of the earth, are problematic with a short forecast, and completely useless after a week or so. And global climate models, which involve untold amounts of interacting parts, are even less useful.


Major climate change would possibly cause major human suffering, but we must balance that against the more definite human suffering that would be caused by the suggestions of some who believe that humans are destroying the earth. Especially when those suggestions are a result of predictions that are perhaps only slightly better than wild guesses.

 
2004-11-10 06:37:53 AM
thenotzak

You are blowing my mind. Read your last paragraph, then read your suggested reading again. Please think about it. How many of those guys are climatologists? How many of them are conservative economists? Would you read a book by a climatologist commenting on the economy? Wouldn't you think maybe he or she had some sort of agenda if they did?

And read your first paragraph -- you are relying on a satellite engineer for your average temperature data? How the heck would he know? Do you know how much data goes into determining those numbers? (p.s. we are not in a cooling trend, though there was slight cooling trend in the 50's and 60's, partly due to stratospheric ozone depletion.)
 
2004-11-10 06:40:29 AM
Major climate change would possibly cause major human suffering, but we must balance that against the more definite human suffering that would be caused by the suggestions of some who believe that humans are destroying the earth.


Yeah, f*ck it. The untold suffering that giving up my SUV would bring me dosen't balance out the possibility that my keeping it may ruin the lives of millions.
 
2004-11-10 06:40:51 AM
cannibolic

Predicting weather, modelling hurricanes, and modelling climate are all very different, and involve many different things.

You might find answers to your questions here.
 
2004-11-10 06:44:23 AM
is everyone still sleeping? I don't know a whole lot about the topic (althought I am far from buying in to all this global warming, human causing, etc. stuff) so I'm keeping out of the flaming, but I want to see more of it coming from the rest of you.
 
2004-11-10 06:44:38 AM
cannibolic

Automatically blaming climate change on human activity is ludicrous, because it is unknown how human activity would affect the climate, much less whether any current changes are a result of that activity.

Jeez the inanity of some of the response here is ridiculous, I'll just post more parts of the FAQ.

B.2 How do scientists know that the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases is due to human activity?

Response
: A number of factors clearly point to the role of human activities as the primary source of these increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, the current rate of rise in concentrations agrees well with changes in rate of human emissions, and is unprecedented in many millennia of atmospheric history. Furthermore, trends in ratios of carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and in the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere are consistent with emissions from human sources. Similar evidence demonstrates the role of humans in increases in the other greenhouse gases.

Explanation: The rapid rise in greenhouse gas concentrations during the past century is consistent with trends in human emissions, and unprecedented in at least the last 420,000 years and likely in the past 20 million years. Furthermore, the concentration of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere containing the radioactive carbon 14 atom (after adjustment for atomic explosion testing activities in the 1950s) is declining. This is consistent with increased concentrations of burning of coal, oil and natural gas, all of which contain old' carbon that has no carbon 14. Changes with time in ratios of carbon 13 and carbon 12 in oceans are also consistent with human emissions, as is the north-south gradient in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Finally, carbon budget models, which can now reproduce the global carbon cycle quite accurately, point to human emissions. Similar studies have been undertaken for methane and nitrous oxide, which also indicate a major human contribution. However, the exact magnitude of the human role for these gases is less well understood because of the uncertainty surrounding the many biological processes involved in both their natural and human emissions. Finally, trace gases such as the halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride have no significant natural sources. There is strong evidence that changes in their concentrations are entirely caused by human emissions."
 
2004-11-10 06:49:06 AM
 
2004-11-10 06:53:49 AM
binnster
Unless your SUV comes with nuclear warheads and you with an itchy trigger finger, keeping it has a miniscule effect on the earth. Seriously.

rush22

Actually, they're more similar than you think, in that they involve complex systems that are inter-related. Hurricane development, for instance, is a result of sea surface temperature and local wind speed. But the existence of a hurricane obviously effects both of those variables in a complex way. Climate change is even more problematic, as it affects, and is affected by small-scale features on the ground.


The problem is that complex systems like these are never linear in their response. That is, they don't react smoothly to small changes in conditions. Combine this with the fact that the important factors to climate change aren't full known, much less modeled, and you can see why the confidence level in these models is very low.

 
2004-11-10 07:00:16 AM
again as previously stated rush22, I'm not here to flame cuz this isn't a topic a know much about (but again, I tend not to buy all the global warming, environmentalists stuff), but just curious... Who gathered the pre-industrial 1750 atmospheric concentration data shown in that image you posted?
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report