Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NBC Miami)   Florida wins prize for U.S. state mostly likely to be screwed from rising sea levels and climate change   (nbcmiami.com ) divider line
    More: Florida, sea-level rise, seas, United States, Climate Central, Miami, storm surges, Florida counties, climate change  
•       •       •

3916 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2012 at 8:50 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-15 10:15:41 AM  

tampaflacouple: Oh my farkin' God that means all of theat 3rd world shiat will be moving further north. Those people have already destroyed one beautiful city and now they will move again and of course with our governments help of course. White folks, Native Floridians ( yes there are a few of us left ) sorry but that help isnt yours. Only 3rd world types would get help, right former President JImmy Carter? I mean you did start this whole mess down there didn't you????



Ahhhh, there we go. The racist Florida I know and love.

See, this is why we need to build a border fence just north of Florida and hope for those 300 feet of sea level rise canyoneer said we'd need to inundate the state.
 
2012-03-15 10:16:31 AM  

Raw_fishFood: Hurrah for living in Colorado.


This. At 8,000ft above sea level the only worries here are boulder drop, and wildfires. Living this far upstream is a good thing.
 
2012-03-15 10:16:34 AM  
All of the earth's water that ever existed is present RIGHT NOW!
Thinkaboutit!
 
2012-03-15 10:19:49 AM  
Three cheers for doomsday science!
 
2012-03-15 10:25:21 AM  
The tides at my house on Tampa Bay move about 3 feet/day. That extra inch or two over a century isn't gonna make a difference.
 
2012-03-15 10:34:49 AM  

santadog: This. At 8,000ft above sea level the only worries here are boulder drop, and wildfires. Living this far upstream is a good thing.


A couple of comments about this: All of the development in the mountains of the West is not a good thing. The water quality in mountain streams is already bad because of natural salts and minerals, made worse by heavy metals from mine tailings and waste, and now the building of resorts and homes and condos all through the Rocky Mountains is adding the inevitable untreatable waste produced by industrial age settlement (non-point source pollution and the untreatable portion of sewage that comes out of the treatment plant). So now, the Big Thompson River, for example, carries all sorts of this typical municipal pollution from 8,000' at Estes Park - almost from the very source - many miles above its confluence with the South Platte. This will get worse throughout the Southern Rockies as the vast areas of beetle kill begin inevitably to erode.

So, perhaps for you living in the mountains is a bonus, but in the larger scheme of things, it's as bad an idea as building your condo at sea level. All of this development in the high country is altering the water cycle and urbanizing the mountains. If it was up to me, I would strictly limit development above 6,000' or 7,000'. The entire West relies on the mountain snowpack for its water, and that water is already dirty enough without adding the diluted piss of hundreds of thousands of snowboarders and crystal hawkers and the runoff from gas stations and tire shoppes.

You know, the Indians out here rarely if ever lived in the mountains. They would hunt and gather in them in the summer, and often used them as locales for vision questing, but they considered the mountains to be sacred and the source of all life.

Like them, I say if you love the mountains, leave them alone.

Just my opinion.
 
2012-03-15 10:35:39 AM  

santadog: Raw_fishFood: Hurrah for living in Colorado.

This. At 8,000ft above sea level the only worries here are boulder drop, and wildfires. Living this far upstream is a good thing.


Wellllll, not necessarily... Though the frequency is extremely low, the damage is also total.

www.earthmountainview.com
 
2012-03-15 10:37:24 AM  
Florida's sea levels have risen a hundred or so feet in the last few thousand years. I'm not really sweating an inch or two.
 
2012-03-15 10:39:15 AM  

mongbiohazard: tampaflacouple: Oh my farkin' God that means all of theat 3rd world shiat will be moving further north. Those people have already destroyed one beautiful city and now they will move again and of course with our governments help of course. White folks, Native Floridians ( yes there are a few of us left ) sorry but that help isnt yours. Only 3rd world types would get help, right former President JImmy Carter? I mean you did start this whole mess down there didn't you????


Ahhhh, there we go. The racist Florida I know and love.

See, this is why we need to build a border fence just north of Florida and hope for those 300 feet of sea level rise canyoneer said we'd need to inundate the state.


Advocating the murder of those who live in a different state than you is much more enlightened than making racist comments about the Third World. Well done.
 
2012-03-15 10:43:36 AM  

canyoneer: With a 3-4 foot sea level rise, most of Florida would still be emergent. It's mostly a thin fringe along the coasts and large parts of the southernmost portion that would be submerged. But sea levels would have to go up by more than 300 feet to submerge the whole state.


At steady state, yes. But the reason it's misleading to use altitude maps is that sea level fluctuates, and what you're really talking about is "This area floods often enough that no one wants to live there." This part is very hard to predict-- it has more to do with regional outcomes than global ones, and things get harder as you narrow down the spatial scale.

Carousel Beast: How hard is weather to predict? When I was in flight school in '89, we were told that a 24 hour local prediction would be about 85% correct, dropping to 40% over 48 hours, and 15% to 72 hours, with subsequent predictions being useless.


Climate isn't weather. You're predicting averages of events, not events themselves. You can't predict the roll of a pair of dice, but you can predict very accurately what will happen if you keep playing at the craps table.

The primary limitations on climate modeling actually come from non-technical factors-- namely, predicting how much emission will happen in future years. Hansen's 1988 prediction, for example, assumed anthropogenic methane emissions would keep increasing rapidly, but the high value of methane has accelerated efforts to capture it. He also did not foresee the global adoption of the Montreal Protocols in the 1990s, which drastically reduced CFC emissions.

www.skepticalscience.com

(Data is from this 1988 publication, with data from the NASA's public GISS temperature record superimposed.)

Policy-wise, we're somewhere in between Scenario B ('business as usual', accurate for carbon dioxide) and Scenario C (sensible reductions, accurate for methane and CFCs). Scenario A involved high-end estimates for exponential growth in all emissions, which did not come to pass. Hansen's 1988 predictions were on the high side (he also used a 10-20% higher carbon dioxide sensitivity than what we'd consider the median estimate these days), but not exceptionally so.
 
2012-03-15 10:45:05 AM  
I find it hard to believe FL would go before RI. Our highest point here in RI is the Johnston landfill, for pete's sake.
 
2012-03-15 10:46:25 AM  
So does this mean we're going to need a new vertical datum?

/happy new Florida building code day
 
2012-03-15 10:47:16 AM  
Sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. Are you surprised that it's still rising?
 
2012-03-15 10:48:09 AM  

FLMountainMan: Advocating the murder of those who live in a different state than you is much more enlightened than making racist comments about the Third World. Well done.



Indeed. The difference is, I'm not actually seriously proposing we fence off Florida so we can watch them drown, I'm just using hyperbole for comedic effect. He's actually racist though.
 
2012-03-15 10:52:27 AM  

FLMountainMan: Florida's sea levels have risen a hundred or so feet in the last few thousand years. I'm not really sweating an inch or two.


I suspect it'll be more like 3 feet, but still not too tough to handle. I've seen 14' storm swells that Florida handled. It'll just make the storms worse. And we're talking about one inch per three years. Construction won't have any trouble factoring that in.

Sorry, I don't think you'll evolve gills anytime soon.

Global warming won't be a problem for North America. It'll actually double the amount of arable land. Africa and SE Asia will get nailed.
 
2012-03-15 10:53:16 AM  
That's what you get for not coming through for Al Gore in 2000, biatches.
 
2012-03-15 10:54:21 AM  
I'm calling BS on the article. Miami just isn't that important.
 
2012-03-15 11:10:15 AM  

chimp_ninja: At steady state, yes. But the reason it's misleading to use altitude maps is that sea level fluctuates, and what you're really talking about is "This area floods often enough that no one wants to live there."


And yet the population density remains high in Amsterdam and New Orleans.
 
2012-03-15 11:10:37 AM  

Bob16: The rapidly warming climate ( we had almost no winter in NY this year and yesterday the temp was 75 in the burbs of NYC ) is also doing away with any reason to move down south to escape winter.

Southern real estate is going to be worth less and less.


Weather does not equate to climate. Or does that only work when it's colder than average?
 
2012-03-15 11:13:38 AM  

MindStalker: AverageAmericanGuy: I wouldn't put too much stock in climate change predictions. The speculation so far has been all over the map, and none of the predictions have come true.

Then again, wiping Florida off the map might not be the worst thing in the world.

Weather is freaken hard to predict, but predictions have so far been quite close and its certainly approaching the increased temperature and extreme weather occurrences that were predicted, its a few years late though.


I predict in 10 years the average temps will be within. +/- 0.5C. Damn. I'm just as accurate as the models have been.
 
2012-03-15 11:39:52 AM  

MindStalker: MindStalker: AverageAmericanGuy: I wouldn't put too much stock in climate change predictions. The speculation so far has been all over the map, and none of the predictions have come true.

Then again, wiping Florida off the map might not be the worst thing in the world.

Weather is freaken hard to predict, but predictions have so far been quite close and its certainly approaching the increased temperature and extreme weather occurrences that were predicted, its a few years late though.

"The average number of extreme weather events recorded increased from 2.5 per year in the 1920s to 8.5 in the 1940s to 350 per year for the period 2000-2010"
http://reason.org/news/show/extreme-weather-kills-fewer-people
We are just adapting to it and handling it better.


Oh come on, don't be retarded.

I have a BS in meteorology, so let me school you.

Extreme weather events weren't recorded in the 1920's because there was no agency to record them. Any "records" we have are just newspapers that survived or anecdotal accounts. In the 40's and 50's the precursor to the SPC (storm prediction center) was forming, and they started to keep actual records of events. However we still didn't have coverage...people weren't living on every square inch of the country and there were very few actual trained spotters.
Now in the present we have many many trained spotters who know what an extreme weather event looks like, so we have much more accurate recording of extreme weather events. We have a much larger network of data points for things like temperature, wind speed, rainfall amounts, etc than we did in the 20s and 50's.

The number of recorded events in the 1900s - present has zilch squat to do with anthropogenic climate change. Not a damn thing. The time scale is too small and the data too sparse.

If you want to prove climate change is happening, that's fine, we can do that. But don't go start trying to "prove" that it's going to be a disaster with insanely stupid data like that. That's just insulting and makes you look like a fool.
 
2012-03-15 11:47:42 AM  

Bob16: The rapidly warming climate ( we had almost no winter in NY this year and yesterday the temp was 75 in the burbs of NYC ) is also doing away with any reason to move down south to escape winter.

Southern real estate is going to be worth less and less.


Wait, I thought weather was not the same as climate? At least that's what you enviro-nuts said last year and the prior year when winter was miserably cold and snowy across most of the U.S.
 
2012-03-15 12:12:51 PM  

mongbiohazard: FLMountainMan: Advocating the murder of those who live in a different state than you is much more enlightened than making racist comments about the Third World. Well done.


Indeed. The difference is, I'm not actually seriously proposing we fence off Florida so we can watch them drown, I'm just using hyperbole for comedic effect. He's actually racist though.


Or as they call it in Florabama, "conservative".
 
2012-03-15 12:13:02 PM  

Mishno: Bob16: The rapidly warming climate ( we had almost no winter in NY this year and yesterday the temp was 75 in the burbs of NYC ) is also doing away with any reason to move down south to escape winter.

Southern real estate is going to be worth less and less.

Weather does not equate to climate. Or does that only work when it's colder than average?


Not too hard to spot the trend in winters, though:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

(Data through 2011. Assume another red bar added for the 2012 winter.)

Of course, the warming trend was all predicted from first principles in the 1890s. Arrhenius just thought it would take longer because he couldn't envision mankind burning that much carbon that quickly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-03-15 12:16:54 PM  

OnlyM3: The NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group is based at the University of Colorado. It made the announcement last week that it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series.

And which state's residents win the prize for being most at risk for Unincorn impalement and porcine flybys?


Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Your religion's "sky is falling" predictions are as reliable as "Armageddon begins ___/___/___" prediction from competing religious nuts.


It amazes me to know how many people are big enough derpsters to agree with you.
.
 
2012-03-15 12:18:37 PM  
Ya see, global warming advocates? If global warming advocates don't reign in the exaggerators in the media, how do you expect real people to take you seriously?
 
2012-03-15 12:22:10 PM  

FLMountainMan: derp redacted.



I guess the closer we get to the election, the more of these old troll accounts we start seeing again.

/where's the attention-whoring green text guy?
 
2012-03-15 12:26:19 PM  

chimp_ninja: canyoneer: With a 3-4 foot sea level rise, most of Florida would still be emergent. It's mostly a thin fringe along the coasts and large parts of the southernmost portion that would be submerged. But sea levels would have to go up by more than 300 feet to submerge the whole state.

At steady state, yes. But the reason it's misleading to use altitude maps is that sea level fluctuates, and what you're really talking about is "This area floods often enough that no one wants to live there." This part is very hard to predict-- it has more to do with regional outcomes than global ones, and things get harder as you narrow down the spatial scale.

Carousel Beast: How hard is weather to predict? When I was in flight school in '89, we were told that a 24 hour local prediction would be about 85% correct, dropping to 40% over 48 hours, and 15% to 72 hours, with subsequent predictions being useless.

Climate isn't weather. You're predicting averages of events, not events themselves. You can't predict the roll of a pair of dice, but you can predict very accurately what will happen if you keep playing at the craps table.

The primary limitations on climate modeling actually come from non-technical factors-- namely, predicting how much emission will happen in future years. Hansen's 1988 prediction, for example, assumed anthropogenic methane emissions would keep increasing rapidly, but the high value of methane has accelerated efforts to capture it. He also did not foresee the global adoption of the Montreal Protocols in the 1990s, which drastically reduced CFC emissions.

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x371]

(Data is from this 1988 publication, with data from the NASA's public GISS temperature record superimposed.)

Policy-wise, we're somewhere in between Scenario B ('business as usual', accurate for carbon dioxide) and Scenario C (sensible reductions, accurate for methane and CFCs). Scenario A involved high-end estimates for exponential growth in all emissions, which d ...


The pirates graph is much more entertaining.
 
2012-03-15 12:28:34 PM  

chimp_ninja: Mishno: Bob16: The rapidly warming climate ( we had almost no winter in NY this year and yesterday the temp was 75 in the burbs of NYC ) is also doing away with any reason to move down south to escape winter.

Southern real estate is going to be worth less and less.

Weather does not equate to climate. Or does that only work when it's colder than average?

Not too hard to spot the trend in winters, though:

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 640x413]

(Data through 2011. Assume another red bar added for the 2012 winter.)

Of course, the warming trend was all predicted from first principles in the 1890s. Arrhenius just thought it would take longer because he couldn't envision mankind burning that much carbon that quickly.


How many more carbon credits do you have left to sell? This scam of yours is pretty old and nobody is buying into it any more. Don't you have a nice, new scam for the people?

I know - you could start selling pictures of Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster. Just get the money up front.
 
2012-03-15 12:40:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: How many more carbon credits do you have left to sell? This scam of yours is pretty old and nobody is buying into it any more.


From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

See also here. Working experts and the evidence they publish continue to broadly concur that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.

Everything else is politics.
 
2012-03-15 12:46:33 PM  
Explain to me how losing Tampa and Miami would "screw Florida"

That's like claiming the death of your thirty we todd did children would take away your free time.


Louisiana would be totally pooched... OH SNAP. Already happened!
 
2012-03-15 12:47:36 PM  

chimp_ninja: Mishno: Bob16: The rapidly warming climate ( we had almost no winter in NY this year and yesterday the temp was 75 in the burbs of NYC ) is also doing away with any reason to move down south to escape winter.

Southern real estate is going to be worth less and less.

Weather does not equate to climate. Or does that only work when it's colder than average?

Not too hard to spot the trend in winters, though:

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 640x413]

(Data through 2011. Assume another red bar added for the 2012 winter.)

Of course, the warming trend was all predicted from first principles in the 1890s. Arrhenius just thought it would take longer because he couldn't envision mankind burning that much carbon that quickly.


Facts and science bounce right off of retards
 
2012-03-15 12:52:54 PM  
(bugsbunnysawingoffFlorida.gif)

Problem solved
 
2012-03-15 12:58:37 PM  

InfamousBLT: I have a BS in meteorology, so let me school you.

Extreme weather events weren't recorded in the 1920's because there was no agency to record them.


Sorry, but you are wrong. The National Weather Service was created under order of Ulysses S. Grant in 1870. Before that, the government kept records going all the way back to the 18th century. Before that most local governments kept records of the weather.
 
2012-03-15 01:09:23 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: How many more carbon credits do you have left to sell? This scam of yours is pretty old and nobody is buying into it any more.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
See also here. Working experts and the evidence they publish continue to broadly concur that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.

Everything else is politics.


keep shoveling that bullshiat, skippy. Have you read through the posts on this thread? You are in a definite minority, maybe you should log in under your other IDs so you can overwhelm us.
 
2012-03-15 01:14:13 PM  
And nothing of value was lost
 
2012-03-15 01:23:55 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: How many more carbon credits do you have left to sell? This scam of yours is pretty old and nobody is buying into it any more.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
See also here. Working experts and the evidence they publish continue to broadly concur that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.

Everything else is politics.


hmunro.files.wordpress.com Just for you three.
 
2012-03-15 01:24:37 PM  

tampaflacouple: Oh my farkin' God that means all of theat 3rd world shiat will be moving further north. Those people have already destroyed one beautiful city and now they will move again and of course with our governments help of course. White folks, Native Floridians ( yes there are a few of us left ) sorry but that help isnt yours. Only 3rd world types would get help, right former President JImmy Carter? I mean you did start this whole mess down there didn't you????


What is this??
Started on that MadDog 20/20 a little early don't you think?
 
2012-03-15 01:27:59 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: How many more carbon credits do you have left to sell? This scam of yours is pretty old and nobody is buying into it any more.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
See also here. Working experts and the evidence they publish continue to broadly concur that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.

Everything else is politics.

keep shoveling that bullshiat, skippy. Have you read through the posts on this thread? You are in a definite minority, maybe you should log in under your other IDs so you can overwhelm us.


You seem to be expressing the view that the combination of:
1) A consensus of published scientific evidence (cited from the journal Science), and
2) A consensus of publishing experts (cited from the journal Eos)

is less important than:

3) A consensus of Fark posts.

Is this an accurate characterization of your viewpoint? Further, do you continue to agree with this opinion?

Spitzer wannabe: Your days are numbered, the truth is on the internet. Keep your peer reviewed publications. I prefer mass media AND the truth

 
2012-03-15 01:31:56 PM  
Florida also most likely to suffer the most in an invasion of magical orcs, since both orcs and climate change are complete fiction.
 
2012-03-15 01:44:55 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: How many more carbon credits do you have left to sell? This scam of yours is pretty old and nobody is buying into it any more.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
See also here. Working experts and the evidence they publish continue to broadly concur that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities.

Everything else is politics.

keep shoveling that bullshiat, skippy. Have you read through the posts on this thread? You are in a definite minority, maybe you should log in under your other IDs so you can overwhelm us.

You seem to be expressing the view that the combination of:
1) A consensus of published scientific evidence (cited from the journal Science), and
2) A consensus of publishing experts (cited from the journal Eos)

is less important than:

3) A consensus of Fark posts.

Is this an accurate characterization of your view ...


Once again you have failed to understand very simple questions.


BTW, I have told you this MANY times - science is NOT a popularity contest. Not that you have a consensus.
 
2012-03-15 01:54:21 PM  

ChoNeko: Where is all this water going to come from?

Gore has testified that something like half of the Arctic ice caps have melted, yet no one noticed any change in sea level.


Arctic ice was already in the water, so it's melting does not affect see level much. However, the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheets melting will raise sea levels.
 
2012-03-15 01:55:30 PM  

LeftOfLiberal: ChoNeko: Where is all this water going to come from?

Gore has testified that something like half of the Arctic ice caps have melted, yet no one noticed any change in sea level.

Arctic ice was already in the water, so it's melting does not affect see level much. However, the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheets melting will raise sea levels.


Also, there will be a certain amount of sea level change from thermal expansion as the oceans warm.
 
2012-03-15 02:11:57 PM  

LeftOfLiberal: ChoNeko: Where is all this water going to come from?

Gore has testified that something like half of the Arctic ice caps have melted, yet no one noticed any change in sea level.

Arctic ice was already in the water, so it's melting does not affect see level much. However, the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheets melting will raise sea levels.


The Antarctic ice sheet is expanding, not melting.
 
2012-03-15 02:30:11 PM  

Zafler: LeftOfLiberal: ChoNeko: Where is all this water going to come from?

Gore has testified that something like half of the Arctic ice caps have melted, yet no one noticed any change in sea level.

Arctic ice was already in the water, so it's melting does not affect see level much. However, the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheets melting will raise sea levels.

Also, there will be a certain amount of sea level change from thermal expansion as the oceans warm.


Problem with that statement is that the oceans are not showing any signs of that warming you are praying for. Or is Professor Christy lying to us?

I now await your attack of the above mentioned Professor Christy. You always attack any scientist who does not support your scam so fire away. Let's see - he is not in the pay of any organization besides the University of Alabama, so that is out. He is highly qualified but that might not stop you.
 
2012-03-15 02:33:30 PM  

Zafler: Also, there will be a certain amount of sea level change from thermal expansion as the oceans warm.


The paper below calculated out that, for the last 26 feet of sea level rise, about 5.7% was due to thermal expansion.

McKay, N., J. T. Overpeck, and B. Otto-Bliesner (2011). The role of ocean thermal expansion in Last Interglacial sea level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2011GL048280

/don't forget Poland!
 
2012-03-15 02:38:04 PM  
Your Global Warming Guru Al Bore spent $3.2 million recently to buy a waterfront mansion.

If he is not worried, I am not either.

I have lived 200 yards from the ocean for more than 35 years, and if you can't show me 1/16 of an inch in 35 years, 35 feet in 110 years seems a little hard to swallow.

\\\ Pun intentional.
 
2012-03-15 02:39:43 PM  

olddinosaur: Your Global Warming Guru Al Bore spent $3.2 million recently to buy a waterfront mansion.

If he is not worried, I am not either.

I have lived 200 yards from the ocean for more than 35 years, and if you can't show me 1/16 of an inch in 35 years, 35 feet in 110 years seems a little hard to swallow.

\\\ Pun intentional.


The one and only example ever provided for sea level rising was actually a case of an island (mostly of reeds) that was sinking. They got nothing except a dream.
 
2012-03-15 02:42:40 PM  

hp6sa: EVERYBODY PANIC! MOVE SLIGHTLY INLAND!


When Galveston Texas was devastated by a hurricane in 1900, they lifted the whole town 17 feet in the air, and pumped in mud to compensate. They accomplished all that on 1900 technology: horsepower provided by real horses, steam shovels driven by real steam.

\\\ We did it before, we can do it again.
 
2012-03-15 02:43:36 PM  
Just in case anyone takes the alt-troll serious, here is the heat index of the ocean:

www1.ncdc.noaa.gov

Courtesy of NOAA.

SVenus: The paper below calculated out that, for the last 26 feet of sea level rise, about 5.7% was due to thermal expansion.


Not a good baseline for comparison due to the differences in base causes between Milankovitch cycle forcing and fossil fuel consumption forcing.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report