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.

(TreeHugger)   Finally, some good news about climate change: if you live on the coast, you probably won't have to worry about wild fires   (treehugger.com) divider line 113
    More: Scary, climate change, sea-level rise, sea levels, greenhouse gases, environmental mitigation, global warming  
•       •       •

2822 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Jul 2012 at 3:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-04 03:51:06 PM
Are you saying they should learn to swim subby?
 
2012-07-04 03:56:34 PM
Now, about that beachfront property in Kansas I've been trying to sell....
 
2012-07-04 04:07:11 PM

Dreyelle: Now, about that beachfront property in Kansas I've been trying to sell....


Hold on to it for just a little longer. As the red states burn you'll have plenty of refugees bidding on it.
 
2012-07-04 04:11:27 PM
Another libtard scare tactic to get the government to spend money.
 
2012-07-04 04:12:04 PM
It is 65 in Seattle today, so global warming is obviously a hoax and Sarah Palin is President for life.
 
2012-07-04 04:18:48 PM
I have plenty of carbon credits for sale if anybody is interested.
 
2012-07-04 04:19:18 PM
If the lbtard-enviroNazis would allow the clearing of deadwod from these forests and some limited logging to thin out the forests a bit, these fires wouldn't fire storms so easily.

From this...

www.moonbattery.com

ranprieur.com

to this.

northcentrehistoricalsociety.org

www.lambregts-design.com
 
2012-07-04 04:40:11 PM
Remember when the sea level was so high, Norway and Sweden was an island?

Oh, wait, that was the _last_ time it got warm between ice ages. My bad.

Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.
 
2012-07-04 04:48:44 PM

SVenus: Remember when the sea level was so high, Norway and Sweden was an island?

Oh, wait, that was the _last_ time it got warm between ice ages. My bad.

Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.


Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.

By the same logic, since people died from natural causes in the past people cannot die from unnatural causes now!! Great news ... everyone is bulletproof!!!

The anti-science crowd has spoken ... all bow down to the derp!!!
 
2012-07-04 04:51:43 PM

zarberg: Another libtard scare tactic to get the government to spend money.


Solid logic. All the liberals I know sit around their kitchen tables every night an ask themselves "How can I get my taxes to be higher??"

/Republicans actually believe this
 
2012-07-04 04:52:20 PM

Farking Canuck: By the same logic


Oh, and good luck with that strawman you have there.
 
2012-07-04 04:55:53 PM

SVenus: Farking Canuck: By the same logic

Oh, and good luck with that strawman you have there.


So you are saying that you didn't argue that, because something happened naturally in the past that the cause must be natural now??

Go read what you wrote. It can't be a strawman if you wrote it yourself.
 
2012-07-04 05:01:06 PM
The most entertaining part for me is that these fatalistic predictions completely fly in the face of the "it's all a conspiracy for ... ... ... something!" theories, since they are suggesting that even drastic actions would not yield significant results. Yet here comes the tard parade whining about a one-world government commanded by satanic climate scientists.
 
2012-07-04 05:07:58 PM

Farking Canuck: zarberg: Another libtard scare tactic to get the government to spend money.

Solid logic. All the liberals I know sit around their kitchen tables every night an ask themselves "How can I get my taxes to be higher??"

/Republicans actually believe this


Change it to "How can I get other people's taxes to be higher?" and you've nailed it.
 
2012-07-04 05:16:18 PM

Farking Canuck: SVenus: Farking Canuck: By the same logic

Oh, and good luck with that strawman you have there.

So you are saying that you didn't argue that, because something happened naturally in the past that the cause must be natural now??

Go read what you wrote. It can't be a strawman if you wrote it yourself.


Go read what he wrote - he said it can't be PROVEN to be man made. This is what is wrong with scientific (or. Medical) isues that become political. NOBODY can have a discussion about them - ever. You must pick your side, dig in, and scream in the face of anybody who doesn't side-by-side with you.

So, since I didn't take your side, go ahead and call me a neocon, red state, religious nut job, teaagger...or whatever makes you feel in-the-right.
 
2012-07-04 05:59:57 PM
The best climate models we can run now are wildly inaccurate, and after millions of core-hours of supercomputer time fail to make extrapolations substantiated by predictions in any area of the world. With the most recent developments, they've actually managed to begin to model an El Nino that doesn't happen like clockwork every two years. Still wrong, but at least plausible enough for more funding.

But yeah, end of the world because the models say so. Tax the hell out of everybody, turn off the power plants, and wait for the end. Etc., etc.
 
2012-07-04 06:06:21 PM

Dokushin: The best climate models we can run now are wildly inaccurate, and after millions of core-hours of supercomputer time fail to make extrapolations substantiated by predictions observations in any area of the world. With the most recent developments, they've actually managed to begin to model an El Nino that doesn't happen like clockwork every two years. Still wrong, but at least plausible enough for more funding.

But yeah, end of the world because the models say so. Tax the hell out of everybody, turn off the power plants, and wait for the end. Etc., etc.


FTFM, too early in the morning, etc.
 
2012-07-04 06:09:29 PM

Dokushin: With the most recent developments, they've actually managed to begin to model an El Nino that doesn't happen like clockwork every two years. Still wrong, but at least plausible enough for more funding.


Reading screed like this, I now understand what a geologist feels like when a young earth creationist goes on about the "recent developments" he's heard about.
 
2012-07-04 06:20:54 PM
 
2012-07-04 06:26:44 PM

Sheseala: Jack Chick totally refutes global warming here.


It's sad when a Chick Tract so perfectly sums up the arguments used by your everyday climate change denier.
 
2012-07-04 06:39:01 PM
Discussion of Nino simulation accuracy

Here's a little composite graph for you:

i1158.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-04 07:25:33 PM
clearly, it's worse than we thought
bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com

/not
 
2012-07-04 07:33:33 PM

Dokushin: Discussion of Nino simulation accuracy

Here's a little composite graph for you:

[i1158.photobucket.com image 500x477]


I don't suppose you have the slightest idea what any of this stuff actually is, do you? And can you explain "they've actually managed to begin to model an El Nino that doesn't happen like clockwork every two years"?
 
2012-07-04 07:46:55 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Dokushin: Discussion of Nino simulation accuracy

Here's a little composite graph for you:

[i1158.photobucket.com image 500x477]

I don't suppose you have the slightest idea what any of this stuff actually is, do you? And can you explain "they've actually managed to begin to model an El Nino that doesn't happen like clockwork every two years"?


I do doctorate-level research and support on the systems these models run on, am involved with research efforts to build the software stack for clusters that have a chance of having the needed horsepower to drive resolution to the cloud formation level, and work closely with the people who design and deploy these models.

Older El Nino/La Nina models showed a very strong two-year periodicitiy; the 4th assessment is the first to include actual numbers from a model that doesn't show non-chaotic (i.e. deterministically periodic) oscillation. The resulting predictions are all over the map (so to speak) but actually show elements of the chaotic behavior reflected in reality.
 
2012-07-04 07:47:04 PM
That link is terrible, BTW. It tries to draw a parallel between someone talking about modeling the characteristics of ENSO versus the predictive power for a single event. This has got "kooky global conspiracy website" written all over it, and not just in the comments.
 
2012-07-04 08:02:39 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: That link is terrible, BTW. It tries to draw a parallel between someone talking about modeling the characteristics of ENSO versus the predictive power for a single event. This has got "kooky global conspiracy website" written all over it, and not just in the comments.


*shrug* I agree; found it in a GIS for the composite graph. Sorry. :D
 
2012-07-04 08:07:45 PM
In environmental physics, we learned that even if all the ice on the earth were to melt, it would only drown a bit of land. For instance we would lose Florida and Texas, but who really needs those states in any case. In all seriousness, I do my best to not drive my car but rather bike places, and I am deeply moved by the environmental problems we are creating for ourselves.
 
2012-07-04 08:20:08 PM
what if i live between two great lakes? huron, erie. then theres lake st clair, st clair river and then my sydenham river that splits the town into 3 parts

would i be screwed?
 
2012-07-04 09:23:33 PM

ontariolightning: what if i live between two great lakes? huron, erie. then theres lake st clair, st clair river and then my sydenham river that splits the town into 3 parts

would i be screwed?


Eh, we'll be okay for awhile. Other than the refugees trying to get at our fresh water.

Think about this: water from the ocean would have to flow *up* Niagara Falls.

upload.wikimedia.org

Glaciers melting aren't really going to affect the Great Lakes. Although glaciers did put almost all of the water there in the first place.

/west of St. Clair
 
2012-07-04 09:34:41 PM

ontariolightning: what if i live between two great lakes? huron, erie. then theres lake st clair, st clair river and then my sydenham river that splits the town into 3 parts

would i be screwed?


You should be good. The Great Lakes drain into the Atlantic because the surface there is above sea level. The only thing is if there is thermal expansion of the water itself, but you shouldn't be impacted like ocean-front property would.

BTW, I'm moving up into the Great Lakes basin myself because of my concerns over climate change. You're in a good spot, I have yet to see a published model that shows water shortages in the Great Lakes like what may happen in other places. Plus, it's always good to be the defender in water wars.
 
2012-07-04 09:57:44 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Go read what he wrote - he said it can't be PROVEN to be man made.


He's not interested in proof.

Scientists have been looking at the causes of the current heating, they have compared it to previous heating cycles and have concluded, with as much certainty as possible, that the current warming trend is anthropogenic. They have mountains of proof.

Do the people who present these simplistic arguments actually think that the best and brightest in the field didn't actually think to check if it was a natural cycle?? Do they actually believe that they thought of something that the experts overlooked???

But the anti-science movement in America has decided that all of the experts in the field are lying crooks and that they know better. They constantly spew easily debunked anti-science talking points like "it happened before therefore we can't have caused it" and make it an ongoing us vs. them political argument.

It is sad an pathetic but it delays action and keeps the status quo ... profits remain high for as long as possible.
 
2012-07-04 10:04:39 PM

Farking Canuck: Scientists have been looking at the causes of the current heating


what current heating?
policlimate.com
 
2012-07-04 10:12:37 PM

DesertDemonWY: Farking Canuck: Scientists have been looking at the causes of the current heating

what current heating?
[policlimate.com image 640x480]


Ahhh ... the old "cherry pick a few years data and imply that is a trend" stupidity. Usually you guys come up with much higher quality denier derp. Almost makes me wish the green thread-shiatter was here ... he is always up on all the latest blog posts.


i39.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-04 10:16:57 PM

Farking Canuck: Do the people who present these simplistic arguments actually think that the best and brightest in the field didn't actually think to check if it was a natural cycle?? Do they actually believe that they thought of something that the experts overlooked???


The Dunning-Kreuger Effect in action. They can't perceive the notion that something exists outside of their ability to comprehend it, so anything they can think of off of the top of their head is, by definition, the "cutting edge".
 
2012-07-04 11:14:43 PM

SVenus: Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.


Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?
 
2012-07-04 11:33:44 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Farking Canuck: Do the people who present these simplistic arguments actually think that the best and brightest in the field didn't actually think to check if it was a natural cycle?? Do they actually believe that they thought of something that the experts overlooked???

The Dunning-Kreuger Effect in action. They can't perceive the notion that something exists outside of their ability to comprehend it, so anything they can think of off of the top of their head is, by definition, the "cutting edge".


I think their thought process goes something like this:

I can't understand the science
I can't accept that scientists are smarter than me
Therefore scientists don't understand the science either
Therefore the science must be a scam that corrupt /stupid scientists are in on
I'm very smart because I saw through the deceit
I'm smarter / less corrupt than those idiot/corrupt scientists who buy into the bullshiat
I must tell everyone how much better than scientists I am
I'll be the savior of mankind!
I'll be rich and famous and everyone will want my opinion on everything!
I'll meet a woman and seduce her with my mind powers!

/etc.
 
2012-07-04 11:34:28 PM

Ambitwistor: SVenus: Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?


Nothing surprises me anymore. DesertDemonWY just posted a graph of 3.5 years of temperature data suggesting that it was showing a climate trend!?!
 
2012-07-04 11:46:43 PM

Ambitwistor: Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?


Ambitwistor: SVenus: Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?


Because it seemed to me that those who don't remember the last interglacial warm period are doomed to repeat it.
 
2012-07-04 11:49:17 PM
The point is that it was never within our control to begin with...
Just some douchebags wanting to make money off of the masses.
 
2012-07-04 11:56:04 PM

SVenus: Ambitwistor: Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?

Ambitwistor: SVenus: Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Come on. You know why this is a stupid argument. Why do you bother?

Because it seemed to me that those who don't remember the last interglacial warm period are doomed to repeat it.


Clearly you are a person well versed in repeating talking points.

This one is another long debunked denier lie. I suspect all the others on the blog you got this one from have been debunked as well.
 
2012-07-04 11:59:10 PM

SVenus: Because it seemed to me that those who don't remember the last interglacial warm period are doomed to repeat it.


Now you're just trolling. You know that the Eemian doesn't actually contradict modern climate predictions.
 
2012-07-05 12:04:25 AM

Spaz-master: The point is that it was never within our control to begin with...
Just some douchebags wanting to make money off of the masses.


That is what the people who want you to do nothing claim.

The evidence does not support this position. History and science have shown what CO2 does in the atmosphere (it is a greenhouse gas) ... man has added massive amounts of CO2. It is having an effect that is completely outside of the natural forcings.
 
2012-07-05 12:05:57 AM

Dokushin: Discussion of Nino simulation accuracy


Steve Goddard is an idiot, and you should be embarrassed to cite him in a scientific discussion.

He compared model predictions of Nino 3.4 to observations as measured by MEI. They're not the same. I have no idea how he rescaled the MEI to superimpose on the Nino 3.4 curves, but it's not legitimate. The "observations" show an anomaly of about +1 in October 2009, dropping to -2 in July-September 2010, a change of -3 degrees. But if you look at the actual Nino 3.4 observations, you'll see that July-September 2010 is only about 2 degrees less than October 2009.

Now, that being said, the model predictions were of anomalies in the 0 to +0.5 range, instead of -1. But they aren't nearly as bad as his graph implies.

In any case, while ENSO forecasting isn't great, it is demonstrably skillful, and Goddard picked an example (by pure coincidence, no doubt) where the models happened to do worse than average.
 
2012-07-05 12:08:46 AM

Farking Canuck: Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.


Pretty much it does, unless you ignore all the geologists who have done studies of millions of years of soil to show climates vary greatly with no human intervention yet now all of this is just our fault?

The more I have read the more I subscribe to the earth axis tilt theory which will make north africa a very wet area again.
 
2012-07-05 12:16:28 AM

Ambitwistor: Now you're just trolling. You know that the Eemian doesn't actually contradict modern climate predictions.


I've referenced sea level changes in the Eemian, which are very real and even referenced in the subject article.
You will interpret the following differently than I do, but from the piece in the Nature article this thread is based on, the predictions of catastrophic sea level rise plays the "our numbers might be off but we're not saying by how much" card. Here's the quote with my emphasis in bold:

--However, palaeoclimate evidence from the last interglacial period indicates a possible much larger role for ice-sheet melt from ice-sheet instability compared with thermal expansion for total sea-level rise23. The key uncertainty relates to timing. A few hundred years of warming (the time frame of this Perspective) may not be sufficient to trigger a multi-metre sea-level rise response, which took place over a much longer time period during the last interglacial.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate152 9 .html --

Since there's no catastrophic loss of ice from Antarctica as yet measured, you would have to presume it to get that multi meter sea level rise predicted in the paper.
 
2012-07-05 01:30:58 AM
Pretty much it does, unless you ignore all the geologists who have done studies of millions of years of soil to show climates vary greatly with no human intervention yet now all of this is just our fault?

Up through the 70s there was indications that the climate was sliding into another ice age. Then it does a dramatic turn and heads upwards at an unprecedented rate instead. You think that is natural? While a good many of the positive reinforcement cycles involved are natural (Ex: polar ice melts leads to lower albedo leads to more sunlight being absorbed leads to more polar ice melt), it was humans and CO2 that kicked us off our equilibrium point and started these cycles. With the amount of thermal mass involved with a planet, byt the time you see a noticable change, it is too late.

This article says what I've been saying for years - it is too late to stop it. We need to look instead at what the effects will be and where they will occur (water shortages, flooding, crop failures, longer hotter fire seasons, etc...) and plan for them.
 
2012-07-05 03:57:03 AM

Farking Canuck: SVenus: Remember when the sea level was so high, Norway and Sweden was an island?

Oh, wait, that was the _last_ time it got warm between ice ages. My bad.

Good luck on determining that the current sea level is unnatural when the previous natural high water stand was 24 feet higher than today.

Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.

By the same logic, since people died from natural causes in the past people cannot die from unnatural causes now!! Great news ... everyone is bulletproof!!!

The anti-science crowd has spoken ... all bow down to the derp!!!


I think the point is that we are within the range of natural variability so change within the naturally occuring range is not proof of anything. The rate of change is another discussion for you to derp in. Also the points you refute are not present in the post you replied to...
 
2012-07-05 08:02:34 AM
So even if it were a 10% chance that your coast line could get swallowed up... you call it a liberal thing and forget about it....huh? We protect jobs of industries that want to hold down costs or responsiblity .... and forget about all the other businesses and property that could potentially be lost/destroyed? What will cost this country more... the loss of some oil industry profits or a whole freaking coast line?

What is the liberal word being married to this BS anyways.. either it will happen or not. Science isn't our enemy. Its not "liberal" sea water rising you morons. How the hell did this head up your ass mentality happen to this country?
 
2012-07-05 08:27:56 AM

steamingpile: Farking Canuck: Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.

Pretty much it does, ...


Seriously??

That is some weapon's grade stupidity there.

/the derp quality is really low in this thread
 
2012-07-05 10:55:42 AM

steamingpile: Farking Canuck: Right. Because it happened naturally in the past this means it cannot happen from man-made causes now.

Pretty much it does, unless you ignore all the geologists who have done studies of millions of years of soil to show climates vary greatly with no human intervention yet now all of this is just our fault?

The more I have read the more I subscribe to the earth axis tilt theory which will make north africa a very wet area again.


I think we might have noticed changes in planetary tilt. Wasn`t north africa made dry by the widening of the atlantic?

NotARocketScientist: Pretty much it does, unless you ignore all the geologists who have done studies of millions of years of soil to show climates vary greatly with no human intervention yet now all of this is just our fault?

Up through the 70s there was indications that the climate was sliding into another ice age. Then it does a dramatic turn and heads upwards at an unprecedented rate instead. You think that is natural? While a good many of the positive reinforcement cycles involved are natural (Ex: polar ice melts leads to lower albedo leads to more sunlight being absorbed leads to more polar ice melt), it was humans and CO2 that kicked us off our equilibrium point and started these cycles. With the amount of thermal mass involved with a planet, byt the time you see a noticable change, it is too late.

This article says what I've been saying for years - it is too late to stop it. We need to look instead at what the effects will be and where they will occur (water shortages, flooding, crop failures, longer hotter fire seasons, etc...) and plan for them.


citation?

also

Ex: polar ice melts leads to lower albedo leads to more sunlight being absorbed leads to more polar ice melt leading to greater h2o in the air leading to more snowfall at the poles leading to higher albedo...

take your example to the conclusion not to your desired strawman...

Nice derp quoted in his post for those looking for it, even contradicts himself in a single post with `Pretty much it does, unless you ignore all the geologists who have done studies of millions of years of soil to show climates vary greatly with no human intervention yet now all of this is just our fault?` leading to `it was humans and CO2 that kicked us off our equilibrium point and started these cycles`.

awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report