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.

(USA Today)   NOAA says there's a 90% chance that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches but less than 6.6 feet   (usatoday.com) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, erosion, sea levels, SSTs, meltwaters, ice sheets, global warming  
•       •       •

1266 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Dec 2012 at 1:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-10 11:57:19 AM
Good one, subby. Your headline is a lot more accurate that McPaper's.
 
2012-12-10 12:13:07 PM
How many feet till California and New York are washed away?
 
2012-12-10 12:25:15 PM
themovieblog.com

"otisburg?"
 
2012-12-10 12:59:25 PM
Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
 
2012-12-10 01:15:26 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: How many feet till California and New York are washed away?


over 9000
 
2012-12-10 01:19:41 PM
What about the nice sea level?
 
2012-12-10 01:22:27 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.

/retiring a 1000 feet up in the hills of New Hampshire
 
2012-12-10 01:23:15 PM

namatad: The Stealth Hippopotamus: How many feet till California and New York are washed away?

over 9000


Highest point in New York State is only 5,343 feet above sea level.
 
2012-12-10 01:25:48 PM
Learn to swim.

/see you down in Arizona Bay
 
2012-12-10 01:28:57 PM

namatad: The Stealth Hippopotamus: How many feet till California and New York are washed away?

over 9000


dittybopper: namatad: The Stealth Hippopotamus: How many feet till California and New York are washed away?

over 9000

Highest point in New York State is only 5,343 feet above sea level.


Well, just go ahead and crush a guy's plan why dont cha
 
2012-12-10 01:30:54 PM
This graph gave me cancer.

www.gannett-cdn.com

Has USA Today laid off every single staff member with a college education?
 
2012-12-10 01:32:21 PM

The Larch: This graph gave me cancer.

[www.gannett-cdn.com image 560x422]

Has USA Today laid off every single staff member with a college education?


Probably. Doesn't change the fact that we as a society need to start getting ready to adapt to this shiat right away.
 
2012-12-10 01:35:25 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: [sb350.pbworks.com image 700x382]

If two meters is the worst it's going to be in a century, I don't think we* have all that much to worry about.

*People who don't live in Bangladesh or New Orleans.


What about places that don't suck?

I mean, I look at that map and the at risk places (NOLA, south Florida, New York and NJ I think) and it makes me want to start burning tires.
 
jvl
2012-12-10 01:41:11 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Probably. Doesn't change the fact that we as a society need to start getting ready to adapt to this shiat right away.


Adapt to what shiat? The prediction was basically "we don't farking know." Or maybe it's just the error bars went out to la la land on both sides. I'd love to see the probability distribution.
 
jvl
2012-12-10 01:43:55 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: If two meters is the worst it's going to be in a century, I don't think we* have all that much to worry about.

*People who don't live in Bangladesh or New Orleans.


People in New Orleans are on borrowed time even if you assume zero sea level rise. Bangladesh currently floods every time there is a hurricane and should really learn about that new "dike" technology the Dutch have come up with.

Basically, it would make no difference.
 
2012-12-10 01:43:59 PM

The Larch: Has USA Today laid off every single staff member with a college education?


They'll let you know as soon as they're done Photoshopping a mortarboard onto a big circle.
 
2012-12-10 01:47:23 PM

jvl: Bangladesh currently floods every time there is a hurricane and should really learn about that new "dike" technology the Dutch have come up with.


The Dutch have money. Bangladesh has... well, a whole lot of boats.
 
2012-12-10 01:48:21 PM

jvl: HMS_Blinkin: Probably. Doesn't change the fact that we as a society need to start getting ready to adapt to this shiat right away.

Adapt to what shiat? The prediction was basically "we don't farking know." Or maybe it's just the error bars went out to la la land on both sides. I'd love to see the probability distribution.


It seems pretty clear to me that we *do* know---we know that the sea level is coming up. We don't know the degree to which it'll rise, but it will rise. Even if it's just a few inches, we'll still want to plan for preventing the kind of flooding that we saw with Sandy, because if we do nothing, these kinds of floods will happen much more often. We can either try to build barriers to stop the flooding from happening, or redesign the infrastructure of low-lying areas to be more immune to such floods. And it wouldn't hurt to at least draw up contingency plans for moving major cities to higher ground if the worst happens.

I agree that report wasn't 100% conclusive, and that there was more information to be had from the original report, but it doesn't cost much money to at least start planning for disasters like this, especially when there is reasonably good scientific evidence that such disasters are more likely than others.
 
jvl
2012-12-10 01:51:11 PM

Gosling: The Dutch have money. Bangladesh has... well, a whole lot of boats.


If only they had a cheap supply of labor available...
 
jvl
2012-12-10 01:56:49 PM

HMS_Blinkin: It seems pretty clear to me that we *do* know---we know that the sea level is coming up. We don't know the degree to which it'll rise, but it will rise. Even if it's just a few inches,


Okay just stop there; you are talking nonsense.

"Just a few inches" is guaranteed even without global warming just as part of the ongoing post-glacial ice melt of roughly a foot per Century. Man made global warming predicts something very different: a significant acceleration of melt.

Secondly, I was talking about this particular study which basically says "the study has no definitive clue what will happen."

So when you say "we know", you mean "I believe in things I don't understand." Don't do that: you are just adding to the denier argument that global warming is merely groupthink.
 
2012-12-10 01:56:50 PM
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/man-made-sea-level-rises-are-due-to-g lobal-adjustments/

Frank Lansner's first graph surprised me. It's well known and often quoted that sea levels have been rising by 2-3mm a year every year for the last 20 years. But it's not well known that the original raw satellite data doesn't show that at all.

What astonished me was the sea levels first recorded by the Topex Poseidon satellite array showed virtually no rise at all from 1993-2001. Surely not, I thought. I asked sea-level expert Nils Axel-Morner, and he confirmed: "Yes, it is as bad as that." Now, given that Envisat (the European satellite) showed no rise from 2003-2011 (until it was adjusted) that means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise.

We thought satellites would finally give us a definitive answer on sea levels. Instead, like the tide gauges, and every other tool available to mankind, apparently satellites systematically underestimate the rising trends. And despite the speed of light being quite quick and all, it can take years for the data to finally arrive. Sometimes 4 or 5 (or 10 years) after the measurement was made scientists "discover" that it was wrong.

Now of course, any one of these adjustments could be for very legitimate reasons and give us results closer to the truth. But the adjustments always bring data closer to the modeled trend. It's decidedly non-random. Either there is a God who thinks teasing climate scientists is spiffy, or else there is something fishy going on, and some investigative journalists need to ask some investigative questions. Is that sea-level rise due to global warming or is it due to global adjustments?
 
jvl
2012-12-10 02:00:56 PM

Gimli_Gloin: means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise


That's not exactly a Secret hidden by The Conspiracy. Most global warming models predict an acceleration in the future. If it wasn't for the predicted acceleration, we could ignore Global Warming.
 
2012-12-10 02:08:31 PM

jvl: HMS_Blinkin: It seems pretty clear to me that we *do* know---we know that the sea level is coming up. We don't know the degree to which it'll rise, but it will rise. Even if it's just a few inches,

Okay just stop there; you are talking nonsense.

"Just a few inches" is guaranteed even without global warming just as part of the ongoing post-glacial ice melt of roughly a foot per Century. Man made global warming predicts something very different: a significant acceleration of melt.

Secondly, I was talking about this particular study which basically says "the study has no definitive clue what will happen."

So when you say "we know", you mean "I believe in things I don't understand." Don't do that: you are just adding to the denier argument that global warming is merely groupthink.


OK, sorry about my ignorance. I'm trying to learn more about this stuff, and that's part of the reason I read comments on Fark more closely than I read the articles. But my question from my Boobies still stands---what do we do? Is it worthwhile to make plans for sea level changes? Do we all try to reduce our carbon footprint and hope for the best?
 
2012-12-10 02:21:11 PM

HMS_Blinkin: But my question from my Boobies still stands---what do we do?


Whip 'em out and show them to us.
 
2012-12-10 02:24:20 PM

dittybopper: HMS_Blinkin: But my question from my Boobies still stands---what do we do?

Whip 'em out and show them to us.


Unless you like 'em flat, hairy, and male, you don't want that at all.

/filterpwned
 
2012-12-10 02:41:07 PM
How does that work? We all had to do the ice cubes in a glass filled to the brim with water.
What happens when the ice melts, will the glass overflow?
No, the water level stays the same. So why will the sea level rise when the ice melts?
Also wondering why they always talk about the Arctic circle and never the Antarctic ice?
/ serious
 
2012-12-10 02:43:53 PM

cig-mkr: What happens when the ice melts, will the glass overflow?
No, the water level stays the same.


Is the ice 100% below the rim of the glass? If it is, wouldn't the water level decrease? Depending on how high above the rim of the glass the ice floats, couldn't it overflow the glass? Ice does not take up the same volume as liquid water.
 
2012-12-10 02:44:00 PM

HMS_Blinkin: dittybopper: HMS_Blinkin: But my question from my Boobies still stands---what do we do?

Whip 'em out and show them to us.

Unless you like 'em flat, hairy, and male, you don't want that at all.

/filterpwned


Well then, it will be something for the Farkettes that I've heard rumor exist.
 
2012-12-10 02:44:40 PM

dittybopper: HMS_Blinkin: dittybopper: HMS_Blinkin: But my question from my Boobies still stands---what do we do?

Whip 'em out and show them to us.

Unless you like 'em flat, hairy, and male, you don't want that at all.

/filterpwned

Well then, it will be something for the Farkettes that I've heard rumor exist.


Oh, and the fancy lads. Can't forget them.
 
2012-12-10 02:47:18 PM

cig-mkr: How does that work? We all had to do the ice cubes in a glass filled to the brim with water.
What happens when the ice melts, will the glass overflow?
No, the water level stays the same. So why will the sea level rise when the ice melts?


It's not the sea ice melting that causes the oceans to rise. It's the land ice melting and running into the sea. (Also, the water heating up also causes the oceans to rise.)

Also wondering why they always talk about the Arctic circle and never the Antarctic ice?

The Arctic Circle is of more strategic and national importance, and it's also melting much faster than Antarctica, because it's warming much faster in the Arctic.
 
2012-12-10 02:50:13 PM

Spade: I mean, I look at that map and the at risk places (NOLA, south Florida, New York and NJ I think) and it makes me want to start burning tires.


You realize folks that live there won't just suddenly be innundated with flood waters one day, right? They'll move. And some of them will come live next to you.

/and me
 
jvl
2012-12-10 02:50:57 PM

cig-mkr: How does that work? We all had to do the ice cubes in a glass filled to the brim with water.
What happens when the ice melts, will the glass overflow?
No, the water level stays the same. So why will the sea level rise when the ice melts?
Also wondering why they always talk about the Arctic circle and never the Antarctic ice?


Not sure if trolling...

You are correct that floating ice, when melted, does not affect sea level.

Greenland and Antarctica are covered in non-floating ice located above sea level. Those are the main source of predicted sea level rise. Additionally, much of the ice around the Arctic, particularly in Canada eh, is not floating.

The talk about the Arctic circle is due to the fact that if warming is sufficient to cause melt at the poles, it will show up first in the Arctic since the ice is thinner there. It will take much longer to melt the thick glaciers covering Antarctic.
 
2012-12-10 02:55:15 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: How many feet till California and New York are washed away?


Unfortunately for this sort of plan, California contains the highest point in the continental US. They will literally be the last to submerge.
 
2012-12-10 02:58:11 PM

cig-mkr: How does that work? We all had to do the ice cubes in a glass filled to the brim with water.
What happens when the ice melts, will the glass overflow?
No, the water level stays the same. So why will the sea level rise when the ice melts?
Also wondering why they always talk about the Arctic circle and never the Antarctic ice?
/ serious


The sea level rises when ice *which is sitting on land* melts and flows into the sea. You are correct that floating ice that melts doesn't change anything.
 
2012-12-10 02:59:33 PM

cig-mkr: How does that work? We all had to do the ice cubes in a glass filled to the brim with water.
What happens when the ice melts, will the glass overflow?
No, the water level stays the same. So why will the sea level rise when the ice melts?
Also wondering why they always talk about the Arctic circle and never the Antarctic ice?
/ serious


Ice is freshwater and less dense. As it mixes with sea water, it makes the sea water less dense. This isn't really a concern as that won't raise the sea much. The exposed water that was under the ice can now be directly warmed by the suns rays, which causes the water to expand due to thermal expansion. Again, this doesn't raise sea levels much.

Now all the ice sitting on top of land, mostly greenland and antarctica, that shiat melting is going to cause an everliving farkload of sea rise.
 
2012-12-10 03:00:51 PM

Honest Bender: What about the nice sea level?


In this case mean doesn't mean what you think mean means. Do you get what I mean?

/I'm not trying to be mean.
 
2012-12-10 03:28:52 PM

Spade: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: [sb350.pbworks.com image 700x382]

If two meters is the worst it's going to be in a century, I don't think we* have all that much to worry about.

*People who don't live in Bangladesh or New Orleans.

What about places that don't suck?

I mean, I look at that map and the at risk places (NOLA, south Florida, New York and NJ I think) and it makes me want to start burning tires.


Well if it rises there they will move away from those places and closer to the rest of us. Remember what happend the last time NOLA let its people lose on the country?
 
2012-12-10 03:34:32 PM

groppet: Spade: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: [sb350.pbworks.com image 700x382]

If two meters is the worst it's going to be in a century, I don't think we* have all that much to worry about.

*People who don't live in Bangladesh or New Orleans.

What about places that don't suck?

I mean, I look at that map and the at risk places (NOLA, south Florida, New York and NJ I think) and it makes me want to start burning tires.

Well if it rises there they will move away from those places and closer to the rest of us. Remember what happend the last time NOLA let its people lose on the country?


Oh dear god you're right.

I was assuming most of them would be all "Hey, Vinnie, what's all this water shiat man?" and then drown.
 
2012-12-10 03:35:05 PM

Spade: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: [sb350.pbworks.com image 700x382]

If two meters is the worst it's going to be in a century, I don't think we* have all that much to worry about.

*People who don't live in Bangladesh or New Orleans.

What about places that don't suck?

I mean, I look at that map and the at risk places (NOLA, south Florida, New York and NJ I think) and it makes me want to start burning tires.


I take it you've never actually been to New York, or else you've been there but had absolutely no idea how to have a good time.
 
2012-12-10 03:40:34 PM
"If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat... . If you have a temperature rise, if it's a problem in one area, it's beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real "bad guy," and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn't exist in observational data, only in computer modeling."

---Nils-Axel Mörner,(former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University.)
link

NASA researchers admit adding fake inches to sea level rises. Skeptics denounce desperate attempt to salvage government global warming policies.
 
2012-12-10 03:43:16 PM

raygundan: Unfortunately for this sort of plan, California contains the highest point in the continental US. They will literally be the last to submerge.


so what you're telling me I need to pray for a massive earthquake before the massive flood.

OK, got it! Thanks
 
2012-12-10 04:09:48 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: raygundan: Unfortunately for this sort of plan, California contains the highest point in the continental US. They will literally be the last to submerge.

so what you're telling me I need to pray for a massive earthquake before the massive flood.

OK, got it! Thanks


You're kinda screwed. California's too big and varied. If you could narrow the part you want gone down to a smaller area, or a particular city, you'll have a better chance figuring out what sort of natural disaster might wipe it out without also wiping out wherever you're sitting. The problem with shooting for all of california is that they have the highest point (avoids flooding), the lowest point (last place to go after massive atmosphere loss), a shiatload of farmland, cold mountain areas (in case of warming), arid deserts (in case of cooling), multiple inland mountain ranges to stop any ridiculous tidal waves, enough earthquakes that they're prepared for them, and enough geographic diversity to weather disasters the size of smaller states. In general, if it manages to take all of california, we're all dead. Narrow your focus a bit.
 
jvl
2012-12-10 04:26:12 PM

raygundan: You're kinda screwed. California's too big and varied. If you could narrow the part you want gone down to a smaller area, or a particular city, you'll have a better chance figuring out what sort of natural disaster might wipe it out without also wiping out wherever you're sitting. The problem with shooting for all of california is that they have the highest point (avoids flooding),


Good news! The highest point is right next to an major earthquake fault. You just need two disasters to kill us off.
 
2012-12-10 05:50:12 PM

raygundan: You're kinda screwed. California's too big and varied. If you could narrow the part you want gone down to a smaller area, or a particular city, you'll have a better chance figuring out what sort of natural disaster might wipe it out without also wiping out wherever you're sitting. The problem with shooting for all of california is that they have the highest point (avoids flooding), the lowest point (last place to go after massive atmosphere loss), a shiatload of farmland, cold mountain areas (in case of warming), arid deserts (in case of cooling), multiple inland mountain ranges to stop any ridiculous tidal waves, enough earthquakes that they're prepared for them, and enough geographic diversity to weather disasters the size of smaller states. In general, if it manages to take all of california, we're all dead. Narrow your focus a bit.


All things are possible though Cthulhu
 
2012-12-10 06:06:39 PM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: Honest Bender: What about the nice sea level?

In this case mean doesn't mean what you think mean means. Do you get what I mean?

/I'm not trying to be mean.


I think my mind was just in the wrong mode.
 
2012-12-10 06:36:32 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: If two meters is the worst it's going to be in a century, I don't think we* have all that much to worry about.

*People who don't live in Bangladesh or New Orleans.


The really interesting/scary as all get out is how far up the Amazon the impact would be. Same with northern Siberia. There's a lot of permafrost which is melting and decaying.
 
2012-12-10 06:42:15 PM

OnlyM3: "If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat... . If you have a temperature rise, if it's a problem in one area, it's beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real "bad guy," and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn't exist in observational data, only in computer modeling."
---Nils-Axel Mörner,(former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University.)
link

NASA researchers admit adding fake inches to sea level rises. Skeptics denounce desperate attempt to salvage government global warming policies.


A paleogeophysist? You're going to trust someone who denies the Earth is only 6000 years old?
 
2012-12-10 07:42:08 PM

jvl: Gimli_Gloin: means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise

That's not exactly a Secret hidden by The Conspiracy. Most global warming models predict an acceleration in the future. If it wasn't for the predicted acceleration, we could ignore Global Warming.


This is how much it has accelerated in the last 15 years.

0

Those "scientists" just can't get away from that whole hockey-stickism of "oh noez, it's gonna be worse than we thought", can they?
 
2012-12-10 08:08:36 PM

SevenizGud: jvl: Gimli_Gloin: means we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise

That's not exactly a Secret hidden by The Conspiracy. Most global warming models predict an acceleration in the future. If it wasn't for the predicted acceleration, we could ignore Global Warming.

This is how much it has accelerated in the last 15 years.

0

Those "scientists" just can't get away from that whole hockey-stickism of "oh noez, it's gonna be worse than we thought", can they?


So you're acknowledging that we've still had a solid decade of above average temperatures?
 
2012-12-10 08:12:29 PM
My balls create a larger rise in sea level when I enter the ocean than does global ice melt.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report