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.

(NPR)   Even by the most conservative estimates, rising sea levels will wipe Miami off the map by the end of the century, and there is nothing that can be done about it except live in denial. Well, good   (npr.org) divider line 299
    More: Scary, sea-level rise, Miami, Saigon, denials, Watergate, Swiss cheese, pump station, South Florida metropolitan area  
•       •       •

8363 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jun 2013 at 1:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-24 11:21:02 AM  
Even the sea is sick of LeBron.
 
2013-06-24 11:22:42 AM  
I'm sure there's a downside as well.
 
2013-06-24 11:33:54 AM  
All the sun tan oil washed into the sea will kill millions of birds.
 
2013-06-24 11:33:54 AM  
WHERE WILL YOU RUN TO, NOW, MICHAEL WESTON?!?!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 11:35:52 AM  
Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.
 
2013-06-24 11:39:29 AM  
Denial is in Egypt but yeah, very similar conditions.
 
2013-06-24 11:41:43 AM  

vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.


I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.
 
2013-06-24 11:48:28 AM  
Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?
 
2013-06-24 11:50:05 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?


It's basically built on sea level and it's built on porous limestone, so any time the tide comes in, sea water bubbles up into the city.
 
2013-06-24 11:50:52 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.


It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.

*paying = paying a whole bunch more than the average share. whole. bunch. more.
 
2013-06-24 11:52:30 AM  
Better visit the Keys while they are still there  :  (
 
2013-06-24 11:55:45 AM  
Bienvenidos al mar, muchachos!
 
2013-06-24 11:56:18 AM  
I guess Miami is going to have to find a way to keep the Biscayne---

*sunglasses*

---at bay.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH H HHHHHHHHH
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 12:00:16 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.


Well, I will be dead by then so no biggie.
 
2013-06-24 12:04:05 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?


First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.
 
2013-06-24 12:10:24 PM  

Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.


IRC the last time a category 5 hurricane hit Miami in the 1930s it took like two decades to recover.  So we have that to look forward to someday sooner instead of later I'm sure...

I live in Amsterdam these days which is of course famously below sea level (they built my institute just outside of the big door they can automatically shut in the event of flooding in the barrier, so hooray I am left to die).  I'm sure a lot of the flooding protections they have in this country are going to seem commonplace in the lot of the USA as well sooner instead of later, it's just the Dutch have a few hundred year head start on a lot of these things.
 
2013-06-24 12:14:27 PM  
The problem is that politics is extremely intertwined with science.


You want to talk about climate change? Fine. Get it out of the political arena.


Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.
 
2013-06-24 12:18:10 PM  

vpb: Well, I will be dead by then so no biggie.


Wouldn't it be ironic if science made it so we could live so long that we can see the results of our fark ups?
 
2013-06-24 12:19:07 PM  

gameshowhost: It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.


Well, we already have the Florida Tag, so that's a start.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 12:20:16 PM  
cman:
Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.

So did James Lovelock and others.
 
2013-06-24 12:22:30 PM  

cman: The problem is that politics is extremely intertwined with science.


You want to talk about climate change? Fine. Get it out of the political arena.


Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.


I don't see nuclear power as a right vs left debate as much as a pragmatic vs NIMBY debate.  I'm pretty darn liberal, and I'm all for nuclear power.  We should keep investing in solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc, as well, but right now nuclear is a hell of a lot better than most of our power generation infrastructure.
 
2013-06-24 12:22:44 PM  

Andromeda: Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.

IRC the last time a category 5 hurricane hit Miami in the 1930s it took like two decades to recover.  So we have that to look forward to someday sooner instead of later I'm sure...

I live in Amsterdam these days which is of course famously below sea level (they built my institute just outside of the big door they can automatically shut in the event of flooding in the barrier, so hooray I am left to die).  I'm sure a lot of the flooding protections they have in this country are going to seem commonplace in the lot of the USA as well sooner instead of later, it's just the Dutch have a few hundred year head start on a lot of these things.


Er, Hurricane Andrew was a Cat 5.
 
2013-06-24 12:25:07 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

We'll just have to establish new cities further inland for our ports and coastal luxury resorts like Marina Del Lexe or Otisburg
 
2013-06-24 12:30:56 PM  
I am serious, fellow righties.

Embracing the reality of climate change means that we can get what we want, nuclear power.

This is what all of us wanted. It is here for our taking. Grab it.
 
2013-06-24 12:36:03 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-24 12:46:56 PM  
Hey, but there's a bright spot to Miami going underwater...you can turn it into the Venice of Florida.

As opposed to Venice, FL.

...or something.
 
2013-06-24 12:53:04 PM  
Wrong, wrong. Denial has crocodiles, Miami has alligators.
 
2013-06-24 01:04:43 PM  
I am still rooting for the alligators to take over Florida, so this is good news.
 
2013-06-24 01:07:54 PM  

cman: Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.


Cleaner and safer than burning things to get energy.

Not cleaner and safer than other technologies that don't require burning things to get energy.
 
2013-06-24 01:08:12 PM  
The scuba diving is going to be amazing.
 
2013-06-24 01:08:42 PM  
I can do a coupla things.

1) Not move to MIA

2) Die before the end of this century.
 
2013-06-24 01:08:55 PM  
Ok, but how are they going to move the whole city of Miami to Egypt?
 
2013-06-24 01:09:39 PM  
How is this possible?  The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago.  If anything the overall temperature is going down.  During the ice ages the sea levels dropped hundreds of feet.
 
2013-06-24 01:10:45 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?


Hawaii is geologically young - the land has very steep contours.  The famous Haleakela crater in Maui is 2 miles up and only 6 miles from the coast.
 
2013-06-24 01:10:52 PM  

vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.


You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...
 
2013-06-24 01:11:08 PM  
Having seen Miami, if it fell into the sea, not much would be lost.  Hopefully, it'll take Pitbull, too.
 
2013-06-24 01:11:19 PM  

vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.


Sure, ok, fine.  What are you DOING about it?  I've planted 10,000 trees, and installed 10KW of solar panels.  Are you doing anything about it, or just talking about it?

/more panels as I can afford them
//6 year payback
 
2013-06-24 01:11:33 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The scuba diving is going to be amazing.


Looking forward to it myself:

www.monstershack.net
 
2013-06-24 01:11:35 PM  
So all the Cuban ex-pats are going to go back to Cuba.???
 
2013-06-24 01:11:58 PM  
We will have to evolve back to being amphibians.
 
2013-06-24 01:12:25 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat


Wouldn't it be ironic if science made it so we could live so long that we can see the results of our fark ups?


Go home, Alanis, you're drunk.
 
2013-06-24 01:13:06 PM  
Time to buy some beachfront in the southern states.
 
2013-06-24 01:13:17 PM  
If they thought Katrina was bad...
 
2013-06-24 01:13:25 PM  

Infernalist: Having seen Miami, if it fell into the sea, not much would be lost.  Hopefully, it'll take Pitbull, too.


I'd miss the topless girls around the pool at the Delano . . .

Won't miss those $18 beers, though.
 
2013-06-24 01:14:21 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible? The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago. If anything the overall temperature is going down.


16.  Huh.  what an unusual number to choose.

www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-06-24 01:14:51 PM  
Notice most of the climate change denier threadshiatters haven't showed up yet.
 
2013-06-24 01:15:14 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: To The Escape Zeppelin!: The scuba diving is going to be amazing.

Looking forward to it myself:

[www.monstershack.net image 512x288]


I can't wait for the recreational boating

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-24 01:15:18 PM  

NuttierThanEver: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 720x480]

We'll just have to establish new cities further inland for our ports and coastal luxury resorts like Marina Del Lexe or Otisburg


Knock yourself out. I, for one, plan to plant myself firmly between the beautiful Tessmacher Peaks.
 
2013-06-24 01:15:28 PM  
We'll finally be able to normalize relations with Cuba.
 
2013-06-24 01:15:52 PM  
So the Nile's not going to be flooded?  I thought it did that every year.
 
2013-06-24 01:15:53 PM  
One good result is that if Miami floods due to global warming, Republicans will be able to make it a red state and not a swing state.
 
2013-06-24 01:17:04 PM  

Cyno01: The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain.


That fact is wll known by people with more than half a brain.

Climate change is like evolution. You don't believe in evolution. You understand evolution.
 
2013-06-24 01:17:52 PM  
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied

Learn to swim.
 
2013-06-24 01:18:03 PM  
wipe Miami off the map.  don't mind if i do
now where's that exist to Albequerque

completeoutrageredux.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-24 01:18:31 PM  
 
2013-06-24 01:18:38 PM  
In 1995, Carl Sagan was in the same room as Richard Dawkins at the University of Bern.

The meeting generated a super-charged plasma ball of incandescent smarmy douche that could power a city the size of Doncaster for two weeks.
 
2013-06-24 01:19:07 PM  
I'll just stay right here in the Lost City of Atlanta.

/It's not just a Delta hub.
 
2013-06-24 01:19:45 PM  

Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


Not sure if serious...
 
2013-06-24 01:20:18 PM  
Can the President please fark off with the "God's creation" cliche? Who is he targeting with that kind of language? And in what way does he think it bears any relevance to the problem of anthropogenic climate change, or even to the current state of science?
 
2013-06-24 01:20:46 PM  
By 'most conservative' estimates I presume they are still only taking estimates from left wing extremists? That's what I thought.
 
2013-06-24 01:22:00 PM  

cman: You want to talk about climate change? Fine. Get it out of the political arena.


We will have to take large-scale action to mitigate the effects of climate change (we're pretty much past the point of preventing it). That means political solutions.

cman: Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.


The concept of using nuclear reactors to generate power isn't really a left-right issue among people who seriously discuss these things. The left-right breakdown seems to come when you ask questions like "how should we regulate this potentially dangerous activity?". I'd have no problem at all with the radical expansion of nuclear energy, but first I'd like regulatory agencies that aren't subsidiaries of the companies they supposedly oversee, and I'd also like some sort of comprehensive permanent solution as to how we're going to store radioactive waste.
 
2013-06-24 01:22:41 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?


I was thinking about that just this morning.  This is Ahalanui Park:
i105.photobucket.com
A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean.  The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished.  The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

A rise in sea level will drown this place, and that will be a tragic loss.
 
2013-06-24 01:22:44 PM  
A huge crock of shiat.
 
2013-06-24 01:22:53 PM  

MoonPirate: Denial is in Egypt but yeah, very similar conditions.


Damn you...
 
2013-06-24 01:22:57 PM  
Favorite quote:  "When it rains, there's a lot of water."

Sea levels rise and fall.  Britain used to be connected to continental europe.  The Mediterranean has flooded and dried up a number of times.  Central US used to be a shallow sea.  Climate warms and cools.  People complain.  So why should I be concerned?
 
2013-06-24 01:23:03 PM  

Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


That's because you're only worried about the ice that's already expanded...there's more of this "frozen water" above the "rim" of this glass to worry about as well...hence, this issue...
 
2013-06-24 01:23:04 PM  

Cyno01: You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?


Now, put a big pile of ice on top of a solid surface.  Fill the glass with water, then dump the melting ice from the solid surface into the glass.  Watch it overflow.

(Then, account for thermal expansion for oceans that are much, much deeper than your stupid glass analogy.)

But hey, I'm sure you felt smart while you were writing that.  You can fool a few third-graders with that level of "thought".
 
2013-06-24 01:23:13 PM  

Aarontology: Even the sea is sick of LeBron.


There is only one thing that ever made me happy was ball players. And that's why I bade the red bull to bring me all of them, all there were. So I can be young again, like that first morning I saw Byrd versus Jordan. And so every wave brings them to shore, but they DARE NOT, for fear of the Red.Bull.
But your eyes are dull, as dull as any eyes that never beheld Phi Jamma Slamma.
 
2013-06-24 01:23:34 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: To The Escape Zeppelin!: The scuba diving is going to be amazing.

Looking forward to it myself:

[www.monstershack.net image 512x288]


You cant park a sub ther! You will get a ticket!
 
2013-06-24 01:23:44 PM  

I was actually hoping it was going to be sooner than that. My hopes were that the #1 climate change denier, Rush Limbaugh, would be an eyewitness to his beach-front compound in Florida sinking into the ocean.


//Schadenfreude at it's finest, my friend.

 
2013-06-24 01:23:58 PM  

vpb: cman:
Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.

So did James Lovelock and others.


Best worst option. And I don't think either of them would have really defended "clean and safe" so much as "cleaner and safer given the current problem of excessive GHG emissions and their short and long-term effects."
 
2013-06-24 01:24:36 PM  

FloydA: A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean. The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished. The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.


Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?
 
2013-06-24 01:24:48 PM  

Shostie: New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot.


Especially cities populated with Louisianans.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wouldn't it be ironic if science made it so we could live so long that we can see the results of our fark ups?


One of the actively debated solutions during the 2008-09 meltdown was (I kid you not) how to artificially prop up the real estate market.

As far as seeing the results of our fark-ups is concerned, getting us to live long enough is not the issue.
 
2013-06-24 01:25:27 PM  
I, for one, will miss mainland Cuba.
 
2013-06-24 01:25:38 PM  
Cyno01:

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


If you can find a way to make sure that only sea ice melts, and the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica don't, please let me know.  It's the ice on land melting and running into the sea that is the problem.
 
2013-06-24 01:26:22 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-24 01:26:37 PM  

zulius: Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...

That's because you're only worried about the ice that's already expanded...there's more of this "frozen water" above the "rim" of this glass to worry about as well...hence, this issue...


You mean there's a SOUTH pole?
 
2013-06-24 01:26:48 PM  

NuttierThanEver: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 720x480]

We'll just have to establish new cities further inland for our ports and coastal luxury resorts like Marina Del Lexe or Otisburg


Otisburg?
 
2013-06-24 01:26:49 PM  

Andromeda: Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.

IRC the last time a category 5 hurricane hit Miami in the 1930s it took like two decades to recover.  So we have that to look forward to someday sooner instead of later I'm sure...


you may have missed hurricane Andrew in 1992 which leveled a pretty good sized portion of south Florida
 
2013-06-24 01:26:53 PM  
So just build a 15ft seawall around the entire Florida coastline. Problem solved.
 
2013-06-24 01:26:54 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?


A difference of construction material, mostly.
forum.gon.com
 
2013-06-24 01:26:57 PM  

FormlessOne: Notice most of the climate change denier threadshiatters haven't showed up yet.


The Green Wall of Paste tends to only appear after discussion has died down.  Part of the system.
 
2013-06-24 01:27:52 PM  

BitwiseShift: I, for one, will miss mainland Cuba.


There'll be plenty of Cuba left.  It just won't be 90 miles from Key West anymore.
 
2013-06-24 01:28:31 PM  
NPR = National People's Radio.  Keep listening Comrade...or else.
 
2013-06-24 01:28:42 PM  

IdBeCrazyIf: OldManDownDRoad: To The Escape Zeppelin!: The scuba diving is going to be amazing.

Looking forward to it myself:

[www.monstershack.net image 512x288]

I can't wait for the recreational boating

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x213]


He sees what you did there:

www.bravotv.com
 
2013-06-24 01:29:08 PM  

bdub77: Wrong, wrong. Denial has crocodiles, Miami has alligators.


I am pretty sure they have crocodiles too.

But they don't have chocodiles.

/man those things are/were disgustingly delicious...
 
2013-06-24 01:29:36 PM  
Turn it into a landfill. The entire state.
 
2013-06-24 01:29:43 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean. The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished. The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?



Um... Not very.  Apparently I'm missing your point.    Could you explain to me why that is relevant?
 
2013-06-24 01:29:48 PM  

gameshowhost: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.

*paying = paying a whole bunch more than the average share. whole. bunch. more.


So they will have to pay money for not espousing views that you like?  Sounds healthy.

How about we just pay based on consumption?  Wouldn't that be a little more rational?
 
2013-06-24 01:29:53 PM  

FormlessOne: Notice most of the climate change denier threadshiatters haven't showed up yet.


I noticed this thread had a much higher funny post to whargabl ratio than usual.
 
2013-06-24 01:30:11 PM  
It's so cutesy wootsey how the left is still blathering on about global warming. Have Al Gore whip up another Power Point slide presentation and give him another Nobel prize and Oscar while you're at it. I'm sure that the New Yorkers and Miamians will have no trouble sprouting gills when necessary even though it's a bunch of rungs up the evolutionary ladder for them.
 
2013-06-24 01:30:26 PM  

Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


That only applies to ice that is already floating on water.

Think of this:
The ice in all the glaciers around the world melts. The ice that feeds the rivers that water the crops and provide all the fresh water we drink. All that ice runs downhill into the sea and the rivers all become something equivalent to the Colorado at the point where it tools through Southern California.


The Amazon, the Columbia, the Mississippi, the Ohio, The Ganges, the Danube, the Nile, the Congo, the Yangtze, all drain major mountain ranges and require annual replenishment of snowfall to keep flowing at their volumes all year round.

No more rivers, no more crops, no more nice beach houses in The Carolinas or Florida. It's been estimated that a six foot increase in the ocean level would displace about 3.5 billion people. And it can happen very quickly, in the space of months. Couple that with the massive floods that would follow all that glacial melting, then follow that with the water drying up and the rivers down to 4% - 5% of what they were. Thats if the average world temperature is up by 10 degrees from what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. We're already at 4.
 
2013-06-24 01:30:49 PM  

dragonchild: Galloping Galoshes: Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?

A difference of construction material, mostly.
[forum.gon.com image 700x594]


That's a mighty fine beaver you got there, ma'am.  (slap)
 
2013-06-24 01:31:02 PM  

chimp_ninja: Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible? The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago. If anything the overall temperature is going down.

16.  Huh.  what an unusual number to choose.

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842 1 366.html

Yup.  16 years of no warming.  It must suck to see that you've been lied to for so long.
 
2013-06-24 01:31:08 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-24 01:31:56 PM  

Shostie: WHERE WILL YOU RUN TO, NOW, MICHAEL WESTON?!?!


Well-played.
 
2013-06-24 01:32:37 PM  
nothing can be done about it except live in de nile biscayne bay

FTFY (geography nazi)

/where the cuban gentlemen sleep all day
 
2013-06-24 01:32:40 PM  
The article pointed something important about Miami and South Florida

The bedrock in the area is porous limestone.   They can build all the seawalls they want, but the water will infiltrate under the walls and still flood the area.   They can compensate with huge pumps to pump water continuously faster than it can infiltrate, but if the pumps ever fail......
 
2013-06-24 01:32:52 PM  

Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?


Oh good lord tell me you're not serious
 
2013-06-24 01:32:55 PM  
The Miami Dolphins should feel right at home.

Fano: Aarontology: Even the sea is sick of LeBron.

There is only one thing that ever made me happy was ball players. And that's why I bade the red bull to bring me all of them, all there were. So I can be young again, like that first morning I saw Byrd versus Jordan. And so every wave brings them to shore, but they DARE NOT, for fear of the Red.Bull.
But your eyes are dull, as dull as any eyes that never beheld Phi Jamma Slamma.


Yeah, good luck with that.
/Bird
 
2013-06-24 01:33:01 PM  

FloydA: Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean. The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished. The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?


Um... Not very.  Apparently I'm missing your point.    Could you explain to me why that is relevant?


Better?
 
2013-06-24 01:34:55 PM  

Dimensio: NuttierThanEver: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 720x480]

We'll just have to establish new cities further inland for our ports and coastal luxury resorts like Marina Del Lexe or Otisburg

Otisburg?


It's just a little bitty place...
 
2013-06-24 01:35:04 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: chimp_ninja: Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible? The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago. If anything the overall temperature is going down.

16.  Huh.  what an unusual number to choose.

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842 1 366.html

Yup.  16 years of no warming.  It must suck to see that you've been lied to for so long.


Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary.  If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming.  Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...
 
2013-06-24 01:35:30 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Andromeda: Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.

IRC the last time a category 5 hurricane hit Miami in the 1930s it took like two decades to recover.  So we have that to look forward to someday sooner instead of later I'm sure...

I live in Amsterdam these days which is of course famously below sea level (they built my institute just outside of the big door they can automatically shut in the event of flooding in the barrier, so hooray I am left to die).  I'm sure a lot of the flooding protections they have in this country are going to seem commonplace in the lot of the USA as well sooner instead of later, it's just the Dutch have a few hundred year head start on a lot of these things.

Er, Hurricane Andrew was a Cat 5.


Andrew didn't hit Miami head on.

It made landfall 30 miles south in Homestead. But it took a very long time for Homestead to recover. Can't imagine what that would do to Miami if it got hit directly.
 
2013-06-24 01:35:55 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean. The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished. The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?


Um... Not very.  Apparently I'm missing your point.    Could you explain to me why that is relevant?

Better?


The heating is natural (geothermal vent), so it is a natural hot spring protected by an artificial wall.

How is that relevant to the fact that it will be sad when the site is flooded?  I'm not following your logic, sorry.  I probably need more coffee.
 
2013-06-24 01:36:20 PM  

misanthropologist: vpb: cman:
Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.

So did James Lovelock and others.

Best worst option. And I don't think either of them would have really defended "clean and safe" so much as "cleaner and safer given the current problem of excessive GHG emissions and their short and long-term effects."


None of them seem to address the economics of nuclear power, which is a problem even if you pretend there will never be another Chernobyl or Fukushima.  Nuke plants are very expensive to build and stupefyingly expensive to decommission, and they don't really last that long.  And, more than a half century into the nuclear power industry, we still can't get anyone to agree on how to handle waste disposal.  Having brought that last item up, though, I'm sure a few farkers can come up with quick, easy, uncontroversial solutions that no one thought of before.
 
2013-06-24 01:36:40 PM  

indarwinsshadow: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 550x299]


I thought you were only here to tell us how much you don't care about this topic?  You know, how you don't care at all about scientific evidence that is presented to refute your political whargarrbl?

indarwinsshadow: Ok. Let's put this into terms you can grasp. I really really really don't care. I don't care what your opinion is. I don't give a crap about the myriad of articles that get published for or against this. I. Don't. Care. Clear now? Do we really need to continue to go on with this, or can you finally accept that I don't care because fark publishes this stuff week after week, the same believers come on and lay on the graphs and insults, the non believers laugh and say "how do you function being that you're so stupid". It's just a bunch of children arguing back and forth.
farking snooooorrrrreeeeeeee......


It's a little weird that you show up in every single thread on the topic just to reiterate how much you don't care.
 
2013-06-24 01:37:38 PM  

FloydA: Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean. The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished. The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?


Um... Not very.  Apparently I'm missing your point.    Could you explain to me why that is relevant?

Better?

The heating is natural (geothermal vent), so it is a natural hot spring protected by an artificial wall.

How is that relevant to the fact that it will be sad when the site is flooded?  I'm not following your logic, sorry.  I probably need more coffee...


I think he is pointing out, that while the hot spring is natural, the pond is not natural, it is manmade
 
2013-06-24 01:37:57 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Smeggy Smurf: chimp_ninja: Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible? The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago. If anything the overall temperature is going down.

16.  Huh.  what an unusual number to choose.

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842 1 366.html

Yup.  16 years of no warming.  It must suck to see that you've been lied to for so long.

Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary.  If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming.  Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...


SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it.  Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real.  If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life.  Fill every appropriate roof with them.  Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.
 
2013-06-24 01:38:23 PM  
Yeah, but if we deny global warming, after a century of increasingly-strong storms and floods, cities like that won't cost as much to move.
 
2013-06-24 01:39:27 PM  

cman: The problem is that politics is extremely intertwined with science.


You want to talk about climate change? Fine. Get it out of the political arena.


Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.


It was deliberately dragged INTO the political arena so that the fossil fuel industry could control the debate.
 
2013-06-24 01:40:08 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary. If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming. Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...


Not long ago, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an overlay of a dozen or two reconstructions of the (geologically) recent temperature.  Instrument records are the red line on the right.  Notice anything?

www.pnas.org
 
2013-06-24 01:40:17 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: zulius: Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...

That's because you're only worried about the ice that's already expanded...there's more of this "frozen water" above the "rim" of this glass to worry about as well...hence, this issue...

You mean there's a SOUTH pole?


Shocking, isn't it?
 
2013-06-24 01:40:25 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: BitwiseShift: I, for one, will miss mainland Cuba.

There'll be plenty of Cuba left.  It just won't be 90 miles from Key West anymore.


I believe he was referring to Little Havana, or maybe just Miami in general.

In the US Miami, NYC, New Orleans, and the VA Tidewater area are the most at risk to flooding due to climate change.  What's interesting is that according to this report, China has the most to potentially lose from rising sea levels, yet they're responsible for almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and while the US is starting to trend down, China is spiking with a huge upsurge.
 
2013-06-24 01:40:31 PM  

DubtodaIll: So just build a 15ft seawall around the entire Florida coastline. Problem solved.


And then fill it with water
 
2013-06-24 01:40:41 PM  

kanesays: I was actually hoping it was going to be sooner than that. My hopes were that the #1 climate change denier, Rush Limbaugh, would be an eyewitness to his beach-front compound in Florida sinking into the ocean.
//Schadenfreude at it's finest, my friend.


Because of the tar sands industry here in Alberta, it is the hotbed for Canadian global climate-change denial.  So many otherwise intelligent people buy into the denial due to blind economic self-interest.

Well, in 2005 we had historic rainfalls and flooding.  Now in 2013 we had even worse historic rainfalls and flooding.  Downtown Calgary was washed away, which for an Albertan over the age of 40 is farking inconceivable.

I can't wait for the spin our right-wing media tries to put on the flooding, once southern Alberta dries out.
 
2013-06-24 01:40:45 PM  
No subby, theology be in the Atlantic not denial.
 
2013-06-24 01:40:46 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary. If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming. Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...


If only our analyses of global temperature trends could be more sophisticated than a simple up or down switch. Curse you nature, for only providing binary choices!
 
2013-06-24 01:41:05 PM  
weiserfireman:

I think he is pointing out, that while the hot spring is natural, the pond is not natural, it is manmade

Ah, gotcha.  He was attaching the adjective "natural" to the noun "pond," while I was attaching it to the other adjective "hot."

/I can't brain today.
 
2013-06-24 01:42:29 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Galloping Galoshes: BitwiseShift: I, for one, will miss mainland Cuba.

There'll be plenty of Cuba left.  It just won't be 90 miles from Key West anymore.

I believe he was referring to Little Havana, or maybe just Miami in general.

In the US Miami, NYC, New Orleans, and the VA Tidewater area are the most at risk to flooding due to climate change.  What's interesting is that according to this report, China has the most to potentially lose from rising sea levels, yet they're responsible for almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and while the US is starting to trend down, China is spiking with a huge upsurge.


That's because China views things like basic environmental standards as inconveniences that get in the way of business.

For a bunch of Communists, they really do sound like Conservatives in that regard.
 
2013-06-24 01:42:44 PM  

gameshowhost: It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.

*paying = paying a whole bunch more than the average share. whole. bunch. more.


I hate to bring this up because it looks like you're comfortable in your tiny little logic box....but you don't need to work about deniers....you need to worry about China and India.   The US represents only 4% of the population of those 2 countries...and having to travel to both of them, I can readily attest that the best air quality in China or India is much worse than the very worst fire/smog day in LA.   From an economic standpoint, why should the US seriously disadvantage ourselves by unilaterally taking on the cost of "not quite ready yet" green energy when China, Russia, and India aren't doing jack shiat to curb any of their emissions?  Stand back and take a look at the leaps in technology in 50 years...computers, internet, space travel, wireless communications.  Do you honestly think that we can't come up with a solution to the problem over the next 100 years as technology continues to advance along Moores Law?

Finally, the oceans are going to rise 3 feet in 50 years?  Really, is that coming from the same models that have been predicting temps would be going up for the last decade?  You can believe in climate change but still believe that their models are farked up and their predictions are bullshiat.  In my business, if I created forecasting models that were consistently wrong for the last 15 years, I'd be fired.  But in the climate world, you just get more grant money to do it right.   Once they start, getting their models tuned in to start predicting temperature changes that actually come to pass, I will start giving their forecasts on ocean levels some credence....until then, garbage in, garbage out.
 
2013-06-24 01:44:19 PM  

djh0101010: Galloping Galoshes: Smeggy Smurf: chimp_ninja: Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible? The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago. If anything the overall temperature is going down.

16.  Huh.  what an unusual number to choose.

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842 1 366.html

Yup.  16 years of no warming.  It must suck to see that you've been lied to for so long.

Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary.  If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming.  Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...

SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it.  Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real.  If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life.  Fill every appropriate roof with them.  Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.



Not trying to buzzkill you here, but solar cells are not consequence free.  You do understand that we have to use hazardous chemicals to make photoelectric cells, right?  Arsenic, Chlorine, etc?  Every ton of arsenic you mine = X grams of arsenic released into the air or water.
 
2013-06-24 01:45:03 PM  

djh0101010: SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it. Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real. If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life. Fill every appropriate roof with them. Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.


You sort of have to do both, however.  Otherwise, a year later the person who is doing the right thing (generating electricity by PV) but doesn't understand why continues to make long-term decisions (buying a gas guzzler, not recycling aluminum, eating tons of meat, etc.) without regard for externalities.
 
2013-06-24 01:45:04 PM  
1. "Taking my talents to the Twilight Zone" sounds even cooler than what LJ said.

2. The mob has a plan.
 
2013-06-24 01:46:25 PM  
This could be a good thing.  It will lower the amount of social security that the government pays out each year.
 
2013-06-24 01:48:57 PM  
good
 
2013-06-24 01:49:29 PM  

misanthropologist: Can the President please fark off with the "God's creation" cliche? Who is he targeting with that kind of language? And in what way does he think it bears any relevance to the problem of anthropogenic climate change, or even to the current state of science?


NEW FLASH - THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE IN GOD.

/more at 11...
 
2013-06-24 01:49:35 PM  

evaned: Dimensio: NuttierThanEver: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 720x480]

We'll just have to establish new cities further inland for our ports and coastal luxury resorts like Marina Del Lexe or Otisburg

Otisburg?

It's just a little bitty place...


OTISBURG?!!
 
2013-06-24 01:50:47 PM  
Pretty depressing stuff. Science is bad though...and politically incorrect. Let continue on protecting the interests of one industry at the cost to how amny others, as well as risking billions/trillions worth of property on the coast lines. My cousin says its colder today where he lives...this equals proof to my republican counsin that global warming is a liberal thing.

Right winged dumb ass science wins....again
 
2013-06-24 01:51:07 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I'm sure there's a downside as well.


it is quite possible that you are incorrect, but I can understand wanting to believe there must be some intrinsic good
 
2013-06-24 01:51:31 PM  
Well, well well..... looks like all of that Florida bashing you farkers do is going to come back to haunt your crotchfruit and their crotchfruit. If Miami goes under then YOU folks up North better learn to speak whatever 3rd word gibberish those people speak and get real used to the fact that THEY will control your town or city, not you my friend.

Ah yes payback.... Karma she is a sweetheart, too damn bad I will be dead and gone and unable to enjoy the show.
 
2013-06-24 01:52:07 PM  
Hmmm, I wonder if this kind of thing has happened before. It certainly would be poetic if it was man-made global warming that causes the Great Flood from numerous mythologies. I do love how nature tends to fix its own problems.
 
2013-06-24 01:52:16 PM  
A 3' rise in sea level will dramatically reshape the US coastline, especially along the Southeast coast on both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Tampa will have problems, as will New Orleans, Houston, Miami, Charleston, Savannah, all the cities around the Chesapeake Bay, Mobile and the NC coastline. While many of those cities have seawalls or can expand existing ones, many smaller towns will not have the resources to undertake building walls or relocating to higher ground. There are probably a dozen counties in NC that would become marshes if the sea level rises 3'; fortunately for us our legislature passed a bill denying any sea level rise was taking place.
 
2013-06-24 01:52:17 PM  

Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


A little physics is a dangerous thing.

/The neighbors from my teenage years would probably argue that a little chemistry was a much more dangerous thing.
 
2013-06-24 01:52:30 PM  
Meh, just go plant more trees.
 
2013-06-24 01:54:11 PM  

NuttierThanEver: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 720x480]

We'll just have to establish new cities further inland for our ports and coastal luxury resorts like Marina Del Lexe or Otisburg


Otisburg?

And this is the first time I've noticed "Teschmacher Peaks".  LOL.
 
2013-06-24 01:54:14 PM  

FrancoFile: Not trying to buzzkill you here, but solar cells are not consequence free. You do understand that we have to use hazardous chemicals to make photoelectric cells, right? Arsenic, Chlorine, etc? Every ton of arsenic you mine = X grams of arsenic released into the air or water.


This is true of all energy generation.  Even modern windmills require the creation of 50-meter blades of laminated composites that use a bunch of not-so-friendly chemicals.  Hydro plants require tons of concrete and disrupt aquatic ecosystems.  Fission has its own mining and disposal chains.

The point is that among these options, the creation of a solar panel is very low impact.  You're talking about adding a fraction of an inch of silicon to half a roof or so, and the equipment is typically guaranteed for 25 or 30 years of operation.  Any chemicals used in fabrication are used in a plant where they're disposed of per reasonably stringent regulations.  Companies have tremendous financial incentives to use as little as possible during processing.

If you compare that to the waste produced by, say, mining, transporting, and burning 30 years' worth of coal, PV is a very good upgrade.  The perfect should never be the enemy of the very good.
 
2013-06-24 01:54:40 PM  
The article's suggestion of 20 inches as a "very conservative estimate" and subby's suggestion of 20 inches as the "most conservative estimate" are incorrect.  IPCC4A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_AR4#Temperature_and_sea_level_rise _i n_the_various_scenarios


Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)


So, the high ranges of the least conservative estimates get you to around 20 inches.  Being Chicken Little trying to scare people is just going to get them to stop believing the truth when it comes out.

Of course, no one has put out a reasonable plan that would actually work and people who claim the most to be in favor of fighting global warming spend as much time railing against moving from coal to natural gas or building nuclear plants or creating genetically modified crops able to live in warmer weather or taking action to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
 
2013-06-24 01:55:33 PM  
Ah yes, the religion for those who otherwise eschew religion.

/atheist
 
2013-06-24 01:56:13 PM  

Shostie: WHERE WILL YOU RUN TO, NOW, MICHAEL WESTON?!?!


LOLOLOL

I don't really like that show, but my BF makes me watch it. I kind of want to see Michael Weston and Fi get blowed up together, Bruce Campbell go back to Evil Dead movies, and the token semi-minority guy to get some self respect.
 
2013-06-24 01:57:32 PM  
Good idea to give yourself 87 years for a dubious prediction so that you're safely dead when its supposed to happen.
 
2013-06-24 01:57:35 PM  

Mrtraveler01: TuteTibiImperes: Galloping Galoshes: BitwiseShift: I, for one, will miss mainland Cuba.

There'll be plenty of Cuba left.  It just won't be 90 miles from Key West anymore.

I believe he was referring to Little Havana, or maybe just Miami in general.

In the US Miami, NYC, New Orleans, and the VA Tidewater area are the most at risk to flooding due to climate change.  What's interesting is that according to this report, China has the most to potentially lose from rising sea levels, yet they're responsible for almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and while the US is starting to trend down, China is spiking with a huge upsurge.

That's because China views things like basic environmental standards as inconveniences that get in the way of business.

For a bunch of Communists, they really do sound like Conservatives in that regard.


The only difference between China's economy and conservatives/libertarians/republicans is that china has already achieved what the others wish they did. With all the irony of beating us at our own game because we tell them how.
 
2013-06-24 01:58:58 PM  

chimp_ninja: FrancoFile: Not trying to buzzkill you here, but solar cells are not consequence free. You do understand that we have to use hazardous chemicals to make photoelectric cells, right? Arsenic, Chlorine, etc? Every ton of arsenic you mine = X grams of arsenic released into the air or water.

This is true of all energy generation.  Even modern windmills require the creation of 50-meter blades of laminated composites that use a bunch of not-so-friendly chemicals.  Hydro plants require tons of concrete and disrupt aquatic ecosystems.  Fission has its own mining and disposal chains.

The point is that among these options, the creation of a solar panel is very low impact.  You're talking about adding a fraction of an inch of silicon to half a roof or so, and the equipment is typically guaranteed for 25 or 30 years of operation.  Any chemicals used in fabrication are used in a plant where they're disposed of per reasonably stringent regulations.  Companies have tremendous financial incentives to use as little as possible during processing.

If you compare that to the waste produced by, say, mining, transporting, and burning 30 years' worth of coal, PV is a very good upgrade.  The perfect should never be the enemy of the very good.



But if you compare to a 30-year fuel cycle for a fission plant, it's a toss of the coin.

/I think you underestimate the nastiness of the stuff involved in manufacturing doped silicon - or even worse, GaAs
 
2013-06-24 01:59:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: TheDumbBlonde: Andromeda: Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.

IRC the last time a category 5 hurricane hit Miami in the 1930s it took like two decades to recover.  So we have that to look forward to someday sooner instead of later I'm sure...

I live in Amsterdam these days which is of course famously below sea level (they built my institute just outside of the big door they can automatically shut in the event of flooding in the barrier, so hooray I am left to die).  I'm sure a lot of the flooding protections they have in this country are going to seem commonplace in the lot of the USA as well sooner instead of later, it's just the Dutch have a few hundred year head start on a lot of these things.

Er, Hurricane Andrew was a Cat 5.

Andrew didn't hit Miami head on.

It made landfall 30 miles south in Homestead. But it took a very long time for Homestead to recover. Can't imagine what that would do to Miami if it got hit directly.


It's been like 6 or 7 years since I've been through Homestead, but I seem to remember lots of visible signs of damage and empty lots from Andrew. Has it gotten any better since?
 
2013-06-24 01:59:44 PM  

Egalitarian: Shostie: WHERE WILL YOU RUN TO, NOW, MICHAEL WESTON?!?!

LOLOLOL

I don't really like that show, but my BF makes me watch it. I kind of want to see Michael Weston and Fi get blowed up together, Bruce Campbell go back to Evil Dead movies, and the token semi-minority guy to get some self respect.


on second thought, how about Dexter, Dexter's poisoning GF, Michael and Fi kill each other in bloody explosive flooding tragedy. And Michael's mom too. Bruce Campbell gets on an exercise bike in Montana. Jesse establishes a family, adopts Michael's nephew, starts a business, and lives happily ever after.
 
2013-06-24 02:01:32 PM  

Cyno01: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


Now take the same glass, add lots of ice-- so that there is ice stacked over the top of the glass, then add water to the top of the glass.  Now when the ice melts-- including all the ice that's not in the glass, but is above the glass and resting on the ice below it -- will the cup overflow?

That above-the-glass ice represents all of the glaciers, as well as the polar ice caps.  All above ice, all melting and flowing into the sea

// pretty sure you're just being sarcastic, but some people make those arguments seriously.
 
2013-06-24 02:02:32 PM  
Ftfa
Lyden says a rise of 3 feet by the middle of the century

The other guy says a rise of 3 feet by the end of the century


Some concensus.
 
2013-06-24 02:02:34 PM  
Eponymous:

I hate to bring this up because it looks like you're comfortable in your tiny little logic box....but you don't need to work about deniers....you need to worry about China and India.   The US represents only 4% of the population of those 2 countries...and having to travel to both of them, I can readily attest that the best air quality in China or India is much worse than the very worst fire/smog day in LA.   From an economic standpoint, why should the US seriously disadvantage ourselves by unilaterally taking on the cost of "not quite ready yet" green energy when China, Russia, and India aren't doing jack shiat to curb any of their emissions?  Stand back and take a look at the leaps in technology in 50 years...computers, internet, space travel, wireless communications.  Do you honestly think that we can't come up with a solution to the problem over the next 100 years as technology continues to advance along Moores Law?

Finally, the oceans are going to rise 3 feet in 50 years?  Really, is that coming from the same models that have been predicting temps would be going up for the last decade?  You can believe in climate change but still believe that their models are farked up and their predictions are bullshiat.  In my business, if I created forecasting models that were consistently wrong for the last 15 years, I'd be fired.  But in the climate world, you just get more grant money to do it right.   Once they start, getting their models tuned in to start predicting temperature changes that actually come to pass, I will start giving their forecasts on ocean levels some credence....until then, garbage in, garbage out.



Well said.
Damn, your account # is under 10g's. whoa
 
2013-06-24 02:03:00 PM  
So we plant more trees.  I am looking at you NYC.
 
2013-06-24 02:03:08 PM  
If it happens so fast that none can escape, it sounds good to me.

Fingers crossed for Southern California as well...
 
2013-06-24 02:03:10 PM  

cman: I am serious, fellow righties.

Embracing the reality of climate change means that we can get what we want, nuclear power.

This is what all of us wanted. It is here for our taking. Grab it.


It also means that every time one of your businessman heroes has some brilliant scheme for making a bundle of money, whatever effect it has on the environment is going to be magnified. You think getting approval for a project that displaces some weird bug is hard now, you just wait until after you admit the lefties were right all along about how you guys have been banging Mother Nature.
.
 
2013-06-24 02:03:33 PM  
Has anyone said "good" yet?

//just promise me hotlanta is safe...
 
2013-06-24 02:04:18 PM  

Cyno01: You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


8.5/10
 
2013-06-24 02:04:44 PM  

meanmutton: people who claim the most to be in favor of fighting global warming spend as much time railing against moving from coal to natural gas


"The people in my imagination are so WRONG!"

Thanks, genius. Seem I can't turn on the TV news without seeing hippies trying to save a coal-burning power plant.
 
2013-06-24 02:04:53 PM  
www.ifc.com

Say hello to my little FLOOD!
 
2013-06-24 02:05:00 PM  
No it won't.
 
2013-06-24 02:05:03 PM  

italie: Has anyone said "good" yet?

//just promise me hotlanta is safe...


Saras'ta better
 
2013-06-24 02:05:24 PM  

chimp_ninja: djh0101010: SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it. Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real. If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life. Fill every appropriate roof with them. Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.

You sort of have to do both, however.  Otherwise, a year later the person who is doing the right thing (generating electricity by PV) but doesn't understand why continues to make long-term decisions (buying a gas guzzler, not recycling aluminum, eating tons of meat, etc.) without regard for externalities.


Sure, but that wasn't really my point.  I'll try again.  Even if you can't agree on, or quantify, or you don't care about the CO2 offets and thermal benefits, it STILL makes sense just on the Return On Investment perspective.

Either way, whatever reason is causing someone to do something that's helpful, it doesn't matter, because even if they're doing it due to greed rather than environmental concern, they're helping the situation a LOT more than someone who just goes on a website and plays the "yes it is/no it isn't" game.
 
2013-06-24 02:06:49 PM  

tampaflacouple: Well, well well..... looks like all of that Florida bashing you farkers do is going to come back to haunt your crotchfruit and their crotchfruit. If Miami goes under then YOU folks up North better learn to speak whatever 3rd word gibberish those people speak and get real used to the fact that THEY will control your town or city, not you my friend.

Ah yes payback.... Karma she is a sweetheart, too damn bad I will be dead and gone and unable to enjoy the show.



So you're saying we should build a wall?
 
2013-06-24 02:06:51 PM  
I wish I could be around to see some of this shiat happen.
 
2013-06-24 02:06:52 PM  
I swear, some you around here need to go back to physics 101
 
2013-06-24 02:09:07 PM  
Bullfarkingshiat

www.psmsl.org

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here
 
2013-06-24 02:09:14 PM  

FrancoFile: SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it. Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real. If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life. Fill every appropriate roof with them. Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.


Not trying to buzzkill you here, but solar cells are not consequence free. You do understand that we have to use hazardous chemicals to make photoelectric cells, right? Arsenic, Chlorine, etc? Every ton of arsenic you mine = X grams of arsenic released into the air or water.


How does that compare to the tons of CO2 that don't need to be produced by fossil fuels, for the lifetime output of that panel?  Be sure to include the nasty byproducts of combustion, too.  Not sure how arsenic in my panels is hurting the environment, it was taken OUT of the environment and put into my panels, where they stay.  Also, the 25 year life I mentioned is just the warranty life; my electrician re-deployed some 20 year old panels (made with 20 year old technology), and they were only down to 85% of rated output (plastics between the glass and cells were visibly yellowed).  Unless they get physically broken, the chance of those chemicals re-entering the environment are low or zero.
 
2013-06-24 02:09:39 PM  

Eponymous: Do you honestly think that we can't come up with a solution to the problem over the next 100 years as technology continues to advance along Moores Law?


Technology does not advance along Moore's law. The density of transistors we can put on a chip advances along Moore's law.

Which has fark all effect on how we burn fossil fuel.
 
2013-06-24 02:10:49 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here


Your chart stops over 30 years ago AND it shows a steady rise, genius.
 
2013-06-24 02:11:32 PM  

jaytkay: Eponymous: Do you honestly think that we can't come up with a solution to the problem over the next 100 years as technology continues to advance along Moores Law?

Technology does not advance along Moore's law. The density of transistors we can put on a chip advances along Moore's law.

Which has fark all effect on how we burn fossil fuel.


WE WANT MORE WE WANT MORE (sex)!!

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-06-24 02:14:34 PM  

Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.


What happened is that the leveeing of the Mississippi river has stopped the natural silt depositing (which is also why you're seeing the wetlands vanish).

So is there no chance of talking about population reform or are we just going to let our own ignorance sort it out in a much more graphic and horrifying way?
 
2013-06-24 02:14:38 PM  

jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Your chart stops over 30 years ago AND it shows a steady rise, genius.


Sure, steady as it's always been. So what? Here's the more recent data

www.psmsl.org
 
2013-06-24 02:15:12 PM  
Right now a big debate in my neck of the woods is for/against construction of a multi-million dollar terminal to ship coal to China. Seems awfully short sighted for us to do this when we are facing the loss of so much coastal lands world-wide. Anything for a buck. It's the American way.

We are endangering our own long term survival by not developing new technologies for power generation. Poisoning the planet with coal emissions and nuclear waste so we can use 200 year old technology for power is just dumb!
 
2013-06-24 02:16:30 PM  

gameshowhost: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.

*paying = paying a whole bunch more than the average share. whole. bunch. more.


Hmm. Denier Tax. I like it!
 
2013-06-24 02:18:30 PM  

Raoul Eaton: misanthropologist: vpb: cman:
Climate change is a problem. If you don't believe me, then believe Carl Sagan, who was a political socialist, and he advocated the use of nuclear power as a way to help ease climate change. Yes, Mr Super-duper-left Carl Sagan said that nuclear power was clean and safe.

So did James Lovelock and others.

Best worst option. And I don't think either of them would have really defended "clean and safe" so much as "cleaner and safer given the current problem of excessive GHG emissions and their short and long-term effects."

None of them seem to address the economics of nuclear power, which is a problem even if you pretend there will never be another Chernobyl or Fukushima.  Nuke plants are very expensive to build and stupefyingly expensive to decommission, and they don't really last that long.  And, more than a half century into the nuclear power industry, we still can't get anyone to agree on how to handle waste disposal.  Having brought that last item up, though, I'm sure a few farkers can come up with quick, easy, uncontroversial solutions that no one thought of before.


The French are okay with it. Why do we have such hang ups?
 
2013-06-24 02:19:09 PM  

Eponymous: but you don't need to work about deniers....you need to worry about China and India.


China put a carbon tax into their next 5-year plan.  They seem to think that widespread environmental riots over air pollution are a threat to the Party's stability.  Admittedly, it a small tax, but what is the U.S. doing again?

Stand back and take a look at the leaps in technology in 50 years...computers, internet, space travel, wireless communications.  Do you honestly think that we can't come up with a solution to the problem over the next 100 years as technology continues to advance along Moores Law?

Waiting around for technology alone to save the day isn't going to solve the problem.  At least, not on its own.  There are huge time lags between the research of new technologies, to development, to widespread deployment; there are further time lags between reduction in emissions and consequent reductions in climate change.  That means we need to be taking large steps to reduce emissions  now,not 50 years from now.  Technology is part of that solution, through both energy efficiency and non-fossil energy sources.  The problem is that there isn't sufficient economic incentive to develop and adopt them.  The price of fossil fuels is artificially low because it does not account for environmental costs (and, somewhat, because they're subsidized).  Even when technologies exist, there aren't sufficient economic incentives for people to actually use them to reduce fossil energy consumption.

Finally, the oceans are going to rise 3 feet in 50 years?  Really, is that coming from the same models that have been predicting temps would be going up for the last decade?

No, that's not a prediction of climate models.  See meanmutton's post.

You can believe in climate change but still believe that their models are farked up and their predictions are bullshiat.

You are confused about what climate models are intended to do.  They are not making 15-year forecasts.  They are run freely from pre-industrial conditions without assimilating any historical data, which means that they cannot predict short-term climate fluctuations in the sense that weather models do.  They can only predict average responses to greenhouse gases (what you would get if you ran the climate forward many times and then averaged out the natural cycles).  This is why the IPCC calls the output of the models "projections", and not "predictions".  As the greenhouse gas contribution becomes larger, the natural fluctuations which get averaged out will become relatively less important.  Right now, they are still important.  In the next 10 years or so, the algorithmic technology to make weather-like decadal climate forecasts will exist, and we can see how well they do.  But as of now, decadal-scale temperature trends say almost nothing about the true skill of climate models for long-range projections.  You have to look at average behavior over longer historical time periods.
 
2013-06-24 02:19:27 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here


Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

www.psmsl.org
 
2013-06-24 02:20:15 PM  

cman: I am serious, fellow righties.

Embracing the reality of climate change means that we can get what we want, nuclear power.

This is what all of us wanted. It is here for our taking. Grab it.


I thought you guys were huge on coal? Because libs hate strip mining or something.
 
2013-06-24 02:22:59 PM  

pivazena: Now take the same glass, add lots of ice-- so that there is ice stacked over the top of the glass, then add water to the top of the glass.  Now when the ice melts-- including all the ice that's not in the glass, but is above the glass and resting on the ice below it -- will the cup overflow?

That above-the-glass ice represents all of the glaciers, as well as the polar ice caps.  All above ice, all melting and flowing into the sea


So you mean to tell me that "just the tip of the iceberg" is a bullshiat figure of speech??
 
2013-06-24 02:23:07 PM  

jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Your chart stops over 30 years ago AND it shows a steady rise, genius.


1980 looks higher to you than 1960? Really??
 
2013-06-24 02:23:12 PM  
catastrophe is profitable for companies with government contracts. it'll be the next war money grab.
 
2013-06-24 02:26:39 PM  

djh0101010: FrancoFile: SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it. Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real. If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life. Fill every appropriate roof with them. Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.


Not trying to buzzkill you here, but solar cells are not consequence free. You do understand that we have to use hazardous chemicals to make photoelectric cells, right? Arsenic, Chlorine, etc? Every ton of arsenic you mine = X grams of arsenic released into the air or water.

How does that compare to the tons of CO2 that don't need to be produced by fossil fuels, for the lifetime output of that panel?  Be sure to include the nasty byproducts of combustion, too.  Not sure how arsenic in my panels is hurting the environment, it was taken OUT of the environment and put into my panels, where they stay.  Also, the 25 year life I mentioned is just the warranty life; my electrician re-deployed some 20 year old panels (made with 20 year old technology), and they were only down to 85% of rated output (plastics between the glass and cells were visibly yellowed).  Unless they get physically broken, the chance of those chemicals re-entering the environment are low or zero.



First of all, I'm not a whargarbl denier.  I'm merely pointing out that PV panels are not a panacea.

Second, you don't understand the manufacturing process at all.

Let's just take arsenic as an example.  Arsenic bound into rock is very stable.  But when you mine that rock, you crush it, which releases dust, which gets into the air and water and disperses widely.  Then you have to refine it and transport it (ditto).  Then when you use it to create GaAs or to dope Si, it gets into all of the manufacturing equipment (which eventually has to be replaced/repaired/disposed of).

My point is that there are tradeoffs for EVERYTHING, and just because you've got PV panels doesn't mean you've done your job and everyone else can go screw themselves.
 
2013-06-24 02:27:10 PM  

tampaflacouple: Well, well well..... looks like all of that Florida bashing you farkers do is going to come back to haunt your crotchfruit and their crotchfruit. If Miami goes under then YOU folks up North better learn to speak whatever 3rd word gibberish those people speak and get real used to the fact that THEY will control your town or city, not you my friend.

Ah yes payback.... Karma she is a sweetheart, too damn bad I will be dead and gone and unable to enjoy the show.


The civil war ended around 150 years ago brah, get over it. This North v South make believe cold war doesn't really exist when talking about Florida..EVERYONE thinks Florida is a geriatric hellhole sucking the life out of the rest of the country.  Also, you must be a load of fun at parties, especially ones where people are speaking some "3rd word gibberish"
 
2013-06-24 02:27:10 PM  
www.bannerblog.com.au
 
2013-06-24 02:29:43 PM  
 
2013-06-24 02:29:59 PM  

FloydA: Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: Galloping Galoshes: FloydA: A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean. The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished. The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

Precisely how natural is a pond that owes its existence to a concrete wall?


Um... Not very.  Apparently I'm missing your point.    Could you explain to me why that is relevant?

Better?

The heating is natural (geothermal vent), so it is a natural hot spring protected by an artificial wall.

How is that relevant to the fact that it will be sad when the site is flooded?  I'm not following your logic, sorry.  I probably need more coffee.


I was objecting to your discription of it as a natural pool, since it owes its existence to a man-made wall.  Never mind.  Go enjoy it as long as it's there.
 
2013-06-24 02:30:26 PM  

DesertDemonWY: jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Your chart stops over 30 years ago AND it shows a steady rise, genius.

Sure, steady as it's always been. So what? Here's the more recent data

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]


That's not Miami. The scale is off by a meter.

What are you getting out of this? Is being dishonest fun for you?
 
2013-06-24 02:31:47 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Galloping Galoshes: Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary. If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming. Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...

If only our analyses of global temperature trends could be more sophisticated than a simple up or down switch. Curse you nature, for only providing binary choices!


Talking heads on TV would explode.
 
2013-06-24 02:32:00 PM  

FrancoFile: /I think you underestimate the nastiness of the stuff involved in manufacturing doped silicon - or even worse, GaAs


Let's go with your "even worse".  I'll go ahead and run my house using GaAs panels, because apparently I'm really rich.  50 microns x 20 m^2 (~5000W peak for pedestrian GaAs) would easily produce ~100 MJ each day, at average US latitudes (~5 kWh/day/m^2, seasonally averaged).  Over the 30 year operating life of my panels, that works out to roughly ~1 TJ.

What's that in terms of coal?  Coal's energy density is ~24 MJ/kg, and you're burning it at no better than 40% efficiency, especially after transmission.  That's about 10 kg of coal every day, or about 114 metric tons after 30 years.

So yeah, there's some nasty stuff used in making 1 liter of solar-grade GaAs.  Or 20 liters of solar-grade Si.  It'll take some energy to make those crystals, too.  But we're comparing it to a current system where a viable alternative is 114 metric tons of coal.

(Worried about arsenic?  Appalachian coal is ~20 ppm arsenic, so after you've burned 114 metric tons, you've made ~2.3 kg of arsenic as a dilute aerosol. mixed in with all sorts of other nastiness.  That's roughly the same amount of arsenic in that 1L chunk of GaAs I'm using, except mine is bound up in 1L of pure solid that gets recycled.)
 
2013-06-24 02:32:34 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]


No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980
 
2013-06-24 02:33:29 PM  

DesertDemonWY: jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Your chart stops over 30 years ago AND it shows a steady rise, genius.

Sure, steady as it's always been. So what? Here's the more recent data

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]


So, from 1930-1980, the level was 6800-7400 mm.  We skip to 1995, and from there to roughly now, it's been 5600-6400 mm.  That's what you're showing me, correct?  I'm not misreading that?
 
2013-06-24 02:33:42 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980


I see that trends are a foreign concept to you huh?
 
2013-06-24 02:35:04 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980


I'm not sure where he got that last graph. I can't seem to find it on the website.
 
2013-06-24 02:35:27 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese


jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Your chart stops over 30 years ago AND it shows a steady rise, genius.

1980 looks higher to you than 1960? Really??


Yes, because 1980 is represented by a single dot that is not connected to the rest of the graph for some reason.

1960 is below 7060 (y-axis). 1980 is above 7060.
 
2013-06-24 02:35:27 PM  

DesertDemonWY: 1948 was higher than 1980


Cherry-picking two data points to "disprove" a decades-long trend. Are you dumb or innumerate?

WhyNotBoth.jpg

I have to ask again. What are you getting out of this? Is being dishonest fun for you?
 
2013-06-24 02:36:26 PM  

FloydA: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

I was thinking about that just this morning.  This is Ahalanui Park:
[i105.photobucket.com image 640x480]
A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean.  The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished.  The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

A rise in sea level will drown this place, and that will be a tragic loss.


Indeed.  Where will they ever find another place to build a concrete wall by an ocean?

Is that really the best you can do?
 
2013-06-24 02:36:57 PM  

chimp_ninja: FrancoFile: /I think you underestimate the nastiness of the stuff involved in manufacturing doped silicon - or even worse, GaAs

Let's go with your "even worse".  I'll go ahead and run my house using GaAs panels, because apparently I'm really rich.  50 microns x 20 m^2 (~5000W peak for pedestrian GaAs) would easily produce ~100 MJ each day, at average US latitudes (~5 kWh/day/m^2, seasonally averaged).  Over the 30 year operating life of my panels, that works out to roughly ~1 TJ.

What's that in terms of coal?  Coal's energy density is ~24 MJ/kg, and you're burning it at no better than 40% efficiency, especially after transmission.  That's about 10 kg of coal every day, or about 114 metric tons after 30 years.

So yeah, there's some nasty stuff used in making 1 liter of solar-grade GaAs.  Or 20 liters of solar-grade Si.  It'll take some energy to make those crystals, too.  But we're comparing it to a current system where a viable alternative is 114 metric tons of coal.

(Worried about arsenic?  Appalachian coal is ~20 ppm arsenic, so after you've burned 114 metric tons, you've made ~2.3 kg of arsenic as a dilute aerosol. mixed in with all sorts of other nastiness.  That's roughly the same amount of arsenic in that 1L chunk of GaAs I'm using, except mine is bound up in 1L of pure solid that gets recycled.)


Dude.  I AGREE WITH YOU

SOLAR IS BETTER THAN COAL


I'm arguing solar vs fission
 
2013-06-24 02:37:18 PM  

Momzilla59: Right now a big debate in my neck of the woods is for/against construction of a multi-million dollar terminal to ship coal to China. Seems awfully short sighted for us to do this when we are facing the loss of so much coastal lands world-wide. Anything for a buck. It's the American way.

We are endangering our own long term survival by not developing new technologies for power generation. Poisoning the planet with coal emissions and nuclear waste so we can use 200 year old technology for power is just dumb!


Does solar electric meet your criteria?  If not, why not?
 
2013-06-24 02:37:44 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980

I'm not sure where he got that last graph. I can't seem to find it on the website.


It was the next closest station, Virginia Key, FL. The Miami Beach data only went to 1980.
 
2013-06-24 02:37:59 PM  

DesertDemonWY: No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980


You're not good at noticing trends.

I take that back.  You're a proven liar portraying a guy who is not good at noticing trends.
 
2013-06-24 02:38:21 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Yup. 16 years of no warming. It must suck to see that you've been lied to for so long.


So when the scientist's data showed warming they were all liars who were manipulating data for grant money.

But now their data shows a short flat spot it is suddenly trustworthy? And what about all that grant money? Why did all the scientists give up on this cash cow???

Please explain this radical shift in the trustworthiness of temperature data and the sudden onset of honesty from the scientists.

I suspect Smeggy is not going to be up to the task so maybe other deniers can answer my question.
 
2013-06-24 02:39:50 PM  

djh0101010: Galloping Galoshes: Smeggy Smurf: chimp_ninja: Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible? The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago. If anything the overall temperature is going down.

16.  Huh.  what an unusual number to choose.

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842 1 366.html

Yup.  16 years of no warming.  It must suck to see that you've been lied to for so long.

Any timeline chosen is by nature arbitrary.  If you go back to the mid 1800's, there's been a long trend of warming.  Go back farther, and you'll notice a long trend of cooling, preceded by a warm trend, preceded by...

SO we can argue about "Yes it is", "no it isn't", or we can do something about it.  Invest in solar panels - profit in 6 years, 25 year life, and just might help the problem, if global warming is real.  If it's not, then all it does is provide profit in 6 years with 25 year life.  Fill every appropriate roof with them.  Think of the energy savings and job creation, environmental benefits aside.


Commiehippy! That's Commiehippyism!
 
2013-06-24 02:40:25 PM  

jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: 1948 was higher than 1980

Cherry-picking two data points to "disprove" a decades-long trend. Are you dumb or innumerate?

WhyNotBoth.jpg

I have to ask again. What are you getting out of this? Is being dishonest fun for you?


How am I being dishonest? I'm not denying the trend, only showing that there is no increase in the rate of rise
 
2013-06-24 02:40:32 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980

I'm not sure where he got that last graph. I can't seem to find it on the website.

It was the next closest station, Virginia Key, FL. The Miami Beach data only went to 1980.


Marathon FL is like the best place for finding jobs.  They got like  a PUBLIX.
 
2013-06-24 02:42:02 PM  

FrancoFile: First of all, I'm not a whargarbl denier. I'm merely pointing out that PV panels are not a panacea.

Second, you don't understand the manufacturing process at all.

Let's just take arsenic as an example. Arsenic bound into rock is very stable. But when you mine that rock, you crush it, which releases dust, which gets into the air and water and disperses widely. Then you have to refine it and transport it (ditto). Then when you use it to create GaAs or to dope Si, it gets into all of the manufacturing equipment (which eventually has to be replaced/repaired/disposed of).

My point is that there are tradeoffs for EVERYTHING, and just because you've got PV panels doesn't mean you've done your job and everyone else can go screw themselves.


Maybe you've confused me with someone who has attacked you, but, I haven't.  Not sure where the attitude came from.

I _do_ understand the manufacturing process.  I also understand that they have control systems and necessary and appropriate precautions in place when handling, you know, arsenic and stuff.  Yeah, dust would be a problem, they probably manage to deal with that effectively.  Regardless, I wonder what the mass of doped silicon is used by the solar power industry vs. the computer chip industry.  I don't know.  Is it 100:1, 1:100, or about even?  I have no idea.  Pretty sure an industry that size has it figured out, though.

I also don't know where you got a "go screw themselves" message out of what I posted.  The closest I came was "arguing about it on a website doesn't accomplish anything; go out and plant some trees or put up some solar panels or something".
 
2013-06-24 02:42:14 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?


Florida is very flat.  When the slope of the land at the current shore line is shallow, small changes in sea level have a widespread effect.  I can't find a link to that google map app that lets you change the sea level, but Miami goes under quickly.  The results are sometimes counterintuitive--the central valley of California becomes an inland sea, while SF has lost little more than Fisherman's Wharf, because SF is steep and hilly.  One of the popular Carribean islands also has very little land more than a few meters above current sea level--I can't remember if it is Bahama or Bermuda.  (Many "islands" are really just sandbars that have developed topsoil.)  I haven't looked at Hawaii, but it has a lot of topography--the current beaches and the most expensive real estate might be toast, but the islands as a whole will probably OK for quite a while.
 
2013-06-24 02:43:44 PM  

letrole: In 1995, Carl Sagan was in the same room as Richard Dawkins at the University of Bern.

The meeting generated a super-charged plasma ball of incandescent smarmy douche that could power a city the size of Doncaster for two weeks.


But instead it was sucked into the black hole of your intelligence and caused no measurable effect on your vacuousness.
 
2013-06-24 02:46:22 PM  

flondrix: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

Florida is vacuousvery flat.  When the slope of the land at the current shore line is shallow, small changes in sea level have a widespread effect.  I can't find a link to that google map app that lets you change the sea level, but Miami goes under quickly.  The results are sometimes counterintuitive--the central valley of California becomes an inland sea, while SF has lost little more than Fisherman's Wharf, because SF is steep and hilly.  One of the popular Carribean islands also has very little land more than a few meters above current sea level--I can't remember if it is Bahama or Bermuda.  (Many "islands" are really just sandbars that have developed topsoil.)  I haven't looked at Hawaii, but it has a lot of topography--the current beaches and the most expensive real estate might be toast, but the islands as a whole will probably OK for quite a while.

 
2013-06-24 02:46:52 PM  

DesertDemonWY: jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: 1948 was higher than 1980

Cherry-picking two data points to "disprove" a decades-long trend. Are you dumb or innumerate?

WhyNotBoth.jpg

I have to ask again. What are you getting out of this? Is being dishonest fun for you?

How am I being dishonest? I'm not denying the trend, only showing that there is no increase in the rate of rise


Your dishonesty is not being questioned.

The question is why? Do you enjoy lying? Are you paid to do it?
 
2013-06-24 02:48:29 PM  

jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: jaytkay: DesertDemonWY: 1948 was higher than 1980

Cherry-picking two data points to "disprove" a decades-long trend. Are you dumb or innumerate?

WhyNotBoth.jpg

I have to ask again. What are you getting out of this? Is being dishonest fun for you?

How am I being dishonest? I'm not denying the trend, only showing that there is no increase in the rate of rise

Your dishonesty is not being questioned.

The question is why? Do you enjoy lying? Are you paid to do it?


Who cares why and or if he's wrong.  What are YOU doing about it?  Actually doing?  Arguing on a website, or something useful?
 
2013-06-24 02:49:01 PM  

DesertDemonWY: I'm not denying the trend


Oh?

DesertDemonWY: only showing that there is no increase in the rate of rise


Wait, but you said...huh?
 
2013-06-24 02:49:49 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

No reason. But now that you've pointed it out, it's much easier to see in the yearly data that 1948 was higher than 1980

I'm not sure where he got that last graph. I can't seem to find it on the website.

It was the next closest station, Virginia Key, FL. The Miami Beach data only went to 1980.

Marathon FL is like the best place for finding jobs.  They got like  a PUBLIX.


Hey, don't talk shiat about Publix!
 
2013-06-24 02:50:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Galloping Galoshes: BitwiseShift: I, for one, will miss mainland Cuba.

There'll be plenty of Cuba left.  It just won't be 90 miles from Key West anymore.

I believe he was referring to Little Havana, or maybe just Miami in general.

In the US Miami, NYC, New Orleans, and the VA Tidewater area are the most at risk to flooding due to climate change.  What's interesting is that according to this report, China has the most to potentially lose from rising sea levels, yet they're responsible for almost a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and while the US is starting to trend down, China is spiking with a huge upsurge.


Counter-intuitive, I suppose, if we think people take long-term, large-scale consequences of short-term, small-scale actions into consideration.

On the other hand, let's not blame China for the world's problems. Why is it that China is producing such high GHG emissions? Might it have something to do with the last 30-40 years of "development" there and how it depends on producing goods for consumption in more affluent countries? When it comes to climate, just like when it comes to the economy, national borders are relatively insignificant.
 
2013-06-24 02:51:11 PM  

FrancoFile: chimp_ninja: FrancoFile: /I think you underestimate the nastiness of the stuff involved in manufacturing doped silicon - or even worse, GaAs

Let's go with your "even worse".  I'll go ahead and run my house using GaAs panels, because apparently I'm really rich.  50 microns x 20 m^2 (~5000W peak for pedestrian GaAs) would easily produce ~100 MJ each day, at average US latitudes (~5 kWh/day/m^2, seasonally averaged).  Over the 30 year operating life of my panels, that works out to roughly ~1 TJ.

What's that in terms of coal?  Coal's energy density is ~24 MJ/kg, and you're burning it at no better than 40% efficiency, especially after transmission.  That's about 10 kg of coal every day, or about 114 metric tons after 30 years.

So yeah, there's some nasty stuff used in making 1 liter of solar-grade GaAs.  Or 20 liters of solar-grade Si.  It'll take some energy to make those crystals, too.  But we're comparing it to a current system where a viable alternative is 114 metric tons of coal.

(Worried about arsenic?  Appalachian coal is ~20 ppm arsenic, so after you've burned 114 metric tons, you've made ~2.3 kg of arsenic as a dilute aerosol. mixed in with all sorts of other nastiness.  That's roughly the same amount of arsenic in that 1L chunk of GaAs I'm using, except mine is bound up in 1L of pure solid that gets recycled.)

Dude.  I AGREE WITH YOU.  SOLAR IS BETTER THAN COAL

I'm arguing solar vs fission


Wait.  You're concerned about making 1L of GaAs, but not in processing/disposing the ~0.1-1.0kg of U-235 (which itself came from 10-100 kg of pure natural uranium) that would be used to deliver that TJ?  (Keep in mind that fission plants run at ~20% efficiency, plus it's centralized so you're dealing with transmission, etc.)

Why would ~2.5 kg of arsenic be more of a concern than ~10 kg of uranium?  Keep in mind that once you have it, the GaAs basically just requires encapsulating and wiring.  That U-235 requires an entire power plant, including massive diversions of water, concrete, etc., along with tons of electronics (made from...), etc.

I happen to like fission as a baseload solution, but it's a necessary evil compared to wind/PV.  And yes, everything is much, much better than coal/oil/gas.
 
2013-06-24 02:53:27 PM  

djh0101010: I _do_ understand the manufacturing process.  I also understand that they have control systems and necessary and appropriate precautions in place when handling, you know, arsenic and stuff.  Yeah, dust would be a problem, they probably manage to deal with that effectively.  Regardless, I wonder what the mass of doped silicon is used by the solar power industry vs. the computer chip industry.  I don't know.  Is it 100:1, 1:100, or about even?  I have no idea.  Pretty sure an industry that size has it figured out, though.


It has been years since the silicon PV industry could piggyback on the silicon production of the electronics industry.  Think about it--how much actual silicon is in a laptop computer or tablet, as opposed to printed circuit board, potting compound, etc.?  Now picture a rooftop covered with solar panels, where most of the area you see is solid silicon a third of a millimeter thick.

About arsenic--the amount of arsenic needed to dope silicon is many orders of magnitude less than the amount that goes into making bulk gallium arsenide.  One of the "pros" of silicon as a PV material is that the bulk constituent is literally as common as dirt, and only trace amounts of more exotic elements are needed.
 
2013-06-24 02:54:14 PM  

flondrix: I can't find a link to that google map app that lets you change the sea level, but Miami goes under quickly.


According to this map, 3 feet of sea level rise would submerge 6% of the current population of Miami, 10% of the homes, and 7% of the land area.
 
2013-06-24 02:57:51 PM  
Because humans exist the planets weather must never change!
 
2013-06-24 02:59:35 PM  

djh0101010: Who cares why and or if he's wrong. What are YOU doing about it? Actually doing? Arguing on a website, or something useful?


I'm not chiming in every 2 minutes with a post starting with, "When I was telling you about my solar panels did I happen to mention my solar panels. Well, never mind, let's talk about my solar panels instead.".

So obviously every day I drive my coal-fired Hummer to my job at the plant where we manufacture PCB-laced baby formula.
 
2013-06-24 03:00:25 PM  

Ambitwistor: flondrix: I can't find a link to that google map app that lets you change the sea level, but Miami goes under quickly.

According to this map, 3 feet of sea level rise would submerge 6% of the current population of Miami, 10% of the homes, and 7% of the land area.


And that's just the geographical result of the rise.

That doesn't take the other consequences into consideration.

Thank you for posting the link.
 
2013-06-24 03:01:37 PM  

cman: I am serious, fellow righties.

Embracing the reality of climate change means that we can get what we want, nuclear power.

This is what all of us wanted. It is here for our taking. Grab it.


So you are cool with us storing all that nuclear waste in your back yard until we can figure out what to do with it?

Excellent!! I'll let the folks at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation know where to ship shiat.
 
2013-06-24 03:02:56 PM  

FLMountainMan: FloydA: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

I was thinking about that just this morning.  This is Ahalanui Park:
[i105.photobucket.com image 640x480]
A concrete wall separates this pond from the ocean.  The wall is low enough that waves crash above it at high tide; that and rainfall keep the pond replenished.  The water is constantly warmed to about 90 degrees F, and is the most relaxing natural hot pond I have ever visited.

A rise in sea level will drown this place, and that will be a tragic loss.

Indeed.  Where will they ever find another place to build a concrete wall by an ocean?

Is that really the best you can do?


Were you accidentally dropped on your head as a child, or was it deliberate?
 
2013-06-24 03:08:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: I'm not denying the trend

Oh?

DesertDemonWY: only showing that there is no increase in the rate of rise

Wait, but you said...huh?


Study it out, lib...
 
2013-06-24 03:09:51 PM  

bangman: Because humans exist the planets weather must never change!


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-24 03:10:29 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.


Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.
 
2013-06-24 03:14:06 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.


I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.
 
2013-06-24 03:14:11 PM  

bangman: Because humans exist the planets weather must never change!


Why do deniers always fall back on this strawman?

Please quote anywhere any climate scientists making this statement.
 
2013-06-24 03:14:31 PM  

djh0101010: Momzilla59: Right now a big debate in my neck of the woods is for/against construction of a multi-million dollar terminal to ship coal to China. Seems awfully short sighted for us to do this when we are facing the loss of so much coastal lands world-wide. Anything for a buck. It's the American way.

We are endangering our own long term survival by not developing new technologies for power generation. Poisoning the planet with coal emissions and nuclear waste so we can use 200 year old technology for power is just dumb!

Does solar electric meet your criteria?  If not, why not?


It's a very good start but the acceptance and use of it is taking far too long to take hold. It also needs a relatively large area for the energy generated. We need something that has the comparable output of coal and nuclear energy without the waste. I'm hoping for fission in my lifetime but I realize it's a long shot.

The upshot is I don't know what to use. Solar needs to come down in cost before it will be more widely used. Wind power is great - unless you live near the turbines. Hydro power is also pretty good if you can get past the whole "driving salmon extinct" part. We don't have any technology that is perfect - just some that is better than others.
 
2013-06-24 03:18:33 PM  

Farking Canuck: bangman: Because humans exist the planets weather must never change!

Why do deniers always fall back on this strawman?

Please quote anywhere any climate scientists making this statement.


I suspect that if citations were important to these types,they wouldn't be so ignorant on the science behind climate change.
 
2013-06-24 03:24:00 PM  
we are part of the evolution of the planet and I believe our existence is just temporary. If we are evil to the planet then let mother nature wipe us out. Civilizations come and go and so will we.
 
2013-06-24 03:24:45 PM  
Yikes! Everybody run! It's just like al gore predicted before flying his big jet across the ocean to snag his peace prize. We've already lost Manhatten now we're gonna lose Florida! When will this global cooling/warming/climate change/warming again ever end.
If only we could get a president that would waste some tax money on greeny weenie ideas. If his political friends made a buck at our expense, that would be ok too as long as we fixed the problem. I'm sooo ascared!
 
2013-06-24 03:26:15 PM  

bangman: we are part of the evolution of the planet and I believe our existence is just temporary. If we are evil to the planet then let mother nature wipe us out. Civilizations come and go and so will we.


That's like deciding to drive off the Grand Canyon just because humans are mortal.
 
2013-06-24 03:26:51 PM  

Deathfrogg: It's been estimated that a six foot increase in the ocean level would displace about 3.5 billion people. And it can happen very quickly, in the space of months.


Wow. Incredible. Half the population of the planet live within about 5 miles of the coast and huge amounts of the ice sheet can melt in months?

Wow.
 
2013-06-24 03:27:03 PM  

Momzilla59: So you are cool with us storing all that nuclear waste in your back yard until we can figure out what to do with it?


Or how about we store it in the facility that was custom built for it at Yucca Mountain?  The locals actually lobbied for that site when it meant jobs and an influx of federal money, thought they would probably deny that now.
 
2013-06-24 03:27:43 PM  
Is there any way to speed things up?
 
2013-06-24 03:28:38 PM  

Bontesla: Slaves2Darkness: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.

I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.


I anticipate that hungry people will not have access to the truly rich
 
2013-06-24 03:29:59 PM  

Launch Code: Yikes! Everybody run! It's just like al gore predicted before flying his big jet across the ocean to snag his peace prize. We've already lost Manhatten now we're gonna lose Florida! When will this global cooling/warming/climate change/warming again ever end.
If only we could get a president that would waste some tax money on greeny weenie ideas. If his political friends made a buck at our expense, that would be ok too as long as we fixed the problem. I'm sooo ascared!


Is the Earth still flat for you?
 
2013-06-24 03:30:19 PM  

Bontesla: I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.


I anticipate all authority figures - financial, political, AND scientific - to become targets.

/everyone except religious authorities, really
//all according to plan of course... that's why the IPCC is run more like an astrologer's ministry or oracular temple than a research center
 
2013-06-24 03:31:19 PM  

bangman: we are part of the evolution of the planet and I believe our existence is just temporary. If we are evil to the planet then let mother nature wipe us out. Civilizations come and go and so will we.


You mind if we hold off until I'm outta here? I only need another 45 years on the outside ... probably less.

/Although I will take a bit of schadenfreude watching the red states burn over the next few decades. Looks like they are going to be the first to reap the rewards of their "do nothing" campaigns.
 
2013-06-24 03:31:50 PM  

dready zim: Bontesla: Slaves2Darkness: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.

I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.

I anticipate that hungry people will not have access to the truly rich


Well,it looks like we're going to see.
 
2013-06-24 03:32:55 PM  

Momzilla59: Wind power is great - unless you live near the turbines.


Has anyone shown, one way or the other, if extracting a an amount of wind energy sufficiency to meet an appreciable fraction of world electricity use would change the weather?
 
2013-06-24 03:34:15 PM  

Ambitwistor: flondrix: I can't find a link to that google map app that lets you change the sea level, but Miami goes under quickly.

According to this map, 3 feet of sea level rise would submerge 6% of the current population of Miami, 10% of the homes, and 7% of the land area.


You wouldn't want to live on the property that's only 6" above that elevation, though. Remember sea level elevation doesn't include wave action.

For that matter, land for a long way inland would turn into marsh with a 3' sea level rise. Trying to get water to drain after a storm would be nearly impossible; for example, Elizabeth City, NC already partially floods just from a moderate rain storm. The city is so close to the water elevation in the sound that rainfall just can't drain away quickly. Now raise the elevation 1 or 2 or 3 feet. Now multiply those kinds of problems by every coastal city in the Southeast and East Coasts.

/civil engineer
//looking forward to being employed for a long, long time
 
2013-06-24 03:38:33 PM  
Seriously. Anybody on FARK here really thinks we can change the climate on a massive scale fast enough to make a difference and have the rest of the world on the same page???? Common people get real. So many of you guys think your so important that you think you can make a difference. This all makes me laugh!!!! The fear mongering only happens with the right wingers I guess.
 
2013-06-24 03:41:48 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: How is this possible?  The unbiased data shows global warming stopped 16 years ago.  If anything the overall temperature is going down.  During the ice ages the sea levels dropped hundreds of feet.


You're wrong. The earth has always looked exactly like it does right now. And we MUST keep it that way! At any cost!
 
2013-06-24 03:41:50 PM  
Cyno01:

You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...


Well, what if you filled the glass to the top, then place a strainer with a few ice cubes above the glass. Wait til they melt (hint: they represent the ice on LAND across the globe). Then see if the glass overflows. Survey says? Yep.
 
2013-06-24 03:44:00 PM  

bangman: Seriously. Anybody on FARK here really thinks we can change the climate on a massive scale fast enough to make a difference and have the rest of the world on the same page???? Common people get real. So many of you guys think your so important that you think you can make a difference. This all makes me laugh!!!! The fear mongering only happens with the right wingers I guess.


If we can't do everything instantly, we might as well do nothing at all.
 
2013-06-24 03:44:00 PM  

dready zim: I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.

I anticipate that hungry people will not have access to the truly rich


When things get to that point, will the truly rich be that rich anymore?  If most of your wealth is in the form of intellectual property, bonds, mutual funds, derivatives, and bits in a database somewhere, but the power is out in NYC and the stock exchange hasn't traded for a couple weeks, what do you really own besides your mansion and the stuff in it?  Do you  have a way of paying your henchmen enough to remain loyal to you--a form of payment they can't just take away from you themselves if they begin to get antsy about their own future prospects?  A billion dollars in cash just means you will be one of the last people to run out of toilet paper; an equivalent amount of gold bullion is a very tempting and immobile target.

The one percent are only rich so long as the economy includes unwashed masses for them to be richer than.
 
2013-06-24 03:44:38 PM  

bangman: So many of you guys think your so important that you think you can make a difference. This all makes me laugh!!!! The fear mongering only happens with the right wingers I guess.


Nice. Firm support of the denier mantra: "Do nothing!!"

Your corporate masters must love you.

/note the correct use of the word 'your'
 
2013-06-24 03:44:52 PM  

Momzilla59: Does solar electric meet your criteria? If not, why not?

It's a very good start but the acceptance and use of it is taking far too long to take hold. It also needs a relatively large area for the energy generated. We need something that has the comparable output of coal and nuclear energy without the waste. I'm hoping for fission in my lifetime but I realize it's a long shot.


A 5 year payback isn't low enough price yet?  What is?  3?  1?

Millions of acres of sunlight falling onto the ground.  At 100 watts per square foot, and modern PV cells can capture 17% of that and turn it into electricity.  Pretty good for something with no moving parts.
 
2013-06-24 03:47:57 PM  

flondrix: When things get to that point, will the truly rich be that rich anymore? If most of your wealth is in the form of intellectual property, bonds, mutual funds, derivatives, and bits in a database somewhere, but the power is out in NYC and the stock exchange hasn't traded for a couple weeks, what do you really own besides your mansion and the stuff in it? Do you have a way of paying your henchmen enough to remain loyal to you--a form of payment they can't just take away from you themselves if they begin to get antsy about their own future prospects? A billion dollars in cash just means you will be one of the last people to run out of toilet paper; an equivalent amount of gold bullion is a very tempting and immobile target.

The one percent are only rich so long as the economy includes unwashed masses for them to be richer than.


Your scenario is probable if things ever reach that extreme. In the much shorter term the impact will more likely be extreme food prices, etc. The rich will have to employ a lot more security but they can afford it.
 
2013-06-24 03:48:29 PM  

FLMountainMan: gameshowhost: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.

*paying = paying a whole bunch more than the average share. whole. bunch. more.

So they will have to pay money for not espousing views that you like?  Sounds healthy.

How about we just pay based on consumption?  Wouldn't that be a little more rational?


How about they pay for the damage they *already* caused to society (actually to the entire planet) because of their scientific illiteracy and/or deliberate attempts to put their greedy little paws ahead of the lives of hundreds of millions of human beings, for the past decade+?

Consumption taxes can only address the now and the future.

Eponymous: gameshowhost: It's got to be more than that. The deniers will have to start paying* for their egregious stupidity, one way or another, or else there's no incentive for them to cease being egregiously stupid, both now and in the future.

*paying = paying a whole bunch more than the average share. whole. bunch. more.

I hate to bring this up because it looks like you're comfortable in your tiny little logic box....but you don't need to work about deniers....you need to worry about China and India.   The US represents only 4% of the population of those 2 countries...and having to travel to both of them, I can readily attest that the best air quality in China or India is much worse than the very worst fire/smog day in LA.   From an economic standpoint, why should the US seriously disadvantage ourselves by unilaterally taking on the cost of "not quite ready yet" green energy when China, Russia, and India aren't doing jack shiat to curb any of their emissions?  Stand back and take a look at the leaps in technology in 50 years...computers, internet, space travel, wireless communications.  Do you honestly think that we can't come up with a solution to the problem over the next 100 years as technology continues to advance along Moores Law?

Finally, the oceans are going to rise 3 feet in 50 years?  Really, is that coming from the same models that have been predicting temps would be going up for the last decade?  You can believe in climate change but still believe that their models are farked up and their predictions are bullshiat.  In my business, if I created forecasting models that were consistently wrong for the last 15 years, I'd be fired.  But in the climate world, you just get more grant money to do it right.   Once they start, getting their models tuned in to start predicting temperature changes that actually come to pass, I will start giving their forecasts on ocean levels some credence....until then, garbage in, garbage out.


So... no punitive measures for past damages, pointing to others and crying 'waaah why should we take the moral high ground and be the first to develop alternatives?' after we've been the nation that has profited the most from the industrial revolution, falsely claiming that we'd unilaterally bear all of the costs of taking the lead, an oddly-conflicting sentiment with 'we'll find something - no worries' and a paragraph of DYUUUURP.  Got it.

/gee i wonder.. if we'd taken alternative energy production by the ropes and had invested heavily, like, 35 yrs ago...
//*climbs white house roof, jumps up and down on solar panels* LOLOL CHANGE IS GHEY!!1
 
2013-06-24 03:48:34 PM  

vudukungfu: Turn it into a landfill. The entire state.


sourbrains.org

/and i live here...
 
2013-06-24 03:49:12 PM  

Cyno01: You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?


The level will neither rise NOR fall.  The floating ice displaces its mass in liquid water; as does the liquid water it becomes.  (Repeating the experiment with freshwater ice floating in sea water may produce a very slight drop in the level.)  Non-floating ice on land, on the other hand, is quite capable of raising sea level.
 
2013-06-24 03:51:00 PM  
we'll have our very own Venice
 
2013-06-24 03:52:21 PM  

bangman: Seriously. Anybody on FARK here really thinks we can change the climate on a massive scale fast enough to make a difference and have the rest of the world on the same page???? Common people get real. So many of you guys think your so important that you think you can make a difference. This all makes me laugh!!!! The fear mongering only happens with the right wingers I guess.


Common people get real what?
 
2013-06-24 03:52:33 PM  

flondrix: dready zim: I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.

I anticipate that hungry people will not have access to the truly rich

When things get to that point, will the truly rich be that rich anymore?  If most of your wealth is in the form of intellectual property, bonds, mutual funds, derivatives, and bits in a database somewhere, but the power is out in NYC and the stock exchange hasn't traded for a couple weeks, what do you really own besides your mansion and the stuff in it?  Do you  have a way of paying your henchmen enough to remain loyal to you--a form of payment they can't just take away from you themselves if they begin to get antsy about their own future prospects?  A billion dollars in cash just means you will be one of the last people to run out of toilet paper; an equivalent amount of gold bullion is a very tempting and immobile target.

The one percent are only rich so long as the economy includes unwashed masses for them to be richer than.


If society were to break down to that degree - only those that have built self-sustaining prisons will maintain some sort of connection to their wealth. It won't be in finances but in security, non-perishable food, access to medical supplies,etc.

But before it could even reach that point - wealth makes targets out of people when resources become strained enough.
 
2013-06-24 03:53:12 PM  
I'm the master of my own domain and not a denier. Just a realist and do not fear climate change. Thanks Canuck!
 
2013-06-24 03:57:06 PM  

bangman: I'm the master of my own domain and not a denier. Just a realist and do not fear climate change. Thanks Canuck!


And yet you make claims that fly directly in the face of the published science. How are you "not a denier" again?

You understand that the term applies to people who deny the evidence provided by the scientists studying the field. Calling yourself a realist because you've bought into the anti-science propaganda doesn't make it so.
 
2013-06-24 03:59:15 PM  

Bontesla: dready zim: Bontesla: Slaves2Darkness: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.

I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.

I anticipate that hungry people will not have access to the truly rich

Well,it looks like we're going to see.


First we storm the airports so the farkers can't escape..
 
2013-06-24 04:03:13 PM  

gameshowhost: /gee i wonder.. if we'd taken alternative energy production by the ropes and had invested heavily, like, 35 yrs ago...
//*climbs white house roof, jumps up and down on solar panels* LOLOL CHANGE IS GHEY!!1


The solar hot water panels that Carter put on the white house and Reagan removed were put into service at a college in Maine, until 2005.  Now a few of them are in museums, including a museum in China--where using similar panels to heat water is a going coincern:


farm6.staticflickr.comfarm6.staticflickr.com
 
2013-06-24 04:04:10 PM  
"The study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, also found that those who reject the scientific consensus on the human contribution to climate change are more likely to to reject other scientific findings such as the linkage between tobacco and lung cancer or between HIV and Aids.

The paper, titled "NASA faked the moon landing - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science", was based on a survey of more than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussion of climate change.

"We find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science," the paper says. "We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings."

The paper says that a staunch belief in free markets was an overwhelmingly strong factor in the rejection of climate science and was a stronger factor than conspiratorial thinking.

It surveyed people on attitudes to a range of conspiracy theories, including that the United States allowed the September 11 attacks to occur and that SARS was produced in a laboratory as a biological weapon."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9503044/C li mate-change-deniers-are-either-extreme-free-marketeers-or-conspiracy-t heorists.html

thespotts.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-24 04:05:48 PM  

gameshowhost: bangman: Seriously. Anybody on FARK here really thinks we can change the climate on a massive scale fast enough to make a difference and have the rest of the world on the same page???? Common people get real. So many of you guys think your so important that you think you can make a difference. This all makes me laugh!!!! The fear mongering only happens with the right wingers I guess.

Common people get real what?



db2.stb.s-msn.com

I don't even know what common people do.
 
2013-06-24 04:06:14 PM  
Not so much global warming as global wetting.

There's nothing you can do to stop it. Our planet is become a moister place. London will look like Venice.
 
2013-06-24 04:06:39 PM  

Two16: gameshowhost: bangman: Seriously. Anybody on FARK here really thinks we can change the climate on a massive scale fast enough to make a difference and have the rest of the world on the same page???? Common people get real. So many of you guys think your so important that you think you can make a difference. This all makes me laugh!!!! The fear mongering only happens with the right wingers I guess.

Common people get real what?




I don't even know what common people do.


Elitist.
 
2013-06-24 04:08:50 PM  

Farking Canuck: bangman: I'm the master of my own domain and not a denier. Just a realist and do not fear climate change. Thanks Canuck!

And yet you make claims that fly directly in the face of the published science. How are you "not a denier" again?

You understand that the term applies to people who deny the evidence provided by the scientists studying the field. Calling yourself a realist because you've bought into the anti-science propaganda doesn't make it so.


He's a denial denier. A meta denier.
 
2013-06-24 04:12:40 PM  

gameshowhost: "The study, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, also found that those who reject the scientific consensus on the human contribution to climate change are more likely to to reject other scientific findings such as the linkage between tobacco and lung cancer or between HIV and Aids.

The paper, titled "NASA faked the moon landing - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science", was based on a survey of more than 1000 visitors to blogs dedicated to discussion of climate change.

"We find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science," the paper says. "We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings."

The paper says that a staunch belief in free markets was an overwhelmingly strong factor in the rejection of climate science and was a stronger factor than conspiratorial thinking.

It surveyed people on attitudes to a range of conspiracy theories, including that the United States allowed the September 11 attacks to occur and that SARS was produced in a laboratory as a biological weapon."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9503044/C li mate-change-deniers-are-either-extreme-free-marketeers-or-conspiracy-t heorists.html

[thespotts.files.wordpress.com image 400x278]


Depends. How big a kettle are we talking about?
 
2013-06-24 04:13:16 PM  

bdub77: Wrong, wrong. Denial has crocodiles, Miami has alligators.


Miami has both.

www.miamibeach411.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_crocodile
 
2013-06-24 04:20:32 PM  

mikeray: A huge crock of shiat.


Yes, but how do we save Humanity?
 
2013-06-24 04:24:13 PM  
Regression analysis is taught in Math 095.

DesertDemonWY, why are you a farking retard?
 
2013-06-24 04:35:33 PM  
I'm the master of my own domain and not a denier. Just a realist and do not fear climate change. Thanks Canuck!

I'm not denying climate change dumb asses!
 
2013-06-24 04:36:22 PM  

Bontesla: Slaves2Darkness: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.

I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.


That is what the police and national guard are for, have you not learned anything from history? Just like back in 1900's they will gun down the rioters and protect the rich.
 
2013-06-24 04:48:17 PM  

bangman: I'm not denying climate change dumb asses!


So you agree that the evidence clearly supports the position that man's massive increase in our output of CO2 since the beginning of the 20th century has resulted in a warming of the planet that is outside of natural climate cycles and is faster than the natural climate cycles?

Great. Thanks for the support.
 
2013-06-24 04:51:40 PM  
Where will the cruise ships dock? Oh the tragic circumstances!
 
2013-06-24 04:55:06 PM  

Haoie: Where will the cruise ships dock? Oh the tragic circumstances!


I'm looking forward to the Nature Cruise of the Century!
 
2013-06-24 04:56:17 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Bontesla: Slaves2Darkness: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.

Worry about them? Hell man I'm planning on exploiting them for profit. By helping to monopolize water, increasing insurance rates, investing in home repair and disaster relief companies and patenting genes, although the Supreme Court dealt us a temporary setback there (DAM LIBERAL JUDGES!) I plan on making a massive fortune in the 21st century.

I hope you're going to build a very impressive fortress to protect that fortune. When the riots start, I anticipate financial kings to become targets.

That is what the police and national guard are for, have you not learned anything from history? Just like back in 1900's they will gun down the rioters and protect the rich.


Until their families are starving too. Then the rich start to look pretty tasty.
 
2013-06-24 05:05:28 PM  

probesport: Learn to swim.


Well played.
 
2013-06-24 05:12:23 PM  
More alarmist bullshiat
 
2013-06-24 05:19:04 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Andromeda: Shostie: AdolfOliverPanties: Why is Miami considered the biggest vulnerability?  What will this do to Hawaii, or the Bahama?  Is Miami one of those dumbass cities that is built below sea level, like New Orleans?

First off, New Orleans didn't "build below sea level," so much as the city is actively sinking. Because cities weigh a lot. And from what I understand they've been tapping into natural gas reserves below the city which hasn't been helping much.

Second, Miami is AT sea level. If a hurricane goes through, there's virtually nothing to cushion the blow.

IRC the last time a category 5 hurricane hit Miami in the 1930s it took like two decades to recover.  So we have that to look forward to someday sooner instead of later I'm sure...

I live in Amsterdam these days which is of course famously below sea level (they built my institute just outside of the big door they can automatically shut in the event of flooding in the barrier, so hooray I am left to die).  I'm sure a lot of the flooding protections they have in this country are going to seem commonplace in the lot of the USA as well sooner instead of later, it's just the Dutch have a few hundred year head start on a lot of these things.

Er, Hurricane Andrew was a Cat 5.


Sure was but it wasn't a direct eye hit on the city. Dammed close though.

I remember driving to escape it and some guy on the radio said it woul hit Miami between the M and the I.
 
2013-06-24 05:26:04 PM  

Maul555: More alarmist bullshiat


Is there any particular part of the consensus that you take issue with, or are you just broadly anti-science?
 
2013-06-24 05:26:47 PM  
Farking Canuck
So you agree that the evidence clearly supports the position that man's massive increase in our output of CO2 since the beginning of the 20th century has resulted in a warming of the planet that is outside of natural climate cycles and is faster than the natural climate cycles?

Great. Thanks for the support
.

Even if everyone on the planet started living green today it would not stop the warming. The cycles are FARKING out of control man!!!!!
 
2013-06-24 05:32:00 PM  

Evil High Priest: Maul555: More alarmist bullshiat

Is there any particular part of the consensus that you take issue with, or are you just broadly anti-science?


I tell ya what... I supposedly have a long time left on this earth... Hows about in 50 years if it looks like Miami has a few problems with water, Ill say your right...
 
2013-06-24 05:37:08 PM  

FloydA: A rise in sea level will drown this place, and that will be a tragic loss.


It exists due to a concrete wall.  Sea levels rise a bit, all you have to do is go in with some construction equipment and scoop out another pool area and construct another wall a little higher up.

As for Miami, I figure that you write off the lowest/worst placed homes and buildings, moving further inland.  For skyscraper type areas, you build seawalls and pumping systems like what New Orleans and much of Holland has.

Beyond that, I'd consider some sort of massive dredging project - reclaim enough material from the seafloor to raise the area a touch.

Of course, yes I support nuclear power as a sustaining measure until we can develop and deploy greener alternatives.  I LIKE the idea of green power.  I've calculated, for my house in Alaska:
1.  A solar electric system that would provide 100% of my power in the summer
2.  A solar heating system that, using an insulated 'bunker' under the house, would keep my house warm with minimal involvement of supplemental heating systems (still need something for -50 temperatures/extra nasty winters), only problem is that my back of envelope calcs estimated the cost starting at $100k(ouch!).  It would have used solar thermal panels in the summer to store the heat in the ground using PEX tubing wound throughout the box, then use the same PEX to heat water circulating through it to keep the house warm.
3.  Solar water heating just for summertime and just for hot water.

Can't make any of them make sense just yet.
 
2013-06-24 05:41:44 PM  

bangman: Even if everyone on the planet started living green today it would not stop the warming. The cycles are FARKING out of control man!!!!!


Stop the warming? Over what time frame?

We are actually on the down slope of the Milankovitch cycles so we should actually be cooling right now ... although at a rate so slow that people would not notice it over the course of an average life span.

Most people who understand the science realize that any progress now in renewable energies can only serve to possibly blunt the severity and/or shorten duration of AGW effects. Both of which are good things. Add to this the reduction in pollution/smog, the reduction of dependance on middle east oil, and the possibility of new industry in the green energy arena ... well it is win-win for everyone (except those that profit off of the status quo of course).

Why do you feel that following the denier mantra of "do nothing" is the correct move for us in either the short or long term?? If we are driving this bus into a wall and there is no way to avoid hitting it ... does that justify keeping your foot firmly on the accelerator?? Does it not make sense to hit the brakes in an attempt to reduce the carnage and save as many passengers as possible?
 
2013-06-24 05:42:28 PM  
Stupid to worry about, because we can't change it.  It's natural so we just have to deal with it. Warming will be a quick thing (geologically) before reglaciation. That's the real shiat your great-grandkids will have to learn to live with.
 
2013-06-24 05:50:25 PM  

Maul555: Evil High Priest: Maul555: More alarmist bullshiat

Is there any particular part of the consensus that you take issue with, or are you just broadly anti-science?

I tell ya what... I supposedly have a long time left on this earth... Hows about in 50 years if it looks like Miami has a few problems with water, Ill say your right...


I'll mark you down as just anti-science then.

Here, have one of these:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9503044/C li mate-change-deniers-are-either-extreme-free-marketeers-or-conspiracy-t heorists.html
 
2013-06-24 05:55:13 PM  

Firethorn: FloydA: A rise in sea level will drown this place, and that will be a tragic loss.

It exists due to a concrete wall.  Sea levels rise a bit, all you have to do is go in with some construction equipment and scoop out another pool area and construct another wall a little higher up.


Moving the volcanic vent presents a bit of a challenge.
 
2013-06-24 06:06:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: Maul555: Evil High Priest: Maul555: More alarmist bullshiat

Is there any particular part of the consensus that you take issue with, or are you just broadly anti-science?

I tell ya what... I supposedly have a long time left on this earth... Hows about in 50 years if it looks like Miami has a few problems with water, Ill say your right...

I'll mark you down as just anti-science then.

Here, have one of these:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9503044/C li mate-change-deniers-are-either-extreme-free-marketeers-or-conspiracy-t heorists.html


I don't deny climate change, just the severity of it and the predictions of future catastrophe.
 
2013-06-24 06:36:48 PM  

VoiceOfReason499: Cyno01: You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Damn scientists just looking for grant money...

8.5/10

 
I know right? Got waaaay more bites than i was expecting, i thought for sure the last part would give it away. But, kudos on everyone who took the time to explain why what i said was wrong instead of just calling me a tard.
 
2013-06-24 06:48:23 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The scuba diving is going to be amazing.


I wonder which state or country will claim the GOLD!
 
2013-06-24 06:51:04 PM  

Mrtraveler01: DesertDemonWY: Bullfarkingshiat

[www.psmsl.org image 350x140]

That's the data from Miami Beach, available here

Did you decide to use the monthly data instead of the yearly data for some reason?

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]


Fitting the Key West data (goes back to 1913) with a straight line shows an increase of 2.3 mm a year, and I don't see any support for a higher order fit.  9 inches over the next century is nothing to sneeze at, but it isn't close to 3 feet.  Are they expecting all of the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly fall into the ocean?  Cause that isn't going to happen.
 
2013-06-24 07:11:12 PM  

chimp_ninja: Cyno01: You know what else is an observable property? The solid phase of water being LESS dense than the liquid. If all the ice melted the sea level would probably go down a little bit. This whole rising sea level chicken little attitude doesnt make any sense to anyone with half a brain. Go get a glass, put some ice in it, fill it to the top with water , and wait for the ice to melt. Did the glass overflow?

Now, put a big pile of ice on top of a solid surface.  Fill the glass with water, then dump the melting ice from the solid surface into the glass.  Watch it overflow.

(Then, account for thermal expansion for oceans that are much, much deeper than your stupid glass analogy.)

But hey, I'm sure you felt smart while you were writing that.  You can fool a few third-graders with that level of "thought".


Or, you could just take note of how sea levels haven't risen as expected up 'till now, which might lead you to conclude that the calculations being used to make these fear mongering, sky is falling predictions are deeply flawed to the point that they are less than useless.
 
2013-06-24 09:11:51 PM  

Two16: vudukungfu: Turn it into a landfill. The entire state.

[sourbrains.org image 228x243]

/and i live here...


Hey, a mountain view of the ocean is better than a sea level view of a tsunami.
 
2013-06-24 10:08:28 PM  

djh0101010: Momzilla59: Does solar electric meet your criteria? If not, why not?

It's a very good start but the acceptance and use of it is taking far too long to take hold. It also needs a relatively large area for the energy generated. We need something that has the comparable output of coal and nuclear energy without the waste. I'm hoping for fission in my lifetime but I realize it's a long shot.

A 5 year payback isn't low enough price yet?  What is?  3?  1?

Millions of acres of sunlight falling onto the ground.  At 100 watts per square foot, and modern PV cells can capture 17% of that and turn it into electricity.  Pretty good for something with no moving parts.


17% is a start but it's going to need to be more if you want people to seriously consider solar. Right now I can only supplement my electricity with solar - let me go off the grid with a 10 year return and I might make the investment.
 
2013-06-24 11:15:06 PM  
Has anybody figured out where the new beachfront property is likely to be?  If not, this thread is not relevant to my interests.

I don't even like Cuban Food.
 
2013-06-25 12:29:36 AM  

vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

Really.  The liquid phase of water is an observable physical property of water just as the fact that carbon dioxide is opaque to infrared light and transparent to visible light is are observable physical properties.


water is wet? wtf? i never got any memo on the subject.
 
2013-06-25 01:00:54 AM  
Our last apartment when my ex and I were just married was in the Coconut Grove area of Miami on Mary Street.  It was about 100 yards from the bay and about ten feet above sea level, if that.  I told her that if a hurricane ever came, we'd toss the cats and clothes into the car and head west, then north.

She never did like Miami.  After two years, it was back to Iowa.  Tornadoes and thunder snow were less worrisome.
 
2013-06-25 01:02:25 AM  

Shostie: WHERE WILL YOU RUN TO, NOW, MICHAEL WESTON?!?!


I am pretty sure you mean Michael "Westen" because this guy is Michael Weston:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-25 02:30:42 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.



If you'd rather not have to worry, wouldn't you pursue a MORE nihilistic point of view?
 
2013-06-25 03:15:17 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Denying global warming is like denying that water is wet.

I guess my feeling on this now is: Fine, deny global warming. Whatever. The earth will still spin around the sun and life will go on. However, it's going to be a more miserable, expensive, and bleaker world for humans, so if that's OK with you, party on. If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.


Yeah, so let's gouge American taxpayers MORE and give more money to the government. Yeah, that'll fix it. Bring on  The War on Global Warming.  Has a nice ring to it.  I mean, look how well The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, and The War on Terror have worked out.
 
2013-06-25 08:22:02 AM  

msbav8r: Yeah, so let's gouge American taxpayers MORE and give more money to the government. Yeah, that'll fix it. Bring on The War on Global Warming. Has a nice ring to it. I mean, look how well The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, and The War on Terror have worked out.


Typical denier 'logic'. It's going to cost money so DO NOTHING!!

Forget about the much larger cost of inaction. Forget about the business opportunities in green energy that are going to European companies. Save a few bucks now to spend much more later!!!
 
2013-06-25 08:23:32 AM  

WeenerGord: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If you'd rather not have to worry about things like water rationing, epic storm damage, fires, droughts, food scarcity, floods, and the loss of plant and animal life, you'd might consider a less nihilistic view of life.


If you'd rather not have to worry, wouldn't you pursue a MORE nihilistic point of view?


Yes, but that must be exhausting.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:50 AM  
You want to get depressed? Read the best-case scenarios if we cut way back on carbon emissions now (which isn't going to happen). Between the already-melted ice caps and the thawing tundra spewing out methane, this climate-change train doesn't stop even if we do.

That doesn't mean we should do nothing. For one thing, if we just get it tipped over into profitability, green energy could be the next stock bubble. And EVERYBODY loves stock bubbles. And energy-friendly development is so much more aesthetically pleasing than suburban sprawl. Seriously, who wouldn't want to live in a 1900-style streetcar subdivision with shopping and dry cleaning in walking distance, rather than a limited-lot-line, residence-only compound where you're forced to drive half an hour on a clogged arterial road just to get a quart of milk. And the milk is at the back corner of a 100,000-square-foot megastore.
 
2013-06-25 10:25:27 AM  

Momzilla59: djh0101010: Momzilla59: Does solar electric meet your criteria? If not, why not?

It's a very good start but the acceptance and use of it is taking far too long to take hold. It also needs a relatively large area for the energy generated. We need something that has the comparable output of coal and nuclear energy without the waste. I'm hoping for fission in my lifetime but I realize it's a long shot.

A 5 year payback isn't low enough price yet?  What is?  3?  1?

Millions of acres of sunlight falling onto the ground.  At 100 watts per square foot, and modern PV cells can capture 17% of that and turn it into electricity.  Pretty good for something with no moving parts.

17% is a start but it's going to need to be more if you want people to seriously consider solar. Right now I can only supplement my electricity with solar - let me go off the grid with a 10 year return and I might make the investment.


Solar's better as a commercial application, because it's a minor additional capital expense when you're building a large commercial space, and the marginal savings really add up. Two of the good ideas I've seen lately are a capped landfill covered in solar panels, and a surface parking lot with sun shades for the cars, covered in solar panels. The latter's a twofer.

Every big, flat, lowrise industrial and commercial building in America should be covered either with truck gardens or solar panels. It's just wasted space, now.
 
2013-06-25 12:50:21 PM  

mbillips: Solar's better as a commercial application, because it's a minor additional capital expense when you're building a large commercial space, and the marginal savings really add up. Two of the good ideas I've seen lately are a capped landfill covered in solar panels, and a surface parking lot with sun shades for the cars, covered in solar panels. The latter's a twofer.


I'd argue that it's still relatively minor when it's designed into a residential home.  Solar thermal is actually still better, but put in 1-4 panels for hot water depending on location and anticipated hot water demand and cover the rest of the space with solar electric.  It's so much cheaper when the house is designed for it.

I haven't managed to have the math make sense for my home in Alaska yet, despite that I'd get 24 hours of power at the moment.  1 hour or less(if the panels are snow covered) of power in the winter detracts.  There are arguments about  it being possible to melt the snow, or even just have it slide off - my counterpoint is that said snow actually functions as part of the insulation for my roof in the winter.  Getting rid of it might actually increase my energy needs.


Every big, flat, lowrise industrial and commercial building in America should be covered either with truck gardens or solar panels. It's just wasted space, now.
 
Displayed 299 of 299 comments

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