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  
•       •       •

8350 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report