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 71
    More: Scary, sea-level rise, Miami, Saigon, denials, Watergate, Swiss cheese, pump station, South Florida metropolitan area  
•       •       •

8347 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-24 01:14:21 PM
8 votes:

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 01:17:52 PM
4 votes:
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied

Learn to swim.
2013-06-24 01:42:44 PM
3 votes:

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 01:23:04 PM
3 votes:

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 01:10:52 PM
3 votes:

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 12:22:30 PM
3 votes:

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 12:14:27 PM
3 votes:
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 11:50:05 AM
3 votes:

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 11:22:42 AM
3 votes:
I'm sure there's a downside as well.
2013-06-24 03:44:00 PM
2 votes:

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 02:50:41 PM
2 votes:

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 02:32:00 PM
2 votes:

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 02:09:39 PM
2 votes:

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 01:54:14 PM
2 votes:

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 01:26:54 PM
2 votes:

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 01:24:36 PM
2 votes:

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 01:22:00 PM
2 votes:

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 01:20:18 PM
2 votes:
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 01:17:04 PM
2 votes:

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 01:07:54 PM
2 votes:

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 12:36:03 PM
2 votes:
img.fark.net
2013-06-24 12:30:56 PM
2 votes:
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 12:10:24 PM
2 votes:

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 12:04:05 PM
2 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 12:00:16 PM
2 votes:

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 11:41:43 AM
2 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-24 11:35:52 AM
2 votes:
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 07:11:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:51:04 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:23 PM
1 votes:
More alarmist bullshiat
2013-06-24 04:36:22 PM
1 votes:

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 03:57:06 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:59 PM
1 votes:

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 03:08:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:57 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:39 PM
1 votes:

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 02:19:09 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:49 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:04:44 PM
1 votes:

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 01:54:40 PM
1 votes:
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 01:50:47 PM
1 votes:
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 01:40:41 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:31 PM
1 votes:

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


And then fill it with water
2013-06-24 01:40:25 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:36:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:04 PM
1 votes:

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 01:33:01 PM
1 votes:

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 01:32:40 PM
1 votes:
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 01:30:26 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:43 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:36 PM
1 votes:
Turn it into a landfill. The entire state.
2013-06-24 01:25:38 PM
1 votes:
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 01:23:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:22:57 PM
1 votes:
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 01:22:44 PM
1 votes:
A huge crock of shiat.
2013-06-24 01:22:41 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:38 PM
1 votes:
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 01:15:18 PM
1 votes:

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 01:10:45 PM
1 votes:

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 01:09:39 PM
1 votes:
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 01:08:12 PM
1 votes:
The scuba diving is going to be amazing.
2013-06-24 12:22:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:19:07 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-24 11:56:18 AM
1 votes:
I guess Miami is going to have to find a way to keep the Biscayne---

*sunglasses*

---at bay.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH H HHHHHHHHH
2013-06-24 11:52:30 AM
1 votes:
Better visit the Keys while they are still there  :  (
2013-06-24 11:48:28 AM
1 votes:
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 11:39:29 AM
1 votes:
Denial is in Egypt but yeah, very similar conditions.
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report