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.

(Gizmodo)   And nothing of value was lost   ( gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Current sea level rise, Antarctic ice sheet, climate change  
•       •       •

8523 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jun 2012 at 1:02 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

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

2012-06-09 08:29:04 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: So I'm wrong about the Chesapeake Bay having formed?
Do tell. I'll wait.

You're fine in other threads, but talking to you in AGM threads is like having a conversation with a houseplant. However, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Why do you think that the formation of the Chesapeake Bay is even germane to the discussion at hand? It was a developing watershed carved by erosion from the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. If the Antarctic Ice Sheet would begin to retreat completely, there would be emerging riversheds on that continent where this would be an excellent topic to bring up.

The reason that no one was running away from the formation of the Chesapeake is because there were no bustling metropolises in the watershed at the time. Because of those interglacial conditions, humans were able to develop agriculture, permanent settlement, and actual bustling metropolises to populate the watershed. It would be a logical train of thought that maybe we would like to keep those conditions--agricultural and water table and climate and so forth--reasonably within those same parameters, because that's how we built this lovely modern world. However, it looks like we're doing a nice job of shiatting in our own bed by dragging up carbon dioxide that was sequestered by plants quite a long time ago. Do you want to live in a hothouse world like the Carboniferous or the Triassic? I sure as shiat don't.

The fact that there are bustling metropolises in coastal estuaries all across the world at this point in time means that should the sealevel rise because of AGW, there will be sure as shiatting be millions of people running away, and they won't be very happy about it either.
2012-06-09 04:44:45 PM  
1 vote:

theorellior: What's interesting, especially to all those red-herring deniers out there, is that the text accompanying this graphic is not all about "we must go back to the LAND and let MOTHER NATURE take her course, MAN!" it's all about "And we got more supersonic planes coming into the new airport, there are tunnels being dug, and there's a space-launching railgun being proposed." What's up with those SF hippies not being consistent in their hatred for technology like they are in all those strawmen I've constructed?

I suspect that when the effects of AGW finally become annoying enough to not ignore, there will be a wholesale shift to geoengineering and mitigation in the nation's consciousness. Deniers will be laughed at as Luddites who thought that they could wish away the problem.

Okay, so the 2007 IPCC scenario was of a less than 2 foot rise by 2100. In 2010, Stefan Rahmstorf doubled that to about 4 feet. In May 2012, the worst case estimate by 2100 seems to be six feet. http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/long-range-ice-forecast-things-cou ld-get-very-grim/

The scenario here is of a 200 foot rise by 2072, two orders of magnitude greater, in less time.

A rise that is almost physically impossible as it would require the majority of the world's ice to melt, and certainly impossible by 2072.

Regardless, your takeaway from this link's warmist bullshiat is that this proves global warming skeptics are wrong to be skeptical of alarmist positions and create silly strawmen.

Your takeaway is not that warmists have any issues at all, it's that deniers are luddites.

And from there you go on to rant more about deniers.

Anything I miss?
2012-06-09 04:22:52 PM  
1 vote:
No, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not a climate change scientist. I don't pretend to have spent years studying climatology. So I trust a strong consensus of climate change scientists who tell me that the earth is (overall) warming.

There isn't a "consensus" of scientists screaming that the sky is falling/global warming/climate change is coming. What has happened, as with most movements, is that you had some very vocal folks making a lot of noise, while the rest sat back in silence going about their daily lives. So that silence was taken to be a sign of agreement.

And then the idiots making the most noise started saying that any other scientists denying their set of "facts" should have their credentials revoked or event put in jail. But now there are plenty of scientists who are saying, "Nope, sorry, but your computer models are using such made-up data that we're not going along."

Oh, and it seems to me that most of the global warming/climate change activists are using a helluva lot of carbon to get out their message of fear. But then again, I guess they're allowed. As George Orwell wrote, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
2012-06-09 03:39:27 PM  
1 vote:


Why do they call it a PDF? Doesn't that stand for "Portable Document Format"? I can't think of many things LESS portable (digitally) than a PDF file. I have seen a 1 page Word document weigh in at less than 100 bytes, yet when that same document was converted to a PDF, it was over 2 MB.

Also, PDF's on the internet are like nuns in a whorehouse. That's not what it was designed for, it's out of place, and no one wants to see them there.

/end rant
2012-06-09 03:33:31 PM  
1 vote:
Hey, San Francisco (don't you farking dare call it "Frisco") is a fantastic, beautiful city. If you have never seen it on a sunny day coming over the Golden Gate bridge from Marin, shining like a pile of diamonds in the sun, then shut the fark up.

/loves me some San Francisco
//and Japantown
2012-06-09 03:19:47 PM  
1 vote:

Cyber_Junk: Do we really need another climate change thread? Its not like the climate change denial crowd have anything in the way of proof to back their assertion. At best we'll get the usual 'medical-doctor-looks-at-evidence-and-concludes-its-a-conspiracy' type of reasoning.

Skeptics aren't making assertions. They are resisting your assertion. Skeptics would be perfectly happy not to discuss it ever and not to do anything about it. As the person wanting massive changes to every global society that will bankrupt millions, starve billions, and waste trillions.....the burden of proof is on you.
2012-06-09 03:17:46 PM  
1 vote:

HotIgneous Intruder: 200 foot rise. Not that much fresh water on the planet left to melt.

/Science failure.

There probably is, but under that scenario the amount of heat would be completely unstoppable. We simply dont have the ability to control the planets heat gain and loss to the degree that would prevent a 200 foot rise in ocean temperatures.

Anyone who tells you that we do is trying to get you to vote for a tax that will make them rich.

It would honestly be less expensive just to move everyone 200 feet up. At least in america. Other nations whose populations make poor decisions will bear the brunt of those poor decisions in the same way that a car surfer bears the brunt of his own stupidity.
2012-06-09 01:34:29 PM  
1 vote:
Do we really need another climate change thread? Its not like the climate change denial crowd have anything in the way of proof to back their assertion. At best we'll get the usual 'medical-doctor-looks-at-evidence-and-concludes-its-a-conspiracy' type of reasoning.
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.