TerryM Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I'd like to report a modicum of good news. It snowed yesterday in Cambridge and we now have accumulated enough to cover the grass stubble in most yards! If this does not melt we may finally have a white holiday on the 14th. We missed Xmas, New Years and Groundhog Day, but I'm holding out some hope for Valentines Day. Waxing up the snowshoes in anticipation. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 It would be bad, but even that rate is manageable. It's not like people are going to be drowning. We'll have to move the cities back a bit. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 btw...600 million people live within 10 m of sea level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 btw...600 million people live within 10 m of sea level. Just move them back a bit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Just move them back a bit! Yeah, that'll be easy - and if we use a figure of, say, $10,000 per person to build new cities inland and move to them (as a global average, it will be more expensive some some places and less others) it will only cost about $6,000,000,000,000 to adapt to rising sea levels. Chump change, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The sea level rise is so slow that what I said is true. You guys are being sensationalists, and honestly I'm getting the impression you guys want people to die. We shouldn't have built at such low elevations anyways. The Indians knew this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The sea level rise is so slow that what I said is true. You guys are being sensationalists, and honestly I'm getting the impression you guys want people to die. We shouldn't have built at such low elevations anyways. The Indians knew this. Ah, so you're saying the fault for the solw motion disaster of coastal inundation belongs to the idiots who built on the coastlines? So instead of shipping goods through ports they should have used - what - zeppelin fields? And, BTW, pointing out a problem is not being a sensationalist - it's being a realist. Ignoring a problem and refusing to deal with it is being delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Ah, so you're saying the fault for the solw motion disaster of coastal inundation belongs to the idiots who built on the coastlines? So instead of shipping goods through ports they should have used - what - zeppelin fields? And, BTW, pointing out a problem is not being a sensationalist - it's being a realist. Ignoring a problem and refusing to deal with it is being delusional. Yes, the original founders of coastal communities were somewhat ignorant. People who buy property on coasts in modern times are downright stupid. Just my opinion as a Floridian who knows what the ocean can do. And lol at not admitting to be a sensationalist. I suppose fantasizing about mass death is normal in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Just move them back a bit! Your nobel laureate professor really has done a number on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The sea level rise is so slow that what I said is true. You guys are being sensationalists, and honestly I'm getting the impression you guys want people to die. We shouldn't have built at such low elevations anyways. The Indians knew this. Let me just say first. I'm not saying a sea level rise of 10 meters over 100 years is going to happen. I don't feel I know enough to say yes or no on such a thing either way. But man...you seriously got to be a troll. Civilization built near the water back 100s and 1000s of years because it had too. Now, yeah so people move to the coast because they like the way it looks, but that's more the excpetion than the rule over the entire world. Moving 600 million people over the course of 100 years is a massive economic cost. Yeah, no one is really going to drown. It's not a tsunami, but no one said that anyway lol. Many islands would cease to exist. A good deal of Manhattan would be underwater. Look at how poor Bangladesh is and the costs moving those people miles inland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Your nobel laureate professor really has done a number on you. Despite your unnecessary mocking tone of my professors, they didn't do a "number" on me. I didn't have to be taught that moving 600 million people, even if it is slow, is not going to be remotely easy.... where the hell are they going to go? Shishmaref, AK, a town on an island in the U.S., is struggling to evacuate and it is at an estimated cost of 180 million dollars. Sorry we find your flippant suggestion of just "moving" everyone to be a little unrealistic. But no, I just actually want to see people die. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The sea level rise is so slow that what I said is true. You guys are being sensationalists, and honestly I'm getting the impression you guys want people to die. We shouldn't have built at such low elevations anyways. The Indians knew this. Yes, the original founders of coastal communities were somewhat ignorant. People who buy property on coasts in modern times are downright stupid. Just my opinion as a Floridian who knows what the ocean can do. And lol at not admitting to be a sensationalist. I suppose fantasizing about mass death is normal in this forum. Most of the of the folks who you call alarmists care about AGW because they are passionate & compassionate about all life and our species. You go around talking about immaturity, you even started a thread in the OT forum to rip folks here. Then you write this bogus stuff. There is no place for this. You have a Reg Tag. I think most people here who hold that responsibility take it serious enough to not act like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The sea level rise is so slow that what I said is true. You guys are being sensationalists, and honestly I'm getting the impression you guys want people to die. We shouldn't have built at such low elevations anyways. The Indians knew this. What you find sensational or overblown is clearly within the realm of possibility in keeping with our scientific understanding. You are in denial of the array of concerns we have, which become increasingly more troublesome as the globe warms. The Earth's climate has made the world a radically different place in the past and it can and will do so again. We are messing with one of the factors which make it happen. Do you trust the science or don't you? Skeptics don't, The rest of us have no reason not to despite the far reaching attempts by skeptics/deniers to convince us otherwise. The reason for that confidence increases exponentially the more deeply you understand the science and can see how all the pieces fall together in a logically consistent order. Without knowledge of the complete scientific basis for AGW, it is easy to to find apparent inconsistencies and what appear to be leaps of faith. Lacking sufficient knowledge renders one prone to disbelief and a sense that what is being talked about is sensationalism. On the other hand, when 97% of practicing, publishing CLIMATE related scientists and researchers agree to the urgency of the problem they do so because they understand in detail how their particular research fits the big picture. When the collective of their work is amalgamated by the IPCC the picture becomes even more clear that what we have going on is a prescription for disaster in the worst case and major inconvenience in the least case. Where the climate and it's extended implications go from here is largely up to us. We have taken control as a major forcing over a naturally evolving system. We are doing this by creating a large perturbation in the Earth's energy balance which directly controls surface temperature. If you don't believe that is what is happening then you have no faith in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What you find sensational or overblown is clearly within the realm of possibility in keeping with our scientific understanding. You are in denial of the array of concerns we have, which become increasingly more troublesome as the globe warms. The Earth's climate has made the world a radically different place in the past and it can and will do so again. We are messing with one of the factors which make it happen. Do you trust the science or don't you? Skeptics don't, The rest of us have no reason not to despite the far reaching attempts by skeptics/deniers to convince us otherwise. The reason for that confidence increases exponentially the more deeply you understand the science and can see how all the pieces fall together in a logically consistent order. Without knowledge of the complete scientific basis for AGW, it is easy to to find apparent inconsistencies and what appear to be leaps of faith. Lacking sufficient knowledge renders one prone to disbelief and a sense that what is being talked about is sensationalism. On the other hand, when 97% of practicing, publishing CLIMATE related scientists and researchers agree to the urgency of the problem they do so because they understand in detail how their particular research fits the big picture. When the collective of their work is amalgamated by the IPCC the picture becomes even more clear that what we have going on is a prescription for disaster in the worst case and major inconvenience in the least case. Where the climate and it's extended implications go from here is largely up to us. We have taken control as a major forcing over a naturally evolving system. We are doing this by creating a large perturbation in the Earth's energy balance which directly controls surface temperature. If you don't believe that is what is happening then you have no faith in science. You seem to want to close down the option of trusting the science but not the conclusions drawn...is it because it makes your position easier to hold by trying to characterize those that disagree with those conclusions as being anti science??? You do realize that much of the AGW hypothesis is based on interpretive data...... correct??? And with that, comes different interpretations??? But you want to box "skeptics" into a "trust or not trust" characterization??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What you find sensational or overblown is clearly within the realm of possibility in keeping with our scientific understanding. You are in denial of the array of concerns we have, which become increasingly more troublesome as the globe warms. The Earth's climate has made the world a radically different place in the past and it can and will do so again. We are messing with one of the factors which make it happen. Do you trust the science or don't you? Skeptics don't, The rest of us have no reason not to despite the far reaching attempts by skeptics/deniers to convince us otherwise. The reason for that confidence increases exponentially the more deeply you understand the science and can see how all the pieces fall together in a logically consistent order. Without knowledge of the complete scientific basis for AGW, it is easy to to find apparent inconsistencies and what appear to be leaps of faith. Lacking sufficient knowledge renders one prone to disbelief and a sense that what is being talked about is sensationalism. On the other hand, when 97% of practicing, publishing CLIMATE related scientists and researchers agree to the urgency of the problem they do so because they understand in detail how their particular research fits the big picture. When the collective of their work is amalgamated by the IPCC the picture becomes even more clear that what we have going on is a prescription for disaster in the worst case and major inconvenience in the least case. Where the climate and it's extended implications go from here is largely up to us. We have taken control as a major forcing over a naturally evolving system. We are doing this by creating a large perturbation in the Earth's energy balance which directly controls surface temperature. If you don't believe that is what is happening then you have no faith in science. Sorry, there's far more to the climate than the small amount of science that the AGW fanatics in this forum know. It's almost absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Most of the of the folks who you call alarmists care about AGW because they are passionate & compassionate about all life and our species. You go around talking about immaturity, you even started a thread in the OT forum to rip folks here. Then you write this bogus stuff. There is no place for this. You have a Reg Tag. I think most people here who hold that responsibility take it serious enough to not act like this. It isn't bogus, most of the posts in this forum strongly suggest the posters are fantasizing about global destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Sorry, there's far more to the climate than the small amount of science that the AGW fanatics in this forum know. It's almost absurd. Enlighten us, O great one. Teach us, the AGW-destruction minions, about the real science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Enlighten us, O great one. Teach us, the AGW-destruction minions, about the real science. Not worth my time since the science is final for y'all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Not worth my time since the science is final for y'all. Yea - most of us do prefer science to whatever crazy stuff you'll drag out today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yea - most of us do prefer science to whatever crazy stuff you'll drag out today. No, you and other AGW fanatics prefer simple middle school examples that bear no semblance to reality. Of course, that's all you guys can understand so it makes sense, I bet most of you don't even know the Navier-Stokes equations yet you act like you understand the atmosphere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 No, you and other AGW fanatics prefer simple middle school examples that bear no semblance to reality. Since you've got it all figured out, I'm still waiting on your solution as to where and how we'll move 600 million people. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Since you've got it all figured out, I'm still waiting on your solution as to where and how we'll move 600 million people. Thanks. Over the course of hundreds of years I'm sure we can figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Over the course of hundreds of years I'm sure we can figure it out. So you're basically assuming that the resources will be developed/found to do this? I feel like the political strife it would cause is alone enough to make this maddeningly difficult. We can't even successfully evacuate one island and the cost of doing so is enormous. I don't understand your flippancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So you're basically assuming that the resources will be developed/found to do this? I feel like the political strife it would cause is alone enough to make this maddeningly difficult. We can't even successfully evacuate one island and the cost of doing so is enormous. I don't understand your flippancy. Evacuations for a hurricane/storm and evacuation for water rising over the course of decades is completely different. Common sense says people will find a way to leave unless they're in a coma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 You seem to want to close down the option of trusting the science but not the conclusions drawn...is it because it makes your position easier to hold by trying to characterize those that disagree with those conclusions as being anti science??? You do realize that much of the AGW hypothesis is based on interpretive data...... correct??? And with that, comes different interpretations??? But you want to box "skeptics" into a "trust or not trust" characterization??? Please give us some examples of peer-reviewed alternative interpretations to the observed data? Preferably something that wasn't debunked the moment it was published. Keeping an open mind between competing theories is honest skepticism. But rejecting mainstream AGW theories in favor of nothing at all isn't skepticism - it's just denialism. It may be based on wishful thinking - the hope that next week, next month, next year something will be discovered that means everything is going to be fine. It may be based on inertia - the reluctance to make needed changes and possibly give up things we're accustomed to. And it may be based on greed - somepeople are making staggering amounts of money on BAU and they want the gravy train to keep rolling - at least for their lifetimes. Or it be a combination of causes. But whatever the reason for rejecting mainstream AGW - it isn't based on objectivity and rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Please give us some examples of peer pal-reviewed alternative interpretations to the observed data? Preferably something that wasn't debunked the moment it was published. Keeping an open mind between competing theories is honest skepticism. But rejecting mainstream AGW theories hypotheses in favor of nothing at all isn't skepticism - it's just denialism. It may be based on wishful thinking - the hope that next week, next month, next year something will be discovered that means everything is going to be fine. It may be based on inertia - the reluctance to make needed changes and possibly give up things we're accustomed to. And it may be based on greed - somepeople are making staggering amounts of money on BAU and they want the gravy train to keep rolling - at least for their lifetimes. Or it be a combination of causes. But whatever the reason for rejecting mainstream AGW - it isn't based on objectivity and rationality. Nice try on jamming your definition of skeptism on us all! ....... not to mention that natural variability is the null hypothesis, thus IS the competing hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis has identified a FORCING that (holding all other variables constant) would induce warming.....but we live in a system that is in constant flux... (ie known correlations can be skewed due to feedbacks, or other direct interactions that may yet to be identified which oppose other forcing and/or will manifest itself during a variant stage of the climate system)...and to THINK we know how the system will operate during significant different stages of such a system, (let alone the current one) is naive, IMO. But I guess that is dishonest skeptisism to you.... And this injected, untested hypothesis, is put out there with accompanying worst case scenarios laid out for us like some apocalyptic saga sitting jusxtaposed to the mouthpieces (both political and scientific) flying everywhere around the world, in luxurious hotels to climate summits, driving around in large entourages, building large mansions and living a seemingly ungreen lifestyle compared to us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) who want us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) to believe that it is a really SERIOUS issue. Sorry, I'm skeptical.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Nice try on jamming your definition of skeptism on us all! ....... not to mention that natural variability is the null hypothesis, thus IS the competing hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis has identified a FORCING that (holding all other variables constant) would induce warming.....but we live in a system that is in constant flux... (ie known correlations can be skewed due to feedbacks, or other direct interactions that may yet to be identified which oppose other forcing and/or will manifest itself during a variant stage of the climate system)...and to THINK we know how the system will operate during significant different stages of such a system, (let alone the current one) is naive, IMO. But I guess that is dishonest skeptisism to you.... And this injected, untested hypothesis, is put out there with accompanying worst case scenarios laid out for us like some apocalyptic saga sitting jusxtaposed to the mouthpieces (both political and scientific) flying everywhere around the world, in luxurious hotels to climate summits, driving around in large entourages, building large mansions and living a seemingly ungreen lifestyle compared to us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) who want us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) to believe that it is a really SERIOUS issue. Sorry, I'm skeptical.... Sorry if I hear a defensiveness about your 'ability to understand'. Some are brighter than others, it ain't fair, it just is. I don't think anyone is trying to 'put one over on you' because you may or may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but sooner or later, your seeming inability to grasp what every climate scientist has seen for some time, will cause your peers to regard you as less than capable. If I were you, I'd put my own picture back up instead of hiding behind a beer spokesman, accept that you don't always catch on as fast as some of the others, and try to learn some of what is offered here. I'm sure this is not the kind of message you want to hear, but it is the truth as I see it, and I don't think you will be harmed by it. You are absolutely correct regarding carbs. Use the same resources that allowed you to see behind the media hype there to see behind the propaganda being spouted by Exon and the rest on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Sorry if I hear a defensiveness about your 'ability to understand'. Some are brighter than others, it ain't fair, it just is. I don't think anyone is trying to 'put one over on you' because you may or may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but sooner or later, your seeming inability to grasp what every climate scientist has seen for some time, will cause your peers to regard you as less than capable. If I were you, I'd put my own picture back up instead of hiding behind a beer spokesman, accept that you don't always catch on as fast as some of the others, and try to learn some of what is offered here. I'm sure this is not the kind of message you want to hear, but it is the truth as I see it, and I don't think you will be harmed by it. You are absolutely correct regarding carbs. Use the same resources that allowed you to see behind the media hype there to see behind the propaganda being spouted by Exon and the rest on this subject. Sorry to take the methane out of your sails. One cannot be defensive if one hasn't drawn a conclusion! Your lack of humility supercedes any bonifided self described greatness that you may have, which ultimately turns any admiration into loathesome pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Nice try on jamming your definition of skeptism on us all! ....... not to mention that natural variability is the null hypothesis, thus IS the competing hypothesis. The AGW hypothesis has identified a FORCING that (holding all other variables constant) would induce warming.....but we live in a system that is in constant flux... (ie known correlations can be skewed due to feedbacks, or other direct interactions that may yet to be identified which oppose other forcing and/or will manifest itself during a variant stage of the climate system)...and to THINK we know how the system will operate during significant different stages of such a system, (let alone the current one) is naive, IMO. But I guess that is dishonest skeptisism to you.... And this injected, untested hypothesis, is put out there with accompanying worst case scenarios laid out for us like some apocalyptic saga sitting jusxtaposed to the mouthpieces (both political and scientific) flying everywhere around the world, in luxurious hotels to climate summits, driving around in large entourages, building large mansions and living a seemingly ungreen lifestyle compared to us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) who want us "little people" (ie not smart enough to understand) to believe that it is a really SERIOUS issue. Sorry, I'm skeptical.... Lots of hand waving and sprinkling of fairy dust in that post LEK. Natural variability is addressed by the science and is found insufficient in accounting for the range and pace of global warming during the 20th century and especially since the 1970s. Your null hypothesis doesn't measure up and surprise, you and the promoters of doubt are not the first to have asked similar questions and addressed them. Humans are warming the Earth. The only questions remaining are how much and how fast. We don't have to know all the details or guess at how the system will react to a forced change in the Earth's energy balance. All we need do is take note of how the system has reacted in the past to similar forcings and we get a range of probable outcome based in physics and scientific detective work. Your final paragraph provides us with a window into your ideology and philosophical world, but has nothing to do with science and is not a valid scientific reason for discent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So our Posts insinuate that we want people to die. We are also to stupid to understand middle school science and for the real science to be explained to us. we ask for the real science and once again, get no answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.