DescentBB

So what do you all think we'll do with Miami when its under a couple feet of water in a few decades? Do you think we'll knock down the inundated structures that are no longer viable to better return them to nature? Or do you think we'll just abandon them, leaving an eerie skeleton of a time gone by?

Assuming there are no catastrophic flooding events that leave parts of the city suddenly and permanently underwater, the areas that do flood regularly will slowly be abandoned. Insurance rates will make those areas unlivable, and there will probably a civic incentive to remove as much human infrastructure as possible as to not cause problems with pollution/toxins.

Also, the beach. There won't be a beach anymore, but that's OK because it sucked 30 years ago when I was there and I'm sure it still sucks.

don't know what YOU found to 'suck' about Miami Beach, but each to their own, Vision. The rest of what you say seems reasonable. I'm hoping everyone just lets the current trends continue. By the time sea level rise flattens out(it will, there is just so much ice to melt and feed the oceans), I may own oceanfront property.

I don’t see any point at all in removing any of the permanent structures, fish love underwater structure.

But yea, we should probably remove all of the cars and under ground gas tanks and any other types of pollutants.

Spidey wrote:I don’t see any point at all in removing any of the permanent structures, fish love underwater structure.

hell yeah!! We could be fishing for marlin and reef fish right offshore. Think of the oyster habitat, as well!!

But yea, we should probably remove all of the cars and under ground gas tanks and any other types of pollutants.

hopeful here that most folks see the gradual process and at least react at that level of awareness.

callmeslick wrote:don't know what YOU found to 'suck' about Miami Beach, but each to their own, Vision.

Well it was 30 years ago and I had different interests back then. I did hook up with a voluptuous blond lawyer from Detroit while I was there, so I do have some good memories — just not of the beach. I guess the problem was it didn't match the hype, though I did find the mix of International tourists interesting. There are better parts of Florida you must admit.

Miami isn't the only area that will end up underwater. Our whole U.S. coastline is going to change. New York City will be in a world of hurt. New Orleans will have to be abandoned.

Launch the map in this link and play around with the sea level slider, which goes between zero and six feet of ocean rise, in any area you're interested in.

https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

Given that sea level rise will occur over decades, it's certainly something that can be mitigated, albeit at great expense. Hell, the Dutch have been living largely below sea level for centuries. The sad reality is that the developing world is what will really take it on the chin: there are a few Pacific nations that will pretty much cease to exist.

Given that the warmer nut jobs predicted 20 years ago that Miami would already be under water, I'm taking your comments with a grain of salt. As yesterday morn I woke up to 3" of snow on the ground and freezing cold temps, I'd say most of you are delusional about global warming.

the ultimate show of ignorance in our times, given all that is known, is the person who states,"it was really cold yesterday, proving that there is no climate change".

You know slick, about a year ago in another thread I provided a link where scientists who were skeptics on man made climate change, had scientific papers published in scientific journals. When I posted the link I noticed none of you warmers could respond. I guess it was too much reality going against your fantasy quasi religious belief about the world is burning up.

No, the world is not burning up, because the oceans are absorbing most of the emitted carbon…unfortunately this is killing the sea life most of the planet’s food chain is based on.

The media harps on floods and droughts, but barely ever mentions the even more serious problem.

woodchip wrote:You know slick, about a year ago in another thread I provided a link where scientists who were skeptics on man made climate change, had scientific papers published in scientific journals. When I posted the link I noticed none of you warmers could respond. I guess it was too much reality going against your fantasy quasi religious belief about the world is burning up.

So a couple of papers published by people you agree with constitute a smoking gun, but the literally tens of thousands published by scientists in support of climate change are utterly worthless just because you don't want them to be right? Sure.

"We'll grow oranges in Alaska"

woodchip wrote:You know slick, about a year ago in another thread I provided a link where scientists who were skeptics on man made climate change, had scientific papers published in scientific journals. When I posted the link I noticed none of you warmers could respond. I guess it was too much reality going against your fantasy quasi ...

I responded, after doing a bit of research and it turned out that not one of those 'scientists' had much involvement with climate science ever. In other words, a bunch of goofy opinions from folks with a political agenda(often paid by the energy companies, when you dig further). Go back, I told you that much at the time.

AFAIK you never responded. And if you did respond with the geriatric liberal verbiage of ," Those scientist were on the payroll of big oil" then it shows you are still a tool of the warmers. Here...let me respond in kind,"All those scientist who are pro warming do so as that is the only way they can get grants". Now we're even in making absurd comments.

go dig up the thread where you posted that list of 'scientists' and perhaps we'll find my reply. If not, I'll go provide you with very real information. Bottom line is that NONE of them were climate scientists, and that is like publishing biologists thoughts about nuclear physics with the justification that we're 'scientists'.

Can't seem to find the thread so I suppose we can start all over. First this abstract about the views of 1800 scientists studying the climate. A couple of things that struck me right off was the disagreement about how much man made warming was having a affect. Second was the idea that increases in co2 actually follows rising temperatures. Two of the fellows authoring the survey are climate scientist and don't appear to be in the pocket of big oil or the coal industry. So here goes:

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/c ... _01731.pdf

Have fun with this one.

well that was definitely not the one you cited before. Did you even read this one? Aside from the fact that only 1700 or so out of 8500 invited scientists participated,
the overwhelming number viewed man as a definite cause of climate change, and most all saw current trends a warming. Moreover, their data suggests that the more
published articles a scientist had to his/her name, the more likely they were to support the idea of anthropromorphic change. Now, you'd likely, Woody, say, 'aha, that is
because if they don't agree, they don't get published', but that statistic seems to refer to a career of publication, much predating the politicization of the whole issue, and
including other types of non-controversial subjects pertaining to climate. Your point in posting this one,as it seems to confirm what I've written before?

Hands away from the enter key...

callmeslick wrote:well that was definitely not the one you cited before. Did you even read this one? Aside from the fact that only 1700 or so out of 8500 invited scientists participated,
the overwhelming number viewed man as a definite cause of climate change, and most all saw current trends a warming. Moreover, their data suggests that the more
published articles a scientist had to his/her name, the more likely they were to support the idea of anthropromorphic change. Now, you'd likely, Woody, say, 'aha, that is
because if they don't agree, they don't get published', but that statistic seems to refer to a career of publication, much predating the politicization of the whole issue, and
including other types of non-controversial subjects pertaining to climate. Your point in posting this one,as it seems to confirm what I've written before?

It's always great when someone else makes precisely your own point for you, isn't it?

callmeslick wrote:well that was definitely not the one you cited before. Did you even read this one? Aside from the fact that only 1700 or so out of 8500 invited scientists participated,
the overwhelming number viewed man as a definite cause of climate change, and most all saw current trends a warming.

Well, even I am surprised you made this kind of ill informed reply. Take a close look at the replies in the link and instead of finding one that sorta fits with your assumption this is all settled science, read the break down of the respondents replies to various questions and you will see that the whole climate issue and what drives it is far from settled. Remember, just because you and the liberal left want us to believe that only "Real" scientists that promote man made global warming are the only ones with any credentials and those who don't are in the tank for big oil...doesn't make it so. Until I see debates where both sides are on the same stage, then it is all junk science to date .

Now lets take a look at the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Many of you still are of the mistaken belief that global warming is caused by increased CO2 levels. While Algore may pontificate on this and his willing delusional masses may spread the gospal of St. Al, here is the real situation. THE RISE IN CO2 FOLLOWS THE RISE IN TEMP. Do you understand that? I suspect you don't because you don't want to.

So the whole core concept of carbon credits and controlling the earths temperature by controlling CO2 is in reality a carnies shell game. The earth was warming before there ever was a increase in CO2. This is cyclic in nature and the latest findings ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 0.abstract ) show a gap of about 200 years.

So slick, instead of showing us your partisan tendencies when replying to global warming, how about showing us some ability at ferreting out scientific fact from the chaff thrown up by the bogeymen on the left.

Oh...and TG, you are know a bigger slick familiar than ferno is.

don't frankly give a crap about replies on this any more than other links. That is the soapbox of the clueless, as a rule. I am looking
at the hard data in the study. Also, CO2 is but a small part of the issue, most folks know that. Other chemicals, mostly more complex, but
some simple compounds like ozone resulting from more complex reactions, feed into an overall effect, mainly in the space between the
breathable atmosphere and space, where key thermal protections for the earth are located. Woody, rather than calling for me to link, when
you cannot produce one shred of credible, professionally vetted information to support your position, why don't you go study what those
you disagree with say. Maybe you will learn someting.

A new meta-analysis was just published showing the consensus is real and correlation increases with expertise. That means, the more you know about climate change the more likely you will understand that humans are a major contributing factor.

This is yet another meta-analysis of several other meta-analysis, all of which confirm that anthropomorphic climate change is real. If you know anything about statistics (you don't) you will understand how terribly unlikely it is for thousands of scientists who study climate for a living to be wrong. This isn't science in the 15th Century. This is science today with amazing tools and a mountain of knowledge about the natural world.


Also, we've known why CO2 lags temperature for a long time:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-la ... rature.htm

There is even a video in that page explaining it in a way a child could understand. Please let us know you watched the video by writing a report on it.

here's a link, Woody, to a more complete list of direct and secondary greenhouse effect compounds. Note that although CO2 and Methane are clearly directly affected by forced lowering of carbon fuel burning(hence Carbon taxes or some other scheme) there are also two or three others which are produced as byproducts and secondary compounds as a result of use of fossil fuels.
http://naei.defra.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview

vision wrote:A new meta-analysis was just published showing the consensus is real and correlation increases with expertise. That means, the more you know about climate change the more likely you will understand that humans are a major contributing factor.

This is yet another meta-analysis of several other meta-analysis, all of which confirm that anthropomorphic climate change is real. If you know anything about statistics (you don't) you will understand how terribly unlikely it is for thousands of scientists who study climate for a living to be wrong. This isn't science in the 15th Century. This is science today with amazing tools and a mountain of knowledge about the natural world.


Also, we've known why CO2 lags temperature for a long time:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-la ... rature.htm

There is even a video in that page explaining it in a way a child could understand. Please let us know you watched the video by writing a report on it.

From your link (which I had already looked at):

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming

The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.

What part of these 2 items do you not understand?

callmeslick wrote:here's a link, Woody, to a more complete list of direct and secondary greenhouse effect compounds. Note that although CO2 and Methane are clearly directly affected by forced lowering of carbon fuel burning(hence Carbon taxes or some other scheme) there are also two or three others which are produced as byproducts and secondary compounds as a result of use of fossil fuels.
http://naei.defra.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview

So are you saying the Kyoto accord is responsible for the Temp. flat lining for the last 20 years? If so congrats. I suspect that is not the case though and as such, your whole premise is flawed.

callmeslick wrote:don't frankly give a crap about replies on this any more than other links. That is the soapbox of the clueless, as a rule. I am looking
at the hard data in the study. Also, CO2 is but a small part of the issue, most folks know that. Other chemicals, mostly more complex, but
some simple compounds like ozone resulting from more complex reactions, feed into an overall effect, mainly in the space between the
breathable atmosphere and space, where key thermal protections for the earth are located. Woody, rather than calling for me to link, when
you cannot produce one shred of credible, professionally vetted information to support your position, why don't you go study what those
you disagree with say. Maybe you will learn someting.

I already linked the CO2 follows temp or are you saying the link was junk science? If not junk then the whole underpinning of man made warming is put into question. Even visions link expounds on orbital cycles causing warming. Are you categorically saying this is not the case now?

Also your whole idea of real science on your side has fallen into the junk category as the warmers, in collusion with 12 Dem states A.G.'s are trying to now make it a crime to be a denier. Welcome to the Dark Ages and science being changed to political cant. I'm sure soon TB's example of Venezuela will come to a town near you.

woodchip wrote: Are you saying the Kyoto accord is responsible for the Temp. flat lining for the last 20 years? If so congrats. I suspect that is not the case though and as such, your whole premise is flawed.

as has been pointed out to you before, repeating a LIE still makes it a LIE. To state that temperatures globally have flat lined is a LIE. Not for 20 years, not for 5 years, sorry, but you've been shown so many times that this is not true, at this point I presume you just wish to lie to us for the sake of insulting everyone's intelligence, notably your own.

Still don't get it after it was explained to you? I'm not sure how I can phrase it any differently. I mean, little kids can understand this stuff. Did you watch the video?

woodchip wrote:So the whole core concept of carbon credits and controlling the earths temperature by controlling CO2 is in reality a carnies shell game. The earth was warming before there ever was a increase in CO2. This is cyclic in nature and the latest findings ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 0.abstract ) show a gap of about 200 years.

...do you even read your own goddamn links? Right there in black and white in the abstract, emphasis mine:

However, temperature can influence atmospheric CO2 as well as be influenced by it.

And from the last sentence of the abstract:

We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

So yeah, you're just a troll at this point. Quit while you're behind.

vision wrote:Still don't get it after it was explained to you? I'm not sure how I can phrase it any differently. I mean, little kids can understand this stuff. Did you watch the video?

I get what I posted from your link. Evidently you do not.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:So the whole core concept of carbon credits and controlling the earths temperature by controlling CO2 is in reality a carnies shell game. The earth was warming before there ever was a increase in CO2. This is cyclic in nature and the latest findings ( http://science.sciencemag.org/content/3 ... 0.abstract ) show a gap of about 200 years.

...do you even read your own goddamn links? Right there in black and white in the abstract, emphasis mine:

However, temperature can influence atmospheric CO2 as well as be influenced by it.

And from the last sentence of the abstract:

We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.

So yeah, you're just a troll at this point. Quit while you're behind.

The only troll is your lack of curiosity of what the actual whole article is about. The abstract is NOT what you posted. the real last sentence is:

"Modeling studies using coupled carbon cycle–climate models will be needed to fully explore the implications of this synchronous change of AT and aCO2 during TI in order to improve our understanding of natural climate change mechanisms."

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/fil ... et-co2.pdf

In short, they don't know and the models they may have now are junk models. Enjoy your lack of comprehension and try to cover up by accusing me of being a troll.

callmeslick wrote:don't frankly give a crap about replies on this any more than other links. That is the soapbox of the clueless, as a rule. I am looking
at the hard data in the study. Also, CO2 is but a small part of the issue, most folks know that. Other chemicals, mostly more complex, but
some simple compounds like ozone resulting from more complex reactions, feed into an overall effect, mainly in the space between the
breathable atmosphere and space, where key thermal protections for the earth are located. Woody, rather than calling for me to link, when
you cannot produce one shred of credible, professionally vetted information to support your position, why don't you go study what those
you disagree with say. Maybe you will learn someting.

The only crap is labeling scientists who are deniers as being in the pocket of vested interests. Show me where these scientist are indeed falsifying data to protect the oil/coal industry. If CO2 was so small we wouldn't have a whole economy revolving around carbon credits.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Are you saying the Kyoto accord is responsible for the Temp. flat lining for the last 20 years? If so congrats. I suspect that is not the case though and as such, your whole premise is flawed.

as has been pointed out to you before, repeating a LIE still makes it a LIE. To state that temperatures globally have flat lined is a LIE. Not for 20 years, not for 5 years, sorry, but you've been shown so many times that this is not true, at this point I presume you just wish to lie to us for the sake of insulting everyone's intelligence, notably your own.

Because you say it is a lie? Typical of you, when you can't argue something, you call it a lie. Show me where temps have not flat lined?

we've done this over 5 times to date. No, Woody, not playing that childish game with you.

woodchip wrote:I get what I posted from your link.

So, you didn't understand what you read? Ok, let me see if I can explain it differently.

You see, thousands of years ago the orbit of the Earth caused the planet to heat up, just like it had many times before. This caused the release of "greenhouse gases" which caused the Earth to heat up even more. But eventually, the planet started to reabsorb more gas than it emitted and the Earth cooled again, just like it had in the past.

The heating we are seeing today is different than that heating. The orbital position that caused the initial heating has long past and is no longer contributing to the warming. Now, all the heating is the result of greenhouse gases. And because we are emitting gas faster than the Earth can absorb it, things are heating up quickly. A warm Earth is Ok, but if it warms too fast it can destroy the ecosystem and create mass extinctions. That's the problem we face today.

Does this make sense? It would be nice if the mis-named "pause" was the beginning of the end of Global Warming, but last year was the warmest on record, ever. This year has already broken heat records all over the globe. That's not a good sign.

I hope this helped you understand! \o/

Vision, a different point of view:

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

And just so slick doesn't repeat his mantra of ,"works for the coal industry":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch

This reminds me, back in the 70's/80's we had a big deal about acid rain and how it was killing fish in the eastern lakes biomes. This idea went on for years until a enterprising scientist decided to check the lake sediments from various lakes in the east. What was found was banding that showed lake acidification has been going on for thousands of years. What was in the other band next to the acid band? Ash. Ash from forest fires that settled in the lakes and neutralized the acid from the rain and other sources.
Why do I bring this up? Because back then acid rain was not into a cult stage of promotion and nobody had figured out how to get rich off the idea. So the scientist wasn't prevented from publishing his paper. I guess since then I always took a jaundiced view of what "consensus" science entails. When you stop questioning what is going on is when you lose any objectivity you once had.

woodchip wrote:So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.

He made that comment on 20 June 2013. There is no break. This year we already shattered temperatures across the globe.

woodchip wrote:I guess since then I always took a jaundiced view of what "consensus" science entails.

Your anecdote is out of context but still describes perfectly why the consensus on climate change is correct. When you get more people studying a problem over time you get better results. Today we have ten of thousands of people studying climate change over the past several decades in every part of the planet and they are all coming to the same conclusion.