Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

If Sea Levels Rise While Your Head is Stuck in the Sand...Follow

#27 Jun 06 2012 at 12:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
We don't do that kind of thing down here.

Our last near miss was 1995 when there was a fear of ***** breaking from the heightened water level of the Maas and Waal rivers at the place where they are the closest together. Had the ***** broken at that time many homes would've been submerged in about 15 feet of water.
The last real disaster we've had was the North Sea flood of 1953.

There's a good reason people call the Dutch after major disasters involving water.

Y'all just like saying '******* admit it.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#28 Jun 06 2012 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
MoebiusLord wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
There's a good reason people call the Dutch after major disasters involving water.

And even better reasons to avoid them most other times.


There are two things in this world I hate; people who are intolerant of others' cultures and the Dutch!
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 100 Priest
Thelesis, 91 Mage
Necralita, 90 DK
Digits, 87 Shaman
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#29 Jun 06 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about this aside from pointing out the irony that the stock phrase of the deniers is "We don't have enough historical data to tell" and this law is specifically written to exclude any historical data prior to 1900.


Um... At the risk of bursting the bubble on a great conspiracy theory, even the most die hard global warming advocates don't argue that the effects of global warming predate the 20th century. Because doing so would weaken their argument that it's the massive ramp up of industry (especially post WW2) that is the root of the problem. So I'm kinda scratching my head how data showing that the greatest decline in shore levels occurred *before* the 20th century somehow equates to support for global warming, much less to the degree where global warming deniers would rush off to legislatively conceal this damning set of facts.

I'd think it would be the other way around, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Jun 06 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about this aside from pointing out the irony that the stock phrase of the deniers is "We don't have enough historical data to tell" and this law is specifically written to exclude any historical data prior to 1900.


Um... At the risk of bursting the bubble on a great conspiracy theory, even the most die hard global warming advocates don't argue that the effects of global warming predate the 20th century. Because doing so would weaken their argument that it's the massive ramp up of industry (especially post WW2) that is the root of the problem. So I'm kinda scratching my head how data showing that the greatest decline in shore levels occurred *before* the 20th century somehow equates to support for global warming, much less to the degree where global warming deniers would rush off to legislatively conceal this damning set of facts.

I'd think it would be the other way around, right?


Do you even read what you type?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#31 Jun 06 2012 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh Ah, Gbaji...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Jun 06 2012 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
http://imageshack.us/f/805/81530799.gif/

Bored enough to draw it. Dumb enough to think it'd make a difference.
#33 Jun 06 2012 at 10:44 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Well, compared to the increase in industry post-WW2, what kind of effect would the Industrial Revolution and post-Revolution have had, with its massive increases in wood and coal burning as well as deforestation?

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 12:46am by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#34 Jun 07 2012 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Dread Pirate Wesley wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Y'all just like saying '******* admit it.
With pride.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Jun 07 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Debalic wrote:
Well, compared to the increase in industry post-WW2, what kind of effect would the Industrial Revolution and post-Revolution have had, with its massive increases in wood and coal burning as well as deforestation?

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 12:46am by Debalic


Have you not been paying attention? Legally, it doesn't matter. We shouldn't ponder these things anymore, the thoughts might hurt our pretty little heads.

Hey, have you guys ever thought about how, since we use so many computers now, all the trees we save by not using paper? Silly global warming conspirators. Technology has only helped the environment. We need to look at more recent data because we can't go backwards to no computers.
#36 Jun 07 2012 at 10:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
I wanted to see what data before 1900 looked like.

Screenshot


I suppose that fact that they can't plan for greater than average increase than indicated over the last 100 years is a little odd, I mean at that point you're pretty much going to underestimate the change. It's looks fairly linear though to my untrained eye though. I don't know if you're really changing anything by say excluding stuff before about 1870 or so. That seems to be were the error bars get smaller, and the slope changes. It all seems pretty consistent after that.

Suppose it's more the principal of the thing, politicians dictating science or something. On the flip side, at least they're preparing for some change. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#37 Jun 07 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Suppose it's more the principal of the thing, politicians dictating science or something. On the flip side, at least they're preparing for some change. Smiley: rolleyes


Someone had an agenda to fulfill by pushing this through the system. Given the lack of sense regarding actual data, one is left to wonder what exactly that agenda might be.

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 11:50am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#38 Jun 07 2012 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,440 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Suppose it's more the principal of the thing, politicians dictating science or something. On the flip side, at least they're preparing for some change. Smiley: rolleyes


Someone had an agenda to fulfill by pushing this through the system. Given the lack of sense regarding actual data, one is left to wonder what exactly that agenda might be.

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 11:50am by BrownDuck


I'd assume their constituents would be negatively impacted if told their homes would soon be underwater. Can't imagine that'd help the property value or anything, or be good for the communities losing money on taxes as the homes lose value. Not that sticking your head in the sand keeps the inevitable from happening or anything. Still not news you want to hear as a home owner I'd imagine, and you probably have deep pockets if you can afford oceanfront property.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#39 Jun 07 2012 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I wanted to see what data before 1900 looked like.

Screenshot


I suppose that fact that they can't plan for greater than average increase than indicated over the last 100 years is a little odd, I mean at that point you're pretty much going to underestimate the change. It's looks fairly linear though to my untrained eye though. I don't know if you're really changing anything by say excluding stuff before about 1870 or so. That seems to be were the error bars get smaller, and the slope changes. It all seems pretty consistent after that.

Suppose it's more the principal of the thing, politicians dictating science or something. On the flip side, at least they're preparing for some change. Smiley: rolleyes

It's such irrelevant reactionary law-making that appears to serve no purpose other than a nose-snubbing to those over-excited NOAA scientists.

I've been trying to think of scenarios in which this law could have an impact - good or bad.

Here's a scenario: The feds declare a parcel of land is at high risk for sea level rise - based on whatever data they want to use. NC declares that the federal designation holds no water in their state and they come up with a different designation - that the parcel of land is only at low or no risk of impact from sea level rise.

So, Ms. Developer takes a look at this land but before buying and building she goes off in search of permits, financing, etc etc. North Carolina happily permits the project, but lo-and-behold the financier's insurance company says "no, we wont' insure this project", or will insure it but demands an exorbitant premium. Either way it makes the project non-viable. Now, could this law allow NC officials to step in and demand that the insurance co. insure this project for the same relative cost that they would a like project in a non-flooding area. Maybe they could, but I don't think so.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#40 Jun 07 2012 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
IIRC, what Colbert was pointing out last night, is that if you include data from earlier years (not sure how far back the first graph he showed went), the incline of the sea level has increased by like, a 45 degree angle or so. The second graph he showed, which only shows from 1900 to now, makes it look more like a 5 or 10 degree angle. So basically what the objection is, is that this particular rule makes global warming look a lot less scary.


BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I don't have a strong opinion about this aside from pointing out the irony that the stock phrase of the deniers is "We don't have enough historical data to tell" and this law is specifically written to exclude any historical data prior to 1900.


Um... At the risk of bursting the bubble on a great conspiracy theory, even the most die hard global warming advocates don't argue that the effects of global warming predate the 20th century. Because doing so would weaken their argument that it's the massive ramp up of industry (especially post WW2) that is the root of the problem. So I'm kinda scratching my head how data showing that the greatest decline in shore levels occurred *before* the 20th century somehow equates to support for global warming, much less to the degree where global warming deniers would rush off to legislatively conceal this damning set of facts.

I'd think it would be the other way around, right?


Do you even read what you type?


Yes. What part of what I wrote confused you? My point is that in order for what Colbert to have said to be true, then the rate of increase (well, rate of rate of increase if you will) was higher relatively speaking in the early part of the 20th century (or even later part of the 19th) compared to the end of the 20th century. But this flies in the face of what Global Warming proponents claim (that the biggest temperature spike began in the late 20th century).

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what you think is wrong about what I wrote. Care to clarify that? I was just responding to information in the thread itself (and the link in the OP) and making an assessment of that data. Let me be clear *I'm* not making any claims about what is true or not true here. I'm just examining what others have said and saying that it doesn't make any sense. If the rate of sea water increase appears more steep if you include the pre-1900 data versus if you don't, then this suggests that sea water levels haven't increased as fast during the very time period in which the Global Warming folks claim it did. Again. Let me be abundantly clear. I'm just questioning what Colbert said. I have no clue if what he said was 100% false.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Jun 07 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,917 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It's looks fairly linear though to my untrained eye though.

It isn't. It's just that as you zoom in--looking at only post 1900 data--on any curve is approaches a straighter line. Epsilon-delta and all that snazz.
gbaji wrote:
If the rate of sea water increase appears more steep if you include the pre-1900 data versus if you don't, then this suggests that sea water levels haven't increased as fast during the very time period in which the Global Warming folks claim it did.

So, the pretty little picture I drew earlier wasn't just a snarky comment about this thread, it was actually answering this very question.

The bill specifies the use of linear extrapolations, but the inclusion of pre-1900 data shows a nonlinear relationship. If you use a linear regression, then yes you'll get a lower projection for post 2010 data by the inclusion of pre-1900 data. However, if you use a non-linear regression ,you'll get a higher projection for post 2010 data by the inclusion of pre-1900 data, because there is the presence of accelerate rated of change--a positive second derivative.

So no, the global warming folks--i.e. international climatology experts--don't have an inconsistency here.
#42 Jun 07 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Actually, most climate change believers know that the spike in CO2 emissions, and thus the cause of the temperature increase, began in the 1800s when we started spewing coal into the atmosphere on industrial scales.

I have no idea where the "late 20th century" figure Gbaji is citing even came from.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#43 Jun 07 2012 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I doubt even gbaji knows...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#44 Jun 07 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... At the risk of bursting the bubble on a great conspiracy theory, even the most die hard global warming advocates don't argue that the effects of global warming predate the 20th century. Because doing so would weaken their argument that it's the massive ramp up of industry (especially post WW2) that is the root of the problem.


catwho wrote:
Actually, most climate change believers know that the spike in CO2 emissions, and thus the cause of the temperature increase, began in the 1800s when we started spewing coal into the atmosphere on industrial scales.


*cough* I even put the word in italics for you.

Quote:
I have no idea where the "late 20th century" figure Gbaji is citing even came from.


Because rising sea levels would be an effect, not a cause (at least in the Global Warming model being used). Sea levels are rising *because* temperatures have increased. Temperatures have increased *because* of increases in CO2 emissions over time. Each cause must predate the effect (by a period of time). A chart showing that the current trend slope of sea level change appears to have really happened sometime in the early 19th century (very early even for industrial revolution to have even started this presumed chain of events) would tend to blow a huge hole into that logical progression.


This was why I asked the question I asked. That chart certainly shows a continuing and relatively linear trend of sea water level change over the last century, but the point where the slope of that trend seems to change is just after 1800. That *can't* be the result of global warming as it's currently argued.

Edited, Jun 7th 2012 5:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jun 07 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,464 posts
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
Actually, most climate change believers know that the spike in CO2 emissions, and thus the cause of the temperature increase, began in the 1800s when we started spewing coal into the atmosphere on industrial scales.



That chart certainly shows a continuing and relatively linear trend of sea water level change over the last century, but the point where the slope of that trend seems to change is just after 1800.

____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#46 Jun 08 2012 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
He's not going to let a little thing like reading what he's responding to get in the way of repeating someone else's opinion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#47 Jun 08 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
Let me be abundantly clear. I'm just questioning what Colbert said. I have no clue if what he said was 100% false.


gbaji wrote:
I'm just questioning what Colbert said. I have no clue if what he said was 100% false.


gbaji wrote:
I have no clue if what he said was 100% false.


gbaji wrote:
I have no clue
#48 Jun 08 2012 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because rising sea levels would be an effect, not a cause (at least in the Global Warming model being used). Sea levels are rising *because* temperatures have increased. Temperatures have increased *because* of increases in CO2 emissions over time. Each cause must predate the effect (by a period of time).


Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
Actually, most climate change believers know that the spike in CO2 emissions, and thus the cause of the temperature increase, began in the 1800s when we started spewing coal into the atmosphere on industrial scales.



That chart certainly shows a continuing and relatively linear trend of sea water level change over the last century, but the point where the slope of that trend seems to change is just after 1800.



Um... You even put the stuff in red. Do you see how "just after 1800" (the year) is not the same as "in the 1800s" (the century). The industrial revolution is generally considered to have started in the mid 1700s, but most of the increases and adoptions occurred in the mid 1800s (1830 to 1880). Which is why Cat spoke of CO2 levels beginning to rise "in the 1800s". Not before the 1800s, "in" the 1800s. Specifically in the mid 1800s.

I'll point out again that the assumption of global warming is that CO2 levels cause temperature increases and temperature increases cause water levels to rise (melting icecaps/glaciers/etc). If CO2 levels just started to spike in the 1800s, there's no way that this whole cause/effect process could have started a dramatic rise in sea levels in the first decade of the 1800s. Something else must have caused that, completely unrelated to human production of C02.

This should be logically apparent just because of the time constraints involved. If rising C02 levels is responsible for an increase in the rate at which sea levels are rising, shouldn't we see the most increase during the time period in which the most C02 is being released? And even if that logic isn't sufficient for you, then how about the temperatures? The time period during which this sudden shift in slope on the sea level chart occurs is at the tail end of what's known as the "little ice age". Temperatures were noticeably cooler then. ****, it's part of the global warming argument itself. Temperatures significantly increased between the last couple decades of the 1800s and through the 20th century. That's where all the statistics about how global temperatures have increased by X degrees "over the last century" come from.

So how in ****, if our model assumes rising sea waters result from temperature increases (caused by C02 increases), can we see the largest shift in sea water level increase rates 60-70 years before the temperature increases that global warming folks use as proof of their claim? Clearly, something other than temperature increases caused by industrial activity caused that water level shift. So yeah, there's no reason at all why those opposed to the nutty global warming people would want to hide this information. If there was any desire to hide the history of this data for global warming related reasons, I suspect that most people are looking at the wrong side of the issue.

That data pokes big holes in global warming theories. At least the parts that might attempt to attribute rising sea levels to human activity.

lolgaxe wrote:
He's not going to let a little thing like reading what he's responding to get in the way of repeating someone else's opinion.



Yeah. There's some irony for ya.

Edited, Jun 8th 2012 1:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Jun 08 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,464 posts
gbaji wrote:
The industrial revolution is generally considered to have started in the mid 1700s, but most of the increases and adoptions occurred in the mid 1800s (1830 to 1880).

Yes, because coal wasn't used until the industrial reveolution. Ever. At all. Definitely not a widespread source of fuel, prior to that. Nope, You sure got me there. Smiley: rolleyes

gbaji wrote:
Which is why Cat spoke of CO2 levels beginning to rise "in the 1800s". Not before the 1800s, "in" the 1800s. Specifically in the mid 1800s.

I am sure Cat does not appreciate YOU attempting to tell us why SHE said something.
At least I would not appreciate it if I were her, since I have never seen you make an assumption that was correct. Ever.Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#50 Jun 08 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
He's not going to let a little thing like reading what he's responding to get in the way of repeating someone else's opinion.
Yeah. There's some irony for ya.
It's bad enough very few people even know what the word means, but now they went and changed irony's definition to "accurate summation of posting habits" ?

Edited, Jun 8th 2012 6:38pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#51 Jun 08 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
It's bad enough very few people even know what the word means, but now they went and changed irony's definition to "accurate summation of posting habits" ?

Yes, they did. Literally.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 61 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (61)