Sea level rise will swallow Miami, New Orleans, study finds

October 12, 2015
The coast line of Miami Beach and the City of Miami which a new study warns will sink below rising seas
The coast line of Miami Beach and the City of Miami which a new study warns will sink below rising seas

Say goodbye to Miami and New Orleans. No matter what we do to curb global warming, these and other beloved US cities will sink below rising seas, according to a study Monday.

But making extreme carbon cuts and moving to renewable energy could save millions of people living in iconic coastal areas of the United States, said the findings in the October 12 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal.

Scientists have already established that if we do nothing to reduce our burning of fossil fuel up to the year 2100, the planet will face sea level rise of 14-32 feet (4.3-9.9 meters), said lead author Ben Strauss, vice president for sea level and climate impacts at Climate Central.

The big uncertainty is the issue of when.

"Some of this could happen as early as next century," Strauss told AFP.

"But it might also take many centuries," he added.

"Just think of a pile of ice in a warm room. You know it is going to melt, but it is harder to say how quickly."

To bring this issue home for people in the United States, the study pinpoints at-risk land where more than 20 million people reside.

The authors projected business-as-usual carbon emissions, in addition to the complication of the melting West Antarctic ice sheet, a process some experts fear is irreversible.

They also considered what might happen if the world were to make a big turnaround, reaching peak carbon emissions by 2020.

This radical scenario would have to occur far earlier than the current aim of some world powers to peak by 2050, said Strauss.

An online tool at choices.climatecentral.org allows users to see the impacts on various US cities. A global version is expected in the next month, Strauss said.

A woman jogs along a levee along the Mississippi River with the city skyline in the distance on May 16, 2015 in New Orleans, Lou
A woman jogs along a levee along the Mississippi River with the city skyline in the distance on May 16, 2015 in New Orleans, Louisiana
Too late?

The tool shows which US cities may face "lock-in dates beyond which the cumulative effects of carbon emissions likely commit them to long-term sea-level rise that could submerge land under more than half of the city's population," said the study.

"Norfolk, Virginia, for example, faces a lock-in date of 2045 under a scenario of unabated carbon emissions."

For cities like Miami and New Orleans, the limits are already exceeded.

"In our analysis, a lot of cities have futures that depend on our carbon choices but some appear to be already lost," Strauss said.

"And it is hard to imagine how we could defend Miami in the long run."

Miami's low elevation and porous limestone foundation mean that sea walls and levees will not help, he said.

The state of Florida has the most number of big cities at risk from sea level rise, holding 40 percent or more of the US population living on potentially affected land.

After Florida, the next three most affected states are California, Louisiana and New York.

A man surfs near the Virginia Beach Fishing Pier, which suffered damage from Hurricane Irene, on August 28, 2011 in Virginia Bea
A man surfs near the Virginia Beach Fishing Pier, which suffered damage from Hurricane Irene, on August 28, 2011 in Virginia Beach, Virginia

One beloved American city, New Orleans, home to jazz music and some of the nation's most beloved cuisine, is already sinking.

"New Orleans is a really sad story," Strauss said.

"It is a lot worse looking than Miami."

New York is also in peril, and under a worst-case scenario, the city could be consigned to an un-livable future by the year 2085, according to the study.

But strong action—the kind that would reduce carbon emissions in the year 2050 to levels that more closely resemble those seen in 1950—could make a difference.

A total of 14 cities with more than 100,000 residents could avoid locking in this century, including Jacksonville, Florida; Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach in Virginia; and Sacramento and Stockton in California.

"We were really trying to show what the consequences of our carbon choices are going to be," said Strauss, whose study was co-authored by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and edited by renowned NASA climate scientist and author James Hansen.

According to earth scientist Michael Mann, a well-known author on climate change, the latest findings are a "useful contribution to the literature."

The study provides a "better quantification of the detrimental impacts of the magnitude of sea level rise we may commit to in the decades ahead if we continue with business-as-usual policies of fossil fuel burning," said Mann, who was not involved in the research.

Explore further: Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level rise

More information: Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1511186112

Related Stories

Ice sheets may be more resilient than thought

September 3, 2015

Sea level rise poses one of the biggest threats to human systems in a globally warming world, potentially causing trillions of dollars' worth of damages to flooded cities around the world. As surface temperatures rise, ice ...

All eyes on the oceans—James Hansen and sea level rise

September 1, 2015

On July 23, James Hansen and 16 co-authors posted a discussion paper on an open-review website about sea level rise and climate change. The article has garnered massive attention around the internet and scientific communities — both ...

Recommended for you

Two degrees decimated Puerto Rico's insect populations

October 15, 2018

While temperatures in the tropical forests of northeastern Puerto Rico have climbed two degrees Celsius since the mid-1970s, the biomass of arthropods—invertebrate animals such as insects, millipedes, and sowbugs—has ...

Scientists find missing piece in glacier melt predictions

October 15, 2018

Stanford scientists have revealed the presence of water stored within a glacier in Greenland, where the rapidly changing ice sheet is a major contributor to the sea-level rise North America will experience in the next 100 ...

195 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.6 / 5 (27) Oct 12, 2015
This has nothing to do with carbon.

The planet has been doing the same old things for eons.

You goons ought to know by now this kind of thing happens from time to time.

Miami?

There is a coral reef on land in Florida several meters above the present-day sea level. The water used to be that high there long, long ago. It happens.

There's another, extinct coral reef several hundred feet deeper than the modern reefs, caused by the fact the water used to be shallower at some time...a couple hundred feet shallower...

For God's sake stop blaming man for global warming, climate change, sea level rise, etc.

it's been happening since the planet existed.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2015
It looks like they are assuming all of Greenland and about 5% of Antarctica will eventually melt completely.

Look how much more farm land there is going to be. More resources to tap. Gold to mine, as well as other metals and minerals. It'll be an economic boom, like the California gold rush! Every manner of useful metal used in construction and technology will suddenly have new supply lines!
Benni
2 / 5 (28) Oct 12, 2015
With all the landlocked ice melt in Greenland & Antarctica that has supposedly been occurring since about 1998, isn't odd we've seen no sea level rise?

We read all kinds of stories about presently occurring landlocked ice melt, but have yet to record a change in ocean levels which should occur & be measurable almost immediately.

Hey, AGW nerds, no fair quoting recent record ocean level rise during the high tides of the recent SuperMoon.

Oh, New Orleans sinking is the result of rising ocean levels? You simply don't know the history of that marvelous piece of bungling by the Army Corps of Engineers et al.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2015
The U.S. Navy was considering developing a large floating platform, about ten times the total size of an aircraft carrier, for use as a mobile staging area and base. the purpose was to reduce American dependence on Allies port/airport space and air space for middle east operations. I think the program is currently delayed.

However, we could adapt this plan to make floating, modular cities to replace NOLA and Miami.

the top deck and the outriggers would be covered in solar thermal collectors, powering massive boilers to generate all the heat and electricity the city needs. People would live in lower and middle decks. Other decks could be used for manufacturing, growing low-light plants or mushrooms or something, etc. So you would have an economy and a place to live and such, and these things are so big they are safe even from a category 5 hurricane.

Corrosion/long term? The Navy has something "they" don't want you to know about which can prevent most of this...
Returners
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 12, 2015
Oh, New Orleans sinking is the result of rising ocean levels? You simply don't know the history of that marvelous piece of bungling by the Army Corps of Engineers et al.


New Orleans was build in a dry lake bed a couple hundred years before the Army Corps existed, and changed hands a few times from the Spanish to the french to the U.S.

The region is sinking due primarily to compaction from natural sedimentation from the Mississippi river delta, upon which New Orleans and all of southern Louisiana sits.

Exploratory drilling has at times encountered dead Cypress buried under 5000ft of sand and clay in S.E. Louisiana....That's how much sediment the Mississippi River has deposited here over the years, and the organic material is still rotting and compacting, as is the soil itself.

It'll never finish, of course.

At least 2/3rds of the "sea level rise" in Louisiana is actually due to Subsidence.

NEw Orleanian victim culture blames it on oil companies.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2015
The only thing getting swallowed, is this crap, by the AGW Chicken Littles.
plasmasrevenge
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 12, 2015
What is the price that these climate scientists might pay for being wrong?
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2015
That's an awful lot of words for "lalalala, I'm not listening"
Antonaccio
3.8 / 5 (24) Oct 12, 2015
Wow, you people swarm these articles very quickly.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (23) Oct 12, 2015
The only thing getting swallowed, is this crap, by the AGW Chicken Littles.

What about New Orleans. People like you should not have the right to vote.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2015
Oh, New Orleans sinking is the result of rising ocean levels? You simply don't know the history of that marvelous piece of bungling by the Army Corps of Engineers et al.


New Orleans was build in a dry lake bed a couple hundred years before the Army Corps existed, and changed hands a few times from the Spanish to the french to the U.S.
.........Thnx, I just couldn't recall who all the earlier contributing culprits were which is why I included the phrase "et al".

leetennant
4.4 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2015
The only thing getting swallowed, is this crap, by the AGW Chicken Littles.

What about New Orleans. People like you should not have the right to vote.


Bangkok wil become uninhabitable and low-lying areas of Asia such as Bangladesh will be wiped off the map. I'm sure these sociopaths don't care about them either.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 12, 2015
I mean, think about it. You're the leader of a Spanish expedition to the Gulf Coast, and you get here in Louisiana, and you are like, "Hmmm, I wonder where is a good, safe place to establish a port town?"

Then his crew proceeds to find the worst possible piece of land in the entire Gulf Coast and starts building.

Well, they couldn't have known what a hurricane was and how bad a decision that was...nothing like that happened anywhere near Spain. I wonder what went through the minds of the colonists the first time they experienced a major hurricane, with no satellite or radar warning or anything?

Day before:
"That's odd. It's a perfectly clear day today. Lovely day to go to the beach."

The Day:
"God have mercy on us!"

They say it was the same at Galveston in 1900, you could hear people in the water crying to God for mercy.

I have often wondered why most of their prayers weren't answered.
Well, depends on perspective right? Die and go to heaven and all...
Returners
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 12, 2015
Wow, you people swarm these articles very quickly.


There is a constant stream of rubbish from the far left on nearly every issue.

Someone rational and level headed, with moderate views regarding things like economics and environmental concerns has to oppose this stuff. That would be me.

Contrary to what you might think, I do care about the environment. I used to write satire about how human progress destroyed precious things.

But you people think everything is a freaking "once in cosmic history" crisis.

It's happened before (Coral reef on land in Florida) it'll happen again. I imagine the corals may even re-colonize the same reef made from the remains of their ancient ancestors and flourish once again.

In this case, Nature calls.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2015
Now, Dummycrats, answer this question.

Why is our President making a 150 Billion Dollar deal with Iran, but when it comes to spending money on mitigation and prevention of flood disasters and other weather and geologic disasters in repeat locations, etc, you can never get more than what amounts to peanuts out of the Federal Government.

Now remember, Dummycrats, the Iranians aren't our friends. They aren't even acquaintances. They hate our guts. And Obama lifted the oil export ban on Iran so they can pump more oil to China, who has the worst emissions standards of the major consumers of fossil fuels.

Now if I was a Dummycrat, I'd be pretty pissed at Obama right about now. Look at all that good things he could have done right here in America for 150 billion.

Now Retardigans are mad at Obama too, but that's only because they will lose money on their oil contracts, since Obama isn't lifting the export ban on American oil (more on that in a future post).
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2015
The only thing getting swallowed, is this crap, by the AGW Chicken Littles.

What about New Orleans. People like you should not have the right to vote.


Bangkok wil become uninhabitable and low-lying areas of Asia such as Bangladesh will be wiped off the map. I'm sure these sociopaths don't care about them either.

What a moron, wow!
gkam
2.3 / 5 (25) Oct 12, 2015
"Why is our President making a 150 Billion Dollar deal with Iran, but when it comes to spending money on mitigation and prevention of flood disasters and other weather and geologic disasters in repeat locations, etc, you can never get more than what amounts to peanuts out of the Federal Government."
------------------------------------

I refuse to believe you do not know the difference between reducing economic sanctions so other nations can trade internationally again, and a handout. You are purposefully doing it. That deal costs us nothing. NOTHING. We are NOT sending them money!

That deal with Iran makes money for us, because we can trade with them again. Take off your political blinders.
leetennant
4 / 5 (25) Oct 12, 2015
Dear Returners: we don't care about your domestic politics. Get a life.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2015
Climate mitigation?

For 150 billion, Dummycrats could have installed 15,000 of the most advanced 10 megawatts wind turbines, for a total of 150 gigawatts of clean energy which pays for itself in just a few years, and is totally free thereafter.

Look how stupid you guys are, Dummycrats. Look how sad and pathetic and foolish you are. you guys can't win for losing. You're so stupid, you give away all your money to people who hate your guys, instead of spending it on the programs you claim you want everyone to fund.

Idiots.

Idiots.

Returners
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2015
That deal with Iran makes money for us, because we can trade with them again. Take off your political blinders.


No it doesn't. No it doesn't.

It helps other nations compete against us by allowing Iran to sell oil to those nations again, lowering their oil prices.

If Dummycrats were smart, we'd put a 10% direct tax on Iranian oil exports, that way we make money off all the money they are going to be making from the stuff.

Instead, the Dummycrats help China and Iran and North Korea (the oil from Iran will be funneled through China to North Korea).

Why are Dummycrats in love with helping muslims and dictators?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2015
By the way, lifting the ban on Iran hurts Louisiana and Texas directly because a significant portion of our economy is in the energy sector, especially oil.

So, Dummycrats, Obama's deal hurts the U.S. where it hurts worst, at the freaking gas pump. Whih hurts trucking and shipping cost, hurts you on the drive to work, hurts you hen the price gets passed along to you again at the grocery store due to the increase logistics cost, etc.

Dummycrats, I gotta say you guys are clueless.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2015
http://climate.na...left.gif
Here you go Chicken Littles.
Ask yourself why sea level rose faster between 1940-1960, when temperatures were dropping and then slowed from 1970 when the AGW Cult claims man made GloBULL warming was in full swing.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (29) Oct 12, 2015
Returners, please grow up. We are not sending them money! Are you scared into irrationality?

And lower gas prices save the consumer. It helps trucking and shipping costs because fuel is cheaper.

If you hate Iran so much, go fight them yourself. I learned my lessons in the 1960's.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2015
From Returners who appears to be contradicting himself:
By the way, lifting the ban on Iran hurts Louisiana and Texas directly because a significant portion of our economy is in the energy sector, especially oil.

So, Dummycrats, Obama's deal hurts the U.S. where it hurts worst, at the freaking gas pump. Whih hurts trucking and shipping cost, hurts you on the drive to work, hurts you hen the price gets passed along to you again at the grocery store due to the increase logistics cost, etc.


But he just said:
It helps other nations compete against us by allowing Iran to sell oil to those nations again, lowering their oil prices.


So, which is it? Does it lower oil prices or increase the cost of gas at our pumps? My understanding is that it will be able to sell more oil into a glutted market and the price will go down. That seems to have been Returners first position. I expect him to contradict himself (because his is inconsistent) but not in sequential posts.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 12, 2015
Anti said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/15_seaLevel_left.gif
Here you go Chicken Littles.
Ask yourself why sea level rose faster between 1940-1960, when temperatures were dropping and then slowed from 1970 when the AGW Cult claims man made GloBULL warming was in full swing.


So, Anti, you disagree with Returners, Benni, excelentjim, cantdrive and the others who say that the sea level is not rising, you just contend it is rising slower now. Of course you have shown a chart that stops in the 1990s. Here is a more recent observation:

https://en.wikipe...vel_rise

It is good to see you changing your tune about sea level and admitting it is rising. I hope the link I gave you helps you better understand the pace of the rise.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2015
Thermo, it's also "good" to see you keeping your donkey blinders on so you can't see the truth.
Now take them off for a second and tell me if the chart you linked - https://en.wikipe...013.png, disagrees with what I said previously.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2015
Thermo, it's also "good" to see you keeping your donkey blinders on so you can't see the truth.
Now take them off for a second and tell me if the chart you linked - https://en.wikipe...013.png, disagrees with what I said previously.


No, they are both similar. I was agreeing with you on the fact that sea level is rising and has continued to rise. However, I disagree with your observation that it has slowed down. I note that your graph stops in the mid-1990s while the graphs in the article I linked go up to the present. The graph you link to seems to stop about the time the satellite measurements started.

I agree the sea level is rising.

I disagree that it has slowed down.

I was pleased to be able to agree with you for a change.
dan42day
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2015
Wouldn't it be great if the people of the world learned to stop building cities in areas that are not only vulnerable to small changes in climate, but also great natural resources that would be best used as recreational and protected wildlife preserves?

I'm not saying that we should continue pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the air, but the fact that a lot of cities have been build in areas that are vulnerable to the kinds of climate and other geological changes that have been seen to naturally occur is not the most compelling reason to stop.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if Miami, New York, New Orleans, and a hundred other coastal cities have to be moved off the coast. That just leaves more high quality room for small fishing villages and wildlife preserves.
Eddy Courant
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2015
But it could take centuries.
Rockguy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2015
It is premature for a direct prediction. However I do like that they give a range of dates and carbon use scenarios. I would like to know how plate tectonic rise/fall factors into this.
ForFreeMinds
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2015
LOL A study that contradicts itself in its findings, is worthless. First it says that no matter what we do, Miami will be lost to rising seas. Then it says that if we make extreme carbon cuts and move to renewable energy, we can save coastal cities.

Either we can control the climate, or we can't. Climate "scientists" who earn a living by being Chicken Littles, like to cry that the sky is falling, unless we continue paying them money. When we quit paying them and let then earn a living by doing things people would voluntarily pay for (rather than being forced to fund them thru taxes), then they'll learn the rewards of helping others, rather than the costs of being human leeches.
mbee1
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2015
If one is to comment on this study it would help to look at the past. It was warmer in 1000 to 2350 years ago than today as this story suggests on trees under a glacier in Alaska
http://www.iscien...aled.htm
If it was warmer with less ice the seas should have been higher yet London and Paris are and were in the same place so the oceans could not have been much higher with warmer temperatures so something is wrong with the model.
maybe this is the reason
http://phys.org/n...ght.html
or it could be the increase temperature assumption are simply wrong
http://euanmearns...s-again/
mbee1
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2015
Hansen and Mann are nuts. They happen to have a rabid fan club of fellow nuts some of whom have PHd's. Their entire study is simply nuts. Here is the actual ocean rise, about 3 inches or less Galveston Texas is close to zero See for another city. http://tidesandcu...=680-140
To get to the ocean melts they claim the melting rate would have to increase thousands of percent which is impossible unless the sun explodes. What Galveston, Miami, Sacramento, and New Orleans have in common is a land subsidence problem caused by over pumping groundwater. Galveston land has sunk 2 feet while the ocean has risen 1 inch in those 100 years. Miami is a similar case except Florida refuses to do anything about the over pumping unlike Texas.
theyfly_com
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
this warming of the earth is so simple to solve . JUST enact a law A birth rate check law that alows only year out of every 7 years to have children with a max of 3 per couple . with that in action we will have solved all this polution stuff plus there will be enough food for everyone AGAIN and with technologie thins will get easier.
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
Things I learned today: Paris and London were in the same place 2350 years ago, global temperature records can be taken from some trees under a glacier in Alaska, and the only way we can get projected sea level rises is if the sun explodes.

I don't know why I bother with science journals at all.
Egleton
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
Are they still putting fluorine in the drinking water in the US?
Who shall I vote for? The elephant or the donkey? Oh, that's right. I and the rest of the world don't live in that has-been country.
What a short lived flash in the pan!
Even Nero played a better fiddle.
Can't even get porn right. (Now would that be left hand or right hand porn? )
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2015
o we lose those two cities, so what?

Well, it's going to cost a pretty penny to relocate all these people and businesses. And what did you have in mind for them? Shoving them into other cities? Or building 'replacement cities'? Either of those options would cost way more than completely changing over the entire energy infrastricture of the US to renewables.

Of course the first scenario would not be paid for by the tax payer. It would just mean that a lot more poor people are generated as they lose their homes and have to buy new ones ...and a lot of businesses go bust despite profitable business models.

But the US doesn't really care what percentage of its populace is poor. History - in other countries - of what happens when the poor/rich ratio exceeds a certain threshold seems not to be taught (or is willfully being ignored).
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (16) Oct 13, 2015
JUST enact a law A birth rate check law that alows only year out of every 7 years to have children with a max of 3 per couple

China has a one child policy and their emissions are still rising. So this idea is no good.

Even if it did work you would never get that past christians (which are, unfortunately, the majority). Neither prevention nor abortion are sanctioned and even their priests find it impossible to remain celibate.
tommo
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2015
The most unfortunate event happening is ocean acidification, it's 10-times faster than a mass-extinction.

We are currently in a mass-extinction, the loss of one major animal during a lifetime is rare and we're losing over 200 species a day.

But then that's paleontology wtf, eh?

Second deal is climate variability, the 2050 date is about right for the average hot day to be hotter than any today, get it?

Our species is too stupid and violent to deserve to survive and it won't with business-as-usual.

"The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability", from a recent paper in Nature by the team; 24:44; http://www.youtub...R-aCTAVk
BobSage
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2015
Is it interesting that all the AGW comments are rated 4 or 5 and all the anti-AGW are rated 1 or 2? That might make sense if the overwhelming majority of commenters were AGW people. But that is not the case. Is it that AGW people do almost all the rating? Is that something like manipulating the data to make global warming seem real?

But thank you because the ratings are instantly helpful in knowing which side the comment is on.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (25) Oct 13, 2015
Can Bob tell us the ten hottest days in history?

Shall I look it up for him?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2015
We are currently in a mass-extinction, the loss of one major animal during a lifetime is rare and we're losing over 200 species a day.

Name just 2 of them?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 13, 2015
Look at that, the rate of sea level rise actually dropped when man was responsible for GloBULL warming.
https://upload.wi...2013.png
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
Anti said:
Look at that, the rate of sea level rise actually dropped when man was responsible for GloBULL warming.
https://upload.wi...2013.png


Anti, you will have to help me find out where you see a drop in sea level rise in this graph (you do understand uncertainty bands don't you?).

You have an interesting habit of chopping out all but a graph you interpret on your own. Here is the web site that graph (that I linked to earlier) comes from.

https://en.wikipe...vel_rise

The text states: "Additionally, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years." Why would you neglect to include the basis of the mathematical analysis that disproves your conjecture?
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (22) Oct 13, 2015
Look at that, the rate of sea level rise actually dropped when man was responsible for GloBULL warming.
https://upload.wi...2013.png


@antig has proved once again he's too frigging dumb to read a graph.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 13, 2015
Is it interesting that all the AGW comments are rated 4 or 5 and all the anti-AGW are rated 1 or 2? That might make sense if the overwhelming majority of commenters were AGW people. But that is not the case. Is it that AGW people do almost all the rating? Is that something like manipulating the data to make global warming seem real?

But thank you because the ratings are instantly helpful in knowing which side the comment is on.

Nothing remarkable in it bob.
AGW is verified (repeatedly) by science and this is a science site and not an ant-science one.
Deniers are here merely to spread doubt and have no interest in learning the science.
Oh, and thank you for making it clear that you too are anti-science.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2015
Well, it's going to cost a pretty penny to relocate all these people and businesses. And what did you have in mind for them? Shoving them into other cities? Or building 'replacement cities'?
So wrong on so many levels.

Most buildings in modern cities arent built to last more than 30 years.
http://www.woodwo...ives.pdf

-I know eurodisneys love to make up stories but please try to be a little more creative?

-And abandoning cities is certainly not new.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2015
link for that last statement
http://www.stuffy...-cities/
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2015
Sure thermo, tell me when man made global warming began?
You may want to consult IPCC on that.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2015
link for that last statement
http://www.stuffy...-cities/


Ghost: That was a good read. It appears to me that the Chinese city of Beichuan was the closest to what we might see (a disaster that destroyed the city and then rebuilding somewhere else). Chernobyl was interesting and another example of a disaster followed by relocation. We don't know the size of the Chilean towns from the article but I get the idea it was a few thousand. Likewise for Detroit. Hashima Island was also just a few thousand. And Centralia was also only a few thousand. How does that compare with the populations of Miami, or NOLA?

Are you saying we would be OK just moving our big coastal cities? I would like to see your estimated costs for that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
And when I edited that last comment I lost another good link and the statement that people change jobs and move on average every 5-7 years.
http://www.forbes...ghtmare/
the closest to what we might see (a disaster that destroyed the city and then rebuilding somewhere else
-And we have many disasters pending around the globe. Cities are already going bankrupt and can no longer provide essential services. People are already abandoning them in droves.
http://zfein.com/...detroit/
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
And Centralia was also only a few thousand. How does that compare with the populations of Miami, or NOLA?
-And how might that compare percentage-wise with rome or babylon or alexandria or troy or megiddo?

Or whole civilizations?
http://www.fsmith...ch05.htm
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2015
Sure thermo, tell me when man made global warming began?
You may want to consult IPCC on that.


No, I don't want to consult IPCC on that. I will go back to Savante Arrhenius and his approach to global warming. He related it, directly, to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. From that, any increase in CO2 means that we have started global warming. However, at the low-end of the change in CO2 content, the change can be unmeasurable but there. Based on that and the CO2 balances that are understood to take place, I look at global warming as starting with significant land use changes in the mid 1800s. That is then exacerbated by the addition of 7 billion people trying to achieve the dubious goal of matching the energy consumption of the developed world. So, I contend (and I recognize this is a contention since I have not produced a peer reviewed paper that supports this) that anthropogenic global warming was happening long before we could measure it (1800s).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
Or any of these?
https://en.wikipe...cultures

-Just trying to add a little perspective. Modern civilization has already been configured to provide jobs and habitation elsewhere. And this will happen over a few gens, not overnight.

How many refugees and migrants have we been accommodating?
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
So, I contend (and I recognize this is a contention since I have not produced a peer reviewed paper that supports this) that anthropogenic global warming was happening long before we could measure it (1800s).

Alrighty. So tell me when we could first measure it.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
So, I contend (and I recognize this is a contention since I have not produced a peer reviewed paper that supports this) that anthropogenic global warming was happening long before we could measure it (1800s).

Alrighty. So tell me when we could first measure it.


Anti: I have access to the same figures and numbers you do. Based on those figures and numbers I "contend" that we can start seeing the increase in enthalpy of the Earth around the 1960s. I want to be clear that is a contention, not an observation or a calculation. The reason is that I don't want to go through a billion data points to reconstruct figures and tables that are already available. Note, I am not talking about temperature of the atmosphere, I am talking about the enthalpy balance of the earth. Again, a contention, not a theory.

When do you think it started?
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2015
My grandmother died of stomach cancer. This is a fact. I defy anybody, despite the reality of that absolute fact, to determine when her cancer " began". This is just another distraction from somebody who's entire argument consists of, "it's not happening, just 'cause and if you say it is it's because it's your Al Gore".
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2015
My grandmother died of stomach cancer. This is a fact. I defy anybody, despite the reality of that absolute fact, to determine when her cancer " began". This is just another distraction from somebody who's entire argument consists of, "it's not happening, just 'cause and if you say it is it's because it's your Al Gore".


Lee you are right, but I am glad to see Anti participating in a discussion for a change. I am waiting for him to give his interpretation now. I see it as OK for him to ask these questions and for me to respond with the basis for my thoughts on the issue. Now we see what his view is on the start and visibility of AGW.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
Anti: I have access to the same figures and numbers you do. Based on those figures and numbers I "contend" that we can start seeing the increase in enthalpy of the Earth around the 1960s.

Ok 1960s it is.
Just to ensure we are on the same chapter and verse, would you point me to the data you are looking at.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2015
Anti: I have access to the same figures and numbers you do. Based on those figures and numbers I "contend" that we can start seeing the increase in enthalpy of the Earth around the 1960s.

Ok 1960s it is.
Just to ensure we are on the same chapter and verse, would you point me to the data you are looking at.


Here: http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php]http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php[/url]

Here: https://en.wikipe..._warming

Here: http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php]http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php[/url]

Here: https://en.wikipe...ea_level

Your turn.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
Note, the NCDC links did not come through. Let me try one again.

http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php

Lets see if that works.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
Note, the NCDC links did not come through. Let me try one again.

http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php

Lets see if that works.


That did work so there are four tabs on that page that I would use "Global Temperatures", "Ocean heat content", "Sea Level Rise", and "Cryosphere."
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2015
antigoracle replied to thermodynamics when he said
. Based on those figures and numbers I "contend" that we can start seeing the increase in enthalpy of the Earth around the 1960s.
Ok 1960s it is
To clarify, this is likely when enthalpy increase overall was starting to be noticed which obviously doesn't mean thats when heating actually started, the detail of which can be discovered from evaluating this formula
https://en.wikipe...transfer

The basis of which has been known for many decades, the essentials of that Physics has been known for >100yrs

From the also proven Physics of specific heat & thermal inertia its substantive that any noticeable measure circa 1960 would show that heat increase must have begun much earlier ie It would be useful exercise to run the enthalpy eqn back

Glad you accept Al Gore has zero influence on Physics, this is why such education is essential & as early as possible...
Burnerjack
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
"New York City will be underwater by 2015"-ABC News.
BTW, Hasn't the planet been warming due to a continuing loss of albedo (among other factors) since the end of the last ice age?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
Now we are cooking.
So, I looked at that data and for the life of me can't figure out why you would say the 1960s.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (18) Oct 14, 2015
And Centralia... How does that compare with the populations of Miami, or NOLA?
Also consider recent reconstructions such as the Wirtschaftswunder in postwar germany, or the rebuilding of japan. These countries became the most powerful and influential in their respective regions as a result.

As to aa's original comments:
Well, it's going to cost a pretty penny to relocate all these people and businesses
As I say, western economies have been configured to accomodate and even encourage worker mobility. "To move up youve got to move around". This also applies to corporations and whole industries which frequently move for economic reasons.

As coastal cities become more expensive to live and work in, they will gradually be abandoned.
Shoving them into other cities?
Again, this is exactly what is already happening.
Or building 'replacement cities'?
Cities are expanding all the time to accomodate new industries and workers.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 14, 2015
Infrastructure in cities such as NYC and boston are decrepit. 50% of all potable water entering manhattan is lost due to leaks. And since 9/11 many entities have either relocated or have built backup facilities farther inland such as the stock exchange.

Cities themselves may be obsolete.
http://www.newswe...e-203336
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (16) Oct 14, 2015
So thermo doesnt like ottos comments but doesnt feel the need to explain why?

Look at the pic above. Most of those bldgs will need to be demolished in 30 years as they werent designed to last that long.

They will be replaced by bldgs in other cities built to house workers who have relocated along with their businesses, which themselves could no longer afford to pay taxes and insurance costs for crumbling infrastructure and water damage.

This is already happening along the jersey shore post-sandy and in new orleans post-katrina.

And this demographic shift will happen over a few gens, not a few years.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Otto said:
So thermo doesnt like ottos comments but doesnt feel the need to explain why?


I have already made it clear that I disagree with your point. I have explained that the scale of change is much larger than any we have seen before (in historic records). It is your failure to provide anything other than hand waving on the topic of relocation. As has been pointed out to you, places like Bangladesh or Indonesia will feel the change in sea level more than any other countries. But states like Florida are going to be in serious trouble. Your response is hand-waving that we have moved cities before, but no analysis or references on how much it will cost. Your opinion is that this will be no-big-deal is the reason I give you a 1. I have given you the reasons why before and just don't want to bruise my fingers trying to make it clearer in these comments.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (21) Oct 14, 2015
" It is your failure to provide anything other than hand waving on the topic of relocation."
----------------------------------------

That is a major point. Do some folk think there will be ready-made infrastructure where people want or need to go? Where will they be put? How will they be fed? Housed? How about running water, sewer and electricity? Jobs? Family cohesion?

Even temporary relocation is a major effort at great Human cost.

There seems to be an authoritarian disregard for people in that comment to which you respond.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2015
Now we are cooking.
So, I looked at that data and for the life of me can't figure out why you would say the 1960s.


Anti: Your turn. I asked when you thought that AGW started and when it became visible. I answered those questions for you, now please return the favor. Then it will be my turn again.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 14, 2015
Now we are cooking.
So, I looked at that data and for the life of me can't figure out why you would say the 1960s.


Anti: Your turn. I asked when you thought that AGW started and when it became visible. I answered those questions for you, now please return the favor. Then it will be my turn again.


AGW never has started.

This is all 100% natural cycles.
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (23) Oct 14, 2015
Now we are cooking.
So, I looked at that data and for the life of me can't figure out why you would say the 1960s.


Anti: Your turn. I asked when you thought that AGW started and when it became visible. I answered those questions for you, now please return the favor. Then it will be my turn again.


AGW never has started.

This is all 100% natural cycles.

You can not back that up.
Your statement is without any foundation.
Look down. Check if your feet still touch the ground.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2015
Returners said:
AGW never has started.

This is all 100% natural cycles.


We know you don't understand evolution, and now, you have shown us you don't understand heat transfer either.

Do you reject the idea that GHGs help keep the earth warm?

Do you reject the idea that GHGs have been increasing due to human activities?

Do you, at least, agree that the Earth is in a warming phase?
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 14, 2015
Except, Returners, that is literally not true. The natural greenhouse effect is being enhanced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions - that's physics. So obviously there's an effect. That's physics too. As it happens, that effect is extremely well-documented but even if it wasn't we'd still know it was there. It would have to be.
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (23) Oct 14, 2015
Except, Returners, that is literally not true. The natural greenhouse effect is being enhanced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions - that's physics. So obviously there's an effect. That's physics too. As it happens, that effect is extremely well-documented but even if it wasn't we'd still know it was there. It would have to be.

Sound argument, but I bet a good bottle of wine that it does not convince returners.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2015
I asked when you thought that AGW started and when it became visible.

Thermo, I believe that's what I was trying to determine, hence the reason I'm chatting with you, since you know the science and the data.
Now, as I said before, when I looked at the data, I couldn't see why you chose the 1960s.
What I see is -
Ocean temperatures dropping like a rock.
The globe still in a cold spell that started around 1945 and lasted into the 1970s.
Sea level rising at the same rate as it had in the previous decades.
Now I've no idea how you see manmade global warming in that, unless you see something else in the data.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Anti said:
Ocean temperatures dropping like a rock.
The globe still in a cold spell that started around 1945 and lasted into the 1970s.
Sea level rising at the same rate as it had in the previous decades.


Thanks for carrying on the conversation. We do not see the same thing on any of these.

Let me address them one at a time (because of the 1000 character limit).

1) Where on earth do you see ocean temperatures "dropping like a rock?" I see them increasing and published analyses indicate they are increasing.

Here is a good overview of the global sea surface temperatures:

http://www3.epa.g...emp.html

Both figures are instructive. The first shows the rise over time and there is a flat spot in the curve that shows an uptick in about 1965. I want to be clear that this is a visual estimation by me, not a regression analysis.

Are you saying the oceans are cooling in the face of graphs like these?
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2015
From your own link http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php
And, I should have said "Ocean heat content"
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2015
Continuing anti's observations:
The globe still in a cold spell that started around 1945 and lasted into the 1970s.


Is this cooling spell still taking place or did it stop in the 1970s like you said? You say it is "still in the spell" but you then say it lasted into the 1970s. I can't respond to this one until you clarify that point.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Anti said:
From your own link http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php
And, I should have said "Ocean heat content"


That is an increasing curve. How do you see that as "dropping like a rock?" That figure shows me how rapidly the ocean is gaining enthalpy.

Remember, the ocean and the atmosphere exchange energy (in cycles). There is also noise in all measurements. I am curious as to how you can read that curve as decreasing energy or temperature.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2015
Here is a good overview of the global sea surface temperatures:

http://www3.epa.g...emp.html

Nice graph. Notice how much faster the oceans were warming from 1910-1945, compared to anytime during/after 1960.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Anti said:
From your own link http://www.ncdc.n...ming.php
And, I should have said "Ocean heat content"


That is an increasing curve. How do you see that as "dropping like a rock?" That figure shows me how rapidly the ocean is gaining enthalpy.

Remember, the ocean and the atmosphere exchange energy (in cycles). There is also noise in all measurements. I am curious as to how you can read that curve as decreasing energy or temperature.

My god. Remember you said 1960s. Now look at the graph again.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Anti said:
My god. Remember you said 1960s. Now look at the graph again.


By Thor's hammer! Yes, we are talking about the Enthalpy content of the Earth, not just the oceans. I was incorrect here in that I had shown the sea surface temperatures. Here is a graph of both Ocean and Land (that I linked to earlier).

https://en.wikipe..._warming

Let me clarify. The oceans and atmosphere exchange energy. We really need to look at the total enthalpy change of the atmosphere and oceans (as well as land but that is much slower). The reason I don't see the "ocean temperature dropping like a rock" is because (as anyone who understands linear regression would know) you have to produce a regression analysis to get an idea of how a line (or curve) will best fit through your points. You don't start at the first point and draw a line to the last point. 1965 - 1970? I told you I eyeballed it and 1970 would be fine also. What is your date?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2015
Now we are cooking.
So, I looked at that data and for the life of me can't figure out why you would say the 1960s.


Anti: Your turn. I asked when you thought that AGW started and when it became visible. I answered those questions for you, now please return the favor. Then it will be my turn again.


AGW never has started.

This is all 100% natural cycles.

You can not back that up.
Your statement is without any foundation.
Look down. Check if your feet still touch the ground.


Their own alleged data on sea level rise and sea level history shows all this stuff has happened before over and over.

Of course I can back that up, and I've shown the data before, and it bounces off you.

There are lots of sunken cities all over the world. This stuff happens. It's been happening for as long as man's been here.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2015
Except, Returners, that is literally not true. The natural greenhouse effect is being enhanced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions - that's physics. So obviously there's an effect. That's physics too. As it happens, that effect is extremely well-documented but even if it wasn't we'd still know it was there. It would have to be.

Sound argument, but I bet a good bottle of wine that it does not convince returners.


No bet! But I could sure use the bottle of wine after a couple of hours interacting with these bozos.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2015
Where do Cyro-meteors come from? Huge blocks of ice (not hail) which sometimes fall out o the sky for no apparent reason...

I say cometary debris too small to be noticed by NASA's programs looking for NEOS.

Do you know how much cometary debris is floating around in the SS?

Maybe that's contributing to sea level rise.

Nobody saw a 40m rock until it hit russia, and you gonna say how much water-ice could be hitting earth as small as dust ranging to 40m in size? Nobody would ever see it, because most of it would just melt or vaporize in the upper atmosphere, then drift down later as rainfall....once in a while a big chunk the size of a refrigerator hits somebody's house or car though...so we know it's happening...

You guys don't even talk about that sort of stuff, becausemaybe you don't know about it.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Returners said:
There are lots of sunken cities all over the world. This stuff happens. It's been happening for as long as man's been here.


I thought you were the one who said those sunken cities were evidence of the "great flood." Have you backed off from that? Do you now believe in an old earth and evolution?
Returners
1 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2015
Returners said:
There are lots of sunken cities all over the world. This stuff happens. It's been happening for as long as man's been here.


I thought you were the one who said those sunken cities were evidence of the "great flood." Have you backed off from that? Do you now believe in an old earth and evolution?


Um...the ones I had in mind actually sank in the past several thousand years up to about 20,000 years ago or so.

I don't know when the great flood happened, if it's based on a literal event, but i think certain evidence in S. America suggests it had to be push back before 30,000 years ago because S. America has been populated continually for 30k years.

However, there is a lake in S. America on top of a mountain which has Sea Horses living in it.

How in the hell did Sea Horses get on top of a mountain lake, unless it was below sea level?
gkam
2 / 5 (20) Oct 14, 2015
The real question is "Who rode them up there?"

The "History" channel knows.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
Returners posted:
However, there is a lake in S. America on top of a mountain which has Sea Horses living in it.

How in the hell did Sea Horses get on top of a mountain lake, unless it was below sea level?


First, most mountains are made of material that was below sea level at one time. Things like plate tectonics, volcanism, earth quakes, etc... move low land to high and high land to low. However, your story did get me looking. What I found is that there is only a single photo of a single specimen in a single museum near the lake that the sea horse was supposed to come out of. In reality, there is no confirmation it even exists. Maybe you have a better reference you can send me to.

The sea horse reported is called: Hippocampus titicacanesis and those who study sea horses consider it a myth.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (24) Oct 14, 2015
Maybe you have a better reference you can send me to.


@ Thermo-Skippy. Don't hold your breath on that one. And don't fall for it if he postums you a link to the "scientists" who can tell you all about it. I fell for it me. He got him from a interweb place where the "scientists" are proving that the world is only a couple of thousands of years old and dinosaurs are gone because the Noah-Skippy couldn't fit them on the boat he built for the flood. And they will tell you a lot of foolishment about how all the other silly scientists are all lying about fossils being millions of years old.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2015
lol @ you.

I did get an A in physical Geology you know. Highest in class in fact.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2015
Maybe you have a better reference you can send me to.


@ Thermo-Skippy. Don't hold your breath on that one. And don't fall for it if he postums you a link to the "scientists" who can tell you all about it. I fell for it me. He got him from a interweb place where the "scientists" are proving that the world is only a couple of thousands of years old and dinosaurs are gone because the Noah-Skippy couldn't fit them on the boat he built for the flood. And they will tell you a lot of foolishment about how all the other silly scientists are all lying about fossils being millions of years old.


I'm not holding my breath, but it is interesting that he has said the world might be, as much as, 30,000 years old. He used to say 6,000. Returners, can you expand on how old you think the earth might be now?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 14, 2015
lol @ you.

I did get an A in physical Geology you know. Highest in class in fact.


That is interesting if you were not aware that a mountain lake could have been at sea level 1Mybp.

However, since the references say the sea horse is probably a myth, do you have better references?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (22) Oct 14, 2015
lol @ you.

I did get an A in physical Geology you know. Highest in class in fact.


Did you have to write up four or three hundred pages of rambling stuffs like you do here to get the A? Maybe she give you the A to get you to pipe down, eh?
leetennant
3.4 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2015
Q: Discuss the formation of mountains

A: Science says the existence or non-existence of mountains cannot be established experimentally and so we will never really know. The majority view "mountains exist" is an appeal to majority fallacy and an appeal to authority fallacy and is therefore fallacious. Geology has always existed so why would any geology today be distinctive from geology yesterday?

God said Mohammed was the mountain and why would he say that if he meant us to believe mountains existed as anything but a biblical metaphor? God would not create mountains if it stopped us getting from A to B. Therefore a belief in mountains is against God.

Anyway, the existence of mountains is a Liberal plot to redistribute wealth for the UN. Mountains clearly don't exist because of socialism. Just ask Cecil Gershwin Palmer.

I love Reagan.

Mark: A. I love Reagan too.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (21) Oct 15, 2015
@Returners
In respect of regions >100Km west of Queensland coast, Australia
There are many fossilised shells, sea life & ocean sediment remains that didn't have the opportunity to degrade (eg dead fish rotting) normally if they just stayed in the sea with gradual sea level fall, that & various other evidence shows definitively there was a massive tsunami arising from the Pacific. Estimates based on modern understaning of Physics & geology, earthquake & meteorite phenomena suggest the tsunami produced waves of approx 300m (ie 1000ft) high somewhat more than a million years ago.

Great onsistency within Physics & keen observations in geology is way ahead of a mere claim from an old book when people readily used many drugs & legally too !

Thought about Ammonia (NH3) Returners, early Earth & there is much evidence, was heavy in that & water vapor

You know you are primarily water & amino acids ie Amines ie lottsa NH2

Matter self-organises its chemistry ie bonding...
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 15, 2015
We know you don't understand evolution, and now, you have shown us you don't understand heat transfer either.

Dinosaurs are real.

There idjit.

Life was created to adapt.
We have the power to create and to adapt to the environment and control it, and so do all life forms, but humans more so than other creatures because we adapt both chemically and at the meta-cognition level, while other creatures do not appear to do so.

Evolution doesn't disprove God silly. It actually proves God exists.

WE are created in the image and likeness of God. We likewise have the power to create in our own image and likeness (procreation), but we even have the power to create new types of life via combinations of what God already did, or via robotics, or creating a new life form from scratch...because we are like God, only finite...

Evolution is simply proactive creation. It IS "Intelligence".

"In the beginning was the Logos...all things were made by Him."

Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2015
lol @ you.

I did get an A in physical Geology you know. Highest in class in fact.


That is interesting if you were not aware that a mountain lake could have been at sea level 1Mybp.

However, since the references say the sea horse is probably a myth, do you have better references?


blah, blah, blah, punctuated equilibrium...

on another thread i had been talking about how coal deposits on the east coast were formed by over-turning of lands covering entire forests during continental collisions (the N.America is actually made of at least 3 plates that I know of, 4 if you count the stuff west of San Andreas: one boundary is New Madrid fault Zone (mississippi river basin) and one is east of the Appalacians, which at some point covered over forests (under mountains) and folded freaking rock in S-patterns like Taffy. I've been there and seen it....and exposed Mantle rock in Canada...

You think I don't know mountains change?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2015
That's why I say it's not a big deal, and I'm convinced it's normal.

Much worse things have happened before, both wiht and without meteor/comet impacts.

This planet has been to hell and back several times, and life still exists, and is stronger than ever.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 15, 2015
Returners claims
Evolution doesn't disprove God silly. It actually proves God exists.
WE are created in the image..
Any evidence of any sort for such claims ?

Returners claims
Evolution is simply proactive creation. It IS "Intelligence"
Can you clarify how this "intelligence" acts by nature's destructive paradigm of "Eat & be Eaten" & occurs all the time everywhere from lowliest bacteria of ~10 million+ species to more complex life forms ?

Surely it is obvious nature's approach entails immense & ever-present suffering at all levels & especially so to the unfortunate & often the uneducated/vulnerable as life adapts & evolves constantly

Returners claimed
"In the beginning was the Logos...all things were made by Him."
Have you seen my earlier posts re offering critique on belief a (personal) god went to minimal trouble to chat with a tiny no. of people of its claim to be the only origin ?

If your god exists then what are its key observable attributes ?
gkam
2 / 5 (20) Oct 15, 2015
"WE are created in the image and likeness of God."
-----------------------------------

Where does he poop?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 15, 2015
If your god exists then what are its key observable attributes ?


Isaiah 55:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

1 John 4:8King James Version (KJV)

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

God is good, God is love, God is Light, God is Logos.

Gkam:

Where does he poop?

You are blinded by your own pride and ignorance.
I am sure that you have been told this many times, but

God doesn't have need of food or drink. He's the source of all reality.

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 15, 2015
@Returners,
Re-stating unsupportable claims is not observation of attributes !

Where did you learn debate, dialectic or anything smart or similar to Socratic Method, please ?
https://en.wikipe...c_method

Your pattern of response is wholly consistent with someone either drug induced or suffering from early indoctrination in regards to emotional hypnosis, or worse, both

Attributes are that which is observed, NOT that which is claimed

Eg. Here is one patently obvious attribute:

1 "Your god is a lousy communicator", evidence is staring you in the face, if not then why not ?

Another patently obvious attribute:

2 "Your god ensures innocents suffer without respite for all time", if not then why not ?

It is said in early Greek text that "You will know the character by the action", in the later old testament it is said "You will know them by their actions", in later renditions it is said "Actions speak louder than words"

Your god Acts as a Devil !
OdinsAcolyte
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2015
Subsidence
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (23) Oct 15, 2015
WE are created in the image and likeness of God.

That line is why religion is a comfort zone for dangerous narcissists.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (22) Oct 15, 2015
Returners, you are nuts.
If a supreme being had really created you in its image
the world would have ended already.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (19) Oct 15, 2015
have already made it clear that I disagree with your point
Which point is that? That most urban buildings arent built to last more than 30 years, that the typical urban worker changes jobs ever 4 to 7 years, or that the infrastructure of many coastal cities is crumbling and irreplaceable? I believe I supplied links for all of these. Do you require more?
the scale of change is much larger than any we have seen before (in historic records)
You fail to appreciate the scale of western city recycling, in terms of both structures and people. Read the links I provided.

The article talks in terms of 'as early as next century... not for several centuries'. You also fail to appreciate how quickly city structures are replaced and how much time we actually have.

And hopefully Bangladesh and Indonesia will soon be modernized to the point that their people will be able to relocate as easy as it now is to leave a job in NYC for a better one in tulsa.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (20) Oct 15, 2015
But states like Florida are going to be in serious trouble. Your response is hand-waving
It was your hand tgat waved 'serious trouble'. A large percentage of Florida residents are immigrants and retired people. Immigrants... immigrate. Retirees die and are replaced by new ones.

Im sure they will find Phoenix or even tulsa, depending on the extent of climate change, just as pleasant.

Cities are not the static, eternal entities you imagine them to be. They are dynamic, ever-evolving, growing or shrinking depending on demographic shifts and economic changes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (20) Oct 15, 2015
scale is much larger... historic records
You should learn more history.

"In the riots which preceded the partition in the Punjab region, between 200,000 and 500,000 people were killed in the retributive genocide between the religions. UNHCR estimates 14 million Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims were displaced during the partition; it was the largest mass migration in human history."

-And it was certainly not the only one during that time. And this was over the course of a few years, not gens as the article is saying.

Consider: in the worst-case scenario per the article, everyone now living in Florida would have grown old and died. The companies they worked for would have long since relocated, along with their children, over the course of decades, as economics made living and working in Florida untenable.

They would have scattered throughout the country and around the globe to prospering regions where living is cheap and work plentiful.

Just like it is happening NOW.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2015
Ghost: You have done nothing to show any quantitative estimate of the cost of relocation of a single city, let alone hundreds of them over the next two centuries. Just show me the estimates that say it will be negligible and I will quit worrying about what might happen.

You mention 14 million as being the largest human migration in history. How many do you think will have to move when the oceans rise?

How much will it cost? You seem to think it will be inexpensive. Just show me the research that agrees with you.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (22) Oct 15, 2015
I want to see where he puts the billion people in Asia who will lose their sources of water when the glaciers finally give out. Got food stashed away for them? Water, too?

We cannot have such a casual disregard for Human life.
Zzzzzzzz
3 / 5 (22) Oct 15, 2015
thermodynamics - arguing with a psycho is counter productive. You can never make the psychotic see reality, that is the nature of their disease. There is no cure.
Zzzzzzzz
2.8 / 5 (22) Oct 15, 2015
And we see the delusion of denial joined by the delusion of religious belief. Exactly as predicted. Some brains have defects.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2015
I want to see where he puts the billion people in Asia who will lose their sources of water when the glaciers finally give out. Got food stashed away for them? Water, too?

We cannot have such a casual disregard for Human life.


the technology exists to make drinking water from sea water using solar power.

Plus you can't be sure there will even be that many people there to need that much water by then anyway. Hopefully the east and central asians will continue to reduce their birth rates to something remotely resembling sane levels.

India is sucking all of their ground water dry to irrigate farms for their 1 billion people. It is only a matter of time before they run out of ground water anyway, so they better have a mitigation plan in place.

I have suggested solar desalination technology needs to be developed for years.

India has 400million people who don't even have electricity yet. Wait till they get coal fired power plants and gas guzzlers!
Returners
Oct 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2015
Dummycrats want stricter gun laws?

Fine I do too. You're damn right I do.

Normal people don't need machine guns and shit.

And they can start by banning muslims from owning or possessing any gun at all.

You should have to undergo a full psychological evaluation BEFORE buying a gun, and you should have to be re-evaluated every year or so in order to keep a gun.

I'm sick of punk kids who walk into theatres and schools killing people, and so far in the past 20 years of mass shootings in the US, one ONE of them was done by someone who bought their gun illegally....alll the other ones bought their weapons legally and the pathetic laws we had couldn't detect them as a criminal, because no requirement is put on anybody to do real research into who is buying the gun and for what reason.

And it should be a felony to give a gun to anybody who is already a felon, regards to that other church shooter who got the guns from his father or uncle or some such.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (23) Oct 15, 2015
You don't have enough rope to lynch them all.

Give up your hate.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2015
We should have a summary execution law for mass shooters and bombers.

We don't need to spend a million dollars on a trial when we have 50 witnesses see someone gun down `10 or 20 other people.

First cop on the scene? Don' accept surrender. Shoot the asshole in the head and in the heart just to be sure, and kick his corpse for good measure.

They put these mass murderers up in "mental institutions" where they pay their living for ~80 years or so and endanger countless other people's lives...

Donald Trump is right about one thing:

Our leaders are freaking IDIOTS...

"That's unconstitutional" - Dummycrat.

That's why there's an amendment process. It should get used. Promptly.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2015
You don't have enough rope to lynch them all.

Give up your hate.


I'm not the one going around shooting people and blowing up buses and diners.

I don't hate them. I actually pray for them.

I feel sorry for them, I really do. They're the ones that are going to burn in hell for eternity for being/supporting murderers.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2015
Retardigans think it's okay for everyone to own a gun.
Dummycrats think it's okay to be a muslim.

recipe for disaster.

Although, to be fair, muslim cowards in the US tend to be bomb makers, which they learned from their comrads overseas.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 15, 2015
Returners proposed
We should have a summary execution law for mass shooters and bombers
Ah I see, you take lazy way & arbitrarily follow jesus' ideas without thought of consequence

ie. When jesus wanted to kill timothy ?

Returners stated
We don't need to spend a million dollars on a trial when we have 50 witnesses see someone gun down `10 or 20 other people
So popular opinion has more import than "rules of evidence", they were many Nazis last century who claimed jews were guilty of crimes, lots of witnesses etc.

Reminder: The malevolant will irrationally lie/cheat & on mass scale, you want to return us to ignoring the rule of law ?

Returners betrayed himself
First cop on the scene? Don' accept surrender. Shoot the asshole in the head and in the heart just to be sure, and kick his corpse for good measure
So you affirm you are NOT christian then, pretty obvious that, no forgiveness, no care !

One 'witness' enough for more murder & insanity then ?
leetennant
3.6 / 5 (17) Oct 15, 2015
There's nothing like mass murder being the solution to mass murder. That mass murder will definitely ensure there's no more mass murder. There's something wrong with that logic but I'm a crazed theist and can't see it. incidentally, my argument boils down to "we should save our society from becoming a theocracy by becoming a different kind of theocracy first". Scratch a theist and it's always all turtles... all the way down.

I'd also like to know what the hell this has to do with sea level rises - unless you're in the Returners camp of ethics, summarised as "as long as they're brown people dying, who cares?"

And for all those people who think Miami will be no big loss - how do you think we'll cope once Bangkok and London become uninhabitable?

my2cts
3.5 / 5 (21) Oct 16, 2015
Returners, you appear to be close to the edge.
Get help before you commit a crime.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (22) Oct 16, 2015
For Returners & the dude DQM who votes down many but, never has the courage since Jan 17, 2013 to actually engage in any discussion at all, you guys family ?

Kissin cousins perhaps and anti-Science & persecute those from the silent idelines who don't robotically follow mere arbitrary emotive evil claim to put yourself under the thumb of religious power (is DQM acronym for "Don't Query Me") ?

Tell us all about the wondrous, the key essential details about your god & all the other gods claimed to have spoken to men who only ever achieved: Status, Power & Authority over the meek, vulnerable & unintelligent without providing any education to learn such as the paradigm of Scientific Method ?

What are the specific attributes that distinguish your particular god from a Devil any Devil ?

Be honest now, or wouldn't your god want you to be true ?

This vid is pertinent, is this a loving god, a Devil or mechanism of variance in Nature's evolution:-
https://youtu.be/k9Lp4-y4RFE
Benni
2.3 / 5 (21) Oct 16, 2015
For Returners & the dude DQM who votes down many but, never has the courage since Jan 17, 2013 to actually engage in any discussion at all, you guys family ?

Kissin cousins perhaps and anti-Science & persecute those from the silent idelines who don't robotically follow mere arbitrary emotive evil claim to put yourself under the thumb of religious power (is DQM acronym for "Don't Query Me") ?

Tell us all about the wondrous, the key essential details about your god & all the other gods claimed to have spoken to men who only ever achieved: Status, Power & Authority over the meek, vulnerable & unintelligent without providing any education to learn such as the paradigm of Scientific Method?

What are the specific attributes that distinguish your particular god from a Devil any Devil ?

Be honest now, or wouldn't your god want you to be true ?
is this a loving god, a Devil or mechanism of variance in Nature's evolution


Muttering Mike, go study some Differential Equations

NealWV
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2015
Wow! I hope they didn't spend allot of money to determine this ground breaking info. Everyone including the native americans knew and know that New Orleans is not only below sea level now but is continuing to sink. The river shifts course and deposits silt every so often. Now that man has stopped this shift the river is higher than the surrounding land. People not everywhere that is high and dry is going to stay that way forever whether man was here or not!
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 16, 2015
"People not everywhere that is high and dry is going to stay that way forever whether man was here or not!"
-----------------------------

Oh. You should have said that before. (Whatever it means)
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 16, 2015
We haven't solved the problem here, have we? How are we going to make such a major transition in Human Experience? What are the costs going to be, compared to the much smaller costs of not polluting in the first place?

How will we replace the arable land lost to climate change? Who is going to feed the displaced?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 16, 2015
Ghost: You have done nothing to show any quantitative estimate of the cost of relocation of a single city
Neither have you. I gave you a realistic scenario in terms of decades and gens, whereby natural, economically-driven shifts will relocate people out of cities which by that time will be obsolete.

You seem to think we need to build neo-new yorks and bostons replete with identical landmarks and businesses that refugees can move right into, over the course of a decade or 2.

Business does not work that way.

Cities will be gradually abandoned by businesses which find it more profitable to operate elsewhere, as they are doing NOW and have always done. Workers will follow.

The cities and regions they move to will grow and develop to accomodate them, as they are doing NOW.

Economics drives demographic shifts, not massive megalomanic amarnas in the desert.
You mention 14 million as being the largest human migration in history
-In a few years, not centuries.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 16, 2015
How much will it cost? You seem to think it will be inexpensive. Just show me the research that agrees with you
Where did I say that? Its absurd to think that replacement cities will need to be built. Show me some research that BIG GOVT will have to replace cities along with housing, businesses, infrastructure, transportation, etc.

The idea is absurd.

What did it cost BIG GOVT to build these?
https://en.wikipe...d_States

-Business goes where the profit is. Bonds are floated and tax breaks secured to pay for it.

-And speaking of an amarna in the desert, did BIG GOVT pay for Las Vegas?
https://en.wikipe...as_Vegas

-No, Meyer Lansky did.
SuperThunder
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 16, 2015
If you look at the studies of the human populations most affected by climate change, you'll notice very few of them are strongholds for white western bigots. Climate change deniers, at least in America, are near universally bigots. They don't disbelieve, they approve, and will tell any lie to make sure it happens. Once most of the Southern Hemisphere is dead (millions from the climate change, millions more from the wars to profit from climate change) they will all say those deaths were tragic, unavoidable, and nature's fault, while secretly praising themselves for collusion in mass murder.

The knowledge that all of this was avoidable, and people who were violent, barbaric, and cruel, prevented anyone from stopping it from happening cannot be lost. It's too important that the survivors never let such people have this kind of power ever again.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 16, 2015
How will we replace the arable land lost to climate change? Who is going to feed the displaced?


How about one thing at a time here.......first let's get New Orleans out of that hole they continue digging themselves into even deeper. It seems somebody around that town has lost the concept of water seeking the lowest level in which to pool.
philstacy9
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2015
chromal
3.9 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2015
People seem willing to believe anything else first but that this is true. This paper is just stating the obvious from my perspective, though I'm not familiar with where wind and ocean current will make the first impacts manifest themselves. I expect to live to see this begin to play out in earnest, and I know people living in three of the cities forecast to be impacted early on...
Genep34
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2015
to returners and the rest of the ignorant science deniers - keep on wasting your time writing comments.

this is a science site - no one is going to take right wing deniers seriously - but i must say it does offer some entertainment value.

after you get rid of the scientists and the rest of the right wing marks what is left. just a bunch of white stupid males running around with their six shooters trying to scare each other.

keep posting and we will continue to laugh.
chromal
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2015
So we lose those two cities, so what? it would be like cleaning out two cesspools!

Then you'll really love it when they are 'flushed' into your neighborhood as refugees. Also, these are fellow Americans now we're talking about. I'm not surprised if people turn a hard heart to people living elsewhere in the world, but, do you lack compassion even for fellow citizens? Who /doesn't/ deserve to be smitten, in your view?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2015
Well chromal,

does it any sense to you that cities should not be built in coastal areas that are below sea level? New Oleans averages 1-2 feet below sea level. What kind of compassionate smart people do stupid stuff like building houses that are doomed to flooding conditions? Do you imagine it is lack of compassion that an engineer such as myself, would demand safe living accomodations through abandonment of such foolhardy construction?
bluehigh
5 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2015
Miami - a doom with a view?
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 17, 2015
Benni claimed with naive "Appeal to Authority"
Do you imagine it is lack of compassion that an engineer such as myself
Ah! a claimed "Nuclear Engineer" comments on Civil engineering issue or maybe instead he advises on Structural engineering issues ?

New Orleans, neg. history of storm surge stats prior, doh

Benni, I asked before, prove your creds ? you resort to "Appeal to Authority" when it suits to push a negative angle & boost ego, what's your student no, institute you graduated first as an "Engineer" then later as "Nuclear Engineer" ?

Mine 07602128 at Curtin University (formerly Western Australian Institute of Technology), Bentley Western Australia:- Electronic Engineer 1982, Bachelor of Science 2008, Post grad certificate Food Science 2010

Benii's view would inflame TheGhostofOtto1923 who has a fixed notion any Electrical Engineer cannot work on a Mechanical Engineering project & vice versa, why are you both appearing simpletons ?

Benni Prove it ?
mosahlah
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2015
I'll trade some hill country for that soon-to-be-worthless beach property in Miami. Any takers? I didn't think so.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (18) Oct 17, 2015

Benni Prove it ?

He never does. Just put him on ignore.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 17, 2015
The end is nigh for the denialist trolls: Exxon knew for decades that AGW is a fact.

http://phys.org/n...tic.html
my2cts
3.6 / 5 (17) Oct 17, 2015
Benni
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 17, 2015
does it make any sense to you that cities should not be built in coastal areas that are below sea level? New Oleans averages 1-2 feet below sea level. What kind of compassionate smart people do stupid stuff like building houses that are doomed to flooding conditions? Do you imagine it is lack of compassion that an engineer such as myself, would demand safe living accomodations through abandonment of such foolhardy construction?


Benii's view would inflame TheGhostofOtto1923 who has a fixed notion any Electrical Engineer cannot work on a Mechanical Engineering project & vice versa, why are you both appearing simpletons ?

Benni Prove it?


Muttering Mike, you've consistently proven your adeptness at being one of the most foul mouthed profanity prone old men on this site, so there is no reason for me to care what you mutter about, you're just one more totally irrelevant person who thinks it's smart to build houses below sea level.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2015
"Benii's view would inflame TheGhostofOtto1923 who has a fixed notion any Electrical Engineer cannot work on a Mechanical Engineering project & vice versa, why are you both appearing simpletons ?"
---------------------------------------

otto must have no education at all. He thinks my Master of Science diploma should have had all kinds of stuff on it. I guess he never saw a real one. Then, Ira, who apparently had never seen one either, had his wife tell him my thesis, which I sent him was not real. And, of course, never having seen a thesis, Ira thought so, too.

The problem is not their ignorance, it is their maladjustment, their need to attack, to try to have a place in society for themselves, while hiding at home behind pseudonyms.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2015
Then, Ira, who apparently had never seen one either, had his wife tell him my thesis, which I sent him was not real.


Skippy. In case you have not noticed. I have not been having anything to say to or about you the last few days. But no, you keep wanting to drag it out. So tell your lies all you want, it is okayeei with me. But quit dragging my name into them

1) You got no idea of what I have seen and what I have not seen either. I did see a picture of the diploma you send to me and it does not have anything written on him about Energy, Environment, or Management either. Tell the lie about him all you want, but if you bring my name into it, I am going to call you a liar.

The problem is not their ignorance, it is their maladjustment, their need to attack, to try to have a place in society for themselves, while hiding at home behind pseudonyms.


2) You don't know nothing about about me. What does saying something like that mean anyway.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (22) Oct 17, 2015
It means just what I said it means: You are SCARED to use your real name and take responsibility for your silly posts.

You cannot deny you disparaged my works because of your little ego problem. Not as bad as that of your clone otto, your game of personal comments is just silly.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 17, 2015
It means just what I said it means: You are SCARED to use your real name and take responsibility for your silly posts.

You cannot deny you disparaged my works because of your little ego problem. Not as bad as that of your clone otto, your game of personal comments is just silly.


Well then, put him on Ignore as I've done & use another viewing device see how fast he'll beg you to take it off. He begs not to be ignored by those far beyond his comprehension capability because that is what makes him feel relevant. The more you respond to him, the more relevant he feels.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (19) Oct 17, 2015
Perhaps it is time. Ira has no malice, he is here for banter. So I sent him my personal information, thinking he would appreciate it and relate it to otto. But egged on by otto, he chose to misrepresent it. Bad decision.

SuperThunder
2.4 / 5 (20) Oct 17, 2015
I hope space aliens don't read these comments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 17, 2015
Benii's view would inflame otto who has a fixed notion any EE cannot work on a ME project & vice versa
Why thats not true mikey. I have a problem with people claiming to be engineers when they have no formal engg education, no degree, no EIT-level experience, and even no PE although I do understand this is not actually necessary.

And I have a real problem with people claiming that their lies about being engrs (just because they held job shop positions with 'engineer' titles), makes them immune to criticism of their made-up facts and outright lies.
You are SCARED to use your real name and take responsibility
This is obviously directed at barakn, thermodynamics, and even mike masson. Who is mike masson? U of Victoria mike masson?

Who knows? Who cares? All thats important is the quality of the postings or lack thereof.

Only evidence determines this. Evidence exposes lying, psychopaths no matter what they pretend to be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2015
otto must have no education at all. He thinks my Master of Science diploma should have had all kinds of stuff on it. I guess he never saw a real one. Then, Ira, who apparently had never seen one either, had his wife tell him my thesis, which I sent him was not real. And, of course, never having seen a thesis, Ira thought so, too
George, ANYONE can read where you pretended to have an MS in environmental mgt, and then sent ira info which said you only had a

"Master Degree of Professional Studies (it means "life experience of a varied nature") The school will tell you that the Degree of Professional Studies is for older or working people who have life experience that might be worth some credits"
http://phys.org/n...ack.html

-which is in no way an MS in environmental management, which or anything else youve claimed.

THAT degree is indeed offered at that college, in a different school entirely.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 17, 2015
otto, get it straight or go home. You apparently never got very far in school, since your image of it is like your ideas of engineers. Are you really one of Putin's boys, trying to fit in here?

There are just too many things in this society of which you are completely ignorant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2015
What makes you think you can get away with lying about your MS again and again and again? As Ive said before you may be able to get away with people you can intimidate in person, but you cant get away with it HERE.

Typical ploy of the psychopath - lie, be exposed, wait a few weeks, and tell the same lie again, thinking that people would forget the specifics of the exposure.

That cant work HERE george where your lies and exposures are recorded in perpetuity.

This is the internet. Follow the link I posted above and read your lies. Just like everybody else.

Do you think we will get tired of showing everybody just what a sicko you are?

Never. It gets better every time you try to get away with it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 17, 2015
otto, get it straight or go home. You apparently never got very far in school
Even if that were true, which I think the people here realize its not, I (or any average hs sophomore) can expose your lies and made-up facts.

Its EASY. Too bad youre too sick to acknowledge this.
since your image of it is like your ideas of engineers. Are you really one of Putin's boys, trying to fit in here?
Its easy george. EXPLAIN why you lied about your MS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 17, 2015
There are just too many things in this society of which you are completely ignorant
You can pretend all you want in that malformed little mind of yours. What people see is entirely different.

"We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent psychopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

"Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

"Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers."

IMO of course.
joefarah
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2015
I'm just curious... a warmer planet will mean more evaporation, more moisture in the atmosphere. Exactly how much moisture could the atmosphere hold when it is warmer. Me thinks, a lot more than has been accounted for in the models, imperfect as they are.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2015
I'm just curious... a warmer planet will mean more evaporation, more moisture in the atmosphere. Exactly how much moisture could the atmosphere hold when it is warmer. Me thinks, a lot more than has been accounted for in the models, imperfect as they are.
......yeah, just like what's going on in California right now.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2015
GreenO said:
Antigoracle says
Ocean temperatures dropping like a rock.

Then clarifies saying -
And, I should have said "Ocean heat content"

And then provides graphs that show exactly the opposite.

Thermo - we are trying to talk rationally to someone who drinking from the happy juice bottle. It is an interesting past time as an educational experiment - but it can test your resolve. Best of luck.


I am a bit hard headed and I thought that giving them facts and links to the methods of computation would help them understand why they are wrong about the science. Instead, as you point out, it is futile. They are mired in politics. I will continue to watch and contribute but I am not going to argue about science with those who don't want to understand it. Thank for the reminder Green.
AGreatWhopper
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 17, 2015
Wow, you people swarm these articles very quickly.


The give-away that it's going to be like that is when "returners" pulls out his benni sock puppet so quickly.

Still hoping.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 17, 2015
@jimshitforbrains

You're sick, really sick and disgusting.
jljenkins
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2015
Along with 1/2 the other people on this thread. What a cesspool!
AGreatWhopper
2.5 / 5 (21) Oct 17, 2015
gkam and otto are like watching a beta fish fight its reflection. Two peas in a pod. I guess the comments section is only big enough for one raving narcissist. Get a room you two. See who can get off more times to their own reflection. I think G has an edge, but it'd be a fair fight. Which this isn't.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 17, 2015
Nope, AGW, he is on ignore. Notice no ratings from me?

You will be too, soon.
mosahlah
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2015
Still offering to trade hill property for some of that doomed Miami beach front property. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang on to a beach house when the scientific consensus is that submersion is imminent... Hmmm. Strange isn't it?
my2cts
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2015
about jim_xanara
phys.org should remove this bigotry.
They are responsible for managing content.
my2cts
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
Still offering to trade hill property for some of that doomed Miami beach front property. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang on to a beach house when the scientific consensus is that submersion is imminent... Hmmm. Strange isn't it?

Science is often surprising, the rest is called common sense.
I will explain with a simple example.
Grass grows so slowly that you can't see it happening in real time with the unaided eye.
Are you surprised if you have to mow it again after a week ?
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
I'm just curious... a warmer planet will mean more evaporation, more moisture in the atmosphere. Exactly how much moisture could the atmosphere hold when it is warmer. Me thinks, a lot more than has been accounted for in the models, imperfect as they are.

You only say this because have no knowledge of physics.
joefarah
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2015
@my2cts On the contrary, I'm quite learned in physics (minor undergrad and subsequent studies especially in space sciences and general relativity). I say this because the only significant changes to the earth's temperature through human intervention come from nuclear energy/bombs (which releases significant heat that otherwise would be released much more slowly) and clear-cutting of forests (especially rain forests) which impact the balance of the plant (CO2 intake) and animal (O2 intake) worlds. However, additional CO2 in the atmosphere feeds plant growth which increases CO2 to O2 conversion.

Now back to my original point. Given a warmer climate, say 2 degrees warmer, how much more moisture would the atmosphere hold. And what portion of this do the CC models take into consideration?
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 18, 2015
joefarah claims
.. I'm quite learned in physics (minor undergrad and subsequent studies especially in space sciences and general relativity)
LO. Nowhere near enough, beliefs don't cut it, education is an entirely different matter, please review my last post here
http://phys.org/n...tic.html

joefarah claims
.. only significant changes to the earth's temperature through human intervention come from nuclear energy/bombs..
No !

joefarah claims
.. and clear-cutting of forests ... which impact the balance of the plant..
Not enough !

joefarah claims
.. additional CO2 in the atmosphere feeds plant growth which increases CO2 to O2 conversion
No & Not simple !

Extra CO2 shifts some food crops produce cyanogens ie HCN=Poison :-(

joefarah asked
Given a warmer climate, say 2 degrees warmer, how much more moisture would the atmosphere hold..
Glad you asked for a change, here
https://en.wikipe...ometrics
Benni
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
joefarah claims
I'm quite learned in physics (minor undergrad and subsequent studies especially in space sciences and general relativity)


LO. Nowhere near enough, beliefs don't cut it, education is an entirely different matter, please review my last post here


.........so this means you too don't cut it because by your own words, "education is an entirely different matter". You have little knowledge of nuclear physics, chemistry, etc.......so in substitution you think filling up your postings with a lot of name calling & foul mouthed vulgarity is an appropriate substitute to make up for your own lack of education.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 18, 2015
LOL

Benni Fails digging yet deeper hole lacking comprehension
..so this means you too don't cut it because by your own words, "education is an entirely different matter"
No. Read !

joefarah believes he's "learned in Physics", I'm simply advising its nowhere near enough (re AGW), both of you need clearly understand radiative transfer, please read my posts & Physics links

ie Lectures missed yet claiming graduation first as "Engineer" & then as "Nuclear engineer" ?

I've supplied my creds, email Curtin Uni - where are yours please ?

Benni fails claiming
You have little knowledge of nuclear physics, chemistry, etc.......so in substitution you think filling up your postings with a lot of name calling & foul mouthed vulgarity is an appropriate substitute to make up for your own lack of education
See my cred, your claims don't cut it !

Prove yourself & your claim re DEs
https://en.wikipe...transfer

/LOL
eachus
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2015
o we lose those two cities, so what?

Well, it's going to cost a pretty penny to relocate all these people and businesses. And what did you have in mind for them? Shoving them into other cities? Or building 'replacement cities'? Either of those options would cost way more than completely changing over the entire energy infrastricture of the US to renewables.


Um. We already lost New Orleans in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A lot of the refugees were smart enough not to move back. I went to a convention in New Orleans several years after the hurricanes, and even though downtown was restored (and the food was great) the population had not recovered. In fact, the population is still more than 10% down from before the hurricanes.

As for Miami? If we had sensible disaster management, the US should be evacuating the entire Florida East coast (and other areas) prior to the next (super-)tsunami in the Atlantic Ocean.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
I'm just curious... Me thinks, a lot more than has been accounted for in the models, imperfect as they are.

Knowledge of physics should have stopped you from making your totally unfounded statement.
Why didn't it?
Since you do know physics, here's what a physicist would do. Read the climate modelling papers. Check if the authors are indeed dead wrong. As this would be entirely surprising, publish and place a link here to the peer reviewed paper.
AGreatWhopper
2 / 5 (16) Oct 18, 2015
It's an American attitude. The farmer that visits the big city for the first time and sees a Picasso and says, "I don't know anhthing about art, but I know what I like and I don't like that!". Democracy means every yahoo yelling their opinion. Two generation raised without anyone backhanding them and saying STFU if you don't know what you're talking about. And now one has a chance to be President. This stuff is not harmless.
AGreatWhopper
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
about jim_xanara
phys.org should remove this bigotry.
They are responsible for managing content.


The climate spammers are less dangerous? They don't manage content, they take payment for content. If it's right wing, it's bought and paid for. You will never see the kind of content management you see on every other site of any repute as long as that is the case.
AGreatWhopper
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
Still offering to trade hill property for some of that doomed Miami beach front property. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang on to a beach house when the scientific consensus is that submersion is imminent... Hmmm. Strange isn't it?


SFBs, does anyone on here own any? Very good example though of the kind of thinking your ilk engage in. The fact that there is not one person on here that could accept the offer doesn't deter you from making the point...again. Classic. Snapshot of a logic-challenged troll. Can't happen, but you can just shout that it should...or everyone's a liar. Facts and reality be damned. I have a better idea. You can be damned.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2015
LOL......
Prove yourself & your claim re DEs
https://en.wikipe...transfer
/LOL

Ha..ha.. Mutterin Mike pretending to know science because he "learnt" it from Wikipedia.
Mutterin Mike may I suggest you go on another walkabout, but this time, instead of letting that roo kick you in the head, have him kick you in the nuts. Perhaps that would knock some sense into you.
/LOL
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 18, 2015
@anti
As always you make no sense.
You appear more a mobster than an interested layman.
Why don't you split ? Hang around with your own sort?
Wait, Exxon is paying you a dollar a month.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2015
@anti
Hee...hawww....hee...hawww..
Wait, Exxon is paying you a dollar a month.

Yep, and Exxon is holding a gun to your head, every time you full up your gas tank.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2015
gkam and otto are like
George comes here to make up lies about his past as justification for the facts he makes up.

Do yourself a favor; check what he posts from time to time. Check the lies we have already flagged him with. Youll soon be convinced, like most of the rest of us here, that he is a compulsive liar.

Im not. See the difference?

You can then decide if you want to keep encouraging a compulsive liar here, just because he supports your cause, or not.

Which stance is more honorable?

"Part of the hurt and damage was done because others could but would not see what was actually happening. He would always try to ingratiate himself to others it was sickening. Usually psychopaths put on the nicest act...

"My biggest frustration and source of anger, is at those who have refused to take a stand when they see the abuse... No matter how outrageous his behavior others often stood by and inadvertently fueled his grandiosity and denial..."

-Youre a Dupe.
my2cts
3 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2015
@anti
Hee...hawww....hee...hawww..
Wait, Exxon is paying you a dollar a month.

Yep, and Exxon is holding a gun to your head, every time you full up your gas tank.

So go make yourself scarse.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Oct 18, 2015
@anti
Hee...hawww....hee...hawww..
Wait, Exxon is paying you a dollar a month.

Yep, and Exxon is holding a gun to your head, every time you full up your gas tank.

So go make yourself scarse.

Wow, you're really that ignorant and you have my pity.
Ever wonder where they are getting that dollar to pay me?
Here's an idea, to put an end to it, and Exxon.
Next time you fill up, just drive away without paying. Even better yet, stop being a hypocrite and don't fill up at all. And, still better, get all your Chicken Little friends to do the same. That will show them. So, go make yourself useful.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 18, 2015
Even better yet, stop being a hypocrite and don't fill up at all. And, still better, get all your Chicken Little friends to do the same. That will show them. So, go make yourself useful.


You're kidding? You really expect these greenies to give up the use of jet fuel or gasoline to attend Al Gore's next gig when he flies in on that fuel hog?

By the way, I do know of a couple of habitats of pure greenies who live in the vicinity of where I live, they are off the grid, their wind turbines & PV's do not work most of the time. It's a stark reality how absolutely shabby their lives & their habitats are. They don't have productive jobs because they ride bikes everywhere & do not use cars. Come winter around here & these people beg others, who own cars, for the means of getting to a food store the nearest of which is 15 miles away.

Why are greenies so enamored with using someone else's gasoline if they imagine themselves to be such purists??

jljenkins
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2015
They're hypocrites. Well, that's only if you believe the schtick and I don't. Actually, they're most like right wing Christians. We call them hypocrites a lot too. I think both cases miss the mark.

The point of their morality isn't that they think it's something everyone should follow. It's certainly not anything that they think applies to them. It's a way to control "the other" of which they are terrified. It's the white, middle-class philandering Christian preaching the gospel to a poor black youth because the Christian thinks it is a good form of behavioral control. It's not for him or his family, it's for "the other".

It's obvious when you look at the consumer greenies. Nothing reduces footprint like reducing feet on the ground, yet they don't talk about population which would be causing a major extinction without any climate change at all. Many are realtors and religious that depend on constant population growth. Maybe hypocrites was right.
jljenkins
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2015
Oh, and my FAVORITE has to be when they have a "clean energy summit" or some such nonsense IN FREAKIN' LAS VEGAS!!! It would be funny if it weren't so pitiful. Harry Reid and Obummer get all righteous about addressing AGW. One if from Las Vegas and one from Hawaii. You know, those two places could be the illustration in the child's encylopedia of simple concepts under the word "unsustainable". Are there two less sustainable places for the population they have on earth? AND LAS VEGAS DELIBERATLY TRIES TO ATTRACT TEMPORARY RESIDENTS TO MAKE IT WORSE!!! Shoot water into the air for recreation. "What me, worry? YOU worry, I'm going right on as usual."

You know, I just can't imagine why there are climate skeptics. Greenies yell, "My house is on fire; DO something to save me", and then go back to watching the boob tube. blueoregon.com actually had an article "What's the worst thing about AGW deniers?" I posted, "That they're caused by your hypocrisy".
I Have Questions
4 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2015
The vast majority of deniers are religious conservative republicans. I think that they are influenced by the notion that Armageddon is coming and they are subconsciously making that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 19, 2015
The vast majority of deniers are religious conservative republicans. I think that they are influenced by the notion that Armageddon is coming and they are subconsciously making that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh no!! This Chicken Little is on to us!!
Wait...who are the ones who believe the sky is falling... oh yeah... the Chicken Littles.
I believe the Chicken Littles are so stupid, they wouldn't know the truth even if it slapped them upside their dumb faces.
Benni
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 19, 2015
The vast majority of deniers are religious conservative republicans. I think that they are influenced by the notion that Armageddon is coming and they are subconsciously making that a self-fulfilling prophecy.


So, "deniers" have created a prophecy through what in their stance on AGW or GW? That there is a thing called Armageddon coming in which what will take place? That there will be no global warming? Lack of rain & all manner of fire & brimstone followed up by drought all over the globe will not result in GW?

Or are you saying they want GW while at the same time being "deniers" of what? Global warming?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 19, 2015
I think he made it pretty clear, Benni.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2015
I think he made it pretty clear, Benni.


Right, IHQ is just as confused as right wing religious conservative Republicans?

Tell you what Geek, because you're so entuned to what's "pretty clear", you explain what IHQ is talking about.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 20, 2015
It is about you, Benni.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2015
@anti
Hee...hawww....hee...hawww..
Wait, Exxon is paying you a dollar a month.

Yep, and Exxon is holding a gun to your head, every time you full up your gas tank.

So go make yourself scarse.

Wow, you're really that ignorant and you have my pity.
Ever wonder where they are getting that dollar to pay me?
Here's an idea, to put an end to it, and Exxon.
Next time you fill up, just drive away without paying. Even better yet, stop being a hypocrite and don't fill up at all. And, still better, get all your Chicken Little friends to do the same. That will show them. So, go make yourself useful.

So you confess that you are paid by Exxon a dollar a month.
That is one dollar too many for someone of your level.
Also it shows a worrying failure of intelligence in the company.
Stocks will fall when this gets out.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.