Many people have the perception that our cities will soon be underwater, yet this is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you do believe in man-made global warming and that the sea levels will rise significantly, you must realize that people can easily build dikes. There are already large populated areas which are below sea-level and would be submerged without levees. Considering the laughably slow rate of sea-level rise predicted by all serious sources -- on the order of centimeters per decade -- it's unreasonable to assume there would be anything preventing the construction of adequate barriers.

Yet, for some reason I keep seeing garbage like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1031438/Pictured-The-floating-cities-day-house-climate-change-refugees.html

:mad:

Sea level rises in conjunction with increased storm frequency and strength are the problem. Individual components of global warming cannot be viewed in isolation - one issue impacts upon another.

And you don't see a problem with telling countries like Bangladesh to stop whining and just build a few multi-billion dollar dykes?

And you don't see a problem with telling countries like Bangladesh to stop whining and just build a few multi-billion dollar dykes?

If they can't build it, fuck 'em. Seriously, they need to stop leeching off of us and learn to survive on their own.

New Orleans had dykes. Lots of them.

And you have to factor, if the West Antarctic ice shelf goes, that's a 20 foot rise in sea level in a damn short period. Good luck building enough dykes strong enough fast enough. Greenland could add another 20 feet on top of that. Most dykes now aren't designed for anything other than emergencies, like floods, and are made of dirt.

Imagine building a 50+ foot wall all around Manhatten. Multiply that by about 100,000, and I'd say you've got a very conservitive estimate there. Damn near the whole state of Florida is at sea level. Do you think they could even build a small dirt dyke around the whole state in any sort of hurry, let alone one that would hold up to hurricanes? Just a couple feet of water will sink the state.

There's been alot of conflicting reports on Global Warming. I even recall seeing a news program that reported with a rise of a couple of degrees fireballs will start raining from the sky due to the atmosphere igniting.(Not making this up, tried to find it on Youtube)

Point is, before you all get to caught up in the worst case scenarios, don't forget the last time we faced a "major catastrophe." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K)

New Orleans had dykes. Lots of them.

And you have to factor, if the West Antarctic ice shelf goes, that's a 20 foot rise in sea level in a damn short period. Good luck building enough dykes strong enough fast enough. Greenland could add another 20 feet on top of that. Most dykes now aren't designed for anything other than emergencies, like floods, and are made of dirt.

Imagine building a 50+ foot wall all around Manhatten. Multiply that by about 100,000, and I'd say you've got a very conservitive estimate there. Damn near the whole state of Florida is at sea level. Do you think they could even build a small dirt dyke around the whole state in any sort of hurry, let alone one that would hold up to hurricanes? Just a couple feet of water will sink the state.

If you dig 18-19 feet below my house you hit water. Yay for Florida.

There's been alot of conflicting reports on Global Warming.

No one who denies that the global mean surface temperature is increasing is taken seriously - there's a mountain of data from the last century to squash them with. What is still contentious is the extent of the human contribution to that increase.

I even recall seeing a news program that reported with a rise of a couple of degrees fireballs will start raining from the sky due to the atmosphere igniting.(Not making this up, tried to find it on Youtube)

Lol, if they can't make the sky catch fire with H-bombs then a hot breeze isn't going to do shit.

Point is, before you all get to caught up in the worst case scenarios, don't forget the last time we faced a "major catastrophe." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K)

I don't think the need for computer software upgrades makes for a fair comparison with melting icesheets.

I don't think the need for computer software upgrades makes for a fair comparison with melting icesheets.

That's a remarkable ability you have to misinterpret posts. I was using Y2k because I assumed everyone would remember that situation. How for years leading up to it we were subjected to scientists and government officials prophesying doom, books were written on how to survive the chaos it would bring. (http://books.google.com.au/books?ct=result&q=Surviving+y2k&btnG=Search+Books)

And in the end nothing happened. Not a thing. There were no major blackouts, computers didn't crash. Planes didn't drop out of the skies.

Hysteria has a way of propagating itself, nothing like a bit of impending doom to boost ratings. I do believe in Global Warming, but I also believe it won't be a fraction as bad as it's made out to be, because it won't effect change fast enough for us to be unable to elicit counter-measures against it.

Yeah, because we can easily counter the it before the Northwest Passage melts, or Antarctic ice shelfs start breaking off. Oh, wait, too late for that...

There's been alot of conflicting reports on Global Warming.

I'm going to refrence An Inconvenient Truth here. In a sampling of 10% of all scientific reports on the subject, every last one of them was in agreement about global warming being a threat. Whereas 53% of mass media articles expressed doubt to it's danger, or even existance.

Umm some cities may flood but God promised in the old testament that the world wont end in a flood. Assholes pwnt major pwnt BIBLE JOCKEYS FTW

I live in Hawaii. My school is about 50 feet above sea level (and about 300 feed from the beach, theres a small cliff). Yea, I think there would be some dramatic changes where I live. Not only would the sea level rise, but we are also having problems with erosion. :(

i'm 600 feet above sea level so i think i need not worry and not 20 mi away theres a 12000 foot mountain if i start getting flooded i'll just move =P

Its not????? Damn.....


>Puts away fun noodles<

I was rly looking forward to the global marco polo game

This was terrible too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Cooling
:rolleyes:
Global Warming is just the flavor of the day.

If they can't build it, fuck 'em. Seriously, they need to stop leeching off of us and learn to survive on their own.

Well, since you sounded like a SFers, here's an easy solution that'll suite your conscience very well.

Detonate a dozen nukes over Africa, thus creating a thousand mile wide crater. Now these craters can be used as man made reservoirs to store extra waters from the melting of ice caps. Soon, African continent will become fertile and green again. Of cos the radioactivity will remain for a few hundred years, but look at the bigger picture : Eventually the radioactivity will go away, Africa will became cultivatable once again. And humanity will be saved.

No one who denies that the global mean surface temperature is increasing is taken seriously - there's a mountain of data from the last century to squash them with. What is still contentious is the extent of the human contribution to that increase.

Really ? What are the mentioned data ? I challenge you to present them here so I may refute them as I see fit. Anyway, has it ever occur to you that the Global Mean Air Temperature is increasing is all because of the increase of new thermometer's precision over the past 100 years ? And that data taken from 1880s are lower due to the bad thermometers instead of earth being cooler ?

Really ? What are the mentioned data ? I challenge you to present them here so I may refute them as I see fit.

See below.

Anyway, has it ever occur to you that the Global Mean Air Temperature is increasing is all because of the increase of new thermometer's precision over the past 100 years ? And that data taken from 1880s are lower due to the bad thermometers instead of earth being cooler ?

Instrumental uncertainty (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/) has already been taken into consideration. And the underlying logic behind 'it's getting hotter because our instruments are getting more precise' is quite hilarious. Using your thinking if we bulid an instrument sophisticated enough, then hypothetically we'll be able to melt the polar ice caps just by taking some extremely accurate measurements over the next few years.

Lol.

And data showing increasing GMST over the 100 years+ (without necessarily attributing cause) is abundant and available from many sources. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/)

Stops building arc.."Wut?"

Hey, what's wrong with my reply that it didn't past moderation ?

Edit : re-edit to beat moderation due to previous post not getting through moderation.

See below.
Instrumental uncertainty (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/) has already been taken into consideration.

Yes, I knew you're gonna bring up the 1850-2008 temp chart. So, eventually, that chart will brings us to the question : HOW & WHERE did the data from 1850-1960 came from ? I've searched around and had found NO definite answers.

Does it :
[a] Came from weather stations, which begot their readings from thermometer, balloons and such ?

[b] Came from ice core samples ?

If it came from [a]weather stations, certainly, we can doubt the accuracies of their thermometer readings, since they are just using regular Hg/alcohol filled thermometers, and can hardly be accurate up to 2 decimal points.

If it came from [b]ice core samples, then we certainly have no way to verify it's accuracies, cos as far as I understand them, reading ice core samples are just as accurate as palm readings/fortune telling. Cos calculation of air bubble isotopes relied solely on the the scientist who did them. And we all know that most if not all scientists today behaves just like a politician, they all lied to get more funding.

And the underlying logic behind 'it's getting hotter because our instruments are getting more precise' is quite hilarious. Using your thinking if we bulid an instrument sophisticated enough, then hypothetically we'll be able to melt the polar ice caps just by taking some extremely accurate measurements over the next few years.

Well, the "average" human body temperature 150 years ago were 37 degreeC, today we know that the average human body temperature were actually 36.8 degreeC. Does that mean the average body temperature has actually fallen over the past 150 years ?

I don't think so. It's becos the thermometer has became more precise, up to 3 decimal points today. See how you looked at it the wrong way ? Instead of thinking [more precise thermometers leads to higher global temperature], think of it as [thermometer of the past under-recorded global air temperature due to imprecision] :cool:

Lol.

LOLBAY (back at you)

And data showing increasing GMST over the 100 years+ (without necessarily attributing cause) is abundant and available from many sources. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/)

Yes, I've been there, which is why I've concluded that it's all due to "better thermometer" phenomenon, when they say :

current GISS analysis of surface temperature change for the period 1880-1999 based primarily on meteorological station measurements.....a higher level, analogous to the increase that occurred in the late 1970s. Warming in the United States over the past.... (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html)

And considering the fact that precision-digital-electronic-thermometer was only widely available during the late 50s/early 60s, it fits nicely with the rising trend. :D

That's a remarkable ability you have to misinterpret posts. I was using Y2k because I assumed everyone would remember that situation.

And in the end nothing happened. Not a thing. There were no major blackouts, computers didn't crash. Planes didn't drop out of the skies.

Because it was hyped up, had billions of dollars spent fixing it, and prepared for in advance.

Y2K would have been a shitstorm has the world not prepared for it.

Compare that to peak oil or global climate change which absolutely annhilate Y2K in terms of scope, magnitude, effective remedial action, and unpreparedness.

Stops building arc.."Wut?"

This had me ROFLin' and rolls smoothly into my answer:


Who cares?
Buy guns
Move to mountainous region
....?
Profit

Places at sea level are gonna be screwed even before they flood at this rate. Sea water will eventually rise to the point that it will reach the roots of plants, killing them, and fucking over farmers, and even worsening global warming. Already started in Figi, all of the surrounding islands are full of farmers that are forced to move.

Places at sea level are gonna be screwed even before they flood at this rate. Sea water will eventually rise to the point that it will reach the roots of plants, killing them, and fucking over farmers, and even worsening global warming. Already started in Figi, all of the surrounding islands are full of farmers that are forced to move.

Solution? Grow seaweed.

The floating city in the article is pretty badass. It's like something out of a sci-fi. I wonder how much those things cost to build and maintain?

If they can't build it, fuck 'em. Seriously, they need to stop leeching off of us and learn to survive on their own.

This.

Really ? What are the mentioned data ? I challenge you to present them here so I may refute them as I see fit. Anyway, has it ever occur to you that the Global Mean Air Temperature is increasing is all because of the increase of new thermometer's precision over the past 100 years ? And that data taken from 1880s are lower due to the bad thermometers instead of earth being cooler ?

...wut

Measurements don't work like this. You can't take tens of thousands of measurements, even by inaccurate devices, and get an average which is meaningfully lower than one made by accurate devices. If inaccurate devices consistently measured lower than true temperatures, then the designer would simply draw the fucking lines on the thermometer slightly lower than they had originally. Idiot..

If they can't build it, fuck 'em. Seriously, they need to stop leeching off of us and learn to survive on their own.

Even assuming that people should take responsibility for their own shit, aren't we the ones contributing the most to the CO2, and thus the warming and the flooding? And as such, we should be the ones working hardest to clean this shit up.

Besides, in the long run, the cost of cleaning up our messes will be a lot cheaper than the damage done by a billion pissed off refugees, and 2 billion pissed off people swamped by those refugees.

And of course, a number of that will be right here in the US. Hell, just the cost of relocating Manhattan would make a sizable shift on that balance sheet.

Besides, in the long run, the cost of cleaning up our messes will be a lot cheaper than the damage done by a billion pissed off refugees, and 2 billion pissed off people swamped by those refugees.

So don't accept refugees. :rolleyes:

Instrumental uncertainty (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/) has already been taken into consideration.

HOW & WHERE did the data from 1850-1960 came from ? I've searched around and had found NO definite answers.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z106/yui987/annual_s21.png

When viewing my link try using the scroll bar, idiot.

This. ( ). Right there. If anything its going to cool anyways, dickwads. Ice ages scare me more. And FUCK BANGLADESH.

New Orleans had dykes. Lots of them.

And you have to factor, if the West Antarctic ice shelf goes, that's a 20 foot rise in sea level in a damn short period. Good luck building enough dykes strong enough fast enough. Greenland could add another 20 feet on top of that. Most dykes now aren't designed for anything other than emergencies, like floods, and are made of dirt.

Imagine building a 50+ foot wall all around Manhatten. Multiply that by about 100,000, and I'd say you've got a very conservitive estimate there. Damn near the whole state of Florida is at sea level. Do you think they could even build a small dirt dyke around the whole state in any sort of hurry, let alone one that would hold up to hurricanes? Just a couple feet of water will sink the state.

This.
If there was a sudden surge in water height, there is NO WAY Florida could get enough of a height around the entire border to stop a flood.

New Orleans had dykes. Lots of them.

Zing!

If they can't build it, fuck 'em. Seriously, they need to stop leeching off of us and learn to survive on their own.

Uh....we (The United States) are the ones causing the majority of greenhouse buildup. That's like saying "hey buddy - I'm up on this tall building, and I've got these big rocks I need to get rid of, so I'm gonna drop them on your head. If you can't build yourself a helmet in time...well, sucks to be you."

A more mature thing on our part might be (to continue the metaphor) more like "hey, I've got some big rocks to get rid of...I guess I'll go find a way to get them down from this building safely, even if it costs me a lot and takes a long time."

OK, bad example. But you get the idea.

Sea lvl will rise liek 10m. My place is like 50m asl. So whatever.

If they can't build it, fuck 'em. Seriously, they need to stop leeching off of us and learn to survive on their own.

They've been surviving on their own perfectly well enough for thousands of years.

If global warming is a man made problem, mainly caused by the industrial powers, then you have a responsibility to sort them out.

Sea lvl will rise liek 10m. My place is like 50m asl. So whatever.

Ah, everything will be fine for you then! :D

.... fucking idiot. Think outside the box.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z106/yui987/annual_s21.png

When viewing my link try using the scroll bar, idiot.

Ok, lard, tell me how does scrolling down answer my question ?


Does it :
[a] Came from weather stations, which begot their readings from thermometer, balloons and such ?

[b] Came from ice core samples ?

And if you had bother to look into your own source, from here :

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf


The land-surface component of HadCRUT
is derived from a collection of homogenised,
quality-controlled, monthly-average temperatures
for 4349 stations....Five Swiss stations were updated for
the period 1864–2001 [Begert et al., 2005].

clearly shows these data came from land based station since 1850. Next time try to understand my questions before leaping to a simple conclusion...

The point my fluffy friend is that your 'dodgy thermometer' theory simply doesn't hold water. Even with the error margins are taken into account, the GMST can still be seen to be rising.

The point my fluffy friend is that your 'dodgy thermometer' theory simply doesn't hold water. Even with the error margins are taken into account, the GMST can still be seen to be rising.

At the exact point in history where precision-electronic-digital thermometers became widely available ?

Hmmm...I like the fluffy reference though...

At the exact point in history where precision-electronic-digital thermometers became widely available ?

Hmmm...I like the fluffy reference though...

I think you'll find it correlates to a lot of technological expansion..

At the exact point in history where precision-electronic-digital thermometers became widely available ?

Hmmm...I like the fluffy reference though...

Irrelevant.

Air temp' readings could have been taken by clenching a thermometer between the arsecheeks whilst standing on a windy hilltop. As long as the error margins are factored into the readings produced by this procedure the data will be valid. And factoring in the error margins is exactly what has been done with these data that I have presented you with and it still clearly shows a positive trend.

Unless of you, The Methematician, have outwitted the 21st centuries collective scientific community with your stunning insight that... modern electronic thermometers are more accurate than mercury/alcohol ones from the 1800's.

How on Earth did all these PhDs not take that into account!?

The fools!

Irrelevant.

Air temp' readings could have been taken by clenching a thermometer between the arsecheeks whilst standing on a windy hilltop. As long as the error margins are factored into the readings produced by this procedure the data will be valid. And factoring in the error margins is exactly what has been done with these data that I have presented you with and it still clearly shows a positive trend.

Are you saying that a thermometer from the 1850s could be trusted to an accuracies within a .2 graduation ?

Unless of you, The Methematician, have outwitted the 21st centuries collective scientific community with your stunning insight that... modern electronic thermometers are more accurate than mercury/alcohol ones from the 1800's.


So what you are saying now is that thermometer manufactured from the 1850s is just as accurate as today's electronic-digital thermometer; or are you just saying that today's precision-electronic-digital thermometers failed to out perform antique thermometers.

How on Earth did all these PhDs not take that into account!?

The fools!

Yeah, them fools, can't even agree on either there's a global warming or global cooling.

Irrelevant.

Air temp' readings could have been taken by clenching a thermometer between the arsecheeks whilst standing on a windy hilltop. As long as the error margins are factored into the readings produced by this procedure the data will be valid. And factoring in the error margins is exactly what has been done with these data that I have presented you with and it still clearly shows a positive trend.

Are you saying that a thermometer from the 1850s could be trusted to an accuracies within a .2 graduation ?

Unless of you, The Methematician, have outwitted the 21st centuries collective scientific community with your stunning insight that... modern electronic thermometers are more accurate than mercury/alcohol ones from the 1800's.


So what you are saying now is that thermometer manufactured from the 1850s is just as accurate as today's electronic-digital thermometer; or are you just saying that today's precision-electronic-digital thermometers failed to out perform antique thermometers.

How on Earth did all these PhDs not take that into account!?

The fools!

Yeah, them fools, can't even agree on either there's a global warming or global cooling.

resend

I've made my point sufficiently clear.

If you don't want to, or can't, accept that even with instrumental uncertainty taken into statistical account the GMST is going up, then that's your call.

I've made my point sufficiently clear.

If you don't want to, or can't, accept that even with instrumental uncertainty taken into statistical account the GMST is going up, then that's your call.

Of course I can't accept your so called "instrumental uncertainty", when there's absolute no correction made to it whatsoever. If you re-look at the chart you had provided, they are pretty consistent with my claims...

This so-called "correction" made to the instrument uncertainty is just a re-averaging of all the readings taken from base stations...since 1850s.

And according to these charts too we can see that this so-called instrument uncertainty had narrow down exactly at the point in history when precision;electronic;thermometers had became widely available...

And taking into consideration that these "graphs" you had provided were notched @ 0.4* per-notch, readings from any thermometer that can't be trusted with your life to be accurate to within 0.2* could and should be deemed unworthy...

So, in closing...if you still choose to believe these sets of "data" to be true, then you are clearly delusional, and no...not paranoid delusional; just delusional.

KTB:)

Millions of years ago, the ice age magically melted away, with no help from CO2 producing combustion. cars, or factories.

How'd that happen?

The same way they always do; through natural processes over thousands of years. Its to do with negative feedback, the planets albedo, aridity, and such.

Of course I can't accept your so called "instrumental uncertainty", when there's absolute no correction made to it whatsoever. If you re-look at the chart you had provided, they are pretty consistent with my claims...

This so-called "correction" made to the instrument uncertainty is just a re-averaging of all the readings taken from base stations...since 1850s.

And according to these charts too we can see that this so-called instrument uncertainty had narrow down exactly at the point in history when precision;electronic;thermometers had became widely available...

And taking into consideration that these "graphs" you had provided were notched @ 0.4* per-notch, readings from any thermometer that can't be trusted with your life to be accurate to within 0.2* could and should be deemed unworthy...

What actual evidence do you have to suggest that mercury/alcohol thermometers used pre-1950 "can't be trusted with your life to be accurate to within 0.2"?

So, in closing...if you still choose to believe these sets of "data" to be true, then you are clearly delusional, and no...not paranoid delusional; just delusional.

KTB:)

So submit your research to Stockholm.

Surely there must be a Nobel prize for saving the human race from wasting colossal amounts of energy averting a disaster that isn't going to happen. Explaining the global retreat of glaciers, increased storm activity and extreme weather patterns, melting icesheets and permafrost might be a bit tricky, but I'm certain your 'Wonky thermometer' theory will cover all that.

Won't it?

What actual evidence do you have to suggest that mercury/alcohol thermometers used pre-1950 "can't be trusted with your life to be accurate to within 0.2"?

I assume that you are saying that because you have concrete evidence that all thermometers manufactured between 1850-1950 are 80% reliable up to .02*.

So submit your research to Stockholm.

Surely there must be a Nobel prize for saving the human race from wasting colossal amounts of energy averting a disaster that isn't going to happen. Explaining the global retreat of glaciers, increased storm activity and extreme weather patterns, melting icesheets and permafrost might be a bit tricky, but I'm certain your 'Wonky thermometer' theory will cover all that.

Won't it?

Surely you haven't read the link I've provided about global cooling, have you ? Scroll up, bitch, err I mean beast.

Wait, are you the beast or the slave ? :confused:

And taking into consideration that these "graphs" you had provided were notched @ 0.4* per-notch, readings from any thermometer that can't be trusted with your life to be accurate to within 0.2* could and should be deemed unworthy..

I assume that you are saying that because you have concrete evidence that all thermometers manufactured between 1850-1950 are 80% reliable up to .02*.

Lol, what was that you were saying about consistency and accuracy?

In any case I'm going along with established data, if you want to refute it then it's up to you to provide the evidence.

Surely you haven't read the link I've provided about global cooling, have you ? Scroll up, bitch, err I mean beast.

Wait, are you the beast or the slave ? :confused:

This (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf) is the only link you have provided in this thread (post 34). From that link:

Abstract
The historical surface temperature dataset HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this dataset, HadCRUT3, has been produced; benefiting from recent improvements to the sea-surface temperature dataset which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect
of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid-20th century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the 20th century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.

Try again?

Lol, what was that you were saying about consistency and accuracy?

In any case I'm going along with established data, if you want to refute it then it's up to you to provide the evidence.

So, you can't say they're 100% reliable ?

This (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf) is the only link you have provided in this thread (post 34). From that link:

Abstract
The historical surface temperature dataset HadCRUT provides a record of surface temperature trends and variability since 1850. A new version of this dataset, HadCRUT3, has been produced; benefiting from recent improvements to the sea-surface temperature dataset which forms its marine component, and from improvements to the station records which provide the land data. A comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates has been derived to accompany the data: estimates of measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect
of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages have all been made. Since the mid-20th century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the 20th century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.

Try again?

ughghghgh :mad::mad: nonono !!! post 18 actually, where nasa seems to be suggestion global cooling .

I still don't understand how inaccurate thermometers could consistently report temperates too low or high rather than randomly on either side of the line.. and if it is consistently on one side of the line, why can't the data be offset to account for it? I could understand if perhaps mercury or alcohol expanded exponentially rather than linearly.. but even then, it should still be possible to extract the true temperatures from the results with some adjustments.

I still don't understand how inaccurate thermometers could consistently report temperates too low or high rather than randomly on either side of the line.. and if it is consistently on one side of the line, why can't the data be offset to account for it? I could understand if perhaps mercury or alcohol expanded exponentially rather than linearly.. but even then, it should still be possible to extract the true temperatures from the results with some adjustments.

Well, if you see it as how rulers were made in the past, you will pretty much have an idea.

If the scale of the master ruler is fucked, all the other ruler that was made based on the master ruler is equally fucked as well, and perhaps fucked up even more.

The scale on the thermometer are derived from boiling and freezing point of water devided by 100, so you get your notch of 0*C and 100*C, and 98 equally spaced lines in between them. If your boiling and freezing point were fucked, (it's not like you have 100% impurity free distilled water back in 1800s) to do your experiment on. So any impurities in the water will affect the actual boiling and freezing point of water. That's what I think...

So, you can't say they're 100% reliable ?

No shit, that's why it's called instrumental error. But if you think that non-100% reliability is a deal-breaker, then you can throw most modern science out of the window.

That'd be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

ughghghgh :mad::mad: nonono !!! post 18 actually, where nasa seems to be suggestion global cooling .

Ah, the quote box made me overlook it, but on closer inspection it appears your source in post 18 appears to be irrelevant to the global argument anyway:

United States over the past 50 years has been smaller than in most of the world, and over that period there was a slight cooling trend in the eastern United States and the neighboring Atlantic Ocean. The spatial and temporal patterns of the temperature change suggest that more than one mechanism was involved in this regional cooling. The cooling trend in the United States, which began after the 1930s and is associated with ocean temperature change patterns, began to reverse after 1979. We suggest that further warming in the United States to a level rivaling the 1930s is likely in the next decade, but reliable prediction requires better understanding of decadal oscillations of ocean temperature.

This irrelevance is further compounded by the fact that your source in post 34 suggests the GMST is increasing, even when statisical error has been taken into account.

(it's not like you have 100% impurity free distilled water back in 1800s)

So what purity did they have?

That's what I think...

... but can't prove.

I like this Slave of the Beast guy. :)

I like this Slave of the Beast guy. :)

ah, nublet - welcome to &totse. SotB is among our finest.

No shit, that's why it's called instrumental error. But if you think that non-100% reliability is a deal-breaker, then you can throw most modern science out of the window.

That'd be a bit silly, wouldn't it?

In modern science, hypothesis that aren't 100% provable remained a hypothesis, and experiment that are taken with non-100% reliable instruments are labeled as "inaccurate", asstard.

Ah, the quote box made me overlook it, but on closer inspection it appears your source in post 18 appears to be irrelevant to the global argument anyway:


Well, if that's the case, then neither is your source, since it wasn't taken "globally"


So what purity did they have?


Less than 1-fucking-00% , duuuhuhhhhh !

... but can't prove.

Neither can those relativity theories can be proven you dumb fuck, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking and talking bout them,

Lend me a time machine and I'll prove them, else, contort thyself and suckth thy own dick.

Modern sciences has pretty damn well confirmed the existence of some kind of climate change or ill effect from pollution.

Let's, for the sake of argument, completely remove the temperature disagreement and the accompanying sea level increase and take into account the other things that come from the same source, IE:
Particulate matter from the burning of hydrocarbons and coal, and sulfites from exhaust fumes that already kill Indian and Chinese citizens as young as 18. In our own country, asthma rates skyrocket the closer the child was born to a high-traffic area. This can't possibly be disputed as environmental, it's the exact same matter that come out of our tailpipes.

This is slightly more obscure, but equally proven and the ramifications are probably more severe: Increased particulate matter in the clouds causing a dispersal of water vapor typically accumulating on natural particles. If you don't understand this, essentially what happens is that water accumulates onto airborne particles and as more water accumulates, it gets heavy enough to fall as a whole droplet (rain). If there are more particles, it takes more water to saturate them all.
What does the above cause? Well the massive Ethiopian drought of the 80's for one! If you're *that* uncultured, think the American "dustbowl" and put it over an entire country for about 10 years.

Ethiopia wasn't rained on for ten years and they suffered extreme drought because of the increased particulate matter in clouds.


There are a shitload of effects that I could go into, but this is getting long, the above are just two of the major overlooked ones.

So fuck global warming and fuck the ice sheets, we're still in serious trouble if we don't put a foot down and do something

In modern science, hypothesis that aren't 100% provable remained a hypothesis, and experiment that are taken with non-100% reliable instruments are labeled as "inaccurate", asstard.


Absolute scientific certainty is an inherent impossibility. That's why they are done on such a large scale, to get averages.

What you call "inaccurate" is actually something called "variables" which are always taken into account in scientific processes.

ah, nublet - welcome to &totse. SotB is among our finest.

Call me a nublet all you want. Believe it or not I've been lurking around Totse for years.

Call me a nublet all you want. Believe it or not I've been lurking around Totse for years.

It was a term of endearment. I'm not one of those FUCKING NUBS CLOSE REGS NAO guys.

I love you little fellas - you're like un-housetrained puppies.


And you can lurk as long as you like - until you become an active and posting member of the community, you're still a nublet. But like I said, that's not an immediate disqualification on being cool or anything. You seem alright to me, anyway. Welcome to the club.

It was a term of endearment. I'm not one of those FUCKING NUBS CLOSE REGS NAO guys.

I love you little fellas - you're like un-housetrained puppies.


And you can lurk as long as you like - until you become an active and posting member of the community, you're still a nublet. But like I said, that's not an immediate disqualification on being cool or anything. You seem alright to me, anyway. Welcome to the club.

Nah,yourejustapedowholikenewtenderfleshofnewarriva ls

Nah,yourejustapedowholikenewtenderfleshofnewarriva ls

holy shit, you've figured me out! MY TASTE FOR THE YOUNG SWEET FLESH OF NEWBORNS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

holy shit, you've figured me out! MY TASTE FOR THE YOUNG SWEET FLESH OF NEWBORNS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

Keep it up, very soon you'll be invited to join our super secret TPC. Shhhh...don;t go around telling everyone.

Keep it up, very soon you'll be invited to join our super secret TPC. Shhhh...don;t go around telling everyone.

tpc?

totse pedo communtiy?

tpc?

totse pedo_____ club?

corrected.

Millions of years ago, the ice age magically melted away, with no help from CO2 producing combustion. cars, or factories.

How'd that happen?

The Earth naturally self regulates, but if we keep fucking it's shit up, these processes will keep getting positive feedback and shit will go ka-boooom.

The Earth naturally self regulates, but if we keep fucking it's shit up, these processes will keep getting positive feedback and shit will go ka-boooom.

Ah positive feedback loops....

Most of the earths sun is reflected back into space by the polar ice caps, which do not absorb heat like the oceans do - in fact they have a cooling effect on the oceans as you can see from any global ocean current pattern chart.

When we lose them, and its not an if - its a when.
When we lose them its pretty much the point of no return - weather patterns will just get fucked up, i feel bad for being a human sometimes.

Well civilization is going to hell in a handbasket, if we don't kill off eachother first the planet might as well.

Well civilization is going to hell in a handbasket, if we don't kill off eachother first the planet might as well.

I am SO banking on zombies.

Many people have the perception that our cities will soon be underwater, yet this is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you do believe in man-made global warming and that the sea levels will rise significantly, you must realize that people can easily build dikes. There are already large populated areas which are below sea-level and would be submerged without levees. Considering the laughably slow rate of sea-level rise predicted by all serious sources -- on the order of centimeters per decade -- it's unreasonable to assume there would anything preventing the construction of adequate barriers.

Yet, for some reason I keep seeing garbage like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1031438/Pictured-The-floating-cities-day-house-climate-change-refugees.html

:mad:

albeit completely ridiculous that floating city looks pretty bitchin

I am SO banking on zombies.

Im with you my friend, as long as they're the slow moving dawn of th dead zombies and not the 28 days fast moving mother fuckers.

Im with you my friend, as long as they're the slow moving dawn of th dead zombies and not the 28 days fast moving mother fuckers.

f'real. I want to have fun killing them but the thousands (from the roof of a nearby shopping mall), not be scared out of my fucking gourd.

Well, the "average" human body temperature 150 years ago were 37 degreeC, today we know that the average human body temperature were actually 36.8 degreeC. Does that mean the average body temperature has actually fallen over the past 150 years ?

I don't think so. It's becos the thermometer has became more precise, up to 3 decimal points today. See how you looked at it the wrong way ? Instead of thinking [more precise thermometers leads to higher global temperature], think of it as [thermometer of the past under-recorded global air temperature due to imprecision] :cool:

Considering that people don't dress the same way that they did 150 years ago, I don't think it's that strange for the average body temperature to have changed. Not to mention the fact that we now have air conditioning, and most people do have their temperature taking indoors.

I think it's easy to see why these women would have a higher body temperature than modern women.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Ferdinand_Georg_Waldm%C3%BCller_006.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/1833_fashion_plate.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Mercure_des_salons_1830-enh.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/1832-Wiener-Moden-fashion-plate.pnghttp://www.mclib.org/hximages/961FamilyPortraitClothingStyles.gif

http://arvaracing.com/images/200_halter_top.jpghttp://www.shirtsnob.com/pictures/skyhalterbraidedtrim.jpghttp://img.alibaba.com/photo/206403010/Cocktail_Dress_Festival_Dress_Long_Dress_Prom_Dres s_Brand_Name_Dress_Formal_Dress.jpghttp://www.80stees.com/images/products/Wonder_Woman_Blue_T.jpg

I did an experiment on the polar ice caps melting.

I filled a large glass with ice, topped it up with water.

Waited for the ice to melt & the glass to overflow.

Still waiting.....

Because all the ice is in the water and none of it is on land, amirite?

Oh,
shit!
goes back to his drawing board.

Considering that people don't dress the same way that they did 150 years ago, I don't think it's that strange for the average body temperature to have changed. Not to mention the fact that we now have air conditioning, and most people do have their temperature taking indoors.

I think it's easy to see why these women would have a higher body temperature than modern women.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Ferdinand_Georg_Waldm%C3%BCller_006.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/1833_fashion_plate.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Mercure_des_salons_1830-enh.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/1832-Wiener-Moden-fashion-plate.pnghttp://www.mclib.org/hximages/961FamilyPortraitClothingStyles.gif

http://arvaracing.com/images/200_halter_top.jpghttp://www.shirtsnob.com/pictures/skyhalterbraidedtrim.jpghttp://img.alibaba.com/photo/206403010/Cocktail_Dress_Festival_Dress_Long_Dress_Prom_Dres s_Brand_Name_Dress_Formal_Dress.jpghttp://www.80stees.com/images/products/Wonder_Woman_Blue_T.jpg

^
This

I think its very blatant proof that the climate has become warmer.

Considering that people don't dress the same way that they did 150 years ago, I don't think it's that strange for the average body temperature to have changed. Not to mention the fact that we now have air conditioning, and most people do have their temperature taking indoors.

I think it's easy to see why these women would have a higher body temperature than modern women.

Good point... except for the fact that we are warm-blooded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_blooded), not cold-blooded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold-blooded).

Perhaps some people overlook the impact of HVAC systems.

Retard.:o

...wut

Measurements don't work like this. You can't take tens of thousands of measurements, even by inaccurate devices, and get an average which is meaningfully lower than one made by accurate devices. If inaccurate devices consistently measured lower than true temperatures, then the designer would simply draw the fucking lines on the thermometer slightly lower than they had originally. Idiot..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/1832-Wiener-Moden-fashion-plate.png



I would bone that bitch.

I did an experiment on the polar ice caps melting.

I filled a large glass with ice, topped it up with water.

Waited for the ice to melt & the glass to overflow.

Still waiting.....

lol because ice has a greater volume then water.....(ie. it shrinks when it melts)

I did an experiment on the polar ice caps melting.

I filled a large glass with ice, topped it up with water.

Waited for the ice to melt & the glass to overflow.

Still waiting.....

A block of ice on a plate would be a little more appropriate.

lol because ice has a greater volume then water.....(ie. it shrinks when it melts)

Sarcasm isn't your forte, is it?

Sarcasm isn't your forte, is it?

obviously not....

i said it for the benefit of the people who were like "wtf???!?!?!?!?"

Why would anyone need to build dykes? Hasn't anyone on this planet ever heard of Archimedes principle? Even supposing that did not apply, the ice which exists above sea level does not contain enough water to raise the sea level significantly. Also, with global warming comes an increase in desertification; which means that the colour of the surface and the absence of cloud cover will naturally reflect much of the sun's heat back out in to space.
What this basically means is that the climate will return to normal within a relatively short geological time period and that global warming will defeat itself.

Many people have the perception that our cities will soon be underwater, yet this is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you do believe in man-made global warming and that the sea levels will rise significantly, you must realize that people can easily build dikes. There are already large populated areas which are below sea-level and would be submerged without levees. Considering the laughably slow rate of sea-level rise predicted by all serious sources -- on the order of centimeters per decade -- it's unreasonable to assume there would anything preventing the construction of adequate barriers.

Yet, for some reason I keep seeing garbage like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1031438/Pictured-The-floating-cities-day-house-climate-change-refugees.html


:mad:

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/2008_CR_Flood/SHOW_1/CEDAR_FLOODING.JPG

That's a city about 20 minutes away from me earlier this year. Dumb.Fuck.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/2008_CR_Flood/SHOW_1/CEDAR_FLOODING.JPG

That's a city about 20 minutes away from me earlier this year. Dumb.Fuck.

Not to mention that heating of the earth increases evaporation leading to more cloud cover and precipitation(not saying this increases sea, just pointing it out cause the guy is a dumbfuck).

Not to mention that heating of the earth increases evaporation leading to more cloud cover and precipitation(not saying this increases sea, just pointing it out cause the guy is a dumbfuck).
That's not entirely true. Put a block of ice in a saucepan full of water and stick a thermometer in it whilst you heat it. The water won't heat until the ice is melted, why? Because it takes more energy to melt the ice than it does to heat the water. The arctic ice-sheet would have to melt fully before any significant increase in cloud cover. Also precipitation only occurs when a hot front from the sea meets a cold front. All of our acquired wisdom on the subject suggests that if deserts like the Sahara continue to grow at their current rate, the hot fronts that are created on arid ground and move across arid ground will increase and eventually lead to a lack of precipitation. E.g. droughts, bush-fires, forest-fires. The absence of dark, heat retentive surface on the earth such as forests, etc means that more heat is reflected into space turning global warming into just a very temporary part in a larger geological weather cycle which will eventually trigger another ice-age. Global warming is just not as big a problem as you all seem to think just now. In effect it is a natural weather cycle nothing whic humans have the capability to halt, but something which we can prepare for. If the industrialised nations of the world continue to find cheap sources of power and research into the viability of growing staple crops hydroponically, then the new ice age stops being a global catastrophe and starts being a minor inconvenience. Environmentalists and scaremongers are the rot that threatens to doom society by providing people with false hope that reducing carbon emmissions will halt what is happening.
Why should a few rich countries in the world hold a monopoly over the power to provide their people? Humanity is entering a new age, just now we have two choices, industrialise the globe, or face extinction.

New Orleans had dykes. Lots of them.

And you have to factor, if the West Antarctic ice shelf goes, that's a 20 foot rise in sea level in a damn short period. Good luck building enough dykes strong enough fast enough. Greenland could add another 20 feet on top of that. Most dykes now aren't designed for anything other than emergencies, like floods, and are made of dirt.

Imagine building a 50+ foot wall all around Manhatten. Multiply that by about 100,000, and I'd say you've got a very conservitive estimate there. Damn near the whole state of Florida is at sea level. Do you think they could even build a small dirt dyke around the whole state in any sort of hurry, let alone one that would hold up to hurricanes? Just a couple feet of water will sink the state.

This.

You can't possibly build as many walls as would be needed to keep all the places dry.

No, not the whole world will flood, but you'd have millions and millions of people displaced all around the world, and billions of dollars in property damage, even in developed countries like the U.S. and places in Europe.

Places in the U.S. that are currently either below or just a few feet above sea level will be flooded. If I remember correctly, large amounts of the area surrounding the Mississippi river will be flooded. NYC will also be in a bit of trouble.

The world will do something about Global Warming (It's a damn shame that it's still being peddled as a debate.), but it'll take some pretty severe events before people wake the fuck up and start doing shit on a large scale.

One thing that pisses me off is that in a time when scientists (You know, those guys who know their shit) tell us more and more that we need to get some non-fossil, non-carbon fuel sources (Like solar, wind, water, etc, etc), that I keep seeing commercials about the need to find "New ways to get the hard to reach Oil" put out by Oil companies.

Luckily, I live far above sea level and far away from the Ocean.

Just send all the excess water over to Australia. Win Win situation.

The water won't heat until the ice is melted, why? Because it takes more energy to melt the ice than it does to heat the water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooling_curve

Even supposing that did not apply, the ice which exists above sea level does not contain enough water to raise the sea level significantly.

Any source to back up that claim? Also, what do you consider a "significant rise in the sea level"?


Also, with global warming comes an increase in desertification; which means that the colour of the surface and the absence of cloud cover will naturally reflect much of the sun's heat back out in to space.

Except the greenhouse effect, increased by the pollution being dumped into the atmosphere, will make it so that much less heat is reflected "back out in to space" than usual.

Did I also read somewhere that Polar Ice reflects a large amount of solar radiation and there for as the ice melts less reflection so hotter atmo?

Although I will be old and gray and unless they invent away for me to live forever I dont really mind.

My son can fix it.....:rolleyes:

Before making judgements.

Make your own enquiries. You cannot rely on word of mouth, that is the mass media,

Do you know who owns most of the Media outlets in America?

and much of the world?

A select few people.

They are called tycoons, as there are only a handfull, and yet they controll 98 percent of what you see and hear.

Why do you think Obama won? why do you think there was so much hype?

People have their own agendas, especcially when there is large amounts of money and power involved.
--------------------------
--------------------------

Dont buy into this troll, and do your own research, understand what 'saving the planet' actually means not squabbaling on here.

fuck yeah, the governments of the world coudl all chip in and and build a big ditch the flood the middle of australia. All that worthless desert might be put too good use

Do you know who owns most of the Media outlets in America?

and much of the world?

A select few people.

They are called Jews, as there are only a handfull, and yet they controll 98 percent of what you see and hear.

Why do you think Obama won? why do you think there was so much hype?

Fixed.