Miami fighting to hold back the Ocean

[flacaltenn]

Miami's rising water problem - CNN.com Video

All the while, the GOP bangs their drums calling global warming a lie.

It's called beach erosion and it has been going on for decades because all the rivers that used to support the beaches were dammed up. Here's a very good, very old video that explains it for the ignorant propagandist...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqT1g2riQ30]Beach: A River of Sand - YouTube[/ame]

Abso-freakin-lutely... THIS is the main reason people walk down to the beach and erronously blame Global Warming for the beach dissappearing..

Sea Walls are the WORST solution to holding back the waves. It GUARANTEES that the natural slope of the beach will continue to INCREASE and bring the tide lines up..

I had a roomate at Univ of Fla -- grad student from Panama in coastal engineering. Brought him to Daytona for a race and we went to the beach. He looked at all those MASSIVE condos with seawalls and said in 10 years, you won't be able to drive on the beach anymore. 20 years or so later --- he was correct. I can easily see the changes to slope and tide lines.

Natural dune lines are the only way to prevent losing a beach. Even in Malibu...

Miami's problems are worse than then just losing a beach.. But it's NOT due to CO2...

 

[westwall]

Ocean rise without AGW would have been around 6 cm over the next century.

With AGW, 10-20 times as much.

Just pointing out the difference between "natural" and "manmade" here.

And beach erosion existing is a red herring, since no one ever claimed it was all due to AGW.

Bullshit. There is ZERO evidence of sea level rise save in mathematical algorithms of dubious ability. Photographic evidence of the shorelines around the world show no rise from 1900 to now.

 

[flacaltenn]

You want to try that again?

The last few thousand years

Sea level rose much more slowly over the past 7,000 years. The sea level 2,000 years ago can be deduced by (for example) examining fish tanks built by the ancient Romans. Because the tanks had to be at sea level for the sluice gates to function, we can precisely estimate sea level during the period of their use. Comparison of this level with historical records indicates that there has been little net change in sea level from 2000 years ago until the start of the 19th century.

A number of other data types are used to estimate sea level over preceding ages. Some of them are:

Geological - e.g. raised beaches, wave-cut shelves, transgressive sequences
Biological - e.g. shells, tree stumps, corals, salt marshes
Man-made - e.g. Ancient Roman fish tanks, Crusader wells in the Palestine, middens

:: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO & ACECRC ::

That graph is a complete and utter fabrication, as you know.

There has been zero significant change in the increase in seawater since 1990 - another hockey stick fraud by the AGW cult.

THIS is why a I point out that what you frauds do is anything but science.

If you want to call me and the folks who plotted that data liars, you better get your ass hot collecting some evidence asshole.

I doubt you could make out 1990 on that plot. The point of that was to refute your (Ms Uncensored) claim that the rate of increase had been steady for 600 years. Did you even look at the scale on the upper plot here? The horizontal axis is 3,000 years. Be that as it may, why don't we have a look at what sea level has actually been doing more recently:

This only goes to 2005 or so, but that's 15 years past the point where you claim it had leveled off. These data don't look like they leveled off dude. That plot was put together by the Permanent Service for Sea Level. Read about them at File:Recent Sea Level Rise.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you think they're just not a trustworthy source, let's see what you've got. Let's see the source that tells you sea level hasn't budged in 23 years.

The point IS Abraham --- that the general trendline of that last graph shows the problem hasn't changed much since BEFORE CO2 LEVELS were capable of affecting that Rise as shown..

The process was NOT STARTED by CO2. And the recent masturbations about the slope of the rise changing from 1.8 to 3.0mm/yr has more to do with reconciling tide guages with satellite altimeters than it does to signal any kind of appreciable acceleration..

Something like 30% of the trend in rise is due SOLELY to just THERMAL EXPANSION --- not more water in the bucket..

 

[westwall]

Miami's rising water problem - CNN.com Video

All the while, the GOP bangs their drums calling global warming a lie.

It's called beach erosion and it has been going on for decades because all the rivers that used to support the beaches were dammed up. Here's a very good, very old video that explains it for the ignorant propagandist...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqT1g2riQ30]Beach: A River of Sand - YouTube[/ame]

If you can't see any difference between your video and the Miami video, time to get your wiring checked.

The only difference is, one is a scientific presentation, and the other is pure propaganda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you want to call me and the folks who plotted that data liars, you better get your ass hot collecting some evidence asshole.

Why?

The fact that you are liars has been presented dozens of times, in this thread alone.

One of the things I swear I won't do is debate scripture with Jehovah's Witnesses or minutia with AGW cultists. But I'll make a small exception this time.

Hey, where's the hockey stick? Well, since the data is from actual readings rather than from the fabrications of some priest of the AGW - there isn't one.

The rise of sea level has been stable for about the last 600 years. That doesn't support the dialogue of a volcano god who is angry and demands sacrifice to the priests, so y'all "adjusted" the data until it did.

I doubt you could make out 1990 on that plot. The point of that was to refute your (Ms Uncensored) claim that the rate of increase had been steady for 600 years. Did you even look at the scale on the upper plot here? The horizontal axis is 3,000 years. Be that as it may, why don't we have a look at what sea level has actually been doing more recently:

However, the fact is that sea level rise HAS been steady, at about 7 inches a year.

"Over the last decade," in the words of Chambers et al. (2012), "numerous papers have commented on the appearance of decadal and longer period fluctuations in select tide gauge records... And in their own study of long tide gauge records in every ocean basin, Chambers et al. find that there is, indeed, "a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th century."...they rightly state that the 60-year oscillation does change "our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than one-cycle of the oscillation." And, therefore, they conclude that "although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year oscillation [italics and bold added]," in further support of which contention they note that "there have been previous periods where the rate was decelerating..." [Don P. Chambers, Mark A. Merrifield, R. Steven Nerem 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]

Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level? - Chambers - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Oops

This only goes to 2005 or so, but that's 15 years past the point where you claim it had leveled off. These data don't look like they leveled off dude. That plot was put together by the Permanent Service for Sea Level. Read about them at File:Recent Sea Level Rise.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you think they're just not a trustworthy source, let's see what you've got. Let's see the source that tells you sea level hasn't budged in 23 years.

Again, any data which contradicts the story that you're telling, is discarded. The AGW cult takes a conclusion and back fills the data needed to justify that conclusion.

Above: Two renowned AGW "scientists" discuss findings with their field research team.

 

[mamooth]

Curve-fitting isn't science, no matter how much you want it to be. if you're going to propose a mystical 60-year ocean cycle, you need to explain _why_ such a cycle would exist. You can find a curve to fit to anything, but if you can't explain the why of it, it's just mathturbation.

And uncensored? Shouting your religious belief in the great global socialist conspiracy just marks you as a 'tard political cultist. If you can't dispute the data, simply admit it. Snivelling about how all the data you don't like is fraudulent just makes you look wimpy.

Now, the cranks don't seem to understand _why_ a slow sea level rise exists. It's because glaciers take a long, long time to melt. So even though global temps were on a slow decrease prior to AGW kicking in, many glaciers and ice sheets still hadn't melted back to the equilibrium point, so they kept melting.

Well, guess what. 40 years of warming really accelerated the melt. Meaning the glaciers and ice sheets are closer to the equilibrium point. Meaning there would now be much less melt, if the temp increase from AGW was gone. It's not rocket science, but it probably is too complicated for the helpless brainwashed denialists.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Curve-fitting isn't science, no matter how much you want it to be. if you're going to propose a mystical 60-year ocean cycle, you need to explain _why_ such a cycle would exist. You can find a curve to fit to anything, but if you can't explain the why of it, it's just mathturbation.

And uncensored? Shouting your religious belief in the great global socialist conspiracy just marks you as a 'tard political cultist. If you can't dispute the data, simply admit it. Snivelling about how all the data you don't like is fraudulent just makes you look wimpy.

Now, the cranks don't seem to understand _why_ a slow sea level rise exists. It's because glaciers take a long, long time to melt. So even though global temps were on a slow decrease prior to AGW kicking in, many glaciers and ice sheets still hadn't melted back to the equilibrium point, so they kept melting.

Well, guess what. 40 years of warming really accelerated the melt. Meaning the glaciers and ice sheets are closer to the equilibrium point. Meaning there would now be much less melt, if the temp increase from AGW was gone. It's not rocket science, but it probably is too complicated for the helpless brainwashed denialists.

What are you babbling about?

You should huff less spray paint.

Seriously..

 

[flacaltenn]

Curve-fitting isn't science, no matter how much you want it to be. if you're going to propose a mystical 60-year ocean cycle, you need to explain _why_ such a cycle would exist. You can find a curve to fit to anything, but if you can't explain the why of it, it's just mathturbation.

And uncensored? Shouting your religious belief in the great global socialist conspiracy just marks you as a 'tard political cultist. If you can't dispute the data, simply admit it. Snivelling about how all the data you don't like is fraudulent just makes you look wimpy.

Now, the cranks don't seem to understand _why_ a slow sea level rise exists. It's because glaciers take a long, long time to melt. So even though global temps were on a slow decrease prior to AGW kicking in, many glaciers and ice sheets still hadn't melted back to the equilibrium point, so they kept melting.

Well, guess what. 40 years of warming really accelerated the melt. Meaning the glaciers and ice sheets are closer to the equilibrium point. Meaning there would now be much less melt, if the temp increase from AGW was gone. It's not rocket science, but it probably is too complicated for the helpless brainwashed denialists.

What are you babbling about?

You should huff less spray paint.

Seriously..

The "opposition" is suffering from battle fatigue.. I think Mammy is close to a full commital.
Pretty much demoralized and left doubting the cause.. Betrayed by their own lying leadership..



On a happier note -- I'm thinking of organizing a "Find the Global Warming Cruise" for next spring.. We can sail the oceans deploying buoys and diving seals looking for missing heat. AND -- I think I can get the Dallas Cheerleading Squad to see us off...

PM me if you're interested..

 

[SSDD]

On a happier note -- I'm thinking of organizing a "Find the Global Warming Cruise" for next spring.. We can sail the oceans deploying buoys and diving seals looking for missing heat. AND -- I think I can get the Dallas Cheerleading Squad to see us off...

PM me if you're interested..

Sign me up if you don't mind a graybeard who doesn't believe that CO2 is even a bit player in the climate. You won't find any heat but it would give me a chance to fish some interesting waters.

 

[flacaltenn]

On a happier note -- I'm thinking of organizing a "Find the Global Warming Cruise" for next spring.. We can sail the oceans deploying buoys and diving seals looking for missing heat. AND -- I think I can get the Dallas Cheerleading Squad to see us off...

PM me if you're interested..

Sign me up if you don't mind a graybeard who doesn't believe that CO2 is even a bit player in the climate. You won't find any heat but it would give me a chance to fish some interesting waters.

You won't regret it.. Coming up with drinking games like watching An Inconvienient Truth and taking shots whenever the Gore-on lies. Or pulling into North Shore Alaska to count Polar Bears for the WWF.

 

[SSDD]

On a happier note -- I'm thinking of organizing a "Find the Global Warming Cruise" for next spring.. We can sail the oceans deploying buoys and diving seals looking for missing heat. AND -- I think I can get the Dallas Cheerleading Squad to see us off...

PM me if you're interested..

Sign me up if you don't mind a graybeard who doesn't believe that CO2 is even a bit player in the climate. You won't find any heat but it would give me a chance to fish some interesting waters.

You won't regret it.. Coming up with drinking games like watching An Inconvienient Truth and taking shots whenever the Gore-on lies. Or pulling into North Shore Alaska to count Polar Bears for the WWF.

A drinking game like that could result in alcohol poisoning and if you don't die from all the required drinking, you wouldn't want to "f" with polar bears with that much alcohol in your system.

 

[westwall]

Curve-fitting isn't science, no matter how much you want it to be. if you're going to propose a mystical 60-year ocean cycle, you need to explain _why_ such a cycle would exist. You can find a curve to fit to anything, but if you can't explain the why of it, it's just mathturbation.

And uncensored? Shouting your religious belief in the great global socialist conspiracy just marks you as a 'tard political cultist. If you can't dispute the data, simply admit it. Snivelling about how all the data you don't like is fraudulent just makes you look wimpy.

Now, the cranks don't seem to understand _why_ a slow sea level rise exists. It's because glaciers take a long, long time to melt. So even though global temps were on a slow decrease prior to AGW kicking in, many glaciers and ice sheets still hadn't melted back to the equilibrium point, so they kept melting.

Well, guess what. 40 years of warming really accelerated the melt. Meaning the glaciers and ice sheets are closer to the equilibrium point. Meaning there would now be much less melt, if the temp increase from AGW was gone. It's not rocket science, but it probably is too complicated for the helpless brainwashed denialists.

What are you babbling about?

You should huff less spray paint.

Seriously..

The "opposition" is suffering from battle fatigue.. I think Mammy is close to a full commital.
Pretty much demoralized and left doubting the cause.. Betrayed by their own lying leadership..



On a happier note -- I'm thinking of organizing a "Find the Global Warming Cruise" for next spring.. We can sail the oceans deploying buoys and diving seals looking for missing heat. AND -- I think I can get the Dallas Cheerleading Squad to see us off...

PM me if you're interested..

I'm game, the wife unit would have to come though to make sure this greybeard doesn't run off with a cheerleader!

 

[bripat9643]

On a happier note -- I'm thinking of organizing a "Find the Global Warming Cruise" for next spring.. We can sail the oceans deploying buoys and diving seals looking for missing heat. AND -- I think I can get the Dallas Cheerleading Squad to see us off...

PM me if you're interested..

Sign me up if you don't mind a graybeard who doesn't believe that CO2 is even a bit player in the climate. You won't find any heat but it would give me a chance to fish some interesting waters.

You won't regret it.. Coming up with drinking games like watching An Inconvienient Truth and taking shots whenever the Gore-on lies. Or pulling into North Shore Alaska to count Polar Bears for the WWF.

Wouldn't a cruise around the Eastern Caribbean be more enlightening? It is warmer there, after all, and that's where all the "extreme" weather events occur.

 

[mamooth]

The good thing about the cruise is how you'd all have a private cabin for your circle jerks. As long as it's done away from the public, we're cool with whatever deviant lifestyle you choose.

 

[bripat9643]

The good thing about the cruise is how you'd all have a private cabin for your circle jerks. As long as it's done away from the public, we're cool with whatever deviant lifestyle you choose.

A circle jerk is a social function that liberals are more familiar with.

 

[Abraham3]

Curve-fitting isn't science, no matter how much you want it to be. if you're going to propose a mystical 60-year ocean cycle, you need to explain _why_ such a cycle would exist. You can find a curve to fit to anything, but if you can't explain the why of it, it's just mathturbation.

And uncensored? Shouting your religious belief in the great global socialist conspiracy just marks you as a 'tard political cultist. If you can't dispute the data, simply admit it. Snivelling about how all the data you don't like is fraudulent just makes you look wimpy.

Now, the cranks don't seem to understand _why_ a slow sea level rise exists. It's because glaciers take a long, long time to melt. So even though global temps were on a slow decrease prior to AGW kicking in, many glaciers and ice sheets still hadn't melted back to the equilibrium point, so they kept melting.

Well, guess what. 40 years of warming really accelerated the melt. Meaning the glaciers and ice sheets are closer to the equilibrium point. Meaning there would now be much less melt, if the temp increase from AGW was gone. It's not rocket science, but it probably is too complicated for the helpless brainwashed denialists.

What are you babbling about?

You should huff less spray paint.

Seriously..

You should try to pick up enough education so you can understand the man. Or is this another ESL problem?

 

[PMZ]

Curve-fitting isn't science, no matter how much you want it to be. if you're going to propose a mystical 60-year ocean cycle, you need to explain _why_ such a cycle would exist. You can find a curve to fit to anything, but if you can't explain the why of it, it's just mathturbation.

And uncensored? Shouting your religious belief in the great global socialist conspiracy just marks you as a 'tard political cultist. If you can't dispute the data, simply admit it. Snivelling about how all the data you don't like is fraudulent just makes you look wimpy.

Now, the cranks don't seem to understand _why_ a slow sea level rise exists. It's because glaciers take a long, long time to melt. So even though global temps were on a slow decrease prior to AGW kicking in, many glaciers and ice sheets still hadn't melted back to the equilibrium point, so they kept melting.

Well, guess what. 40 years of warming really accelerated the melt. Meaning the glaciers and ice sheets are closer to the equilibrium point. Meaning there would now be much less melt, if the temp increase from AGW was gone. It's not rocket science, but it probably is too complicated for the helpless brainwashed denialists.

What are you babbling about?

You should huff less spray paint.

Seriously..

You should try to pick up enough education so you can understand the man. Or is this another ESL problem?

Conservatives don't need education. They have faith. Faith in the Fox talking heads. Source of all knowledge. Faith that Fox hounds don't need high school. Don't need science or math. They're entitled to be right. The great melon heads tells them so.

Rediculous and they don't even know it.

 

[Abraham3]

The point IS Abraham --- that the general trendline of that last graph shows the problem hasn't changed much since BEFORE CO2 LEVELS were capable of affecting that Rise as shown..

The process was NOT STARTED by CO2. And the recent masturbations about the slope of the rise changing from 1.8 to 3.0mm/yr has more to do with reconciling tide guages with satellite altimeters than it does to signal any kind of appreciable acceleration..

Something like 30% of the trend in rise is due SOLELY to just THERMAL EXPANSION --- not more water in the bucket..

What the hell do you call this:

That steep acceleration is not reconciling tide gauges with satellite data (there is no satellite data in this plot). We were all aware that a large portion of the rise has been due to thermal expansion. What difference do you think that makes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point IS Abraham --- that the general trendline of that last graph shows the problem hasn't changed much since BEFORE CO2 LEVELS were capable of affecting that Rise as shown..

The process was NOT STARTED by CO2. And the recent masturbations about the slope of the rise changing from 1.8 to 3.0mm/yr has more to do with reconciling tide guages with satellite altimeters than it does to signal any kind of appreciable acceleration..

Something like 30% of the trend in rise is due SOLELY to just THERMAL EXPANSION --- not more water in the bucket..

What the hell do you call this:

That steep acceleration is not reconciling tide gauges with satellite data (there is no satellite data in this plot). We were all aware that a large portion of the rise has been due to thermal expansion. What difference do you think that makes?

"What do we call it? Why it's total bullshit"

 

[Abraham3]

Frank, how about going back to the nursery and letting the grownups talk?