Evacuation Thread ("Killer" Katrina)

[Segaholic2]

Hey, won't you guys up north get hit by global warming first? Since you're up there with all the ice...

[Esrever]

You're right, NT! The water level of the ocean will rise higher up here than it will down there, because it's closer to the melting ice. It's like how when you fill a bathtub with water, the water close to the tap is deeper than the water on the other side.

Moron.

[Frieza2000]

Texas is fat. Nobody wants to live in the fat state.

[Brazillian Cara]

You know, there's a place in South America, where everything gets hot for no apparent reason during the winter. And then, a few days later, when everyone's already linking the warmth, the temperature is cut in 3/4. This place, my friends, is Foz do Iguaçu. You've been warned.

[One Classy Bloke]

But fat people float better.

[Locit]

You know, there's a place in South America, where everything gets hot for no apparent reason during the winter. And then, a few days later, when everyone's already linking the warmth, the temperature is cut in 3/4. This place, my friends, is Foz do Iguaçu. You've been warned.

I'll totally remember that. Especially the squiggly c. That was awesome.

[The Scarlet Scorpion]

Good luck Spazz, GG!, DP. I would have wished you well sooner, except I've been without access to a computer for a couple weeks. Good luck to you all.

[chriscaffee]

Well Global Warming isn't real anyway.

And technically NT is right. See water doesn't move instantaniously so as the ice melts it would take time for it to be at an equal level. That time may be inconsequential, but the closer to the imaginary melting ice you are, the sooner you will suffer from the imaginary global warming.

And water closer to the spout is deeper then the rest of the water, again, even if inconsequential and if for only the briefest period of time.

History majors should stay out of physics.

[Delphine]

No no, Caffee, everything happens instantaneously. That's why we don't have things like tsunamis, the water is automatically even everywhere.

[Esrever]

inconsequential

Yup, that's why I didn't mention it. Wouldn't want to horn in on your specialty, Caffe. If I had to point out every irrelevant piece of information just to prove that I know it, I suppose my posts would be as aggrevating as yours.

If your need to educate is so burning, I'm sure we'd all love to hear the reasons why global warming isn't real.

[chriscaffee]

Don't I feel like the fucking asshole?

I used the term "inconsequential" to cover my ass. It is fully dependent on the rate that this ice melts. It could very well have a dramatic affect if the ice is melted fast enough, such that the areas closer to the ice would be affected much sooner and much more so then areas not affected.

Thus "inconsequential" is not always the case. Thus you were wrong, not just "technically," but thoroughly in all situations. Thus I corrected your "correction," dare I say your "burning need to educate," another user. I can see why this could be "aggrevating."

Sillyness aside, let's move on to more interesting things:

Global Warming isn't happening because it isn't. I know that sounds stupid, but it's just the way it is. There is no phenomenon in which the globe is heating up. Some places are getting hotter, this is true. Some places are also getting cooler. Thus there is no "global" trend. And if the "globe" as a whole, or even as most of a whole isn't heating up, then how can anyone believe in any sort of Global Warming? The fact of the matter is, new glaciers are forming. Some places are getting colder and this planet does not maintain a certain climate, never has and never will.

Chauk up "Global Warming" with "Africanized Honey Bees" and "Global Cooling." The theory originally had some substance but has since been blown way out of proportion and been accepted by most people as fact when there is significant evidence against it. I refuse to believe the globe as a whole is heating up when glaciers are being formed. Why? Because I try not to have contradictory beliefs.

[Esrever]

Chris, this is assinine. Assume, hypothetically, global warming is real. The North Pole can't melt fast enough to have the effect you are describing. Not when the global temperature is rising gradually, and not when it is draining directly into a body of water as large as the ocean. We're talking about a slow increase in the overall sea level worldwide, not an overnight transformation of all northern ice into water. The first places to flood in North America would be the coastal areas closest to sea level, not the areas closest to the North Pole.

[DarkPrime]

Well, we've located my cousins. They were so isolated with all the communications down, that they weren't able to get word out to anyone that they were okay.

My Great Uncles house seems fine. Initial reports said that his house was destroyed by a small tornado. A neighbor contacted him and said there was minor structural damage, but no flooding yet.

The rest of my family down there is spread across the United States. A couple of them lost their houses. As far as I can tell, most of my old friends are homeless.

[Baba O'Reily]

Chris, this is ass

Teehee, you said ass.

[chriscaffee]

Well that'd disappointing. I thought you wanted to talk about Global Warming. Oh well.

[Delphine]

All the polar icecaps are going to melt <i>tomorrow</i> which will cause a worldwide change in temperature and we'll have to literally outrun the cold to survive. And then some idiot will ruin a perfectly good nature-destroys-everything story by trying to be political at the end.

[Esrever]

Man, if that movie ever happens in real life, I promise to god I will apologize to Chris. Assuming I'm not swept away first!

I do kind of want to talk about Global Warming, though! I really was curious what your reasoning behind your position was, because you seemed so certain. I honestly don't have an especially strong opinion about it, myself. I'm familiar with how the global warming is supposed to work, but not really with the research that proves the theory is true or untrue. All the things people can do to "stop global warming" always struck me as generally good ideas anyhow, so that might be why I never took a strong interest in the subject.

But doesn't the Global Warming theory at least try to account for other areas of the planet getting colder?

[chriscaffee]

It does try to explain why some places are getting cooler, but it's still contrary to the idea of the globe heating up. It just seems like a contradictory theory to me.

The problem is that the data is not conclusive. There is data that supports a slow steady growth in temperature in some areas. Other areas seem to have no change, and still some have actually declined. Storm frequency actually hasn't increased and the amount of additional carbon in the atmosphere is "inconsequential." And the data is also not reliable. It is now. But what about one hundred years ago? How can one predict a global trend with any accuracy?

Global Warming implies a global trend which is simply not the case. Different areas have different whether and different climates and those climates change differently. My main problem with Global Warming is it's basically a sweeping generalization.

It'll sound stupid but anyone interested in the subject should read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. He really did his research and whether you agree with him or not it is nonetheless interesting and brings up some important points about not just Global Warming, but science in general and how it is affected by media and politics.

[Esrever]

But is it a mischaracterization to define "global warming" as the entire globe heating up simultaneously? I mean, is that really what the theory is meant to imply, or is that just a conclusion that the ill-informed jump to based on the name?

I always thought that "global warming" referred primarily to a long-term overall increase in the average temperature of the oceans and atmosphere. Particular regional conditions and other temperature-influencing factors could still result in stability or cooling in certain areas if those factors are a stronger influence than global warming in that particular region at that particular time. Besides, aren't the areas that are "cooling" in the minority? All of the graphs I have seen have seemed to indicate that is the case. You know the ones.... they take a map of the world and then tint different areas orange or blue to indicate whether the temperature has gone up or down.

And true, when these graphs cover too long a timespan the data gets much less reliable, but what about the increases observed just in the last 50 years, or even 20 years?

[Frieza2000]

Temperature isn't the kind of measurement that can be grossly inaccurate. I mean, Galileo invented the thermoscope in 1596. Even if it was off by 10 degrees, any conclusive rise in temperature would have to be above that anyway.

[Baba O'Reily]

The problem is that no one knows for sure.

[One Classy Bloke]

Why don't we just move into houseboats for when Global warming comes about, assuming it does. It would stop a lot of pussying about.

[chriscaffee]

The increases are sometimes in fractions of degrees. Not very conclusive if you ask me.

The data I have seen is inconsistent at best to support a global phenomenon.

[Delphine]

It seems kind of a common sense thing that the Earth's temperature will fluctuate over time. It's not, you know, static. It moves. Pretty fast. So stuff probably changes.

[Frieza2000]

Here's what the EPA has to say about Chris's argument.

The Earth's climate has undergone many natural changes in the past, and it will continue to change naturally in the future. Today, however, there is another factor to consider: During the past century, people have burned millions of tons of fossil fuels to produce energy, releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases and other substances that affect the climate. How much of today's global warming trend is due to natural factors and how much is due to humans? Researchers cannot be certain, but according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

The climate system, consisting of the atmosphere, the oceans, sea ice, ecosystems, clouds, and other components, has its own natural random variability. This variability can lead to short-term changes in climate, such as El Niño events, or longer-term changes such as those brought on by shifts in ocean circulation.

Natural forces outside the climate system, such as volcanoes, changes in solar activity, and changes in the Earth's orbit, also can affect climate. For example, scientists recently discovered an 1,800-year cycle in global warming and cooling that is driven by periodic changes in the strength of ocean tides. The changes in the tides are caused by gradual shifts in the relative astronomical positions of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. When tides are strong, cool water from the ocean depths is brought to the surface where it cools the climate. When tides are weaker, the climate warms. Presently, tides are weakening.

The Bounds of Natural Variability
Climate change from human activities is superimposed on the climate's natural variability. Thus, if researchers could determine the range and character of natural variability, they might be able to tell the extent to which natural causes could explain current trends.

Direct measurements of temperature and precipitation are available from locations around the world for only the past 150 years. But scientists have been able to piece together a picture of the Earth's climate for the past 5 million years by analyzing a number of surrogate or "proxy" measures of climate such as ice cores, tree rings, pollen remains, and ocean sediments.

The evidence shows that global and regional climates have changed dramatically at times. During the past two million years, for example, ice ages alternated with periods of relative warmth on a roughly 100,000-year cycle. Researchers believe these events were triggered by slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, along with changes in the Earth's distance from the Sun.

During the past 1,000 years, however, the climate appears to have been fairly stable. Two exceptions to this stability, known as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, occurred between the 9th and 14th centuries and the late 16th to early 19th centuries respectively. Those two periods, along with short-term fluctuations in climate on the scale of decades or years, provide boundaries for what could be considered the natural range of climate variability during the past millennium.

Recent Global Warming
The global warming of the 20th century, particularly the warming that has occurred since 1950, falls well outside those boundaries. Based on the available record, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2001 that the warming of the northern hemisphere in the 20th century is probably greater than any warming than has occurred during the past 1,000 years. The IPCC also found it likely that globally, the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the past millennium.

Chart

The IPCC concluded that most of the warming during the past 50 years is attributable to anthropogenic (human) emissions of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases leave a distinctive "fingerprint" on climate, affecting temperature and precipitation in patterns that differ from those caused by fluctuations in solar output or natural variability. While not all scientists agree on the extent to which humans contribute to global warming, the great majority believe that warming is underway.

They acknowledge that the temp rise COULD be caused by a natural event, but it coincides with industrialization. That'd be quite a coincidence. The merit in it comes down to how they determined "long-term mean temperature."