[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And BTW the way Doc, because you also have problems with the difference between adaptation and mitigation. That was adaptation.

The voices in your head are not your friends. They lie to you.

[N_Fiddledog]

Actually that one kind of surprised me.

I remember when me and Zip started talking about the adaptation versus mitigation debate, you wanted to think you were the expert, but it was like you'd never really heard that one before.

It's like before I returned you'd never actually heard the climate skeptic argument or the terms that come with it.

Another one was "Climate Sensitivity". Did you ever catch up with that one? It's very important. The skeptic's whole argument centers on it.

For God sakes don't use that term until you're sure what it is.

You're tendency to use a term before you have a clue about it is getting embarrassing.

It's like Suzuki in Australia, or thinking HadCrut measures ice, or not knowing what CRU stands for.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And BTW the way Doc, because you also have problems with the difference between adaptation and mitigation. That was adaptation.

The voices in your head are not your friends. They lie to you.

Your voices told you this, right?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And BTW the way Doc, because you also have problems with the difference between adaptation and mitigation. That was adaptation.

The voices in your head are not your friends. They lie to you.

Your voices told you this, right?

No, the fact the N_F is discussing things randomly is. Makes me think that he actually sees that the trend line shows a continuing rise in sea levels, but he wants to change the subject rather than deal with that.

My voices are calling for Pizza.

[BartSimpson]

Mine are telling me to get my fat ass out of my chair and go for a walk.

brb

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, the fact the N_F is discussing things randomly is. Makes me think that he actually sees that the trend line shows a continuing rise in sea levels, but he wants to change the subject rather than deal with that.

Oh for God's sake.

Can you honestly not tell the difference between the idea of rising sea levels and rising rate of rise?

I'm saying sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.

The argument of rising sea levels now, is actually an argument about rising rate of rise, and as I understand it, it relies on a recent 20 year trend measured against the 20th century trend of sea level rise.

I'm saying even if we accept all that all you seem to be talking about is rise in rate of increase of 6 inches per century, and that's nothing to worry about. That isn't confirmation bias. That isn't imagination. That's math.

If you want to argue it, defeat the math.

[BRAH]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Ever seen this?



It's an animated graph of how Boston adapted to sea level rise over the 19th century through the use of land fill.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/ ... uence.html

Interesting, if Boston ever have an earthquake wouldn't soil liquefaction happen?

[BartSimpson]

BRAH BRAH:

Interesting, if Boston ever have an earthquake wouldn't soil liquefaction happen?

Yes, indeed. They know it, too, and the politicians in Massachusetts steadfastly refuse to do FA to prevent loss of life when the eventual earthquake strikes.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazi ... e_problem/

From page two of that article:

$1:

"Amplification" and "liquefaction" are two words often used by specialists to describe Boston's earthquake vulnerability. Amplification -- when seismic waves hit a region of loose soil and become stronger -- was demonstrated to horrific effect in the Mexico City quake of 1985; a strong earthquake centered hundreds of miles away was strengthened at the surface by the soft soils beneath the city. Thousands of unreinforced buildings were leveled, and 9,500 people were killed.

Liquefaction happens when saturated sand or gravel deposits are shaken, increasing the water pressure between the grains and causing the soil to flow freely. When soil liquefies, buildings may sink as though into quicksand and can buckle as their foundations shimmy and shift; that's what happened in the Loma Prieta quake of 1989, which killed at least 63 people in the San Francisco Bay area. A 2004 study of Boston by researchers Charles Brankman of Harvard University and Laurie Baise of Tufts University shows the greatest threat of liquefaction to areas built on fill, such as Logan Airport, Back Bay, South Boston, and the Cambridge waterfront.

The last sentence outlines the neighborhoods that you can see being built in the graphic.

And they were not built because of sea level rise. My mother's family lived in the area from 1636 and in all my years I never once heard anyone say that the Back Bay was built because of sea level rise. It was built because it was free land.

[Jabberwalker]

BRAH BRAH:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Ever seen this?



It's an animated graph of how Boston adapted to sea level rise over the 19th century through the use of land fill.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/ ... uence.html

Interesting, if Boston ever have an earthquake wouldn't soil liquefaction happen?

Let's see how Florida is going to do that. Their shoreline is a tad bit longer and the whole state is about 10 feet above sea level.

The good news is that the Pirates of the Carribean ride at Disneyworld might turn onto the real thing, yo-ho-ho.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, the fact the N_F is discussing things randomly is. Makes me think that he actually sees that the trend line shows a continuing rise in sea levels, but he wants to change the subject rather than deal with that.

Oh for God's sake.

Can you honestly not tell the difference between the idea of rising sea levels and rising rate of rise?

Can you actually read the part of my argument that says anything of the sort, or is that another thing you made up and are blaming me for?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm saying sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.

And I'm not arguing that. Bart said "You have to provide proof that sea level is actually rising due to this supposed glacial event. " I showed, using satellite data, that sea levels are rising contradictory to the tide gauge measurements. But it's impossible to show a trend that hasn't happened yet, as this study predicts the future of the glacier melting.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The argument of rising sea levels now, is actually an argument about rising rate of rise, and as I understand it, it relies on a recent 20 year trend measured against the 20th century trend of sea level rise.

Ok. Seems reasonable. A little too short of a time for a real trend to develop I think.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'm saying even if we accept all that all you seem to be talking about is rise in rate of increase of 6 inches per century, and that's nothing to worry about. That isn't confirmation bias. That isn't imagination. That's math.

If you want to argue it, defeat the math.

I gave no math to defeat! You are the one going on about your 6 inches, not me. And once again, your confirmation bias kicks in when you see glacial melt models that show you doom and gloom and refuse to consider that they may be based on actual events happening in Alaska and other parts of Greenland - and you refuse to believe that the computer models can be real because of it! That's Confirmation Bias!

The computer models predict that seas will rise quite considerably over the next thousand years once that glacier starts to melt. Just from that one glacier! That's the whole reason to limit warming to 2 degrees, as soon as possible. From the melt pattern of other glaciers, once they start to slide on the melt water released, they accelerate rapidly. And once the seas rise, Antarctica will also see the kind of melting that the West Antarctica is now.

Your old pal James Hanson just did a computer simulation on all sorts of wonderful scenarios as to what may happen when the seas rise from glacial melt. I'm sure we'll all get a peek at it once the peer review is finished, and the accompanying rolling eyes from the Deniers at the Heartland Institution.

[BRAH]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BRAH BRAH:

Interesting, if Boston ever have an earthquake wouldn't soil liquefaction happen?

Yes, indeed. They know it, too, and the politicians in Massachusetts steadfastly refuse to do FA to prevent loss of life when the eventual earthquake strikes.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazi ... e_problem/

From page two of that article:

$1:

"Amplification" and "liquefaction" are two words often used by specialists to describe Boston's earthquake vulnerability. Amplification -- when seismic waves hit a region of loose soil and become stronger -- was demonstrated to horrific effect in the Mexico City quake of 1985; a strong earthquake centered hundreds of miles away was strengthened at the surface by the soft soils beneath the city. Thousands of unreinforced buildings were leveled, and 9,500 people were killed.

Liquefaction happens when saturated sand or gravel deposits are shaken, increasing the water pressure between the grains and causing the soil to flow freely. When soil liquefies, buildings may sink as though into quicksand and can buckle as their foundations shimmy and shift; that's what happened in the Loma Prieta quake of 1989, which killed at least 63 people in the San Francisco Bay area. A 2004 study of Boston by researchers Charles Brankman of Harvard University and Laurie Baise of Tufts University shows the greatest threat of liquefaction to areas built on fill, such as Logan Airport, Back Bay, South Boston, and the Cambridge waterfront.

The last sentence outlines the neighborhoods that you can see being built in the graphic.

And they were not built because of sea level rise. My mother's family lived in the area from 1636 and in all my years I never once heard anyone say that the Back Bay was built because of sea level rise. It was built because it was free land.

So what's happened in this video could happen in Boston. It's interesting how everything is connected in one way or another.

[BartSimpson]

Yep, that can happen in Boston. It happened in San Francisco during the 1989 earthquake, too.

[BRAH]

Incredible footage of glacier collapsing in NZ

https://ca.screen.yahoo.com/editor-s-picks/incredible-footage-glacier-collapsing-nz-100800630.html
_________