Global warming is a conspiracy... (picts included)

[boji]

I'm not feeling the conspiracy these past few days... Fortunately I moved most of my diy builds to the floor above a few months ago.

High water mark...

 

[scott2000]

Oh my! I thought we had some bad rain the past few days.......

Is that just your shop that got hit????

Geez.....You need anything???  Not sure what I could help with but, just throwing it out there just in case ........

 

[boji]

Send beer, a canoe, and a sump pump.   Local Home Depots are (surprise!) fresh out...

 

[scott2000]

Sure! I can do the pump.....

If you want to send me a link to the one you need, I can get one out to you.....

What about Home Depot online??? Would it get there in time I wonder???

Not sure I can send beer??? I'll go grab one now though and toast to your recovery in this mess....

 

[boji]

That's mighty kind of you, but I'll be ok. I have a friend in PA that will loan me a pump if it starts to rise again with the coming rains tonight/tomorrow.

 

[scott2000]

Friends work!

Hope it all works out better for you after this........

Weather is crazy..... Sure can put things into a different perspective......

 

[fazer]

Looks like Global flooding. I wondered if you were affected by the heavy rain in Maryland.  It made the news in Colorado .  I hope things are ok.  Colorado had a drought this year .  We’re getting rain now but not like that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Send beer, a canoe, and a sump pump.   Local Home Depots are (surprise!) fresh out...

I don't have a canoe, and my sump stays in the crawls space under my house to routinely pump water out. My property is on low ground, but i rearranged my rain drainage (after hurricane Katrina) so the water comes and goes relatively quickly. What does your local 100 year flood plain look like? Sorry about the flooding, water happens and can do a lot of secondary damage (like black mold).

On topic, I just saw an article (WSJ) claiming that sea level rise was continuous and not strictly correlated with global warming. They predict another 6" rise by 2100 or something like that but won't predict out thousands of years because ocean levels will fall with the next ice age (something like 400' lower). 

The article was not very convincing (to me) that they understand a single factor mechanism for sea level rise, sharing multiple factors in competition.

JR

 

[Jarno]

Oh wow, that is shitty man. You need some of that dutch water management savvy overthere, hope you recover from this quickly, but yeah it does do a lot of damage. Maybe build another shed on columns?

Wrt global warming, IMHO it is not about if it is true or not (but the evidence is there so yeah), but can we afford waiting and finding out too late? It is very risky to wait.

 

[ruffrecords]

Wrt global warming, IMHO it is not about if it is true or not (but the evidence is there so yeah), but can we afford waiting and finding out too late? It is very risky to wait.

It is even worse than that. Mankind is so full of itself it actually believes it can do something about it.

Any decent climatologist will tell you that what we are seeing now is just part of a well known cycle a few hundred years long ( and I found that out from a climatologist at the University of East Anglia (UEA) ,the UK's biggest promoter of global warming). Extreme weather conditions are expected to be the norm for the next decade or two as part of this cycle - but of course the global warming pundits don't want you to know that.

@boji, this is no comfort whatsoever to you. Sorry mate, wish I could help.

Cheers

Ian

Cheers

Ian

 

[desol]

Send beer, a canoe, and a sump pump.   Local Home Depots are (surprise!) fresh out...

Where is the like button when you need it. ;D

 

[benb]

Oh wow, that is sh*tty man. You need some of that dutch water management savvy overthere, hope you recover from this quickly, but yeah it does do a lot of damage. Maybe build another shed on columns?

Wrt global warming, IMHO it is not about if it is true or not (but the evidence is there so yeah), but can we afford waiting and finding out too late? It is very risky to wait.

I call this the "Pascal's Wager" argument.

(for what it's worth, I'm agnostic on GW/AGW)

 

[JohnRoberts]

I call this the "Pascal's Wager" argument.

(for what it's worth, I'm agnostic on GW/AGW)

I don't think GW was a thing in Pascal's time (1600s). His wager was something like God may not exist, but why risk it in case he/she does (something older religious agnostics get to ponder)?

JR

 

[benb]

Yes, exactly.  It's sort-of a game theory thing (game theory was invented much more recently than Pascal's time, but his Wager certainly looks like a precursor to it), a 2x2 matrix of four boxes. One dimension is whether or not you believe something is true (and you'll then act accordingly), and the other is whether or not it's actually true. In each of the four boxes is the conclusion of each combination of situations.

The argument is that the outcome of not believing something like God or AGW when it actually IS true is so horrible that "we should act like it's true regardless."

I don't necessarily endorse the conclusion of Pascal's Wager, but it's an interesting concept.

 

[scott2000]

Mind bending stuff....

I also came across Bayesian probability while looking at some of this.....

.... I'll see it when I believe it.....
Wait...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes, exactly.  It's sort-of a game theory thing (game theory was invented much more recently than Pascal's time, but his Wager certainly looks like a precursor to it), a 2x2 matrix of four boxes. One dimension is whether or not you believe something is true (and you'll then act accordingly), and the other is whether or not it's actually true. In each of the four boxes is the conclusion of each combination of situations.

The argument is that the outcome of not believing something like God or AGW when it actually IS true is so horrible that "we should act like it's true regardless."

They do both resemble religious belief systems. No offense intended toward believers in either.

If in fact we conclude that global warming is universally catastrophic for everybody, we could actively cool the planet. I've said this so many times I'm tired of hearing myself, but "if" we decide to actively cool the planet we damn well better be sure of what we are doing.

There are also long cycle geological temperature oscillations between warming and cooling AKA "ice ages".  Now it will be interesting to see how modern humans respond the next time that cooling cycle comes around. Last time we could only throw rocks at the ice sheets and grunt. This time we could really do some damage.

Duration of interglacial (between ice age) warm periods can be 20k years give or take tens of thousands of years and we are well into the current one (11k+ years).  These things don't run on a precise clock, and the whole popular wisdom is things are different this time (about almost everything including politics). I am not smart enough to argue one way or the other about that, but why would such a long cycle oscillation, that has repeated multiple times stop suddenly now?

I don't necessarily endorse the conclusion of Pascal's Wager, but it's an interesting concept.

Even more interesting the older I get.  :

JR

 

[boji]

I didn't really mean to start a debate on GW, however my intuition says it's simple thermodynamics on a grand scale- if you take 50 million + years of organic material imbued with the power of the sun, then release this stored energy into the atmosphere in a mere 500 hundred years, you're bound to see changes to the planet that significantly disrupt the biosphere.

 

[ruffrecords]

I didn't really mean to start a debate on GW, however my intuition says it's simple thermodynamics on a grand scale- if you take 50 million + years of organic material imbued with the power of the sun, then release this stored energy into the atmosphere in a mere 500 hundred years, you're bound to see changes to the planet that significantly disrupt the biosphere.

The real question is is there any evidence to support that assertion. I am not smart enough to work the answer to that on my own so I have to rely on what experts say, To do that you have to read a few books to get an idea of the range of factors that affect climate and their relative contribution. I suggest everyone interested in climate change read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by professor Robert M. Carter who is a palaeoclimatologist. This is too important a matter to rely on gut feeling.

Cheers

Ian

 

[boji]

Wish I lived near ya Ian, I'd buy you a beer over it.  Reviews of that book are generally favorable, however I tend to trust (ok, on faith) multinational science academy data. To me it's like rainwater;  very persuasive when found in aggregate.

 

[ruffrecords]

Wish I lived near ya Ian, I'd buy you a beer over it.  Reviews of that book are generally favorable, however I tend to trust (ok, on faith) multinational science academy data. To me it's like rainwater;  very persuasive when found in aggregate.

Not a problem. The pundits will tell you multinational science academy data says humans are a primary cause of global warming. The pundits are wrong - multinational science academy data (which is not the IPCC), actually says the case is not proven. There is a verbatim quote of a joint statement to that effect, which has been signed by far more scientists than are in the pay of the IPCC,  at the end of the book

Cheers

Ian