How rising sea levels could affect Seattle-area rails

[NW cannonball]

Why are we wasting millions of dollars on scientific instruments and stuff when we can just look at pictures!?!?!

Clearly comparing two photographs from 140 years apart is a vastly superior method for conducting scientific research! Someone give that man a Nobel Prize for Being Awesome!

Climate change deniers are going to come off looking about as foolish as the flat earther crowd.

I'm also a big fan of the "Scientists were wrong about something in the past, therefore anything a scientist says is completely untrue" reasoning.

I read something untrue on the internet once, so clearly everything I read on the internet today is a big fat lie.

And doctors once though disease was caused by bad humors. Clearly, that means all doctors are wrong and I'm just going to avoid all medical treatment from them in the future.

Wealll ya know, those pointy-head so-called "scientists" they just make stuff up, like yah know. Not like us bubbas that sit here and drink and watch expurts on the TV.

Why anybody would think that burning a lot of stuff would actutally "heat things up"? *** do they know? Sheesh!

Yup Ryan, all too obvious that too many of us are scared enough that admitting that people (scientists?), people who have spent their lives earning less than plumbers, might possibly have a clue.

Oh well.

 

[NW cannonball]

Reducing emissions and pollution and global warming do not need to be linked, and better if they are not.

I see no point in saying more in dealing with the convinced. Warming might happen or it might not.

And people would starve to death in a jungle like climate? Get real. That is about the same as starving to death in a restaurant. Ask any of the various groups that live in jungle climates. Why are many of them still primitive? Because they do not have to work harder to have all they need.

Actually, a jungle, or "rain-forest" -like climate- doesn't support many humans per square kilometer. Maybe with hack-and-burn can get up to 20-30 per square kilometer?

 

[cirdan]

Reducing emissions and pollution and global warming do not need to be linked, and better if they are not.

I see no point in saying more in dealing with the convinced. Warming might happen or it might not.

And people would starve to death in a jungle like climate? Get real. That is about the same as starving to death in a restaurant. Ask any of the various groups that live in jungle climates. Why are many of them still primitive? Because they do not have to work harder to have all they need.

Actually, a jungle, or "rain-forest" -like climate- doesn't support many humans per square kilometer. Maybe with hack-and-burn can get up to 20-30 per square kilometer?

Yes, and the term rain forest has nothing to do with it being hot. There are rain forests in some relatively cold places too. Parts of the UK were covered in rain forests before the trees were cut down over the centuries to make way for sheep farming. The moment they stop grazing sheep anywhere, the trees grow back in no time at all. Rain forest just means that it rains a lot, and that the rain supports a certain type of vegetation.

Climate change doesn't just mean that everything will get uniformly hotter, but that air and water currents could change and that means that some places will get less rain and others will get more rain. Some rain forests may become deserts and some new rain forests may appear in places that are today dry.

 

[George Harris]

High rainfall supports intensive farming.

 

[MattW]

Reducing emissions and pollution and global warming do not need to be linked, and better if they are not.

I see no point in saying more in dealing with the convinced. Warming might happen or it might not.

And people would starve to death in a jungle like climate? Get real. That is about the same as starving to death in a restaurant. Ask any of the various groups that live in jungle climates. Why are many of them still primitive? Because they do not have to work harder to have all they need.

Actually, a jungle, or "rain-forest" -like climate- doesn't support many humans per square kilometer. Maybe with hack-and-burn can get up to 20-30 per square kilometer?

Yes, and the term rain forest has nothing to do with it being hot. There are rain forests in some relatively cold places too. Parts of the UK were covered in rain forests before the trees were cut down over the centuries to make way for sheep farming. The moment they stop grazing sheep anywhere, the trees grow back in no time at all. Rain forest just means that it rains a lot, and that the rain supports a certain type of vegetation.

Climate change doesn't just mean that everything will get uniformly hotter, but that air and water currents could change and that means that some places will get less rain and others will get more rain. Some rain forests may become deserts and some new rain forests may appear in places that are today dry.

So in other words, no matter what it does, it's "climate change" that MUST be stopped. It's statements like this that make the global warming folks lose all credibility.

 

[Ryan]

No, statements like that indicate a nuanced understanding of what's actually happening.

The planet is a big and complex place. While all the talk about how unusually cold this winter was, that was really only applicable to the Eastern half of the US. While we were freezing our tails off, other parts of the globe were cooking.

That's what "climate change" is the preferred terminology, not "global warming" (although, taken in aggregate global temperatures are rising).

 

[NW cannonball]

Reducing emissions and pollution and global warming do not need to be linked, and better if they are not.

I see no point in saying more in dealing with the convinced. Warming might happen or it might not.

And people would starve to death in a jungle like climate? Get real. That is about the same as starving to death in a restaurant. Ask any of the various groups that live in jungle climates. Why are many of them still primitive? Because they do not have to work harder to have all they need.

Actually, a jungle, or "rain-forest" -like climate- doesn't support many humans per square kilometer. Maybe with hack-and-burn can get up to 20-30 per square kilometer?

Yes, and the term rain forest has nothing to do with it being hot. There are rain forests in some relatively cold places too. Parts of the UK were covered in rain forests before the trees were cut down over the centuries to make way for sheep farming. The moment they stop grazing sheep anywhere, the trees grow back in no time at all. Rain forest just means that it rains a lot, and that the rain supports a certain type of vegetation.

Climate change doesn't just mean that everything will get uniformly hotter, but that air and water currents could change and that means that some places will get less rain and others will get more rain. Some rain forests may become deserts and some new rain forests may appear in places that are today dry.

For sure - the Pacific Northwest of NA is a temperate rainforest - not hot, but really really wet. The good bit is that forest fires are rare. The bad bit is everything rots.

The other bad bit about the Pacific NW is the seismic problem.

There's good evidence that the sea level around Puget Sound goes up and down many meters every few centuries or so. Or the land rises and subsides about that much.

Global sea-level rise is dwarfed by the local plate tectonics

 

[Bob Dylan]

Meanwhile our Governor and the other authorities in Texas are encouraging the shipment of nuclear waste and toxic chemicals to West Texas because burying it underground creates jobs! We even get New York City sewage and garbage shipped here just like third world countries!

Maybe we can cut a deal with China, LOTs of Toxic Waste there! The Koch Brothers will finance it! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Birds don't foul their own nest! (PG version)

 

[NW cannonball]

Meanwhile our Governor and the other authorities in Texas are encouraging the shipment of nuclear waste and toxic chemicals to West Texas because burying it underground creates jobs! We even get New York City sewage and garbage shipped here just like third world countries!

Maybe we can cut a deal with China, LOTs of Toxic Waste there! The Koch Brothers will finance it! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Birds don't foul their own nest! (PG version)

Actually, I remember the dear pigeons that lived across the alley from our 3d floor apartment long ago. They built their nest from mostly their own droppings and -- the red and green swizzle sticks from a handy dumpster down below.

Red, green, white - they raised a family there. Thats's how we need to learn to live.

 

[neroden]

In a "hothouse earth" there were jungle-like conditions at the poles. Lots of creatures were just fine with this, but humans would find most of the earth uninhabitable, and we'd also starve to death.

Since someone seemed to misinterpret this (sigh), the problem with an Earth with hot jungles at the South Pole is not the pole, it's what happens in the tropics -- even hotter, they become uninhabitable.

 

[Ryan]

Interesting that this thread popped back up today. Just finished reading yet another article about the reality of climate change:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment-15-arresting-images-of-climate-change-now-and-in-the-pipeline/

This isn't going to bode well for the tunnels in NY:

 

[chakk]

I think a bigger concern for Seattle might be the effects of a tsunami. I've been told by local scientists in the know that there are several large storage tanks near the Sound that could break loose in a tsunami and float their way south to Renton.

 

[George Harris]

Anybody building so close to the ocean that a one foot change in sea level is a disaster for them is not playing with a full deck anyway. I tend to regard this panic of global warming sea level rise etc. as virtually a religion. It is a belief system that gets all excited about all evidence that supports it and ignores all evidence to the contrary. It is like going to the fortune teller and ignoring all the predictions he missed and hanging on the those he got right.

Let's see, we take a 14 inch measured (to what level of accuracy?) sea level rise over a period of 105 years and extrapolate it to get our impending disaster. How do we know whether this straight line can be extrapolated? I recall in college when discussing extrapolating for future traffic demands from historical growth the comment on the validity of doing such made that if we take the average occupancy per vehicle of the cars on the road in 30 year about 1/3 of the cars on the road would be empty. That was obviously an impossibility. Nuff said about extrapolation.

There are errors in understanding made in fields where everything can be checked experimentally because results that do not fit the current theory are taken as an anomaly rather that as an indication that the theory needs adjustment. How can we believe that when dealing with a situation not subject experimental proof and with relatively short trend lines that we can be absolutely certain that the theory is right?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I am not going to argue whether or not the theory is right. However that does not mean we should work on reducing emissions or avoid building to a higher standard of sea resiliency, does it, Mr. Harris?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I know that George is an experienced, successful engineer with much railroad experience and he often contributes helpful info to this site!

However he is not a climatologist or scientist therefore his opinions are basically political in nature!

That being said, almost all zoning and development is controlled by local politicians and private developers with funding mostly coming from governments!(local,state and federal)

Most of the Natural disasters that have occurred through the years have been a result of this system which has allowed corruption to create unsafe conditions!

Hence we have Flood Insurance being subsidized by the Government and the FEMA Agency that doles out money when disasters occur in such places as New Orleans, Florida, California etc etc

This stupidly allows people to rebuild in storm, fllod and fire zones and even where there will soon be No Water!(Lad Vegas/ Phoenix/ Austin/ Calif etc)

Climate change is a fact everywhere! Greenhouse emissions are the primary cause and all the kooky wing nut politicians and pundits that are in denial about these facts are charlatans and frauds! ( are you listening Rushbo,Sister Sarah, Glen Beck etc etc)

Decide for yourself, there's plenty of videos, climate data etc and almost All real Scientists agree that's the Problem is real and its getting worse!

The time to act is now, we must pass on a liveable world to our children, grandchildren and future generations! YMMV but if it does Why????

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I tend to regard this panic of global warming sea level rise etc. as virtually a religion. It is a belief system that gets all excited about all evidence that supports it and ignores all evidence to the contrary. It is like going to the fortune teller and ignoring all the predictions he missed and hanging on the those he got right.

From my time on this forum it seems you enjoy talking about global warming as much as anyone and that the panic is limited to those who are concerned that money and regulations may be leveraged to give us a cleaner environment. For those of us who take this sort of thing seriously I can assure you that discussing global warming in a hyper cynical society like America is about as exciting as passing a kidney stone. You ignore thousands of scientists, who would seem to be the actual experts, because you somehow know better than any of them. I'd take your views on the climate science about as seriously as I'd take a climatologist's views on laying and maintaining rail. You're not a fortune teller so much as a fortune naysayer. The science will never be good enough for you because it's not even about science in your view. It's about some sort of bizarre international conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and millions of other people who want to waste billions of dollars mitigating imaginary pollutants. As tedious and counterintuitive as climate modeling can be it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as confusing and convoluted as your global conspiracy model.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

George is an engineer and from Missouri when it comes to this stuff. Despite what the short term feels like, these changes are 1) in the statistical noise on a Geological timescale and 2) there cause is not proven with much direct empirical evidence at all. Since what George says is eminently reasonable and logical, I respect what he says.

I disagree with his stance, but I can't attack it in any way other than my gut says he is wrong.

But more over, the pollution generated global warming is a dangerous argument to fall in to. Why? Because what it asks for is too important to rest on anything we can't scientifically prove.

We need less greenhouse gas emissions and all other kinds of emissions too. We need less pollution. And we need to prepare better for handling nature and all she throws at us.

If we rest all those needs on the legs of an argument we can't yet prove, what happens if we are proven wrong? All the people who reluctantly were doing it because of global warming stop.

It's like the peak oil argument. We need to work on controlling our fossil fuel consumption for myriad reasons, regardless of whether we have 10 years more oil or ten million. I think George actually agrees with everything I'm saying about this, too.

So instead of wasting time trying to argue for the unproven, argue for fixing things because they simply need to be fixed.

 

[Ryan]

I disagree with his stance, but I can't attack it in any way other than my gut says he is wrong.

You could attack it by pointing out there is near-universal acceptance of the science behind it by people that study it extensively and make it their life's work.

If George tells me that track needs to be laid a certain way, I'm going to believe him because that's his field of expertise.

When climate change experts tell me it's real and global temps are rising along with sea levels, I'm going to believe them.

Politics makes a ****-poor substitute for science and throwing out the science because you disagree with the political stance of the people that are listening to the scientists and trying to do something about it doesn't change the underlying science.

I do agree with the "So what if climate change isn't man made and the only thing that comes from cleaning up our act is cleaner air to breathe and cleaner water to drink?". There are many good reasons to be good stewards of the environment. But climate change is undoubtedly one of them.

 

[MattW]

I disagree with his stance, but I can't attack it in any way other than my gut says he is wrong.

You could attack it by pointing out there is near-universal acceptance of the science behind it by people that study it extensively and make it their life's work.

If George tells me that track needs to be laid a certain way, I'm going to believe him because that's his field of expertise.

When climate change experts tell me it's real and global temps are rising along with sea levels, I'm going to believe them.

Politics makes a ****-poor substitute for science and throwing out the science because you disagree with the political stance of the people that are listening to the scientists and trying to do something about it doesn't change the underlying science.

I do agree with the "So what if climate change isn't man made and the only thing that comes from cleaning up our act is cleaner air to breathe and cleaner water to drink?". There are many good reasons to be good stewards of the environment. But climate change is undoubtedly one of them.

Near universal acceptance by whom? The businesses, politicians and their scientists who all have a vested interest in pushing that agenda?

What about the climate scientists that dissent? Are they to be disregarded since they don't fall in line with the hype?

Years ago, I actually did some digging into who was pushing what. Just like certain issues in this country largely fall out along political party lines, the issue of human-caused global warming or not mostly fell out along three categories: scientists employed by those with a vested interest in pushing it, scientists unconnected in any way to a vested interest either way, and scientists connected to those with a vested interest in disproving it (oil companies mostly).

The two groups on each end were saying what you'd expect. But the middle group largely said that the warming wasn't human-caused. Why would this middle group, with no vested interest either way be overwhelmingly against AGW unless there was some truth to it? Yes, numerically they were in the minority, but if the science is sound, what does that matter? Wasn't Galileo in the minority?

There was a dataset published a week or so ago that showed that there has been no average warming in 17 years, which contrasts a LOT with what the global warming cheerleaders have been saying and what their precious computer models were saying too. So what was wrong? The data or the guesses?

 

[jis]

I think all those that claim that there are no man made problems in the environment should be made to spend a year in New Delhi sans air conditioning. That will change their opinion pronto. It will also raise their lifetime medical bills irrevocably. It will give them a nice preview of what we will get if we disband or even defang the EPA in the USA.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I disagree with his stance, but I can't attack it in any way other than my gut says he is wrong.

You could attack it by pointing out there is near-universal acceptance of the science behind it by people that study it extensively and make it their life's work.

If George tells me that track needs to be laid a certain way, I'm going to believe him because that's his field of expertise.

When climate change experts tell me it's real and global temps are rising along with sea levels, I'm going to believe them.

Politics makes a ****-poor substitute for science and throwing out the science because you disagree with the political stance of the people that are listening to the scientists and trying to do something about it doesn't change the underlying science.

I do agree with the "So what if climate change isn't man made and the only thing that comes from cleaning up our act is cleaner air to breathe and cleaner water to drink?". There are many good reasons to be good stewards of the environment. But climate change is undoubtedly one of them.

Near universal acceptance by whom? The businesses, politicians and their scientists who all have a vested interest in pushing that agenda?
What about the climate scientists that dissent? Are they to be disregarded since they don't fall in line with the hype?

Years ago, I actually did some digging into who was pushing what. Just like certain issues in this country largely fall out along political party lines, the issue of human-caused global warming or not mostly fell out along three categories: scientists employed by those with a vested interest in pushing it, scientists unconnected in any way to a vested interest either way, and scientists connected to those with a vested interest in disproving it (oil companies mostly).

The two groups on each end were saying what you'd expect. But the middle group largely said that the warming wasn't human-caused. Why would this middle group, with no vested interest either way be overwhelmingly against AGW unless there was some truth to it? Yes, numerically they were in the minority, but if the science is sound, what does that matter? Wasn't Galileo in the minority?

By your reasoning I guess we should only be asking what people on Mars think. Otherwise we might end up asking someone with a vested interest in the Earth's future.

 

[jis]

So how do we know that one of the criteria unconsciously for selecting the middle group was not by chance only those that said that it was not human caused? What controls were exercised to ensure that such unintended biases did not enter the analysis?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm not saying global warming isn't happening or that it is not effected by humanity. I am very convinced personally that there are enormous implications of climate change.

Indeed, nature exists on earth because a perfect storm of distance, energy, and chemical make up of the earth. It was created by a near-perfect balance and is maintained by same. Taking the molecules of our world and vastly changing large quantities of them in ways that wouldn't automatically self regulate within that balance (say, o2 to co2 to o2, a cycle central to life) would HAVE to affect that balance. It would logically follow (and I can't back this up because I can't prove it without finding a world thriving with life and destroy it) that if this balance is delicate, and it is, changing it substantially would be disastrous.

But don't call that global warming. Call it environmental imapact. Because warming is a small part of that. And fight for reducing - IMMENSELY - our environmental impact. Which does involve initial further disruptions as we move towards future reductions and repairs.

Oh, Ryan: don't dispute climate change with George. Instead, bring up legitimate controlled data that accounts for and proves climate change, granting that it should take place on geological timescales and that one taking place over only a few decades is an inadequate sample size for judgement to be rendered. If you can be a fact checker combined with a ferret for real, find unbiased facts to prove wrong the main point George made: it is not adequately proven to exist.

Remember, if reasonable doubt remains, he is innocent. Sheesh.

 

[jis]

I completely agree with your assessment on this matter as spelled out above GML.

 

[neroden]

What about the climate scientists that dissent? Are they to be disregarded since they don't fall in line with the hype?

They don't exist. There's really only the one guy, and I bet you know his name. One guy does not make "dissent". The numbers are padded by the fossil fuel industry by including people who aren't actually climate scientists and saying that they are climate scientists, which they aren't.

Years ago, I actually did some digging into who was pushing what. Just like certain issues in this country largely fall out along political party lines, the issue of human-caused global warming or not mostly fell out along three categories: scientists employed by those with a vested interest in pushing it, scientists unconnected in any way to a vested interest either way, and scientists connected to those with a vested interest in disproving it (oil companies mostly).

All the climate scientists in the middle now agree that global warming is both real, and caused by humans. That's the problem with "years ago".
There's still some debate over whether burning fossil fuels or chopping down the forests is the larger cause of the problem.

There was a dataset published a week or so ago that showed that there has been no average warming in 17 years,

No, there wasn't. You're misreading the dataset. Please get a copy of _How to Lie With Statistics_. I'll wait while you read it and then figure out how you've been bamboozled. Hint: 17 is a pretty weird number, and not one normally used for time series. If you cherry-pick an unusually hot start year and an unusually cold end year, you can make it look like there's been no warming trend... if you're a dishonest hack. I can also "show" that there was no inflation in the 1970s the same way.