patrick.net

Why doesn't everyone who lives in flood prone areas do this:

Roidy says

I'm not sure they will help, since the real problem is the salt marsh depletion between NOLA and the sea.

Is there some reason why they aren't dredging up dirt from the gulf to fix this?

In a different thread Booger suggested infilling parts of New Orleans, but I suspect that dredging is the only locally available dirt in sufficient quantities and I'm not sure that that's even the type of dirt that you can readily build on (since I'm not THAT type of engineer). But I suspect that it's perfectly good dirt for recreating extra space to grow tress on between the levies and the gulf. If it's possible to do beach restoration, why not forest and swamp restoration

Onvacation says

that the alarmist used to arrive at the conclusion that the the world is heating out of control.

Stick to reading what scientists write. It really is a long term problem with no obvious and easy solutions, and it is not a conspiracy theory perpetrated by selfish scientists.

Onvacation says

How accurate were the readings taken with bucket and thermometer last century?

The measurement were not as accurate or prevalent back then. However, that isn't the biggest issue. The biggest issue is understanding and quantifying sources of systematic error that change over time, as those can have a big impact on the plots of temperature versus time. The most well known source of this type of error is the heat island effect. That is, the population has grown around places where temperatures were measured years ago. In cities, there is a lot of blacktop and perhaps for other reasons, the temperature in cities is higher than it would have been if that spot were still rural. People can measure this effect and correct for it. The thing is, the correction decreases the measured temperature increase over time. So, the scientists are correcting the data in a way that makes the temperature increase seem smaller. They are not doing it for any ulterior motive. They are doing it to offset a known measurable effect and make the data more accurate.

There are lots of obvious reasons why someone might measure something and make adjustments instead of using the measured value. For example, if I am going to cut wood to make a 2x4, I might measure the moisture content and adjust the cut width so that the 2x4 was the right size after drying. If I were going to pay for a bushel of corn, I might measure the moisture content, and correct the weight based on how wet the corn was. So, changing a measurement based on known factors is not fudging. It's just correcting for known variances.

zzyzzx says

Why doesn't everyone who lives in flood prone areas do this:

I hope those support sticks go right through the first floor uninterrupted. Otherwise, that thing is in desperate need of some cross bracing. It would also be nice if they cut those beams into the supports. You cannot even build a deck like that in the county I live in.

I wonder how much of a homeowners insurance discount they get for doing that (build on stilts)?

Onvacation says

I find it hard to believe that they were accurate within a few degrees much less a fraction of a degree

I find it hard to believe that in 1972 we knew the speed of light to be 0.2997924562 gigameters / s to an accuracy of 0.000000001 gigameters/s accuracy. But, despite the difficulty of even imagining that speed, many clever individuals found out how to do it. What's more interesting is that an astronomer named Romer estimated it to within 25% in 1676 by measuring the eclipse times of one of Jupiter's moons. Although it is hard for me to imagine making any of a huge number of giant historical scientific discoveries, I know that they in fact happened. Furthermore, when enough very bright minds are focused on a problem, we can achieve an amazing level of understanding of both what is going on and how well we understand it.

YesYNot says

So, the scientists are correcting the data

I thought scientists analyzed data? If the data is wrong shouldn't it be thrown out?

YesYNot says

So, changing a measurement based on known factors is not fudging. It's just correcting for known variances.

How can the climate scientists know what those sailors with buckets and thermometers did wrong to make their measurements inaccurate?

Onvacation says

If the data is wrong shouldn't it be thrown out?

The data are not wrong. This is just the nature of science. You learn as much as you can from the tools on hand. See the history of measuring the speed of light, which I referenced earlier. Anyway, every time you calibrate an instrument, you are adjusting the values of the measurements that you end up taking with that instrument.

Let's say you get new tires for your car that are a little bigger than the original equipment. Do you adjust the data coming from your speedometer or just throw it away and guess how fast you are going? If you are smart, you have the speedometer recalibrated or just make a mental note that the you will be going a X percent faster than the reading on the dash. If you are less industrious, you would just throw the data out. Fortunately, scientists are an industrious lot, and make use of it.

YesYNot says

See the history of measuring the speed of light, which I referenced earlier. Anyway, every time you calibrate an instrument, you are adjusting the values of the measurements that you end up taking with that instrument.

There is a big difference between the speed of light, a universal constant and the temperature of a bucket of sea water measured with a thermometer a century ago.YesYNot says

Let's say you get new tires for your car that are a little bigger than the original equipment.

I did. I needed the extra ground clearance.

YesYNot says

Anyway, every time you calibrate an instrument, you are adjusting the values of the measurements that you end up taking with that instrument.

Thats just it. Hundreds of different thermometers used on different ships. I understand what you said about accuracy and precision. I am questioning the accuracy of these old temp measurements.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi7ruvokcbVAhVI4yYKHX6ZB7EQFggjMAA&usg=AFQjCNHBpS1_TauZm4TWpSlvMRXcmSSQAA

There is a C02 increase before warming? Every chart that hasn't be manipulated shows this as true. C02 also comes out of solution as it warms that is very basic science.
It has to get warmer before there is a C02 increase.....

beershrine says

There is a C02 increase before warming? Every chart that hasn't be manipulated shows this as true. C02 also comes out of solution as it warms that is very basic science.

It has to get warmer before there is a C02 increase.....

Ya gotta link your facts so the alarmists can call BS on ya.

Onvacation says

Without co2 we would be a lifeless iceball floating around another star in the Coyl

This is true. I'm having a hard time understanding how you could believe this, yet think we could double the level of co2 without causing a big increase in temperature.

zzyzzx says

Is there some reason why they aren't dredging up dirt from the gulf to fix this?

Gentle Reader,

I've fished and boated in the salt marshes south and southeast of New Orleans for most of my life. The amount of marsh subsidence is gigantic. There isn't enough dirt to backfill this. Why this happened is from two man-made occurrences.

1) Oil companies tearing of the marsh looking and drill oil and natural gas.

2) The US Army Corp of Engineers built a levee system to protect the city and surrounding areas from flooding. This prevented the Mississippi River from flooding and depositing silt and dirt from the upper reaches of the Mississippi. No deposits, no natural filling, the salt marsh subsides.

This shit isn't brain surgery.

Regards,
Roidy

The solution is evolution. ( to global warming )
Mankind has evolved and adapted over the centuries to most everything mother nature has thrown at them.
No reason to believe we won't this time either.
Already I can feel fragments of freon forming and flowing through my flatulence...

YesYNot says

I'm having a hard time understanding how you could believe this, yet think we could double the level of co2 without causing a big increase in temperature.

Mitigating factors. More co2 means more plant growth. More heat means more clouds to block heat. How do you know that more co2 won't turn the earth into a tropical like rain forest?

Again if you want to argue we are killing the planet with overpopulation and pollution, I agree.

BlueSardine says

The solution is evolution. ( to global warming )

Mankind has evolved and adapted over the centuries to most everything mother nature has thrown at them.

BINGO!

If we, the people could stop all the tribalism and warfare we could ALL live in paradise.

Unfortunately the world has not worked that way.