The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 18    Average: 2.8/5]
58 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5939
Rating: 2.8
Category: Science
Date: 06/28/12 05:01 PM

58 Responses to Living With Flood Waters

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18831 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 5:14 pm
    Link: Living With Flood Waters - Shot during the 2011 Thailand floods, this clip chronicles the devastating effects of flooding linked to global warming.
  2. Profile photo of ledzeppeloyd
    ledzeppeloyd Male 18-29
    2385 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 6:21 pm
    deep
  3. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36665 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Walking the dog could be a problem.
  4. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm
    Amazing how strong people can be!

    "linked to global warming" PFT!
    You still buying that crap @Fancy? EVERYTHING is "linked" to global warming: heat, cold, dry, rain, you name it! Earthquakes too!

    BEcause Thailand NEVER EVER flooded before 1991, amiright or what!

    @Gerry1: yeah, but cooking the dog is easy: propane BBQ!
  5. Profile photo of r66tramp
    r66tramp Male 40-49
    674 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 8:39 pm
    Let that water soak into your skin. Lower your body into it and allow your genitals and orifices to allow it to seep in. Stand in that water all day long while you work for 12 hours. If there was a God I`d say, he`s trying to kill the ignorant.

    Who said the meek shall inherit? Who? Liar!
  6. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 9:21 pm
    Thailand has had to deal with flooding forever, They only have two seasons, the dry season and the wet season. Has nothing to do with AGW.
  7. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    ...this clip chronicles the devastating effects of flooding linked to global warming.
    Does anybody with an IQ above the average global temperature still believe in global warming? It`s been exposed as a hoax for years now.
  8. Profile photo of HalfPintRoo
    HalfPintRoo Female 18-29
    2765 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm
    I thought concern was the water being badly contaminated? At least that was the problem I heard about with people walking through the flood waters in new orleans
  9. Profile photo of eduardoleon
    eduardoleon Male 18-29
    500 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 10:17 pm
    sigh at the comments
  10. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 10:28 pm
    "At least that was the problem I heard about with people walking through the flood waters in new orleans"

    HPR broke the code.

    N.O. wasn`t nearly as bad as everyone let on.

    My thing is, doesn`t Thailand have killer freaking holy crap snakes?!
  11. Profile photo of CynicalGamer
    CynicalGamer Male 40-49
    450 posts
    June 28, 2012 at 11:19 pm
    @OldOllie - How exactly has Global Warming been debunked again?
  12. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:01 am
    OldOllie

    Please link to one credible source. One. Please. Otherwise you are an old, ignorant, idiot and should just stop wasting everyone`s time. (I mean you are an old, ignorant, idiot no matter what, but I mean about this topic)
  13. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:03 am
    Wow. Look. 5Cats, Crakr, and OldOllie jump in to deny global warming. Links. Please fellas. To one nationally ranked scientist that says Global Warming is a hoax. Just one. I don`t even want a consensus. Just one reputable source.
  14. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:11 am
    That doesn`t look so bad. A wet cooch on every corner. BA-DOOMP-BOOMP!
  15. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:15 am
    Guys. Do me a favor. Go to Google Images.
    Type in "variation in earth`s surface temperature past 1,000 years".
    Hit enter.
    Notice right around the industrial revolution?
    Come back here and tell me that was a coincidence.
  16. Profile photo of indisguise
    indisguise Female 40-49
    267 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:39 am
    @ Holy God - I strongly suspect that the big change you see in those images you wanted us to google is related to more accurate (and consistent) weather tracking than anything else. Also - the industrial revolution was between 1750 and 1850. Keeping those dates in mind, now google `the year without a summer`.
  17. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:42 am
    Holy God

    You have to be kidding, right?

    Try Google for a graph of population, and perhaps of world energy use. Then you will note that the energy use in the 1850s was not even close to being enough to affect the weather. So the graphs which show warming since the 1850s actually prove that the Earth started warming then regardless of the lack of carbon dioxide release.
  18. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:53 am
    CynicalGamer

    Catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) was debunked about 15 years ago.

    All the models that show this rely on positive feedback in temperature by increase in water vapour. This has a distinctive signature in atmospheric warming, with earliest and greatest warming in the upper troposphere (above 300 hPa) at low latitudes (20S-20N).

    In the mid-1990s studies of radiosond data showed that there was no warming at all in this region of the atmosphere.

    There are more recent debunkings: satellite sensor data on energy balance, the fact that models are far worse than random walks at predicting temperature.

    However that is moot. All you need to ask is "what is the empirical evidence for CAGW?" and watch the tumble weeds drift. No-one will tell you, because there is none. That is you Mann et al.`s hockey stick was so important, it was the only empirical evidence ... until proved to be an artefact of poor data handling.
  19. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 12:54 am
    indisguise

    K. I did. An abnormally cold year linked to volcanic events? How does that have anything to do with this?
  20. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:00 am
    FancyLad

    Even if there was significant global warming (and there is not at the moment, and that in the recent past has been exaggerated by poor data handling in the USA and outright fraud in Russia, Iceland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia and cast into uncertainty by lack of data in Canada, Bolivia, the Arctic and Antarctic and the world`s oceans; that would be the oceans for 70% of the surface, and 4 of the 6 largest countries in the world, all areas that have shown warming) then there would be no way to connect individual weather events to this. Given that there has been no statistically-significant increase in extreme weather events since early it the 20th century, your assumption is just ridiculous.
  21. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:05 am
    randomxnp

    I`m going to assume you aren`t a scientific expert in any way. So let`s play a game. Instead of just saying things like they are indisputable facts try linking to a credible source.
  22. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:06 am
    So HolyGod, how about the fact that the graph you demand everyone should Google actually disproves the ridiculous hypothesis that human activity is entirely responsible for warming?

    If you`re still confused and bemused, look up "Little Ice Age". Perhaps "Mediaeval Warm Period" and "Roman Climate Optimum" too. These show that today`s climate is not anomalous in any way, and that our response is comically self-centred, that it must be a special time because we are alive in it.

    Get over yourself. You are not important. The world is 6000 billion billion tons of rock, it does not care about you or anything you do.
  23. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:09 am
    HolyGod

    I know you are not a scientific expert, because you say things that have nothing to do with science. I have a degree in Earth Sciences from a world-class university. Everything I say is easy to verify; if you kept up with the issues around the global-warming debate you would know them, so the fact you don`t suggests you are not well enough informed to make a real contribution to the debate.

    So where are your links to a reputable source?
  24. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:15 am
    randomxnp

    " has been no statistically-significant increase in extreme weather events since early it the 20th century"

    The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.

    http://tinyurl.com/75wxa62
  25. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:16 am
    Given that I usually charge £35 an hour or more for lessons on meteorology and world climatology, I would suggest HolyGod that you do your own research. However consider this link which contains graphs and charts from reputable sources as a freebie, since it took less than a minute to find with a search on Bing images

    http://bit.ly/N165UF

    Your laziness is not an excuse to disregard what is written by those better informed than you are. if you want to confirm it you don`t even need to get off your fat backside, just use a search engine.
  26. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:20 am
    randomxnp

    "I know you are not a scientific expert, because you say things that have nothing to do with science."

    Absolutely. That is why I tend to listen to scientific experts. And I`ve never heard one say that global warming has been debunked. There is a debate as to the degree of affect, certainly.
  27. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:30 am
    randomxnp

    Well, using search engines it took me about 5 minutes to read up about "The Friends of Science" you linked me to and how they are generally a joke in the scientific community and have been proven to be supported by funds from oil and gas corporations.

    http://tinyurl.com/yojcxx

    I guess I should have put CREDIBLEE in all caps.
  28. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:34 am
    HolyGod

    There are plenty of scientific experts who say global warming has been debunked. What you are really saying is that you listen to journalists and politicians, who are the ones overwhelmingly quoting scientific "experts" on one side. If you were listening to the scientists you would know that opinions are sharply divided.

    If you had any scientific knowledge yourself you would of course know that those in support of the Cause are using anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and that the actual science behind CAGW is very poor indeed and riddled with fraud. If you knew anything about statistics (something about which I know just enough to recognise poor techniques, and to know I don`t know enough) you would also know how utterly ignorant most scientists are. Much of the criticism of the science comes from statisticians.
  29. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:40 am
    HolyGod

    You really are an idiot aren`t you? Can you actually not read well enough to interpret a simple sentence in English?

    I have no idea, and do not care who the Friends of Science are. I very specifically made the point that the graphs at my link are from reputable sources; the page itself is irrelevant. I know this because I recognise them from my own background reading on the subject.

    If oil industry funding means that something is unreliable then you are on the wrong side. The oil industry has paid far, far more to spread the myth of CAGW than to oppose it. If funding is corrupting then the proponents of CAGW, flooded with literally hundreds of billions, are the corrupt ones. Most opponents have little or no funding at all. It is far easier to gain funds for supporting the myth than for opposing it (I was offered a PhD whose title had a gratuitous reference to climate change, probably to gain funding)
  30. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:47 am
    randomxnp

    I don`t listen to politicians or journalists about anything really. When it comes to this issue I tend to listen to the IPCC. An organization where thousands of scientists voluntarily contribute without payment.

    Unlike your link with 3 guys who get money for speaking engagements from the biggest PR firm in the US that happens to work for the oil companies.

  31. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:48 am
    "In the IPCC`s 2001 assessment of the scientific basis of climate change, the experts draw 3 important conclusions:

    Climate change is underway. Or in the IPCC`s own words: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."
    Human activities do and will continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere. The IPCC states, "emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate." Adding that trends of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities point further upward, the scientists argue that significant emission reductions would be necessary to stabilize the climate.
    Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
  32. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:51 am
    "Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
  33. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:53 am
    randomxnp

    I provided you a multinational organization made up of thousands of participating scientists who say global warming is happening and is being affected by human activity.

    Now you provide me with a reputable group that says it isn`t.
  34. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6746 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 1:57 am
    http://tinyurl.com/yvmd49

    "The headline findings of the report were: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

  35. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:00 am
    HolyGod

    "I provided you a multinational organization made up of thousands of participating scientists who say global warming is happening and is being affected by human activity. "

    Did you? What organisation? What thousands of scientists?
  36. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:02 am
    holygod

    That you link to a Wikipedia page on an IPCC report shows you know nothing about either Wikipedia or the IPCC. Both are completely discredited on the issue of CAGW.
  37. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:07 am
    HolyGod

    What makes you think that an organisation is better support than a large number of individuals? There are various reasons that a number of individuals tend to make better judgement calls than an organisation formed of a similar number of people*. Then there is the fact that an organisational opinion hides the fact that many in that organisation, possibly a majority, disagrees with the opinion held up as the organisation`s opinion.

    So how about the 30,000 scientists who signed a letter saying that CAGW was a load of unscientific nonsense? They were not an organisation, but that gives them more credibility and means that they all agreed with the letter.

    * examples include risky shift and the fact that the organisation is led by people in position due to political ability and desire rather than knowledge or skill
  38. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:14 am
    I have read further and see where your error comes in. You actually think that the IPCC contains thousands of scientists! You really are funny. You think you actually know about this subject, then come up with things like that!

    You appear not to know that the IPCC is loaded with activists, or that the few scientists involved (certainly not thousands, as there were only a couple of thousand involved in writing each report, and many were not scientists) are mostly very junior (some without even holding PhDs) or not working in their own field; or that some are clueless, even admit being out of their depth having been chosen to represent their country, race or gender due to bizarre diversity policies.

    You clearly don`t know that much of the IPCC report was based on material from activist groups not on science, or that many experts disagreed with the conclusions.

    Most critically you don`t know that the IPCC was set up only to prove CAGW.
  39. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:16 am
    So yes, you listen to journalists and politicians. If you listened to scientists, or knew anything about science, you would know that the IPCC reports have nothing to do with science and little to do with scientists.
  40. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:23 am
    It is funny though, that when I point you to graphs from reliable sources (those are all from papers that have not been seriously challenged) that prove absolutely in three different ways that the models showing CAGW are wrong, you ignore that and resort to fallacy.

    First you use the ad hominem fallacy; the site on which my internet search found the graphs I wanted happens to be one other people don`t like, so the graphs can be safely ignored.

    Then the appeal to authority, the IPCC. The fact that the authority is comically lacking in any legitimate authority, and the fact that it was set up with a specifically anti-scientific aim does not enter into your argument. Science be damned, this is the UN!
  41. Profile photo of tsiemens
    tsiemens Male 30-39
    515 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 2:46 am
    They`ve been crying global warming for years, its ludicrous, I remember how when I was in grade school in the 80s they said in 5 to 10 years the earth would be in massive danger. Watch out the sky is falling! Turns out the earth goes through natural cooling and warming processes and volcanos put out far more c02 than we do in a year anyway. Here`s the other kicker - carbon is the building block of life, it doesn`t need a tax!
  42. Profile photo of Mechi
    Mechi Male 18-29
    133 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 3:05 am
    Climatic Research Unit email controversy
    I know most of these people don`t enjoy living like this but it does look fun.
  43. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 3:32 am
    HG: "Please link to one credible source. One. Please.", "To one nationally ranked scientist that says Global Warming is a hoax. Just one. I don`t even want a consensus. Just one reputable source."

    Dr Roy Spencer Lengthy and science laden content, but you wanted a real scientist.

    I have other links as well, but you wanted just one, so I linked to one of the best.
  44. Profile photo of Mechi
    Mechi Male 18-29
    133 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 3:33 am
    Also, gobal warming is in the idea real but not to the degree that its described or understood. Like tsiemens said its ludicrous. The CRU link shows that eight committees governed the email controversy themselves and not by Non-Bias organizations. The fact that nothing has changed other then the natural cycle of the earth, proves that the only reason they exists is to get easy money.
  45. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32796 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 4:36 am
    @HolyGod: The "year without a summer" is evidence that there are WAY more powerful forces in climate variation than us pathetic humans, ok?
    @randomxnp`s Linky
    Is an irrifutable demonstration of just how WRONG CAGW "science" is: it`s nothing short of junk.

    2001? @HG that`s 11 years ago and the HIEGHT of the AGW scare! Ever since then things have been DIS-proven one after the other.

    @Mechi totally `gets it`! The world HAS been warming, since the end of the last Ice Age! Are humans responsible for that too? LOLZ! Actually the "Little Ice Age" is more accurate, but both are true.

    The Earth gets warmer, the Earth gets colder: DUH!
  46. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 7:15 am
    And that is why BJs are so cheap there.
  47. Profile photo of BlazingBird
    BlazingBird Male 13-17
    98 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 7:29 am
    Can we stop arguing for just one post and appreciate just what these people put up with?
  48. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 7:36 am
    If the science is so sound, then why the dishonesty?

    I can name half a dozen incidences of serious but not actionable dishonesty on the part of climate "scientists" or their advocates off the top of my head. I can also name several incidences of apparent fraud in climate "science", most of which we will never confirm because it is not science at all (see note). All this in those uncorrupted by hundreds of billions of dollars of funding.

    I cannot think of a single incident of dishonesty among sceptics, who are apparently corrupted by $100k of funding.

    NB: science is reproducible; if it is not reproducible it is not science; if the data and methodology are not published the work is not reproducible; most climate scientists don`t include their data and method (which would have got me a failing grade in a first year (sixth-grade to Americans) science practical write-up) and refuse to release them or even talk about them when asked.
  49. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 8:36 am
    Here the problem with global warming/ How can it be making sea levels rise by melting the ice caps? Water and ice take up the same amount of space take a cup of water and put ice in it so the waters up to the top then let it melt notice it dosen`t overflow!
  50. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 8:40 am
    I`m also willing to shelter a small group of sexy Thai women if they need it!!!
  51. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 9:02 am
    @HolyGod:

    Is man contributing to climate change? Yes. Undoubtedly.

    The thing is, the contribution is soooooooooooooo small, that it means nothing. So we`re coming out of an ice age. The Earth warms when that happens.

    You can`t explain that? lol
  52. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 9:42 am
    I wonder if HolyGod actually wants to look at anything from a credible source? Knowing what he might see I fear his head might explode.

    Could you argue, HG, that someone invited to contribute to the blog of Professor Judith Curry of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology (with comments by Professor Curry) is not credible? Well considering who he considers credible, Wikipedia (ahahahahaha) and the IPCC (hohohohohoo) it is possible. Not sure he knows the meaning of the word "credible" any more than he understands the meaning of the word "science".

    http://bit.ly/LlyynI

    What if the writer was a retired atmospheric physicist and visiting professor at ANU, a world-class university and the best in Australia?
  53. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36665 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Problem?




    Solution!

  54. Profile photo of greenbasterd
    greenbasterd Male 18-29
    2377 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 10:49 am
    this video made me think... why is it that asian store owners always wash the sidewalk outside there shop with a hose? they just sit there spraying the sidewalk!! i mean.. that`s not going to get rid of gum, it just washing a little dust layer onto the street.. but they do it religiously, wasting all that water for a small amount of dirt onto the street. am i missing something? i think this is payback....
  55. Profile photo of r66tramp
    r66tramp Male 40-49
    674 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    The Industrial Revolution is the beginning of the end for humans as we know it. Our global climate has been through thousands of massive changes, most while we were not here...certainly not as we exist today.

    If you clowns at IAB can`t understand that the burning of coal in the Industrial Age, and going forward in time(As we exist today), was not the beginning of our own self destruction, then stuff your heads in the sand.

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT YOU IDIOTS! Who and what you want to attribute it to, is debatable in degrees.

    Go back to school you idiots!
  56. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    June 29, 2012 at 11:59 pm
    You want proof global warming`s a hoax? Click here.
  57. Profile photo of CynicalGamer
    CynicalGamer Male 40-49
    450 posts
    June 30, 2012 at 8:32 pm
    @OldOllie - How exactly has Global Warming been debunked again?
  58. Profile photo of jprest13
    jprest13 Male 18-29
    20 posts
    June 30, 2012 at 11:36 pm
    you call it devastating... i call it living on a island in earthquake prone regions... strange what a fault line can do

Leave a Reply