Which was more flawed, the model saying it will get warmer, or the idiots saying global warming was not happening?

What historical trend predicted that 11 of the 12 warmest years on record were the last 11 years?

If it's record-settingly warmer now than it was last century, then the historical record from 1900 cannot be used to predict what will happen in the future. And mandating that only linear projections can be used is mind-boggingly stupid, even for the south.

Right, as opposed to everyone who said global warming wasn't happening at all.

One group was saying, "it will be 10 degrees warmer, the other group said, "it will not be any warmer." While both groups were wrong, I'm going to side with the one that knew it was getting warmer, rather that the one burying their heads in the sand. Both sides are still trying to predict climate change, but one side is trying to reduce pollution and prepare for bad things that could happen.

If nobody can be sure of what the climate will be like in the future, then anyone saying the temperature or sea-level won't go up very much is no more credible than any of the 'cultists' you complain about.

Yes, why does anyone care?

It's not like there are homes and buildings still around that were built 100 years ago.

You are right, it is much better to use statistics from the past, and to NEVER plan for worst-case scenarios, or for any change to EVER happen. We all know that people predicting global warming were wrong, and all the people saying it wasn't getting warmer were 100% correct. Well, not 100% correct, but 100% wrong, but we should listen to them anyway, because they were closer to the truth.

Sure, let's just use historical data from the last 112 years, and make sure we don't account for any differences between what we know will happen next year moving forward, and what happened in the past.

Earth's population is continuing to rise, exponentially, but we can only forecast linearly, I'm sure that can't affect anything much anyway. More cars, pollution, waste, etc. won't change any of that.

Several of the hottest years on record have happened since 2000, but I'm sure they won't get any hotter moving forward. For some unknown reason, it got really hot recently, but it will cool down again because there are temperature cycles and stuff, and therefore it can't get any hotter. Even though temperature records are being shattered all over the place, it will not keep getting warmer, and any projections based on that are not reality, because Rush Limbaugh told me so.

Republicans understand everything and just inherently KNOW that the sea level rise will only happen at the same rate it has risen since 1900. And under NO circumstances can people prepare for anything else. Being prepared is wasteful and unnecessary because it costs rich people more money, when the government can just bail everyone out when they're wrong. What's most important is to believe that the climate will not change any differently than what is has done in the past. And while nobody can predict what the climate will do accurately, republicans know what it won't do. It's called reality.

The problem is all about the consequences of being wrong.

The scientists say it will rise 1 meter, and it doesn't, what are the consequences? Some land wasn't built on that could have been. Not much of a big deal, life moves on.

Lobbyists say it will only rise 15 inches, and it rises 1 meter, what are the consequences then? Billions of dollars in flood damage and destroyed homes and businesses. Kind of a big deal.

You can hope for the best, but planning for only the best-case scenario is foolish and criminally negligent. No one can be 100% sure of the future, but being prepared for bad things to happen is a much better choice than taking the word of those people who's own economic interests motivate everything they do or say.

Why not just put into the bill, "Only historical data may be used for predicting sea level rise. Full disclosure: our development companies will make buttloads more money this way, whether it's true or not."

As opposed to you, a clear coward, who, while trying to insult others and call them dumb, can't quite handle the complexities of elementary school grammar. . .

Now, are you trying to say that my 1st grade teacher told me to be self-righteous, told me I'm smart (I could read pretty well in 1st grade), or told me that global warming is real?

Idiot.

Right, someone else's propaganda, of course. If I re-think the issue, somehow I will come to understand how coastline erosion can affect those of us living hundreds of miles inland far more than the water levels rising, causing the lakes, streams, and rivers near me to overflow and flood the area where I live, but flooding isn't as important as erosion. Yep, that makes perfect sense.

There is something clearly wrong with you. Not only can you not admit when you're wrong (would you like to try and explain continental drift to me again?), but you're also short-sighted, stubborn, and highly-misinformed.

First you talk about Continental Drift, incorrectly of course, then you link to an article about extreme coastal erosion in one very small part of California, and compare that to sea level rise being much smaller than the erosion. Then you point to another article about erosion and deposition, caused by El Nino, and try to change the definition of a rather self-explanatory term. When your points are proven incorrect, you try to explain that with 2 serious conditions affecting people living on the coasts, the one that affects everyone whether they live on the coasts or not is less important because 50 is a bigger number than 3, regardless of the fact that if there are 100 yards between your property and the ocean, but your property is only slightly above sea level, or worse, below sea level as in some areas, that sea level rise will destroy your home far before erosion comes anywhere close.

Then, because you are losing every part of your argument, you try to talk about subduction zones, but you don't know what these are either, and think that the tectonic plate someone is living on can just slide into the ocean, and how that would be a much bigger problem than the massive earthquakes and tsunamis that would occur should something like that even come close to happening. Yeah, the ground is shaking horribly, buildings are collapsing everywhere, and a giant tsunami is about to destroy everything, but let's worry about the super-slow slide towards the ocean instead.

Finally, with no other recourse, you decide to dismiss all facts, and tell me that if I "re-think through this issue with a clear mind," I can ignore facts and be ignorant just like you. I think you're confusing a clear mind with an empty one. But no thanks, I don't want to watch Fox News.

This was a duplicate comment, as it looked like the previous one wasn't saved. Thank you slashdot.

If the sea level rises, it affects everyone, not just those living on the coasts. Rising sea levels will affect those living far inland with rising lakes and rivers, flooding and submerging their homes which are nowhere near the coasts. So yeah, I care more about sea levels rising than erosion washing away rich people's homes in California, and the homes of all the people who were short-sighted enough to build on sandy beaches.

I'm sure the people in Manhattan aren't worried about erosion nearly as much as the nearby water rising and flooding/submerging their homes a few miles inland. And while it was 1.8mm/year in the last half of the last century, it is warmer now than it was then, which means the ice will melt faster, which means the water will rise more quickly.

Whether the coastline is eroded or submerged doesn't really matter that much, it is still gone. And with that much more water, and with the warmer temperatures, that means there will be more moisture in the air, which means more rain, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc.

I'm sure a hurricane would do much more damage to the coast than several years of erosion would do.

You brought up continental drifting in your last two posts, I assume you know you were wrong about that having anything to do with sea levels, and are done talking about it now? But you bring up subduction zones, which you clearly have no idea about, and you couldn't be bothered to spend 30 seconds to look at them on wikipedia before trying to talk about them?

I really don't think people in subduction zones are worried about their tectonic plate moving into the ocean, and they are more worried about the earthquakes and volcanoes which are typical of those areas. If the plate they are on is subducting under another one, the coastline is the last thing they should be worried about.

. . . . . whooooooosh! . . . . .

Coastline erosion or deposition is not as dangerous as sea levels rising and flooding everywhere. Erosion is a problem for the coasts, and for the short-sighted who built property on sandy beaches, but sea levels rising affects everyone on the planet. So while somebody living 100 miles from the ocean isn't worried about coastal erosion washing his house away, he does need to worry about the rivers and lakes around him rising and submerging his house permanently. And while it was 1.8mm/year for the last half of last century, it's warmer now than it was then, which means the ice will be melting faster, which means the sea level will rise faster.

Whether the coastline is eroded away or submerged, it's still gone, and that much more water will have other drastic effects as well, besides flooding the coastal regions. Warmer oceans and higher sea levels means more moisture in the air, which means more rain, tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc. I'm pretty sure a hurricane does far more coastal damage than erosion would in several years.. So yeah, I care more about sea levels rising than the coastal erosion of rich people's homes in California.

The people in Manhattan as well, aren't going to be worrying about erosion as much as they will be worried about their homes a few miles inland being flooded and submerged. As well as everyone else that lives in low lying inland areas around the world.

You mentioned continental drift in your two previous posts, I assume you're done talking about the continents drifting around now? But you bring up Subduction zones, and you clearly have no idea what they are, and couldn't even bother to look at wikipedia for 30 seconds before talking about them.

People in Subduction Zones don't worry about coastal erosion so much because they are more worried about the vast amount of earthquakes and volcanoes around them, which generally occur in subduction zones.

Coward. This was disproven, but why bother with facts, when you can't even spell?

They especially love the attention they get from Tsunamis, like the one in 2004 that wiped out quite a few of their islands. 57 islands were seriously damaged, 21 resort islands had to be closed, 6 were destroyed, and 14 had to be completely evacuated. Only 9 of over 1300 received no damage.

With an average ground height of less than 5 feet above sea level, I'm sure they'll be fine for at least a few more years.

Continental drift is not about coasts "growing" at all. Continental drift is exactly what it sounds like, and should therefore be self-explanatory. The "continents" are "drifting" (moving in other words). With some simple research, you would have found the definition if you couldn't deduce the meaning. US Geological Survey

Coastal erosion is where the "coasts" are "eroding" away. Ocean waves and currents are washing away soil and rock, moving the coastline (where the water meets the land) inward in some areas, outward in others, and both in some locations, which is also known as submersion.

Thus we see, your original post was wrong, and the article you linked to had nothing to do with the parent comment, or in fact, your own comment. The parent comment, and indeed this whole slashdot post, is about Sea Level Rise. Your comment was trying to compare continents moving, with an annual change of several feet, not in sea-level rise, but in coastline erosion. Literally 3 separate topics.

Lastly, your sentence:

is confusing as you're trying to say that a small amount of sea level rise doesn't matter very much towards coastal issues, which is the opposite of what this slashdot post is about. The sea level goes up, and the coastline moves inward. Not only from erosion (soil washing away), but because the water is moving further inland as it rises. Therefore, low-level areas will be submerged in water.

Sea level rise is not a relatively small coastal issue to an area like the the Maldives, which has an average ground level of 59 inches (the planet's lowest country). The sea rises, and not only does their coast disappear, but their whole country. That's kind of a huge issue.

That article you linked to is about coastal erosion, where the soil holding up the cliff was washed away into the sea. What does this have to do with sea rise or anything else? And it wasn't talking about the 'annual change' of that particular coastline, but the fact that several feet of the ground between a particular apartment building and the ocean was washed away in a few days.

Instead of being modded insightful, you should be modded Off-topic instead.

It's great that he got it done just in time for the school year to end. I'm sure that like most schools, that they'll let him keep all his stuff there all summer.

Maybe next year he should work more on his planning and scheduling . . .