Bill Nye Explains That the Flooding In Louisiana Is the Result of Climate Change (qz.com)

Reader mspohr writes: Our favorite science guy has an interview (and video) in Quartz where he explains how Louisiana flooding is due to climate change:
"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands," Nye explained. "Molecules spread apart, and then as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates, and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects."
The article also notes that a National Academy of Sciences issued a report with the same findings: "Scientists from around the world have concurred with Nye that this is exactly what the effects of climate change look like, and that disasters like the Louisiana floods are going to happen more and more. According to a National Academy of Sciences report published earlier this year, extreme flooding can be traced directly to human-induced global warming. As the atmosphere warms, it retains more moisture, leading to bouts of sustained, heavy precipitation that can cause floods."

Comments

Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

IsIs?

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. I think it was gender inequality, religious intolerance, racism, and income disparity that caused the flooding.

Re: Or is it?

[ArmoredDragon]

I think it probably doesn't help that Louisiana sits below sea level.

Re: Or is it?

[PopeRatzo]

I think it probably doesn't help that Louisiana sits below sea level.

Baton Rouge (where the flooding occurred) is not below sea level. It sits 56' above sea level.

Re: Or is it?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Baton Rouge (where the flooding occurred) is not below sea level. It sits 56' above sea level.

Not any more, lol. ;)

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The godess? Yes, I imagine many people probably think that the flooding is the result of a goddess like Isis, lol!

(The name was taken long before the terrorist group. Earliest context wins unless specified otherwise.)

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally Al Gore has an ally in his fight against Manbearpig! I'm like super serial.

Re: Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 inappropriate

Re: Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was the Old Testament God - Louisiana is full of sinners and homosexuals.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christian-home-destroyed-flood-tony-perkins-natural-disasters-gods-punishment-homosexuality-a7196786.html

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual Trump quote!

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No dude, it's assault weapons. Don't you know anything?

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually its the transgender females who identify as males and have started urinating in public.

Re:Or is it?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, this is Bill Nye the Climate Change Guy, where what you had for breakfast is due to CLIMATE CHANGE

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Best comment ever.

Re:Or is it?

[Methadras]

Climate change? pshaw!!! I thought it was from the collective crying from the tears of SJW's.

Re:Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Epicureans

Re: Or is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

AND all the water flows downstream/hill... So how come we haven't heard from THOSE poor bassids yet?

Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye made this huge stretch of an argument which was quickly flooded by a gush of positive emotion from Sheepdot. Liberal hardleft sheepdot.

Re:Followed by:

[ranton]

Or more accurately Bill Nye says "it is reasonable that these storms are connected to [climate change]", and the media cannot understand the difference between drawing a probable conclusion and drawing a definitive conclusion. Bill Nye never said this was absolutely because of climate change, just that climate change most likely had a significant impact on the magnitude of the rain. But that is too reasonable and we need a more inflammatory headline.

Re:Followed by:

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Liberal hardleft sheepdot.

For every comment like this there is another one complaining about how it is full of libertarian neckbeards. This is something I used to consider an anecdotal observation until I realized that it is easily quantifiable in up/down mods. Just about every time I make a left/right polarizing comment, it gets an equal number of up/down mods and basically lands in a neutral state. This would seem to indicate that you should stop complaining and work on improving the quality of your comments. This one is not a good start.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Because scientific theories are just totally about what part of the political spectrum you're from.

You do understand the universe doesn't give a flying fuck whether you're a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, an anarchist or a socialist, right? It really doesn't. CO2 absorbs and re-emits solar radiation on the liberal and the libertarian equally.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! Bill Nye tells us climate change caused ISIS and since ISIS caused flooding in Louisiana we now know that climate change caused this flooding. That's like basic science. You don't even need a science degree to figure that out!

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

As with any branch of science that uses statistics, no one can say that any specific event has a specific cause where multiple causes are possible. For instance, you can't tell whether a specific decay event in a lump of plutonium was caused by radioactive decay, or maybe a stray high energy cosmic ray. But what you can do is measure a large number of decay events and come up with the most probable explanation. This is true of all statistics, and it's why we have tools like statistics.

So if anyone points to a specific storm and says "That's AGW", they're not going to get much support even in the climatological community. But if someone states "The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.

Re:Followed by:

[BitZtream]

You're right ... I mean the fact that this is just like every other flood thats happened in that area since before the Mississippi had a name is meaningless ... its climate change ... not just normal weather ... right?!

No.

Its not a reasonable statement since there is exactly 0 evidence to support the claim. Its pure speculation based on some valid theories. Thats like concluding that I broke my arm because I fell off a bike , which is a perfectly valid theory ... until you add in the fact that I'm at a ski resort and have never ridden a bike in my life ... but hey, its reasonable to assume it was a bike.

Bill Nye is another loud mouth douche who thinks because he speaks people care. Some do, but most people with common sense stopped listening to him shortly after they grew the fuck up.

Re:Followed by:

[BringsApples]

I agree with you about Bill Nye not pointing to climate change as the sole cause of the flooding. Had he said that, I'd think he was a complete idiot. Of course climate change has to do with almost every weather pattern. However it's worth pointing out that every few years, some random town in America (and in other parts of the world too) floods to a large degree, and has ever since I can remember (I was born in the mid 70's).

It's also worth pointing out that the water level has been rising at a noticeable rate for the last 10 years or so. I live near the ocean, and I've watched boat launches and piers go underwater during high tide, where that never use to happen. I wonder how much of this water rising had to do with, and will have to do with in the future, Louisiana flooding. They're basically already underwater in the lower parts of the state, so much so, that they cannot bury their dead in the ground, due to ground water being so near the surface. My hunch is that the ground water rising is the main contributor to flooding at times like this.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go again, another comment by a libertarian neckbeard. God I wish they would stay off of Slashdot.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The article quotes Bill Nye as saying:

“This is the result of climate change,” he said. “It’s only going to get worse.”

Which is a bit stronger than just saying it is reasonable to believe the storm is connected to climate change. While the storm might be connected to greenhouse gas induced climate change, that linkage is really quite murky. For example, the insulating layer of greenhouse gas has a far greater impact on night-time temperatures than day-time temperatures, since the greatest radiative heat loss to space occurs at night. As a result the day time to night time temperature differences should be reduced by climate change. However, these same day time to night time temperature differences are a major driver of weather and world-wide weather patterns, with more extreme temperature differences leading to stronger weather events. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that climate change may actually reduce many forms of extreme weather events. So, it is not clear at all that as a result of climate change, such weather events will get worse.

Re:Followed by:

[ranton]

The article quotes Bill Nye as saying:

“This is the result of climate change,” he said. “It’s only going to get worse.”

That is just bad journalism. He did say those words at some point in the discussion, but it is taken out of context. He says this statement briefly near the beginning but is interrupted, and then later clarifies with a more detailed explanation. He gives the explanation in the same discussion, so it isn't as if he made a gaffe and was trying to cover it up. He made it very clear exactly what he meant.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't point to a specific raindrop and say with certainty that specific raindrop is a result of global warming. Maybe that raindrop would have fallen without global warming, maybe it wouldn't. But the intensity and magnitude of the storm *is* a result of global warming. That's the point he's trying to make.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of offspring would result from a Bill Nye / Ivanka Trump union?

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The science is pretty clear. However, if you don't get why a bit of catastrophic science forecasting for which the solution is to screw just about every conservative interest but leave progressives pretty well on course might be suspect to conservatives especially the ones that aren't educated enough to follow the science, then you aren't as bright as you think you are.

Re:Followed by:

[Mr D from 63]

Of course, it is also entirely possible that these storms were less severe due to global warming. But that wouldn't get any headlines.

Re:Followed by:

[friesofdoom]

Conservatives label me as hard left when they find out I believe that global warming is a man made phenomenon. Liberals label me as hard right when I point out the BS in social justice and other movements like BLM.

Re:Followed by:

[PatientZero]

No, you just missed Martian's point entirely. Global warming is causing the sea temperature to increase which is causing the sea volume and level to increase. These are easily demonstrated with simple physics experiments. But that will only increase the size and frequency of storms probabilistically.

We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today. The probability of those periods occurring, however, will decrease. The system is far too complex to point to individual events and say, "This was directly caused by X," because that event could have occurred without X, too.

Re:Followed by:

[stinerman]

Right. He should have said "This is consistent with what we expect of climate change."

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Well, to be honest with you, I don't have much time for either side. I think the Liberals, but more particularly the Left have done a lot of damage to AGW acceptance simply by trying to integrate into their own economic mumbo jumbo, and trying to beat conservative elements over the head with it. They've made one of the supreme challenges of humanity at this point of time and politicizing it for their own ends). The conservatives, on the other hand, are often just people easily manipulated by large commercial interests who want to delay significant responses to AGW long enough to maximize profits. That's why the fossil fuel companies fund crap "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, because they serve to give conservative and libertarian types a pack of memes to trot out every time the topic of global warming comes up. A pox on both their houses, I say. Both groups are populated by idiots and demagogues.

To my mind, the time has come to simply look at the best way of dealing with the problem. For me, the simplest way and the way that it is the most market oriented is carbon pricing. Start upping the price of fossil fuels, thus allowing market forces to concentrate investment on alternatives. I don't even care if governments pocket the cash. The whole point isn't reinvestment of carbon taxes, but rather to create an artificial scarcity. This solution should be eminently favorable conservatives and libertarians, because it favors their economic approach, but of course, it will cost the likes of the Koch Brothers money, so the game goes on.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

This storm was more severe due to God crying over the War on Christmas.

Re:Followed by:

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Yeah I think there are just plenty of people here on either side who are surprised when peppering their comments with invectives and no actual substance doesn't win them a standing ovation. Then they get butthurt about it and decide that it must be due to some grand conspiracy to silence dissenting opinions, not that they are just assholes with nothing interesting to say. It's amazing the backflips the human mind can do to avoid self-examination.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I frequently say that I am less opposed to the Greens than I am with the Reds that come along with them.

Is there no other way to end AGW than having a Worker's Paradise? Never mind the ecological disaster that most of the actual Worker's states have ended up as....

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, his stance is clear; He does not definitively* believe in a direct causality.

* this is not the same word as "definitely".

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Straw-man argument always definitive.
Miss-leading statement about the event.
Then an analog to an unrelated topic.
Then point out that is stupid, and proof.

When the Interval between 100 year floods falls to 5 years then you have an indication something changed.
Seeing if it the weather would be a easily verifiable guess.
And there are people that do it for a living.
They already determined the answer is yes.
Others have modeled that it is green House Gasses as the MOST PROBABLE Cause. Super Computers, they do more than Nuclear simulations.

As for you stop bicycling on the ski slopes. You can break an arm that way.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of 'this is due to climate change' didn't you get? That's a very specifically stated conclusion, not a 'reasonableness' or 'it may have been made worse' or even a 'one of possible answers though other man made impacts could have been contributors like controlling the Mississippi delta from flooding & shifting that burden to Louisiana'...

So yes he DID say 'this was absolutely because of Climate Change' again that's what 'This is due to climate change' means. It's not the headline its Bill Nye that is being inflammatory, yet if I said 'it didn't flood in Florida today so that's proof that Climate Change isn't happening' I'd be castigated (rightly so).

Bill had no business making this conclusion, using his fame and a terrible event as a platform to push his agenda is unconscionable.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The science is less clear than you might think:

Clear:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can increase global temperatures
2. Temperatures have been rising for the past 40 years at a rate exceeding historical natural climate variability trends, suggesting a human contribution to the warming.

Less Clear:
3. The sensitivity of temperature to CO2 concentration
4. The effect of various climate feedbacks on the CO2 sensitivity (eg. excess water vapor, cloud formation and effects, etc...)

Completely Unclear:
5. How will Global Warming impact the frequency and intensity of weather events.
    - Higher Ocean temperatures tend to increase hurricane severity
    - Higher Temperatures drive additional water uptake by the atmosphere
    - Trapping of heat in the upper atmosphere reduces the temperature gradients that drive extreme weather events
    - Greenhouse gases should reduce the day/night temperature variation, which also should reduce extreme weather events
  6. Natural climate variability

Note that most scientific studies do not show any increased trends in the intensity or frequency of extreme weather events over the past several decades. So, if global warming has occurred during this timeframe it is difficult to say that it is causing extreme weather. Does extreme weather happen? Yes, but at the same or less frequency and intensity compared to the historical trends. In the end, it is very likely that Climate Change will result in both positive and negative effects on us lowly humans.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

What? How is it bad journalism to use specific quotes making a specific statement with a conclusion? How can you possibly take 'This is the result of climate change' out of context? Trying to explain 'well what I meant is that its reasonable so assume so' is not an explanation to clarify it is no more correct since there is NO way to prove the event was due to Climate Change or in any way 'reasonable to assume so', its not at ALL reasonable. It is no more reasonable than to say 'see it didn't flood in Miami today so that's evidence that Climate Change isn't occurring'.

It is a weather EVENT not a 'climate event', the flood may have happened and may have been just as severe regardless if the climate is changing.

Nye is the one being sloppy here NOT the journalist. Or we can blame them both & if the journalist in question had any proper scientific knowledge he could have taken Nye to task for his conclusions/statements e.g. 'But Bill, as a science expert you obviously know that no single event can be attributed to climate change only the aggregate, why are you trying to blame this single event on climate change?'...that would have been proper journalism rather than the pandering the journalist did.

Re: Followed by:

[riverat1]

But it's not like every other flood. It's flooded places that haven't flooded in anyone's living memory. The amount of rain in the storms was enhanced compared to previous events.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how assholes like Nye just expect people to take their word for it. Where is the proof that the floods are caused by climate change? Where is the proof that climate change isn't a natural occurrence?

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he is a moron and makes no more sense than claiming a random rock keeps tigers away because he can't see any tigers around the rock.

Correlation != causation

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

But the intensity and magnitude of the storm *is* a result of global warming.

Let me guess, you just want people to take your word for it and you have nothing to back up your claim.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

And? People don't live very long. Hell, the human race hasn't existed for very long. We have such a limited amount of information on how the Earth and climate function that we cannot assume anything about them.

Re:Followed by:

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Being modded 'Troll' for trying to moderate hyperbole pretty much sums it up better than my original comment ever could. Hilarious. 'Offtopic' would have been a better choice, but I guess it lacked the satisfaction of delivering an insult.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

"And Judas hanged himself from a tree".

"Do thou also."

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

But you are only allowed ONE choice:

Belong to the group that eats OTHER people's babies

OR

Belong to the group that eats their OWN babies.

Can't you see? Liberals and Conservatives are diametrically opposite in all things. You cannot just choose what part of their Holy Writs to believe and what parts to disbeliever! That's INconCIEVEable! It's sacrilege and both sides will fight for the honor of burning you at the stake!

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Interval between 100 year floods falls to 5 years then you have an indication something changed.
Seeing if it the weather would be a easily verifiable guess.
And there are people that do it for a living.
They already determined the answer is yes.
Others have modeled that it is green House Gasses as the MOST PROBABLE Cause. Super Computers, they do more than Nuclear simulations.

As for you stop bicycling on the ski slopes. You can break an arm that way.

Care to post a reference to your assertion that scientists have verified that the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events have increased?
Most studies I have seen, by actual scientists (not just news reports) appear to show the opposite trend for Storms, tornadoes, huricanes, etc... except for "heat waves". For example, for a bunch of historical statistics from the U.S. see: http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/07/26/are-weather-extremes-getting-worse-roger-pielke-jr-shares-the-data-with-senate-panel/

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

Actually I think you got it wrong too. Saying climate change most likely increased the amount of rain is actually a causal conclusion that is not supportable. It's an opinion. The more accurate way to say it is that the amount of rain is consistent with what one might expect given the effects of climate change.

But it's actually just as possible that the rain would have been more if not for climate change.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

> The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.

Except it's not. Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.

Truth is you need a much longer time scale before you have enough power to see an effect of climate change in the statistics.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, that's possible.

It's also possible that you're a complete moron, and I'd suppose that's statistically far more likely than your utterly incorrect theory.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the BS?

Cops murder more black men as a percentage of the population than white men?

Nope, that's real.

Cops arrest more black men than white men, despite there being fewer black men as a percentage of the population?

Nope, that's real too.

What are you claiming as BS? Because if you're claiming the police aren't racist, you're very, very wrong.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

The system is far too complex for you to be making almost every claim in your comment. You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot. There could be a feedback system that 100% counteracts that effect or even 175% counteracts that effect and some completely different interaction is responsible for the net increase of ocean temps. And then higher ocean temps will cause more storms? Maybe, maybe not.

If everyone who patted themselves on the back for being "pro-science" would take a couple months and read some philosophy books on science and its methods, I feel like we would end up with far more productive conversations and better research investment and policy decisions. Science isn't s out memorizing facts of what "we know" according to "consensus of scientists". Science is the opposite of relying on what authority figures say is true. That's called religion. It's important for consumers of science to understand what is knowable and how powerful (or not) certain statistical and scientific methods are. The single biggest problem we have in science today is overstating findings that simply are not supportable by the evidence. Scientists included, too -- see: replication crisis, endless reversals in nutrition science, etc

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The science is less clear than you might think

Your method of argumentation is sloppy.

Why? Because your examples trend towards known uncertainties, not simply due to CO2 questions, but due to entirely independent concerns such as data collection and analysis.

For example, weather, of course it's unpredictable, we know that, and it has little if any to do with any concerns over CO2.

Change will result in both positive and negative effects on us lowly humans.

Define positive and negative effects.

That's even harder to quantify than you may imagine.

Re: Followed by:

[mattwarden]

That isn't evidence. And climate has a timescale that is longer than human memory and even good records.

"This has never happened before, therefore it's caused by CO2." What?

Re:Followed by:

[gcswt]

It will be impossible to statistically link weather events to climate for centuries. Even that assumes massive advances in simulating climate. It's complete scientific nonsense to try to link the two right now. Nye should have known better than to even talk about this.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, scientists! Just pop up on TV, say a few words, never provide any evidence or reasoned argument or publish scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. Shysters, the lot of them

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The science is less clear than you might think

Your method of argumentation is sloppy.

Why? Because your examples trend towards known uncertainties, not simply due to CO2 questions, but due to entirely independent concerns such as data collection and analysis.

For example, weather, of course it's unpredictable, we know that, and it has little if any to do with any concerns over CO2.

Sure, but this is slashdot, it's not like it's a qualifying exam or something. In any case, the point is that despite what the "political warmers" would like you to believe, the reality is that even the best science has very little ability to predict the future impacts of climate change. The climate models of temperature, the most studied and well understood climate parameter, have huge uncertainties and have generally predicted a much stronger trend than has been subsequently observed. For the most part, predictions of other weather patterns beyond temperature (storms, hurricanes, drought, rain, etc...) are nothing more than speculation. Unfortunately, the science just isn't there yet and probably won't be for years. Yes, some broad trends can be predicted, but the error bars and time frames are too huge to really make good decisions.

Change will result in both positive and negative effects on us lowly humans.

Define positive and negative effects.

That's even harder to quantify than you may imagine.

For most of human history, hot weather has been a good thing. Generally, civilization has flourished with rising temperatures, which increase the percentage of arable land in the Northern hemisphere as well as extend growing seasons. Crop patterns may have to change, but that's pretty straightforward for the modern farmer. But, like everything there are always winners and losers. Eventually, sea level rise will become a problem, which will devastate some coastal areas, however, while man-made climate change is accelerating sea level rise, cutting greenhouse gases will not eliminate it, only slow it, since it's mostly the consequence of the 10,000-year emergence from the last ice age. At some point, climate change may even help as rising temperatures are likely to increase snow-fall over Antarctica, counteracting some of the melting effect. Of course, eventually temperatures will plummet again as the Earth's orbit drives us into the next ice age, but hopefully that's thousands or tens of thousands of years away.

Re:Followed by:

[Uberbah]

Or you're just hand waving. Warmer temperatures means more water vapor in the air. More water vapor in the air makes for....more precipitation, which makes for more severe flooding and blizzards. Which we've had.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Average global sea level rise has been estimated at between 2.6 and 2.9mm/year since 1993 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise), so a little over 1 inch over the past 10 years. Your description seems a lot more than that, which suggests you may be in an area experiencing subsidence, erosion or other local rather than global effects.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing is this. I know you're wrong. You know you're not. Therefore our discussion is useless. Neither of us will ever be proven correct.

Unfortunately, if I'm right and we do nothing, we have global catastrophic consequences, but if you're right and we do something, we miss out on using the rest of our finite coal.

Time will tell, I guess. Until then, all these discussions on is it/isn't it are getting tiresome. Yes, yes. We know. The experts aren't experts, the models aren't accurate, the data isn't old enough, the events aren't new, etc etc etc. It's like watching my kid try to weasel out of a lie.

Re: Followed by:

[riverat1]

The dude said it's "like every other flood" but it isn't because he can't point to a single flood in the past that was like this one.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all people, you should know that weather is not climate. You should also know that no singular weather event can be attributed to AGW with confidence. You aren't doing science,

Re: Followed by:

[riverat1]

So what is your conservative solution to anthropogenic global warming? All I ever hear from your side is denial of the problem.

Re:Followed by:

[Barsteward]

"The single biggest problem we have in science today is overstating findings that simply are not supportable by the evidence. " and you'd conducted all the experiments and research to prove that assertion?

Re:Followed by:

[Barsteward]

"Bill Nye is another loud mouth douche who thinks because he speaks people care. Some do, but most people with common sense stopped listening to him shortly after they grew the fuck up." - he has more credability than any twat who thinks the gays are someway responsible or a climate change denier with no evidence "

Re:Followed by:

[jandersen]

We may still get periods of smaller and less frequent storms even with extreme global warming just as we do today.

Absolutely true. And if I may add a bit along the same lines: As the atmosphere gets warmer, it gets more turbulent - this happens in any fluid medium (ie. water and air); we have probably all seen this experiement in science class in school, where you have a large glass bowl of water, put in a few crystals of something strongly coloured and heat it at the bottom, ad the colours start swirling around. If you were to measure the temperature in different places, you would find that the water rising up is warm, and the water sinking down towards the heat source is cold. This is almost exactly what happens when North America has record cold winters at the moment - the hot air rises up in the atmosphere, the Coriolis effect or something sends it towards the poles, and the cold air is displaced to the south: the Arctic is warming very quickly and the mid-latitudes are experiencing severe winters. Which is why climatologists say this is consistent with global warming; but the "skeptics" insist that is proof of the opposite. The skeptics are of course mistaken - looking only at data that are very localised in time and area is simply cherry picking.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that the parent said that CO2 was the cause, just that global warming causes a rise in water levels and temp. This doesn't need tremendous deductive reasoning; it's practically an axiom (heating causes an increase in temp - who'd thunk?). There's no "cooling" mechanism to counteract this that we are aware of, and hoping for one is not a strategy that I'd hang my hat on.

Separately, increase in CO2 levels could trigger some sort of counter effect - the most common one that has been speculated is more plant growth due to more CO2 and rainfall. But this does not happen overnight, and unless it is exponential, will likely be offset by linear forest area decline: http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C56/forests_2012. And if there were such a mechanism, it's effects have already been accounted for because the atmospheric CO2 level is a net of all inflows and outflows, and shows a horrible trend: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938.

Re:Followed by:

[houghi]

Or more accurately Bill Nye says "it is reasonable that these storms are connected to [climate change]", and the media cannot understand the difference between drawing a probable conclusion and drawing a definitive conclusion.

This is not some scientist that got a microphone pushed in his face and stammered something that is taken out of context. This is a person that actively seeks the media and is part of that media by any means.
Pulling some political bullshit and turning what you say into an issue about language does not fly with me. This was fun when I was 12. It is now just an immature reaction.
He has enough experience with the media and the public that he knows that the public does not know the difference between a probable and definite conclusion and as somebody who wants to be an educator, he should take that into account.

Re:Followed by:

[tburkhol]

You can do a small physics experiment to prove that CO2 increases are causing all of the ocean temp increases? No, you cannot.

"Climate change" is not a synonym for "atmospheric CO2." There is absolutely no question that ocean temperatures have risen dramatically in the last 100 years. That is climate change. That is the energy source Nye is claiming can "reasonably" be connected to more energetic and wetter storms. He is not wrong.

There's a lot of evidence and theory supporting the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions have contributed to the rise in surface and ocean temperatures, but that's a separate issue. Regardless of whether you're a pro- or anti-AGW person, it is an empirical fact that 379 consecutive months of above average temperature demonstrates that the global temperature is rising. You can't deny that data, or the consequences of that temperature trend, just because you don't like some people's explanation of the cause.

Re:Followed by:

[tburkhol]

Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.

Economic cost of flooding is a terrible metric for "the amount of flooding." Damage due to flooding is easily mitigated by engineering: dikes near populated areas, overflow zones, dams... Damage due to flooding is easily mitigated by population changes: mandate expensive flood insurance in flood-prone areas so people leave; inform property owners of flood-prone areas; build an extensive rail/road infrastructure so businesses can move away from river transport. It can be mitigated by changing the economy: in 1950, 7% of US GDP was farming - much of is done in river basins for irrigation. In 2000, 0.7% of US GDP was farming.

Re:Followed by:

[Mr D from 63]

But not more flooding everywhere. Warming also changes weather patterns which can result in less precipitation in some regions. The truth is we don't have the modeling capability to predict the result in any particular region, only the ability to generalize the impact. So, no, it is not hand waving, it is a very real possibility, even if considered unlikely.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Air temperature has no effect on weather patterns eh?
And where might I add did you get your doctors degree in meteorology?

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

On the contrary, there are many more dickheads on /. like you burying their heads in the sand and crying conspiracy, because they're too fucking childish to deal with reality. You're no different than creationists at this point. Suck it the fuck up. Your position becomes more ridiculous every year.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a conservative, I'm a centrist. I don't know that there is a realistic conservative solution. Cap and trade is reasonably conservative. The problem is that artificially pricing in carbon is anti-conservative and incentivizing premature adoption of greener technologies is anti-conservative. I'm just saying it is an easy sell for conservative politicians if they can look at their constituents and say it is bad science because the liberals want to screw each of the constituents individually. It doesn't matter if I'm a conservative oil baron or a dirt poor man with a large family in the country that is a message that resonates.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the real but distasteful answer is population is a problem for most of our environmental problems. With the developing world's population even or declining, there isn't a moral way to fix it. You've got to force nations to have population control, use external military force to stop sexual assault in sovereign nations, or you've got to ignore humanitarian crises where underdeveloped people are wiping out each other.

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

Mmmmhmm. The scientists aren't scientific, but YOU are. Because you don't like the conclusion they come to, THEY must be wrong. Gotcha. And the devil put the fucking fossils in the rocks, eh? lol.

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

Yeah totally. When you put more energy into a system, you should expect that system to quieten down and have less activity. That's why a car gets icy cold when bright sunshine pours through the windows. You've just cracked the conspiracy, well done.

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

Well, you're not a total twat then. Congrats.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I find the greens pretty annoying as well, and even worse than the worker's state types. The greens have a sitting freezing around a single candle-streak a mile wide. Their solution to all energy related problems is "don't use any, if we all knit sweaters and pull together then..." Their rabid opposition to everything with "nuclear" in the name is a case in point. If you take CO2 seriously then of course nuclear could be a valuable contribution. But no. It's "evil I tell you" and no amount of argument will sway them.

Good riddance the lot of them, I say.

Re:Followed by:

[CaptainLard]

Science is the opposite of relying on what authority figures say is true.

Bingo! And guess which side all the authority figures speaking "truth" are on? It is indeed the opposite of the side with all the scientists presenting and analyzing data.

The single biggest problem we have today is that vested interests (oil companies, Russia, etc) are undermining efforts to dramatically improve our world for the better...even if climate change was a hoax. Immediate benefits include: de-funding isis and several other authoritarian regimes, eliminating several of the most hazardous occupations, avoiding massive ecological disasters (oil spills), and decentralizing power...both literally and figuratively! Why the fuck are we still subsidizing oil?!

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

Because scientific theories are just totally about what part of the political spectrum you're from.

What you're dealing with there is just motivated reasoning. Dislike the conclusion, therefore find something, *ANYTHING* that even seems to contradict it, to lessen the cognitive dissonance. Start with the conclusion, work backwards. The fact that it has already got to the point of crying politics and conspiracy shows just how little shame some people have.

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

In the end, it is very likely that Climate Change will result in both positive and negative effects on us lowly humans.

The problem is not that the climate is changing. The problem is that it is changing too fucking fast for ecosystems to adapt. That is the threat. Mass extinction, loss of biosphere. Yes, cities will be flooded. Big fucking deal.

Re: Followed by:

[Maritz]

That is their solution. There is no problem. They'll still be saying that when they're getting washed down a fucking muddy river full of cars.

Re:Followed by:

[Maritz]

Well done, your internal mental model is the diametric opposite of reality. That takes a special kind of stupid.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Blacks commit more crimes as a percentage of the population than white men?

Nope, that's real too.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done, your internal mental model is the diametric opposite of "reality".

FTFY

That takes a special kind of stupid.

Yep, you certainly are.

BTW, you still haven't proven anything, rather you have managed to completely avoid providing proof by resorting to ad hominem. You sound just like a little kid.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

The check is in the mail, Mr. AGW nutjob.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Except the developing world really isn't where a large amount of the greenhouse gasses are produced. Yes, China and India are offenders, but the Industrialized world still is responsible for a huge amount of emissions. While population is a factor, it's not a simple straight line like you suggest.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Quantum mechanics is astonishingly complex, and yet we can still predict radioactive decay rates. Just handwaving away observations with "it's too complex" isn't really a critique at all. The fact is that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will inevitably trap more energy in the atmosphere. Complexity doesn't overrule thermodynamics.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

You have a citation for these figures? I'd wager Katrina's costs alone, once they're fully factored, probably significantly outweigh similar events, so I'm calling bullshit on your claim.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

No, it would be impossible, as I say above, to link specific weather events to climate change. But you can analyze all weather systems and see if intensity and frequency trend up along with increasing temperature increases.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Flooding caused by global warming, which explains the massive droughts of California. "Studies conducted worldwide concur with Bill Nye" . . . . ~ wow. Doubtful. They all agreed with him.....do they even know who he is???

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

If overpopulation were so bad the left would not be so eager to import migrants by the millions every year.

Re:Followed by:

[NeoTubNinja]

It's bad journalism if Bill Nye said "Well for us, on my side of this, this is the result of climate change." and the resulting sentence becomes "This is the result of climate change." It was changed from an opinion to a fact by not including it all.

It is a weather EVENT not a 'climate event', the flood may have happened and may have been just as severe regardless if the climate is changing.

Weather is a subset of climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year interval. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. The flood may have happened and it also may not have happened. Nobody could tell if it would be more or less severe because of climate change without an alternate timeline. That's why nobody is pointing to any one specific event (no, not even Bill Nye is doing it). He also cares about the aggregate. Did you watch the video? He isn't coming down as some hardliner. What it sounds like to me is a knee-jerk reaction by somebody who doesn't like Bill Nye.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's not. Floods are steady and the damage as a % of GDP has fallen 75% since 1950.

Bullshit. GDP has increased since 1950. Idiot.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

You need many decades and perhaps centuries of that data to make the determination you want to make. Extreme weather events are part of the weather pattern. What you have to show is that the distribution of weather events has shifted to the more frequent or more strong. And because we have to reject the null hypothesis (chance) with enough certainty, we need a long time of observing.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

I didn't pick the metric. This is one of the metrics the IPCC looked at.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

What is my motivation to make things up? If you weren't lazy, you could verify it yourself, as could anyone.

I usually ignore responses like yours, but I just so happened to be able to easily pull up one source: https://youtu.be/meoETyMA4K0

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

You are still confusing effects and net effects. Think of two people pushing a large rock from different sides. Both have forces (effects) that are discoverable, but not by looking at the net movement of the rock alone.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

This is a cop out. "Global warming" and "climate change" are short hands for AGW.

Re: Followed by:

[mattwarden]

It can be like no flood that has ever happened in history and still be perfectly normal. I'm sure that confuses you.

Re: Followed by:

[mattwarden]

It's okay to be a total wingnut AGW alarmist for risk reasons. This is actually the only good reason, in my mind. But that is actually acknowledging that you don't know AGW's impact, but because there is the risk of ruin, you err on the side of the uncertainty that does not risk ruin.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the single biggest problem we have in science are deniers like you. There's plenty of evidence but just like evolution, no amount is good enough for you types.

Re:Followed by:

[spudnic]

As someone originally from Baton Rouge, I can tell you a large part of the problem is that the area is being built up so much that the natural runoff ability has been greatly disrupted.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok? So? Global climate change, AGW, whatever you want to call it is real and you pissing and moaning about definitions does nothing to change that. You didn't even have anything to say about the stats provided to you, you just wanted to bitch about a definition. That's a sure sign you don't know as much as you think you do.

Re:Followed by:

[Ottibus]

Or more accurately Bill Nye says "it is reasonable that these storms are connected to [climate change]", and the media cannot understand the difference between drawing a probable conclusion and drawing a definitive conclusion. Bill Nye never said this was absolutely because of climate change.

Or more accurately, the very first thing that he says (46 secs into the video) is "This is the result of climate change, and its only going to get worse". No ifs, no buts, no probabilities, just a plain statement of fact.

And I don't buy the idea that he was misquoted and they twisted what he said. Bill Nye is a media personality who has been on the TV for decades, and he knows how to put his message across. He is savvy enough to know that this kind of remark will be picked up and used as headlines, and any equivocation that follows will be ignored. He is smart enough to know that he could have said "This might be the result of climate change" or "This could be the result of climate change" and it would have been reported that way.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Recording of weather events in places like the US and Britain has been going on for well over a century, and certainly there are ways to determine extreme events further back than that in some cases, so it's not like we just started recording weather and climate data yesterday.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

As appealing as a Senate hearing is, I'd prefer an actual citation from literature, and not a well known skeptic. In other words, let's see the actual data your claim is based off of. Do you possess this data, or did you just rush out and find the only link you could that you thought could justify your initial claim?

Re:Followed by:

[david_thornley]

"Global warming" is a more general term than "anthropogenic global warming", and "climate change" emphasizes that weird things happen rather than just a general increase in temperature. Nor does that have anything to do with what GP said, which is that we do have global warming. GP specifically left the "A" out, although that's pretty darn certain.

Re:Followed by:

[david_thornley]

You're oversimplifying. It's easy to think of mechanisms by which an increase of CO2 doesn't trap more energy (such as increased albedo). The proof that we've got global warming is that the surface of the Earth is warming up, as shown by a very large number of measurements.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Further, climatologists have analyzed Pielke's methodology, and found it wanting:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Re:Followed by:

[david_thornley]

Technically, all weather events are partly a result of global warming. Weather is chaotic, which means extremely sensitive to initial conditions. If the atmosphere was a bit cooler, we'd have entirely different weather.

The important thing, of course, is that the weather will be statistically different with a warmer planet.

Re:Followed by:

[JackieBrown]

You are using those numbers in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that black people are more like (statistically) to live in poor areas with higher violent crime.

Also, as a police officer, you are more likely to be killed by a black person but - until BLM - that was for the same reasons I stated above.

Re:Followed by:

[Mr D from 63]

Wow, that's a nice, 1 level deep point.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

GDP may have, but the cost of floods...

First seek to understand, then to be understood.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is: it could be global warming, climate change, or the result of the extra beans I had on my burritos last year.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, science REQUIRES deniers, it relies on them. Without a whole lot of sceptics, invalid hypothesis would never be rejected. Without alternate theories we would not have relativity, quantum physics, or even your oft cited evolution. At what point should we just stop testing and settle on a current hypothesis? It seems the answer is: when it is convenient to do so.

This, despite climate change models still failing to meet reality for any prediction, and requiring massaging of historic and some current individual weather station records to make it "agree" with the past.

Re: Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooo... pushing for one world government is DEcentralising power?

I guess that makes as much sense as the hockey stick graph explanation: Oh yeah, we stopped using surrogate data once we had measured data, besides the surrogate stopped working about the time when we started recording anyway.

Re: Followed by:

[AK Marc]

If it can be both uniqu and normal at the same time, then we are speaking a different language. Do you have a dictionary for yours? We'll say I use Websters (not my favorite, but a common one).

Re:Followed by:

[AK Marc]

When you correct for SES, the trend stays. In fact, race correlates with the result more than SES does, it's just that because race correlates with SES, we've used SES for 50 years, so we could blindly believe that the race wars were over with the civil rights movement in the '60s.

Re: Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

You do understand, I trust, that different countries have different birth rates, right, so while one country may have a very high birth rate, another country may have a very low one. You know, how Japan's population is shrinking, and India's is growing?

It often makes me wonder if being a political partisan either causes stupidity, or political partisans are just inherently stupid people.

Re:Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

I think scientists can make some larger statements on the impacts. No one can tell you what exactly it would be like at any particular location, But what you're doing is exaggerating the amount of uncertainty, and then trying to defend warming trends by invoking even less certain predictions. It's hard not to see how you aren't just being a contrarian simply because you don't like the answers science can provide.

When rain belts shift northward in North America, arid conditions will begin to become the norm in large parts of the American Midwest, and that will mean American food security will become, at some point over the next century so, one of the most serious issues the US has ever had to face. And this isn't a matter if whether it will happen or not, the debate is over WHEN it will happen.

Pumping vast amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is just plain bad. We should be moving at all speed to alternative energy sources, and either leaving the oil and coal in the ground, or finding some other use for it that doesn't involve releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re: Followed by:

[MightyMartian]

Why is pricing carbon anti-conservative? It's eminently conservative, putting the job of reducing emissions in the hands of the market.

Re:Followed by:

[JackieBrown]

The race war wasn't over but had calmed until it was flared up by our divisive (black kids look like my kids white kids don't) president.

Re:Followed by:

[AK Marc]

Ah, so you were born in 2009. Because anyone born earlier than that saw the racist stuff flying when he was running, before he said anything you'd consider racist or divisive.

I saw more than one "Nigger in Chief" bumper sticker. In person, not some staged photo. Yes, Obama started the race war, by not staying in "his place".

The whole drug war was spearheaded against civil rights by the Republicans because it was a racist program. And the anti-personal rights Republicans were all for stripping everyone in the country of their personal rights, so long as the cops used that power disproportionately against Black people. The fist drug war was even sold as such explicitly in Congress.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

People who know what they are talking about disagree.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

He isn't a skeptic. And he cites his source. You clearly are not actually interested in information.

Re:Followed by:

[mattwarden]

This is getting silly. No one is denying that climate changes. The debate is over whether human causes increase change in detrimental ways, and whether the costs of preventing those human causes is worth the degree of impact it would have

Re: Followed by:

[mattwarden]

Yes, it can. Normal weather is a bell curve. An event could have a 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% chance of happening and has always had that probability, and when it happens, for the first time it does not represent a change of anything. I'm pretty convinced that half of you people believe what you believe because you never took intro statistics.

Re:Followed by:

[MooseMiester]

Creating "artificial scarcity" is how we got fracking. Because you can't regulate people out of making a living.

Re:Followed by:

[MooseMiester]

Yes but what is the most interesting is to compare Slashdot of 2008 to Slashdot of 2016. In 2008 had any poster dared to question Mr. Nye's comments he would have been flooded with angry emails, ridiculed, called all kinds of horrible names... Those people - the great cuttters and pasters of talking points - now find themselves in the minority, the majority are actually thinking for themselves.
It's why I have posted as AC for the last five years... until today.

Re:Followed by:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

But of course

[halivar]

It has nothing at all to do with over-development in what used to be (and by all rights and common sense, still ought to be) swampland and coastal forest.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights? Whose rights are being denied here?

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

So... the climate changed, or it didn't?

Re:But of course

[XXongo]

No, of course they're not mutually exclusive. Development in lowlands and swamps makes the effects of flooding more severe, and global warming makes flooding more frequent.

It's worth pointing out (again) that no single flooding event can be in itself attributed to global warming. Warming may make such events somewhat more frequent, but flooding events happen with or without global warming.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lot of text to essentially say nothing.

Re:But of course

[pollarda]

Absolutely correct. What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path. When there was heavy rain anywhere along its course, the waters would raise and it would overflow its banks depositing rich soil and silt all along the way. Now, we've replaced the flood plains with housing developments and mini-malls. The rich soil deposited by the Mississippi is under asphalt. (Well, not all of it.) Additionally walls, dams, and other barriers have been constructed by various municipalities and the US Army Corps of Engineers to keep the Mississippi from overflowing its banks. This creates a situation where additional water has no where to go other than to cause the water level to raise and for the river to run faster (such as water flowing through a pipe.) When it gets down to coastal LA, it is traveling much faster than it would naturally and is causing massive erosion. Additionally, it causes major floods as the pent up water finally has a place to go. Government planning at it's best. (Thanks US Army Corps of Engineers!)

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

YESSSS! Finally a voice of reason. Sure climate change is happening. But living in a flood plain/river delta/swamp land is just asking for trouble. Lots of water trouble.

Re: But of course

[Type44Q]

and global warming makes flooding more frequent

No, it does not. However, it makes it a lot worse when it does happen.

Re:But of course

[StormReaver]

The type of land is secondary, and is only significant once the water arrives. It may (or may not) make the flooding worse, but flooding would occur regardless.

Re: But of course

[fahrbot-bot]

and global warming makes flooding more frequent

No, it does not. However, it makes it a lot worse when it does happen.

Flooding in low-to-mid lying areas could be more frequent if it is "worse". Meaning that worse could cause areas that might have otherwise just missed being flooded to be flooded - i.e.: more frequently.

Re:But of course

[Applehu Akbar]

"global warming makes flooding more frequent."

No, Church of Warminetics operating thetans keep telling us that global warning will cause global, endless drought. Although whenever there IS a flood, that too proves warming.

Re:But of course

[Orgasmatron]

Swampland is code for "permanently flooded".

It isn't different dirt necessarily, but if land is flooded for thousands or millions of years, you'd best be wary about draining it and building there.

Re: But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

No it didn't. For 4 billion years it has stayed the same.

Re:But of course

[Applehu Akbar]

You nailed the reason for the sinking Mississippi delta we're hearing so much about today. Because deltas are made of silt, all of them slump and sink over time. In nature, they are kept alive by annual flood depositions of fresh silt from upstream. Because of Corps of Engineers reclamation, the Mississippi is flowing clean and the delta, even the part that is not built on, is no longer getting fresh silt.

If we want to save New Orleans, why not drill a grid of injection wells citywide and pump fresh mud at an even rate into each one to keep the city afloat?

Re:But of course

[Tailhook]

I suffered a few minutes of NPR over the weekend while they happened to be covering the flood news. Apparently the only officials from Louisiana or the feds that NPR has any interest in hosting are climatologists. No FEMA, no state first responders; just climatologists.

While discussing the floods with the climatologists, both the federal and state climate guys made the mistake of mentioning the fact that the high costs and displacement are as much to do with recent property development as the amount of water. You could clearly detect the host's frustration as he attempted to get these hapless officials back on the rails speculating about climate and saying disparaging things about fossil fuels.

Whatever. You people want to eat all the crap they're feeding you and furnish your rulers with the ammo to manage you're decline, go ahead. Enjoy. I don't care anymore. Bill Nye lives in a nice $1,000,000+ home in Studio City and I'm all set with my nice property and neither one of us are giving it up for the benefit of your virtues, so fuck off.

Re:But of course

[PopeRatzo]

Absolutely correct. What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path. When there was heavy rain anywhere along its course, the waters would raise and it would overflow its banks depositing rich soil and silt all along the way. Now, we've replaced the flood plains with housing developments and mini-malls.

That's not so much the case in the Baton Rouge area because of the protected Atchafalaya Basin and the big lock between it and the Mississippi. In other parts of the Midwest, though, you're absolutely right. Wetlands are for water, not for strip malls, oil pipelines or fracking sites.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I suffered a few minutes of NPR over the weekend while they happened to be covering the flood news. Apparently the only officials from Louisiana or the feds that NPR has any interest in hosting are climatologists. No FEMA, no state first responders; just climatologists.

Sounds like a problem with your sample size. A few minutes? Really?

Why don't you just admit you hate what the media is saying, you don't want to hear it, and it bothers you, because it's not what you want to be told.

You want some fairy tales.

While discussing the floods with the climatologists, both the federal and state climate guys made the mistake of mentioning the fact that the high costs and displacement are as much to do with recent property development as the amount of water. You could clearly detect the host's frustration as he attempted to get these hapless officials back on the rails speculating about climate and saying disparaging things about fossil fuels.

Sure dude, maybe you just heard what you wanted to hear. It's clear that you're quite angry and frustrated yourself.

Whatever. You people want to eat all the crap they're feeding you and furnish your rulers with the ammo to manage you're decline, go ahead. Enjoy. I don't care anymore. Bill Nye lives in a nice $1,000,000+ home in Studio City and I'm all set with my nice property and neither one of us are giving it up for the benefit of your virtues, so fuck off.

Well, that's ok, we probably don't want you to give it up for our virtues. But your choices may have consequences, as numbers of hedonists have found out to their sorrow.

It may be that your sins come with a price.

Re:But of course

[ooloorie]

Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

No, but the solutions are rather different once you realize that most of the problems associated with climate change can be solved simply by ending subsidies for people to build in flood zones and a few other stupid policies like that.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget also the very first thing every engineer considers on a building site. Drainage. A very important consideration in pretty much all construction is how you take water falling on the site, and get it off the site as quickly as possible. So every parking lot and street, and any surrounding developed or undeveloped land whose water flows onto that parking lot or street and every rooftop and basically everything else that humans have touched takes all the water that falls on it and transports it as rapidly as possible into the local river. So, rather than moving slowly through the water table, a vast amount more water than is natural moves rapidly as surface water. The end result of this is that, when floods happen, they're a lot worse than they would be otherwise. So, this flooding, or the extent of this flooding, at least, is definitely the result of human activity. However, the other factors I mentioned and that the parent post mentioned affect it more than anthrogenic climate change at the current time.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, replying to my own post here to add to it that, as others have pointed out, the entire Delta is sinking and is already not far above sea level and is also extremely prone to erosion due to its composition. So, in the long run, climate change combined with other factors will totally destroy the whole area without massive feats of engineering.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Wetlands are for water, not for strip malls, oil pipelines or fracking sites.

They build pipelines and fracking sites at sea, I don't see why you can't have a platform atop a swamp.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Draining swamps is childs play. We dutchmen drain the ocean to reclaim land.

Re:But of course

[PopeRatzo]

They build pipelines and fracking sites at sea, I don't see why you can't have a platform atop a swamp.

I'll bet there are a lot of things you don't see.

Re:But of course

[Gussington]

What people forget is that the Mississippi used to have flood plains all along its path.

I don't think anyone forgot this at all. Any floodplain in a development plan would've been called out in the geotech report that is mandatory on any development application. The Engineers would've called it out as a risk, the developer would've accepted that risk, and people who bought the land accepted the risk when they signed contracts to buy the property.
It's the same reason people live on fault lines, floodplains, volcanoes etc, they accept the risk for the same reason people fly budget airlines. There is usually a financial benefit to do so (ie a 1 in a 100 year risk of flood is acceptable to save $100k on the price of a property etc).
It is not the government's job to be your babysitter.

Re:But of course

[Uberbah]

I suffered a few minutes of NPR

Why would you subject yourself to that right wing rag?

Apparently the only officials from Louisiana or the feds that NPR has any interest in hosting are climatologists. No FEMA, no state first responders; just climatologists.

One night I was channel surfing and caught part of an olympic soccer match. I never watched anything else, but I'm sure that means NBC aired nothing but soccer matches over weeks of coverage. Because reasons.

While discussing the floods with the climatologists, both the federal and state climate guys made the mistake of mentioning the fact that the high costs and displacement are as much to do with recent property development as the amount of water. You could clearly detect the host's frustration as he attempted to get these hapless officials back on the rails speculating about climate and saying disparaging things about fossil fuels.

Sounds like confirmation bias. Yours, not the reporter from National Pentagon Radio. Yes, it's a problem when greedy developers are allowed to build in flood plains and sell to unsuspecting homeowners. But so many people are putting on their tunnel vision glasses to stare at that tree, and ignore the forest that is a once-in-a-thousand year flood putting land under water that has been dry since before this country's founding.

Re: But of course

[pollarda]

I agree that it isn't the governments job but, in many ways they have made it so. Since they have made it so, they have done it incompetently. You still have zoning and the areas near the river can simply be zoned for farmland. Yes, there is personal responsibility and while I feel bad when people lose their stuff due to a flood, I can only think that if I were moving into a flood zone I'd check to see how high the water has gotten in the past. Then I'd make sure I had a two level house and kept my valuables upstairs or built my house on a dirt hill that I constructed. Of course in Hawaii where I used to live, one house I lived in was up on stilts with the carport underneath. Smart. Even so, it still isn't smart for the Army Corps of Engineers to wall the Mississippi in so it has nowhere to expand to when the rains come. Btw: The Mississippi Delta is losing (as I recall) one football field worth of land daily due to erosion and settling caused by the mismanagement of the Mississippi.

Re: But of course

[riverat1]

Of course the flooding in this case had nothing to do with the Mississippi River.

Re: But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the same thing. If floods on average get worse, and below a certain amount of water we don't even consider it a 'flood', then the number that rise into the threshold of a 'serious flood' will increase.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? I think not.
In fact, this is an incredibly stupid thing to say in reply. The comment wasn't that the gubmint should take away your nice property, just that it was stupid to build in certain places inevitable to flood. Nobody is asking you to give it up for your virtues! When it floods I hope it washes selfish fools like you out to sea.

Re: But of course

[halivar]

I say, the hot, molten magma fields are quite muggy today.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't come here very often anymore.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did this is a troll get modded up to 5. It is filled with hate and distain for the opposing view. The only real information is "high costs and displacement are as much to do with recent property development as the amount of water." the rest of the post is simply belittling the opposing viewpoint.

The Slashdot I knew is really gone.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

According to you braindead deniers, global warming can't produce ANYTHING, it ALL has to be "natural cycles", not changing climate.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what gets me the most about "global warming" advocates weather real or not: They live in gigantic homes, have multiple homes, have multiple gas guzzler cars but own a token Prius or Tesla, fly private jets around preaching about how we need to drive more fuel efficient cars and buy AC units that are 2% more efficient.

It is either an elaborate scam or these people are hypocrites, or both.

While energy efficiency and protecting the environment is good, let not kid yourself. It hurts the poor the hardest since they can't afford to pay more just for the energy to be cleaner, so of course rich people want to "be green" its only an extra $200 a month, right.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I also love how when its cold and people say "Where is that global warming?" and the token greenie (including Bill) says "WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE".

Then, when convenient, you have Bill essentially say "This time, weather is climate"

Re: But of course

[konohitowa]

Thank you. I was hoping someone was going to point that out. From what I know, it was creeks that run through town that overflowed. I can't imagine the Mississippi getting high enough to cause flooding in BR.

Re:But of course

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the south love insurance. Basically the entire country dumps insurance payouts and "donations" into the south, and they get a free brand new town every time it rains a lot. Bill Nye needs to read more economics and less thermodynamics. How many times would any normal person let water "[ruin my life]" before they move somewhere higher up? Once, maybe twice. We are talking people whose entire business thrives on insurance payouts.

Just to let everyone know...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I punch Bill Nye in the face, it's because of Climate Change.

Why bother...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the one's that could actually change anything about it, arent in Louisiana, and the climate-change-deniars would probably rather drown that admit they where wrong...

Bill Nye, the CIA guy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep trying to make yourself feel important, you know-nothing piece of shit.

He's right.

[KermodeBear]

He's right. It was a bright, beautiful day. Then the climate in Louisiana changed and it rained a lot.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too funny...I think I just gave it away at work that I'm reading /.

Re:He's right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Long ago the swamplands lived in together in harmony. Then everything changed when the climate changes attacked. Only James Hansen, knower of all things global climate could warn us. But when Louisiana needed him the most, he vanished.

Why should we trust a mechanical engineer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Seattle, and I've heard him speak several times. It's very obvious that he has spoken about things he doesn't have any clue about for many years.

Re:Why should we trust a mechanical engineer?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Bill should have stuck to igniting helium balloons on "Almost Live!" and using JohnJohnJohnJohn KEEEEISTER as a target for CO2 discharges...

Re:Why should we trust a mechanical engineer?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a sad day when Sarah Palin is better at vetting climate scientists than the slashdot crew. Sarah fucking Palin.

Re:Why should we trust a mechanical engineer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Just because a Mech E doesn't know anything about climate doesn't mean he knows less than Palin. Most of his claims are wrong, but some are right whereas Palin is always wrong.

Re:Why should we trust a mechanical engineer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reading comprehension skills are poor, I stated that, apparently, Sarah Palin knew more than the slashdot editors.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/...

Garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye the Hype Guy is more like it. There is ZERO evidence that this would not have happened without climate change. Lunatic global warming alarmism should be mocked in the media, not regurgitated

Re:Garbage

[lanybaggins]

Bill Nye the Hype Guy is more like it. There is ZERO evidence that this would not have happened without climate change. Lunatic global warming alarmism should be mocked in the media, not regurgitated

Silly AC, the media loves lunatic global warming alarmists.

Re:Garbage

[Falconhell]

Yawn silly old fart, the media simply acknowledges the reality that blinkered right wing denialists are so desperate to ignore.

Slanted Bias by the OP

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you quote exactly what Bill Nye said OP?

“I don’t have the answer to this except it is going to get worse,” he added. “It almost certainly will get worse. Everybody – as the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands. Water gets – the molecules spread apart and then as the sea surface gets warmer, more water evaporates. And so it is very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects. So what will probably happen is people will move.”

So basically Bill Nye is just a doomsayer crackpot and the OP is propping up his agenda. Pathetic.

Re:Slanted Bias by the OP

[Anonymous Coward]

The climate is a chaotic system. I blame the butterflys in china flapping their wings!

Re:Slanted Bias by the OP

[lanybaggins]

I blame Slashdot for their crap mod system.

Warm water Expands?

[Anonymous Coward]

I though water only expanded when it's frozen. That's why we get pot holes in the streets in winter.

Re:Warm water Expands?

[ClickOnThis]

You're partly right: ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats on water.

However, liquid water does change its density as a function of temperature. In 1 atm, water is densest at 4 degrees Celsius. Its density goes down in either direction from that temperature. And of course, it gets far less dense when it turns into water vapor.

Re: Warm water Expands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but the change in density over a few degrees of warming is negligible.

Re: Warm water Expands?

[mark-t]

For small amounts of water, yes. Not so much the case for really large water bodies like oceans. Of course, few feet of difference in sea level is technically a negligible distance for something of that size too.... but its impact can still be huge.

Re:Warm water Expands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Molecular activity increases with heat and (to simplify) occupies more space.

Generally, shifting to a solid will compress, not expand. Ice, however, shifts H20's geometry to hex arrangements when going solid, ultimately expanding space taken.

Ice's hex arrangements are contrary to liquid water's more fluid, rotatey, rolly, shifting activity. They tend to spoon closer than the hex, because H20 is asymmetrical (radially) so they kinda cuddle, causing water's high surface tension (ie attracted to self)

I only know commoner-grade chem from ages ago, someone might need to correct me somewhere.

Re: Warm water Expands?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that we're talking about the density of the entire freaking *ocean*, yes?

I farted, its due to -- climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

I slipped and fell on the side walk yesterday -- because of climate change.
My girlfriend left me -- because of climate change.
I have no idea how I ended up in ditch after going to a bar last night and have many drinks -- because of climate change.
I got a raise at work -- because of climate change.
A stray cat got run over by some car -- because of climate change.
I am feeling hungry right now -- because of climate change.

Do not misunderstand me. I do believe the scientists are correct that there is climate change. But get real - not every disaster is cause by -- climate change. Sometimes, stuff happens! And mother nature has caused hurricanes, volcano eruptions, heatwaves, for the longest time -- long before humans came along.

Re:I farted, its due to -- climate change

[hyperar]

That's like saying that smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer because there were cancer cases before humans smoked tobacco. Flawed argument is flawed.

Re:I farted, its due to -- climate change

[gfxguy]

No, it's not like that at all - it's like saying that not every cancer case is from smoking - and it's 100% right.

South LA only exists due to floods

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't for regular floods there wouldn't be a South Louisiana in the first place. Alluvial soil from the MS River flooding is how the soil got here in the first place. The guy is a moron. Why is he given airtime?

Add it to the list

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Climate change is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Keep pumping the fear Bill Nye!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw

Deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets hope the climate deniers own a lot of low lying property. I am sure their tune will change quickly when they are underwater.

For the climate deniers on high ground, time to accept climate refugees.

Re:Deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[meta-monkey]

"Our favorite science guy?"

WTF is this, reddit? Goddamn slashdot's gone to shit. I mean, it's gone to shit several, several times since I started posting here, but every time I keep thinking we've hit bottom, no the editors find a way to dig deeper.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[tbannist]

"Our favorite science guy?"

WTF is this, reddit? Goddamn slashdot's gone to shit. I mean, it's gone to shit several, several times since I started posting here, but every time I keep thinking we've hit bottom, no the editors find a way to dig deeper.

That's not the editor's writing, it's the submitter's writing, which you should know by now.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another brilliant post. Who the F**k is Bill Nye to talk authoritatively on any large scale science topic? Baking soda volcanoes...sure.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that for millennials,Bill Nye is "The" science guy.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Bartles]

Right, we should never blame editors for the content they edit and choose to disseminate.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[wbr1]

In all of slashdot's history (and I have been here under other guises for quite some time.. 98-99), there is a long precedent of leaving the submissions mostly alone, with whatever warts they have.

Re: Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Bartles]

That's ridiculous. Maybe the submissions aren't altered, but they certainly are selected.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye the Science Guy is his stage name, but he was an engineer at Boeing, he lives science for his day job, which is explaining science to laypeople.

He's kind of a science guy, your outrage is a bit much.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[mspohr]

Hi!
I wrote "our favorite science guy" since many people (including myself) think he's their favorite science guy.
Clearly, there are a number of science deniers who don't like him. They probably have some other non-science guy they like.
I agree that Slashdot is a lot like reddit. Lots of flaming bozos with an agenda.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real life scientist here. I don't have any "science guy". I just do science and leave individuals and personalities out. "Science guys" are rarely mentioned in science classes and then only in passing. If you want to learn about these people, read a vook or take a history class.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Ding ding ding! Congratulations, commenter! You're the grand winner of AskReddit's most pretentious quote!

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi!
I wrote "our favorite science guy" since many people (including myself) think he's their favorite science guy....

Hoo-ray for LOW STANDARDS!!!!

A mechanical engineer is your "favorite science guy"?!?!?!

And you fucking BRAG about it?!?!?!

How adorbs.

Re: Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous. Maybe the submissions aren't altered, but they certainly are selected.

Naturally, they are selected.

Re: Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it odd that amongst a presumably technical, evidence-based readership such as Slashdot has, that there's so much hatred for the idea of man-made global warming when there's such a consensus of actual scientists that it is really happening.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah I've had DOZENS of AC comments that get left out. I wrote the editors about it once, they still filter out my inane comments. Its worse since the new boss took over.

Re:Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[houghi]

So if I am a science guy, I am forced to like him and if I do not like him I am a flaming bozo with an agenda? It is not at all possible that I dislike the guy, yet like science and facts regardless if they are his or not?

Being unable to keep the two things apart is pretty unscientific and makes you sound like a flaming bozo with an agenda.

Re: Bill Nye is not a science guy.

[mspohr]

I think you understand.
If you like science, you'll like Bill Nye. If not, then think about why you don't like him. Is it jealousy, fear, bigotry, or maybe you don't believe in science?
Self reflection is always useful.

Rights [Re:But of course]

[XXongo]

The phrase "by all rights" means "according to what is proper and reasonable." It does not refer to "rights" being denied.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20(all)%20rights

Re:Rights [Re:But of course]

[Zontar The Mindless]

Another wild-eyed radical who thinks words should actually mean things. BURN THE HERETIC!!

Of course. . .

[Salgak1]

. . . the in-process Maunder-type Solar Minimum gets ignored.

Me, I'm planning for Blizzards, not Hurricanes. . .

Re:Of course. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

NO it doesn't. It's a convenient cover for those who disagree with the premise that our actions will cause disruption of our climate.

Even if we see the kind of lowered solar output that of the Maunder Minimum, the FACT that current CO2 level will result is continued warming, not cooling. A Maunder type event may slow the rate, but reduce temperature to those of "The Little Ice Age"

Re:Of course. . .

[BoRegardless]

& torrential rains soon to hit the Left Coast again soon: see Wikipedia for "Pineapple Express."

The climated do-gooders are going to have a field day with the next mega-rain on the West Coast, but they happen about every 160 years.

Re:Of course. . .

[slew]

& torrential rains soon to hit the Left Coast again soon: see Wikipedia for "Pineapple Express."

The climated do-gooders are going to have a field day with the next mega-rain on the West Coast, but they happen about every 160 years.

Well, on the west coast we are still waiting for the repeat of the 1862 atmospheric river (aka pineapple express) they promised us last year to get us out of the drought. Of course as will all things, there can always be too much of a good thing.

http://www.scientificamerican....

Re:Of course. . .

[dcollins]

Be sure to place a monetary wager and profit on your knowledge!

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/08/02/0124236/climate-change-contrarians-lose-big-betting-against-global-warming

Ignore this, though: "The authors of the paper note it’s particularly interesting that global warming keeps winning the bet despite ocean cycles, solar activity, and human aerosol pollution all acting in the cooling direction over the past 15 years. Human-caused global warming has become so strong that it’s consistently overcoming these natural short-term cooling factors... In other words, betting against global warming is an almost sure way to lose money at this point."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/betting-against-gw-sure-way-to-lose-money.html

Re:Of course. . .

[Black Parrot]

. . . the in-process Maunder-type Solar Minimum gets ignored.

Wow, you should write your local scientist and reveal this important information to them.

Re:Of course. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet it doesn't seem to have a noticeable effect on the global temperature trend graphs.

I once was concerned that the maximum would make future summers even worse as the higher greenhouse gasses would make it even hotter. But, I don't see the cycle in the global temperature data.

Welcome to slashdot. [Re:But of course]

[XXongo]

That's a lot of text to essentially say nothing.

I see you're new here. Welcome to slashdot.

Or the other reason....

[Lumpy]

The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?

Global warming may have cause the weather pattern changes, but it does not change the fact that if you build in the low lands, you have to expect flooding because it will absolutely happen with a 100% guarantee.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that Baton Rouge is one of the oldest settlements in the country?

Re:Or the other reason....

[MondoGordo]

And yet the Netherlands has no problems with flooding despite most of the country being below sea level..

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Average discharge of the Mississippi river: 16,792 m^3/s
Average discharge of the Rhine: 2,900 m^3/s
Average discharge of the Maas: 350 m^3/s

No wonder the Dutch have an easier time of it. They have a fifth the water flow to worry about.

Re:Or the other reason....

[CrimsonAvenger]

And yet the Netherlands has no problems with flooding despite most of the country being below sea level..

Of course, the Netherlands don't have a 3M km^2 watershed dumping water into them, either. And the Netherlands is smaller than Louisiana alone (by a factor of about 2.5), much less the Mississippi watershed (by a factor of about 80)....

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's a "problem" in Louisiana. Real-estate prices are cheaper because of the risk of flooding by exactly the same amount as the clean-up costs due to flooding, so people end up even. Market forces at work.

Re:Or the other reason....

[rubycodez]

did you know Baton Rouge has had many flooding events over the last 300 years?

Re:Or the other reason....

[BoRegardless]

So ... build your house on a barge!

Re:Or the other reason....

[Gussington]

The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?

Like only stupid people choose to grow up in poor neighbourhoods? Why don't they just live in rich suburbs like us?

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's talking about the Maas? Netherlands is facing the Atlantic with it's shore below sea level, and has built a massive wall in the sea to prevent flooding. Do you want to compare the Mississipi river with the Atlantic's Nord Sea ? ... that said, comparing the Mississipi and Netherland cases is silly.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the Mississipi river bigger than the Atlantic ocean ?

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

But not as many as they're going to have from now on.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the Netherlands has no problems with flooding despite most of the country being below sea level..

That's simply not true, we have had plenty of floods here. Some were worse than others.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Major Blud]

The fact the whole state is a river flood plain

The Baton Rouge area is 56 feet above sea level.
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?

I'm sure that the area you live in doesn't have any sort of vulnerability to any type of natural disaster. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

They also diked the everliving shit out of every waterway to PREVENT flooding. Serious dikes, built and maintained with the grim seriousness of people who know they will be held accountable if the dike fails. The majority of these were also built well before concern over environmental impact could stall or eliminate a key project.
An interesting contrast with some portions of the US, where dike maintenance and building funds are embezzled en masse, or construction is held up because of a rare newt, and the problem is only a problem when a flood occurs which should have been managed by infrastructure.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but we're (well, collective you are) the stupid people that keep electing officials that federally insure the poor pitiful souls that built houses where there is a 100% chance they will be wiped out by a flood.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the Netherlands has no problems with flooding despite most of the country being below sea level..

Yeah, none:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_Netherlands

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

And sadly, when hurricane Katrina gave them the perfect opportunity to pack up and build somewhere more sensible, they didn't.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Using mathematical models to alter measurements to support a theory that doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny surely caused the rain to fall.

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact the whole state is a river flood plain and only stupid people build homes in a river flood plain?

Global warming may have cause the weather pattern changes, but it does not change the fact that if you build in the low lands, you have to expect flooding because it will absolutely happen with a 100% guarantee.

Funny, because "the fact[s]" show that flooding doesn't happen in Baton Rouge any more often than the rest of the country: http://i.imgur.com/pRI4JM8.jpg

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, by all means, name a few other metro areas that WOULDN'T flood with +7 trillion gallons of rain in the course of a few days.

Re:Or the other reason....

[MondoGordo]

Thank-you!! That was the point I was trying (& evidently failing) to make ... Obviously I'm expecting too much out of the average /. user. If you're going to populate a flood plain it might be a good idea to invest in the infrastructure to mitigate the inevitable outcome instead of bitching about it, and blaming the completely predictable consequences on everything but your own shortsightedness.

Re:Or the other reason....

[rubycodez]

but we don't get those where I live, ever. Meanwhile Louisiana does, and not just in past year.

what's your point?

Re:Or the other reason....

[rubycodez]

that's the point, if that happens THEN can talk about climate change causing increased frequency of flooding in an area....but to spew off over one weather event is beyond stupid

Re:Or the other reason....

[Anonymous Coward]

They also have people that are not stupid.... the south on the other hand....

Re:Or the other reason....

[Lumpy]

So river flooding is based on sea level?
Sounds like someone needs to get some basic education.

Cant go fuck myself... Again someone seems to be lacking in basic education.

There he goes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye the politics guy.

Re:There he goes again

[Anonymous Coward]

yes everytime he blabbers his mouth he makes money. What is he a mechanical engineer or something I know he't not a meteorologist.

Re:There he goes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the UN sustainable development (SSDG) guy. I guess he's been promised a high level seat in their hunger games style government.

Re:There he goes again

[Anonymous Coward]

"Every gnat-fart helps heat the atmosphere."

Bill Nye...

[Bartles]

...is the Donald Trump of scientists.

Re:Bill Nye...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye the science guy is an entertaining fun thing to watch that teaches people some basic science.

Bill Nye the political commentator seems to be kinda of a dick.

Re:Bill Nye...

[quantaman]

...is the Donald Trump of scientists.

Yeah, except for the ridiculous lying, misogyny, racist remarks, authoritarian tendencies, complete disdain for expert opinion, and hair that is the obvious result of a poorly executed medical procedure.

It's just like a bowl of icecream is the pile of compost of desserts. As in they're complete opposites.

Re:Bill Nye...

[ooloorie]

Yeah, except for the ridiculous lying, misogyny, racist remarks, authoritarian tendencies, complete disdain for expert opinion, and hair that is the obvious result of a poorly executed medical procedure.

Totally. Wait, are you talking about Bill Nye or Donald Trump?

Re:Bill Nye...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't think Nye's hair was quite that bad, but everyone has their own opinion.

Re:Bill Nye...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so true.
I'm thankful I read this thread

Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechanical

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering.

That's like an electrical engineer telling a geologist that the earth is actually only 6000 years old.

Bill Nye has absolutely no business talking about climate change, and he is merely a mouthpiece of the Rothschild Man Made Global Warming Agenda

Source

Get off the elite's payroll bill nye, you unqualified fuckface

In related news...

[watermark]

The interview was on CNN, which staffs a meteorologist that is a climate change denier.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.whatreallyhappened....

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair, i dont think anyone denies that climate changes. Your global warming theory on the other hand is complete bullshit. But that is why you had to change the name in an attempt to bury it in the obvious.

Re:In related news...

[ClickOnThis]

The interview was on CNN, which staffs a meteorologist that is a climate change denier.

He was not a denier, he was a skeptic. And he has changed his opinion.

Oh, of course it is. How could we miss it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change my ass.

Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they have to be mutually exclusive?

No, they don't. However:

Bill Nye Explains That the Flooding In Louisiana Is the Result of Climate Change

That quote from TFS draws a conclusion that can only be described as substituting causation in physics for correlation in time.

It's also worth noting that this is not the first time this region has flooded. Severely. One record exists for a flood in 1927, another for the flood in 1995, yet another for the flood in 2011.

These things happen. Yes, this could be a result of more moisture in the atmosphere due to increased ocean evaporation. However, if that's the case, it won't just be showing up by falling on Louisiana in torrential form. Rainfall will increase over the entire watershed, and significantly, if that's what this is. So that's the thing to research before going "okay, yeah, definitely GW has pushed a lot more water vapor over land." If that's not the case... then this is "just weather."

--fyngyrz
(anon due to mod points, sigh.)

Re:Check the details

[sjames]

It's also worth reading TFA to see what Nye ACTUALLY said.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

“This is the result of climate change,” he [Nye] said. “It’s only going to get worse.”

Source: TFA.

So, for all the people cherry-picking his "it's very reasonable" comment and ignoring his flat-out quote that says "THIS IS," y'all need to take his dick out of your mouths.

Re:Check the details

[PopeRatzo]

One record exists for a flood in 1927 [wikipedia.org], another for the flood in 1995 [wikipedia.org], yet another for the flood in 2011. [wikipedia.org]

So, the flooding is becoming more frequent due to climate change?

Re:Check the details

[PatientZero]

Or maybe watch the video that contains his full comments? Naw, let's ignore it and look only at the one or two sentences the author decided to quote and assume they form his complete stance on the subject.

Re:Check the details

[sjames]

And here we see the difference between cherry picking sentences and actually reading/listening to the whole message.

You cherry picked the "THIS IS" bit but ignored where he clarified who believes "THIS IS" and that it is a reasonable belief.

Re:Check the details

[tnk1]

I think we all knew that Bill Nye would not have made a statement like in the headline. It's just clickbait, but people want to complain about it anyway.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? He didn't cherry pick ANYTHING. Nye out right says the flooding is due to climate change that is what 'this' refers to? Are you Bill Clinton or something & want to debate what 'it' means now?

As anyone who comes along and says something like 'it was unreasonably cold today so its clear climate change isn't occurring' are told time & again a 'weather event' can NOT be used as 'evidence against climate change', that works both ways. A weather event (this flood) can NOT be directly linked to climate change. Climate is about the 'aggregate' not the specific. For instance, every day that passes without a flood of any kind can't be used to say 'there was no flood today so clearly climate change isn't happening'.

Don't get me wrong, I like Bill, he's a smart & personable guy. He has done a lot for promoting science. But it is no less wrong, in fact I'd argue its MORE wrong for a person of his intelligence to use this event to try to drive his agendas/beliefs/desires (wind/renewable energy which he completely pumped in the video). A good idea should be able to stand on its own merits (costs or otherwise) not by pointing to a tragic event and trying to use it to change people's support for that idea. Otherwise its the equivalent of running around yelling 'think of the children' and getting any old dumb-ass idea implemented because we 'have to do something about the children', that way leads to disaster pure & simple.

Re:Check the details

[sjames]

Did you listen to EVERYTHING he said or just read the sound bite and call it good?

Re: Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

4 data points + the time scales involved in climate are dubious grounds to claim increased frequency

Re: Check the details

[riverat1]

You can point to the floods in 1927, 2005 and 2011 but there are houses flooded by this flood that were not flooded by those previous floods.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

Below is the transcript of the all of his comments in the 5 minute video. His HEADLINE is - THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. Please point out the parts where he is carefully refining and adding caveats to his view? Let's not forget that he also basically said, "If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere," too.

Well for us, on my side of this, this is the result of climate change, it's only going to get worse.

So it - I don't have the answer to this except it's going to get worse. Almost certainly will get worse. Everybody - as the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands. Water gets - molecules spread apart. And then, as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates, and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these, these big effects. So, uh, what'll probably happen is people will move - they'll move away from these areas, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper wiring and all that copper plumbing? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage it, or is somebody going to show up to loot it? And will that lead to all sorts of criminal activity and all sorts of trouble that way.

And where are these people going to go to get a job - and this is the developed world, I mean this is the US, let alone places where you don't have all these resources.

Well, I believe it will happen again. But I, these individual storms are hard to predict, but you hit the nail on the head, this is not a big hurricane, this is a day at the office in Louisiana. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms, and the idea that you can continue to build levees the way people have done in Holland for centuries is good for a while, but after a while it's gonna catch up with you, and these are generally not high income people with resources.

When I was there you were allowed to rebuild low without stilts because these are historic places people have lived here for millen- for centuries or hund - decades, let's call it. And so, they were allowed to rebuild in low places.

That takes regulation - AH! Oh, we can't say this word. Oh yeah.

Uh, it's gonna affect gasoline prices, but what we on my side of this would like to do is use that same technology - and by technology I mean the thing that enables you to build oil platforms in relatively shallow water but still essentially the open ocean - use that to build wind turbines, I'm not kidding. The big unexploited renewable resource on the east coast of the united states and canada and mexico is wind. So I encourage you - I am not a member of this - but I encourage everybody to check out the solutions project - a bunch of civil engineers who've done an analysis that you could power the united states, you could power most of the world, renewably, if you just decided to do it, right now you could - there's enough wind and solar resources, a little bit of tidal some geothermal, to run the whole place. And then you would not - the previous story, just heartbreaking - you would not need to have a military on the other side of the world protecting oil fields. People would not be as motivated to set oil fields on fire if we had renewable electricity here in the first world, the west.

And uh, you know, here at CNN you have - essentially a climate change denier meteorologist, and uh knock yourselves out - but this is a big problem, and it's not gonna go away.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Yes, and everybody also cherry-picked Donald Trump's "ban all muslims from entering the US" but ignored where he went on to say that it was a temporary, reasonable measure until our representative government can develop a working long-term immigration policy.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

I transcribed it for you above. Feel free to explain how I've misrepresented his comments.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

X is due to climate change. Not-X is due to climate change.

Re:Check the details

[sjames]

No, you transcribed one thing he said. Watch the video. Listen carefully. Unfortunately, the text misrepresents him.

Re:Check the details

[PatientZero]

Please point out the parts where he is carefully refining and adding caveats to his view?

"Individual storms are hard to predict. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms." Expectation is at the heart of statistics. If you suspect a new process favors an event, you expect that event to happen more frequently.

Let's not forget that he also basically said, "If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere," too.

No, he did not. He actually said, "What'll probably happen is people will move, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage or loot it." He makes no mention of a descent into lawlessness. This is exactly what's happened in cities where the major industry has closed or moved away.

While I wish his opening line was less absolute, you are being rather disingenuous by putting words in his mouth and ignoring the full context.

Re:Check the details

[Ottibus]

I think we all knew that Bill Nye would not have made a statement like in the headline. It's just clickbait, but people want to complain about it anyway.

Really not sure if this is sarcasm or not. The headline is "Bill Nye explains that the flooding in Louisiana is the result of climate change" and in the video he is asked about the flooding in Louisiana and says "This is the result of climate change" so it is really not clear what the problem is what that headline.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

"Individual storms are hard to predict. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms."

Explain to me how that refines or clarifies his essential argument that, and I quote, "“This is the result of climate change. It’s only going to get worse.”

He basically says "It's hard to predict, and we expect more of these storms." That does nothing to contradict or clarify his assertion that "THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE." He is making a direct cause and effect statement, saying, "If we didn't have climate change, this storm wouldn't have happened."

He actually said, "What'll probably happen is people will move, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage or loot it."

Well, since you're not even bothering to quote from my actual transcript, what he actually said was, "Somebody's gonna show up to salvage it, or is somebody going to show up to loot it? And will that lead to all sorts of criminal activity and all sorts of trouble that way."

In other words, his argument takes the form of: CLIMATE CHANGE therefore => THIS STORM therefore => MASSIVE INCREASE IN LOOTING AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

HE drew these relationships. Not me. Don't blame me for taking what he said as if he meant it.

Re:Check the details

[PatientZero]

He basically says "It's hard to predict, and we expect more of these storms." That does nothing to contradict or clarify his assertion that "THIS IS THE RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE."

Can you not understand the difference between those two statements and how statistics and probability are involved? Are you willfully ignoring logic? If I tell you not to sit on your ass all day eating cake because you'll get fat, and then you do and stay slim all your life due to a high metabolism, have you disproven that inactivity combined with a high-carbohydrate diet cause weight gain?

"Oh yes, it's a myth!" you'll shout. Good luck with that.

Well, since you're not even bothering to quote from my actual transcript.

Oh don't even start with that. I did copy that text from your transcript and cut out the duplicated text for clarity.

"What'll probably happen is people will move - they'll move away from these areas, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper wiring and all that copper plumbing? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage it, or is somebody going to show up to loot it?"

You, on the other hand, completely made up words that he never even used. Is this what passes for intellectual honesty these days?

"If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere."

In depressed areas like those mentioned in the article I linked, people are resorting to looting copper and other metals from abandoned buildings, and this has lead to—you guessed it—all sorts of criminal activity. A descent into lawlessness? Your claim, not his.

Don't blame me for taking what he said as if he meant it.

Why must everything be paint-by-numbers? Oh right, because that's the only argument left against taking action on climate change. "We can't because . . . you wore a blue shirt today, sorry."

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I transcribed the ENTIRETY of his comments from the video above, right here:

https://science.slashdot.org/c...

So please, go ahead and point out for us all the nuance you claim exists in his comments.

Re:Check the details

[sjames]

OK, so where did he say this particular storm is absolutely positively solely caused by global warming? He indicated that he and others (encompassed under "us") believe it was caused by global warming.

Re:Check the details

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well for us, on my side of this, this is the result of climate change, it's only going to get worse."

There's nothing about "we believe." When "us" is "science, men of science, men of fact, logic, and rationality," and you're there to speak as a representative of science and logic, then this is a statement of FACT, not of BELIEF.

QED.

Re:Check the details

[sjames]

But limited to the group "us" meaning it is an opinion of him and others in the same camp.

QED for real.

So this is why California

[Anonymous Coward]

Is still in a drought, all that evaporated water! SCIENCE!

This guy also believes in ebola's outbreak

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.google.it/search?q=south+park+on+global+warming&client=safari&hl=it-it&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjziq-1-NrOAhUHVywKHf-cCDoQ_AUICSgC&biw=320&bih=460#imgrc=K9MehPEBpJdhwM%3A

Douche Canoe

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this Douche Canoe starting to build his Douche Ark then?

Heat Elevators

[avandesande]

Thunderstorms are humongous elevators that dump heat in to space.

Re:Heat Elevators

[wbr1]

You do realize that the largest storms are about 60,000 feet high and the edge of space is about 328,000 feet high. What bridges this heat further up?

Re:Heat Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom?

Re:Heat Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

>"What bridges this heat further up?"

The hot gasses rise high enough to radiate more heat than is reflected back or absorbed and re-radiated. It doesn't have to get all the way to the edge of space.

Re:Heat Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

And in addition to radiative transfer, it can also transfer heat to the atmosphere at those heights, which then gets redistributed by regular winds.

Re:Heat Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that the largest storms are about 60,000 feet high and the edge of space is about 328,000 feet high. What bridges this heat further up?

Infrared radiation. There's very thin atmosphere at 60kft. to reflect IR back to earth.

Land development expenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Land developers like flat land, like river
bottoms because it saves them money.
They do not care if you get flooded out later.
It is all about money.

We're not in a mimimum yet. [Re:Of course. . .]

[XXongo]

There is some possibility that the sun may, at some time in the future, enter another sunspot minimum similar to the Maunder minimum of 1645 to about 1715. But we're not in one now. Sunspot count peaked at about 150 this cycle, which is lower than usual. But it's not even approaching coming near the Maunder minimum, which had single-digit sunspot counts

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe97/t/56af97fda3360cecbfe34b0e/1454348294881/?format=750w

Re:We're not in a mimimum yet. [Re:Of course. . .]

[Ungrounded Lightning]

There is some possibility that the sun may, at some time in the future, enter another sunspot minimum similar to the Maunder minimum of 1645 to about 1715. But we're not in one now.

Actually, there was a recent development in modelling the sun, which (if I recall correctly) resulted in a model of the sunspot cycle that has a high-90s percentage match to the historical data. (The key was to model it as TWO dynamos rather than one.)

Also (again, if I recall correctly) the new model predicted that we were going into something that looked like a new Maunder Minimum, with this cycle being weak and the next one nearly nonexistent.

(Sorry I can't dig up the reference right now. Only got a couple minutes left to post.)

Combine that with orbital forcing (which has been gradually, but progressively more steeply, pushing us toward another BIG ice age since about the time humans started using agriculture and settled down to dig up stuff, including coal), and the expected exhaustion of practically-extractable fossil carbon reserves in something like four more centuries, and warming might not be our long-range climate-change issue at all.

A Maunder minimum might only cover a half-century or so. But if it brought on another "little ice age", that (at about three centuries duration) might be about right to cover the period before global freezing is more of a concern than global warming.

Re:We're not in a mimimum yet. [Re:Of course. . .]

[XXongo]

There is some possibility that the sun may, at some time in the future, enter another sunspot minimum similar to the Maunder minimum of 1645 to about 1715. But we're not in one now.

Actually, there was a recent development in modelling the sun, which (if I recall correctly) resulted in a model of the sunspot cycle that has a high-90s percentage match to the historical data. (The key was to model it as TWO dynamos rather than one.)

Also (again, if I recall correctly) the new model predicted that we were going into something that looked like a new Maunder Minimum, with this cycle being weak and the next one nearly nonexistent.

(Sorry I can't dig up the reference right now. Only got a couple minutes left to post.)

You're referring to this one, I think: http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and...

I might note that the work only modeled three solar cycles, and has not (as far as I've seen) yet gone through peer review (the paper that the new article is about is a conference presentation.)

Not

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not GW You moron! It's the fuckin beaver dam!!

Re: Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechan

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's true that he has little credibility on this subject but what a sixty year old guy did in undergrad is practically meaningless.

Still Not Buying

[medv4380]

You can chant it from the highest mountain I still won't buy the claim that Human's Caused this. Sure I'll buy the generic argument that Climate has "changed", but if you think CO2 does that to evaporation then you're tweaking.

Yes Climate Change Did It

[Anonymous Coward]

Same for the Earthquake in Italy.

Say anything against it and your a "Climate Change Denier". Sounds very insulting. Like a passive aggressive "you deny my interpretation of how the climate is changing and why!!!!!1!!!!11"

Doesn't matter we now have an easy CCDI reference to explain everything weather/ecosystem related.

(You may wonder how to pronounces that so I propose Cocky-Dee)

Re:Yes Climate Change Did It

[93 Escort Wagon]

Same for the Earthquake in Italy.

Flooding, possibly - earthquakes, not a chance.

Every well-informed person knows that earthquakes are caused by the Great Satan, the United States.

Re:Yes Climate Change Did It

[Fragnet]

They're caused by anal sex you ignorant clod.

Re:Yes Climate Change Did It

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, sir, but I believe you've accidentally posted your comment in the wrong story. Please proceed to the recent /. coverage of Manbang to try again. 'Lil Kim appreciates your support. -PCP

I'm not a "denier" but....

[mark-t]

.... regional floods have been happening for quite some time before man even existed, let alone was capable of having an environmental impact on the world.

Re:I'm not a "denier" but....

[Anonymous Coward]

BREAKING NEWS: CATHOLIC CHURCH REVISES BIBLE DUE TO NEW EVIDENCE.

As it turns out, the Great Flood was due to climate change. A stone tablet was found in a cave in Jordan with the inscription "And thus God spoketh: Humanity hath ruined my great Earth with their heathen ways. Fortunately, all I havta do is sit back and wait a few years and the Earth will destroy them back. SUCK IT, DUDES!"

Re:I'm not a "denier" but....

[mark-t]

What the fuck does that nonsense have to do with anything that I said?

My point is that floods like this have been happening for as long as there has been weather. I think one would be hard pressed to blame any one of them on climate change specifcally. Even if AGW were the cause, the scale of any individual flood that didn't span at least an entire sizeable country is simply far too small to generally attribute to it. Frankly, it looks to me like Mr. Nye is just using a catchy phrase ("climate change") to get press without putting some actual hard science behind his reasoning, which is kind of ironic, considering the full moniker he is publically known as.

My My

[sjames]

The Microsoft^w Exxon munchkins are out in force today.

Re:My My

[Deadstick]

They're thermoerotic...global warming gives them a boner.

Re:My My

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair I think anyone would have a hard time getting up when it gets too cold.

Bill Nye, The Peter Principle guy.

[Fragnet]

The man is a fucking idiot.

Bill Nye and Matlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting science from Bill Nye is like receiving legal representation from Matlock.

Why floods costs more now

[Anonymous Coward]

Once, people stood on the shore and looked out at the majesty of the world-spanning seas and said "What an awesome display of unstoppable power. Only a fool would build more than a shack close to Poseidon's realm."
Now, idiots stand on a beach and say "Hey, can we build a multi-billion dollar resort here? This looks like a fun spot."
This is why floods cost more.
Thank you

finally

[frovingslosh]

After all of the bad things said about climate change, it is nice to hear something positive for once.

Climate emergency

[mdsolar]

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein describes the situation with frequent 500 year floods and explosive wild fires as a climate emergency. https://youtu.be/7X_aqEr1vCY

Re:Climate emergency

[Anonymous Coward]

"Also, vaccines cause autism." - Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

Go sell crazy somewhere else, lady. We're all stocked up here.

Re:Climate emergency

[mdsolar]

Apparently not. https://youtu.be/5ehVIXtWXGk

Elevation

[Anonymous Coward]

Or could it possibly be living in an area that is below sea level? Not to mention subsidence due to subsurface sediment.

Not saying GW ain't a contributor, but it doesn't appear to be the proximal cause in this instance. Don't let science get in the way of your politics though.

Always had flooding.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have always had flooding, it's just now people build and rebuild in flood plains. Remember to buy flood insurance? Guarantee you a lot of these people who lost everything will simply rebuild same lot again and wait for it to happen again.

floods in Louisiana

[rubycodez]

Louisiana floods early and often, rather foolish to make a statement about climate based on a single weather event there. Maybe some other events in the USA would be better for the cause I'd think....

It is the fault of Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil white science denying Republicans drove around in their Hummers and created a catastrophic climate change that killed tens of millions of disadvantaged black and Latino children that were forced to live in poor neighbourhoods by the same evil while people. The nations premier scientist, Bill Nye, has confirmed this is a fact so it must be true.

The Good news is that President Obama has landed in New Orleans and the flood waters should be parting shortly. In order to prevent future catastrophes President Obama is imlpementng common sense gun legislation. This along with a program to tax white business that created this climatic change will prevent future floods in New Orleans.

   

Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, where the delta and floods are concerned: size matters.

Is he a real "scientist"?

[Sam36]

Seriously, I see him all over the net, doing interviews talking about creationists. Is he only a TV person or does he have an actually lab and published research data???

Re:Is he a real "scientist"?

[WalksOnDirt]

He is a science popularizer, not a scientist. He listens to the experts and echos what they say, but in a folksy way. I guess that's what a 'science guy' is. This doesn't mean he's wrong; he has a fairly good understanding of the climate issue. He is sometimes a little fuzzy on the details, though.

Re:Is he a real "scientist"?

[Oligonicella]

Correction, he listens to the experts he already agrees with and echos what they say.

Re:Is he a real "scientist"?

[GNious]

People like to say he's not a scientist, because he holds an engineering education, and used to work as an engineer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Is he a real "scientist"?

[david_thornley]

OK, what experts that he doesn't agree with does he ignore? There's really not much in the way of experts arguing against evolution or AGW.

Discrimination

[PatientZero]

Your altitudism is not welcome here.

Re:Discrimination

[rtb61]

You want to buy underwater front, well, you just have to expect it to go underwater :/.

It can be turned around, it is just a choice. Forget trillions of dollars in sea walls (the biggest being the one to keep sea levels down in the Mediterranean, serious dollars). Just use nuclear power stations to desalinate sea water and then irrigate the worlds deserts to produce food and this is the important part, turn the worlds current farm lands into dense, rich bio-diverse forest, problem solved and at far less cost that all those sea walls (you get mass water retention in those forests and new farmlands, improved reflectivity and heat absorption, mass carbon sinks and cities would be surrounded by air cleaning forests). Depending upon where the irrigated desert farmlands are, altered precipitation patterns as a result of transpiration should also flood below sea level, especially the newer higher one, current deserts (think places like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).

So just a choice, now what one do you think they will make, the care and share one, or trillions of dollars in sea wall profits or losses, depending upon who spends the money and who gets the money and losses, which regions get no protection and of course how many die when those walls fail and they will, one after another with tens of thousands drowning.

In the interim, absolutely do not invest in underwater front property, seriously bad choice. Now the worse prediction still does not allow for a mass methane release from once perma frost regions where decades become mere years.

Holy shit

[PatientZero]

I actually did LOL! Thanks, I really needed that.

Worthless statement

[Matt.Battey]

"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands..." is just an example of Bill Nye trying to impress his audience with his knowledge of the physical properties of water, and therefore he should be trusted as part of the Priestly Order of the Science Illuminati.

Of course the flooding in Louisiana has noting to do with the fact that the southern arch of the Jet Stream has been cycling over Nevada instead of Missouri for the past few weeks. In no way could this have been caused by cyclic El Niño warming in the Pacific causing an early breakdown of the Polar Vortex, enhanced by seasonal Atlantic low-pressure zones, which cause North America to experience increased hydraulic activity overall.

Nope, it's due to oceanic surface water expansion.

Re:Worthless statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he's attempting to reach Joe the Plumber and his ilk.

Re:Worthless statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was making two points and didn't eloquently deliver them. I read the second part as warmer water at the surface has a higher rate of evaporation than if the same water were cooler. I believe this is the case. Expansion would increase the overall surface area where evaporation can take place.

Re:Worthless statement

[Gussington]

Of course the flooding in Louisiana has noting to do with the fact that the southern arch of the Jet Stream has been cycling over Nevada instead of Missouri for the past few weeks.

And why is that?

In no way could this have been caused by cyclic El Niño warming in the Pacific causing an early breakdown of the Polar Vortex,

And what causes that?

enhanced by seasonal Atlantic low-pressure zones, which cause North America to experience increased hydraulic activity overall.

So why is different this year?

Nope, it's due to oceanic surface water expansion.

I'm not saying it has anything to do with Bill Nye or AGW, but all things you mention are clearly different from last year, is there a published model that predicts this behaviour?

Re:Worthless statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! And all that oceanic surface expansion is also what's caused all the extra powerful hurricanes that were predicted.... Oh... Wait...

Pangea? Climate change.

[Anonymous Coward]

The size and shape of our land, lakes, and oceans must always remain the same. If they change over the years, then climate change. If the weather is a little too extreme and not constantly the same, then climate change. If there's anything undesired by TPTB/alarmists, then climate change.

The scientific evidence

[Alain Williams]

suggests that what we are doing is changing the atmosphere and sea in ways that, amongst other things, increase the energy that drives weather systems. This increases the likelihood: that storms will be violent; that winds pick up more moisture from the sea - that has to fall later as rain; etc ... The predictions are silent about individual weather events, these will be more affected by local geography and placing, etc, of weather patterns on the day. In some cases: the energy changes will lead to local cooling or drying (or droughts).

So: we cannot point to an individual climatic event (ie storm or something) and say that it was caused, or made more extreme, by global warming. We can observe that overall things are getting worse - in ways that match the models that we have used to predict these effects.

The trouble is that many do not want to know: the effects are over many years "I'll be dead by then"; or are seen as costing more (eg moving from petrol [gas] to electric powered cars); global in nature "why should I do something when XX is not"; and are often far away:

• First the flooding happened in Louisiana, but I did nothing because I do not live in Louisiana.

  First the flooding happened in Eastern Australia, but I did nothing because I do not live in Eastern Australia.

  Then the flooding happened in Cumbria, England, but I did nothing because I do not live in Cumbria.

  Now the flooding is inundating my house, but there is no one to keep me dry.

With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller.

Re:The scientific evidence

[mspohr]

Zillow did a study that predicts 1.9 million homes in the US will be under water (literally) by 2100 at current projected sea level rise.
If sea levels rise as much as climate scientists predict by the year 2100, almost 300 U.S. cities would lose at least half their homes, and 36 U.S. cities would be completely lost.
http://www.zillow.com/research...

Re:The scientific evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

First the flooding happened in Louisiana, but I did nothing because I do not live in Louisiana.

First the flooding happened in Florida, but I did nothing because I do not live in Florida.

Then the flooding happened in California, but I did nothing because I do not live in California.

Then the flooding happened in New York, but I did nothing because I do not live in New york.

Then the flooding happened in Texas, but I did nothing because I do not live in Texas.

Then the flooding happened in (SNIP)

And now the flooding is happening in Minnesota, so I walked to the edge of the 200 meter high river bluff and watched it. Yeah, pretty cool looking.

Then I went home and made a sandwich.

Re:The scientific evidence

[david_thornley]

Now the flooding is inundating my house, but there is no one to keep me dry.

My house is over 200m above sea level and beyond any reasonable future river flooding, SUCKERS!

The best solution for Lousiana and Gulf aid

[WillAffleckUW]

The best solution for Louisiana and Gulf coast aid for storms is simple.

Rezone all new buildings for solar and wind power only.

And build them on stilts.

Don't accept excuses.

This will both help the locals - as solar gets more efficient due to global warming and revitalize American construction industries, since construction labor is local for the most part.

Anything else is a total and utter waste of time.

Oh, and cancel all flood insurance over $1 million for any residential property.

Let the market fix the problem, not the tax subsidized fossil fuel No Change communism.

Climate Non-Science

[mi]

They can explain everything, but are able to predict nothing. Internet is full of compilations of failed predictions, but the only "successful" ones are the useless statements like "it may get hotter, or colder". Yeah, right...

Tar-and-feathers beckon...

Re:Climate Non-Science

[dcollins]

https://science.slashdot.org/story/16/08/02/0124236/climate-change-contrarians-lose-big-betting-against-global-warming

Re:Climate Non-Science

[archer, the]

Because the real predictions (2C or 3C global temperature rise, more frequent and destructive storms, etc) are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it. It's like the ball metaphor in Minority Report. Climatologists are saying "The ball is going to hit the floor in a few decades", and deniers are saying "It hasn't hit yet, so it never will." Only in this case, the ball hitting the floor has serious consequences. But hey, who cares if we can start "catching" the ball today, and in the process, save more money than we spend as a result of cheaper energy and lower health care costs?

Re:Climate Non-Science

[gcswt]

It is a bit of a Catch-22 for sure, but it would help greatly if the political spinning was removed from the discourse. Climate Change is real but it has both positive and negative side effects for various peoples. It also doesn't necessitate a reversal since adaptation could be more practical and moral. I find people are far more receptive to the science if you frame it as a purely scientific observation and then discuss what options we have before us as a consequence of it rather than simply demand we try to reverse it. (Which is a purely political stance since there is no "right" climate.)

Re:Climate Non-Science

[mi]

Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it

Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.

Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.

Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...

Re:Climate Non-Science

[Anonymous Coward]

But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.

This is where you should stop, and look at what you're saying yourself.

You are, like most people, confused about the meaning of faith, and proof, and using that rhetorical stratagem to drive your argument.

But that's not correct.

See, there is evidence. It may not be definitive. But there is evidence. It even follows scientific protocol. When people, like you, choose to say "You're asking me to take it on faith" what you are doing is NOT making a good argument or even asking to be persuaded. It's a denial of any validity in terms of science by refusing to discuss science, and instead going for a philosophical approach.

But that's not genuine either, because you aren't showing any thoughtfulness.

You are drawing a line in the sand, and saying "I REFUSE TO LISTEN" yourself.

Because you're a sophist, with nothing to contribute to the discussion except feigned interest, but you will simply ignore everything.

Look, you want to discuss the science, you can, but first you have to admit that it exists, and belaboring all of us about faith is just a way to avoid discussing it so that you can pretend to make an argument of character.

But no, sir, the one lacking in character is yourself. Really, go play at the big boy table, stop wasting your time with blog posts.

Re:Climate Non-Science

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in fact the reason we should stop mocking around with the climate. The mathematical models we have are for closed systems in equilibrium, the earth is an open system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. So, we can't predict anything at all and maybe we never can.

Anyone trying to predict the outcome of dumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is basically guessing.

Re:Climate Non-Science

[archer, the]

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability: you could go to school and learn the physics that go into climate change. If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world. Whereas, if I went to seminary(?) school (apologies for not knowing the correct term), there's no way to guarantee God would ever speak to me.

If only 5% of the Louisiana damage was caused by climate change, that's $1B that could've been spent on green energy. That, in turn, would lead to reducing the pollution that causes breathing issues (asthma) or heavy metal poisoning (mercury in the fish we eat). If we don't burn coal, the mercury in the coal can't drift into the sea. If we did get off fossil fuels, that would save $361B to $886B annually.

Re:Climate Non-Science

[archer, the]

*Facepalm* Forgot to check the estimated Louisiana damage number. Current estimate is $30M, not $30B.

Re:Climate Non-Science

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. We should just take our science from Trump or Koch or whoever it is you support. It is hard to tell from your unfunny, sarcastic, polemic, trash website. Idiot.

Re:Climate Non-Science

[mi]

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

No, it is not enough. Because there are legitimate questions as to how it is measured, how the measurements are calibrated (including the scandal of some raw data disappearing), and what swings are normal. For example, Tasmania used to be connected to Australian mainland not too long ago. It is now an island. Do you think, the shamans of the aborigines living there blamed the sins of their contemporaries for the rising seas back then? Same question about Kodiak archipelago — it used to be reachable from Alaska, but is not any more. The Kodiak bears are now considered different species from mainland grizzlies... Is humanity to blame for that?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability

You try to find a prediction by "climate scientists", that uses a falsifiable "will" instead of the evasive non-falsifiable "may"... The scarcity of such statements itself is an indication, of the state of this sorry non-science... What you can find is as scientific and meaningful as the Geico's commercials: "15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more..."

If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world

I don't need to find errors — the purported "scientists" need to demonstrate, their discipline is really a science. And the only way to do that is by showing useful predictions, that have come true. I'm yet to see any.

Try it yourself: assemble a list of link-pairs:

1. The first link in each pair shall be to the prediction.
2. The second link each pair shall be to confirmation of the prediction materializing within, say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.
3. The link-targets in each pair must be several years apart — predicting tomorow's weather, for example, would not count.
4. The prediction must be somewhat meaningful: a promise, that it will get hotter or colder, is not acceptable.

Give it your best... Can you offer at least 3 such link-pairs?

Re:Climate Non-Science

[Anonymous Coward]

say 20% of the predicted value(s), if quantifiable.

You are not qualified to say whether the predictions are accurate to any arbitrary percentage.

People are bored with giving you your "link pairs" because [a] you ignore them, and [b] predictions have no affect on the validity of the theory whether they are false or true. If you're going to dispute the consensus (and the evidence for it) you need a single fact to the contrary. Clearly you don't know how any of this works, so we're not going to strain your brain trying to get you to understand any of it, but you're arguing against relativity here. Loudly stamping your feet is not going to accomplish anything.

Re:Climate Non-Science

[Anonymous Coward]

They can explain everything, but are able to predict nothing. Internet is full of compilations of failed predictions, but the only "successful" ones are the useless statements like "it may get hotter, or colder". Yeah, right...

Tar-and-feathers beckon...

I reckon the continually increasing temperature averaged over the surface of the globe averaged over a twenty or thirty year moving average timespan for the past century or so is a bit more than nothing.

Bill Nye?

[p51d007]

IS AN lDIOT. End of discussion.

Lack of hurricanes? Current Northeast drought?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, Got it. Higher temperatures, more space between molecules, higher evaporation, more rain.

So, does this also explain?

1) The lack of hurricanes the US is experiencing..."This is the country's longest "hurricane drought" in recorded history, or since 1851, the researchers said. The previous record lull lasted eight years, from 1861 to 1868, they said." ( http://www.livescience.com/50704-hurricane-drought.html ).

2) The current, Northeast drought...http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/RegionalDroughtMonitor.aspx?northeast

I too earned and engineering degree long ago. I am hoping to learn how to selectively apply logic to become relevant in fields I virtually know nothing about.

I think the molecules just hate Louisiana.

Bill Nye, science denier

[GPS Pilot]

Nye hasn't published any papers on this topic. Let's look at what real scientists have found.

Even as Al Gore was trying to scare everyone into believing that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing, Dr. R.N. Maue analyzed actual data and found just the opposite:

Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity
Abstract
Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.
- R.N. Maue, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University

And there are plenty of studies that show increasing global temperature causes reduced storm activity. One such study published in Quaternary Science Reviews is summarized here.

Re: Bill Nye, science denier

[riverat1]

Your reference to a paper on tropical cyclones is a non sequitur since the storm that caused this flooding was not a tropical cyclone.

Re:Bill Nye, science denier

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming or not, it's important to note that you don't have to have a tropical cyclone to get a metric f*ck load of rain. Additionally, the immediate flooding damage from tropical cyclones is generally caused by a storm surge, not the rain. You can get additional flooding later on if the storm stalls out over land and causes the rivers to rise downstream. So, while the study is valid, it doesn't apply in this particular case. This flooding is being caused by a lot of rain and it's possible that Mr. Nye's explanation is correct.
 
/grew up on the gulf coast... still wondering if it washing away would be a bad thing
//has an engineering degree which makes me as much of a climate expert as Mr. Nye.

Re:Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechani

[mrun4982]

It shouldn't take more than a high school education to talk about and understand climate change.

Whatever

[sunking2]

Explain 40 days and 40 nights of rain in a time where there was virtual no man made CO2 emissions. You can go back through history and find plenty of times where more rain has fallen.

Re:Whatever

[Falconhell]

Explain the delusions of ancient middle eastern goat herders, youre really desperate in your denial arent you.

Re:Whatever

[Gussington]

I'd like to know how Noah got the Kangaroos from Australia to the Middle East, then delivered them back again afterwards. This is a greater miracle than building a big boat.
And don't get me started on fresh and salt water fish...

Re:Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you just trading one sky fairy for another?

Weather is climate

[Anonymous Coward]

Weather is climate... when it suits our purpose.

Bill Nye might just as well have taken a snowball into Congress.

Bill Nye is the product

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye is a product of Global Warming.

Confirmation Bias Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Many years ago climate scientists (alarmists) warned we were entering an era of hurricane Armageddon with global warming causing a far greater number of hurricanes that will also have far greater intensity. You don't hear that anymore. Why? Because we've had a very extended period of extremely low hurricane activity for many years. Based on their original hype you'd have to conclude the globe is actually cooling instead.

Now we have one bad storm. What helped cause it? Global warming. B.S. This is just what happens when any end of the world cult gets going -- it tries to fit events into prophecies as signs of the end times. In this case it's the prophecies made by climate scientists. When proven wrong over and over they are quickly forgotten (I could name so many), but when the end times cult can shoehorn in an event to match a prophecy (such as increased storm intensity) they believe it so fervently as it confirms their religious faith.

pathetic

[ooloorie]

Increasing frequency and severity of storms may well be a result of climate change, although when it comes to flooding, there are many factors involved.

But, let's look at Bill Nye's explanation:

"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands," Nye explained. "Molecules spread apart, and then as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates, and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects."

The only thing that explanation shows is that Bill Nye is not a scientist, but a clown. International scientists didn't "concur" with Bill Nye, most international scientists aren't even aware of the existence of Bill Nye. The fact that this guy is the president of the Planetary Society is a disgrace to the society and the the memory of Carl Sagan.

Re:pathetic

[WalksOnDirt]

Ok, we already knew that Bill Nye is not a scientist, and in particular not a climatologist, but let's look at what he said in detail.

As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands.

That seems true enough.

Molecules spread apart,

Redundant with what he just said, but ok.

and then as the sea surface is warmer, more water evaporates,

There's a bit more to than that, but in the real world that's correct.

and so it's very reasonable that these storms are connected to these big effects.

That's a little fuzzy. We might guess that the rainfall goes up with the water in the air, which is around 7% over the last century or two. Seven percent isn't all that much of the recent rain in Louisiana. Other effects of global warming might raise or lower that estimate significantly.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

How long can you tread water?

Re:pathetic

[ooloorie]

The point is that portion where he said "As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands. Molecules spread apart," is just scientific babbling. Neither ocean expansion nor "molecules spreading apart" are explanations for increased water evaporation at higher temperatures. The fact that Nye talks with confidence as if these were relevant to evaporation tells you that he isn't just "not a scientist", it tells you that he is confabulating even when reporting on science.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nyeve, the seance guy.

Oh, so THAT's why ice sinks!

[Anonymous Coward]

...Because the cold water molecules pack more tightly together.

Nice try, non-science guy.

Re:Oh, so THAT's why ice sinks!

[Anonymous Coward]

You took Nye's statement that colder liquid water is dense, and applied it to your knowledge about water and buoyancy. Good job.

Unfortunately for you, the conclusion that you drew-- that his assertion about liquid water was false, is incorrect. The lower density of ice in comparison to liquid water prior to phase change, is caused by the structure of ice itself.

I bet Nye knows the answer to that. You are clearly the non-science guy.

Louisiana is historically swamp.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fanboats are the new river ferry. If it wasnt a PMS escape into a boat then the first vacation home in Louidiana was a boat dockhouse right next to the slave smuggler and tax evader and bootlegger and alligayor huntsman.

All the modern residents are insurance fraud participants like those bastards building 10$ million beachfront houses where was supposed to be a parkinglot for beach go'ers or launchramp and nature refuge. Fuck these losers. Boohoo!

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Exactly my thought. If I was building in Louisiana after 2005, my house would be a houseboat, on dry land, with pylons, and the back of the garage would have a boat in it.

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[hucker75]

Anyone building their house too low is an idiot. I don't care if they drown.

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[AK Marc]

How low is that? What percent of the US population lives at that elevation?

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[PopeRatzo]

If I was building in Louisiana after 2005, my house would be a houseboat, on dry land, with pylons, and the back of the garage would have a boat in it.

And all the sofa cushions should be flotation devices.

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[PopeRatzo]

There are at least 20 big US cities with lower elevation than Baton Rouge, LA, and most of them are coastal.

Re: Louisiana is historically swamp.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Netherlands want a word with you.

And no, we do not want Manhattan back, but we might be able to help otherwise

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[hucker75]

Then I wouldn't live there, unless the housing was VERY cheap.

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[PopeRatzo]

Then I wouldn't live there, unless the housing was VERY cheap.

last time I checked, housing in New York, Miami, Atlanta is not exactly cheap.

Re:Louisiana is historically swamp.

[hucker75]

Then there are a lot of stupid people. Waters come up in storms and when barriers fail.

Re:Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechani

[Anonymous Coward]

* claps *

It couldnt have anything to do with

[Grand Facade]

the Army Corp of Engineers not maintaining the dykes????

Re:It couldnt have anything to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

the Army Corp of Engineers not maintaining the dykes????

Well, since don't ask don't tell has been reversed and homosexuals can serve openly, this situation should improve.

Re:It couldnt have anything to do with

[Anonymous Coward]

the Army Corp of Engineers not maintaining the dykes????

that should be less of a problem since they ended don't ask don't tell.

Another factor

[meerling]

I suspect that the lack of proper maintenance and repair of the anti-flood infrastructure is also a definite part of it.

And... Then there's actual science

[mattwarden]

I actually don't thin Bill is saying it's the result of climate change. He is saying it is consistent with what we would expect from climate change. And then I can't tell if Bill or the journoclown is getting it wrong by making the leap that THEREFORE it was the result of climate change. Of course that does not follow logically.

The power of statistics is such that we would need many decades of data before we could theoretically detect that climate change is indeed changing the frequency or intensity of these events. Truth is that things like floods APPEAR to be dropping when measured in meaningful ways.

When people make these statements, they are worse than people who deny science. They are pretending to be scientific when being quite the opposite.

There are sane people out there. They are rare. But they exist. Here is one: https://youtu.be/meoETyMA4K0

Re: And... Then there's actual science

[curt.wetzel]

I had an interesting conversation with a climate scientist on a flight a couple years back and he had a point that stuck with me. Weather events like storms generally form a bell curve of intensities. The theory of global warming predicts that there will be more moisture and energy in the storms. If this were the case, we would expect the bell curve to shift in the direction of more energetic storms. Since the really extreme storms are very rare to start with, any increase in probability makes those types of events far more common relative to their very low baseline probability. So he suggested that rare and extreme events are precisely where to look if you wanted to see evidence of the effects of global warming. Of course the shape of the bell curve could also change so this won't prove anything if you are skeptical of global warming. In that case recommend strategy 2 for determining if AGW is real... Wait a couple years. If it really is happening, it will become Very Clear at some point in the near future. Hopefully it becomes clear before we cross over any horrific tipping points like the clathrate gun or massive crop failures in Midwest America. (Remember those reverse sinkholes in Siberia a few years back... Just saying)

Re: And... Then there's actual science

[mattwarden]

But that is precisely the point. Extreme weather events are a part of the normal (no pun intended) distribution. So extreme weather events are ambiguous information. You need many decades of data to determine if the distribution is shifted or flattened with a confidence level required.

Idiot! Weather is NOT climate!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill is a science-denier and climate-change-denier who denies the climate has always changed and always will change no matter what people do.

He is also apparently very stupid. All the climate panic people keep telling me that only ignorant boneheads confuse weather events with climate..... unless of course the weather event in question can be twisted into climate evidence they like.

Science says people are just evolved animals. Even if we ARE having an influence on climate, that's normal; it's what we do. Tigers eat other animals - that's what they do and it's not murder. Moose poop in the woods - that's what they do and it's not pollution. We are upright apes who burn things and produce CO2 - it's what we do. There is no scientific basis for any imposed artificial abstraction like morality in these matters, and humans have no more "responsibility" to not do what we naturally do than any other species. Who would we be responsible to? Future generations? Do Bears care about their 4th generation descendants? Does it even matter if they HAVE 4th generation descendants? Why are humans any different? Scientific answers only please, not sentimental mealy-mouthed fluff or phony spiritualism/mysticism, and please remember that the untire universe eventually ends with a big crunch or at absolute zero.

Funny Stuff Bill. Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

""As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands,""

Now I feel all edjamakated.

Sanity check

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do all the rich jerks who screm about impending global floods and demanding we all severely limit our middle-class lifestyles keep buying so much expensive sea-side luxury properties?

If these dirtbag hypocrits are so certain every pound of CO emitted is another coffin nail for the Earth, then why do they keep flying around in private jets and riding on so many gas-guzzling super-yachts to climate confabs at exotic resort locations, while running airconditioning to chill their super-mansions? Why are they wasting vast amounts of electricity on "social networking" internet activity, not just as they produce it but as people consume it 24/7 and why are they wasting so much energy making and showing TV shows and movies and music? None of that energy use is strictly-speaking needed by humanity. If the future of humanity and the Earth is truly on the line, then what's up with all the frivolous energy use by people who claim "Earth in the Balance"???

Re:Sanity check

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why, because it's a global scam the likes of which the world has never seen. It's basis is called "UN Agenda 21", and the goal is 95% population reduction by the year 2050. Keep that in mind when you feel that the ultra-rich elites are acting hypocritical. Remember 95% population reduction. Say it again, 95% population reduction. That's what they want, period.

Bill Maher said it best...

[curt.wetzel]

World record typhoons year after year, 500 year droughts, 139 deg F record high tempratures, 14 months of global heat record in a row... "How far is Al Gore going to take this global warming hoax?"

If I could interrupt the victim-blaming for a sec

[Uberbah]

This isn't anything close to a normal flood. This is a once-in-a-thousand-years flood. Areas were underwater that had been flood-free for hundreds of years. Would you have 'had it coming' if your house got washed away, in flood waters not seen in your area since Gengis Khan was tromping around Asia?

Re:But of course TSARKON reports

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm. Tsarkon.

GPS Pilot, right-wing wanker

[Uberbah]

Nye hasn't published any papers on this topic. Let's look at what real scientists have found.

Even as Al Gore was trying to scare everyone into believing that the frequency and intensity of cyclones was in the process of skyrocketing,

So.....Bill Nye is a science denier.....because you drank the hatorade on Al Gore??

Dr. R.N. Maue

Who has a doctorate in meteorology, not climate science, so you might want to ease up with that 'not a real scientist' attack least it hit your appeals-to-authority fallacy in the face in the process.

Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity

Annnnnd now from actual climate scientists: It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity. You look at a list of the most powerful hurricanes/cyclones and it's going to be heavy with storms in the last 20 years. Looking at the 8 most powerful to make landfall, six of them have been since 1998.

Re:GPS Pilot, right-wing wanker

[ebvwfbw]

Looking at the 8 most powerful to make landfall, six of them have been since 1998.

And if you go back further, you'll see we've had a swell time recently. Check out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for example. Could go on and on. Check out - http://www.livescience.com/143... to understand that we're really returning to where we were about 1000 years ago.

Did you look at their last graph from 1880 on? That doesn't line up with the CO2 levels worth a damn. I know, it's science. Requires thought.

You know about the scientific method, don't you? If you have one counter example to your theory, the theory is wrong. We have plenty of examples where it's wrong. Even if you throw the data prior to the 1920s out, there is the fact that the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century. Even if you throw that out and consider the past 30 years. To a real scientist like myself, this is all very clear even by inspection.

Yes, we are warming, isn't due to CO2. Is it man? Could be in part, find the cause(s) first then we can consider if it's man or mother nature. Off hand, it's looking like mother nature. Can we do something about it? Maybe. Let's all agree it's not CO2 first and look for some real causes. Stop the politicizing (money making out of BS) of science. We have plenty of other BS to deal with already.

Re:GPS Pilot, right-wing wanker

[Layzej]

we're really returning to where we were about 1000 years ago.

We've blown past where we were even 6000 years ago at the peak of the current inter-glacial. And FAST! It's all occurred since industrialization.

There is the fact that the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century

Not even close.

Did you look at their last graph from 1880 on? That doesn't line up with the CO2 levels worth a damn.

The cyclical variations from PDO/ENSO/etc on top of the secular warming from CO2 explain each peak and valley in the temperature record quite well. It is naive to think that you would have a monotonic rise in temperatures that matched the monotonic rise in CO2. This is certainly not what the models show.

Here's a neat tool you can use to explore this. Set CO2 to 2.4 and PDO to 0.13 and you already have a pretty good match to the temperature record.

Re:GPS Pilot, right-wing wanker

[Uberbah]

You know about the scientific method, don't you? If you have one counter example to your theory, the theory is wrong. We have plenty of examples where it's wrong.

Wow, you sound like those guys who, upon hearing about the dangers of smoking, ask why people who don't smoke get cancer, and then nominate themselves for a Nobel prize. We are fortunate to be graced your intellect.

Re:GPS Pilot, right-wing wanker

[ebvwfbw]

There is the fact that the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century

Not even close.

That's what a little knowledge will do to you. You're way in over your head and you don't even know it. Looks like they're removing stuff now. I used to be able to find the paper that Hansen had to admit the 1930s was the hottest decade of the 20th century. He lied about it and got caught, though he claimed it was a Y2K error and not a lie. In my humble opinion, his successor is lying a lot more. That's why every month this year has been a "record." Even featured here on slashdot it's so suspicious, so it's a captain obvious moment. I know true blue cool aid drinking believers believe it.

This site has actual photos of newspaper articles. Those stubborn facts again-
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...

Yet another analysis:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Did you look at their last graph from 1880 on? That doesn't line up with the CO2 levels worth a damn.

The cyclical variations from PDO/ENSO/etc on top of the secular warming from CO2 explain each peak and valley in the temperature record quite well. It is naive to think that you would have a monotonic rise in temperatures that matched the monotonic rise in CO2. This is certainly not what the models show.

Here's a neat tool you can use to explore this. Set CO2 to 2.4 and PDO to 0.13 and you already have a pretty good match to the temperature record.

I understand you're not a scientist. However for God sakes, look at the data! Go into the distant past to present! Analyze it! Come up with a theory! You'll see in short order CO2 falls apart as a cause, clearly. Another clue is they want to put people in jail that disagree with man made GW. Classic sign they're wrong and they know it. Otherwise, they'd present real science. You know, using the scientific method. Data, results, you can do it too and come up with the same results.

What's very frustrating to me is I've predicted this for 20 years that their models wouldn't hold up and I've been right. They continue to fail as long as they're based on CO2.

Wonder why I haven't been responding? I have a recipe to save anything from you off to the side. I don't even see it. I came across this one by chance. So I figured I'd try to enlighten you again even though I'm sure I failed. You have a really big problem. You have to overcome those stubborn articles from the past that show MMGW is bullshit. Good luck with that.

Re:GPS Pilot, right-wing wanker

[ebvwfbw]

You know about the scientific method, don't you? If you have one counter example to your theory, the theory is wrong. We have plenty of examples where it's wrong.

Wow, you sound like those guys who, upon hearing about the dangers of smoking, ask why people who don't smoke get cancer, and then nominate themselves for a Nobel prize. We are fortunate to be graced your intellect.

*WOW* you're fast. Hopefully that's not what your wife says.

No. The scientific method worked. It showed it did cause cancer. The experiments weren't only reproduceable, they were very definitive. Very conclusive. Today we've come a very long way with cancer due to science. Real science. For those that said they've smoked for decades and didn't get cancer - good for them. We know what's in smoke that is breathed in, it's nasty. Only a fool would do it.

It's very disingenuous to make a comparison like that, and you should know it. If you bothered to pull up the link, you can see the news articles, compare that with the NASA data, it shows they're changing the data to fool people like you. Small wonder, they have trillions at stake if you believe it or not.

Funny you mention the Nobel prize. What a disgrace they are. Did you know who *Didn't* get the nobel so Al Gore could get his for a laughable power point presentation? One that's been shown to be wrong over and over again? Irena Sendler. Then they outdid themselves by awarding the Nobel to Obama before he even put his clothes in the white house, for not being GW Bush. If they were to consider him now, I don't think there's any danger he would get the Nobel.

Worthless wanker projection

[Uberbah]

"As the ocean gets warmer, which it is getting, it expands..." is just an example of Bill Nye trying to impress his audience with his knowledge of the physical properties of water, and therefore he should be trusted as part of the Priestly Order of the Science Illuminati.

You're the 101st poster gangbanging that chicken. She's pretty worn out by this point, could you give her a break?

Re:Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechani

[Rexdude]

Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering.

Incorrect usage of appeal to authority. Nye or anyone else isn't making the case that he himself is an expert, in all his views on the subject he points to the science (worked on by climatologists and others who are qualified to discuss the subject). Nye's popularity is because of his presenting science in a form that's easy and interesting for the general public to understand. His TV show alone has inspired thousands of kids to take up science careers. His own academic background is irrelevant, he could be a mime artist for all it matters, since he's not claiming to be an expert on what he talks about.

Bill Nye

[Anonymous Coward]

Hay Bill Nye, the climate has been changing every since the world was created! Bill Nye is at a 5th grade science level. I thought he was smart when i was a kid, then I realized he was not bright as all, just a guy that had a TV program doing simple science experiments.

Re:Bill Nye

[Anonymous Coward]

How insightful coming from someone who can't seem to use punctuate properly and would rather use long run on sentences that meander and go no where.

Re: But of course TSARKON reports

[riverat1]

During the Jurassic the Sun was also dimmer than it is now and the configuration of the continents was completely different. You can't compare the two periods without taking that into account.

Re:Bill Nye only has a bachelors degree in mechani

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, it shouldn't, but given the average high school graduate these days... -PCP

Bunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye "The Sell Out Guy"

Scary Numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Average temp of ocean water: 17 degrees C
Relative density change going from 17 to 18 degrees C: 0.000179
Average depth of ocean water: 3688m
Increase in water level going from 17 to 18 degrees C: 0.7m

I'm glad it's only surface water expansion!

Re:Scary Numbers

[abies]

I don't think that ocean is 17C all the way to the bottom.

http://www.windows2universe.or...

Basically, below 1000m you can assume it is 4C.

Um.. Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

So the ocean expands (by ~mm per year). Which causes floods (~10ft per day). Guess we now know why you are a children's entertainer and not an actual scientist.

Idiocracy the reality

[freedom_surfer]

It used to be you could wade through the filth and stupidity on Slashdot and find some great humor, interesting insights and enlightening information....now its like looking for a needle in a haystack, except the haystack is a boiling broth of crazy and there is no way you aren't worse off for having looked for the needle in the first place...Sigh...

Ignorant Bll Nye Do Your Research

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone from the affected areas I call BS. These rainfall totals are far from unprecedented. Of course doing such
trivially easier research would be an affront to the religious faith called Global Warming->Climate Change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Louisiana_hurricane

Not just rain events

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change does not mean we never get cold weather, huge snow events, like those experienced the last couple of years on the East coast are also the result of the extra moisture in the air. Some people cannot wrap their heads around that fact & think dragging a snowball onto the Senate floor negates actual science.

When the planets align

[RogueWarrior65]

I just love it when I have mod points and a global warming story pops up. Sadly, I spent my mod points on the other global warming story today.

If Bill Nye Ever had Any Credibility

[BECoole]

he lost it on this one. Water does not expand when it gets warmer, it expands when it freezes.

  You'd think even a BS Mech E would know that.

Little Chicken

[Anonymous Coward]

The rain is falling! The rain is falling!

Not a climate scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer and a comedy actor. "Bill Nye the Science Guy" grew out of his comedy acting, so forgive me if I laugh at his "scientific" pronouncements.

Bill Nye

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure that he believes what he's saying. It sure is a good way to stay in the spotlight while supporting UN global socialism though.

Re:Funny Stuff Bill. Funny Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds almost exactly like a science project I completely, 100% faked in 1993 that went on to win both the city and then the regional science fairs. It even won a special award from the Association of Geoscientists or some such nonsense. I was in the seventh grade, and that day at the local college that was hosting the regional fair, was the day that I learned all I needed to know about science and fabricating data to get the results you want. Bluffing and sounding authoritative got me far, and I was a 12-year old kid. Imagine if I had a Ph.D!

Only one problem, . . .

[HiroKawabata]

. . . Nye is making it up: "The resolution dependence of contiguous US precipitation extremes in response to CO2 forcing" http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... "Finally, the observed record and historical model experiments were used to investigate changes in the recent past. In part because of large intrinsic variability, no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record." That's why one should not get one's science from a cult of scientism hack, er, activist.

California not experiencing climate change?

[superdave80]

I'm curious. When there is flooding due to heavy rains, it is because of climate change that makes the oceans warmer, etc. Does that mean that California (in a severe drought for the last several years), is NOT experiencing climate change? We would kill for some flooding around here.

Climate change is responsible for everything

[billd10]

What a science guy is Bill Nye...maybe it is hot air from people like him that is causing climate change. As the earth warms up, molecules are more active, so why not blame the recent earthquakes on climate change? After all, as in all religions, people must pay for their sins.

Anything happens anywhere and it's a sign of Globa

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's too hot, it's Global Warming.
If it's too cold, it's Global Warming.
If it's too dry, it's Global Warming.
If it's too wet, it's Global Warming.
                            .
                            .
                            .
It's Global Warming. It cannot be because of normal variations in the weather, or people building where no one in their right mind would build, or solar activity fluctuations, or ... . The answer is always, it's Global Warming. How else do you keep the dollars flowing to certain scientists?

From the clutching at straws department

[Anonymous Coward]

So desperate for traction, any disaster will do. I hear all the earthquakes lately are climate change too! :P

If Bill is such a great expert on climate...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why didn't he stop Bush and a bipartisan Congress from rebuilding New Orleans in the exact, same spot after Katrina leveled it for free, when they must've known the "sea would expand from the heat" and will inevitably drown the city again within a few short years? If global warming is real, then they must have seen this coming, why weren't they watching for it, why weren't they out there building dikes or whatever before they knew they'd be needed? In fact, why didn't they have the resources for emergency sandbagging that would've stopped the flooding on hand when the rain started? Why is global warming only something we can identify in retrospect?

Climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

As the ocean gets warmer it expands and the molecules get further apart, sheesh I learnt that when I was about 8. Any professorships going your way.

Well, that's the disproven Al Gore model

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Al and all his alarmist pals were pointing at Katrina and saying that global warming was driving an increase in the number and severity of hurricaines and thus caused Katrina? Remember when they blamed Katrina on Bush and the "big oil" [companies], (which was purely coincidental with their political oppositon to Bush, of course) then backed-off on Katrina and said it would cause a growing number of Katrina-like events and liberal politicians and policies were needed to save the planet?

yeah, well:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams, founding father and second President of the USA

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower (in his farewell addrress, right after warning about a "military-industrial complex")

Here's the recorded history of Hurricaines

The Conspiracy Theory Detector

[Layzej]

You're way in over your head and you don't even know it.

XD

Looks like they're removing stuff now.

What, every single group that does temperature reconstructions is "removing stuff" and just happen to end up with the exact same answer? That's one hell of a conspiracy theory! It's item 4 on the conspiracy theory detector.

In my humble opinion, his successor is lying a lot more. That's why every month this year has been a "record."

So, nothing to do with the El Nino? That's item 10 on the conspiracy theory detector.

Even featured here on slashdot it's so suspicious,

That one's off the chart.

This site has actual photos of newspaper articles.

But isn't discussing global temperatures so is not really relevant to our discussion...

Those stubborn facts again-

Well, yeah :)

Yet another analysis:

Also not discussing global temperatures...

I understand you're not a scientist. However for God sakes, look at the data! Go into the distant past to present! Analyze it! Come up with a theory!

We've already got one, and as I've shown, the data fits quite well!

Another clue is they want to put people in jail that disagree with man made GW.

Yes. Clue #7

What's very frustrating to me is I've predicted this for 20 years that their models wouldn't hold up

Yes. That's got to be frustrating given how well they have!

Wonder why I haven't been responding? I

Because you're losing our bet so badly and because of how cocky and condescending you were when you entered it and because you're not particularly fond of the taste of crow?

How can we turn this into a good thing?

[martinfb]

Perhaps direct a chunk of this heavy precipitation to the western USA to relieve some drought!