Say, Can the Caribbean Survive ‘Climate Change’?

More fear-mongering

Well, I guess all those Caribbean countries/properties should stop allowing fossil fueled flights to their nations for tourism. And fossil fueled boats for tourism and fishing expeditions. And fossil fueled vehicles to move tourists around. And fossil fueled deliveries from outside their countries for food, clothing, goods, etc.

Philipsburg, Sint Maarten—Franklin, middle-aged inhabitant of the Caribbean island of Saint Martin, cocked his head when I asked him about climate change. “There is already a lot of flooding because of storm surges in hurricane season,” he said, his ebony brow creased. “If the sea level rises four feet, then Philipsburg is gone.” Philipsburg is the capital of the Dutch side of the island, Sint Maarten, a major receiver of cruise ships, with its Front Street a collage of high-end shopping and outlets for island specialties like guavaberry liqueur. The UN estimates that the oceans will rise at least four feet in the next eight decades.

There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of measurements for Sint Maarten (that is the proper spelling), a property of the Netherlands to the east of the Virgin Islands, but, let’s look nearby.

  • San Juan, Puerto Rico shows a 2.08mm per year rise, equivalent to .68 feet over 100 years
  • The short data for Charlotte Amalie, US Virgin Islands, is 2.07mm, so, same as San Juan
  • Magueyes Island, Puerto Rico, is 1.75mm, so .57 feet over 100 years

So, not “at least four feet.” Not even close.

Flooding from storm surge during hurricane season? How is that in any way unusual? Especially since it is on the northeastern edge of the Caribbean?

The rest is the typical apocalyptic apoplectic scare mongering based on junk science. Should we be using those quotes like the media likes to use, “science”?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

41 Responses to “Say, Can the Caribbean Survive ‘Climate Change’?”

  1. Blick says:

    Global warming is the fault of Daylight Savings. That extra hour of sunlight each day makes the summer days hotter and warms the oceans which then expand.

  2. Navyvet says:

    Lets see. The warmists have been wrong 100% of the time with all their predictions in the last 35 years. It was 35 years ago or so that the warmists were actually coolists predicting the next ice age. So why would anyone, even the wackos, believe this b.s.?http://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/msn_laugh.gif

  3. Jeffery says:

    Navyvet,

    Let’s see. The Earth is warming just a predicted.

    • JGlanton says:

      No it’s not warming just as predicted. Not even remotely. Or droughting, or storming, or melting, or rising as predicted. It’s not doing anything as predicted. The only thing following predictions are the percentage of gullible weak-brained humans that follow doomsday cult leaders.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Glans,

    Maybe I wasn’t clear. The Earth is warming just as predicted.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Just like CNN, you’re wrong and you suck.

    • If by “just as predicted” you mean “the Holocene features alternating periods of cooling and warming”, yup.

      If you mean as predicted by the computer models and scaremongering from Warmists, not.

      Once again, the debate is not on warming: it is on causation.

  5. Zachriel says:

    GISTEMP, 1980-present: +0.177°C/decade
    GISTEMP, 2000-present: +0.208°C/decade

    UAHv5.6 TLT, 1980-present: +0.159°C/decade
    UAHv5.6 TLT, 2000-present: +0.197°C/decade

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png

        Hmm. The chart looks very similar to body temperature in degrees Kelvin tracking a person from health to death by fever.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Uh, but it’s not.

          • Zachriel says:

            You ignored two points: 1) Graphs can be crafted to make significant differences look insignificant; 2) Small differences can be significant.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Uh, no. Y’all claimed the graph represented something other than what it does.
            Again you’re wrong.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Y’all claimed the graph represented something other than what it does.

            We said, “The chart looks very similar to body temperature in degrees Kelvin tracking a person from health to death by fever,” which it does, as both show a nearly level graph from health to death.

            The two points: 1) Graphs can be crafted to make significant differences look insignificant; 2) Small differences can be significant.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            No, there is no pretense involved on my part.
            Y’all said the graph was like using degrees Kelvin to measure bodily temperature of a human.
            That conflation or pretense is on you.
            Are the temps in the graph incorrect?
            Are they misleading?
            If you can’t answer the questions I asked why do you accuse me of disengaging?

        • david7134 says:

          dp,
          It is obvious that Z is still early in his/her/thems education. As such, they have only had the first part of statics, that is obvious from an earlier post. They need to take the next semester which shows how to lie with stats and grafts. Anyone who uses these modalities should well know the lying part.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            They heard that there’s some job opportunities opening up at CNN.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: It is obvious that Z …

            Not an argument. An actual argument would address the points raised, and why the comments do not properly address ‘statics‘.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Again you’re referring to a something that you made up.

            Please tell us how the graph submitted earlier…
            https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png
            represents anything other than the Annual GISS temps in Farenheit from 1880-2016.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: epresents anything other than the Annual GISS temps in Farenheit from 1880-2016

            Pretending you don’t get the point isn’t any more an argument than saying “Is not!” even if you say it over and over again.

            In any case, GISS is a measurement of temperature anomaly, not absolute temperature. But that’s the minor problem with the graph. To understand that, you have to actually respond to the points raised: 1) Graphs can be crafted to make significant differences look insignificant; 2) Small differences can be significant.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          And I replied “but it’s not.”
          Then you typed I was missing two points.
          Uh, no. The chart is self explanatory.
          Y’all missed the only point.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: And I replied “but it’s not.”

            Right. Saying “Is not!” is not an argument.

            drowningpuppies: The chart is self explanatory.

            To which we raised two points: 1) Graphs can be crafted to make significant differences look insignificant; 2) Small differences can be significant.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            What is misrepresented?
            What significant differences are made to look insignificant?
            What small differences are significant?

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: What is misrepresented?

            We didn’t say the data was misrepresented (even though climate scientists work with anomalies rather than absolute temperatures).

            drowningpuppies: What significant differences are made to look insignificant? What small differences are significant?

            A global surface temperature difference of several degrees Fahrenheit will result in significant climatic change. The graph is a transparent attempt to minimize the difference. We provided a similar example, body temperature in degrees Kelvin which minimizes the significant of a different of a few degrees with regards to bodily health.

            That you refuse to engage the point rather makes the point.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            The graph is a transparent attempt to minimize the difference.

            Is it? Again, how is it minimized? Transparent to whom?

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Again, how is it minimized?

            The usual way, by choice of scale; in this case, starting from -40°F to +120°F to represent a phenomenon which varies only a few degrees. Similarly, by representing body temperature in absolute (K) degrees, there will be very little visible difference between normal body temperature and a fatal fever; yet most humans would consider the difference to be “significant”.

            But you knew that already, so not sure what you are trying to accomplish.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Again you’re referring to a something that you made up.

            Please tell us how the graph submitted earlier…
            https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/image6.png
            represents anything other than the Annual GISS temps in Farenheit from 1880-2016.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: represents anything other than the Annual GISS temps in Farenheit from 1880-2016

            Pretending you don’t get the point isn’t any more an argument than saying “Is not!” even if you say it over and over again.

            In any case, GISS is a measurement of temperature anomaly, not absolute temperature. But that’s the minor problem with the graph. To understand that, you have to actually respond to the points raised: 1) Graphs can be crafted to make significant differences look insignificant; 2) Small differences can be significant.

  6. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: If by “just as predicted” you mean “the Holocene features alternating periods of cooling and warming”, yup.

    The scientific evidence indicates that the alternation of icy and non-icy conditions during the Holocene is due to variations in Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles), along with various other forcings and feedbacks. What will those crazy scientists come up with next?!

  7. Jeffery says:

    TEACH typed: Once again, the debate is not on warming: it is on causation.

    Yet you posted a poorly sourced and dishonest story from The Daily Caller claiming that all the warming is due to data adjustments by dishonest scientists.

    Which is it? If it’s not warming why did you type the above? If it is warming, why did you post the Daily Caller piece?

    Cognitive dissonance is diagnostic of the right-wing authoritarian “mind”. You hold two mutually exclusive views, just as trump blames President Obama for the Russian cyber attack that trump claims didn’t happen.

    Putin today: “Russia not involved in hack, and trump “agreed” with me.”

    trump is a traitor.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      This is… CNN.

    • david7134 says:

      Obama, worst, most corrupt president of all time. Trump is great and we are winning. Keep it up. Jeff is just upset that his religion is now dead and that we will not have global communistic government.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Scientists have known for at least a century that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase in temperature. Just as predicted.

    The entire world (except for the ignorant trump and his followers) understand.

  9. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    This issue is only over for the US, and only for now. The rest of world is moving forward.

    Global warming is not related to communism OR cholesterol.

    And I agree about not debating fools – and your rope is short.

    • david7134 says:

      My rope is short??? That could have triggered me and I would feel bad. And if you don’t know the climate debate is about communism, then you are a FOOL.

  10. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Y’all said the graph was like using degrees Kelvin to measure bodily temperature of a human.

    That’s right. The choice of scale minimizes the significance of the change in temperature.

    drowningpuppies: Are the temps in the graph incorrect?

    Just as the choice of the Kelvin-scale for body temperature is correct, but misleads by making the important changes appear insignificant.

    You apparently have no actual argument, but must rely on distortions.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Sorry, y’all lost again.
      Body temps are not measured in degrees Kelvin and never have been. Y’all made up your little strawman right there because you couldn’t refute the graph.
      Air temps are measured in degrees F or C.
      The graph charted those measurements historically and correctly.
      Y’all are the ones who are misleading.
      Admit it.

  11. Jeffery says:

    As is now being seen, a 1 degree C increase in the mean global surface temperature changes our climate and results in changes in human societies. It’s hard to reason that a 2 or 4 degree increase will have even less impact.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4087 access attempts in the last 7 days.