Slashdot Mirror
Rising Seas Set To Double Coastal Flooding By 2050, Says Study (phys.org)
Coastal flooding is about to get dramatically more frequent around the world as sea levels rise from global warming, researchers said Thursday. Phys.Org reports, "A 10-to-20 centimeter (four-to-eight inch) jump in the global ocean watermark by 2050 -- a conservative forecast -- would double flood risk in high-latitude regions, they reports in the journal Scientific Reports." From the report: Major cities along the North American seaboard such as Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with the European Atlantic coast, would be highly exposed, they found. But it would only take half as big a jump in ocean levels to double the number of serious flooding incidents in the tropics, including along highly populated river deltas in Asia and Africa. Even at the low end of this sea rise spectrum, Mumbai, Kochi and Abidjan and many other cities would be significantly affected. To make up for the lack of observational data, Vitousek and his colleagues used computer modeling and a statistical method called extreme value theory. "We asked the question: with waves factored in, how much sea level rise will it take to double the frequency of flooding?" Sea levels are currently rising by three to four millimeters (0.10 to 0.15 inches) a year, but the pace has picked up by about 30 percent over the last decade. It could accelerate even more as continent-sized ice blocs near the poles continue to shed mass, especially in Antarctica, which Vitousek described as the sea level "wild card." If oceans go up 25 centimeters by mid-century, "flood levels that occur every 50 years in the tropics would be happening every year or more," he said.
Call in all the surfers!
Interesting I was just talking to my wife about how with the rise of the ocean you could/would have to turn Manhattan into a new Venice, and with our apartment being on the 10th floor, we may be sitting on some water-level real estate. The worst part is it's only half a joke and a real future issue to deal with, just look at what happened with the subways during the last major storm, it doesn't take much of a rise to sink the city.
Downtown Seattle is 150 feet above sea level.
Sure, rising sea levles might inconvenience some businesses along Alaskan Way, but even Pike Place Market is 100% safe from ocean water for the next 100 years.
It must be slow season for another End of the World scenario. As if the raise of about 3.5" between 1980 and today made us to swim to school in scuba gear.
And just for fun, look at the End of the World scenarios from the 70ies, 80ies and 90ies, prediction how bad it'll be by 2020. None of them happened, they all got it wrong. Makes one wonder about the current crop of apocalypses.
Will anyone notice? Will anyone hold the predictors accountable? Probably not.
Anything I can do that doesn't involve donating money or calling my congressman?
If they could build a dike with sand and seaweed a 1000 years ago to hold back the sea, I think we will be just fine. No matter what happens.
No need to be afraid of the sea, the Netherlands sure isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands
"The construction method of dikes has changed over the centuries. Popular in the Middle Ages were wierdijken, earth dikes with a protective layer of seaweed. An earth embankment was cut vertically on the sea-facing side. Seaweed was then stacked against this edge, held into place with poles. Compression and rotting processes resulted in a solid residue that proved very effective against wave action and they needed very little maintenance. In places where seaweed was unavailable other materials such as reeds or wicker mats were used."
Don't believe the hype,.
The Netherlands claimed land against the oceans hundreds of years ago. If they could do this in the dark ages, what can we possibly have to be concerned about now?
I get that it makes sense to be "concerned", but common sense provides that no panicking is required.
Although climate change (specifically global warming) is happening (unless you deny the laws of chemistry and physics), it's probably too late to realistically do anything about it. The real problem isn't the warming, it's the positive feedback -- warmer air holds more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas, warmer temperatures melt the polar ice packs exposing darker ground/water, warmer temperatures unfreeze once frozen swampland which releases methane (and more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2), etc. All these effects feed back into the system pushing the equilibrium temperature of our planet that much higher.
Just like starting a boulder rolling down a hill, the longer you wait to try to stop it, the more momentum it will build up, the harder it will be to stop it. Even if we magically eliminated all the CO2 emissions from industry, transportation, and the like tomorrow, we still have to deal with the existing CO2 in the system to have any hope of even slowing down the current warming.
Add to all of the above that the CO2 currently in the system is so diffused (roughly 400 parts per million) that I don't know of any human technology that could possibly make a dent in the CO2 concentrations on a global atmospheric scale. So not only are we unable to retard the flow of CO2 into the system, we are technically unable to do anything significant with the CO2 that is already in the system.
At this point, the boulder has been rolling down the hill long enough that it isn't possible to stop it; so, the only thing to do is give up and console ourselves with the notion that by the time the really catastrophic things come to pass most of us will be dead and buried and unaffected by the results anyway ;)
I'm sure that millenials will be able to work it out -- lol.
Studies like this are part of planning ahead, you retard.
the water being pushed away from the dykes has to go somewhere so you just move the problem down the coast or you could build a pipeline to the grand canyon, plug the ends and fill it up, could probably make a good hydro power station there.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
At least not just yet.
Here's Michael Mann's (The Hockey Stick guy) prediction that the West Side Highway would be under water by now
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...
Bannon, is that you?
It's just another ruse used by the ruling elite to impose restrictions on the masses. Whether that's through denying use of how we each use energy, or prolonging the usage of outmoded technology still making a massive ROI, doesn't matter. It's just another label with which to beat down the great unwashed peasants taking over the planet.
I'd live to see Mar-A-Lago flood during the next 3.5 years.
Could be fun to see a climate change denier be flooded at home !
Totof
it means more of our crap, literal and figurative, is going to end up in the ocean. When I get depressed thinking about this I just want to turn on the "fake news" and hear about the latest Trump scandal, then the future of the oceans/earth doesn't seem so awful.
What do I care if the earth sucks in 15-20 years? By then I will surely have died in a labor camp or chained to a wall in one of Trump's dungeons. We deserve the future that is surely coming because as a species we are too stupid to work toward ensuring our own survival.
Lesbians aren't going to get you out of this one. You've watched too many pornos.
So fucking grow up, put your big pants on and build a fucking dyke.
Hang on, I thought this was about Climate Change, not Sexbots ??
I go to Galveston Island about once a week. There is a whole lot more variation in tide and beach erosion than there is with rising sea levels.
The linked article reads: "10 to 20 cm of sea-level rise expected no later than 2050."
Huh? I don't try to keep up with all of these doomsday predictions, but I thought it was supposed to be several feet and that huge tracts of land in coastal areas would be underwater by 2050? so I googled
sea level rise by 2050
The first result was a PBS story from 2012. This article quotes a report in the journal Environment Research Letters stating: "Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls 'mid-range projections.' " Next result was an article from The Guardian in 2015 which states "sea levels may still rise at least 6 meters (20 ft) above their current heights, radically reshaping the world's coastline". They also reference some pseudo-scientists in some scientific publication
I thought there was some "consensus" on this stuff? Have the "climate scientists" reached the consensus that sea levels will rise by anywhere from 10cm to 600cm by 2050, with 48cm being in the "mid range"?
Predicting the future is NOT science.
Wasn't the coast to be swallowed by 2015? I mean seriously, get a grip, and stop listening to these clowns. No one knows shit about climate yet. We don't have the long term data to extrapolate that far out. We are just now getting marginally accurate with WEEKLY weather, how do you expect the climate to be accurately deduced? /am/ saying all these doomsday scenarios are just a ploy for money. No one truly knows, none of the climatology models bandied about in the early 2000s panned out for the mid-2010s, so why think we know what will happen by 2050?
I'm not saying man hasn't made an impact on climate, I
The scientific method is really more a nuisance to 'scientists' these days than the rule of law. Idiots.
Pax Vobiscum
3 Global warming articles in the front page, really Slashdot?
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today, and it was colder.
We had 12 times more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
Stop spreading the CO2 global warming nonsense already.
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
CO2/Temp Graph
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
The Global Warming Scam
Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.
CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming
The Possessive Belief
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is not causing global warming or climate change. I canâ(TM)t say it more boldly, but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create. A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most donâ(TM)t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesnâ(TM)t require the understanding that the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.
Contradictory Evidence
I'd give your paper a D. It is poorly researched.
"we theorize, speculate, and focus on the worst-case scenario"
Yea, and I can get back to something more certain and true, like CNN or Facebook.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
these guys often make predictions. I remember the one academia gave about the world turning into a much colder place about 1970. Did not happen and they never remind people of their failed predictions.
Where is the degree of accuracy? And quit saying ,"This is science." Two hydrogens plus one oxygen = water. That is science. If this were truly science, revisions would not be a necessary part of it. I realize one can be off on the amount of ocean level rise or the time in which it happens. But why is it always both?
Why not just use the real formula and say:
Ocean level rise propaganda + enough people believe + taxes = big profit
Using "would" suggests incorrectly that there is any choice about it. Sea level rise of that magnitude is inevitable, no matter what policies we adopt, so we better learn to deal with it.
Coastal flooding, on the other hand, is something that's humans have dealt with for all of our existence and where we have good and effective countermeasures.
(Progressives in particular should love this, because dike building is government spending and should provide a wonderful Keynesian stimulus to third world nations!)
If you were to leap from the Empire State Building this morning, how long would it take you to hit the pavement?
Since you didn't leap from the Empire state building, and the prediction of the length of time you had left to live was "proven wrong" since it passed a long time ago, this proves Gravity was wrong and that the predictions of "gravity scientists" are all fake?!?!?
Has CO2 doubled?
No.
Was the date hypothesised 2008?
No, it was 2028.
So where has the "prediction" failed?
He never predicted CO2 would double by 2008 as you claim. He never predicted it would double by 2018 as it would have been if it WERE a prediction rather than a reply to a hypothetical scenario being asked.
So given that you denier idiots have lied several times about this, this proves your denial and every other denier claim has failed.
By the logic you used, hence YOU can't refuse it.
Oh, and odd that it's a report of what someone says by the "reporter" which is refuted by both the author of the quote AND the content of the book the salon report was about. Gosh! Bob didn't say it, they said something else and a reporter LIED?!?!?! Unpossible!!!!
From Bob himself:
"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."
Not 20, 40, and if a hypopthetical situation where CO2 doubles, not a prediction of what will happen. Unless you want to claim Bob is a liar, in which case you have no case against Hansen at all, since Bob is, as far as you claim, lying.
But strange that the only place where "Bob" is said to have said all this in direct quote is the salon article and denier blogs pointing to it. Yet the book itself doesn't say that (go get it from Amazon yourself and read it) and Bob himself says this conversation is different.
Moreover, since the highway was out of commission and nonexistent between 1973 and 1998, how could he have pointed to it in 1988? Bob's recollection of his interview with James is entirely different from Suzi's report of her interview 13 years later with Bob and is counterfactual with external reality.
Again, more lies from more deniers proving all deniers are liars.
Not forgetting it did flood late 2012. Without it being doubled in CO2.
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
A caution. Once you get back beyond the reach of polar ice cores (about 800,000 years), CO2 estimates are based on somewhat dubious proxies. The one case I'm aware of where there are two proxies for the same sediment bed (leaf stomata size and soil calcification) the estimated values differed by a factor of two. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the accuracy of past CO2 estimates. But then, I don't have much faith in proxy measurements of anything.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Based on?
Get stocks in boats!!
And in 2050, they'll be saying 'by 2075', and in 2075, they'll be saying 'by 2100', et cetera, et cetera.
The oceans have been rising by ~3 mm/yr since the mid 1800s. I would expect 30-40 years from now to see a 90mm-120mm (9cm - 12cm) rise due to this. We are still coming out of the last ice age and thus oceans are gradually rising. No big surprise there.
This article just re-emphasizes the fact that this is natural variability and not man made. It's not like the ocean is going to just rise 10cm instantaneously (step change). It will be gradual over time and I am extremely sure we humans can adapt to this change.
There are plenty of actual predictions that are actually published in actual referenceable sources.
I really don't see the point in citing an offhand comment made in a radio interview as a "prediction", when the person quoted has an actual bibliography of hundreds of real publications that can be referenced.
(not to mention the point of misattributing a quote that's citing a guy informally recalling something another guy said in a conversation a decade earlier, and misremembering key details.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If I want to read junk like this, I'll go to other sites.
The low end data is 3 mm per year. Then the summary talks about 25 cm by 2050. At the low end, in 33 years one expects 10 cm.
I still find it disappointing that there would be climate deniers. Yeah sure the sea is going to rise a 1/2 foot, no big deal... Well first of all, what's causing the 1/2 foot rise in oceans if there isn't climate change. It's like saying, oh well I feel healthy and I can't possibility have cancer even thou my doctor is telling me all his blood tests are coming back positive, it's a conspiracy by the doctors to make more money!
Humans are also inherently less than pro-active on many many issues wanting to believe things are better than they are until they're not. As a result we end up building on floodplains or too close to oceans or water because well it can't happen. The problem with climate change is it's not a "sudden" change but it increases the risk of getting hurt. It's like not wearing a seatbelt because you usually don't crash. The bottom line is even if you don't believe in climate change, there are millions of people at risk for when water levels rise. It will hurt us all in increased taxes, insurance or economic failure when it comes. Isn't that enough to do something? Or should we just sit around, too cheap to invest in a seatbelt because only other people crash?
And by the year 2000 I would have a flying F'ing car too!
According to Al Gore, and all the other Global Warming Loonies.. in 2004 We should have been underwater, the polar bears should be extinct (in fact their population since measuring has never been higher)! We were supposed to be out of food, out of resources and the planet should be a garbage can - if One listens to the idiot's that You keep publishing.
France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos” 2014
In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”
Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?
Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.
“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”
United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”
Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet
It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.
The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”
“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.
Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.
Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”
In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.
The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.
The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by ri
you may as well do as you suggest anyway, your depression is entirely justified ... because we're already royally fucked, and we don't show any signs of being able to interrupt or even slow down the melting of the glaciers that Eric talks about ...
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/about/events/s-t-lee-lecture/s.t.-lee-lecture-2016
Professor Eric J.M. Rignot, 14 February 2017
Donald Bren Professor of Earth System Science, School of Physical Sciences, University of California, Irvine
Senior Research Scientist/Joint Faculty Appointee at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
It's very interesting to have the "anatomy" of the glaciers discussed so that we know how the calculations have been made. ... enjoy !
His lecture describes the analyses that his team made on each significant sea-facing glacier in the world, and the conservative estimates are alarming. Unless there's a volcanic eruption which causes global temperatures to drop rapidly, we already have an inevitable 1 meter overall sea rise ahead of us, and there's a handful of glaciers that can each deliver 4 meters or more, it's just a matter of time, we're too late to stop it
That's 1 meter AVERAGE, so you can imagine how that pans out for equatorial sites like New Orleans - they haven't seen nothing yet.
The evidence is clear for all to see - the Totten glacier : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?utm_term=.2889616837dc
- Pine Island Glacier : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/collapse-antarcticas-glaciers-ice-melt-sooner-than-thought-scientists-warn
You're right - what do we care? ...
It's too fucking late already to stop it, but we could make life a "little" more pleasant for our children, presuming they will live normal lives of about another 60 years
If we still don't care, that speaks volumes about us collectively, eh?
Then why should your claims be seen as anything other than tired old identity politics where your stance that AGW is a scam is purely based on you being told by "your clan" that it is so, irrespective of evidence and ignorant of it?
From TFS:
To make up for the lack of observational data
Tells you everything you need to know about whether the headline is real or not.
Haven't we heard something like this before?
Every time I see alarmist stuff like this, all I can think of is this:
Hypothesis and Disproof
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
NOTE: the NOAA is The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a scientific agency within the Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere.
For more “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto
I'm sure that *EVENTUALLY* they'll get one right...2016 was the "strongest in years" but was still pretty much meh, except for Matthew's impact on Haiti.
Actual activity in 2016: 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 CAT3+
Average (1981–2010[1]) 12.1, 6.4, 2.7
Record high activity 28, 15, 7
If you really think rising sea levels is a fraud, you'd be buying up beach-front property at cents on the dollar from the chumps who believe it.
OMG THE SKY IS FALLING...
A 10-to-20 centimeter (four-to-eight inch) jump in the global ocean watermark by 2050
Yeah, you are gonna drown.
They've been saying fusion power plants are only 20 years away for about 50 years it seems.
LOL, look at the latest scientific reports. Sea levels are not rising, and have risen only centimeters over the past 100 years.
The Earth changes, true, but not normally this fast. This amount of warming over ten thousand years would be no trouble at all. Over a few decades, it causes problems.
Moreover, studying what's going on is essential to planning ahead.
The Dutch dyke system has been good for claiming land that started under sea level, but there's lots of problems with pushing it too far. It doesn't work for seaports, for example, since you don't want to wall the ocean off. The Netherlands is small with a high population density, and the US seaboard isn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How we stop the gravy train is listening to the scientists, and not the ones who make up scandals, deceive people, and perform other sleazy activities.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wow, you're digging *way* back there aren't you? The planet was radically different back then, to the point that you can extrapolate very little to the current situation. I mean we're talking completely dead continents, primitive plants and arachnids only just began leaving the oceans to colonize the shorelines by the very end of the period. And the continents were all south of the equator, strangling the oceanic thermal cycles that would normally have carried heat to the south pole, so glaciation on that side of the planet would be expected unless the seas were practically boiling. And that's just to start.
Not to mention the celestial differences: the sun was dimmer, and we were in a different part of the galaxy (there's a growing body of evidence suggesting our position within the galactic arms may affect climate and other aspects of our planet)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Its there as the quote says. You PREFER the one where you can claim AGW is wrong, though. Go read his book. 40 years and doubling CO2 and no "west highway".
Because it's a load of bullshit. The rest ofthe post gets worse, but prove your first one.
Prove the first one? Ok, not hard to find. There's a search engine for that called Google. He's referring to the now thoroughly discredited inconvenient truth film. That really was a load of bullshit.
Read here -
http://humanevents.com/2011/08...
Just admit you've believed the lies from the left. No shame in it because they've spent billions to make people believe it. There is shame if you don't realize you're wrong and still believe it. Read where Eric Holder let him off the hook like Democrats always do for each other. Even if they get put in jail, they let them out in droves when they get control of the White House. Even convicted terrorists that killed people.