Like I said in the first place it sounds like you want a level of perfection out of government that is not humanly possible to attain. And I also said in any large organization waste is inevitable. I think it's your standards that need adjusting.
Cretaceous Hothouse also had significantly different topology on the face of the Earth and my 300 feet guess assumes the ocean doesn't get nearly as hot as it was back then. About half of the SLR in the past century was simply due to the water heating up and expanding.
10 meters is almost 33 feet. 1000 years is within the historical record. If there had been sea level change anywhere close to that amount it would be slap you in the face obvious. Show me some historical evidence for that much sea level drop. Are there Roman ports that are now 33 feet above sea level? Do historical records from China or Japan show anything like that? 10 meters of sea level drop over the last 1000 years is impossible to support.
I hate to burst your bubble but at 722 feet Tulsa will never see the sea get near it. The maximum possible sea level rise is probably less than 300 feet.
How much of that $32 billion was spent on satellites, building, launching and downloading and processing the data over the lifetime of a satellite? How much of it was spent on constantly improving supercomputers to run models on? How much on 10s of thousands of Earthbound devices to monitor climate and collecting and processing that datta? The tools of the trade are expensive.
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
The summary says sea level has gone up about 9 inches since 1992. That's 76 mm, divide that by 23 years and you get about 3.3 mm per year since 1992.
The problem is that the great ice sheets are behind the curve on melting and even if it stopped getting warmer tomorrow they would continue to melt for several centuries until they caught up to the new equilibrium point. I'd be surprise if there was less than 20 feet of sea level rise by 300 years from now and what we do now has an effect on how much total SLR there will be in the future.
When you look at the levees height you have to look at maximum high tide but possible storm surge (or maximum flood of the river, God forbid all 3 happen at the same time). SLR will be a problem for New Orleans a lot sooner than you think.
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.
The problem with New Orleans is that it's the major port city at the mouth of the Mississippi River. As long as it's feasible they'll keep it going. If the IPCC projections are correct 'Nawlins has maybe another 50 or 75 years.
Gore's house in Montecito is half a mile from the ocean and around 500 feet above sea level which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link. It's in no danger due to sea level rise now or in the future as the maximum possible rise is less than 300 feet.
Sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years or so
fell 10m in the last 1,000 or so
We care about 3 inches because??????
Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?
Where do you get the idea that sea level fell by 10m in the last 1,000 years or so? As far as I can see by eyeballing graphs sea level rose maybe 0.15m (~6 inches) during that time.
Ok, here's a story from Forbes in 2012 about VC success. It says: "Over both 10- and 30-year periods, share of dollars invested that go to losing deals has been roughly 55%.".
I didn't say "the government gives itself an A+". In any large organization waste is inevitable. I see it where I work which is a subsidiary of a large company. All you can do is try to minimize it.
I'll also add that when you listen to the news about government screw-ups keep in mind that it's the screw-ups that make the news. The successes may get a press release but they will seldom reach headline status.
Although you didn't mention Solyndra explicitly others in this thread have. The DOE program that Solyndra was part of had a budgeted failure rate of 12% (IIRC) as set by Congress when they passed the act that created the program. Last I heard the failure rate of the program was about 7% including Solyndra. I'd say that's a pretty positive outcome, probably better than most private VC funds.
Why do you assume that something the government is involved in will automatically have more mistakes?
If you find you have to add a "fudge factor" for your hypothesis to fit the data that's just an opportunity to research and discover why, expanding the knowledge in the field.
(And more opportunities for getting in on that government grant money./sarc)
There is chaos in climate but it's different from and on different time scales than chaos in weather. Studying climate is in part studying chaos in weather, the average of weather but also the variability of weather over time.
The error is actually in the environmentalists' thinking. They support wind and solar unconditionally regardless of cost. They then assume everyone else thinks like they do.
LOL, kind of like the nuclear fanbois think about nuclear power.
Government and civilization go hand in hand. Can you name one civilization that has ever existed that didn't have some form of government? Can you name one civilization that has ever existed that didn't not have taxation in one form or another? Yes, governments change from time to time by internal or external force but that's usually accompanied by a lot of turmoil and change in the underlying civilization.
Climate models may not be perfect but there's nothing else that can do a better job than they can. There is plenty of evidence they are doing a pretty good job given the constraints they have to live with. For instance it's currently impossible to predict the state of the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) cycle ahead of time. So climate models have a random cycle that mimics the real cycle. Over many model runs the ENSO cycle varies and if they cherry pick the model runs were the state of ENSO matched the real world temporally the temperature match the real world much better.
Political activists have nothing to do with modeling and climate scientists don't make weather predictions, they make climate predictions. Some of their worst case scenario climate predictions can be pretty apocalyptic by themselves.
My advice to you is to seek out what actual climate scientists say instead of listening to a bunch of pundits.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said in the first place it sounds like you want a level of perfection out of government that is not humanly possible to attain. And I also said in any large organization waste is inevitable. I think it's your standards that need adjusting.
Cretaceous Hothouse also had significantly different topology on the face of the Earth and my 300 feet guess assumes the ocean doesn't get nearly as hot as it was back then. About half of the SLR in the past century was simply due to the water heating up and expanding.
If you think there will only be a foot of sea level rise over the next 400 years I want some of what you've been smoking.
10 meters is almost 33 feet. 1000 years is within the historical record. If there had been sea level change anywhere close to that amount it would be slap you in the face obvious. Show me some historical evidence for that much sea level drop. Are there Roman ports that are now 33 feet above sea level? Do historical records from China or Japan show anything like that? 10 meters of sea level drop over the last 1000 years is impossible to support.
Here's a story on a detailed study of sea levels over the last 2000 years done on the North Carolina coast that doesn't show anything like 10 meters of change.
I hate to burst your bubble but at 722 feet Tulsa will never see the sea get near it. The maximum possible sea level rise is probably less than 300 feet.
Oops, I said 9 inches but it was only 3 inches. Nevermind.
How much of that $32 billion was spent on satellites, building, launching and downloading and processing the data over the lifetime of a satellite? How much of it was spent on constantly improving supercomputers to run models on? How much on 10s of thousands of Earthbound devices to monitor climate and collecting and processing that datta? The tools of the trade are expensive.
Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.
Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?
The summary says sea level has gone up about 9 inches since 1992. That's 76 mm, divide that by 23 years and you get about 3.3 mm per year since 1992.
No, the maximum possible sea level rise is probably in the 300 foot range from current levels.
The problem is that the great ice sheets are behind the curve on melting and even if it stopped getting warmer tomorrow they would continue to melt for several centuries until they caught up to the new equilibrium point. I'd be surprise if there was less than 20 feet of sea level rise by 300 years from now and what we do now has an effect on how much total SLR there will be in the future.
When you look at the levees height you have to look at maximum high tide but possible storm surge (or maximum flood of the river, God forbid all 3 happen at the same time). SLR will be a problem for New Orleans a lot sooner than you think.
If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!
Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.
The problem with New Orleans is that it's the major port city at the mouth of the Mississippi River. As long as it's feasible they'll keep it going. If the IPCC projections are correct 'Nawlins has maybe another 50 or 75 years.
Gore's house in Montecito is half a mile from the ocean and around 500 feet above sea level which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link. It's in no danger due to sea level rise now or in the future as the maximum possible rise is less than 300 feet.
Coming out of the last glaciation sea level rose over 100 meters but since about 6,000 years ago it has hardly varied more than about 1 meter.
There is still steric sea level rise, the rise from heating water and salinity changes. But that probably still leaves you under 300 feet.
Sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years or so
fell 10m in the last 1,000 or so
We care about 3 inches because??????
Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?
Where do you get the idea that sea level fell by 10m in the last 1,000 years or so? As far as I can see by eyeballing graphs sea level rose maybe 0.15m (~6 inches) during that time.
Ok, here's a story from Forbes in 2012 about VC success. It says: "Over both 10- and 30-year periods, share of dollars invested that go to losing deals has been roughly 55%.".
Data Insight: Venture Capital returns and loss rates
I didn't say "the government gives itself an A+". In any large organization waste is inevitable. I see it where I work which is a subsidiary of a large company. All you can do is try to minimize it.
I'll also add that when you listen to the news about government screw-ups keep in mind that it's the screw-ups that make the news. The successes may get a press release but they will seldom reach headline status.
Although you didn't mention Solyndra explicitly others in this thread have. The DOE program that Solyndra was part of had a budgeted failure rate of 12% (IIRC) as set by Congress when they passed the act that created the program. Last I heard the failure rate of the program was about 7% including Solyndra. I'd say that's a pretty positive outcome, probably better than most private VC funds.
Why do you assume that something the government is involved in will automatically have more mistakes?
If you find you have to add a "fudge factor" for your hypothesis to fit the data that's just an opportunity to research and discover why, expanding the knowledge in the field.
(And more opportunities for getting in on that government grant money. /sarc)
There is chaos in climate but it's different from and on different time scales than chaos in weather. Studying climate is in part studying chaos in weather, the average of weather but also the variability of weather over time.
The error is actually in the environmentalists' thinking. They support wind and solar unconditionally regardless of cost. They then assume everyone else thinks like they do.
LOL, kind of like the nuclear fanbois think about nuclear power.
It sounds like you want a level of perfection out of government that is not humanly possible to attain.
Government and civilization go hand in hand. Can you name one civilization that has ever existed that didn't have some form of government? Can you name one civilization that has ever existed that didn't not have taxation in one form or another? Yes, governments change from time to time by internal or external force but that's usually accompanied by a lot of turmoil and change in the underlying civilization.
Climate models may not be perfect but there's nothing else that can do a better job than they can. There is plenty of evidence they are doing a pretty good job given the constraints they have to live with. For instance it's currently impossible to predict the state of the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO) cycle ahead of time. So climate models have a random cycle that mimics the real cycle. Over many model runs the ENSO cycle varies and if they cherry pick the model runs were the state of ENSO matched the real world temporally the temperature match the real world much better.
Political activists have nothing to do with modeling and climate scientists don't make weather predictions, they make climate predictions. Some of their worst case scenario climate predictions can be pretty apocalyptic by themselves.
My advice to you is to seek out what actual climate scientists say instead of listening to a bunch of pundits.