There is no quote in that article, just recollections of a conversation that had occurred 30 years earlier, so it's not clear exactly what was said - but here is a picture of the highway in question, underwater in 2012 as predicted: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/p...
But the GOP has become obsessed with the idea that government is evil. They will not fund anything except military and espionage.
That includes weather forecasting.
Apparently especially weather forecasting. They are concerned that we may learn something about climate while investigating the weather, and apparently they are ideologically opposed to learning about the climate. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his
There may be more similarities between the two: Spencer concluded that the "theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution". He also claimed that science had "hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer". - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
He is signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that dismisses climate change because “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”
Want to decrease CO2? Work on storage batteries, better nuclear fission reactors, and better, cheaper MPPT solar charge controllers,
Would you rather pick winners and losers or let the market sort out the details? A revenue neutral carbon tax is one method that allows the market to drive the required technological advances. It also allows you to lower income and sales tax.
China just went on record saying that they're at least going to attempt to reduce their emissions in the future. That's something that they were never willing to say before.
Not so. It looks like there was already some momentum. Here's an article from June: China, the world's biggest emitter, will set a total cap on its CO2 emissions when its next five-year plan comes into force in 2016, He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing. - http://in.reuters.com/article/...
It is good to see that the momentum is continuing to build.
A Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'),
The Wall Street Journal has become a tabloid. It is beyond ridiculous.
You should have written something else other than: That's what the science shows.
AC was upset that the increase in forest fires was being linked to global warming. The science shows that the increase in forest fires is linked to global warming. That's what the science shows.
Then you took us off on a tangent by getting upset that a researcher expressed his opinion in an interview. Many people find professional opinions valuable because they are backed by years of research. No idea why that would upset you or how that is related to what I wrote or what opinion you think I expressed that you are objecting to. This is getting tiresome.
Then you are looking in the wrong place. This article is the appropriate place to include the opinions of the researchers. So what are you complaining about??? And what does this have to do with the GP post anyway? AC was upset that the dark snow was being pinned on global warming. I showed that this is supported by the science. None of your contributions have suggested otherwise.
What we know is in the scientific literature. You may suppose that science is magic, but it's not. It is our best tool for intelligent decision making.
No idea what you are talking about. Most people are only interested in reasonable and efficient mitigation and adaptation. Certainly relocating coastal cities as you have suggested is not reasonable adaptation. Some mitigation is warranted.
Errrrr.... yeah. 'Dramatic' is not quantifiable and will not be found in the literature. So what? Whose opinion would you want anyway if not a professional?
Whether one Canadian territory losing an area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined in one year can be described as 'dramatic' is a personal judgement, and not something that you would find in a scientific paper.
Deal with it. Those oceans are rising by another foot at least.
More if we don't mitigate. Adaptation is certainly required, but at some point we will need to divert our attention from mopping up the floors to address the leak.
If you are right that the average storm causes swells of several meters at least, then hurricane Sandy was only exceptional by a few feet. Those few feet caused over $60 billion in damage. Your suggestion that "if they can't handle that then move" may not be welcomed by New Yorkers. - http://www.livescience.com/407...
Not over 20,000 years. That ended 8000 years ago. It rose 120 meters over a period of 5000 years. That's about 8 feet/century on average. Over the last 8000 years sea level has been stable. Now again it is rising at an accelerated rate.
Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.
Yes. Add 3-6 feet to the several meter swells from "any storm" and you have reason to be concerned. Add it on top of a moderately impressive storm and you start to have very expensive problems. .
As far as the potential for flooding is concerned, every foot of sea level rise is equivalent to a substantial increase in storm intensity. Under the old Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale the step from category one to two, or the step from two to three, carried a three-foot increase in surge. By 2100 however, we are likely to see a permanent three-foot increase in sea level, and even six feet is not at all out of the question. That’s roughly equivalent to an increase of either one or two categories in hurricane intensity. -
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
We've had like a foot of sea level rise over the last 100 years. That is about 12 inches.,,, In the prior century we had something like 8 inches.
Citation? We have possibly had 8 inches in the prior millennium - not the prior century. Average rate of 0.1–0.2 mm/yr over the last 3,000 years. 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year in the 1900s. 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year so far this century. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Slashdot Mirror
There is no quote in that article, just recollections of a conversation that had occurred 30 years earlier, so it's not clear exactly what was said - but here is a picture of the highway in question, underwater in 2012 as predicted: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/p...
Actually, much worse than predicted: http://www.realclimate.org/ima...
Don't tell Peter Jackson
The answer is probably "all of the above" rather than one thing or the other.
But the GOP has become obsessed with the idea that government is evil. They will not fund anything except military and espionage. That includes weather forecasting.
Apparently especially weather forecasting. They are concerned that we may learn something about climate while investigating the weather, and apparently they are ideologically opposed to learning about the climate. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Guys like Spencer are playing the same game with their discipline that Intelligent Design-advocate Michael Behe plays with his
There may be more similarities between the two: Spencer concluded that the "theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution". He also claimed that science had "hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer". - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
He is signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" that dismisses climate change because “Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”
Want to decrease CO2? Work on storage batteries, better nuclear fission reactors, and better, cheaper MPPT solar charge controllers,
Would you rather pick winners and losers or let the market sort out the details? A revenue neutral carbon tax is one method that allows the market to drive the required technological advances. It also allows you to lower income and sales tax.
China just went on record saying that they're at least going to attempt to reduce their emissions in the future. That's something that they were never willing to say before.
Not so. It looks like there was already some momentum. Here's an article from June: China, the world's biggest emitter, will set a total cap on its CO2 emissions when its next five-year plan comes into force in 2016, He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing. - http://in.reuters.com/article/...
It is good to see that the momentum is continuing to build.
The 'Wall Street Journal' Parade of Climate Lies
Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn't real! XD
And from the pot herself: remarkable editorial bias on climate science at the wall street journal
A Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'),
The Wall Street Journal has become a tabloid. It is beyond ridiculous.
No idea what claim you are objecting to. Everything I've said is sound.
You should have written something else other than: That's what the science shows.
AC was upset that the increase in forest fires was being linked to global warming. The science shows that the increase in forest fires is linked to global warming. That's what the science shows.
Then you took us off on a tangent by getting upset that a researcher expressed his opinion in an interview. Many people find professional opinions valuable because they are backed by years of research. No idea why that would upset you or how that is related to what I wrote or what opinion you think I expressed that you are objecting to. This is getting tiresome.
Then you are looking in the wrong place. This article is the appropriate place to include the opinions of the researchers. So what are you complaining about??? And what does this have to do with the GP post anyway? AC was upset that the dark snow was being pinned on global warming. I showed that this is supported by the science. None of your contributions have suggested otherwise.
Beats makin' shit up.
What we know is...
What we know is in the scientific literature. You may suppose that science is magic, but it's not. It is our best tool for intelligent decision making.
No idea what you are talking about. Most people are only interested in reasonable and efficient mitigation and adaptation. Certainly relocating coastal cities as you have suggested is not reasonable adaptation. Some mitigation is warranted.
Errrrr.... yeah. 'Dramatic' is not quantifiable and will not be found in the literature. So what? Whose opinion would you want anyway if not a professional?
Maybe. The effect it is having on the Arctic climate - maybe not.
Whether one Canadian territory losing an area bigger than the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts combined in one year can be described as 'dramatic' is a personal judgement, and not something that you would find in a scientific paper.
You need to justify me entering crisis mode,
No I don't.
disrupting all public and economic policy... Do you have enough for that? Do you have enough to justify me going to War?
Alarmist much?
No, not 3 to 6 feet. One foot over 100 years. That is what has happened.
We are less concerned by what has happened than by what is going to happen. As you have admitted, the rate of increase is accelerating.
Deal with it. Those oceans are rising by another foot at least.
More if we don't mitigate. Adaptation is certainly required, but at some point we will need to divert our attention from mopping up the floors to address the leak.
If you are right that the average storm causes swells of several meters at least, then hurricane Sandy was only exceptional by a few feet. Those few feet caused over $60 billion in damage. Your suggestion that "if they can't handle that then move" may not be welcomed by New Yorkers. - http://www.livescience.com/407...
we've seen about 120 meters of sea level rise
Not over 20,000 years. That ended 8000 years ago. It rose 120 meters over a period of 5000 years. That's about 8 feet/century on average. Over the last 8000 years sea level has been stable. Now again it is rising at an accelerated rate.
Any storm is going to bring in swells of several meters at least.
Yes. Add 3-6 feet to the several meter swells from "any storm" and you have reason to be concerned. Add it on top of a moderately impressive storm and you start to have very expensive problems. .
As far as the potential for flooding is concerned, every foot of sea level rise is equivalent to a substantial increase in storm intensity. Under the old Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Intensity Scale the step from category one to two, or the step from two to three, carried a three-foot increase in surge. By 2100 however, we are likely to see a permanent three-foot increase in sea level, and even six feet is not at all out of the question. That’s roughly equivalent to an increase of either one or two categories in hurricane intensity. - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
That's what the science shows: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
We've had like a foot of sea level rise over the last 100 years. That is about 12 inches.,,, In the prior century we had something like 8 inches.
Citation? We have possibly had 8 inches in the prior millennium - not the prior century. Average rate of 0.1–0.2 mm/yr over the last 3,000 years. 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year in the 1900s. 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year so far this century. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...