You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A statistically representative climate change debate
- Thread starter Pekelo
- Start date
Pat Sajak: âglobal warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/
Pat Sajak: âglobal warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/
I'd like to solve the puzzle..........
PAT SAJAK IS AN IDIOT
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BB0aFPXr4n4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Carlin was great. I saw him in person. Yes, he is right. The earth will shake us off like fleas.
The Latest Right-Wing Solution For Sea Level Rise: Move Southern Florida.
Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the fossil fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued that moving regions that will be affected by sea level rise is a better idea than taking efforts to mitigate climate change.
During the May 20 episode of NPR's On Point, Lewis was hosted alongside two climate experts to discuss the recent findings that the collapse of a West Antarctic ice sheet "appears unstoppable," and will cause global sea levels to rise of ten feet or higher in the next 200 to 1,000 years. Lewis dismissed taking action to reduce our carbon emissions, saying we could simply adapt to the effects of climate change.
Host Tom Ashbrook challenged him, saying, "So you're saying move New York, move Miami, move Southern Florida, move Boston?" Lewis responded, "Yeah."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/20/the-latest-right-wing-solution-for-sea-level-ri/199401
Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the fossil fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued that moving regions that will be affected by sea level rise is a better idea than taking efforts to mitigate climate change.
During the May 20 episode of NPR's On Point, Lewis was hosted alongside two climate experts to discuss the recent findings that the collapse of a West Antarctic ice sheet "appears unstoppable," and will cause global sea levels to rise of ten feet or higher in the next 200 to 1,000 years. Lewis dismissed taking action to reduce our carbon emissions, saying we could simply adapt to the effects of climate change.
Host Tom Ashbrook challenged him, saying, "So you're saying move New York, move Miami, move Southern Florida, move Boston?" Lewis responded, "Yeah."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/20/the-latest-right-wing-solution-for-sea-level-ri/199401
sea levels have been moving up and down massively for thousands of years.
Sea levels were much higher at times too.
Ever been to Ephesus and see where the ships once docked... its land locked.
there are many examples of other landlocked cities that were once ports.
this sea level rise argument needs context.
Sea levels were much higher at times too.
Ever been to Ephesus and see where the ships once docked... its land locked.
there are many examples of other landlocked cities that were once ports.
this sea level rise argument needs context.
The Latest Right-Wing Solution For Sea Level Rise: Move Southern Florida.
Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the fossil fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, argued that moving regions that will be affected by sea level rise is a better idea than taking efforts to mitigate climate change.
During the May 20 episode of NPR's On Point, Lewis was hosted alongside two climate experts to discuss the recent findings that the collapse of a West Antarctic ice sheet "appears unstoppable," and will cause global sea levels to rise of ten feet or higher in the next 200 to 1,000 years. Lewis dismissed taking action to reduce our carbon emissions, saying we could simply adapt to the effects of climate change.
Host Tom Ashbrook challenged him, saying, "So you're saying move New York, move Miami, move Southern Florida, move Boston?" Lewis responded, "Yeah."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/20/the-latest-right-wing-solution-for-sea-level-ri/199401
brand new paper...
sea rise since 1807...
its only 7 inches per century.
Abstract
We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yrâ 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yrâ 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993â2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yrâ 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yrâ 1 since 1970. Regional linear trends for 14 ocean basins since 1970 show the fastest sea level rise for the Antarctica (4.1 ± 0.8 mm·yrâ 1) and Arctic (3.6 ± 0.3 mm·yrâ 1). Choice of GIA correction is critical in the trends for the local and regional sea levels, introducing up to 8 mm·yrâ 1 uncertainties for individual tide gauge records, up to 2 mm·yrâ 1 for regional curves and up to 0.3â0.6 mm·yrâ 1 in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yrâ 2 in global sea level (1807â2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yrâ 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yrâ 2 over 200 year long time series.
Full paper with figures is available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750#f0015
sea rise since 1807...
its only 7 inches per century.
Abstract
We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yrâ 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yrâ 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993â2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yrâ 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yrâ 1 since 1970. Regional linear trends for 14 ocean basins since 1970 show the fastest sea level rise for the Antarctica (4.1 ± 0.8 mm·yrâ 1) and Arctic (3.6 ± 0.3 mm·yrâ 1). Choice of GIA correction is critical in the trends for the local and regional sea levels, introducing up to 8 mm·yrâ 1 uncertainties for individual tide gauge records, up to 2 mm·yrâ 1 for regional curves and up to 0.3â0.6 mm·yrâ 1 in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yrâ 2 in global sea level (1807â2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yrâ 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yrâ 2 over 200 year long time series.
Full paper with figures is available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002750#f0015
Yes, this time it's due to us and we don't have to do it to ourselves. That's the difference grasshopper.
sea levels have been moving up and down massively for thousands of years.
Sea levels were much higher at times too.
Ever been to Ephesus and see where the ships once docked... its land locked.
there are many examples of other landlocked cities that were once ports.
this sea level rise argument needs context.
So what percent of the earth's greenhouse effect is from CO2?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piezoe View Post
With time, we are being reminded just how unreliable correlation, even a very strong one, can be when looking for cause and effect. The data we have today is far better than what was available in the 1980s, when this CO2-global warming hypothesis was first proposed by Hansen. Meanwhile politics and emotions have made dispassionate science quite difficult. Recently there has been a deluge of hard data and sharp analysis that is inconsistent with the original Hansen hypothesis. It seems most of it is being ignored. Ultimately there will be great embarrassment and ruined careers. It's a pity, because had this issue not been politicized and made into a media circus, the inevitable negative fallout could have been avoided.
If a single observation is inconsistent with an hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected. Ultimately the Hansen hypothesis will have to be either considerably modified or rejected altogether. In the meantime, how much time and money will be wasted following the wrong road?
Quote:
Originally Posted by piezoe View Post
With time, we are being reminded just how unreliable correlation, even a very strong one, can be when looking for cause and effect. The data we have today is far better than what was available in the 1980s, when this CO2-global warming hypothesis was first proposed by Hansen. Meanwhile politics and emotions have made dispassionate science quite difficult. Recently there has been a deluge of hard data and sharp analysis that is inconsistent with the original Hansen hypothesis. It seems most of it is being ignored. Ultimately there will be great embarrassment and ruined careers. It's a pity, because had this issue not been politicized and made into a media circus, the inevitable negative fallout could have been avoided.
If a single observation is inconsistent with an hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected. Ultimately the Hansen hypothesis will have to be either considerably modified or rejected altogether. In the meantime, how much time and money will be wasted following the wrong road?