Tiberius Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 The worsening of tidal flooding in American coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday. Those emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the ocean to rise at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome, the scientists said. They added that in the absence of human emissions, the ocean surface would be rising less rapidly and might even be falling. The increasingly routine tidal flooding is making life miserable in places like Miami Beach; Charleston, S.C.; and Norfolk, Va., even on sunny days. Continue reading the main story Though these types of floods often produce only a foot or two of standing saltwater, they are straining life in many towns by killing lawns and trees, blocking neighborhood streets and clogging storm drains, polluting supplies of freshwater and sometimes stranding entire island communitiesfor hours by overtopping the roads that tie them to the mainland. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 Ok. How do you propose we reverse the trend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 Ok. How do you propose we reverse the trend? 2 FOR 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 2 FOR 5 Serious thought provoking response in a serious thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 Serious thought provoking response in a serious thread. You too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Just what we needed, another global warming thread. Gatorette, do you really need more attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) And here you have the NYT giving you the idiot's guide to tough questions about global warming cooling climate change. It's like it was written by and for gatorman. 2. How much trouble are we in?For future generations, big trouble. 3. Is there anything I can do?Fly less, drive less, waste less. Edited February 23, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 post less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 (edited) 2 FOR 5 What is this your batting average on quality posts? I think it's much lower than that. Ohhhh wait. It's all making sense now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=2+for+5 Edited February 23, 2016 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2016 Author Share Posted February 23, 2016 What is this your batting average on quality posts? I think it's much lower than that. Ohhhh wait. It's all making sense now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=2+for+5 Was this a quality post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Was this a quality post? Swing and a miss. Actually I don't think you ever got the bat off your shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 245. All along we've been dealing with a crack head. Things are beginning to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Was this a quality post? I thought it was clever. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 It's all a lie. .03 rise lol. Hardly seems likely that it will cause the catastrophe that NY rag rambles on about. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 Funny thing is that, if you read the research the article is based on, it's actually all over the map. The author of that article cherry-picks worst cases and glosses over data that's not "worst-case" enough with ambiguous blanket statements (which is the actual definition of "obfuscating," by the way.) When you look at the research, and see results that say the ocean's rise has accelerated since 1979 by one micron per year per year, plus or minus half a micron, according to satellite measure that began in 1979, whereas other measurements show a half-micron per year accelleration, you should be asking three things: 1) Satellites can measure with a half-micron's accuracy? 2) Given that it starts in 1979, and is poorly supported by other data sets, Is that one-micron difference real or an artifact of satellite measurement? 3) When you measure something one way as 1 +/- 0.5 units, and another way as 0.5 units...is it reasonable to then base predictions on that something having a value of 6? (Which is what the accelleration would have to be for the "consensus" value of 3.4 feet of sea level rise by 2100 to be accurate.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 Funny thing is that, if you read the research the article is based on, it's actually all over the map. The author of that article cherry-picks worst cases and glosses over data that's not "worst-case" enough with ambiguous blanket statements (which is the actual definition of "obfuscating," by the way.) When you look at the research, and see results that say the ocean's rise has accelerated since 1979 by one micron per year per year, plus or minus half a micron, according to satellite measure that began in 1979, whereas other measurements show a half-micron per year accelleration, you should be asking three things: 1) Satellites can measure with a half-micron's accuracy? 2) Given that it starts in 1979, and is poorly supported by other data sets, Is that one-micron difference real or an artifact of satellite measurement? 3) When you measure something one way as 1 +/- 0.5 units, and another way as 0.5 units...is it reasonable to then base predictions on that something having a value of 6? (Which is what the accelleration would have to be for the "consensus" value of 3.4 feet of sea level rise by 2100 to be accurate.) This seems believable to me: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html And the original article was also convincing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 This seems believable to me: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html And the original article was also convincing I didn't read the whole thing but did it say what's causing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 I didn't read the whole thing but did it say what's causing it? Finish reading and find out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I didn't read the whole thing but did it say what's causing it? He didn't read it at all. He's just posting what he's told to post. Paying for that Land Rover, don'tchaknow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 He didn't read it at all. He's just posting what he's told to post. Paying for that Land Rover, don'tchaknow. Like I said, you are a kook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Finish reading and find out Ok got it. So they're blaming earthquakes. So are you saying global warming is causing earthquakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts