Reply With Quote
Just 5 feet? Better get Dennis Quaid over there.
Just 5 feet? Better get Dennis Quaid over there.
^ yeah. I agree. No big deal. Most people are over 5 feet tall anyway. My guess is that they just move everything back a little ways. Or build a French drain that runs back into the ocean.
so long malibu
You mean their job-killing climate change law won't halt the rising sea?
"Republicans in the North Carolina legislature introduced a bill that would require sea level rise forecasts to be based on past patterns and would all but outlaw projections based on climate change data."
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=...%3D0%26DPL%3D3
ing rednecks, standing on the shore commanding the tide to stop.
One just Canute make this up.
I don't get the whole climate change movement. Hippies say that we have to stop using cars and yet they have no problem with flying on an airplane to go to the Carribbean for spring break. And if all of this climage change is true and the world is going to become like Waterworld or The Day After Tomorrow, then aren't we basically ed? I mean even if everyone became a hippie and stopped using cars and any other evil man made machine, wouldn't the Earth still be ed because of evil humans?
Hippies flying to the carribbean for Spring Break? WTF?
Vacations still exist, brah. Hippies or rich yuppies that pretened to be hippies do still take vacations and some take vacations in the Carribbean.
l you obviously have never met a hippie
Canute?
From the link in OP
That's because much of California is sinking, extending the reach of a sea that is warming and expanding because of climate change, according to a report by a committee of scientists released Friday by the National Research Council.
Are you saying that's wrong?
Remember when you were a kid and you always heard that Cali would break off soon and sink....
The prophecy has come true.
He never knows what he's saying.
The le really is a little deceptive. If the ocean rises a foot and the land subsides 4 feet that is not the same as the ocean rising 5 feet.
Thats like saying the seas have already risen ten feet at the San Jacinto Monument.
The average sea level rise is projected to be 4 1/2 feet. So on average, the difference is half a foot due to subsidence. Not exactly a huge deception. On the other hands, in places such as the Sacramento Delta you are going to see much higher levels of subsidence and change in sea level (both of which are due to human actions).
Well, the melting ice is a problem. I still don't believe that it's CO2 we need to reduce as much as claimed. I believe we would have this problem if we sequestered all the CO2 we formed.
Someone please...
Tell me...
Just how do you put a dimmer on the sun?
You may be right. If you compare sea level, temperature, and CO2 level graphs what stands out is that sea levels and temperature started rising before CO2 levels really took off. CO2 is supposed to be leading according to agw theory.
The primary reason I don't believe that is that the sun had two distinct timeframes it because warmer since the 1700's. The IPCC and other alarmists refuse to give the sun the credit it deserves for warming increases. They give it a measly 0.12 watts/square meter of added radiative forcing when it is greater than that. The sun has a notable increase in output from about 1700 to 1800 and again from about 1900 to 1950. The direct and indirect warming is in the neighborhood of 1 watt/sq meter and the AR4 claim for total radiative increase from 1750 to 2004 is 1.6 watts/sq meter.
he does take the low road sometimes though..lol
If only there were some kind of... atmospheric curtain... that protected the earth from the Sun's rays. Man, that would really come in handy.
Most of the sea level rise to date is due to thermal expansion so it makes sense it would have started when temps increased. the IPCC has never claimed that the entirety of recent warming (no matter how much idiots like WC claim this) has been due to anthropogenic reasons. They very much say that much of the warming is due to solar heating.
Well, the IPCC only talks about their 0.12 direct forcing that I've seen. They don't account for the energy that warms the physical surface and becomes a larger upward IR energy for the greenhouse effect. Instead, they attribute this extra solar energy to increased greenhouse gasses.
Where do they properly account for solar increases since 1700? I've never seen it. Love to see such data.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
