Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Irreversible climate damage is imminent
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
Most agricultural land is well above sea level. As to change...there has been none in the last 17 years. There may be none for the next 17 or 170. No one knows.
But, there is a very simple solution those who are afraid of climate change today. They can sell their beach front property today and move inland, or move somewhere cold before the massive exodus...I can guarantee that there will be plenty of buyers. And as an added bonus, homes in cold climates are usually cheaper, so they'll come out ahead.
Having looked it up, it does seem like the current rate of sea level rise is
somewhat managable:
"Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. " (Invalid Link Removed
Even the higher rate is only (about) 1 foot per century; let's hope nothing dramatic happens to change this.
somewhat managable:
"Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. " (Invalid Link Removed
Even the higher rate is only (about) 1 foot per century; let's hope nothing dramatic happens to change this.
Sorry...it's just an unexplained "pause", lol.
I posted an explanation a while back. When taken as an isolated 17 year period there is no change, but compared to the historical trend something like 15/17 were above the "expected" temperature. So a bunch of excessively warm years does not mean it isn't getting warmer.
Absolutely. There is such a high level of return on a barrel of crude it is incomprehensible to think that at this point in time with today's energy technologies that we should spend billions upon billions of dollars on solar panel scams, and renewables that can't claim anywhere near this level of productivity. For now - fossil fuels are where we're at as a world. Don't get me wrong - I'm not against new innovations ... just throwing good money after bad.
Railway is the most economic way, and least pollutant of the transportation of goods there is. Air travel, much public transportation, and the cars we drive would not be possible with out this cheap source of energy. There are a lot of new innovations in the auto industry to save on fuel, but you can't rush technology. It will come.
What I don't get is why so many people don't understand this.
Anthropogenic global warming, or climate change as it's now called, has become a much more of political issue than a scientific one, and from most recent polling it's not exactly working. You don't persuade the uncommitted middle of the electorate to support more deliberate action on climate change by telling them that they're too stupid to be trusted with uncertainty and that if they refuse to go along with fast dramatic action (details to follow) they're science deniers and willful destroyers of the planet. Good luck with that one all of you Church of Climatology alarmists out there.
It's kind of like how business profitability and projections work in relation to stock market investors.....
....you write a report setting expectations low, then offer profit/loss reports that beat those artificially low estimates, and say "we beat the projections, we're profitable, send us money".
It's works the same way with climate change and the UN. Rig the results to show a higher level of change than there really is, then say, "see, see. Give us power and money. This $#!+ is bad and we're the only ones who can fix it, if you'd just submit to us".
Both extremes of this whole deal, (and that's exactly what alarmists and flat-out deniers are...extremists), are equally as rediculous as each other all the while claiming to be more "right" than each other. They should both just get together and have one big extremist orgy while the rest of us with level heads do something reasonable about it.
The alarmist, the denier.....peas in a pod.
Do you understand how linear regression works? It's pretty simple, not much to artificially deflate.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Science shouldn't be political, and yet...
For some reason, I figured the yellow potion on the right pie would be of equal size of the green portion of the left pie.
I don't think solar panels are a scam, but the requirement in some municipalities to have the electric co meter it and be an in-between so they get money from it is bull puckey. As long as you live within the grid, you're gonna be ON the grid.
I have a neighbor whose entire roof is solar panels and he has a rather pleasant disposition. Just sayin'.
IPCC report is a political statement not based in actual science, overblown for political purposes.
Deniers claim we can do whatever we want with no effect on the world around us.
Each one is just as rediculous as the other. More about validating preconcieved, largely emotional ideas, rather than anything that actually matters.
The last thing "they" want is for any one individual to be actually "energy independent". Nobody profits from that outside the purchase of the oroginal equipment. And that is not any sort of elephant vs. donkey sort of thing. They all like profit.
But you win the approval of your fellow travelers in the "we thinkers matter more than mere workers" coterie, and everyone wants validation that they're special.
If, however, one actually makes their living in that world, peer approval is money... Someone else's money, granted, but as scams go, it's more alluring than most because of the pedestal one gets to place himself upon.
I am not referencing the IPCC report in any way. Good job trying to act like the rational unbiased observer though.
Funny how that divide doesn't actually exist when you work in the sciences. Researchers enjoy talking about their fields and explaining it to all levels. Special? Heck, the usual comments are along the lines that - had they been smart enough, they'd have gotten a regular job, one with reasonable pay and working hours!
If only peer review was that simple. People are always looking for any loose thread by which to tear down research. While getting a paper doesn't automatically give you grant money, it can help strengthen an argument in a grant application. But you got to remember, the people reviewing your work will be from the same field and often going for that same small pool of grant money. What benefit is it to them to help their competition!
During a job interview last year, while being asked about papers, I found out one of the interview panel had been a reviewer for that paper. Talk about interview anxiety hitting the roof!
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to withdraw to the tower library and chortle at the unwashed masses with my cohorts.
