Re: Sea level rise, ya gotta be kidding me

Eugene Griessel <eugene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:pj9fi59pt4bcqk4r5p42p6nee6uo7eak8e@xxxxxxx:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:00:24 -0600, "Mark Test"
<rightwinger_2005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Arved Sandstrom" <dcest61@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c3zVm.57588$PH1.24062@xxxxxxxxxxx
Mark Test wrote:
"Frogwatch" <dbohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:65d91877-4807-4074-807b-ba00d19bb607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
om...
Out of boredom, I googled sea level rise and of course Wiki came
up first. Yes, Wiki is not the best reference but it is much
better than the NYT.
So, look at "sea level rise" on Wiki and look at the graph of the
rise rate (cue in the foreboding music here............). WAIT, I
dont see any rise rate greater than normal. Turns out that if you
consider the satellite record for the past few years, it MIGHT be
rising faster but it is complicated by issues with the satellite
orbits etc. Even then, any rise might just be a statistical
fluctuatuion. So,, where is all this new rise caused by warming.
OHHHHHH, it rise forecast based on thermal expansion from
predicted AGW. So, it is a predicted rise based on a theoretical
model that has never worked well that is based on "data" that must
be "homogenized" to make it fit the theory.
No wonder the AGW believers are not packing up and moving to high
ground, they do not take it seriously either.

You got that right. I heard about a recent survey where folks
ranked GW number 30 of 30 as issues we should tackle. Things like
terrorism, famine, genocide kill more people worldwide each year
than GW is predicted to kill in 100 years.

I'm just glad the truth is coming out and average citizens
recognize it.

Mark

If GW predictions are not too far off base - and the rapidly
disappearing Arctic/Antarctic ice, snowpack and glaciers seem to
indicate that they are not

IIRC none of the GW models have predicted a thing (correctly).

What a curious statement - obviously one of those instant
gratification types. We are talking long processes here, decades and
centuries.


Let me correct a mistake of my prior statement. GW is predicted
to kill 150,000 anually. Right now many other things kill many more
humans, so if we all want to save lives, lets raise the standard of
living for all so we can reduce famine, war, and diseases.

Oh dear. Never read the story of King Canute and the tide, have you?
Earth's resources are finite - the population increases by a million
people every three days. Agricultural land is shrinking as humans
move into it for living space. Try and find any government who will
agree to compulsory birth control - outside of dictatorship.


- then not too far down the road some of the most critical world
rivers (including many of those in Asia) are going to be delivering
much less fresh water than they do now. Add in *other* disrupted
agriculture due to accelerated desertification, and diminished
fisheries due to warming water (on top of the overfishing we have
anyway). Quite bluntly, huge numbers of people are going to run out
of food and water.

A prediction that will happen anyway.....glaciers and rivers ebb and
flow quite naturally. Also, you fail to account for tech advances,
like de-salination
that will make up for any fresh water needs we may encounter in the
future.

Have you ever priced de-salinated water and seen how much fossil fuel
it takes to produce?

DUH...why not use nuclear power?

Odd how so many "enviromentalists" are against nuclear power.
Instead,they expect us to go back to the 1800's.
That's the entire goal of the AGW crowd,to "cut back" people's lifestyles
and standard of living.



Starvation and thirst kill two ways - directly, and indirectly
through resource wars. Do you seriously believe that there won't be
any resource wars, and big ones? If you don't you're quite
optimistic. If you do accept that there will be such wars, what will
you ascribe the death count to, if not global warming?

My point is that preventing wars should be a higher priority than GW.

Hey,wars get rid of a lot of people;
less mouths to feed and less emissions.
It's like preventing forest fires,despite the need for natural fires to get
rid of undergrowth.Then you end up with huge fires.

My point is that as the population burgeons there is ever increasing
conflict potential. How are you going to stop two starving thirsty
nations from fighting over what resources exist?

For you to say that war will be a result of GW is quite a stretch.

Obviously not a student of history, are you?

the fallacy is in believing that humans are the cause of "climate
change"/AGW,and that they can alter climate change.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sea level rise, ya gotta be kidding me
    ... look at "sea level rise" on Wiki and look at the graph of the ... If GW predictions are not too far off base - and the rapidly ... Leaving aside the emotive and real safety problems - nuclear power is ... through resource wars. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Sea level rise, ya gotta be kidding me
    ... look at "sea level rise" on Wiki and look at the graph of the rise ... If GW predictions are not too far off base - and the rapidly disappearing ... fresh water than they do now. ... resource wars. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: OT Why DSP consultants are (by and large) well paid
    ... going to cause a 77 meter rise in water levels. ... If excellent predictions cannot be made then it is poor ... That is real science. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Sea level rise, ya gotta be kidding me
    ... look at "sea level rise" on Wiki and look at the graph of the rise ... Earth's resources are finite - the population increases by a million ... fresh water than they do now. ... resource wars. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... moving through water. ... Bipedalism from wading is just one of the predictions made by the AAH, ... crap science doesn't justify more crap science. ... They didn't define it but they were trying to get scientists to look at ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)