Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like ndg. He's great on discovery science channel. It's interesting how/why he got into physics. His dad died at an early age and he wanted to build a time machine to go back and spend more time.
I went to see him give a guest lecture here at Kent State several years before he became a household name. The focus of his talk was the possibilities for time travel. It was a very interesting and entertaining talk.
As for AGW: Scientists and science lovers can slip into a certain frame of mind, and often become over-confident within this frame of mind. This over-confidence can morph into a kind of fanaticism when they come under attack by some "fringe" idea that involves some different paradigm that is threating the status quo. This is generally the pattern underlying periodic "revolutions" in science. Just a few decades ago, it was AGW that was the fringe idea. It seemed absurd to think that human activity could have any significant effect on the overall global climate cycles. But empirical data and theoretical mechanisms kept accumulating to the point where even the mainstream of science could no longer ignore it. Clearly the climate is changing, and now we have a well-verified mechanism for explaining how human impact could be playing a role in this change. I can't begrudge anyone for seeking out anomalous data to see if evidence for the consensus view is as solid as it should be. Without "dissatisfied customers" the whole enterprise of science would collapse. But what's missing at the moment are any serious, well-substantiated anomalies counting against the theory of AGW. The supposed anomalous data that is presented to disconfirm AGW always turns out to have a credible explanation, and in many cases this explanation actually ends of strengthening the theory - which is actually a major hallmark of our best theories. They withstand challenges, and in the process of surviving, the theory ends up revealing things that we hadn't considered before. The supposed "hiatus", for example, initially seems like a challenge to AGW until you look beyond just the atmosphere and take total global heat into account (i.e., air, land, and water).
Over and over the supposed challenges to AGW end up looking like claims for the existence of Bigfoot; there ends up being a valid scientific reason for why this or that anti-AGW claim didn't survive the peer-review process. It's not because of some conspiracy; it's because the claims keep falling flat in the face of an increasingly strong theory. Ordinarily these challenges would have, by now, faded into the fringes with flat-earthers, moon-landing skeptics, holocaust deniers, etc., but in the case of AGW, the challenges are increasingly fueled by major political/ideological endorsements. It's grown out of the hands of science.If a major political party had endorsed the evidence for Bigfoot, you can bet that claims and counterclaims about Bigfoot would be in the national news every day, and a major portion of the population would come to believe that Bigfoot exists.
All these lies has made Al Gore and his minions a lot of money and after all has kept California from falling into the ocean.
Ah, the deniers favorite scape goat, Al Gore....They seem to constantly forget that was just a messenger.
Back to the subject of sea level....Recent news...
At the end of the 21st century, rising sea levels could trigger the greatest movement of Americans since the Great Migration of African-Americans from the South northward during the last century. A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change said the number of people affected by rising sea levels could be three times higher than previously thought.
Read more at Sea change - Toledo Blade
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,730,207 times
Reputation: 20050
just came from a shoreline that I know like the back of my hand for 40 years, the high and low tides look the same as 40 years ago.. fear mongering.. if the sea level is rising? it is rising at a fraction of what they are preaching..
just came from a shoreline that I know like the back of my hand for 40 years, the high and low tides look the same as 40 years ago.. fear mongering.. if the sea level is rising? it is rising at a fraction of what they are preaching..
Just curious: as you understand it, how many inches of sea-level rise do scientists say there has there been in the last 40 years?
just came from a shoreline that I know like the back of my hand for 40 years, the high and low tides look the same as 40 years ago.. fear mongering.. if the sea level is rising? it is rising at a fraction of what they are preaching..
Where is that shoreline? You can probably look up how much sea levels have risen at the nearest tide station, or you can try this map.
I went to see him give a guest lecture here at Kent State several years before he became a household name. The focus of his talk was the possibilities for time travel. It was a very interesting and entertaining talk.
As for AGW: Scientists and science lovers can slip into a certain frame of mind, and often become over-confident within this frame of mind. This over-confidence can morph into a kind of fanaticism when they come under attack by some "fringe" idea that involves some different paradigm that is threating the status quo. This is generally the pattern underlying periodic "revolutions" in science. Just a few decades ago, it was AGW that was the fringe idea. It seemed absurd to think that human activity could have any significant effect on the overall global climate cycles. But empirical data and theoretical mechanisms kept accumulating to the point where even the mainstream of science could no longer ignore it. Clearly the climate is changing, and now we have a well-verified mechanism for explaining how human impact could be playing a role in this change. I can't begrudge anyone for seeking out anomalous data to see if evidence for the consensus view is as solid as it should be. Without "dissatisfied customers" the whole enterprise of science would collapse. But what's missing at the moment are any serious, well-substantiated anomalies counting against the theory of AGW. The supposed anomalous data that is presented to disconfirm AGW always turns out to have a credible explanation, and in many cases this explanation actually ends of strengthening the theory - which is actually a major hallmark of our best theories. They withstand challenges, and in the process of surviving, the theory ends up revealing things that we hadn't considered before. The supposed "hiatus", for example, initially seems like a challenge to AGW until you look beyond just the atmosphere and take total global heat into account (i.e., air, land, and water).
Over and over the supposed challenges to AGW end up looking like claims for the existence of Bigfoot; there ends up being a valid scientific reason for why this or that anti-AGW claim didn't survive the peer-review process. It's not because of some conspiracy; it's because the claims keep falling flat in the face of an increasingly strong theory. Ordinarily these challenges would have, by now, faded into the fringes with flat-earthers, moon-landing skeptics, holocaust deniers, etc., but in the case of AGW, the challenges are increasingly fueled by major political/ideological endorsements. It's grown out of the hands of science.If a major political party had endorsed the evidence for Bigfoot, you can bet that claims and counterclaims about Bigfoot would be in the national news every day, and a major portion of the population would come to believe that Bigfoot exists.
Agreed although I would also contend the smugness factor, a la the famous south park Prius episode, has played a huge part in those who 'deny' agw.
There are a bunch like me too... Man plays a part. We are helping change climate. We are not sure exactly how and to what degree and often bristle at some of the hyperbolic predictions. Mostly, many of the solutions offered have been rather specious and seem inclined to lean towards political/corporate ideology vs 'just science'.
Since we often get lumped into the flat earth crowd, I like using humor to, quoting stripes, 'lighten up Francis'. When one begins to Ed-u-ma-cate me on feedback loops and particulate lifespans, for example, I can easily pipe up. But I'll give you a hint: I read through these forums, and post, as a test to my patience. as one who once took himself way too seriously and knew 'erthang'... And often could back it up. Now, I'd rather listen, and laugh.
Sorry, Al, but even though your efforts to scam millions of people have been successful, your facts are disaster predictions just have not come true.
------------------
Sea level has been falling on the Atlantic seaboard for the past six years.
It's guaranteed to drop your IQ by at least 10 points!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Holy Chit!
