irwin
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Using the numbers from Climate.gov — 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015, it’s like 3 cm or 1 1/4 inches in 9 years. If that rate continues for 85 years it would be more than 10 additional inches. The land is subsiding on the East Coast of the US after being lifted up by the weight of glaciers during the Ice Age, so that is a confounding factor.
These rates of change are not static. Using the same information, the present rate of change is 3 degrees Fahrenheit/100yrs and more than 3cm/10yrs sea level rise (or 12 ft/100 yrs).
From the climate.gov webpage —
Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, but the rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.
From the IPCC —
GMSL rose by 1.5 mm yr-1 during the period 1901–1990, accelerating to 3.6 mm yr-1 during the period 2005–2015.This is just sloppy thinking —
“…that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison”
“Lindzen said that the earth was just emerging from the “Little Ice Age” in the 19th century and says that it is “not surprising” to see warming after that.”
“ And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess.”WRT the climate change video, 3cm of sea level rise in 10 years is a lot. It means the coast will keep eroding. Towns actually do have plans to retreat from the ocean. 30cm in the last 100 years is almost a 1ft. And the rate of change is not constant. High temperatures and high humidity is also a bad combination. I’m a big fan of the blog, but this sea level stuff bothers me. There is more to consider.
This photo comparison is clearly misleading. It’s the Fallacy of Omission.
The omission is that NYC next to the ocean and the ocean has tides.This is another amateur theater production from Project Veritas that they try to pass off as news. Never trust a group with Veritas in its name.
