Log in

View Full Version : Mapping Areas Potentially Impacted by Sea Level Rise


Richard
11-23-2011, 03:41 PM
Two very nice interactive tools are available from the link below. For example, click on "all continents", then in the box on the bottom left click the check box for "Potentially Impacted Areas", adjust the elevations if you wish (click the "+" sign to open options) -- and then zoom in on the coastline of interest.

DGESL : Research : Climate Change and Sea Level : Mapping Sea Level Rise (http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/mapping_slr/)

scottu
11-23-2011, 08:41 PM
phhhhbbbbbbtttt!!!!

Richard
11-23-2011, 09:02 PM
phhhhbbbbbbtttt!!!!

They're taking it a little more seriously in Miami.

scottu
11-23-2011, 09:15 PM
Sorry if I come off like a dick but, I have a hard time when "their" is abuse of scientific fact that is used for mere political ground, especially now, with the whole country's existence hinging on and to a major degree on how our embracing of or not embracing of such crap plays out as acceptable to the general public.
we need term limits etc. on reporters etc. if you ask me!

scottu
11-23-2011, 09:23 PM
and California I suppose.

Richard
11-23-2011, 09:34 PM
I have a hard time when ...

If all you want to do is react to the title emotionally, then go for it. But if you want to look a little deeper, the tool itself is for looking at "what if" scenarios. Here is the abstract from the published report:
Recently published work estimates that global sea level rise (SLR) approaching or exceeding 1 m by 2100 is plausible, thus significantly updating projections by the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Furthermore, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the 21st century will not only influence SLR in the next ~90 years, but will also commit Earth to several meters of additional SLR over subsequent centuries. In this context of worsening prospects for substantial SLR, we apply a new geospatial dataset to calculate low-elevation areas in coastal cities of the conterminous U.S.A. potentially impacted by SLR in this and following centuries. In total, 20 municipalities with populations greater than 300,000 and 160 municipalities with populations between 50,000 and 300,000 have land area with elevations at or below 6 m and connectivity to the sea, as based on the 1 arc-second National Elevation Dataset. On average, approximately 9% of the area in these coastal municipalities lies at or below 1 m. This figure rises to 36% when considering area at or below 6 m. Areal percentages of municipalities with elevations at or below 1-6 m are greater than the national average along the Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts. In contrast to the national and international dimensions of and associated efforts to curb GHG emissions, our comparison of low-elevation areas in coastal cities of the conterminous U.S.A. clearly shows that SLR will potentially have very local, and disproportionate, impacts.

momoese
11-23-2011, 09:43 PM
Interesting!

scottu
11-23-2011, 09:46 PM
If you believe that sea rise is a problem and could displace anyone then I apologize and have no qualms with you or any one trying to alert people to such dangers. I only ask that others not so implicitly impacted etc. don't just fall for a tale told for who knows who's benefit, just because they heard it on the news.

Richard
11-23-2011, 10:25 PM
I only ask that others not so implicitly impacted etc. don't just fall for a tale told for who knows who's benefit, just because they heard it on the news.

I agree that there are those talking about increasing sea levels for their own benefit, just as there are those who deny rising sea levels for their (or company's) benefit. Both of these sources are able to get their tales told by one news source or another. Regardless, sea levels have been rising steadily since 1400 C.E. So for planning purposes, the interactive tool is very helpful. It is global, so for example Dalmationsoap can check out scenarios for his village.

scottu
11-24-2011, 12:01 AM
I don't know if I believe about sea levels rising since 1400 C.E. as being a fact, tho I am sure rising and falling alternately we could agree on, it's the difference since then compared to now that is all that matters and I am not sure how plausible a figure that is to come up with since figures kept back then are not anything you can measure against today's for the fact that this year the them they went yada thene ada I just don't wrda thinka they ora anyaone has any freakin idea theys just goods buullshin poopers and if cicero's cousin was the harbor village measuring agent I wanta see his writen specs, cause they was written for his own benifit or infin his company was willin too pay him enough for theys benifit.

momoese
11-24-2011, 12:06 AM
I don't know if I believe about sea levels rising since 1400 C.E. as being a fact, tho I am sure rising and falling alternately we could agree on, it's the difference since then compared to now that is all that matters and I am not sure how plausible a figure that is to come up with since figures kept back then are not anything you can measure against today's for the fact that this year the them they went yada thene ada I just don't wrda thinka they ora anyaone has any freakin idea theys just goods buullshin poopers and if cicero's cousin was the harbor village measuring agent I wanta see his writen specs, cause they was written for his own benifit or infin his company was willin too pay him enough for theys benifit.

Scott, are you typing on a phone? I can hardly read anything you wrote here due to the typos.

scottu
11-24-2011, 12:21 AM
Come on Micheal, you can tell the difference between a typo and a yadada yada can't you.

momoese
11-24-2011, 12:30 AM
Come on Micheal, you can tell the difference between a typo and a yadada yada can't you.

:ha:

scottu
11-24-2011, 12:31 AM
Mitchel,Richard,
I wish to youse guys a good night and a happy thanksgiving to all here and elsewhere!

momoese
11-24-2011, 12:35 AM
Mitchel,Richard,
I wish to youse guys a good night and a happy thanksgiving to all here and elsewhere!

Thanks, back at ya! :nanadrink:

Richard
11-24-2011, 12:39 PM
I am not sure how plausible a figure that is to come up with since figures kept back then ...

The fact concerning sea level rise does not come from human records. It is a matter of geologic study. This is not something I learned on "the news" -- I haven't watched TV for 30 years. Instead, you will find it in a college sophomore geology textbook, such as the one I had in 1975.

scottu
11-24-2011, 06:27 PM
Richard, I am sorry to be such a pain in your but cause I can see all you are doing is trying to give out some important info.
But, I have to say that there is a lively debate on the subject anyone can find with a simple Google. and being printed in a text does not mean much anymore.

Richard
11-25-2011, 01:44 AM
... I have to say that there is a lively debate on the subject anyone can find with a simple Google ...

The lively debate you are referring to concerns the subject of global warming. I make no claim one way or another about that subject. Sea level rise is a matter of geology. If global warming does not exist, then sea levels will continue to rise at their present rate -- about 1 meter per 100 years.

... being printed in a text does not mean much anymore ...

The engineers who designed your cell phone feel otherwise.

scottu
11-25-2011, 08:49 AM
The debate that I refer to also includes the opposing views against any rising of sea levels.

Richard
11-25-2011, 12:07 PM
The debate that I refer to also includes the opposing views against any rising of sea levels.

No, it is about increasing rates of sea level rise.

saltydad
11-25-2011, 05:11 PM
And the argument is more about what the potential impact will be, not if there is one. Of course, there is always the lunatic fringe that feels this is all made up so they can keep the Democrats in office. Ask any true geologist/meteorologist/ atmospheric scientist, and you will realize the debate has already been decided by the data.

Jack Daw
11-25-2011, 05:51 PM
Error #2032
Don't you just hate when this keeps hapenning? :D
Interactive map, ay?

scottu
11-25-2011, 05:56 PM
Other than the lunatic fringe that want to keep the dems in office I think you will find true geologist/meteorologist/ atmospheric scientist that have opinions other than what you have decided.

nannerfunboi
11-25-2011, 06:53 PM
upfront im a dyed in wool liberal..however anyone wants to
catagorize me
debate..despite what george will wants to say.. is a done
deal.. global warming..global change.. mans to blame..mans
not to blame..
we'll get these answers in 50 yrs.. for now..data is showing
as richard simply posted.. ocean levels are rising..
glaciers are melting faster than they have in recent past..
for me without making any judgements ..we need to make plans
for our near future..especially low lying areas of the planet..with
dense populations.. mmm. that means eastern seaboard of usa..
always good to see differing discussion here..YEA!!
thanks richard...:woohoonaner:

scottu
11-25-2011, 07:57 PM
No, it is about increasing rates of sea level rise.
I can see most in the field agree with you and the rates of sea level rise, but some still hold that there is no sea level rise.
I really haven't an opinion. It seems like your assured view and that of the leaning of the consensus of those in the field in question that it should be a slam dunk for your side of the debate. Forgive me if I can only say that it seems like the seas are rising but I am not convinced, it's too related to the global warming thing with all those fudged figures and all

Richard
11-25-2011, 08:55 PM
I can see most in the field agree with you and the rates of sea level rise, but some still hold that there is no sea level rise.
I really haven't an opinion. It seems like your assured view and that of the leaning of the consensus of those in the field in question that it should be a slam dunk for your side of the debate. Forgive me if I can only say that it seems like the seas are rising but I am not convinced, it's too related to the global warming thing with all those fudged figures and all

The confusion between "sea-level rising rate" and "increase of sea-level rising rate" is understandable. Unfortunately, too many people don't know the difference between the two. In the construction of news sound bites, the 2nd will be shortened to the 1st -- thus a reason to turn off the network news. Then there is the situation of two or more people with no technical basis in the subject debating the pros and cons -- which is a circus to be avoided. In the worst scenario, we have politicians and corporate interests who purposely equivocate the two in a bid to manipulate the populous.

The ocean sea-level has been rising with respect to land masses since the last ice age began retreating. The current rate of about 1 meter per century (1 cm per year) is not the fastest that has occurred during during the ice retreat epoch. Rising levels does not mean that the shore line has been rising everywhere. For example, here in California the land on the western side of the San Andreas Fault has been moving northward at a rate of about 5 inches per year for about 40 million years, and in some locations it intermittently rises at a rate of about 1 inch per year. In those locations, the land rises faster than the sea level for geologically brief periods of time.

scottu
11-25-2011, 09:37 PM
That's the part of it I have trouble with. You have land masses rising above and below water levels.
So you can't go with a known mountain or such that had a known elevation of water level at different times throughout history because that land mass could have elevated or not also. There is no meridian.
There were no satellites to bounce measurements off of, so no standing solid anything for referencing of or to anything yet we still know how high the water levels are were or became in comparison at any given time?

Richard
11-25-2011, 11:33 PM
That's the part of it I have trouble with. You have land masses rising above and below water levels.
So you can't go with a known mountain or such that had a known elevation of water level at different times throughout history because that land mass could have elevated or not also. There is no meridian.
There were no satellites to bounce measurements off of, so no standing solid anything for referencing of or to anything yet we still know how high the water levels are were or became in comparison at any given time?

The short answer is: geologic record. The long answer involves study of tidal action, plus marine animal and shoreline mineral deposits in the present and geologic past. With respect to the more recent levels, there are monolithic bastions on a few continents which have not moved in geologically recent times. For the longer term, the placement of the evidence in time is from a number of sources including radio-carbon, paleomagnetic, geologic superposition, and animal morphology. It's a whole lot of physics with chemistry and biology. It did not start with one group of people investigating sea levels, but instead many different studies investigating the geology of small localities for a lot of different reasons, often mineral resources. By the late 1960's, enough published geologic studies had been done all over the world so that some researchers could start looking "bigger pictures" -- one of them being ocean tide levels.

Yug
11-26-2011, 01:30 AM
And the argument is more about what the potential impact will be, not if there is one. Of course, there is always the lunatic fringe that feels this is all made up so they can keep the Democrats in office. Ask any true geologist/meteorologist/ atmospheric scientist, and you will realize the debate has already been decided by the data.

This is such bogus b.s.. This has been shown to be based on fraudulent info, you know, FACTS that have disproved it. I'm not going to go into detail, but it was PROVEN to be false. If you wish to believe it just because algore said it, without actually doing some fact-checking yourself, go ahead. You are still being mislead or are misleading yourself. The rest of us don't want to go along for the ride :waving: (or be taken for a ride :0519: ).

Richard
11-26-2011, 01:50 AM
This is such bogus b.s.. ... If you wish to believe it just because algore said it ...

Like I said, two people with no applicable background debating climatology is a circus that should be ignored. I've got a good science background and I don't feel qualified to debate climatology either!

As for this thread I started, it has nothing to do with promoting the idea of "climate change". Instead it is about a useful tool for analyzing the effects of the rate of sea level rise over the next 300 years.

Yug
11-26-2011, 12:39 PM
Like I said, two people with no applicable background debating climatology is a circus that should be ignored. I've got a good science background and I don't feel qualified to debate climatology either!

As for this thread I started, it has nothing to do with promoting the idea of "climate change". Instead it is about a useful tool for analyzing the effects of the rate of sea level rise over the next 300 years.

I know it was not your post, but the 'lunatic fringe' comment is offensive, especially when the side 'supposedly' not on the lunatic fringe is believing a proven fairy tale. I checked the data myself, and what I discovered was the temperature increase actually preceeded the CO2 rise; sometimes by more than 100 years. That doesn't fit the radical enviro-terrorist agenda, so they reverse it, and say CO2 increase caused higher temps. Earth-love-nutcases ate it up, and now continue the myth. Lenin's reference to 'useful idiots' comes to mind. Then when you tell them facts, they ignore you, insult you, etc., but NEVER fact check on their own since it doesn't fit what they WANT to believe (even if it is a lie)

Richard
11-26-2011, 04:43 PM
Is there fraud in Climatology and other branches of science like there is in the rest of human endeavors: Yes.
Are there University Climatology Research Institutions that after intense scrutiny have been found to be both honest and robust in their work: Yes.
Can a person with only a liberal arts background obtain substantial understanding and critical knowledge of Climatology (or other complex sciences) by reading articles on the internet: No.

saltydad
11-26-2011, 05:27 PM
Can a person with a scientific background (Ivy league education, multiple research papers in peer refereed journals) who is not a climate scientist read the data (as I have) and come to a cogent understanding of the data-yes. Can he be as convincing as a climate scientist-no, as Richard said. However, I said 'lunatic fringe' for a reason. Many (not all) folks running around as climate deniers are in the same crowd that feel we should teach creationism, that the earth is only about 5000 years old (which would negate the geologic record), etc. I am not saying ALL 'deniers' are like this. I have come to respect Scot and Yug here and don't include them in this description. But I do believe science over theology (even my own religion's) any day of the week. It seems that many (most?) deniers are from the right, while the scientific community that feels climate change, sea level rise, etc. is a data driven outcome are from all sides of the political equation, if they are even political. So I say let the data speak for itself. If it eventually shows that climate change does not have human causation added to a naturally occurring cycle,, so be it. And come on Yug, you don't like 'lunatic fringe' but 'radical enviro terrorist' is OK? I'll tone down if you do too.:03:

How are your orchids doing?

scottu
11-26-2011, 06:40 PM
intelligence and education are quite different, but the one can overcome the other!

Richard
11-26-2011, 07:42 PM
intelligence and education are quite different

Yes. Intelligence is a measure of the rate we learn at, while education is a measure of the amount of learning.

Further, there are two types of learning: exemplars (facts) and schemas (patterns). There are many kinds of schemas. The ability to learn and store the various schemas is a set of brain skills, each of which must be developed prior to age 9, preferably between ages 4 and 7.

The example of someone who is classified as a visual learner is a case of a person who did not completely develop schema for other forms of information processing.

but the one can overcome the other!

Someone with a faster learning rate is also able to integrate facts and patterns at a faster rate. The range of abilities throughout the population is astounding. I have had the privilege of working with several individuals whose learning rate is 10 times mine, and with a few whose rate is 100 times mine. To really put it in perspective, A. Einstein's rate is estimated at being 1000 times faster than mine.

Climatology is a complex science, which to achieve a real understanding you need to thoroughly integrate 4 other major sciences. This is to say that you need to be in the same league as those individuals who complete 4 PhD's in the time that an above average PhD student would complete 1. I have assisted such a person with their computer models. Everyone else in the field is either working for someone with that capability, or working on tiny pieces of the research (such as the subject of this thread), or really in denial about their chances of making a significant contribution.

Try not to confuse climatology with meteorology. I'm definitely not claiming that you need 4 PhD's to study or discuss the weather.

Yug
11-26-2011, 08:04 PM
...
And come on Yug, you don't like 'lunatic fringe' but 'radical enviro terrorist' is OK? I'll tone down if you do too.:03:

How are your orchids doing?
Well, to be fair there are enviro-terrorists, and they have conducted such acts. There is a lunatic fringe, however they are mostly harmless, and engender many varied fields, and topics - and political affiliations. I could mention where I've seen them congregate mostly (especially quite recently), and what their sympathies trend toward, but I'll be nice. Also, that DNC 'chick' seems unable to mention 'tea-party' without the addition of the adjective radical, or extremist - what's up with that? At least they didn't leave garbage, human-waste, dead bodies, etc. at any of their gatherings, did they? Pretty frightening folks, neh?

The 'chids are getting along - they are rewarding me from time to time. Here's Cattleya Old Whitey. Thanx for asking. :08: Still in bloom as of today.
<a href=http://www.bananas.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=46858><img src=http://www.bananas.org/gallery/watermark.php?file=46858&size=1 border=0></a>

scottu
11-26-2011, 08:43 PM
I believe intelligence to be the total of knowledge that is able to be amassed ever by the said intelligence
I believe education is the process of educating to that end!

scottu
11-26-2011, 09:16 PM
intelligence is the amount of knowledge you have acquired not the speed you recieve it and your education is the way you are given it.

Richard
11-26-2011, 10:06 PM
I believe intelligence to be the total of knowledge that is able to be amassed ever by the said intelligence
I believe education is the process of educating to that end!

Scott, you are welcome to those definitions. However in formal studies of cognitive science, teaching, etc. the definitions are the ones I gave. So again we have the conundrum of two people using the same word, one meaning a rate and the other meaning a quantity.

scottu
11-26-2011, 10:51 PM
the rate as we have noted is not constant so how can it be more important than the cumulative?
Did not the hare beat the tortoise!

Richard
11-27-2011, 12:07 AM
the rate as we have noted is not constant so how can it be more important than the cumulative?
Did not the hare beat the tortoise!

Because the person with the normal learning rate will not live long enough to acquire, retain, and integrate the cumulative facts and patterns that the person with 100 times the learning rate can achieve from ages 5 to 25. You see, it is not just about the information, it is about the how the brain is able to use it.

I am done with this thread. I hope many of you have enjoyed the voyage.

scottu
11-27-2011, 08:34 AM
Thank you for your education, intelligence and your wisdom

Jack Daw
11-27-2011, 08:59 AM
Can a person with only a liberal arts background obtain substantial understanding and critical knowledge of Climatology (or other complex sciences) by reading articles on the internet: No.
Richard, I will clarify this, so that those people, who don't understand this sentence, are not offended. I will offer an example from my field of study:
Q: "Can a lyman with only basic math and physics (elememtary and high school) understand the mobile 3G network?"
A: No, he can only get the illusion of understanding - especially after reading a peer-revievewed, published article from the field. But the core of 3G network is a multiplexing technique that requires so much knowledge from advanced mathematics, linear multispace algebra, electromagnetic field theory, spectral analysis, error correction, synchronization and link state detection and compensation, that it requires years of additional studying (hence the college degree - those years of studying).
And this will give you only the ability to be able to better understand, what is being written, not guarantee the total understanding... again, this is individual and depends on how much work you've done in the field so far.
Yet the internet is full of 3G network description that hold practically no value, yet most of the people read them, learn from them and take them for an absolute truth... often even with all those obvious and systematic mistakes and left-outs.

Now, after reading something, literally something on the net in say a few months, would you be willing and capable of improving the existing 3G network, suggest new multiplexing and coding techniques etc.?
I want to see the first one who says yes.

Or, after studying something about pancreas and chirurgy, would you insist on correcting and guiding your doctor during the procedure? I doubt it. - it is those other details from many other books the doctor had to read, that make him the qualified one and you the dependent one.

So I don't get how can those people (not experts in the field) so passionately fight for their "small truths" and correct, criticize people with many years of experience and degrees in the field. + their credibility and publication history.


So I say let the data speak for itself. If it eventually shows that climate change does not have human causation added to a naturally occurring cycle,, so be it.
The problem is, salty, that in order to prove this with a sufficiently low margin of error, you would have to have complete and correct data not from 3 or 4 decades, but from a much wider time span. That's what's going on (collecting data over a wide time span)... thus... the scientists are doing their job and the ordinary people (who don't even understand their work, but have read several unqualified blogs from even less qualified and many times even uneducated and/or politically/socially motivated groups) are interfering with it, making it very difficult to work in these conditions (and I'm only mentioning these because of the death threats, verbal attacks... against the scientists).


Yes. Intelligence is a measure of the rate we learn at, while education is a measure of the amount of learning.

Further, there are two types of learning: exemplars (facts) and schemas (patterns). There are many kinds of schemas. The ability to learn and store the various schemas is a set of brain skills, each of which must be developed prior to age 9, preferably between ages 4 and 7.

The example of someone who is classified as a visual learner is a case of a person who did not completely develop schema for other forms of information processing.
Always happy to learn something new, but I'm unsure, how correct is the last sentence about visual learners. :)



Climatology is a complex science, which to achieve a real understanding you need to thoroughly integrate 4 other major sciences. This is to say that you need to be in the same league as those individuals who complete 4 PhD's in the time that an above average PhD student would complete 1. I have assisted such a person with their computer models. Everyone else in the field is either working for someone with that capability, or working on tiny pieces of the research (such as the subject of this thread), or really in denial about their chances of making a significant contribution.
Denial. Agreed. Internet has given many people a belief, that they are skilled and educated in one or many fields without having to prove, hone or use their "skills" at all.


I believe intelligence to be the total of knowledge that is able to be amassed ever by the said intelligence
I believe education is the process of educating to that end!
In the second semester (or term, what you prefer), a professor told us during his first lecture: "If ever you as technicians want to start the sentence with "I think", "I believe", "Maybe", "Somewhere I've read" and "I've heard", don't speak it out loud, until you are sure you can omit those words and make the sentence sound at least a little bit credible - because most probably it won't be, your mind knows it and I will give you an adequate grade, if you say something like that followed by an invented bul*****."
Just a flashback... :D

No, it's not a total. And let's not forget, that English in all its beauty has (according to my opinion only far too many) definitions (it has only 1 in my language).
The formal linguistic definition of what you are talking about is different from the formal definition of what intelligence is... and 'intelligence' is in the dictionary.com defined as:in·tel·li·gence

   [in-tel-i-juhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
noun 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wit).

3. the faculty of understanding.

4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.

5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information.

Synonyms
1. See mind. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mind) 2. discernment, reason, acumen, aptitude, penetration.


Antonyms
2. stupidity.
If you can't match synonyms and antonyms to your definition, you're just talking about something else. And none of the above can be defined as the "sum...".
Richard's definition is more precise.


intelligence is the amount of knowledge you have acquired not the speed you recieve it and your education is the way you are given it.
Again, the dictionary... it's the capacity for learning, reasoning... not an amount. It's an ability.


I am done with this thread. I hope many of you have enjoyed the voyage.
Me too, it takes far too much time from studying. :ha:

caliboy1994
11-28-2011, 08:05 PM
Isn't human-caused climate change just wonderful? I don't have to worry myself, but I feel bad for my relatives in Jacksonville, Florida, and for the rest of you that will be affected by this. And who do we have to blame? Ourselves, of course! :D

scottu
11-28-2011, 08:12 PM
Isn't human-caused climate change just wonderful? I don't have to worry myself, but I feel bad for my relatives in Jacksonville, Florida, and for the rest of you that will be affected by this. And who do we have to blame? Ourselves, of course! :D
phhhhbbbbbbtttt!!!!

caliboy1994
11-28-2011, 08:16 PM
Oh, and for those of you that think that this is BS, take a look at THIS:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/Images/global_temperature_anomaly.gif

The change is already happening. We can see it. Here's another example that all of us gardeners can relate to:

Hardiness Zone Changes at arborday.org (http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm)

A lot of us would have a bit of a harder time growing bananas if it weren't thanks to climate change, and this includes me.

In fact, some of the past few years have been the hottest years ON RECORD. I'm just taking this from memory, so I might be wrong, but I think I heard that 2010 was the hottest and 2006 was the second hottest. I do know for a fact that some of the hottest years on record were fairly recent (as in during the 1990s and 2000s). Unless just about every institute gathering information on weather and climate is in on this "hoax" (this includes governmental organizations such as NASA), then we are pretty much digging our own graves.

scottu
11-28-2011, 08:29 PM
Oh, and for those of you that think that this is BS, take a look at THIS:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/Images/global_temperature_anomaly.gif

The change is already happening. We can see it. Here's another example that all of us gardeners can relate to:

Hardiness Zone Changes at arborday.org (http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm)

A lot of us would have a bit of a harder time growing bananas if it weren't thanks to climate change, and this includes me.

In fact, some of the past few years have been the hottest years ON RECORD. I'm just taking this from memory, so I might be wrong, but I think I heard that 2010 was the hottest and 2006 was the second hottest. I do know for a fact that some of the hottest years on record were fairly recent (as in during the 1990s and 2000s). Unless just about every institute gathering information on weather and climate is in on this "hoax" (this includes governmental organizations such as NASA), then we are pretty much digging our own graves.
I have the Deed to the brooklyn bridge Maybe you want to buy that b.s. also.

caliboy1994
11-28-2011, 08:39 PM
I bet that it's so much BS I could buy it right now as an unemployed high school student...:ha::ha::ha::ha:

scottu
11-28-2011, 09:03 PM
I bet that it's so much BS I could buy it right now as an unemployed high school student...:ha::ha::ha::ha:
It's as good as yours!