Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>You bet wrong.
LOL.

OK prove it.

[SpaceBlues]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>OK prove it.

I just did.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>I just did.

I do agree you did prove again and again that you really really don't know. We see that tina gave you another spanking.

[Fair Game]

PHD wrote:

...tina gave you another spanking.

phudd is jealous.

[SpaceBlues]

Hey Norfolk, look:

Spatial extent of 1- and 6-m potential future sea-level rise along the East and Gulf coasts of the United States and for selected major coastal municipalities.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21461/F1.e...

Also, Miami, New Orleans.

[PHD]

Stair Blame wrote:

<quoted text>
phudd is jealous.

No not at all. I wouldn't think of taking that title away from you.

[tina anne]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Hey Norfolk, look:
Spatial extent of 1- and 6-m potential future sea-level rise along the East and Gulf coasts of the United States and for selected major coastal municipalities.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21461/F1.e...
Also, Miami, New Orleans.

Based on the flawed model of the IPCC. Notice the first thing is they didn't bother to give a timeline. Which means they will be off as far as Norfolk. The land here has been rising slowly as the result of the ice age and a meteor strike. Which is the reason why Nofolk has centuries old structures built on the water's edge that have yet to see any of this flooding.

I am not surprised about New Orleans, it has been sinking ever since it was settled. It is already more than one meter below sea level. Hurricane Katrinia proved that.

I also noticed that they did not include the West Coast. Could it be that the land there is rising faster than the water. Nor do I think you really thought about how much six meters is. That is nearly twenty feet. Do you realize how much water it would take to raise the ocean level by six feet. Not only would you need every chunk of ice on the planet to melt but you would also need to empty out nearly every major lake as well.

Looks like another case of Chicken Little. Then again with budget cuts looming I can see what the PNAS is after. After all, every congressman and senator is looking at cutting something other than something that generates jobs in their state. Cut the pork for the voters back home or the PNAS, the PNAS better come up with something major, something that will get those back home to write that representative and say cut the local library and school lunches for the poor kids instead of the PNAS.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Based on the flawed model of the IPCC. Notice the first thing is they didn't bother to give a timeline. Which means they will be off as far as Norfolk. The land here has been rising slowly as the result of the ice age and a meteor strike. Which is the reason why Nofolk has centuries old structures built on the water's edge that have yet to see any of this flooding.
I am not surprised about New Orleans, it has been sinking ever since it was settled. It is already more than one meter below sea level. Hurricane Katrinia proved that.
I also noticed that they did not include the West Coast. Could it be that the land there is rising faster than the water. Nor do I think you really thought about how much six meters is. That is nearly twenty feet. Do you realize how much water it would take to raise the ocean level by six feet. Not only would you need every chunk of ice on the planet to melt but you would also need to empty out nearly every major lake as well.
Looks like another case of Chicken Little. Then again with budget cuts looming I can see what the PNAS is after. After all, every congressman and senator is looking at cutting something other than something that generates jobs in their state. Cut the pork for the voters back home or the PNAS, the PNAS better come up with something major, something that will get those back home to write that representative and say cut the local library and school lunches for the poor kids instead of the PNAS.

I think you got PNAS mixed up with PENIS.

PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. PNAS is one of the most highly cited multidisciplinary science journals

[litesong]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

.....you got PNAS mixed up with PENIS.
PNAS is one of the most highly cited multidisciplinary......

Patrio AKA Bozo........ It is very hard to mix up PNAS with PENIS. Multiple disciplinary problems cause PENIS to be highly sighted.

[PHD]

pinheadlitesout wrote:

<quoted text>
Patrio AKA Bozo........ It is very hard to mix up PNAS with PENIS. Multiple disciplinary problems cause PENIS to be highly sighted.

We all know you have butt issues but this is another issue you never brought up. Well good luck with getting help.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

What the experts say about sea level rise.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

[PHD]

The experts are only opinion makers. Their opinion will soon change to another agenda. Just follow the money.

[tina anne]

PHD wrote:

The experts are only opinion makers. Their opinion will soon change to another agenda. Just follow the money.

How true, when the money dries up they will go to whatever the next big thing is.

[worse than we thought]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

What the experts say about sea level rise.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

here is something you should read 'bozo', this was way too funny, I had to pass it on.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/11-hilarious-...

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

worse than we thought wrote:

<quoted text>here is something you should read 'bozo', this was way too funny, I had to pass it on.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/11-hilarious-...

I liked the first one. Reminded me of the denier sphere.

"I cited this paper because everyone else has cited it, though noone has ever seen an actual copy." :)

[worse than we thought]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I liked the first one. Reminded me of the denier sphere.
"I cited this paper because everyone else has cited it, though noone has ever seen an actual copy." :)

that one would work for both sides 'bozo', I personally liked the one about the error on page 12, with the lab rats being too expensive a close second. anyways back to the front.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

worse than we thought wrote:

<quoted text>that one would work for both sides 'bozo', I personally liked the one about the error on page 12, with the lab rats being too expensive a close second. anyways back to the front.

But the one the deniers read, they quote out of context. Either that or they cannot read for comprehension.

[worse than we thought]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
But the one the deniers read, they quote out of context. Either that or they cannot read for comprehension.

here is an article with a lot of pictures in it 'bozo', even 'litesong' will learn from this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22599...

[PHD]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
How true, when the money dries up they will go to whatever the next big thing is.

Agreed.

[worse than we thought]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
But the one the deniers read, they quote out of context. Either that or they cannot read for comprehension.

here are some more pictures 'bozo', make sure 'litesong' gets a chance to read them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22602...