Global Warming? are humans to blame?

That is not going to happen.

 

Its already happening

ignoring it won't make it stop




from

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...oss&start=84&hl=en&sa=N&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1

 

Faulty data. I have lived at or sea level most of my life. It isn't coming up.

 

If true, that means the government had to take land from someone else so it could give it to you. The only way they could justify that is by painting anyone who owns more than 20 hectares as evil, grasping and selfish.

While I have a lot of problems with modern capitalism, I haven't gotten to the point where I believe it's my "birthright" to take other people's property just because I want it. That's called stealing, not sharing.

 

Interesting, so tens of thousands of scientists are wrong and one guy living a few miles inland's anecdotal observations are supposed trump thousands of scientific studies ?

yikes
now thats wishful thinking

thing is I'd rather be wrong about this, problem is the amount of science behind it all is overwhelming. If your heads out of the sand there's not much missing the realities. Hard as they might be.

 

What is overwhelming is the smell coming off that mountain of BS.

 

so those tens of thousands of scientists and the hundreds of years of science behind the conclusion that global warming is occurring and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels is, according to who, all just BS. Sorry but blind ( even in that one good eye ) denial is hardly going to solve any of the issues associated with the Rapid Global Climate Shift crisis.

 

Hi Hoyt,
Do NOT think of visiting Kiribati and espouse that view lest you be considered worthy of being lynched by an angry mob, - - as they are loosing their land to rising waters NOW and desperate to find somewhere to go and re-settle...

Some other Island communities are being re-settled from islands to the NE of Bougainville Island as their home islands are succumbing to the rising waters...

 

Hi troy2000,
Something similar to that happened after WW1 here where the returning soldiers were given 640 acres of land (requiring that certain areas were cleared and fenced every year and other conditions too be complied in order to retain possession, - Does that make Australia "socialist"...

 

http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/nature_gallery/pacificislands.htm

Kiribati sits on a subsiding plate. The water is not rising the island is sinking.
Check the tectonic data regarding the Marianas Trench.

"Marshall, Tuamotu, and Kiribati islands, are atoll chains. Based on a well-accepted theory developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882), atolls form because of the subsidence of oceanic islands."

 

Hi Hoyt,
I will agree that they are on the subduction side of that plate but they are not on the "going down" edge, and those that go down do so with plate movement by jerks during seismic activity at that area... and on the other side of the plate are the islands off the Eastern side of the New Ireland/Bougainville/Solomon Islands region... which are also feeling the effects of rising waters... Most of those "little" islands are the heads of ancient volcanic peaks...

Siapan, on the NW of that plate appears to be where the subduction is occurring, raising Saipan/Guam region on the adjoining plate... Kiribati is on the opposite side of that plate and a long way from any subduction issues... New Ireland is sliding in an anti-clockwise arc moving from SE to NW (no subdiction there, but quite active slipping)... good conditions to find gold, copper and such...

 

Plates are and do interesting things.

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_12.asp

 

Oh for God sake Hoytedow.

Will you stop believing reality.
and believe ******** for once in your life!!

 

It's not my fault. Guam is the one rising. When some terrain goes up, terrain somewhere else must go down. The carpet is always raised up when the rat moves under it.

 

from
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/

key phrase in the article is

and

the summary is also pretty interesting because despite the occasional slack jawed denial there is no doubt within the scientific community that sea levels are rising , its just a mater of how much and how fast.

Once again the IPCC is going to err on the conservative side and produce its traditional low numbers, a good idea in the stuffy environment of science but it fails to show the looming crisis in as full a light as it should be to illicit an appropriate response. Put it this way, how much will it cost to move 100 million? or better yet the hundreds of millions that would be displaced should the IPCC predictions turn out to be they're traditionally low ball norm.

one thing of particular note is that since the IPCC ice loss estimates have proven to be so ridiculously conservative ( check out the graph of actual VS estimated ice loss ) the numbers being projected are far more likely than not to be low by factors rather than a few percents.



the black line is actual and the red line is the IPCC estimated, clearly the IPCC made a very conservative call ( as usual ) Likely they did the same with most all if not all the parameters used to estimate sea level rise. Which brings us back to the question of "how much does it cost to relocate hundreds of millions of people ? Just from sea level rise. Rather than try and mitigate that rise before it occurs.

In the end all the right wing republican tripe about cost is exactly backwards, its going to prove less expensive to deal with the problem now, while its still cheap, than later when whole cities will need relocation and not just a few island communities.

Love
B