Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- The Thing Of The Past
- “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- ‘Two incredible extreme events’
- The End Of Snow
- Google Maps Adds Context
- Thing Of The Past Update
- Expert Government Forecasting
- Thing Of The Past Comes To England
- “far outside the range of observed variability”
- African Desertification
- Grok Explains Polar Bears
- The Climate Denial Money Machine
- President Trump : “decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
- New Plan To Rob The Citizenry
- “Fifteen days to flatten the curve”
- Warm December 1923
- “Ensure No One Is Above the Law”
- The Best Electric Cars
- Honeybee Collapse Update
- “a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.”
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
Recent Comments
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Thing Of The Past
- arn on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- William on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- dm on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Robertvd on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Robertvd on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Bob G on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
http://bigthink.com/ideas/30860
Geothermal difficult
Headline; “EPA 1988 : Sea Level Could Rise Four Feet By 2025”
Caveat on the EPA statement is “IF the current rate…”
Time frame quoted; sometime between 2025 and 2050
Possible level rise 1 to 4 feet
The headline could also read “Sea level could rise one foot by 2050”
The first headline assumes a 1000mm rise over 37 years or 28mm per yr
The alternate headline 250mm over 62 years or 4mm per year
Or any variation therein.
Given that sea level isn’t rising at all around the US, which one do you pick?
The claim from the EPA is designed to Alarm while not knowing what they are talking about. EPA is still doing the same thing. Sort of like the IPCC that makes Rectal Pronouncements!
I’ll bet the likes of the EPA, Hansen et al didn’t predict that these predictions will come back to haunt them.
It was thanks to Titus and co-workers that I first had to testify in court about sea level rise in New Zealand – particularly their report
Hoffman, J.S., Keyes, D., and Titus, J.G., 1983, Projecting future sea level rise, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Predicted for 2000 – 48-171 mm
Predicted for 2025 – 130-550 mm
However, they changed their minds over time
Hoffman, J.S., Wells, J.B., and Titus, J.G., 1986, Future Global Warming and Sea Level Rise, in Sigbiamarson, F., ed., Iceland Coastal and River Symposium: Reykjavik, National Energy Authority, p. 245-266.
Predicted for 2000 – 35-55 mm
Predicted for 2025 – 100-210 mm
Nice, thanks!