Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Back To The Future
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- Crashex on Time Of Observation Bias
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- Mike on Climate Scamming For Profit
- conrad ziefle on Time Of Observation Bias
- Francis Barnett on Climate Scamming For Profit
- Bob G on Time Of Observation Bias
- arn on Climate Scamming For Profit
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!