SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (26) down (21)
Forecasting sea level rise for Maryland

Forecasting sea level rise for Maryland

(9:36) It turns out that predicting sea level rise is not so simple.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2142 days ago)

On the bright side, by 2100 I might own some beach front property. I'll be dead by then so my surviving family will have to inherit the property.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

On the bright side, by 2100 I might own some beach front property. I'll be dead by then so my surviving family will have to inherit the property.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2141 days ago)

Why do you believe these scientists, when they will tell you that sea level is rising because the climate is warming due to human activity?

Or are you still sticking with Richard Lindzen?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Why do you believe these scientists, when they will tell you that sea level is rising because the climate is warming due to human activity?

Or are you still sticking with Richard Lindzen?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2141 days ago)

You misunderstand me. I agree the climate is warming. I agree that can cause the water level to increase. What I am still unsure about is that humans are the cause.

The planet's historical record shows that the average temperature is usually at 25C and we are still in an ice age so our current average temperature is 16C. We have a long way to go before we are back to normal.

Let me ask you a question then. If humans never existed, would the planet go back to 25C or would it stay a nice cool temperature at 16C for the rest of the planet's future?

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

You misunderstand me. I agree the climate is warming. I agree that can cause the water level to increase. What I am still unsure about is that humans are the cause.

The planet's historical record shows that the average temperature is usually at 25C and we are still in an ice age so our current average temperature is 16C. We have a long way to go before we are back to normal.

Let me ask you a question then. If humans never existed, would the planet go back to 25C or would it stay a nice cool temperature at 16C for the rest of the planet's future?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesting (2141 days ago)

I was so happy to read this. "Unsure", no claim to know better than the people who are engaged in actual research on the issue. And rational arguments. Nice.

Something to learn from for other climate sceptists here at Boreme.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

I was so happy to read this. "Unsure", no claim to know better than the people who are engaged in actual research on the issue. And rational arguments. Nice.

Something to learn from for other climate sceptists here at Boreme.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2141 days ago)

I'm just as unsure about AGW as I am about the existence of a God. There is no proof of either of them. My default position is to not believe unless I see proof. I also do not believe in big foot, the tooth fairy, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, or that aliens built the pyramids. There are thousands of people that claim to have been abducted by UFOs and I still do not believe because it is only their word without any proof.

AGW proponents have one bit of evidence that is a survey (a.k.a., a flawed analysis of cherry picked papers) that 97% of scientists say it's true. The existence of God is proven the same way by asking preachers if there is a God and 100% of them say yes. At least preachers can point to their old religious texts that say there is a God and that is proof enough, right? Just like a paper says that AGW is true without evidence is good enough?

Can we always believe whatever scientists say? History says no. Scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. They also thought it was flat. You cannot just believe what people tell you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

I'm just as unsure about AGW as I am about the existence of a God. There is no proof of either of them. My default position is to not believe unless I see proof. I also do not believe in big foot, the tooth fairy, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, or that aliens built the pyramids. There are thousands of people that claim to have been abducted by UFOs and I still do not believe because it is only their word without any proof.

AGW proponents have one bit of evidence that is a survey (a.k.a., a flawed analysis of cherry picked papers) that 97% of scientists say it's true. The existence of God is proven the same way by asking preachers if there is a God and 100% of them say yes. At least preachers can point to their old religious texts that say there is a God and that is proof enough, right? Just like a paper says that AGW is true without evidence is good enough?

Can we always believe whatever scientists say? History says no. Scientists thought the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. They also thought it was flat. You cannot just believe what people tell you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: vaginawrecker (2141 days ago)

Just wait, in another ten years you will accept the truth.

Just in time to be to late.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Just wait, in another ten years you will accept the truth.

Just in time to be to late.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2141 days ago)

You might be right. In 10 years when they have compelling evidence, I may believe. Until then, I am a skeptic because I don't just believe everything I'm told. I'm not the kind of person to blindly follow what the media tells me.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

You might be right. In 10 years when they have compelling evidence, I may believe. Until then, I am a skeptic because I don't just believe everything I'm told. I'm not the kind of person to blindly follow what the media tells me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2141 days ago)

..nor blindly follow what most climate scientists tell you. How bold. Instead, you blindly follow what climate sceptics tell you. Brilliant.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

..nor blindly follow what most climate scientists tell you. How bold. Instead, you blindly follow what climate sceptics tell you. Brilliant.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2141 days ago)

I'm not following anyone except myself. I consider the available information and then decide if I think there is enough evidence to believe. In this AGW case, I have determined that there are other possible reasons the earth could be warming and I find it hard to believe humans are the only cause. Perhaps we are contributing a little but being the only cause is speculation.

If someone told me it was raining in Jamaica, would I believe it? It's certainly plausible. I might even not care and just file their statement in the back of my mind. But would I then go telling all my friends that it's raining in Jamaica because that's what I was told? Absolutely not. I would attempt to confirm what I was told before I spread that information in fear of it not being accurate. I might say, "Tom told me it was raining in Jamaica" instead of it being considered fact. Then the person receiving that information can decide if they want to research it further.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

I'm not following anyone except myself. I consider the available information and then decide if I think there is enough evidence to believe. In this AGW case, I have determined that there are other possible reasons the earth could be warming and I find it hard to believe humans are the only cause. Perhaps we are contributing a little but being the only cause is speculation.

If someone told me it was raining in Jamaica, would I believe it? It's certainly plausible. I might even not care and just file their statement in the back of my mind. But would I then go telling all my friends that it's raining in Jamaica because that's what I was told? Absolutely not. I would attempt to confirm what I was told before I spread that information in fear of it not being accurate. I might say, "Tom told me it was raining in Jamaica" instead of it being considered fact. Then the person receiving that information can decide if they want to research it further.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2141 days ago)

Sure you're not a follower. So while all the believers who get their facts from climate scientists are 'followers', you who gets your facts from deniers are independent and free-willed. Haha! Go back to your Richard Lindzen.

No you wouldn't believe it if someone told you it was raining in Jamaica. In fact in your case, apparently if hundreds of Jamaicans rang you up and confirmed it, and then the Jamaican Centre for Whether It's Raining Or Not said it was definitely raining in Jamaica, you'd still choose not to believe it, and instead find some guy whose opinion you find interestingly controversial or different and just follow him. What an intellectual and free spirit you must be.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Sure you're not a follower. So while all the believers who get their facts from climate scientists are 'followers', you who gets your facts from deniers are independent and free-willed. Haha! Go back to your Richard Lindzen.

No you wouldn't believe it if someone told you it was raining in Jamaica. In fact in your case, apparently if hundreds of Jamaicans rang you up and confirmed it, and then the Jamaican Centre for Whether It's Raining Or Not said it was definitely raining in Jamaica, you'd still choose not to believe it, and instead find some guy whose opinion you find interestingly controversial or different and just follow him. What an intellectual and free spirit you must be.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: lips (2141 days ago)

I would love to take you up to nunavut to see the obvious effects global warming is having.

Keep your head in the sand, might work for you, who knows?

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

I would love to take you up to nunavut to see the obvious effects global warming is having.

Keep your head in the sand, might work for you, who knows?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2140 days ago)
Latest comment:

Please re-read my message. I never said that global warming doesn't exist.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Please re-read my message. I never said that global warming doesn't exist.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
The day is today
The day is today
AsapSCIENCE | The biggest lie about renewable energy
AsapSCIENCE | The biggest lie about renewable energy
The difference between climate and weather
The difference between climate and weather
The truth about global warming
The truth about global warming