|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
It might be better to comment on what has been said rather than concoct hyperbole that has been "unsaid". This should be purely a scientific discussion not a political one. Unfortunately 'global warming' (or more correctly now 'climate change') has become a huge industry and if we look at how it is funded we find not big business but government money. Whoever is funding research has their own agenda and so future grants depend to a tangible extent on results produced. Let's take the IPCC figures from the fourth assessment report earlier this year. Their most recent measurement of sea level rise is 3.1mm/year. So if we take the upper limit of 1.4m quoted by Kristof this would take not 92 years but more than 450 years at the current rate and if you look at the previous measured rates, it is difficult to see how you could ever project the increase in rates to get the required average rate of 15mm/year. So somebody is seriously over-egging the pudding here. Talking about over-egging, it seems you took Kristof's 1.4m and added your own Brewster factor to make this up to 1.5m (that's another 32 years of our lives you added or threw away depending on how you look at it). What I find amazing is that some folks want to take an impossible worst-case scenario and then make it even worse. Even so, a 1.5m rise in sea level over 93 years would not be the end of civilization, as we know it, nor will it significantly impact our grandchildren?s lives, nor will it lead to starving masses.
Posted on: 2007/8/20 17:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I prefer not to get my science from op-ed pieces In case you missed the May edition of "Geophysical Research Letters," an article by five scientists has the backdrop. They analyze the extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1953. The computer models anticipated a loss of ice of 2.5 percent per decade, but the actual loss was 7.8 percent per decade ? three times greater. The article notes that the extent of summer ice melting is 30 years ahead of where the models predict. I assume the IPCC and others are updating their data all the time, so how do we ever get to be thirty years out of date. Makes no sense. The actual volume of melting floating ice is replaced by a similar volume of water so the melting of the arctic ice sheet is not very significant in terms of sea level changes; we should be looking at melting ice elsewhere. Science magazine reported in March that Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice overall, about 125 billion metric tons a year between the two of them ? and the amount has accelerated over the last decade. To put that in context, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the most unstable part of the frosty cloak over the southernmost continent) and Greenland together hold enough ice to raise global sea levels by 40 feet or so, although they would take hundreds of years to melt. We hope. Yes, they are mostly located in areas where the temperature is well below zero and will not be affected by a few degree rises in temperature over the next hundred years, so congratulations on getting that one right. The most significant increase in melting ice over the next few decades will come from the melting of mountain ice caps and glaciers With the effects of this and the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets I recently saw upper forecasts of 56cm rise in sea level by 2100. In January, Science reported that actual rises in sea level in recent years followed the uppermost limit of the range predicted by computer models of climate change ? meaning that past studies had understated the rise. As a result, the study found that the sea is likely to rise higher than most previous forecasts ? to between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (and then continuing from there). This is nonsense. Forecasts have been revised both upwards and downwards since the 80's to the current day. Remember all computer models have a huge component of guesswork so you can pick and choose what result you want really although if you push the envelope too far you may be risking ridicule from your scientific peers. Hmmm, In the earlier paragraph Kristof was concerned about predictions being out by 300% as if that was a heinous crime but he doesn?t seem too concerned about quoting a prediction that allows for 300% error here. Science Express, the online edition of Science, reported last month that the world's several hundred thousand glaciers and small ice caps are thinning more quickly than people realized. "At the very least, our projections indicate that future sea-level rise maybe larger than anticipated," the article declared. Which also means it could be less than we anticipated and have to be revised downwards as they have been in the past. Quote:
In the short term flooding is much more likely due to freak weather conditions and inadequate drainage than it is due to increased sea levels And just remember that there are ~92.5 years to the end of the next century. A period of time that probably nobody reading this has experienced. So in human terms a very long time. Not only will we all be dead in 2100, but also most of our children and many children who havent even been born yet will have lived and died. So It's a long time, OK? But the trick is by saying that there will be an x increase in temperature/sea level by date y the alarmist can make it seem as though this all happened at once or in the blink of an eye. While we probably will not live long enough to see if these predictions for 2100 were correct, we might all live long enough to see if the current trends continue or are part of a natural cycle as has happened in the past that would make this all moot.
Posted on: 2007/8/18 4:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Living in Paulus Hook Questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You also might want to consider what kind of communities these are. PH seems to have a broader mix of people;
Hoboken seems to be a much younger place. Someone in their late thirties, forties, etc. might be more at home in PH than Hoboken. On the other hand a younger person would probably not feel out of place in PH, either. I used to live in PH and although you get to meet many interesting people there, you are aware that there are many more that you never see or meet because to many it is just a bedroom community. I don't know if that is also true of Hoboken. I thought PH was a great place to live and I would recommend it to anybody.
Posted on: 2007/7/22 15:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2 Aprons
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think they need to ramp up their menu. Not a large choice and for the price I dont think I would make a long trek to this place.
I wish them well, all the same.
Posted on: 2007/6/5 21:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
there is no confusion in what nugnfutz meant
Posted on: 2007/5/30 15:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
From Wiki
"In parliamentary procedure, table as a verb has two auto-antonymic meanings, both arising as a shorthand for to place on the table. These contrasting meanings arise depending on whether one is considered as placing a motion on the table to suspend discussion on it, or to commence discussion; the former is used in the U.S. and the latter in the rest of the English-speaking world, although which meaning is intended in a particular context may not always be clear." So it's a contronym or janus word (after the two headed Roman God of exits and entrances). Here's a few other janus words which may or may not have clear meanings depending on the context. fix (problem/solution) sanction (to allow/to prohibit) alight (to settle onto/ to dismount from) draw (to open /to shut e.g. drapes) fast (a fast horse that runs quickly, a fast colour that doesnt run at all) snap (break apart, to fasten together) went off (the alarm went off, the alarm went off) quite (complete / partial I was *quite* exhausted. I was quite *exhausted*) wind up (to stop (e.g. a company) to start (a clock)) secrete (to give off, to conceal) etc. etc. I disagree PhillyGirl, from the context it could only mean one thing (to propose). Reason being you could only propose an *alternative* motion, you could not suspend an *alternative* motion that has not even been specified yet.
Posted on: 2007/5/30 15:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vessel arrives here on trip to prove Vikings weren't 1st to cross ocean
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah, I read the article but I missed the bit that 'proves' it.
Posted on: 2007/5/8 14:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Please Stop Cutting Down Trees in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote: I'm amazed that people still believe that. Still? Well it's quite a recent discovery and the jury is still out. You didnt read it, did you? Quote: It's one step away from Reagan's "leaves cause pollution" speech. Interesting you should mention pollution (and Reagan). Let me take one step closer. Smog is created when certain oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) combine with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight to produce tropospheric ozone (that's bad ozone as compared to the good ozone in the stratsophere that filters UV radiation). NOxs are mostly man made. The VOCs can be man made or biogenic. Apparently man-made VOC production has been declining due to anti-pollution regulations whereas the biogenic (mostly from trees and plants) type has been increasing in urban areas particularly due to the planting of trees which emit VOCs such as isoprene and monoterpene. The biogenic VOCs are more reactive than the man-made kind. Nobody is advocating cutting down trees as a solution to the problem but it does seem that certain species of tree are lower emitters of VOCs than others so you can still get the normal cooling and positive anti-pollution effects of trees without adding to the smog problem. The highest emitters of isoprene are the oaks whereas the highest emitters of monoterpenes are pines. Other high emitters to avoid are sweetgums, black locust, london plane, sycamore, willow and poplars. You can go to the EPA website for links to more information on any particular species. Some more links to ignore: New trees cancel out pollution cuts Reagan was right: trees cause pollution The Darker Side of Trees Emission of smog ingredients from trees is increasing rapidly Good Copse, Bad Copse Dairy Cows Pollute less than Trees I suppose one 'advantage' of this is that smog causes global dimming which slows global warming. Apparently some Nobel Laureates are considering smog production as a solution to global warming. Could Smog Protect against Global Warming
Posted on: 2007/3/7 0:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Please Stop Cutting Down Trees in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
yeah, well like they say there are some large error bars on the measurements. When you are dealing in parts per billion it is not surprising. At least he has an open mind. It looks like trees could be a small net minus in terms of the effect on greenhouse gas emissions which must be a bit of a shock for the tree huggers but to the rest of us it is unlikely to make much difference so we can just enjoy them for what they are. So no need to make probably incorrect arguments about how trees are the only thing that will save the planet from global warming. There are enough reasons to oppose the chopping down of trees in JC without resorting to that.
Posted on: 2007/3/5 23:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: I.M. Pei in Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well OK. Hope you can find something to occupy your time between now and then.
Posted on: 2007/3/5 22:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Please Stop Cutting Down Trees in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Apart from absorbing CO2, trees also emit the much more influential greenhouse gas, methane. De-forestation between 1990 and 2000 may actually be responsible for the observed slowing of methane flows to the atmosphere. "We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by being sinks for CO2," - New Zealand atmospheric scientist Dr. David Lowe Scientists question trees' role in global warming
Posted on: 2007/3/5 12:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Liberty State Park - NEAR Downtown Jersey City -- Choice: THEME PARK (OR) HOTEL/Conference Cente
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Really? I am seeing Nutley and Jersey City both and according to an astrology site, Lat: 40.7198N, Long: 74.0659W
Posted on: 2006/11/22 12:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 'One-strike' you're out for drug-related crimes - Jersey City now gives families a second chance
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Clearly. Of course he didn't invent the internet. He's a politician. How could he? What I am refuting is what he actually DID say as quoted by you. Anybody in the know, knows that he didn't "TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN CREATING THE INTERNET" because he came along well *after* it was already FRICKIN there!! Do you get it now?
Posted on: 2006/8/30 4:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 'One-strike' you're out for drug-related crimes - Jersey City now gives families a second chance
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, the Web was invented at CERN in Switzerland, the world's first website. Creation and invention are not synonyms but there is overlap. One sometimes wholly includes the other, but not always. You sound more like a politician than a technician. If you had been working on the internet, years before Gore made any of his utterances you would know what a joke this is. Whatever initiative he thinks he made didnt create anything that didnt already exist. That is the meaning of create, I think; not to build on or improve, but to construct from the beginning. If you are a politician, and interested in semantics, perhaps you can tell me what the "meaning of is is".
Posted on: 2006/8/29 18:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 'One-strike' you're out for drug-related crimes - Jersey City now gives families a second chance
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hey, are we going to have another discussion about semantics? No, he was very late to the party. The initiative was taken well before he opened his mouth, Ask the likes of Time Berners Lee or the folks that set up Arpanet. Always gives me a bloody good laugh each time I hear it, though (Sorry).
Posted on: 2006/8/29 15:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 'One-strike' you're out for drug-related crimes - Jersey City now gives families a second chance
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The nelogism 'bureacracy' might have been invented in 18th Century Europe but the concept goes back to the Song dynasty in China. That's a bit like Al Gore claiming he invented the information superhighway. I think taxation goes back to at least Egyptian times before money.
Posted on: 2006/8/29 12:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City ranked one of the least angry cities in America -- though you can't tell it from JCL
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What tosh! Florida ranked 1 & 2 worst. Might be because they have a higher percentage of older residents and older people statiscally have higher blood pressure.
People get paid to produce this drivel?
Posted on: 2006/8/18 11:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 77 Hudson will be two Manhattan-style 500-foot skyscrapers in Jersey City -including 1,000 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't know. Safety Standards? A shortage of Mohawk Indians? I give up. What's the answer?
Posted on: 2006/8/3 15:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 77 Hudson will be two Manhattan-style 500-foot skyscrapers in Jersey City -including 1,000 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The price
Posted on: 2006/8/2 18:13
|
|||
|
||||