The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/15/assum ... se-predict
...
But what is the actual current rate of sea level rise? According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisrtration, average global sea level rise has speeded up and is now increasing at 0.12 inch per year. If that rate were sustained for the next 84 years, that would mean that sea level would increase by just over 10 inches. That's not nothing, but it is not much greater than the approximately 7 inch increase that occurred during the 20th century. Interestingly, millions of Americans did not retreat from the coasts in the past century.
Fuckin' politics...
Apparently whoever wrote that imagines that things speed up and then suddenly stop doing that and maintain a steady rate, eventhough nothing has changed?
The theories that predict a three foot (or a six foot) rise in sea levels, of course base this on the assumption that the process of glaciers and polar ice caps melting is still accelerating. Which the evidence suggests.
For the past twelve months, every single month has been the warmest such month on record. Sure, we have only been measuring the global temperature since the mid 19th century, but it's still a pretty convincing trend. Since every month is warmer than the same month last year (or any year with temperatures on record), of course the ice is melting faster. Simple physics 101.
Heck! Might be time for another attempt to plant a peach tree in my garden!
The grapes are coming along fine! Grapes in Sweden, you say? Yeah, I know, it's crazy.
I never dreamt of being able to grow my own grapes, but things are looking up!
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
Per wrote:
I guess Vancouver may have a similar history of rising from the sea, but being so far South, I doubt that you can rise at the same speed as we do? Or did the ice sheet go further down in North America than in Europe?
The southern extent of the ice sheets was not far south of Vancouver. There were isolated pockets that escaped the last ice. Rebound from unweighting of the ice is present. Much of the central Yukon also was ice free.
Along our coast there is also uplift due to the offshore east dipping subduction zone as well as the buoyant felsic intrusive rocks emplaced due to that subduction. Of couse a more bouyant continental plate sliding over a dense oceanic plate could lead to an increased subduction rate and further increase in uplift.
Earlier in this thread I noted a recent study has shown that the Clovis people likely migrated along the coast by water and not by land because the timing post ice age would have meant central British Columbia was glacial lake beds or glacial scour that plant life had not yet taken hold to an extent to support the human migration. It has long been believed that the Clovis people migrated from Asia across a Bering land bridge and travelled a post ice age corridor through central British Columbia.
I have worked projects in the Cariboo region of central BC and we've drilled over 150 metres (in a vertical hole) of glacial lake be sediments deposited in the last ice age.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
Per wrote:
I guess Vancouver may have a similar history of rising from the sea, but being so far South, I doubt that you can rise at the same speed as we do? Or did the ice sheet go further down in North America than in Europe?
The southern extent of the ice sheets was not far south of Vancouver. There were isolated pockets that escaped the last ice. Rebound from unweighting of the ice is present. Much of the central Yukon also was ice free.
Along our coast there is also uplift due to the offshore east dipping subduction zone as well as the buoyant felsic intrusive rocks emplaced due to that subduction. Of couse a more bouyant continental plate sliding over a dense oceanic plate could lead to an increased subduction rate and further increase in uplift.
Earlier in this thread I noted a recent study has shown that the Clovis people likely migrated along the coast by water and not by land because the timing post ice age would have meant central British Columbia was glacial lake beds or glacial scour that plant life had not yet taken hold to an extent to support the human migration. It has long been believed that the Clovis people migrated from Asia across a Bering land bridge and travelled a post ice age corridor through central British Columbia.
I have worked projects in the Cariboo region of central BC and we've drilled over 150 metres (in a vertical hole) of glacial lake be sediments deposited in the last ice age.
Well, I Think you're correct. I've also read about recent finds of people settling way down in South America far too early according to the old theories, yet having the same DNA as in North America, ie not arriving from Polynesia, which has now lead to many people in the field concluding that they must have travelled by boat along the coast, because otherwise the ice would have prevented them from going so far so fast.
Travelling by boat along the coast, they could settle in South America centuries rather than millennia after arriving in Alaska, and then the finds make much more sense.
All the water captured in the gigantic ice sheet also made it possibe to walk between Holland and Britain, and basically all the way up to Scandinavia. Not much use to do the latter though, since it was covered in ice.
There is some evidence though of people living sort of like the Inuit do along a stretch of Norwegian coast that was kept open by the Gulf Stream. The Sami in Northern Scandinavia have some odd genes that they may have inherited from this isolated group, albeit most of their genes indicate a mix of Scandinavian and Siberian ancestry.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
Per wrote:
The theories that predict a three foot (or a six foot) rise in sea levels, of course base this on the assumption that the process of glaciers and polar ice caps melting is still accelerating. Which the evidence suggests.
Per wrote:
The theories that predict a three foot (or a six foot) rise in sea levels, of course base this on the assumption that the process of glaciers and polar ice caps melting is still accelerating. Which the evidence suggests.
And the polar bear population is actually increasing.
Oh Per... you leftists and your alarmism.
Yeah, I'm not worried about the polar bears. They lead a lush life at the land fills of northern Canada.
It's only the conservative polar bears, the ones that insist on rearing their cubs on sea ice, that are at risk. And, yeah, well.... If they keep refusing to acknowledge global warming, it's their own fault.
But if you actually read the article you linked to, you'll notice that while snowfall leads to an increase in ice on one side of the Antarctic continent, on the other side glaciers flowing into the sea is reducing ice coverage. At present there is a minor yearly net increase, but while the increase on the one side is slowing down, the decrease on the other side is speeding up, so within twenty years there will be a yearly net decrease.
Meanwhile, on the opposite side of our globe, maximum winter ice coverage has lost a surface twice the size of Texas since 1979, and the 13 smallest maximum ice covers of all time (or at least since the last ice age, I guess) have all been in the last 13 years. This in an article on the same site you linked to: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/201 ... record-low
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012.
There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it.
Of course congressional investigators will want to know more about what happened. And of course Republicans will press the issue as the presidential election approaches. But there's a simpler reason for the FBI to release more information: After all the investigating, and all the talking, the public still doesn't know what happened.
But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering. Here’s a partial list:
* Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money
* Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses
* Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.
* The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money
* The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins
* Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did
* Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work
* Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work
* Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination
* Trump’s connections to mafia figures involved in New York construction
* The time Trump paid the Federal Trade Commission $750,000 over charges that he violated anti-trust laws when trying to take over a rival casino company
* The fact that Trump is now being advised by Roger Ailes, who was forced out as Fox News chief when dozens of women came forward to charge him with sexual harassment. According to the allegations, Ailes’s behavior was positively monstrous; as just one indicator, his abusive and predatory actions toward women were so well-known and so loathsome that in 1968 the morally upstanding folks in the Nixon administration refused to allow him to work there despite his key role in getting Nixon elected.
And that last one is happening right now. To repeat, the point is not that these stories have never been covered, because they have. The point is that they get covered briefly, then everyone in the media moves on. If any of these kinds of stories involved Clinton, news organizations would rush to assign multiple reporters to them, those reporters would start asking questions, and we’d learn more about all of them.
That’s important, because we may have reached a point where the frames around the candidates are locked in: Trump is supposedly the crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton is supposedly the corrupt one. Once we decide that those are the appropriate lenses through which the two candidates are to be viewed, it shapes the decisions the media make every day about which stories are important to pursue.
And it means that to a great extent, for all the controversy he has caused and all the unflattering stories in the press about him, Trump is still being let off the hook.
The El Niño phenomenon causes temperatures to rise in the Eastern Pacific region, and disturbs rain patterns over Latin America, Australia, parts of Asia and Africa. The warm weather then tends to drift up over North America.
Locally, the impact of El Niño can be tremendous, but globally an El Niño episode typically increases the temperature by roughly 0.1C. Granted, this El Niño is one of the bigger ones, but it still wouldn't account for the current global warming to any larger extent. Instead you can see a clear warming trend over decades, regardless of whether we are experiencing an El Niño or a La Niña (the opposite of El Niño).
Strangelove wrote:
Personally I dig the warming trends.
You should enjoy your peaches + grapes in this respite betwixt Ice Ages and unlax a little.
Same here, actually. If anything, I think Scandinavia stands to benefit from global warming.
Less need for heating, better harvests, longer summers... What's not to like?
And our geological rebound from the downward pressure of the ice age ice sheet will virtually neutralize the rising sea levels.
I'm just saying that it is happening, is all.
And I strongly recommend against investing in beachfront property in Florida.
Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.
NOAA’s original published radiosonde data showed little net troposphere warming from 1958 to 2010, when the data set ended.
The next graph shows how NOAA has altered their 850-300 mb temperature data since 2011. Another hockey stick of data tampering.
Ass UK kept screaming, it's a political issue bro!
Yeah, NOAA has been busted for cooking the books, easy to find with man's 2nd best friend Google:
