Posted on 12/31/2005 6:28:17 PM PST by Coleus
There is no way you can get a 1mm annual resolution from core samples. Can't be done. What I assume they did was take the total data and extrapolate to an average per year. An interesting exercise but the varability of any 200 years in 5,000 years could account for the "rise" now. The next 200 year could have no rise. Point is, insufficient data to make a conclusion that Global Warming is the cause.
So for the past several thousand years the sea could be rising an average of 1.48 mm and now it is 1.51 mm. Based on the evidence given in the article that could be a true statement even though the actual difference is .03 mm.
Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit.
Are they saying non-human produced global warming would have no effect on ocean levels?
IIRC: I read somewhere that global warming would cause the Greenland Ice Sheet to lose mass while the Antarctic Ice Sheet might actually gain mass. Where is this extra water coming from?
Of course, the fluctuating temperatures of the Sun have nothing to do with it.
I think it's amazing that so many scientist, looking at a teeny speck of time through what amounts to a flickering penlight, think they know everything and can make pronouncements that we're supposed to accept as holy truth.
If this farticle is true, why the hell are we going to spend 240 billion bucks rebuilding New Orleans? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Someday.
Michael Crichton is as a reliable source of info on science as Michael Moore is on politics.
ie he isnt
If I spend 20 minutes detailing how ''A'' is innocent and how we know the prosecuting attorney is driven by some specific sinister motive or, one category of everyday society (like the press) is engaged in a conspiracy, and then seemlessly move into a two minute assurance that product ''B'' will grow hair on Terry Bradshaw, when we know the latter to be untrue, how do we rationalize the fervent belief in the assurances about the first things while rejecting the Bradshaw promise?
This issue wouldn't exist except for the unambiguous guarantee these purveyors of the truth offer to the public. They purport to know the unadulterrated facts and implore you and me to believe and act on the strength of what they tell us. As astounding as it sounds, we've all heard callers tell these gurus that they've stopped watching tv news and don't read the newspaper, except those hawked on the air, and get the ''news and the truth'' from the talking head. To a not insignificant degree some people who actually have a vote really do get their news in that manner.
Scream! What have devolved to?
I love it when people talk off the cuff, thinking they are all knowing.
First off genius, MC's "State of Fear" has footnotes...you do remember what footnotes are...right? These footnotes lead to documentation that validate his arguments. Then after you've read his novel, he sums up his own opinions where he states that we really don't know enough currently to base our policies on.
Yes, but look at this info from the standpoint of a newspaper headline writer or TV network newsroom:
"Annual Rate of Ocean Rise DOUBLES Due to Human-Caused Global Warming!"
A few years ago I was transferred to a new town. While stopped for a cup of coffee while house-hunting I noticed a morning newspaper headline: "Local Murder Rate Up 100% in Past Year." I found there'd been one murder that year compared with none the year before.
What?
I am well aware he uses footnotes. This however does not guarantee what you write is accurate. "The Bible Code" by Michael Drosnin has footnotes, Graham Hancocks "Fingerprints Of The Gods" has footnotes. Footnotes aren't the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy. Footnotes do not protect gainst use of selective quoting and omission of relevant facts.
Also remember hat crichton is a science-fiction writer, not a science writer.
Also to add: I bet Michael Moore uses footnotes too.
The result is predictable. Knowing that, irrespective of the falsity of the representation made or the exposure of the breach of trust and without the fear of losing listeners, these talking heads can, and repeatedly do, make outlandish, false and reckless representations of fact (rather than opinion) they know to be untrue without the anxiety of potential audience loss.
The cake icing on this specie of communication fraud is their universal neat trick, the nice touch of pandering by shameless, and patently untrue, flattery by cooing that: ''...you're the world's smartest audience whom no one can fool...'' Of course, that's ''no one but me.'' Often the talking heads complain that professional athletes are paid too much for what they do; the irony is that it is they who rack up the really big bucks for telling folks what they want to hear while any confluence with truth is a nice, but superfluous, coincidence.
"I think it is all the newly fatter people swimming in the ocean making it all rise."
It's the over breeding of whales by the "aave the whale" nuts.
Harpoon a whale, save a fat chick!
"I guess there are too many SUVs on Mars"
Caused totally by the 2 rovers that we planted there.
Wern't you ever taught "buyer be ware"?
If you buy and get burned by a product it's your own fault!
Things should be returned to what it was 50+ years ago, the only warenty on any product was it's sutibility for the advertised use.
?????? Huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.