nullorchis (imported) wrote: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:52 pm
Webster's also defines "theory" as:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
That the average temperature for sixteen of the past seventeen years has been higher than in recorded history seems to be a fact.
That the oceans are rising seems to be a fact
That humans are pouring co2 into the atmosphere seems to be a fact
That glaciers are melting at a rate never before recorded.. ya da ya da ya da.......
does give rise to a plausible theory that there might be a trend here.
Hi!
I have posted this here enough for all of the knot-heads on this site (_)o(_) I am going to post it ONE MORE time, just FOR YOU, my friend. I only ask you to try to THINK THIS OVER without the benefit of finding another site to DE-BUNK (or fill full of SPUNK) something that the people who CANNOT OR WHO WILL NOT THINK for themselves post to gratify their own inane, ignorant, scientifically-bankrupt lives because they have already made up your mind.
The statistical proof for GLOBAL WARMING using temperature records of the last 100 years or so can AT BEST provide statistical evidence that the likelihood of Global Warming being real is "only" 11 chances out of 12.
That means that there is ONLY 1 chance in 12 that it is NOT happening.
To rise to the level of significant statistical evidence to support ANY theory in the scientific method the statistical evidence HAS to provide a statistic supported by probability that there is only 1 chance in 20 (OR LESS, like 1 chance in 100) that it is NOT real.
So, Nully, my friend, YOU are safe in stating there IS NO GLOBAL WARMING because the evidence DOES NOT support the theory. (...at this time.) You are safe in making YOUR OWN theory that the ocean is rising because more people in the world are flushing toilets. But then, YOU are charged with garnering evidence TO SUPPORT THAT theory.
NOW, for a lesson in that uncommonest of characteristics, the one that laymen call "COMMON SENSE".
Let us suppose that the Koch brothers asked YOU to invest in their businesses. Further suppose that although the rewards COULD be great, that there was only 1 chance in 12 that YOU would ever see a buck from that investment. Would YOU invest your money? Hmmm?
Not clear enough? Sorry. Let me re-scenario that for the Conservatives out there...
Suppose that the Koch brothers got an offer to play Russian Roulette with the environment. Further suppose that if they *WON* that their financial rewards would be GREAT. However, if they lost, their SKULL CONTENTS would be splattered all over the walls and the ceiling.
The condition is RUSSIAN ROULETTE with a 12-chambered revolver with 1 chamber empty and the other 11 chambers loaded with bullets. SPIN the CHAMBERS, put the gun to the head and PULL THE TRIGGER!
IF YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND CLICK HERE!!! (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jh8N_sP-Q)
Would they DO IT?
...OF COURSE they would! They are greedy bastards.
THEY JUST CANNOT STOP!
Of course, the head that they hold the gun to is the collective head of humanity and BILLIONS of lives AND your precious WORLD ECONOMY hangs in the balance...
America... (
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/st ... 55795690/1)
WASHINGTON (AP) – From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising much faster than they are around the globe, putting one of the world's most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.
By Jim R. Bounds, AP
A road is flooded on Hatteras Island, N.C., after Hurricane Irene in 2011. From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising faster, according to a study.
Sponsored Links
U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile swath a "hot spot" for climbing sea levels caused by global warming. Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three times to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
It's not just a faster rate, but at a faster pace, like a car on a highway "jamming on the accelerator," said the study's lead author, Asbury Sallenger Jr., an oceanographer at the agency. He looked at sea levels starting in 1950, and noticed a change beginning in 1990.
Since then, sea levels have gone up globally about 2 inches. But in Norfolk, Va., where officials are scrambling to fight more frequent flooding, sea level has jumped a total of 4.8 inches, the research showed. For Philadelphia, levels went up 3.7 inches, and in New York City, it was 2.8 inches.
Climate change pushes up sea levels by melting ice sheets in Greenland and west Antarctica, and because warmer water expands.
Computer models long have projected higher levels along parts of the East Coast because of changes in ocean currents from global warming, but this is the first study to show that's already happened.
By 2100, scientists and computer models estimate that sea levels globally could rise as much as 3.3 feet. The accelerated rate along the East Coast could add about 8 inches to 11 inches more, Sallenger said.
"Where that kind of thing becomes important is during a storm," Sallenger said. That's when it can damage buildings and erode coastlines.
On the West Coast, a National Research Council report released Friday projects an average 3-foot rise in sea level in California by the year 2100, and 2 feet in Oregon and Washington. The land mass north of the San Andreas Fault is expected to rise, offsetting the rising sea level in those two states.
The USGS study suggests the Northeast would get hit harder because of ocean currents. When the Gulf Stream and its northern extension slow down, the slope of the seas changes to balance against the slowing current. That slope then pushes up sea levels in the Northeast. It is like a see-saw effect, Sallenger theorizes.
Scientists believe that with global warming, the Gulf Stream and other ocean currents are slowing and will slow further, Sallenger said.
Jeff Williams, a retired USGS expert who wasn't part of the study, and Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute in Germany, said the study does a good job of making the case for sea level rise acceleration.
Margaret Davidson, director of the Coastal Services Center for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Charleston, S.C., said the implications of the new research are "huge when you think about it. Somewhere between Maryland and Massachusetts, you've got some bodaciously expensive property at risk."
Sea level projections matter in coastal states because flood maps based on those predictions can result in restrictions on property development and affect flood insurance rates.
Those estimates became an issue in North Carolina recently when the Legislature proposed using historic figures to calculate future sea levels, rejecting higher rates from a state panel of experts. The USGS study suggests an even higher level than the panel's estimate for 2100.
The North Carolina proposal used data from University of Florida professor Robert Dean, who had found no regional differences in sea level rise. Dean said he can't argue with the results from Sallenger's study showing accelerating sea level rise in the region, but he said it's more likely to be from natural cycles.
Sallenger said there is no evidence to support that claim.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By the WAY, FUCK TEXAS!