It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The mean sea level (MSL) trend at Honolulu, HI, USA is +1.43 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of ±0.21 mm/year, based on monthly mean sea level data from 1905/1 to 2016/9. That is equivalent to a change of 0.47 feet in 100 years.
Yea, i can see how the truth has much less impact.
The physics are quite settled. Increased CO2 means more forcing. More forcing means higher temperatures.
So, do nothing and wait to see what happens.
Is that a linear increase, or logarithmic with regards to C02 and temperature?
The utility of carbon taxes depends mostly upon how the revenue is used but it is a basic tenant of economics that increased price leads to reduced demand. Cap and trade seems to have been quite effective in reducing SO2 emissions without increasing consumer prices.
Carbon taxes and cap and trade plans are not the solution.
Yes. Anything wrong with encouraging that?
A transition to clean power will happen when it becomes economically viable.
Yes. Anything wrong with encouraging that?
Source: www.sealevel.info...
April 6, 2016 — Sea-level is not rising everywhere. The measured rate of coastal sea-level change varies from -17.59 mm/yr at Skagway, Alaska to +9.39 mm/yr at Kushiro, Japan. The average, as measured by the world's best long-term coastal tide gauges, is just under +1.5 mm/yr. That rate has not increased (“accelerated”) in over 85 years.
They really need to mention all that variability in the gravitational constant in the next version of physics books... it just screws up the whole darn thing being so constant and all.
To put it bluntly, because you seemed to have difficulty reconciling the two in another thread.
Why are you asking me?
Yes. Are you saying that the density of the planet is homogeneous?
So, you are saying the density of the planet is 'off-center' due to these time-dependent mascons?
The revolution of the Earth around the Sun is not affected by the distribution of the mass within the Earth in any appreciable manner.
So you would also be saying our planetary revolutions are changing, right?
Let them know what?
You might want to call NASA and let them know...
Is that a linear increase, or logarithmic with regards to C02 and temperature?
Is this a test? Are you talking about that famous formula? Do you think it implies a saturation point?
Was asking if there is a linear relationship between C02 and forcing is all. Was asking if there is a linear relationship between C02 and forcing is all.