neroden
Engineer
Flooding due to global warming.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amtrak-sea-level/?srnd=premium
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amtrak-sea-level/?srnd=premium
Well, either that (relocating), or consider elevated platforms, similar to those of the Shinkansen and/or other HSR type trains. I know that's not the primary reason that those HSR trains have elevated platforms (mostly to optimize speed by eliminating sharp curves, at grade crossings, etc. as well as other "right of way" acquisition issues, etc.), but I'd think it would also help with the "sea level" issue as well, while allowing the rail line to keep the coastal views, etc.Flooding due to global warming.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amtrak-sea-level/?srnd=premium
Sigh. Global warming and rising sea levels are very real and the consequences are being seen NOW. As someone who (hopefully) will be alive for several more decades and will therefore see the real long term effects of this, I am pretty freaked out.Flooding due to global warming.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-amtrak-sea-level/?srnd=premium
As they say in the Alt-Universe, "Fake News!"Sigh. Global warming and rising sea levels are very real and the consequences are being seen NOW. As someone who (hopefully) will be alive for several more decades and will therefore see the real long term effects of this, I am pretty freaked out.
It's a pretty interesting time to be alive, all right. I am sure you are doing what you can to lower your "carbon footprint," as I know I am.Sigh. Global warming and rising sea levels are very real and the consequences are being seen NOW. As someone who (hopefully) will be alive for several more decades and will therefore see the real long term effects of this, I am pretty freaked out.
That’s pretty much how I see it.As usual the truth lies somewhere between the extreme positions on both sides.
Looking at a bell curve?That’s pretty much how I see it.
Agreed. It's also axiomatic that the actual truth is more likely to be discovered by someone who is not an extremist.Truth is what it is, and is not governed by any law of averages. (Unless you're asking for a truthful answer to "what's the average of numbers A, B, C, and D." ) Sometimes it's an outlier on a bell curve.
Historically, there have been many important exceptions to your "axiom." Truth is not always convenient, nor is it obligated to be found in the middle of the road. If you allow your thinking to be ruled by averages, you'll be wrong (or at least not exactly right) most of the time.Agreed. It's also axiomatic that the actual truth is more likely to be discovered by someone who is not an extremist.
Please go back and read what I have actually written, and not what you want me to have written. I said, "the actual truth is more likely to be discovered by someone who is not an extremist."Historically, there have been many important exceptions to your "axiom." Truth is not always convenient, nor is it obligated to be found in the middle of the road. If you allow your thinking to be ruled by averages, you'll be wrong (or at least not exactly right) most of the time.
Sometimes an "extremist" is right. Especially if "extreme" is being defined, or asserted as a slur, by ideology or politics.
The two remaining sides to this issue are the US and the rest of the world. One of these sides is busy researching and reacting to scientific evidence while the other side is busy ignoring and defunding anything that might contradict their ideology.I said, "the actual truth is more likely to be discovered by someone who is not an extremist." Sure, there have been instances where an extremist is right. But my statement is a true statement. For the record, there are extremists on BOTH sides of this issue.
&Please read what I have actually said and not what you WANT me to have said.
Please go back and think of a new catch phrase. Your posts are becoming awfully predictable at this point.Please go back and read what I have actually written, and not what you want me to have written.
That not at all what I was referring to. I was referring to researchers themselves. On both sides you have researchers that are taking an extreme position. That is just a fact. The consensus among non-extremists is that mankind is contributing to global warming. Our models are limited in their ability to accurately predict long-term changes, but there is no question that we are contributing to that change and that this results in a warmer planet.The two remaining sides to this issue are the US and the rest of the world. One of these sides is busy researching and reacting to scientific evidence while the other side is busy ignoring and defunding anything that might contradict their ideology.
If it's a fact then by all means present your undeniable evidence of such. Otherwise it's just false equivalency masquerading as fact.That not at all what I was referring to. I was referring to researchers themselves. On both sides you have researchers that are taking an extreme position. That is just a fact.
Total greenhouse gas emissions are increasing around the world, including here in the US. The time to avert catastrophe has already passed. Now it's just a matter of severity and duration.To get us off of the subjective political discussion that you inserted, here are objective facts. The United States is leading Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen 12 percent from 2005 to 2016. By 2020, emissions are expected to fall between 15 percent and 17 percent compared with 2005 levels. Compare that to the latest Eurostat report which shows that European carbon emissions have increased by 1.8%. China saw its emissions increase by 3.4%. I'd like to see the United States change its policies, but, personally, I'd rather have a hypocrite who is reducing carbon emissions than a hypocrite who is increasing carbon emissions. It's definitely the lesser of two evils, though.
The ironic thing about this issue is that the US government is loudly saying they won't be a part of the treaty. But it is the only G-7 nation that is anywhere close to meeting the CO2 emission reductions that the treaty calls for. And it wasn't mainly due to renewables, it is due to switching from coal to natural gas at many of our electrical generation plants. If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, we ought to be building more nuclear power plants, as well as more wind generation. But switching to natural gas instead of coal is a pretty good first step.The two remaining sides to this issue are the US and the rest of the world. One of these sides is busy researching and reacting to scientific evidence while the other side is busy ignoring and defunding anything that might contradict their ideology.
Once upon a time the US was on target to meeting our emissions goals but in 2018 we reversed course back toward higher emissions. Commercial scale nuclear power plants cost more money and take longer to build than virtually any other form of commercially viable energy generation.. Not to mention that the need for safe and protected nuclear waste disposal will outlive our current estimates of global warming by millions of years.The ironic thing about this issue is that the US government is loudly saying they won't be a part of the treaty. But it is the only G-7 nation that is anywhere close to meeting the CO2 emission reductions that the treaty calls for. And it wasn't mainly due to renewables, it is due to switching from coal to natural gas at many of our electrical generation plants. If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, we ought to be building more nuclear power plants, as well as more wind generation. But switching to natural gas instead of coal is a pretty good first step.
The vast majority (within a few points of 100%) of scientists doing research on the subject agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, and is a serious problem. The voices of the tiny minority who disagree have been amplified (and in at least some cases funded) by corporations whose business plans rely on continued burning of fossil fuels, and by the ideologues they fund. Calling the vast majority of scientists "extremists" because they disagree with an extreme and knowingly dishonest position staked out by corporate shills is ludicrous.You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I agree with you that action needs to be taken to combat global warming. I made that clear in my post.
If you don't believe that there are extremists on both sides, that's fine. I don't want to get into a debate on this matter. We can just agree to disagree.
Okay, now I am reduced to begging. Please read what I have I actually written - because it is not even close to what you think I wrote. I challenge you to find a single instance of my saying the part of your quote that is in bold.Calling the vast majority of scientists "extremists" because they disagree with an extreme and knowingly dishonest position staked out by corporate shills is ludicrous.
Enter your email address to join: