OT: sea level rise in Florida

Given an adequate nutrient and water supply and no increase in plant pathogens or decrease in resistance to insects.

There's a thing called the nitrogen barrier - not enough nitrogen and plants don't produce protein - seeds don't happen, fruit doesn't happen.

--
Grizzly H.

You can rain on any parade if you really want to. Just keep hoping for the dark side.

Luckily, as we make more CO2, we also are getting lots of cheap oil and natural gas, and even a glut of coal, so we can make lots of fertilizers and insecticides. It's synergistic.

AGW is a luxury fear-fetish of neurotic urbanites. A billion real, non-neurotic people are still living in the dark, underfed.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

Huh? There's no expression of love in plants. Most crop plants are recommended for 'well-drained soil' because various root ailments result from excess moisture. Cedar trees die here, when there's excess rain. Ditto raspberries.

No evidence for that. Plant growth hasn't kept CO2 at a constant level, worldwide. Plant growth in California often results in brush buildup/ firestorms as a cycle, so there's no real net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere that can be implied from growth rate, anyhow.

What we DO know is proportional to CO2, is greenhouse effect.

Three false statements, two confusions, in only two sentences. Why don't you check some of these claims out before repeating them? Do you get paid for being a shill? Maybe you should ask about a sponsor...

The Washington Post, too. The old-iron networks are a good Newspeak primer, though.

The internet is a wonderful thing.

Cheers, James Arthur

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 20:33:21 +0000, Tom Gardner Gave us:

Stubs.

They have no porpoise. :-)

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:23:54 -0800 (PST), whit3rd Gave us:

I haven't seen anyone win the PowerBall yet!

is

That's because you haven't looked hard enough. The connection between more CO2 in the atmosphere and higher global temperatures is basic physics. The exact extent to which the temperature will go up for a given higher CO2 lev el is a lot more complicated (because there's a lot going on) but the one d egree Celcius we've had is a pretty fair pointer to two degrees fairly soon if we keep on pumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere at the current (increa sing) rate.

eas.

That's an assumption. Our agriculture has been fine-tuned to exploit the cl imate that we've had for the past ten thousand years - since the end of the last ice age. We are now changing that climate to conditions that are like ly to suit some weeds and pests better, and our plants less well.

Only when the plants get all the water and other nutrients they need, as in a greenhouse, In the real world, plants are water-limited, not CO2 limited , and geological evidence shows that plants have fewer stomat when CO2 leve ls are high, so they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water .

We keep on telling you this, and it never registers with you - the most rec ent denialist web-site over-writes anything you might have learned from mor e reliable sources.

Nobody is hoping for a dark side. But only Pollyanna optimists deny that ch ange can go both ways.

Sadly, that synergy also feeds even more global warming.

There's nothing imaginary about about anthropogenic global warming. It's a well-established scientific fact, If we let it get worse - as we are at the moment - several billion people are going to end up under-fed, unless it g ets bad enough to cause population crash.

You don't need a general failure of agriculture to engineer that. There are claims that the Arab Spring was driven by rising food prices as a result o f local climate change impairing local food yields.

That's killed quite a few people in Syria already. A bit more hunger, and y ou could drive some larger countries into political instability and civil w ar.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yes, I understand you dislike the Telegraph. I was asking if you had any basis to reject this report, other than disliking them.

Either a statement is true, or it isn't. The truth or falsity does not depend on who prints it.

(If it were the U.S. I'd just look up the official figures myself. I'm familiar with the landscape, plus I speak the language. In the U.K. I wouldn't know which Vogon-dello to start with.)

Meanwhile, as you highlight unusual comfort in the U.K., Minnesota is freakishly cold, roughly 10oC below normal.

They're very annoyed with you lot over there, and want their warmth back. :-)

Cheers, James Arthur

No one has yet. $1.4B next week.

According to the New Yorker article - on third page, way past John Larkin's attention span - it is mentioned that "for the past several years, the daily high-water mark in the Miami area has been racing up at a rate of almost an inch a year, nearly ten times the rate of global sea-level rise". That's tens of millimetres of sea level rise - probably due to changing ocean currents (which we don't yet know much about, and won't until the Argo buoys have sent back a whole lot more data).

Global warming means more water in quite a few places - if it's boosting a local spring, you might even be right, though your batting average isn't impressive.

You can have underground water without paving over an existing stream. Caves tend to get dug by underground rivers. Nobody paved over Australia's Great Artesian Basin

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

During the last ice age, more than 20,000 years ago, sea levels were a lot lower, and Florida was a lot wider, and less damp.

This is mentioned on the second page of the New Yorker article, as well as being the sort of thing that every educated adult might be expected to know.

John Larkin represses what I post about his electronic designs - it hasn't got the adulation content he needs to hold his attention.

Phil Hobbs and I managed to more or less agree about photomultiplier non-linearity not so long ago, which does happen to be electronic design but not an aspect of it to which John Larkin pays any attention.

John Larkin's only interested in electronic design when it's his electronic designs that are being discussed - and then only when they are being praised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's not a Murdoch newspaper, and doesn't seem to post the endless stream of denialist propaganda that John Larkin seems to crave, and posts link to here from time to time.

On the whole, a negative review from John Larkin can be equated to a positive review from somebody who knows what they are talking about.

He's not AlwaysWrong on everything but he does have his specialist subjects where he reliably gets the wrong end of the stick.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Climate change is complicated enough that anthropogenic global warming isn't incompatible with more severe or wetter winters in specific areas.

Nobody denies that vaccination can have adverse side effects. It's just that most of the claims about adverse side-effects are based on a piece of thoroughly incompetent research, which didn't actually support the claims that were made in the paper published by the researcher.

The point is that vaccination is a lot less dangerous than actually getting the diseases being vaccinated against. If pretty much everybody

- typically more than 90% of the population - is vaccinated, the chances that an unvaccinated kid will get exposed to the disease are pretty low, but vaccine deniers have been active enough recently to allow small epidemics of diseases like whooping cough and measles.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Don't assign malign intent to behaviour that could equally be explained by incompetence - or in Joey Hey's case, exceptional stupidity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:35:47 -0500, krw Gave us:

People will actually fly in from other countries just to play it.

It should grow practically exponentially now.

I'll bet it rises up to over $2B before *I* hit it.

I will keep waiting until I know my numbers are ready to hit. :-)

Sadly, the statement can be more or less comprehensive, and the effect it c reates can depend on what's left out. the problem with the Daily Telegraph is generally what they leave out, rather than the correctness of that part of the news they do choose to print.

:-)

They'll get it - with interest - if they wait long enough. The US is curren tly responsible for about a quarter of the extra carbon dioxide we've pushe d into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, and the y can expect a full return on their investment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You probably only get 0.5bn after taxes as a lump sum. Maybe enough to get invited to one of Trump's parties in NYC.

--sp

--
Best regards,  
Spehro Pefhany 
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8 
Microchip link for 2015 Masters in Phoenix: http://tinyurl.com/l7g2k48

I read the Torygraph most days, as I read the Grauniad most days. They counterbalance each other's idiocies an biases.

I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.

That's naive, of course.

1 You can lie by stating false facts 2 You can lie by omitting to state relevant true facts. 3 You can lie by telling the truth, but in such a way that nobody believes you. 4 You can lie by exaggerating stories beyond the supporting evidence.

The Torygraph is especially prone to 2 and 4.

Reputation counts. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"