EnviroLink Forum

^ Typical psudo-maths.

You have used the equation for constant acceleration.

The sea level has been rising at a rate of 3mm/year (although how you measure sea level to that sort of accuracy I don't quite understand) but currently the rate of change of this number (it's acceleration) is negative.

To predict sea level changes you must have a more detailed model. This must include the thermal expansion of the water (not much 6-8 inches max by 2100) and the amount of ice expected to melt. The worst predictions of sea level rise by 2100 are about knee high (59cm ~ 22 inches).

Applieing the wrong physics equation just makes you look stupid.

No, that seems to be real math. What you have provided is pseudo-math because you have not provided any math to support your claims.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Only to those who have been home schooled.

The equation you would want is y=mx+c. This is the equation of a straight line. Onto this you would presumably add an exponential. You should understnd that you are at this point just talking drivel but why stop when you can create a scary graph?

Be careful not to use the real data as the lastest figures show that at a mimium the rate of temperature increaseis negative thus the exponential will be negitive and show world cooling.

No, it is real math to everyone up to and including those with a PhD.



Why is that not pseudo-math if the similar equation is? Could it be you have no idea of which you speak or have used completely incorrect nomencalture?



Drivel as in pseudo-math or real math that you believe is incorrectly applied? It is hard to tell with these claims.



I assume you mean do not use data that is from a time period which is too short.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

OK, using your ideas why not look at it this way:-

Rather than use the small coastline of Holland I will use a much bigger coastline.

Antarctica has a coastline of 4,989 km.

Zero money is spent protecting it from coastal erosion and flooding.

Despite it being of considerable interest in terms of GW the amount that it's budget for coastal defence will increase by 2100 if the worst case scenario happens will be zero.

Thus the whole world's budget will not change and indeed be zero.

It's drivel, just like you using Holland and arguing that the entire world's coast lines are going to cost as much as Holland's.

No, I am using the average data from Holland to show what the defenses would cost using that average cost and the total coastline. Even a fraction of that cost per protected coastline length would be devastaing as the first calculation using the wrong coastline data showed.

So using this no budget approach we would not see any budget for sea defences needed because the land is not going to be protected. Thus we just have to calculate the loss of the property due to the 2 foot increase you propose, right? That loss of coastline might be even more expensive than the previous calcualtions. That is what happens when you use faulty logic.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein