Jen Sorensen by Jen Sorensen

Jen SorensenNo Zoom

Comments (32) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    But Obama has said he was to stop the sea to risen and he is using the EPA in the war on CO2.
    Of course I can dispel the seas are risen in one word. “Erosion”
    And why must we just go back in time today? If we go back in time to when they said the earth was coming into another ice age, factor in the earth has not warmed in almost 2 decades, man we must be doing something right.
    But then again the earth wobbles around the sun getting unevenly heated and cooled.
    Then again I will not take Obama’s word on anything!

  2. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Harley, you are, like so many of your ilk, totally incapable of doing a simple calculation. Instead of thinking, you trot out more stupidity.

    Erosion? That’s a dumb-ass explanation I have already dealt with a couple of times. An insignificant contributor. But here you go (again), Harley!

    “Each year, about 75 billion tons of soil is eroded from the land—a rate that is about 13-40 times as fast as the natural rate of erosion.60 Approximately 40% of the world’s agricultural land is seriously degraded” (Wikipedia)

    Oh, right, you don’t like anything that says “Man bad.” (A really retarded comment by the way.)

    OK, 75 billion tons of soil is how much volume Harley?

    “Soil particle density is typically 2.60 to 2.75 grams per cm3 and is usually unchanging for a given soil. " (Wikipedia, again)

    But hey, I’ll make it easy. Let’s just say that one cubic meter is 1 ton. (That fluffs the volume of soil right up so it can displace more water than it really does. )

    75 billion cubic meters of dirt then. That’s about a mountain’s worth of soil. Let’s assume it is all eroded into the sea. And assuming the dirt has the density close to water means the volume of the ocean is raised by that much. Of course, most eventually settles to the ocean floor, but that still raised the ocean level.

    Now here is where you epic fail Harley. 75 billion cubic meters sounds a lot, but the ocean has an area of 360 million square kilometers. That’s 360 trillion square meters.

    octave:1> 75000000000/360000000000000
    ans = 2.0833e-04

    (That’s total added Volume divided by total Area = Average change in Thickness). And yes, you do have to divide by the total ocean area, because we are talking global effects.

    That’s 0.2 millimeters of sea level rise per year, Harley.

    From NOAA

    “Satellite altimeter data gathered from 1993 to 2003 indicate that the rate of global average sea level rise increased to 3.1 mm per year…”

    So, sea level rise is more than 15 times the possible rise due to erosion. (More than 15, because the soil density is greater than I have assumed in the calculation, so the volume of water displaced is less than 75 billion cubic meters.)

    Yet another Epic Fail for you!

  3. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Why the gloomy predictions about counteracting warming?
    Well, it isn’t that things will necessarily be as shown in the cartoon. It might be worse.

    Let’s Look at some data. Let’s look at Vostok (Antarctica) ice core data. Here is a link. You can look at the data as a graph or as text. It shows the variation of CO2 concentration as a function of depth (hence age) in the ice. The data goes back a little more than 400,000 years. That’s good because it is from the current geological period, and not say, 200,000,000 years ago when continents were elsewhere, partially under water, etc, etc. I will be using the mean age of the air.

    Let’s look at two of the places where the CO2 seems to spike upward. From the data table, at 19988 YPB (Years Before Present), the CO2 concentration was 189.2 ppm. At 2342 YBP, the value is 284.7. So a change of about 95 ppm in 18,000 years. And coincident with the vanishing of the great ice sheets (which had pretty much gone by the time the CO2 reached 260 ppm).

    Going back to the next “spike” we find that from 135 KYPB
    (kiloyears before present) to 128 KYBP, the “rapid” rise of CO2 is about 90 ppm.

    Umm, the CO2 has gone from about 315 ppm to 394 between 1959 and 2012. That’s a change of 80 ppm is about 50 years versus that “rapid” rise in Vostok data of 90 ppm over a period of ~7000 years! Big (no, HUGE) DIFFERENCE in rate!!!

    By the way, you should look at the data on the Berkeley Earth site. This is downloadable and I have an excel file that includes CO2 data. Ice core data from Law Dome-3 goes back to about 1000AD. The concentration then was about 280 ppm. Note that value is in good agreement with the data from Vostok (285 ppm 2342YBP). For a long time that data hovers near 277 ppm. It then takes off at (exactly) the period when industrialization (steam engines) begins.

    OK, So that rise from 280 to 400 is not “natural” because it happens very quickly (250 years versus many thousands of years.)

    But here is the relevant point: The natural cycles also required many thousands of years to reduce the peaks of CO2 from peaks to lows. Since we don’t really have any way to speed that up, our descendents will be living with our increased CO2 for thousands of years.

    And no, increased plant life will not make a big difference.
    The seasonal difference of CO2 level in the northern hemisphere is about 6 parts per million.

    That’s the difference in CO2 due to an entire hemisphere’s plant growth and death over a year.

    Just how much more vegetation do you need to counteract the 80 ppm increase in the last 60 years? (Ignore the fact that there is no sign of the rate of increase of CO2 declining. Which, by the way, indicates the plants are not currently up to the task of removing the excess.)

    And where will you get the water for that vegetation?

    Those take energy dummy! Where you going to get that? Magic?

    Better start thinking instead of whining, deniers.

    I love Ima’s new avatar. A dumb cluck seems so appropriate.

  4. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    Oh, and by the way, it gets worse…

    You see, that CO2 increase is also showing up in increased absorption by the oceans. That makes the oceans slightly more acidic. As swimming pool owners know, adding acid to the pool kills algae, a plant life that uses photosynthesis and CO2 and releases O2.

    Well, the oceans have plankton that contribute 1/2 of the oxygen budget of the earth. But ocean acidification is killing them. Kill them off, and they don’t take out CO2 from the atmosphere or put O2 back in.

    That’s a lose-lose situation, even for clowns and dumb clucks.

  5. lonecat

    lonecat said, 11 months ago

    @CCNJ's say the sky is falling

    Baslim offers extensive detailed argumentation and you come back with vapid one-liners. Pathetic.

  6. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, 11 months ago

    @Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Yes, I like your post…..but …….. tell me, since NOAA says "Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. " and then goes on to say “Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.” as you point out, how long before NYC has a foot of water in the streets?

    So the max amount of 3.1MM equates to about 0.01 ft. That would be about 100 yrs at tha rate to bring the sea level up 1 foot.

    At it’s lowest point, the island of Manhattan is 8 ft above sea level. Now in order to get a foot of water at that point would require we maintain the status quo for the next 900 years.

    OK, I feel better. There is still time for Obama to stop the sea from rising.

  7. cjr53

    cjr53 said, 11 months ago

    @Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Amazing, and that is just what is eroded into the oceans. Not even taking into account what humans pull out of the oceans daily.

  8. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    @Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

  9. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


    Hi Bruce,

    The problem is that most of the increase in sea level is because of ocean warming, not melting of glaciers, Greenland, or Antarctica. Even melting of Arctic ice contributes little because ice is less dense than water.

    But glaciers are melting, Antarctica is has shed large chunks of ice, and Greenland is also losing ice. Further warming of the atmosphere will lead to more loss of ice that sits on land, which will lead to a rise in sea level.

    And the oceans will also continue to warm, so that increase will continue, too.

    As far as the predictions of the models go, I tend to view them as qualitative evidence. There are large ranges in model predictions, so I can’t tell you when Miami will be underwater. 8^)

  10. Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished." GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago



    Sea level rise is based on what happens over all the ocean.

    Coastal erosion contributes little on the global scale. Some areas in the north are still rising, rebounding from the effects of the last ice age. So if you compared the average height above mean water line for some pier ins say Maine, it might look like the water level has gone down.

    But again, the recent measurements are by satellite and are whole ocean, not coastline measurements.

    The authors of the Hawaii erosion study don’t mention this, but the Hawaiian islands are sinking (slowly … ) This is because the weight of the islands deforms the sea floor.

    Once the islands slide away from the host spot that creates them, they also start sinking. Of course, they also erode on top, but that material stays in the vicinity of the island, so it doesn’t make for a rebound.

  11. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago

    @Baslim the beggar says, "Vanished is not vanquished."

    And as I am pointing out sea erosion vs oh no it might rise a few inches in a 100 years. Sea Erosion can take inches and even feet of land in just one year. That to me is a bigger threat! I am looking at it in a practical way! Not some flawed computer model that has not been right over the last 30 years.

  12. Jon L-ski

    Jon L-ski said, 11 months ago

    This same idea can be applied to the stupidity that is Medicare, Social Security and our Debt but in those cases the author of this strip always pushes to increase the stupidity

  13. Quipss

    Quipss said, 11 months ago


    So instead high rates of errosion from growing acidity due to carbon uptake is a good thing

    That or sea level is rising

    or we have gone through many years of independent low probability events

    Second paragraph provides no numbers and quotes amateur claims

    First article complains as the source was IPCC vs EPA, information is not invalid

    Secondary article centers around a spike in data that some have proposed, this has according to non political scientists been dismissed, however there does remain a trend seen over 60 years

  14. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


    I am more worried about the green house gas H2O then CO2.
    I am a heretic in the church of Gorbull Warming and the scams played by his profits!“amateur claims”

  15. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, 11 months ago


  16. Load the rest of the comments (17).