Jen Sorensen by Jen Sorensen

Jen SorensenNo Zoom

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

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

  2. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 3 years ago

    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.

  3. cjr53

    cjr53 said, almost 3 years ago

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

  4. Jon L-ski

    Jon L-ski said, almost 3 years 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

  5. Quipss

    Quipss said, almost 3 years 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

  6. Jib76

    Jib76 said, almost 3 years ago

    This story about nations dragging their feet on reducing carbon emissions is spot on. The solution is biofuel production and combustion. It will dramatically lower carbon dioxide emissions by a process known as “combustion recycling.” The technology exists today to produce billions of gallons of “cellulosic” ethanol cost effectively. Governments just need to promote such biofuels and the Flex Fuel vehicles that can use them in large volumes (GM, Ford, and Chrysler all make FFVs). Flex Fuel vehicles, “cellulosic” ethanol and E85 (85% ethanol/15% gasoline) are the easy solution to climate change! Today’s internal combustion engines can have their combustion ratios adjusted so that E85 gives the same mileage as pure gasoline.

  7. BrianCrook

    BrianCrook said, almost 3 years ago

    Harley, you’ll be dead long before any of this has happened, and, since you didn’t procreate, have no friends, or leave anything of lasting value, you don’t care what happens to the planet.

  8. BrianCrook

    BrianCrook said, almost 3 years ago

    You call 95% of climatologists ignorant. You should look in the mirror.

  9. rossevrymn

    rossevrymn GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Don’t miss Lil’ Jen in “Annie”: The sun will come up tomorrow! Bet your bottom dollar that, tomorrow, it will explode!

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 3 years ago

    Yeah, I get it. You forget one thing. At some point the “natural” reaction to the ice melt will alter the ocean currents (gulf stream) causing a huge climate shift BACK to a frozen north perhaps as far down as NYC as it was in the last Ice Age.

    It is a CYCLE. And humans may speed it up BUT it will CYCLE.

    Shouldn’t we be learning how to survive it?

    Shouldn’t we be striving to expand our horizons and claiming new territory in our solar system?

    Shouldn’t we be using every last possible mind on this planet pursuing the common goal of spreading our species into the know universe?

    No, we would rather fight each other to extinction over a pool of fossil remains.

    We are rushing to the end ……… and the universe is watching.

  11. Jib76

    Jib76 said, almost 3 years ago

    Baslim, you forgot your carbon cycles! Plants absorb CO2 and convert it into glucose via photosynthesis using sunlight. The glucose in plants is converted into ethanol using using thermochemical means. You failed to mention how much more energy is used to create fossil fuels than make bioethanol. 2times more energy is used to drill for oil, refine it into gasoline than is used to make bioethanol.

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 3 years ago

    A couple of good posts.

    It is sad that our base instincts occupy the primary position of importance for most humans.

    Who is it that has the capacity to unite the world to reach for a common goal?

    We are still wrapped up in playing king of the hill instead.

    One day we will look up and see the folly of our way just as the top of the food chain millions of years ago watched the huge explosion of asteroid/comet impact and the end of their existence…..sad.

    And the truth is all you need is love……

  13. Refresh Comments.