OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 18, 2019 8:38:20 GMT -5
Where is the mark from 100 years ago? um......they didn't have satellites in 1919, bro. Um, that was my point!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 18, 2019 10:27:21 GMT -5
No one actually answers the question, You can go to 10 different sites get ten different answers , but in most cases, the answer is the sea level is rising. Which, really tells us nothing. When I ask, about 100 years ago, there should be points all over the place , are mark, on this date the level is here.
No one can find that mark,, should be easy, right?
There are also 10 different answers on when life begins, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 18, 2019 10:38:00 GMT -5
Thyme, The reason we cannot find any mark so to speak is because they don't want you to find that mark. Look at all the discoveries made during that time. right down to the smallest detail.
There should be "Marks" everywhere ,, but there is not. Why??
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 18, 2019 11:19:48 GMT -5
Thyme, The reason we cannot find any mark so to speak is because they don't want you to find that mark. Look at all the discoveries made during that time. right down to the smallest detail.
There should be "Marks" everywhere ,, but there is not. Why??
. Trump sharpied over them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 23:05:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 11:23:12 GMT -5
No one actually answers the question, You can go to 10 different sites get ten different answers , but in most cases, the answer is the sea level is rising. Which, really tells us nothing. When I ask, about 100 years ago, there should be points all over the place , are mark, on this date the level is here.
No one can find that mark,, should be easy, right?
There are also 10 different answers on when life begins, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. ignoratio elenchi.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 18, 2019 13:31:04 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,886
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 18, 2019 15:16:58 GMT -5
Thyme, The reason we cannot find any mark so to speak is because they don't want you to find that mark. Look at all the discoveries made during that time. right down to the smallest detail.
There should be "Marks" everywhere ,, but there is not. Why??
You're envisioning the earth like a bunch of traffic cones sitting in a shallow pool. The floor of the pool is constant, the traffic cones are constant, the amount of water/ice in the pool is constant, so the water level on the cones should be the exact same height 10 years from now, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now - unless the amount of ice turns into water, and then the level on the cones would be higher.
In the natural world, there is nothing constant. Erosion by wind, erosion by water, massive rivers pushing deposits out through vast deltas, some parts of the ocean collecting sediments, some eroding away from currents or wave action. And the land masses either gradually rising or sinking with continental drift.
I've explained this to you many times, but you want to believe the earth is a swimming pool with traffic cones - so never mind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2019 19:22:13 GMT -5
um......they didn't have satellites in 1919, bro. Um, that was my point! yeah, I got that. the 100 year data is in Tenn's post.
the satellite curve matches the trendline from the tide gages pretty closely. if you want to debate whether it is an inch per decade or an inch and a half, I will entertain that argument. but I won't entertain that it is not rising at a steady rate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2019 19:39:43 GMT -5
Thyme, The reason we cannot find any mark so to speak is because they don't want you to find that mark. Look at all the discoveries made during that time. right down to the smallest detail.
There should be "Marks" everywhere ,, but there is not. Why??
You're envisioning the earth like a bunch of traffic cones sitting in a shallow pool. The floor of the pool is constant, the traffic cones are constant, the amount of water/ice in the pool is constant, so the water level on the cones should be the exact same height 10 years from now, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now - unless the amount of ice turns into water, and then the level on the cones would be higher.
In the natural world, there is nothing constant. Erosion by wind, erosion by water, massive rivers pushing deposits out through vast deltas, some parts of the ocean collecting sediments, some eroding away from currents or wave action. And the land masses either gradually rising or sinking with continental drift.
I've explained this to you many times, but you want to believe the earth is a swimming pool with traffic cones - so never mind.
the above bolded remark is not true. if the ice IN THE WATER melts, the level does not rise. this is due to something called the Bernolli Effect:
only LANDED ice will impact the water level (assuming all other variables remain the same)
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 18, 2019 21:10:17 GMT -5
Thanks Tenn, that was very interesting.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 18, 2019 21:18:21 GMT -5
yeah, I got that. the 100 year data is in Tenn's post.
the satellite curve matches the trendline from the tide gages pretty closely. if you want to debate whether it is an inch per decade or an inch and a half, I will entertain that argument. but I won't entertain that it is not rising at a steady rate.
How come the the satellite data does not match the Tide data,
Wait ,wait I know, they got the Tide data from P&G!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2019 23:30:58 GMT -5
yeah, I got that. the 100 year data is in Tenn's post.
the satellite curve matches the trendline from the tide gages pretty closely. if you want to debate whether it is an inch per decade or an inch and a half, I will entertain that argument. but I won't entertain that it is not rising at a steady rate.
How come the the satellite data does not match the Tide data,
Wait ,wait I know, they got the Tide data from P&G!! I specifically said that if you want to debate whether it is 1 or 1.5" per decade, that is up to you. I am not going to debate a 2" difference over the remainder of my life. I have better things to do.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 19, 2019 5:08:52 GMT -5
I await Dr. Oldcoyote's own researched, published, and peer-reviewed scientific paper on Climate Change/Global Warming and its causes or lack there of.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 19, 2019 8:26:57 GMT -5
How come the the satellite data does not match the Tide data,
Wait ,wait I know, they got the Tide data from P&G!! I specifically said that if you want to debate whether it is 1 or 1.5" per decade, that is up to you. I am not going to debate a 2" difference over the remainder of my life. I have better things to do.
P&G, Tide?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 19, 2019 10:47:30 GMT -5
I specifically said that if you want to debate whether it is 1 or 1.5" per decade, that is up to you. I am not going to debate a 2" difference over the remainder of my life. I have better things to do.
P&G, Tide? don't know. don't care.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 23:05:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 12:13:43 GMT -5
only LANDED ice will impact the water level (assuming all other variables remain the same)
Not just the Bernoulli flow effect, but displacement also. Frozen water expands to a larger size, but it's weight still displaces the same amount of water while floating, the reason it floats, and the reason for no change in ocean levels. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 23:05:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 12:18:49 GMT -5
I await Dr. Oldcoyote's own researched, published, and peer-reviewed scientific paper on Climate Change/Global Warming and its causes or lack there of. You ignore those type of posts. ymam.proboards.com/post/3034005/thread (I really don't think you're waiting for that)
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,886
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 19, 2019 14:15:25 GMT -5
only LANDED ice will impact the water level (assuming all other variables remain the same)
Not just the Bernoulli flow effect, but displacement also. Frozen water expands to a larger size, but it's weight still displaces the same amount of water while floating, the reason it floats, and the reason for no change in ocean levels. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principleYes, except for, as DJ pointed out, LANDED ice. Like, you know, those pesky glaciers that keep melting.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 19, 2019 22:21:00 GMT -5
Not just the Bernoulli flow effect, but displacement also. Frozen water expands to a larger size, but it's weight still displaces the same amount of water while floating, the reason it floats, and the reason for no change in ocean levels. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principleYes, except for, as DJ pointed out, LANDED ice. Like, you know, those pesky glaciers that keep melting.
Greenland glaciers are melting because of warm sea water, that must mean they are in the ocean.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 20, 2019 9:55:31 GMT -5
🙄
I wish I wasn't such a creature of habit. I need a new hobby. This place is boring.
|
|
saveinla
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 2:00:29 GMT -5
Posts: 5,225
|
Post by saveinla on Sept 20, 2019 10:17:06 GMT -5
There is a new experiment scientists are trying to do - www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/mosaic-expedition-arctic.htmlOn Friday evening the ship, joined by a Russian icebreaker carrying more equipment, will leave this port city in northern Norway, sailing east for two weeks to the Laptev Sea, north of Central Siberia. There the Polarstern will churn through the pack ice and sidle up to an ice floe — a large expanse of intact ice, chosen on the spot after analysis of satellite radar images and other information — and cut its engine, allowing itself to be fully frozen in place. The Russian ship will transfer its equipment to the floe and turn around. Deliberately trapped, if all goes well the Polarstern will travel with the ice along a wind-driven route known as the trans-polar drift toward and past the pole and eventually south, spilling out into the Fram Strait between Greenland and the Svalbard archipelago 12 to 14 months later. “We’ll just go where the ice goes,” said Markus Rex, a researcher in atmospheric physics at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and leader of the $155 million expedition. Organized by the institute, it involves scientists from 19 nations, including the United States, and has been five years in planning.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 20, 2019 10:28:12 GMT -5
🙄 I wish I wasn't such a creature of habit. I need a new hobby. This place is boring. LOL, reading these posts, Thinking Holy Crap, It is time to go to work, If it was not for work, I would be here all day, Oh Boy.
What's the definition of insanity, about doing the same thing over and over and over, getting the same results,,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 23:05:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 12:08:15 GMT -5
Not just the Bernoulli flow effect, but displacement also. Frozen water expands to a larger size, but it's weight still displaces the same amount of water while floating, the reason it floats, and the reason for no change in ocean levels. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principleYes, except for, as DJ pointed out, LANDED ice. Like, you know, those pesky glaciers that keep melting.
Really ? Ice on land melts ? When it's warm ? Thanks for letting me know. That's so sciencey. By scientific extrapolation, do you think that the water from the melting glaciers, will be affected by gravity, and flow to the ocean ? (bolded) Or due to the heat retained by CO2, will it evaporate straight into the atmosphere ? Water does evaporate at a higher rate as the temperature goes up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 23:05:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 12:43:06 GMT -5
I always found a little humor in this sentence when it's placed in a rising sea level article. (your second link) Quote; the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
1) I'm not sure if it's the general lack of knowledge that the earths granite crust is flexible and people don't know this by agenda misdirection, as in land masses can and will rise as glaciers melt and the weight transfer continues to take place on a global scale. 2) or... It's a direct concession, that we are still moving out of a glacial period, and of course the globe is warming, for quite some time now. Little one or two hundred year weather events mean nothing to the trend, even as they happen, because they will happen anyway, as we continue to move away from the glacial period. Unless you have taxes/politics you need to affect. It's the reason for this post of mine, showing large declines in fossil fuel usage, and no change of CO2 increase rate at Mauna Loa, during the 2008 through 2011 global recession timeframe. ymam.proboards.com/post/3034005
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 21, 2019 10:19:26 GMT -5
I always found a little humor in this sentence when it's placed in a rising sea level article. (your second link) Quote; the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
1) I'm not sure if it's the general lack of knowledge that the earths granite crust is flexible and people don't know this by agenda misdirection, as in land masses can and will rise as glaciers melt and the weight transfer continues to take place on a global scale. 2) or... It's a direct concession, that we are still moving out of a glacial period, and of course the globe is warming, for quite some time now. Little one or two hundred year weather events mean nothing to the trend, even as they happen, because they will happen anyway, as we continue to move away from the glacial period. Unless you have taxes/politics you need to affect. It's the reason for this post of mine, showing large declines in fossil fuel usage, and no change of CO2 increase rate at Mauna Loa, during the 2008 through 2011 global recession timeframe. ymam.proboards.com/post/3034005
Would normal global variability be a wide enough range to become uninhabitable for humans? Or, would it become hot enough that humans couldn't function under the conditions we currently live? (Population size, suburbs, large scale farming, etc.) I'm truly asking. I have heard the arguments for non-human caused warming, but I haven't seen an intelligent breakdown of what that means to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,114
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 21, 2019 12:09:29 GMT -5
I always found a little humor in this sentence when it's placed in a rising sea level article. (your second link) Quote; the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
1) I'm not sure if it's the general lack of knowledge that the earths granite crust is flexible and people don't know this by agenda misdirection, as in land masses can and will rise as glaciers melt and the weight transfer continues to take place on a global scale. 2) or... It's a direct concession, that we are still moving out of a glacial period, and of course the globe is warming, for quite some time now. Little one or two hundred year weather events mean nothing to the trend, even as they happen, because they will happen anyway, as we continue to move away from the glacial period. Unless you have taxes/politics you need to affect. It's the reason for this post of mine, showing large declines in fossil fuel usage, and no change of CO2 increase rate at Mauna Loa, during the 2008 through 2011 global recession timeframe. ymam.proboards.com/post/3034005
Would normal global variability be a wide enough range to become uninhabitable for humans? Or, would it become hot enough that humans couldn't function under the conditions we currently live? (Population size, suburbs, large scale farming, etc.) I'm truly asking. I have heard the arguments for non-human caused warming, but I haven't seen an intelligent breakdown of what that means to me. I think that is a very intelligent response. very rational.
but unfortunately, I don't think there is an answer. the destruction of the biome is the problem. humans are uniquely adaptable, but what happens in a world where there are no bees? that is a question we should ask, and if there is an answer to that, a known answer, then you work your way up and down the food chain, skipping over other uniquely adapted species and seeing what you have left. when done with that exercise, what kind of world do you have? is it one that THEY can survive (ie, bugs)? and if so, can we survive with ONLY them? if not, perhaps they can survive without us, and rebuild the world.
that is a question worth asking at this late juncture, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 23:05:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 9:00:21 GMT -5
I always found a little humor in this sentence when it's placed in a rising sea level article. (your second link) Quote; the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
1) I'm not sure if it's the general lack of knowledge that the earths granite crust is flexible and people don't know this by agenda misdirection, as in land masses can and will rise as glaciers melt and the weight transfer continues to take place on a global scale. 2) or... It's a direct concession, that we are still moving out of a glacial period, and of course the globe is warming, for quite some time now. Little one or two hundred year weather events mean nothing to the trend, even as they happen, because they will happen anyway, as we continue to move away from the glacial period. Unless you have taxes/politics you need to affect. It's the reason for this post of mine, showing large declines in fossil fuel usage, and no change of CO2 increase rate at Mauna Loa, during the 2008 through 2011 global recession timeframe. ymam.proboards.com/post/3034005
Would normal global variability be a wide enough range to become uninhabitable for humans? Or, would it become hot enough that humans couldn't function under the conditions we currently live? (Population size, suburbs, large scale farming, etc.) I'm truly asking. I have heard the arguments for non-human caused warming, but I haven't seen an intelligent breakdown of what that means to me. Applying atmospheric limits, energy retention at dew point is the biggie, the earth is too far from the sun to get much more than approximately 8/10° celsius over what it is now. The lag time is huge. There is no tipping point. What the AGW proponents likes to omit, is the change in rate of emission on the darkside. Always seeking an outlet, the energy radiates out at an ever higher rate to the near absolute zero, on the dark side, as the temperature climbs, while on the acquisition side of the planet, input remains the same. This has a moderating effect on temperature climb due to changes in atmosphere composition. It's actually the opposite of a tipping point.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 22, 2019 9:13:18 GMT -5
Catastrophic!!! Never happened before!!
Hmmm, one man says, 3 time in ten years, Another says, 2 time in 3 years,,,, Why do you keep rebuilding there?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 22, 2019 9:16:13 GMT -5
Build and live in a flood plain then complain that you were flooded.. Blame it on Global Warming, for building in a flood plain!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,403
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 22, 2019 13:07:13 GMT -5
Would normal global variability be a wide enough range to become uninhabitable for humans? Or, would it become hot enough that humans couldn't function under the conditions we currently live? (Population size, suburbs, large scale farming, etc.) I'm truly asking. I have heard the arguments for non-human caused warming, but I haven't seen an intelligent breakdown of what that means to me. Applying atmospheric limits, energy retention at dew point is the biggie, the earth is too far from the sun to get much more than approximately 8/10° celsius over what it is now. The lag time is huge. There is no tipping point. What the AGW proponents likes to omit, is the change in rate of emission on the darkside. Always seeking an outlet, the energy radiates out at an ever higher rate to the near absolute zero, on the dark side, as the temperature climbs, while on the acquisition side of the planet, input remains the same. This has a moderating effect on temperature climb due to changes in atmosphere composition. It's actually the opposite of a tipping point. So the average temp could be up to 15 ish degrees hotter. So Phoenix will have a few weeks of 130-135 degree, and 6 months where hitting 115+ won't be unusual. Getting down into the single digits in Chicago in winter will start to become unusual. It seems like 10-15 degrees will have pretty drastic effects on farming practices. Probably ag and ranching, too.
|
|