Global Warming - Moved

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1,994
Credit: 31,562,858
RAC: 7,498

What about the sea levels? A

What about the sea levels? A lot of people in the world live on the seashore, including the people of Venice.
Tullio

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: What about the sea

Message 93274 in response to message 93273

Quote:
What about the sea levels? A lot of people in the world live on the seashore, including the people of Venice.
Tullio

What precisely do you "believe" will effect a sea level change, by how much and why?

I find it odd you bring up Venice which has not experienced a rise in sea level but a sinking of the land and without the water has nothing in particular to recommend it. Besides more water gives them more canals and more tourist dollars. Melting is good for Venice.

Before answering I suggest you correlate the 0.9 degree increase over the last century found on the graphs and relate that directly to sea level rise over the last century. Simply roughly 1 degree = X micrometers of sea level rise therefore 10 degrees will result in 10*X micrometers of sea level rise.

Removing tongue from cheek if you cannot show a sea level rise from nearly a full degree of temperature increase please do not expect me to take any prediction seriously as there is no basis upon which to make a prediction. Yes, we can imagine but imagination is not science. No matter how fervently one believes in a particular cause and effect that does not mean the cause and effect are real. Things that "stand to reason" have a notorious history of not being facts.

It is not hard to find photos of places near the shore that are a century old which still exist today and find no sea level rise. There is one here in Tampa where Teddy Roosevelt staged his troops for the war in Cuba. It is still there.

Tampa is not the best example. At one time I lived in Old Town Alexandria Virginia. I could walk a few blocks down hill to the Potomac river and see houses built two centuries before and still above water. And in fact given the preservation efforts these homes were as they were built even down to the cobblestones laid by Hessian POWs. There were no "ex" homes below the water. The cobblestones stopped before the river bank back then and still in the same place now.

To make a case there has to be a evidence and there is nearly a full degree and a century for its effects to materialize and I see Nada! Zilch! Nothing! I am no longer a child. I do not fear nebulous threats of what will happen if I do not do as I am told.

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1,994
Credit: 31,562,858
RAC: 7,498

Evidently NASA is not of your

Evidently NASA is not of your opinion, since it is spending millions of dollars on satellites just to watch the sea levels:
Sea Levels Viewer
Tullio

mikey
mikey
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 4,882
Credit: 503,576,698
RAC: 73,573

RE: RE: What about the

Message 93276 in response to message 93274

Quote:
Quote:
What about the sea levels? A lot of people in the world live on the seashore, including the people of Venice.
Tullio

What precisely do you "believe" will effect a sea level change, by how much and why?

I find it odd you bring up Venice which has not experienced a rise in sea level but a sinking of the land and without the water has nothing in particular to recommend it. Besides more water gives them more canals and more tourist dollars. Melting is good for Venice.

Before answering I suggest you correlate the 0.9 degree increase over the last century found on the graphs and relate that directly to sea level rise over the last century. Simply roughly 1 degree = X micrometers of sea level rise therefore 10 degrees will result in 10*X micrometers of sea level rise.

Removing tongue from cheek if you cannot show a sea level rise from nearly a full degree of temperature increase please do not expect me to take any prediction seriously as there is no basis upon which to make a prediction. Yes, we can imagine but imagination is not science. No matter how fervently one believes in a particular cause and effect that does not mean the cause and effect are real. Things that "stand to reason" have a notorious history of not being facts.

It is not hard to find photos of places near the shore that are a century old which still exist today and find no sea level rise. There is one here in Tampa where Teddy Roosevelt staged his troops for the war in Cuba. It is still there.

Tampa is not the best example. At one time I lived in Old Town Alexandria Virginia. I could walk a few blocks down hill to the Potomac river and see houses built two centuries before and still above water. And in fact given the preservation efforts these homes were as they were built even down to the cobblestones laid by Hessian POWs. There were no "ex" homes below the water. The cobblestones stopped before the river bank back then and still in the same place now.

To make a case there has to be a evidence and there is nearly a full degree and a century for its effects to materialize and I see Nada! Zilch! Nothing! I am no longer a child. I do not fear nebulous threats of what will happen if I do not do as I am told.

There was an article on tv the other day, don't remember the channel sorry, but it was talking about ice cores from Antarctica and how they showed long periods of ice melting and then refreezing and how during the melting periods they were estimating the water level rose over 20 feet. They then took a ride to Australia and saw seashells that only occur at the bottom of the water column that were embedded in rocks over 60 feet in the air, suggesting their 20 foot estimate was wrong. Sometimes the change over from melting to freezing was within a few years or decades, but did happen many times over the course of the sample. The samples are very deep core so give a very long time frame. They are investigating the causes but may not have enough info to determine that yet. The cores tend to show what not the whys, but they think with some careful testing they may find chemicals embedded in the mud and ice that give them clues to the atmospheric conditions at the time. Of course they are hoping something will jump right out and slap them silly with the answer, but since they have just started the testing it is too early to tell.

mikey
mikey
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 4,882
Credit: 503,576,698
RAC: 73,573

RE: RE: RE: What about

Message 93277 in response to message 93276

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What about the sea levels? A lot of people in the world live on the seashore, including the people of Venice.
Tullio

What precisely do you "believe" will effect a sea level change, by how much and why?

I find it odd you bring up Venice which has not experienced a rise in sea level but a sinking of the land and without the water has nothing in particular to recommend it. Besides more water gives them more canals and more tourist dollars. Melting is good for Venice.

Before answering I suggest you correlate the 0.9 degree increase over the last century found on the graphs and relate that directly to sea level rise over the last century. Simply roughly 1 degree = X micrometers of sea level rise therefore 10 degrees will result in 10*X micrometers of sea level rise.

Removing tongue from cheek if you cannot show a sea level rise from nearly a full degree of temperature increase please do not expect me to take any prediction seriously as there is no basis upon which to make a prediction. Yes, we can imagine but imagination is not science. No matter how fervently one believes in a particular cause and effect that does not mean the cause and effect are real. Things that "stand to reason" have a notorious history of not being facts.

It is not hard to find photos of places near the shore that are a century old which still exist today and find no sea level rise. There is one here in Tampa where Teddy Roosevelt staged his troops for the war in Cuba. It is still there.

Tampa is not the best example. At one time I lived in Old Town Alexandria Virginia. I could walk a few blocks down hill to the Potomac river and see houses built two centuries before and still above water. And in fact given the preservation efforts these homes were as they were built even down to the cobblestones laid by Hessian POWs. There were no "ex" homes below the water. The cobblestones stopped before the river bank back then and still in the same place now.

To make a case there has to be a evidence and there is nearly a full degree and a century for its effects to materialize and I see Nada! Zilch! Nothing! I am no longer a child. I do not fear nebulous threats of what will happen if I do not do as I am told.

There was an article on tv the other day, don't remember the channel sorry, but it was talking about ice cores from Antarctica and how they showed long periods of ice melting and then refreezing and how during the melting periods they were estimating the water level rose over 20 feet. They then took a ride to Australia and saw seashells that only occur at the bottom of the water column that were embedded in rocks over 60 feet in the air, suggesting their 20 foot estimate was wrong. Sometimes the change over from melting to freezing was within a few years or decades, but did happen many times over the course of the sample. The samples are very deep core so give a very long time frame. They are investigating the causes but may not have enough info to determine that yet. The cores tend to show what not the whys, but they think with some careful testing they may find chemicals embedded in the mud and ice that give them clues to the atmospheric conditions at the time. Of course they are hoping something will jump right out and slap them silly with the answer, but since they have just started the testing it is too early to tell.

Did you see the Archeology news where some student was mapping old settlements in England and they found a settlement wall that extended into the water? They did some research and found a settlement under almost 100 feet of water out into the English Channel! Now since grown man did not have gills either the land sank or the water rose, in this case the water rose to cover the settlement, the settlement is pre-Viking. They know the water rose because they can document the movement of the settlement over time towards what today is dry land. Of course the study of the settlement does not take into account why the water rose, just that it did in fact rise.

Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Byron Leigh Hat...
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 112
Credit: 1,003,939
RAC: 1,997

RE: There was an article

Message 93278 in response to message 93276

Quote:

There was an article on tv the other day, don't remember the channel sorry. but it was talking about ice cores from Antarctica.


was it the tv program PBS Nova ?

Secrets Beneath the Ice
Is Antarctica headed for a catastrophic meltdown? New evidence of ancient climate change may hold clues. Aired December 28, 2010 on PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: Evidently NASA is not

Message 93279 in response to message 93275

Quote:
Evidently NASA is not of your opinion, since it is spending millions of dollars on satellites just to watch the sea levels:
Sea Levels Viewer
Tullio

That is not a response to what I posted.

Can you do better next time?

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: ... There was an

Message 93280 in response to message 93276

Quote:
...
There was an article on tv the other day, don't remember the channel sorry, but it was talking about ice cores from Antarctica and how they showed long periods of ice melting and then refreezing and how during the melting periods they were estimating the water level rose over 20 feet. They then took a ride to Australia and saw seashells that only occur at the bottom of the water column that were embedded in rocks over 60 feet in the air, suggesting their 20 foot estimate was wrong. Sometimes the change over from melting to freezing was within a few years or decades, but did happen many times over the course of the sample. The samples are very deep core so give a very long time frame. They are investigating the causes but may not have enough info to determine that yet. The cores tend to show what not the whys, but they think with some careful testing they may find chemicals embedded in the mud and ice that give them clues to the atmospheric conditions at the time. Of course they are hoping something will jump right out and slap them silly with the answer, but since they have just started the testing it is too early to tell.

What does that have to do with this discussion? Please be specific. Despite my grandmother's opinion they really can say things on TV which are not true. Ever watch the "ancient aliens" series? (I have as they are generally a better quality SciFi than the stuff the SyFy Channel produces as original fiction. When will they run out of species turning giant and eating people? That is another subject but on the same level of pseudo-science nonsense as the melting crap on TV. Praise Gore!)

I mean there is no question the sea level was once 300 feet lower than it is today. I have been looking for a good way to visualize it for some time as it directly impacts human migration around the world during the ice age.

http://www.giwersworld.org/images/map-sections-large/ICE/index.html if interested.

So you should not expect I am going join you in advocating going back to stone axes and campfires over a hypothetical 20 feet. Should you ever climb Everest you can collect sea shells near the summit. Unless one is of the Noatic faith we cannot exclude Tsunamis in the matter of inland sea shells. Myself, I want to see inland beaches with tens of feet of sand depth and hundreds of feet of width. That is a shoreline and what is missing from all these inland sea shells. Keep in mind inland sea shells in the Med are used by some to attempt to date the Thera eruption. They do not expect to find inland beaches.

First off you are talking about something which will happen again regardless of what we do because it has happened without any contribution from us. Therefore it is immaterial to this discussion.

Second please describe the EXACT cause of that rise -- no handwaving, no coulds mights or maybes -- and relate it directly to human activities in a quantitative sense. The TV show is throwing numbers around so I have every legitimate expectation of numerical relationships. They say 20 feet not 2 feet so there have to be calculations in there some place OR 20 is big enough to be scary just as ants do not have to be more than 6 feet long to be scary.

Third the scare tactic here is the same as used by Hollywood since nuclear fallout, the unknown and uncontrollable is coming to get you Barbara.

Matt Giwer
Matt Giwer
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 144
Credit: 6,891,649
RAC: 0

RE: ... Did you see the

Message 93281 in response to message 93277

Quote:
...
Did you see the Archeology news where some student was mapping old settlements in England and they found a settlement wall that extended into the water? They did some research and found a settlement under almost 100 feet of water out into the English Channel! Now since grown man did not have gills either the land sank or the water rose, in this case the water rose to cover the settlement, the settlement is pre-Viking. They know the water rose because they can document the movement of the settlement over time towards what today is dry land. Of course the study of the settlement does not take into account why the water rose, just that it did in fact rise.

Lets see. We know there was no fossil fuel involved. I assume that is a given.

So the question is whether it was sea level rise or land subsidence. There are literally hundreds of examples of the latter in historical times but no examples of the former.

If it were sea level rise then it would have risen all over the world. Would I be presumptuous in expecting a hundred foot sea level rise all around the world?

If I am not being presumptuous in that expectation should I not expect to find all coastal cities prior to this event also 100 feet under water? Would I not expect all the coastlines around the world to have changed beyond recognition?

If I am not being bumptiously presumptuous should I not be curious how this world wide disaster a) escaped mention, b) ask after who cleaned up all the flooded coastal cities around the world, and c) why they only missed this one town in Britain?

mikey
mikey
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 4,882
Credit: 503,576,698
RAC: 73,573

RE: RE: There was an

Message 93282 in response to message 93278

Quote:
Quote:

There was an article on tv the other day, don't remember the channel sorry. but it was talking about ice cores from Antarctica.

was it the tv program PBS Nova ?

Secrets Beneath the Ice
Is Antarctica headed for a catastrophic meltdown? New evidence of ancient climate change may hold clues. Aired December 28, 2010 on PBS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice.html

YES it very well could have been, it was VERY INTERESTING!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.