U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:29 AM
 
48,899 posts, read 39,401,698 times
Reputation: 30554

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
You may certainly call me wrong, but the onus is now on you to say why you think I am wrong and present your proof.

I refer you to a previous thread in a different city-data forum:
Patently Alarmist Greenland story from NBC News

Pay attention to post #7 in this thread:
Claiming That Sea Level is Rising is a Total Fraud

Another link:
"What if all the ice melts?" Myths and realities
I read some of the materials you cited. I applaud that you've put a fair bit of thought into what is no doubt a complex problem.

Facing such complex problems, one way to check things is if we are lucky enough to have actual examples where ice masses shrank and increased and are able to observe the fossil records, sediment deposits etc etc.

For example, ever wonder why gravel driveways all over the midwest have little seashell fossils?

Western Interior Seaway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the last glacial maximum of 20,000 years ago sea levels were 120meters LOWER than they are now.

Personally, I think you have your back up because there have been some crazy al gore predictions. I can understand that and certainly the sea levels aren't going to go up 20 feet anytime soon. However, IF temperatures fall or rise due to an asteroid or WHATEVER we have a CLEAR geological record that sea levels have varied by many hundreds of feet over the years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
I thank you for reading or at least reviewing the material. It is a complex issue that goes back as far back as to Pangaea and plate tectonics. Having grown up in Vermont, I'm well aware of the geological effects of glaciation and changes in sea levels. Those are long-term effects, and short of some cataclysmic effect like a meteor impact as you suggest, the energy requirements of the FUD predictions are too great to be credible. Consider that as you try to take an uncovered pot of soup to boiling on a stove.

I remind you that the Sahara was not desert during the ascent of man. The climate of the Earth is not fixed, and changes are bound to happen. The ascribing of the "evils" of man's contributions to the change, the gnashing of teeth, wailing and calls for immediate cessation of civilization are not the calls from any meaningful scientific community. They are the cries of those with overinflated egos and special agendas and ideas on how to profit from enforced social changes. Those of us who have done even a minimal amount of independent research recognize the difference.

I would not be surprised at all if predictions came out that within the next 100 million years, the Earth was destined to lose
much of its atmosphere and become too hot for habitation, simply from the increase in the solar constant. Hopefully, long before that, humanity will have figured out its purpose and completed it. 100 million more years of nonsense might be a bit excessive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 02:30 PM
 
48,899 posts, read 39,401,698 times
Reputation: 30554
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
I thank you for reading or at least reviewing the material. It is a complex issue that goes back as far back as to Pangaea and plate tectonics. Having grown up in Vermont, I'm well aware of the geological effects of glaciation and changes in sea levels. Those are long-term effects, and short of some cataclysmic effect like a meteor impact as you suggest, the energy requirements of the FUD predictions are too great to be credible. Consider that as you try to take an uncovered pot of soup to boiling on a stove.

I remind you that the Sahara was not desert during the ascent of man. The climate of the Earth is not fixed, and changes are bound to happen. The ascribing of the "evils" of man's contributions to the change, the gnashing of teeth, wailing and calls for immediate cessation of civilization are not the calls from any meaningful scientific community. They are the cries of those with overinflated egos and special agendas and ideas on how to profit from enforced social changes. Those of us who have done even a minimal amount of independent research recognize the difference.

I would not be surprised at all if predictions came out that within the next 100 million years, the Earth was destined to lose
much of its atmosphere and become too hot for habitation, simply from the increase in the solar constant. Hopefully, long before that, humanity will have figured out its purpose and completed it. 100 million more years of nonsense might be a bit excessive.
Cooling is a bigger risk IMO.

I've seen computer projections of what would happen after Yellowstone or one of the other supervolcano's pops off and that would single-handedly wipe out a century or so of global temperature increase in 2 years.

We'd probably lose 1/2 the worlds population or more and that's not some type of crazy prediction.

Mother nature has quite the sense of humor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 10:35 AM
 
Location: PRC
2,710 posts, read 2,985,492 times
Reputation: 2457
My brother-in-law works for a county council in the UK and he tells me that there are plans and maps which show what areas of the county are going to be under water when the sea level rises. It is predicted to rise at least 1 metre in the next <50 years..

Just an extra thought. This is not fear-mongering, but across the world, there are many nuclear power plants near to the ocean and currently their lifespan is at least 40-60 years with another long period in decommissioning . A 1 metre rise in sea level means more possibility of flooding in high seas, and less margin for error when tsunami hit.

We already have the Fukushima situation on-going and unresolved, we really dont want any more meltdowns and uncontained nuclear cores to add to our existing radiation problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,298 posts, read 1,944,690 times
Reputation: 1580
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Articles such as the one cited make me see red. They are lies, not innocent misinterpretations, but intentional and da...able fear mongering assaults on real science. Here is a quote:

...
There is a high school science experiment where you fill a glass or beaker with ice, and then fill it to the rim with water, free floating the ice. The student then has to guess what happens when the ice melts. The level of water in the beaker remains the same. Ice floats because it displaces more space than liquid water. The authors of the article conveniently leave that out and imply that the melting of a floating ice sheet will dramatically raise sea levels.
I would strongly encourage you to do this experiment yourself, but you need to make one small modification: Put a stick in your ice cube tray that is long enough so that it touches the bottom of the glass and thus holds part of the ice above the water. This represents the fact that some of the ice is sitting on land - it is not all just floating in the water. Measure the water level before and after the ice melts. You should find that the water level rises. If you are mathematically inclined, you can do some calculations. The key is to know the difference between how much of the ice cube would stick out of water if it were just floating verses how much sticks out of water when it is on the stick. From this difference you can calculate the rise of the water level once the stick-mounted ice cube melts.

If you do this experiment, you will hopefully come to realize that the scientists are not lying to you. Sea waters will rise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
I fully understand the idea that there are some areas where the ice rests on the ocean floor and is not free floating. To the extent that ice does rest on solid ground, it will add to any rise in sea levels (assuming a fixed solid ground, which is not the case, as I pointed out earlier).

I'll counter your statement with something I bet you have never considered - Mars once had free flowing water. Scientists are hard pressed to find any water there at this point. What does that have to do with things on Earth? Our atmosphere also constantly allows small particles like hydrogen to escape into space. There is every reason to believe that on a larger timeframe, the Earth will end up like Mars, essentially waterless. Do you see even the slightest mention of that in any of the "rising sealevels" FUD?

For that matter, do you see any mention of the rise of mountains or the changes in subduction zones? The whole "science" is based on taking a very limited subset of factors, ignoring many others, and crying that the sky is falling (or sea rising). It isn't a matter of whether or not you or I believe something. It is a matter of getting down to facts and getting RID of media errors and intentional inaccuracies designed to promote emotions and create more advertising revenue. Only when those involved in the research come out en-masse to denounce the fear-mongers can we get down to a serious discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,298 posts, read 1,944,690 times
Reputation: 1580
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
Our atmosphere also constantly allows small particles like hydrogen to escape into space. There is every reason to believe that on a larger timeframe, the Earth will end up like Mars, essentially waterless. Do you see even the slightest mention of that in any of the "rising sealevels" FUD?
The rate of atmospheric loss to space is so slow that I doubt it could have any significant effect on the debate over rising sea levels. Significant atmospheric loss would take billions of years; rising sea levels would happen over a few hundred years. Here is a quote from Scientific American that you might enjoy: "Although Earth’s atmosphere may seem as permanent as the rocks, it gradually leaks back into space. The loss rate is currently tiny, only about three kilograms of hydrogen and 50 grams of helium (the two lightest gases) per second, but even that trickle can be significant over geologic time...." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-planets-lose-their-atmospheres The key thing to notice is that they are talking in terms of "geologic time" - nothing that will compete with any rates that happen over a few hundred years.


Quote:
For that matter, do you see any mention of the rise of mountains or the changes in subduction zones?
Once again you are dealing with geologic time frames.


Quote:
Only when those involved in the research come out en-masse to denounce the fear-mongers can we get down to a serious discussion.
I think that the missing en-masse denunciation you are looking for might be an indication that there are no masses of serious researchers who see a need to denounce what you think they should denounce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,851 posts, read 51,335,478 times
Reputation: 27726
...or perhaps it could be researchers hunger for grant money, unwilling to be ostracized by peers, or seeing other ways to profit from hysteria. Clearly, the article in Grist is not a research paper. In point of fact, it cites such a paper in Nature that suggests: "Last week, a much discussed new paper in the journal Nature seemed to suggest to some that we needn’t worry too much about the melting of Greenland, the mile-thick mass of ice at the top of the globe."

It then goes on with a speculative rebuttal. To Box's credit, he doesn't cite the 200' figure used until some of of called foul, foul, you can't do your basic math. Instead he uses a 70' figure (the use of 69 is marketing, not science).

Will we see SMALL rises in sea level? Yes. Unless you plan on living for hundreds of years, that is about all you'll see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 08:10 PM
Status: "My eyes are rolled back so far I can see my brain." (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: Here.
13,387 posts, read 11,884,783 times
Reputation: 15721
I'd rather have water than ice. Water can support life which can be used to feed us. Ice is largely uninhabitable. People living near the coast will have plenty of time (generations) to move inland. It's not like a tsunami coming in overnight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top