|
Post by enough on Feb 15, 2009 1:36:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 15, 2009 2:58:01 GMT
You could have a look at the work of Nils-Axel Mörner - read an interview with him at the link & google him for more data. He's not much on computer models but real big on actually measuring & checking.
|
|
|
Post by william on Feb 15, 2009 15:58:34 GMT
I believe the current consensus among those who specialize in this field is that the sea level rise cannot be explained by either melting ice which has recently reversed or by warming oceans which have recently stopped warming and have started to cool. www.geoportalen.no/planetenjorden/klima/sealevel/The is evidence that planetary ocean floor changes and isostasy (how the continents float in the mantel) changes with time. There are periods in the paleo record when there is significant ocean level changes which cannot be explained.
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Feb 18, 2009 18:37:12 GMT
The British government have just spent (wasted?) a few millions of pounds on buying up good farmland to turn into flood relief schemes along the east coast because of supposed global warming and expected sea rises. However I'm happy not to tell them their wrong,as I'm a birdwatcher and would rather see nature reserves than farms. Everybody takes what they can get out of AGW don't they
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 18, 2009 18:41:46 GMT
The British government have just spent (wasted?) a few millions of pounds on buying up good farmland to turn into flood relief schemes along the east coast because of supposed global warming and expected sea rises. However I'm happy not to tell them their wrong,as I'm a birdwatcher and would rather see nature reserves than farms. Everybody takes what they can get out of AGW don't they " Everybody takes what they can get out of AGW don't they "Absolutely! Ask Al Gore ;D
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 27, 2009 14:14:56 GMT
The British government have just spent (wasted?) a few millions of pounds on buying up good farmland to turn into flood relief schemes along the east coast because of supposed global warming and expected sea rises. However I'm happy not to tell them their wrong,as I'm a birdwatcher and would rather see nature reserves than farms. Everybody takes what they can get out of AGW don't they " Everybody takes what they can get out of AGW don't they "Absolutely! Ask Al Gore ;D I will say again: Individuals should feel free to use their own eyes on this one. For those who live near enough the ocean to visit, do so. Look around. Do you see homes being claimed by the waves? Do you see flooding? Anything unusual at all? I'm a surfer, and I have visited a lot of coastlines, many of them "precarious." Chief among these is the Outer Banks of North Carolina. (Left by the last Ice Age, by the way.) Has everyone noticed how the Outer Banks, average elevation about 10 feet, have been completely evacuated and all construction stopped? But, wait a second, I thought... How about Venice, Italy? It has been completely submerged by the melting ice caps, right? No? Wait... How about all of the ports in all of the countries of the world? They have had to be re-engineered and rebuilt to deal with the rising water, right? No? If you want to know what is happening with the world's oceans, then ask some plain regular people, I say. While living in Rhode Island, I was friends with the fishermen there. They were all talking nonstop about the rising sea water, right? No, they weren't. What about the world's surfers (who typically know a great deal about meteorology and the oceans)? They can't stop talking about the disappearance of their breaks to rising waters, right? No? What about the North Shore of Oahu where some of the largest surf on Earth regularly assaults the coast. It's being eaten away at a steady clip by the rising water, right? No? Wait a minute.... What about New York City, shown in Al Gore's "documentary" to be at risk for sudden irremediable flooding? The waterfront shows a steady rise of water to dangerous levels, right? No? No discernible change? Wait a minute... What about all the low-lying islands on Earth? They've pretty much all been nearly wiped out, right? No? Only one or two have been encroached upon, and they have had their groundwater overtapped and are subsiding? But I thought... Seriously -- seriously! -- how can so many people be so skillfully manipulated? Maybe you can fool all of the people all of the time. Maybe...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 27, 2009 16:53:36 GMT
But you forget - this is GOING to happen - it isn't happening YET but it WILL do if you don't pay me for some carbon offsets.
The climate catastrophe is NEXT year if you carry on not paying taxes now.....
To my mind the disproof of the all the catastrophe talk is the way things are being handled. Hansen would have us believe that one more power-station and the world is doomed! He has given evidence under oath on that in UK.
If I was sitting in DC playing with a new atomic bomb of more than a hundred teratons capable of a frightening amount of damage - they wouldn't raise my income tax to prevent me playing with it.
So why just raise taxes if indeed the AGW 'truth' is actual and all the major cities of the world will be destroyed all low lying countries flooded and humanity driven to extinction in only a few years?
They CANNOT be SERIOUS!
Indeed - they aren't - the politicians are using AGW as a useful tool - I don't think that they really believe that the apocalypse is next month - despite Hansen and Gore.
|
|
|
Post by oloflind on Feb 27, 2009 19:30:03 GMT
Seems to me that they are clinging to the Dr Goebbels probably true policy: "If you repeat a lie a sufficient number of times, people will believe it is true." It is indeed sad that so few are aware of the non-scientific and biased IPCC influence on the politicians and the public opinion -at least the media people should be more questioning. Within the next 10 years, the AGW advocates will for sure be out of the picture, when we will be facing the problems of a very chilling climate...Fairbridges ánd Landschedt´s forecasts about this solar minimum are correct so far and I feel confident they will hold true for the next two decades to come...
|
|
|
Post by enough on Mar 21, 2009 15:42:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Mar 21, 2009 20:37:58 GMT
Don't know if I have posted this info on this forum before, but I just visited Mom in Hawaii and, in 42 years, have seen no change in sea level at Hookipa Beach. A cover story article in ScienceNews ("Going Under," 2-28-2009) tells how big a threat sea level rise is to low-lying nations, but gives no specific examples of current problems.
I contend that marine ecology is a bigger factor in the survival of atolls (the main focus of the article is the atoll nations of Kiribati and Maldives). Atolls may naturally dissolve and sink, and need constant replenishment by living coral and shells. And indeed, I have seen a complete change in the marine ecology at Hookipa since 1967 (due to sedimentation, introduced species, and direct human impacts such as fishing and footsteps on coral...).
Meanwhile, a 40 km stretch of the shore of the Big Island sank 3.5 meters in a 1975 earthquake (Lipman et. al, USGS Professional Paper 1276, 1985). Can we blame that on global warming?
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Mar 21, 2009 20:54:00 GMT
It took me a while to get this picture posted -- then I read Kevin's instructions (duh). The basalt rocks here and nearby are exactly the same depth under water at high tide as they have always been, and a lifeguard (who is younger than I) confirmed that he also has seen no change in his lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 21, 2009 20:55:02 GMT
When "weather" causes sea level rises of 2 or 3 meters, it must be hard to separate out changes of a few mm/year. science.jrank.org/pages/6532/Storm-Surge.html(One is tempted to say impossible! ;D) The sea surface domes up under low pressure systems, and is depressed in a high pressure system. It is quite normal for adjustments of 1m in day to day tides. In addition, prevailing winds and heap water up, or remove it, from a coast. There is never a neutral "base" line. The uncertainty of any sea level rise measured over time is high. The opportunities to cherry pick data are huge, as well as the "correcting" factors needed to remove "weather". Sorry, evidence inadmissible
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Mar 21, 2009 23:55:52 GMT
In Sydney we I think have more waterfront properties than any other city on earth due to the flooded valley topography. Historically the sea level here use to be lower than the continental shelf, rising over previous millenia but in the last century there has been very little change - have a look at the Sydney Opera House its smack bang in the water - no flooding there though we may see snow on it in the not too distant future. Also john-daleys website re Tasmania; www.john-daly.com/
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 22, 2009 1:34:00 GMT
When "weather" causes sea level rises of 2 or 3 meters, it must be hard to separate out changes of a few mm/year. science.jrank.org/pages/6532/Storm-Surge.html(One is tempted to say impossible! ;D) The sea surface domes up under low pressure systems, and is depressed in a high pressure system. It is quite normal for adjustments of 1m in day to day tides. In addition, prevailing winds and heap water up, or remove it, from a coast. There is never a neutral "base" line. The uncertainty of any sea level rise measured over time is high. The opportunities to cherry pick data are huge, as well as the "correcting" factors needed to remove "weather". Sorry, evidence inadmissible With respect, Kiwi, you might know less about the ocean than the average Hawaiian lifeguard. I can assure you that they would politely laugh at your explanation of tidal variation. "What -- tides?" ;D Your rejection of solid anecdotal evidence is pseudo-scientific, I am afraid. Or perhaps you know something about the sea level in Hawaii that the locals do not?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 22, 2009 2:09:53 GMT
When "weather" causes sea level rises of 2 or 3 meters, it must be hard to separate out changes of a few mm/year. science.jrank.org/pages/6532/Storm-Surge.html(One is tempted to say impossible! ;D) The sea surface domes up under low pressure systems, and is depressed in a high pressure system. It is quite normal for adjustments of 1m in day to day tides. In addition, prevailing winds and heap water up, or remove it, from a coast. There is never a neutral "base" line. The uncertainty of any sea level rise measured over time is high. The opportunities to cherry pick data are huge, as well as the "correcting" factors needed to remove "weather". Sorry, evidence inadmissible With respect, Kiwi, you might know less about the ocean than the average Hawaiian lifeguard. I can assure you that they would politely laugh at your explanation of tidal variation. "What -- tides?" ;D Your rejection of solid anecdotal evidence is pseudo-scientific, I am afraid. Or perhaps you know something about the sea level in Hawaii that the locals do not? Dunno what you are on about Woodstove. NIWA in NZ regularly reported the air pressure change in water level from high or low pressure systems. Having lived by the sea for much of my youth (every weekend at our beach home, where the tide did come over the floor at times!! - we were meters from the "high tide" mark. With a good low pressure system, the "spring" tides would be way higher the normal, and we could get a few inches of water in the house. The biggest were in January - Jan 6 closest to Sun+Full moon. If you had a low pressure system, then it was sand bagging time.
|
|