Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Rising sea levels and global warming

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 6:29:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
In the current issue of Popular Science, there is an interview with President Obama. The President takes pride in his policies opposed to CO2. He come down hard on global warming "deniers" and offers rising sea levels as proof beyond question that global warming exists and poses a crisis. He says a town in Alaska has been inundated and flood tides occur regularly in Miami. He didn't mention it, but the islands in the Pacific suffering flooding are often mentioned.

There is very good scientific agreement on how much the oceans have risen. It's measured both by satellites and by tide gauges. The rise since 1870 is 7.7 inches, with about 4.7 inches since WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org... It is not possible that less than five inches of rise has submerged Pacific Island, inundated towns in Alaska, or produced flooding in Alaska. So why does our poorly-informed President, and many others, claim it is proof of global warming crisis? Why would anyone think that rising sea levels of many feet be only be observed some places and not other places? It's an obvious failure of critical thinking.

What is really happening is that ocean currents are shifting. Currents flowing over undersea mountains cause the surface to increase locally in some places, and decrease in other places. All islands and coasts require a rise in undersea terrain to get the land above the water, so where there are currents the local surface will rise. Currents change periodically with ocean cycles in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The President should get a science adviser that can straighten him out on the basics.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 1:04:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 6:29:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In the current issue of Popular Science, there is an interview with President Obama. The President takes pride in his policies opposed to CO2. He come down hard on global warming "deniers" and offers rising sea levels as proof beyond question that global warming exists and poses a crisis. He says a town in Alaska has been inundated and flood tides occur regularly in Miami. He didn't mention it, but the islands in the Pacific suffering flooding are often mentioned.

There is very good scientific agreement on how much the oceans have risen. It's measured both by satellites and by tide gauges. The rise since 1870 is 7.7 inches, with about 4.7 inches since WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org... It is not possible that less than five inches of rise has submerged Pacific Island, inundated towns in Alaska, or produced flooding in Alaska.

A rise in the median sea level results in a rise in the high water mark and also creates tidal bores up rivers. On shore winds will also increase tidal levels. All these factors can combine to overwhelm flood defenses. The president used Alaska as an example because Americans do not give a sh*t about flooding of other countries. In the UK London will soon need to increase its flood defenses. Many parts of my country have suffered repeated flooding over the last 5 years where before flooding was rare. Partly increased rain fall has caused this, which is likely to increase with increasing temperature increasing energy in the weather systems. We are lucky in that being wealthy we can afford better defenses. The flooding in for example Bangladesh has killed hundreds of thousands over the last decade and is getting worse. But this does not affect America so why should you care.

So why does our poorly-informed President, and many others, claim it is proof of global warming crisis? Why would anyone think that rising sea levels of many feet be only be observed some places and not other places? It's an obvious failure of critical thinking.

Do some more research and remove the blinkers from your eyes.


What is really happening is that ocean currents are shifting.

So your the head of a research center and you know this fora fact do you? Or probably you are just an opinionated yank who does not care that your country is the biggest threat to world security and you are fabricating a fairy story so that you can sleep at night without having to worry about the guilt your country carries.

Currents flowing over undersea mountains cause the surface to increase locally in some places, and decrease in other places. All islands and coasts require a rise in undersea terrain to get the land above the water, so where there are currents the local surface will rise. Currents change periodically with ocean cycles in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The pattern globally of flooding cannot be explained by your simplistic approach.

The President should get a science adviser that can straighten him out on the basics.

Don't worry soon you will have Drumpf for President then we can all forget science ever existed.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 1:11:19 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 6:29:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
In the current issue of Popular Science, there is an interview with President Obama. The President takes pride in his policies opposed to CO2. He come down hard on global warming "deniers" and offers rising sea levels as proof beyond question that global warming exists and poses a crisis. He says a town in Alaska has been inundated and flood tides occur regularly in Miami. He didn't mention it, but the islands in the Pacific suffering flooding are often mentioned.

There is very good scientific agreement on how much the oceans have risen. It's measured both by satellites and by tide gauges. The rise since 1870 is 7.7 inches, with about 4.7 inches since WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org... It is not possible that less than five inches of rise has submerged Pacific Island, inundated towns in Alaska, or produced flooding in Alaska. So why does our poorly-informed President, and many others, claim it is proof of global warming crisis? Why would anyone think that rising sea levels of many feet be only be observed some places and not other places? It's an obvious failure of critical thinking.

What is really happening is that ocean currents are shifting. Currents flowing over undersea mountains cause the surface to increase locally in some places, and decrease in other places. All islands and coasts require a rise in undersea terrain to get the land above the water, so where there are currents the local surface will rise. Currents change periodically with ocean cycles in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The President should get a science adviser that can straighten him out on the basics.

The hole in ozone was caused by operation starfish prime.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:28:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 1:04:02 PM, chui wrote:
A rise in the median sea level results in a rise in the high water mark and also creates tidal bores up rivers. On shore winds will also increase tidal levels. All these factors can combine to overwhelm flood defenses.
...
The pattern globally of flooding cannot be explained by your simplistic approach.

So your theory is that a rise of 4.7" in sea level has caused global flooding. What is the proof that there is world-wide pattern of global flooding from sea level rise? You gave no evidence at all. Tidal bores are a resonance effect that magnifies the effect of tides. In the open ocean, the tides cause a change in the water depth of about two feet. A funnel shaped bay can magnify the change to as much as fifty feet. Alaska is one place subject to large tides due to the shape of the coast. Raising the average depth of the ocean from 2.3 miles to 2.3 miles plus 4.7 inches has no effect on the tidal variation. The water is still going up and down by two feet, and that's what is amplified. It makes no sense at all that would cause flooding. It doesn't even pretend to explain why an island in the Pacific would be subject to a non-tidal rise in sea level.

Global warming crisis advocates say there is an increase in global flooding due to increased rainfall, which has nothing to do with the examples of Alaska, Florida, or Pacific islands. Global warming does increase rainfall. In the past century, rainfall worldwide has increased about 3%. Overall, that's good because more rain, a longer growing season, and more CO2 all increase crop production. Crisis advocates say that the extra moisture produces more frequent downpours, and hence more flooding. The evidence for that is marginal, but maybe it is so. If so, the response to that should be to build more reservoirs to prevent flooding and save the water for agriculture.

But if more frequent downpours are observed, that's a long ways from a logical connection to global warming. The great ocean cycles are not included in any of the climate models. The cycles have been observed and noted for many hundreds of years, so they are not a product of CO2. Ocean cycles produce the changes in currents that are responsible for local sea level rise in the Pacific. We know ocean cycles produce the worldwide El Nino effects of drought and downpours that reach as far as Britain. Everyone agrees that global warming of about 1 degree C/century is happening. Ocean rise is doing nothing. How much of drought and downpour cycles is due to global warming and how much to ocean cycles is in doubt.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:39:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 1:04:02 PM, chui wrote:

Do some more research and remove the blinkers from your eyes.
...
So your the head of a research center and you know this fora fact do you? Or probably you are just an opinionated yank who does not care that your country is the biggest threat to world security and you are fabricating a fairy story so that you can sleep at night without having to worry about the guilt your country carries.
...
The pattern globally of flooding cannot be explained by your simplistic approach.
...
Don't worry soon you will have Drumpf for President then we can all forget science ever existed.

Donald Trump would be proud of you. 90% baseless insults. Try just arguing the facts. What is you explanation of Pacific islands being inundated by a 4.7" rise in sea level? Tidal bores? Local rain?

Here is paper on the subject. The author claims that shifts in currents and distant wind storms are the cause of the local rise. "Significantly, tide gauges recorded little evidence of extreme sea levels during the [El Nino] event, implying that causes of extreme sea levels inferred from tide gauge analysis are unlikely to include this important cause of inundation." http://www.sciencedirect.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 7:25:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Rising sea levels can be evidence of global warming whether or not they are, at present, enough to cause mass flooding.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 3:25:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 6:39:58 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/3/2016 1:04:02 PM, chui wrote:

Do some more research and remove the blinkers from your eyes.
...
So your the head of a research center and you know this fora fact do you? Or probably you are just an opinionated yank who does not care that your country is the biggest threat to world security and you are fabricating a fairy story so that you can sleep at night without having to worry about the guilt your country carries.
...
The pattern globally of flooding cannot be explained by your simplistic approach.
...
Don't worry soon you will have Drumpf for President then we can all forget science ever existed.

Donald Trump would be proud of you. 90% baseless insults. Try just arguing the facts. What is you explanation of Pacific islands being inundated by a 4.7" rise in sea level? Tidal bores? Local rain?

Try discussing global issues outside of your country.

Here is paper on the subject. The author claims that shifts in currents and distant wind storms are the cause of the local rise. "Significantly, tide gauges recorded little evidence of extreme sea levels during the [El Nino] event, implying that causes of extreme sea levels inferred from tide gauge analysis are unlikely to include this important cause of inundation."

and they go on to say in the very next sentence...

"More frequent and severe inundation associated with climate-change related sea level rise (SLR) is one of the biggest threats to coastal communities"

Great mis-quote. Did you read any further than the abstract?
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Here are some more quotes:

"More frequent and severe inundation associated with climate-change related sea level rise (SLR) is one of the biggest threats to coastal communities"

"Higher mean sea levels will exacerbate the impacts of extreme sea levels caused by a range of other processes."

So they seem to be saying that a rise in mean sea level will combine with other processes to cause flooding in increasing amounts. So climate change is the main cause. Which I believe was my point.

This source you quote completely defeats your argument. Well done.
Carcharus
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2016 3:04:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I am in agreement with this.

I would like to add that there is not even evidence that there is a proper 'pattern', as predicted by pro-global warming scientists, to the level of sea rise. These are all probably unrelated events. There are even studies - whose validity I am not sure of, but the mere existence of these pose significant contradiction within the cases of 'climate change apocalypse' messiahs - that suggest that global warming slows sea level rise. http://www.wnd.com...

Despite the fact that I am not skeptical of the existence of global warming - or even that it is man-made - I have to agree with this skeptic's basic idea of the issue: "What can't global warming do?" http://www.climatedepot.com...

Global warming exists and is man-made largely, but I find it very hard to believe that there is any 'crisis' involved. People have ridiculous claims, for instance, of the equilibrium temperature changes per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration; I have heard claims that it is even 6" Celsius. But I am very skeptical of climate model studies, and most non-model studies find that positive feedbacks don't dominate climate like some scientists believe; the mean sensitivity is probably 1.1" Celsius due to negative feedbacks.