| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
blackwolfmt
Senior Nomad
Posts: 802
Registered: 1-18-2014
Location: On The Beach With A Blackwolf
Member Is Offline
Mood: dreamin of Riden out a hurricane in Baja
|
|
High Tide 2018
So understand dont waste your time always searching for those wasted years
face up and make your stand and realize that your living in the golden years
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 17388
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  |
I wouldn't know how, but I am glad your eyes are working and you see the obvious.
Another place you can see that sea levels are not higher is at all the salt flats next to the ocean and lagoons... they are still not underwater all
the time! Being just inches above average high tide, they would be the first areas flooded permanently by rising sea level. |
Actually, some of the low areas (salt flats) in central baja have seen increased inundation at high tides, an effect of sea level change.
So you are correct, the salt flats have been effected by sea level change.
You are learning, grass hopper.
Btw, to see the salt flats submerged pemanently would require a sea level rise greater than the tidal range.
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by mtgoat666]
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | | Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666 | | Quote: Originally posted by gnukid |
The article is fraudulent, reading the article it states that for 100 years up to 1993 they used tidal gauges and the sea rise was about ~1.1mm/yr or
4 inches for 100 years (though tidal gauges change based on sun/moon/salt content etc) then they report they changed to satellite data after 1993 and
it surged to 3mm/yr or 11 inches in 100 years. Both readings, tidal gauge and satellite readings are fraudulently reported, they quote Michael Mann to
support their findings who is at the heart of climate fraud whose emails showed the effort to "hide the decline" in temperature rise.
As well the article quotes Narem, who states, "This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential
to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate, to more than 60 centimeters instead of about 30,"
which is not demonstrable but measurable data, as Antartic shows no increase in melt-off year/year at present and is stable. https://phys.org/news/2017-05-antarctic-central-ice-sheet-st...
Yearly Antarctic variability is largely attributed to 100s of underwater volcanoes and hot water upwelling creating a highly diverse ecosystem. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/08/14/volcano...
Unique locations may show variation in sea level based on many factors according to studies unrelated to global sea level change http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/Sea-Level_Study_12056_96.p...
Sea levels have risen for 20,000 years with no evidence of increase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid] |
Tonga created a climate change trust fund to deal with some of the financial issues around sea level change of their low lieing nation.
Newkid, does your trust fund have contingency plan for sea level change?
|
Fraud for financial gain in sea level rise reported in the pacific islands has been identified for some ten years with some politicians prosecuted.
National Geographic reports a land increase of 3% during the same period.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-so...
Additional sources showing fraud in pacific island sea level rise https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbo...
Pacific Islands growing not shrinking http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/03/pacific_islands_ok?p...
There is little to no discernible sea level rise over 2000 years, trends show downward movement while there is clearly identifiable sea level fraud
for financial gain to claim sea level rise and demand compensation. https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/sea-level-scam/
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid] |
One of your sources, Dr Morner, claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. A real
scientific approach. Think a will stay with real science.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron | | Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | Fallacious arguments abound:
I never said an unlimited amount of CO2 is better, only that human contribution (%.04) to the current ~400PPM is not the driver of global and
atmospheric temperatures demonstrably. Current temperatures are stable for some reasons, likely solar activity minimum as suggested.
Yes, human contribution to CO2 is minimal, much less than animals, and volcanoes and oceanic and terra plant life breakdown, but it is hard to
measure and know for sure.
Humans do not drive Earth's CO2 and do not drive temperature while other factors, the Sun, volcanoes, animals, the ocean and organic plant material
deterioration may be a driver of global CO2.
Focus on things you control, like dumping depleted uranium bombs, chemicals, plastics, and destructive food/fish production.
Consider, that many things you were told are wrong and take time to do some research beyond a single source to multiple sources and think outside the
box. As humans we have so much to learn and so little we know for certain. |
Volcanoes again?
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and is the primary gas blamed for climate change. While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic
eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions
has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. In 2010, human activities were responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons
(gigatons) of CO2 emissions. All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine
volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. While it has been proposed that intense volcanic
release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions, this is a topic of scientific debate
at present."
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html
I might add that those possible volcanic extinctions occurred as a result of immense volcanic fields erupting over thousands of years (The Siberian
and Deccan Trap episodes).
We are vaporizing 200 million years of carbon that has been locked up in the Earth's crust in the span of a couple centuries. I grant you that in
previous interglacial periods like this current one 400 ppm was reached before man was barely a twinkle of an influence on the environment. However
we are accelerating that milestone before other past interglacial timelines. Time will tell. |
AGW is a theory that is not proven by any means. Volcanos emit more than CO2, they emit ash,sediment and other chemicals and have shown to destroy
humanity while human generated CO2 has not been demonstrated to be harmful while it is demonstrated to be the symbiotic plant life force of our earth.
There are hundreds and hundreds of volcanos many of them below the surface of the water or terra firmaand few if any are studied up close when active.
More study of volcanos is needed.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by rts551 |
One of your sources, Dr Morner, claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. A real
scientific approach. Think a will stay with real science. |
If you want to show that one of the article's quotes is wrong, why not highlight the quote and demonstrate from sources why it's wrong, instead of
making non-sourced rumored accusations if you are so familiar with the literature otherwise it appears that your attempts to call into question the
validity of the date sources are just personal attacks.
This is an example of the straw man argument, using fallacious logic. I made no mention or attribution to claims about using sticks to find water or
identify Curry and Hartmann lines. You brought up the topic and attributed it to my argument and the sources while it has no reference, bearing or
place other than to distract and attempt to associate me with straw man for you to knock down. Fallacious arguments, such as the straw man are used by
people who have no facts to present to make their point or refute others points and instead use fallacious arguments to distract the discussion and
claim to disprove by association to a false claim.
Furthermore, to suggest that a scientist who theorizes on many topics and pursues research only to determine that a theory is proven to be incorrect,
it doesn't disprove or cloud all other research. The suggestion that one disproven theory disproves all other research is also fallacious logic or
argument by association.
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Record Low July 2018 Temperatures in Southern U.S., Alabama at 49 Degrees
Is this a significant trend or an anomaly? Either way, here is a source of temperature reading today showing no significant increase in temperature,
while in fact showing a cooling trend for the region.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/record-low-july-t...
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | | Quote: Originally posted by rts551 |
One of your sources, Dr Morner, claimed that dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. A real
scientific approach. Think a will stay with real science. |
If you want to show that one of the article's quotes is wrong, why not highlight the quote and demonstrate from sources why it's wrong, instead of
making non-sourced rumored accusations if you are so familiar with the literature otherwise it appears that your attempts to call into question the
validity of the date sources are just personal attacks.
This is an example of the straw man argument, using fallacious logic. I made no mention or attribution to claims about using sticks to find water or
identify Curry and Hartmann lines. You brought up the topic and attributed it to my argument and the sources while it has no reference, bearing or
place other than to distract and attempt to associate me with straw man for you to knock down. Fallacious arguments, such as the straw man are used by
people who have no facts to present to make their point or refute others points and instead use fallacious arguments to distract the discussion and
claim to disprove by association to a false claim.
Furthermore, to suggest that a scientist who theorizes on many topics and pursues research only to determine that a theory is proven to be incorrect,
it doesn't disprove or cloud all other research. The suggestion that one disproven theory disproves all other research is also fallacious logic or
argument by association.
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid] |
poor ganu. got his feelings hurt. Hope you read Swedish. https://www.svd.se/arkiv/1995-05-29/5
Or maybe this will help you out....You quoted a quack...much like yourself.
In 1995, Mörner gave several courses in dowsing at Stockholm University in the summer program, and also outside of the university. He claimed that
dowsing could be used not only to find water, but also to discover Curry and Hartmann lines. When reported in the press, he received sharp criticism
from the Swedish scientific community and the Swedish skepticism movement. Mörner persisted and the conflict escalated, leading to a formal ban from
the president of the university to teach dowsing, citing the Law on Higher Education, until he could present scientific evidence for dowsing. In the
summer of 1996 Mörner held a symposium at the university where he presented what he considered to be supporting evidence for his teachings. A
committee appointed by the university dismissed Mörner's claims in december 1996. He was named "Confuser of the Year" for 1995 by Vetenskap och
Folkbildning, a Swedish organisation in support of the broadening the understanding of the scientific method. The renowned American skepticist James
Randi offered him a reward of USD971000 if Mörner could show that dowsing worked in a scientifically controlled experiment. Mörner later rejected
the offer. As late as 2002 Mörner reaffirmed his stance in a documentary on Swedish television.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Du gjorde min poäng igen. tack
Mörner svar: https://www.thegwpf.com/nils-axel-morner-these-researchers-h...
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Gnukid, nice try trying to blame volcanoes for the recent ramp up on Global warming in the world today, However according the the scientists who study
this area have said, " It has sometimes been suggested by those who seek to disprove human impact on the climate that volcanoes release more
CO2 than human activity. This is simply incorrect. ( read the 27 page report linked below)
Gnukid, if you're going to continue posting "denier" opinions on Global Warning, please continue to post links where you are getting your information
from, because almost always those sites are paid for by big oil, or are crank sites like you last link from the "Global warming policy foundation,"
that's very suspect. Read about it below:
https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation
__________________________________________
Here some real science that says it's not the volcanoes.
How do volcanoes affect the climate?
Volcanoes can have both a cooling and warming effect on the planet's climate
When volcanoes erupt, they emit a mixture of gases and particles into the air. Some of them, such as ash and sulphur dioxide, have a cooling effect,
because they (or the substances they cause) reflect sunlight away from the earth. Others, such as CO2, cause warming by adding to the the greenhouse
effect.
The cooling influence is particularly marked in the case of large eruptions able to blast sun-blocking particles all the way up to the stratosphere
– such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which caused a significant dip in global temperatures in the following year or two. It's difficult to know for
sure that the cooling observed after a particular eruption is definitely the result of that eruption, but examining the average global temperature
change after multiple eruptions proves a strong link.
As for greenhouse gases, underwater and land-based volcanoes are estimated to release, in total, around 100–300 million tonnes of CO2 each year,
according to the British Geological Survey and the US Geological Survey. That's a large quantity, but only around 1% of the amount that humans release
from burning fossil fuel alone.
As a rule, the cooling influence of an individual volcano will dominate for the period immediately after the eruption but the warming impact will last
much longer. So the significance of each depends on the timeframe being considered. A very large volcano in 2011 may significantly reduce temperatures
in 2012 but slightly warm them in 2100.
It has sometimes been suggested by those who seek to disprove human impact on the climate that volcanoes release more CO2 than human activity. This is
simply incorrect. As the British Geological Survey puts it:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/09/volcanoe...
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 329
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
oh my goodness. Are you serious? or maybe just trolling??
Did you even read the article? It's right there! The jet stream.
Are you clueless re 'climate 101' basics like ... the historically mildly meandering northern jet stream, is now wildly meandering due to the new
temperature gradient (and consequently pressure gradient) re equator vs north pole. (the north is heating 3-4 times faster than what's happenning at
equator)
This is elementary stuff! If you'd taken your own great advice previously mentioned ... then you'd at least know the basics.
(Snowball in congress anyone??  :lol
ni modo
ps and what is this 'source of temperature readings ..." you mentioned?? Do you mean the article linked?
I'm beginning to think you're either a lil coco for coco puffs, or just intellectually lazy. No offense intended.
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 329
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid |
While the earth has experienced much higher CO2 over the past 20,000 years - up to 10,000 PPM well before the industrial revolution -
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid] |
WHAT? are you out of your mind?
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 329
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
It has NOT been stable
And if it's no problem ... why is it 'unfortunate' that China and India have not reduced CO2 output ?? 
just wow
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 329
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
sweden https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/993049/Sweden-fire-Sw...
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
Your guys counterparts in the Arctic, would probably beg to differ if the climate and sea water levels are rising because things are happening fast
up in the Arctic, compared to the much slower Baja.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Reconstructing past measurements of CO2 or temperatures often use ice cores which require interpretation and may be approximate.
Some say the earth had 20,000 PPM CO2 450,000,000 years and 10,000 PPM CO2 400,000,000 years ago, not 20,000.
Obviously, historical estimates are generally accepted as reference only.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05314-1
It's not worth arguing about, except to observe that prior to human contribution at present on earth, CO2 was higher than today and our current
atmospheric CO2 is not a demonstrable driver of temperature which is the topic of this discussion, as opposed to hurling personal attacks.
[Edited on 7-24-2018 by gnukid]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
For your consideration:
Some scientists estimate that historically temperature variability was far more common then in recent ~20,000 year history.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05314-1
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
More on using ice core samples to infer historical climate high variability in Antartic
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02599
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here's one for you guys from CNN, climate change of 1 degree will cause increase in suicide
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/health/climate-change-sui...
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 329
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | Reconstructing past measurements of CO2 or temperatures often use ice cores which require interpretation and may be approximate.
Some say the earth had 20,000 PPM CO2 450,000,000 years and 10,000 PPM CO2 400,000,000 years ago, not 20,000.
|
CO2 has not been above 300ppm for 650,000 years.
research it
|
|
|
MMc
Super Nomad
Posts: 1679
Registered: 6-29-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Current
|
|
Does anybody think the problem will be solved HERE? It' kinda fun to watch but nobody should think anything is going to solved.
Now back to my popcorn.
"Never teach a pig to sing it frustrates you and annoys the pig" - W.C.Fields
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
