BajaNomad

Update: this post is an FYI only. It is not an attempt to convince anyone, change any minds or force any change in personal...

 Pages:  1  

Whale-ista - 2-23-2016 at 12:55 AM


Seas Are Rising at Fastest Rate in Last 28 Centuries

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/sea-level-rise-glo...

The worsening of tidal flooding in American coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday.

Those emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the ocean to rise at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome, the scientists said. They added that in the absence of human emissions, the ocean surface would be rising less rapidly and might even be falling.

The increasingly routine tidal flooding is making life miserable in places like Miami Beach; Charleston, S.C.; and Norfolk, Va., even on sunny days.

Though these types of floods often produce only a foot or two of standing saltwater, they are straining life in many towns by killing lawns and trees, blocking neighborhood streets and clogging storm drains, polluting supplies of freshwater and sometimes stranding entire island communities for hours by overtopping the roads that tie them to the mainland.

Such events are just an early harbinger of the coming damage, the new research suggests.

“I think we need a new way to think about most coastal flooding,” said Benjamin H. Strauss, the primary author of one of two related studies released on Monday. “It’s not the tide. It’s not the wind. It’s us. That’s true for most of the coastal floods we now experience.”

In the second study, scientists reconstructed the level of the sea over time and confirmed that it is most likely rising faster than at any point in 28 centuries, with the rate of increase growing sharply over the past century — largely, they found, because of the warming that scientists have said is almost certainly caused by human emissions.

They also confirmed previous forecasts that if emissions were to continue at a high rate over the next few decades, the ocean could rise as much as three or four feet by 2100.

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change
The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. We get it. This is your cheat sheet.

Experts say the situation would then grow far worse in the 22nd century and beyond, likely requiring the abandonment of many coastal cities.

The findings are yet another indication that the stable climate in which human civilization has flourished for thousands of years, with a largely predictable ocean permitting the growth of great coastal cities, is coming to an end.

“I think we can definitely be confident that sea-level rise is going to continue to accelerate if there’s further warming, which inevitably there will be,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in Germany, and co-author of one of the papers, published online Monday by an American journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In a report issued to accompany that scientific paper, a climate research and communications organization in Princeton, N.J., Climate Central, used the new findings to calculate that roughly three-quarters of the tidal flood days now occurring in towns along the East Coast would not be happening in the absence of the rise in the sea level caused by human emissions.

More Reporting on Climate Change

The lead author of that report, Dr. Strauss, said the same was likely true on a global scale, in any coastal community that has had an increase of saltwater flooding in recent decades.

The rise in the sea level contributes only in a limited degree to the huge, disastrous storm surges accompanying hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy. Proportionally, it has a bigger effect on the nuisance floods that can accompany what are known as king tides.

The change in frequency of those tides is striking. For instance, in the decade from 1955 to 1964 at Annapolis, Md., an instrument called a tide gauge measured 32 days of flooding; in the decade from 2005 to 2014, that jumped to 394 days.

Flood days in Charleston jumped from 34 in the earlier decade to 219 in the more recent, and in Key West, Fla., the figure jumped from no flood days in the earlier decade to 32 in the more recent.

The new research was led by Robert E. Kopp, an earth scientist at Rutgers University who has won respect from his colleagues by bringing elaborate statistical techniques to bear on longstanding problems, like understanding the history of the global sea level.

Based on extensive geological evidence, scientists already knew that the sea level rose drastically at the end of the last ice age, by almost 400 feet, causing shorelines to retreat up to a hundred miles in places. They also knew that the sea level had basically stabilized, like the rest of the climate, over the past several thousand years, the period when human civilization arose.

But there were small variations of climate and sea level over that period, and the new paper is the most exhaustive attempt yet to clarify them.

The paper shows the ocean to be extremely sensitive to small fluctuations in the Earth’s temperature. The researchers found that when the average global temperature fell by a third of a degree Fahrenheit in the Middle Ages, for instance, the surface of the ocean dropped by about three inches in 400 years. When the climate warmed slightly, that trend reversed.

Interactive Graphic
How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2015?
Interactive chart showing high and low temperatures and precipitation for 3,116 cities around the world.

OPEN Interactive Graphic
“Physics tells us that sea-level change and temperature change should go hand-in-hand,” Dr. Kopp said. “This new geological record confirms it.”

In the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution took hold, the ocean began to rise briskly, climbing about eight inches since 1880. That sounds small, but it has caused extensive erosion worldwide, costing billions.

Due largely to human emissions, global temperatures have jumped about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century. The sea is rising at what appears to be an accelerating pace, lately reaching a rate of about a foot per century.

One of the authors of the new paper, Dr. Rahmstorf, had previously published estimates suggesting the sea could rise as much as five or six feet by 2100. But with the improved calculations from the new paper, his latest upper estimate is three to four feet.

That means Dr. Rahmstorf’s forecast is now more consistent with calculations issued in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that periodically reviews and summarizes climate research. That body found that continued high emissions might produce a rise in the sea of 1.7 to 3.2 feet over the 21st century.

In an interview, Dr. Rahmstorf said the rise would eventually reach five feet and far more — the only question was how long it would take. Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.

“Ice simply melts faster when the temperatures get higher,” Dr. Rahmstorf said. “That’s just basic physics.”

[Edited on 2-23-2016 by Whale-ista]

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by Whale-ista]

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 07:25 AM

Just heard on San Diego morning news that this February is on track to be the warmest February in San Diego since records started being kept in 1875.

oxxo - 2-23-2016 at 08:07 AM

Oh this should be good! :bounce:

DavidT - 2-23-2016 at 08:44 AM


The ship can't be sinking, my side just rose 100 feet.

David K - 2-23-2016 at 08:55 AM

:lol:

News flash: the earth will be just fine with or without us. Like the other animals on this planet, we can adapt to the changes. Thinking we can stop the natural change is quite hysterical.

I am still waiting to see any rise in the sea level where I grew up (since 1957) or where I have camped since 1965. I can still go to the same beaches in Baja and Alta California. The beach shape may be different as sand moves but the sea level is still the same.

Whale-ista - 2-23-2016 at 09:26 AM

I'd appreciate discussion based on other research reports vs personal observations. This is a global concern.

I suspect the next few years in Baja will be interesting as hurricanes, heat and high water continue at above normal pace. Some benefit, such as sport-fishing. Others won't be so lucky.

Large and small scale development has taken place along the pacific coast based on "normal" tide ranges. Let's see how various new projects, such as the La Bocana cabins in Blanca's town, hold up.

Blanca has reported the foundations are already underwater at high tide. How many other communities are seeing similar changes?

bajacamper - 2-23-2016 at 09:53 AM

Ah yes, the chicken little's otra vez..

David K - 2-23-2016 at 10:01 AM

I welcome anyone from around the world to post a photo of a fixed structure, rock or tree or whatever that was visually just above average high tide 30-50 years ago (or any date) with the same structure, rock or tree today (or the past few years) during a normal high tide in order to compare. Physical proof of a higher ocean.

Either the ocean is rising or it isn't, at least any amount that can be noticed. Over millions of years, the sea has been both higher and lower than it is today. I am not saying sea levels do not change... I just dispute they change enough in one lifetime to be noticed or actually cause an issue. Erosion of cliffs and sand happens without sea level change.

Now, some regions are sinking... and that is also normal as the earth's plates slide under/over each other. Pacific islands also sink... that is where atolls came from. So, unless Southern California (where I live) and the east coast of Baja (where I camp) are both rising the same rate as the ocean, the ocean is not higher.

Breakwaters, boat launch ramps, North Island Naval Base, etc. would be underwater!

Whale-ista - 2-23-2016 at 10:13 AM

I think this is what you're looking for.

There are too many before/after images to post here, but follow this link for examples of what you requested.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.ph...
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
I welcome anyone from around the world to post a photo of a fixed structure, rock or tree or whatever that was visually just above average high tide 30-50 years ago (or any date) with the same structure, rock or tree today (or the past few years) during a normal high tide in order to compare. Physical proof of a higher ocean.

Either the ocean is rising or it isn't, at least any amount that can be noticed. Over millions of years, the sea has been both higher and lower than it is today. I am not saying sea levels do not change... I just dispute they change enough in one lifetime to be noticed or actually cause an issue. Erosion of cliffs and sand happens without sea level change.

Now, some regions are sinking... and that is also normal as the earth's plates slide under/over each other. Pacific islands also sink... that is where atolls came from. So, unless Southern California (where I live) and the east coast of Baja (where I camp) are both rising the same rate as the ocean, the ocean is not higher.

Breakwaters, boat launch ramps, North Island Naval Base, etc. would be underwater!

bajaguy - 2-23-2016 at 10:17 AM

What if the sea is not rising??? Maybe the land is sinking.....

TMW - 2-23-2016 at 10:22 AM

I haven't seen any rise in the water level around here.

TMW - 2-23-2016 at 10:29 AM

According to the chart the sea level should have risen 4 inches where David's tree is.

ttp://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.ph...

What about the El Nino effect on the tides

durrelllrobert - 2-23-2016 at 10:39 AM

None of the scientific reports that I've read don't even mention the El Niño.effect on king tides and land erosion because these can't be attributed to man made climate change. Here's what NASA Science has said about this:
Topography
Currents and tides influence topography, as does temperature. Water expands as it gets warmer, and the lack of cold water dependent nutrients make it less dense. This expanded, less dense water results in a rise in sea level, observable from space. Ocean surface height may rise as much as 6 to 13 inches above normal in some ocean regions during an El Niño.

Even though El Niño. mainly affectes the Pacific Ocean there are also similar conditions, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Atlantic Intertropical Convergence Zone oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Together with El Niño these systems are believed to be responsible for well over fifty percent of the climate variability on Earth according to NASA.

http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/el-nino/

bezzell - 2-23-2016 at 10:42 AM

Everybody knows (except the scientists!) that the oceans on this spinning planet act just like the rubber ducky in my bathtub! :D:P

David K - 2-23-2016 at 11:17 AM

Great photo of erosion, Frank. Note the sea is far below the damage.

mtgoat666 - 2-23-2016 at 11:25 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
. I am not saying sea levels do not change... I just dispute they change enough in one lifetime to be noticed or actually cause an issue. Erosion of cliffs and sand happens without sea level change.


You dispute rigorous measurement by scientists. You dispute surveyors and engineers involved in shoreline engineering. You dispute anecdotes of people all over the world reporting higher high tide effects on their property. *********

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by BajaNomad]

Hold on to your wheaties kids

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 12:25 PM

Another we're all gonna drown story and another cherry pick by an alarmist author. Of course he highlights Annapolis, MD for flooding. It also happens to be sinking 7mm a year as are most of Chesapeake Bay area cities. Here's a hint don't build/develop on soft sandy soil next to the ocean. Not mentioned are the 38 NOAA tide gauges on the West Coast,British Columbia and Hawaii that show only an average of 1.16mm ± .72mm of sea level rise and show no increase in level of rise. BTW if you included Alaskan tide gauges sea levels in the Eastern Pacific basin would show sinking as Alaska is rising due to glacial rebound.


[Edited on 2-23-2016 by Gonzo]

What is sea level?

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 12:44 PM

Here's a nice video precursor on how complicated measuring sea level really is. But they don't want you to know this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4

mtgoat666 - 2-23-2016 at 01:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell  

************************
************************


SpeAking of sprinklers, i really like the hunter mp rotators. I used to use that home depot el cheap stuff, but since i found mp rotators, been digging the irrigation , no pun intended.

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by BajaNomad]

mtgoat666 - 2-23-2016 at 01:16 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Gonzo  
bezzell you do know that Arctic sea ice has nothing to do with sea level? Right?


Well, the polar bear and disappearance of arctic sea ice is a related issue the layman can understand and empathize with,...

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 01:53 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Gonzo  
bezzell you do know that Arctic sea ice has nothing to do with sea level? Right?


If it turns out that sea ice is disappearing as measured over a period of years, maybe a decade or three, it would be indicative of global warming. Global warming will also cause the land based ice around the world to melt, particularly in Greenland and the Antarctic. That would cause sea level rise.

Therefore, sea ice coverage IS something to consider when addressing sea level rise.

sprinklers

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 01:57 PM

polar bears are hardly disappearing. seems when they restricted hunting them their population increased! who'd thought it?

and the arctic ice isn't disappearing either. ever hear the phrase figures can lie and liars can figure? well NASA et al used to measure sea ice in 30% concentrations. they changed that about 10yrs ago to 15% so as to include slushy ice close to shore. this year the 15% concentration is low yet the 30% concentrations is the highest it's been in 15yrs! but you don't hear about that do you?

I too have upgraded to industrial grade to do my part in our manmade drought here in SoCal

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 01:59 PM

BTW, go visit Glacier National Park to see the remaining glaciers, while you still can.

"A century ago, this sweep of mountains on the Canadian border boasted some 150 ice sheets, many of them scores of feet thick, plastered across summits and tucked into rocky fissures high above parabolic valleys. Today, perhaps 25 survive."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/us/climate-change-threaten...

Greenland/Antarctica

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 02:05 PM

[ particularly in Greenland and the Antarctic.] Hmmm Well how do you explain WW11 era planes that crashed landed in Greenland and are now under 260ft of ice? Inquiring minds want to know.

Recent Antarctic satellite laser altimetry paper by NASA's Jay Zwally showed Antarctica to be gaining surface mass (more ice and snow).
Go figure a circular firing squad of scientists.

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 02:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Gonzo  


Recent Antarctic satellite laser altimetry paper by NASA's Jay Zwally showed Antarctica to be gaining surface mass (more ice and snow).
Go figure a circular firing squad of scientists.


Lead Author Jay Zwally: "I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This," But "It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming." In an interview with Nature, the study's lead author, glaciologist Jay Zwally, warned that "climate deniers" would wrongly tout the study as proof that "we don't have to worry [about global warming] as some people have been making out"

"Zwally stated in the NASA press release that the study is "essentially in agreement with other studies" showing that land ice in West Antarctica is severely decreasing, but that the "main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica." He also noted that over the next couple of decades, ice loss in West Antarctica will likely outweigh the snowfall increase in East Antarctica, and that sea level rise over past decades must be coming from somewhere else."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-w...



[Edited on 2-23-2016 by SFandH]

The glacier response, here we go again

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 02:18 PM

Glacier National parks glaciers advanced during the Little Ice Age which ended appx 1850. The threshold for maintaining the glaciers was probably exceeded during warming between 1850 and the 1920s (Selkowitz et al. 2002). Not a lot of SUV's running around Baja back then!

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 02:25 PM

media matters a bastion of the highest quality journalism that george soros' money can buy!

Zwally had been sitting on that paper for at least 4yrs. You gotta love the backpedaling. Truth hurts

David K - 2-23-2016 at 02:32 PM

Quote: Originally posted by soulpatch  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Great photo of erosion, Frank. Note the sea is far below the damage.


But what is the causation?

I think that is the point.


Frank, the subject is sea level. I am asking for proof (that anyone, not just "scientists" can see).

Your photo showed the sea level well below the damage.

The cause was erosion (storm rain runoff of storm high tide waves) or even an earthquake.

Can anyone post a photo of an object, that was not moved, that was above the sea 50 years ago but in the sea today due to a higher normal sea level.

I can... and it is in Baja just above sea level today as it was in the 1950s.

Alfonsina's concrete slab the restaurant is sitting on is also the same height above the sea as it was when I was there in 1965.

The beach homes in Mission Beach, Del Mar, and other places along the ocean, built in the 1940s and 50s, are still above the sea.

How do you explain that?

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 02:37 PM

According to the United States Geological Survey:

"In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP."

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm%20

Selkowitz et al. 2002 is referenced.

mtgoat666 - 2-23-2016 at 03:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Quote: Originally posted by soulpatch  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Great photo of erosion, Frank. Note the sea is far below the damage.


But what is the causation?

I think that is the point.


Frank, the subject is sea level. I am asking for proof (that anyone, not just "scientists" can see).

Your photo showed the sea level well below the damage.
...
Can anyone post a photo of an object, that was not moved, that was above the sea 50 years ago but in the sea today due to a higher normal sea level.
...
The beach homes in Mission Beach, Del Mar, and other places along the ocean, built in the 1940s and 50s, are still above the sea.

How do you explain that?


How do you explain that you will only believe pictures and you cannot accept measurements?

As a historian, how did you manage to read and understand historical accounts of baja without pictures? Given your posts, it seems that you believe data without a photo is garbage.


[Edited on 2-23-2016 by mtgoat666]

According to the United States Geological Survey:

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 03:20 PM

Here I'll go sloooooow for you. By 1920 it was already to late.What happened since then is irrelevant. They were doomed 96yrs ago long before Nomads were spewing Co2 all over Baja with their fossil fuel based toys! Leave Baja to us deniers so we can still get some uncrowded surf. My carbon footprint is HUGE

Measurements

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 03:35 PM

The problem with tide gauge data in Mexico is that the few they have stopped functioning/reporting data to NOAA the most recent being 1990. All were short term stations only operating since roughly 1950. Cabo's shows very little rise 1.68mm but with huge error bars of +/- 3.62mm! So statistically no sea level rise. But again it's a spotty gauge that no longer reports.

http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_globa...

mtgoat666 - 2-23-2016 at 03:36 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  


Can anyone post a photo of an object, that was not moved, that was above the sea 50 years ago but in the sea today due to a higher normal sea level.


Proof!

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 03:46 PM

Goat, that was last year. Here's an updated one.


blackwolfmt - 2-23-2016 at 03:58 PM

you guys are 2 funny:bounce::bounce::bounce:

BornFisher - 2-23-2016 at 04:03 PM

So what caused the sea to rise 28 centuries ago??? I think if we could just nuke the whales, the sea level would fall!!!

Osprey - 2-23-2016 at 04:14 PM

You know we all might be to blame in some small way. The fish we take from the sea, the ones we keep to eat, were previously a part of the total sea volume so we make the sea level go down. Since you're all convinced the sea is rising at a dangerous rate, we should all catch and keep more and bigger fish --- and we'd better get to it. I'll do my part as soon as this old body can move about and the fish show up. That's a pledge. Color me green on the matter. Will I get some kind of honorary scientific degree or somethin'?

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 04:29 PM

Guess who......

msteve1014 - 2-23-2016 at 04:33 PM

I'm pretty sure that the recycled pacifico I deposit while fishing more than makes up for the volume of fish I take.:D

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 04:39 PM

A distinct possibility, you need to keep an open mind.....


Glacier apology

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 04:41 PM

After reading this report I do indeed owe SFandH and apology.

"The hot dry seasons of the past few years have caused rapid disintegration of of glaciers in Glacier National park. Prof W.G. Waterman of Northwestern Univ declared in an address before the Geological section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Sperry Glacier has lost one-quarter to two-thirds of its ice in the past 18yrs. If this rapid retreat continues the glacier would disappear in 25yrs, the professor noted."

OOOOOOOOppsssss that was written in December 1923!!!!!

Sorry I hope that isn't considered a "trigger warning" if it is I apologize in advance:lol:

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 04:59 PM

Hey Gonzo, let's move on to a different but related question. Why do you not believe the majority of the world's scientists? Do you think they are honestly mistaken or do you think they are being dishonest when they say anthropogenic global warming and subsequent sea level rise are occurring?

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by SFandH]

wessongroup - 2-23-2016 at 05:05 PM

Here's something to review ... for some

Revisiting the contemporary sea-level budget on global and regional scales

Dividing the sea-level budget into contributions from ice sheets and glaciers, the water cycle, steric expansion, and crustal movement is challenging, especially on regional scales. Here, Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) gravity observations and sea-level anomalies from altimetry are used in a joint inversion, ensuring a consistent decomposition of the global and regional sea-level rise budget. Over the years 2002–2014, we find a global mean steric trend of 1.38 ± 0.16 mm/y, compared with a total trend of 2.74 ± 0.58 mm/y. This is significantly larger than steric trends derived from in situ temperature/salinity profiles and models which range from 0.66 ± 0.2 to 0.94 ± 0.1 mm/y. Mass contributions from ice sheets and glaciers (1.37 ± 0.09 mm/y, accelerating with 0.03 ± 0.02 mm/y2) are offset by a negative hydrological component (−0.29 ± 0.26 mm/y). The combined mass rate (1.08 ± 0.3 mm/y) is smaller than previous GRACE estimates (up to 2 mm/y), but it is consistent with the sum of individual contributions (ice sheets, glaciers, and hydrology) found in literature. The altimetric sea-level budget is closed by co-estimating a remaining component of 0.22 ± 0.26 mm/y. Well above average sea-level rise is found regionally near the Philippines (14.7 ± 4.39 mm/y) and Indonesia (8.3 ± 4.7 mm/y) which is dominated by steric components (11.2 ± 3.58 mm/y and 6.4 ± 3.18 mm/y, respectively). In contrast, in the central and Eastern part of the Pacific, negative steric trends (down to −2.8 ± 1.53 mm/y) are detected. Significant regional components are found, up to 5.3 ± 2.6 mm/y in the northwest Atlantic, which are likely due to ocean bottom pressure variations.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1504

To be published by the National Academy of Science ... a paper and/or report must be submitted for "peer" review

This report was and did pass peer review

Oh, btw ... the Ocean is a pretty big thing to measure all components at the same time using sampling techniques which will afford one accurate and/or meaningful scientific results ... no argument from me on that aspect of this discussion

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by wessongroup]

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 05:21 PM

Well ok. In science you should have a testable hypothesis. As Feyneman said "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with the experiment, it's wrong."

So just where is the testable experiment? We gotta wait 100yrs? No silly my computer model says we're all gonna die if we keep burning fossil fuels. Well who supplied the data for your computer model? Well I did of course! Did you include clouds? No! We don't really understand cloud formation and our computer models don't handle clouds very well at all. How about naturally occurring ocean circulations such as El Ninos/LaNinas? Not so much those either. What about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation? Do you include those? Well no, were still trying to understand those as they were only discovered in the mid 1990's. So even without those integral parts of our climate system you think we're all gonna die in 100yrs? Yeah. Trust me!

You get my drift?
cheers

SFandH - 2-23-2016 at 05:48 PM

Ok it sounds to me like you think the majority of the world's scientists are honestly mistaken, maybe even incompetent. Is that correct?

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by SFandH]

Real environment damage

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 06:05 PM

On a side note all around good guy Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe applied for a billion or two of climate change reparations from the Paris climate accords:lol:

There's alot real damage going on in the world. we should stick to the obvious stuff ie...clean water, industrial overfishing, sewage treatment (tijuana river valley comes to mind). Stuff that actually affects peoples lives today and not 50/100yrs from now and especially not based on a computer simulation.

Heres a great story about illegal fishing. Maybe they'll come to the Sea of Cortez next?

http://news.yahoo.com/sea-shepherd-hunting-last-world-most-n...

wessongroup - 2-23-2016 at 07:12 PM

The "testable experiment" is on going ...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/#.Vs0Q4cftK5B

By our Government and many others

Agree that "immediate" health and environmental concerns should be address too ... along with keeping track of what is going on ... for our long term existence on the planet

Just makes sense to me ... same as logging and studying what happens in traffic accidents ... murders ... poverty ... et al

rts551 - 2-23-2016 at 07:33 PM

I am sure glad Einstein or Aristotle did not read this forum.... The world would still be flat and apples would be floating.

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 08:17 PM

Einstein would've demanded climate alarmist modelers understand cloud formation/effects before announcing the end of the world.

Here riddle me this: what happens when the atmosphere gets warmer? Water evaporates! That forms clouds! What does that do?
It blocks sunlight! And that cools the planet! Shocker. But you knew that? Right? :O

Pescador - 2-23-2016 at 08:18 PM

After extensive review of both sides of the coin, I find that I more closely agree with the idea that this has become pretty much a political issue and the science that keeps suggesting Global Warming (oops, they renamed it Climate Change) is very dependent on a persons political perspective. The science is terribly flawed and depends on very questionable data that has been torn apart and refuted by those on the other side of the spectrum. So those with a liberal bend tend to think the world is in some imminent danger and are willing to go to great lengths to alter what they see as an immediate danger. Those who view the world in a more conservative position tend to write most of the data as being very flawed and dishonest in the findings. It is too bad that common sense can not rule here and accept that there are things in the natural scheme of things which we can not understand, but also we would think that we should be able to trust scientists to be objective and non prejudicial in their findings. But with the Climate Gate findings after the scientists came under scrutiny, we are again reminded that it may be more politics that science.

bonanza bucko - 2-23-2016 at 08:20 PM

Global Warming...so called ....is pure BS and the Pols who sell it for their own benefit need to be sent packing or worse.

BB

BornFisher - 2-23-2016 at 08:31 PM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
I am sure glad Einstein or Aristotle did not read this forum.... The world would still be flat and apples would be floating.


Geeeze I know the Earth is round but apples don`t float anymore? I remember way back in the day, we would put apples in a bucket of water and try our best to bite them.
But I`m glad Aristotle and Einstein had the chance to correct their contemporaries!!!

rts551 - 2-23-2016 at 08:50 PM

Yes, pescador. Deniers will keep on denying and others will keep on looking at the data. While not many are saying its the end of the Earth, there are quiet a few that say we aught to take care of it and not ignore our impacts.

The Sea on a High ?

MrBillM - 2-23-2016 at 09:42 PM

One theory is that it's all those Plastic Water Bottles raising the Level.

Which makes a LOT more sense than the other possibility that ongoing construction in Alien Colonies below the Ocean Bed are displacing the water upwards.

While BOTH are entirely Plausible, the Former seems a Bit more likely. Obviously, somebody should start actually counting all of those Containers rather than simply estimating.

Once we have a firm count, we'll know a LOT more and can develop a workable plan.


4x4abc - 2-23-2016 at 09:46 PM

Quote: Originally posted by rts551  
Yes, pescador. Deniers will keep on denying and others will keep on looking at the data. While not many are saying its the end of the Earth, there are quiet a few that say we aught to take care of it and not ignore our impacts.


don't we have freedom of religion? The Deniers (non believers) have every right to voice their (non) belief.
Just a reminder - which part of science we believe to be true has changed over the centuries. Our grandkids might shake their heads about what many think is true today.
Per definition - science is always limited. Limited to what we know (or think we know) today.

Yes, it seems like it's getting warmer. Some glaciers are melting. Are we involved? Possibly. How much? Who knows. Can we change it all back? A distant maybe. We are not really good at making nature do things.

Remember our efforts to make rain? Right.

Plus, nobody want's to sell less cars, Sell less oil. Nobody seriously wants to reduce CO2. I know, some politicians have promised. But you and I know what happens when they open their mouth.

Can't we just blame it on Obama?

Now, why are so many of our new priests (scientists) working for the apocalypse religion?

When you say you need to study the possibly devastating effects of global whatever, there will be a lot of research money, a good job for you. And after 5 years and 10 million spent, you publish an alarming report with a lot of possibly, maybe, may, could etc - indication further studies are needed. Give me another 10 million.

For the scientist voicing that he sees no problems, thinks the planet is just fine - no job for that ignorant dude.

Gonzo - 2-23-2016 at 09:48 PM

BillM I think you nailed it on the head! Good night now:cool:

bezzell - 2-23-2016 at 10:54 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Gonzo  
bezzell you do know that Arctic sea ice has nothing to do with sea level? Right?


Please tell me you're not referencing the 'ice cube in a glass analogy', right? Pretty pls? :D
So you didn't read the blog link (admittidely 'just' a blog)
okey dokey

hopefully you deniers are right! But the data implies otherwise, unfortunately.

wessongroup - 2-24-2016 at 01:26 AM

"For the scientist voicing that he sees no problems, thinks the planet is just fine - no job for that ignorant dude. "

That individual might wish to make applications with: Dow, DuPont, Bayer, Dutch Shell, BP ... et al

They are usually in the market ... but, it will depend on what one brings to the "table", so to speak :):)

Mexitron - 2-24-2016 at 06:50 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Gonzo  
After reading this report I do indeed owe SFandH and apology.

"The hot dry seasons of the past few years have caused rapid disintegration of of glaciers in Glacier National park. Prof W.G. Waterman of Northwestern Univ declared in an address before the Geological section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Sperry Glacier has lost one-quarter to two-thirds of its ice in the past 18yrs. If this rapid retreat continues the glacier would disappear in 25yrs, the professor noted."

OOOOOOOOppsssss that was written in December 1923!!!!!

Sorry I hope that isn't considered a "trigger warning" if it is I apologize in advance:lol:


You need to consider the industrial revolution started en masse in the 1800s---lots of coal and wood being burned for industry and homes for an ever increasing population. Not saying GW is necessarily as pandemic as the 97 percent say but let's remember our excess CO2 emissions didn't start with the Model T( in fact, one scientist at Caltech years ago surmised that the reason the earth's climate has been so stable for the last 10,000 yrs was that our population had grown large enough to affect it via slash and burn agriculture, Native Americans constantly burning the prairie, etc. and that the extra CO2 floating around had somehow stopped some of the climactic gyration seen in the previous 90,000 years...just conjecture of course).

wessongroup - 2-24-2016 at 07:28 AM

Pretty big factor Mexitron ... population

The increase in the big three: population, oil consumption and CO2 .. respectively

Population growth



http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/



http://www.api.org/statistics/



http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Anyone notice any similarities in the graphic representations of: population growth, use of oil and the empirical findings of CO2 content in Ice Core samples covering a period of around 650,000 years

Always fun to talk about the weather ... :):)

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by BajaNomad]

BajaMama - 2-24-2016 at 07:42 AM

well done on the graphs. I am a fellow scientist and look at the facts.

Mexitron - 2-24-2016 at 12:20 PM

Wesson---do we know why near the end of everyone of those ice ages there's a rapid increase in CO2? It goes gradually down then a relatively fast increase during the interglacial. Methyl hydrates? Its as if some buffer has been breached. That is what interests me--that heretofore buffering systems possibly have been absorbing the majority of the CO2 but at some point they will fail. Seems to me the effects of GW have been less than predicted thus far--that is, from the perspective of what climatologists were saying 20 years ago. Of course I say that as I am planting tomatoes a month before the official last frost date in North Central Texas in the winter that wasn't. :o

bezzell - 2-24-2016 at 04:09 PM

Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc  



When you say you need to study the possibly devastating effects of global whatever, there will be a lot of research money, a good job for you. And after 5 years and 10 million spent, you publish an alarming report with a lot of possibly, maybe, may, could etc - indication further studies are needed. Give me another 10 million.

For the scientist voicing that he sees no problems, thinks the planet is just fine - no job for that ignorant dude.


HA! there's PLENTY of $$ for the scienctist deniers a la Koch Bros et al. What are you talking about? Massive $$ have been spent to deny ... and look how effective it's been!

Furthermore, scientists are a competetive bunch that love nothing more than to disprove each other ... and yet there's an undeniable consensus.
Deniers are a joke in 2016.

SFandH - 2-24-2016 at 05:06 PM

Melting permafrost, methane hydrates, and global warming.

"In moist areas, most of the emissions will be of methane, a greenhouse gas that has 20 to 25 times more warming power than carbon dioxide. As the ground warms, methane will either be released directly into the atmosphere or bacteria will break it down into carbon dioxide, which will then be released. If areas of thawed permafrost exist at depth between frozen layers, it's possible that microbial activities will continue unabated, even during the winter, to create new methane from organic material.

This is what is believed to be happening around Siberia's lakes. In 2006, researchers working at two northern Siberian lakes found that methane was bubbling up from thawing permafrost at a rate five times faster than originally thought. The study also found an expansion of "thaw lakes" in the permafrost regions. Studies conducted in Canadian and Swedish permafrost and peatland regions also show these trends.

Methane hydrates can be thought of as methane gas frozen into ice structures, like the one in Figure 5. They're formed at cold temperatures and under high pressure—conditions that are both present beneath layers of frozen permafrost."

https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_perma...

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by SFandH]

wessongroup - 2-24-2016 at 05:41 PM

Its a good question Mexitron ... and I've also wondered about all the factors in play for an entire planet which have both positive and negative feedback loops ... and not if they change, but, when and the cause of the change

As others have pointed out ... There are a lot, and their overall interaction is attempted to be understood all the time

The "Environment" is possibly one of the most complex concept humans have come up with and studying it is relatively new

Lots of theories over the years, and many discovery on how interconnected it ALL is ...

But, understanding completely ALL factors is not known, at this time

However, science is really about observation and taking notes and coming up with an explanation .. Which science is trying to as it relates to our® environment on a scale which really hasn't been studied to the degree we have seen over the past 50 or so years IMO

Perhaps going back to one of the first environmental impacts world wide could be used as an example ... And that was DDT

A chemical substance and/or metabolites which were not toxic to human's, however, it presences in the "food chain" wasn't something that most were examining at that time and the overall impact was believed to be zero ...

The interrelationship between human actions, to improve their standard of living .. Production of Food and Fiber .. and a material which was effective in preventing or reducing disease Globally was viewed as only having positives

We have found out ... that human's can impact their environment on a very small scale .. back yard dumping of oil when one changed their oil ... burning of backyard trash in incinerators ... et al or in the case of DDT contamination of the "Food Chain" with unexpected results ... The most notable with DDT was the Brown Pelican ... A metabolite of DDT .. reduced the breakdown of bone in the Brown Pelican. This reduction of available Calcium caused poor eggshell development ... which resulted in fewer offspring each year ... as the shells could stand up to the normal environment in which they had evolved ... a "factor" had changed .. and that factor was developed by humans ... something we added to the mix of billions or trillions of existing factors which comprise our environment

Seems a long way from the weather ... but, it's not ... It is all linked together ... by the building blocks of the Universe: Atoms, Dark Energy and Dark Matter .... just looks different depending on one's point of reference

Fun stuff ... HUH thanks, good thoughts

and thanks for the resize on the pic's .. my bad again

btw ... Alien Colonies ... stranger things have happen :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by wessongroup]

What will Life be like without Polar Bears ?

MrBillM - 2-24-2016 at 09:22 PM

The same as it is now.

Or better ?

They're disagreeable in any personal encounter.

They don't maintain any important "Natural" balance.

Other than the odd Eskimo (or whatever they're called nowadays) that they eat.

We can round up enough Bears to put in Zoos for the kiddies to view.

And, We've got all those Nat Geo Videos for those really interested.

No Problem.


4x4abc - 2-24-2016 at 10:26 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  





http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Anyone notice any similarities in the graphic representations of: population growth, use of oil and the empirical findings of CO2 content in Ice Core samples covering a period of around 650,000 years



which of course immediately makes you wonder what happened before the 650,000 year span? Especially since they did not say "CO2 was never this high".
Well, it was. Much much higher.

But if you have an agenda (could scientists have an agenda?) you pick your data carefully.

Scientific fact is that at the moment (the last 650,000 years) CO2 levels are unusually low for our planet.




[Edited on 2-25-2016 by 4x4abc]

bezzell - 2-25-2016 at 08:54 AM

nothing worse than a ponytailed liberal with no palm trees! :D

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/opinions/sutter-miami-climate-...

wessongroup - 2-25-2016 at 02:14 PM

As to the "ice core samples" ... they could only sample what was there in the ice that is present, at this time

In the graph supplied to counter the other graph (produced from ice core samples) ... What methodology was used to reach those numbers and/or conclusion with the counter graph which indicates something which has not been found through "ice core samples" or any other scientific investigation that I'm aware of, at this time

As for the data presented: Population growth, barrels of oil used per day since the commodity (oil) became part and parcel of the Industrial Revolution, along with the subsequent increase in CO2 levels in the Planet's atmosphere ...

Those are the factors which are specifically under discussion and/or investigation by science at this time ... Human impact on the planet .. which most reasonable people see there is in fact a relationship

One can dispute the numbers, with other numbers, if available and can be documented via scientific means to validate those "numbers" ... Which the three graph's I provided do along with the links to the data

I would rather be safe than sorry on the issue of the planets health … some feel that way about personal safety .. which I don’t have a problem with

Keep observing and reporting back … That is their job and feel my taxes are well spent, and I like the Hubble Telescope and can’t wait for the new one to get working

Who doesn’t want Clean air, Clean water and Land …

Those that DON'T … go stand over there … :biggrin::biggrin:

That some don’t like what they report back …. Is NOT surprising to me

And its in the News everyday … because weather is a big deal in our lives

As for ponytails ...



[Edited on 2-25-2016 by wessongroup]



[Edited on 2-26-2016 by wessongroup]

motoged - 2-25-2016 at 02:20 PM

Remember Greenpeace?

Paul Watson, one of its founders has this to say.....

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change#.Vc4sj_lViko
Maybe he drank the KoolAid ?

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by motoged]

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by motoged]

wessongroup - 2-25-2016 at 05:11 PM

This may help in the discussion

Evolutionary history of life


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#H...



[Edited on 2-26-2016 by wessongroup]

bajaguy - 2-25-2016 at 05:30 PM

Here is the Kool-Aid

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/why-i-...
Quote: Originally posted by motoged  
Remember Greenpeace?

Paul Watson, one of its founders has this to say.....

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change#.Vc4sj_lViko
Maybe he drank the KoolAid ?

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by motoged]

[Edited on 2-25-2016 by motoged]

bezzell - 2-25-2016 at 06:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by motoged  
Remember Greenpeace?

Paul Watson, one of its founders has this to say.....



??
Paul Watson & Patrick Moore (shill) aren't exactly on the same page

El Coyote, Bahía Concepción, famous palm on the beach.

David K - 2-25-2016 at 06:10 PM

In the 1950's:


1952 photo by Howard Gulick



In 1971:



In the 2000's:


2009


2012

Why is the base of this palm tree still above the sea???? :O;D
When do we panic?
:?: :rolleyes:

bezzell - 2-25-2016 at 06:23 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

Why is the base of this palm tree still above the sea???? :O;D
When do we panic?
:?: :rolleyes:


you have nothing to panic about.
it's very unlikely that you'll see the serious ramifications of humans screwing with the climate. It's not like you'll wake up tomorrow with water lapping at your feet!
obesity (atherosclerosis) will get ya before the chit hits the fan, BUT surprise, surprise ... it's not about you!

wessongroup - 2-25-2016 at 06:27 PM

To make the argument that "economics" and "health" are not part of the decision making process by Government is false

Examples of these considerations:

Supreme Court Ruling on the Clean Air Act ... regarding Coal

WHO approval on the use of DDT in poor countries .. DDT is still manufactured and used to control malaria ... as there isn't another CHEAP effective substitute available

Those Chemicals which have been banned in the United States were based in science with total consideration for the Economic and Health consequences which would occur

It has always been a "trade off" or a "balancing act" to allow for the continued use of "chemicals" to afford one a reasonable standard of living ... while setting certain tolerance that will allow for that ... with an acceptable Health and/or Environmental "Risk"

However, with continued population increase the "balancing" only gets harder every year ... given the "needs" and/or "wants" of that increasing population

I do agree that more scientists are needed at the higher level of elected officials ... but, I don't see that ever happening

Based on the number of students who pick up Science as a major ... the majority of majors are still Business and Education ... with science not being a hot one for most

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.20.a...

The impact on decision making in Government and Private Industry should be obvious

And ... check the numbers on the ocean's ... they are very small .. mm or cm ... They will be no Tsunami's ... these numbers in water are similar to measuring in ppm ... ya don't even see them ... its why they are using lasers to measure

[Edited on 2-26-2016 by wessongroup]

David K - 2-25-2016 at 06:40 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  

Why is the base of this palm tree still above the sea???? :O;D
When do we panic?
:?: :rolleyes:


you have nothing to panic about.
it's very unlikely that you'll see the serious ramifications of humans screwing with the climate. It's not like you'll wake up tomorrow with water lapping at your feet!
obesity (atherosclerosis) will get ya before the chit hits the fan, BUT surprise, surprise ... it's not about you!


So, it's the HUMANS screwing the climate and volcanic eruptions, solar flares, and all that NATURAL stuff that has been changing the climate since time began, is not to blame anymore? ::smug:

bezzell - 2-25-2016 at 07:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

So, it's the HUMANS screwing the climate and volcanic eruptions, solar flares, and all that NATURAL stuff that has been changing the climate since time began, is not to blame anymore? ::smug:


oiii vey (sigh)
my bad, I forgot. A god is in control.


[Edited on 2-26-2016 by bezzell]

mtgoat666 - 2-25-2016 at 07:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Quote: Originally posted by bezzell  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  

Why is the base of this palm tree still above the sea???? :O;D
When do we panic?
:?: :rolleyes:


you have nothing to panic about.
it's very unlikely that you'll see the serious ramifications of humans screwing with the climate. It's not like you'll wake up tomorrow with water lapping at your feet!
obesity (atherosclerosis) will get ya before the chit hits the fan, BUT surprise, surprise ... it's not about you!


So, it's the HUMANS screwing the climate and volcanic eruptions, solar flares, and all that NATURAL stuff that has been changing the climate since time began, is not to blame anymore? ::smug:


Photobucket boy,
You should stick to opining about Toyota Tacoma trims and mission maps and avoid science. Science does not suit you, it seems to make you totally incapable of reasoning and logic, and occasionally drives you into fits of hysteria.

[Edited on 2-26-2016 by mtgoat666]

wessongroup - 2-25-2016 at 08:04 PM

It is not about "blame" ... rather identifying the causative agents for negative changes we may find ... and then managing them for the benefit of all ... (which isn't a easy task) :):)

[Edited on 2-26-2016 by wessongroup]

David K - 2-25-2016 at 10:18 PM

Still waiting for any of you to answer the "science" of why that palm tree, just above the sea level, is still just above sea level 64 years later???

No rudeness, no name calling, no unrelated subject changes.
Is there anything to be panicked over in the photos? The tree didn't move... and neither did the sea level enough to be noticed.

Have a nice day amigos.

wessongroup - 2-25-2016 at 10:28 PM

Perhaps we could if one has the exact sea level measurements at that specific location in 1950 and we got another measurement today

Also in 1950 we and the world was not using as much "oil" and other materials as currently, the population was less ... as far as the "ice core" samples ... they would show below the "line" ... as the CO2 didn't start to rise above the "line", until we went above 10,000.000 barrels a day

Would you agree if the change was noted but was only .025 mm as once again the "numbers" which are coming out are very small which one would expect when dealing with the volume water which is in play

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
Here's something to review ... for some

Revisiting the contemporary sea-level budget on global and regional scales

Dividing the sea-level budget into contributions from ice sheets and glaciers, the water cycle, steric expansion, and crustal movement is challenging, especially on regional scales. Here, Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) gravity observations and sea-level anomalies from altimetry are used in a joint inversion, ensuring a consistent decomposition of the global and regional sea-level rise budget. Over the years 2002–2014, we find a global mean steric trend of 1.38 ± 0.16 mm/y, compared with a total trend of 2.74 ± 0.58 mm/y. This is significantly larger than steric trends derived from in situ temperature/salinity profiles and models which range from 0.66 ± 0.2 to 0.94 ± 0.1 mm/y. Mass contributions from ice sheets and glaciers (1.37 ± 0.09 mm/y, accelerating with 0.03 ± 0.02 mm/y2) are offset by a negative hydrological component (−0.29 ± 0.26 mm/y). The combined mass rate (1.08 ± 0.3 mm/y) is smaller than previous GRACE estimates (up to 2 mm/y), but it is consistent with the sum of individual contributions (ice sheets, glaciers, and hydrology) found in literature. The altimetric sea-level budget is closed by co-estimating a remaining component of 0.22 ± 0.26 mm/y. Well above average sea-level rise is found regionally near the Philippines (14.7 ± 4.39 mm/y) and Indonesia (8.3 ± 4.7 mm/y) which is dominated by steric components (11.2 ± 3.58 mm/y and 6.4 ± 3.18 mm/y, respectively). In contrast, in the central and Eastern part of the Pacific, negative steric trends (down to −2.8 ± 1.53 mm/y) are detected. Significant regional components are found, up to 5.3 ± 2.6 mm/y in the northwest Atlantic, which are likely due to ocean bottom pressure variations.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1504

To be published by the National Academy of Science ... a paper and/or report must be submitted for "peer" review

This report was and did pass peer review

Oh, btw ... the Ocean is a pretty big thing to measure all components at the same time using sampling techniques which will afford one accurate and/or meaningful scientific results ... no argument from me on that aspect of this discussion

[Edited on 2-24-2016 by wessongroup]


We could talk about the drought ... too :):)

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/home/regionaldroughtmonitor.as...

[Edited on 2-26-2016 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 2-26-2016 by wessongroup]

Cisco - 2-25-2016 at 11:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by lencho  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Still waiting for any of you to answer the "science" of why that palm tree, just above the sea level, is still just above sea level 64 years later???

Anybody know whether Baja is dropping as the Pacific Plate moves?


I don't know.

Western NA is rising but the pacific plate only gets down to about GN then smaller plates come in. Cocos,...

bajadogs - 2-26-2016 at 12:05 AM

Hey DK, The reason I don't give my 2 pesos on every Baja1000 or 500 post or anything Off-Road related is because I'm not an enthusiast and I feel my opinion does not benefit this forum. It would be a distraction from real information people may want. I could troll all day long with real photos of the racing damage to the desert you claim to love. I don't do that. Could you consider holding back your same old palm tree opinion when the rest of us want to talk science? I don't think you can.
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Still waiting for any of you to answer the "science" of why that palm tree, just above the sea level, is still just above sea level 64 years later???

No rudeness, no name calling, no unrelated subject changes.
Is there anything to be panicked over in the photos? The tree didn't move... and neither did the sea level enough to be noticed.

Have a nice day amigos.

David K - 2-26-2016 at 09:06 AM

Still waiting to hear if the photos show a reason for the panic and hysteria promoted by folks who seem to need drama and your tax dollars.

Wessongroup, I am not saying there isn't any change. I ask if the photos show any change in 60 years that can be noticed that would justify the panic.

How does off road racing change sea level? I am asking an easy question, please don't change the topic because you have no logical response.

Have a nice day.

durrelllrobert - 2-26-2016 at 10:11 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
Of course I say that as I am planting tomatoes a month before the official last frost date in North Central Texas in the winter that wasn't. :o


el niño effect!

mtgoat666 - 2-26-2016 at 12:20 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Still waiting to hear if the photos show a reason for...


The photo is irrelevant, why do you assign any meaning to your snapshots. Your palm tree photos are as relevant as your cat pictures.

David K - 2-26-2016 at 01:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Still waiting to hear if the photos show a reason for...


The photo is irrelevant, why do you assign any meaning to your snapshots. Your palm tree photos are as relevant as your cat pictures.


What planet is your home world?

LOL.... seriously... cat pictures?

Let's see your photo of a monument on the beach, 50 years apart so anyone can see this so-called dangerous rise in sea level.

Lee - 2-26-2016 at 01:21 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Still waiting to hear if the photos show a reason for the panic and hysteria promoted by folks who seem to need drama and your tax dollars.


The crux of the matter and a recurring theme is how much is climate change research going to cost, and is it a Republican or Democrat endeavor.

It is impossible for me to find any panic (DKs word) or hysteria (Goats?) in these posts. The thread reads like a scientific discussion preempted by David's humor about palm trees.

I see the humor myself. It does look like trolling, though.

Mexitron - 2-26-2016 at 01:38 PM

Quote: Originally posted by durrelllrobert  
Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron  
Of course I say that as I am planting tomatoes a month before the official last frost date in North Central Texas in the winter that wasn't. :o


el niño effect!


Yes, I should have allowed for that possibility, for sure. Though I will say that all the old-timers here do not ever remember a winter THIS warm and generally El Ninos are colder and wetter in North Central Texas--so if its El Nino the climatologists will have to do some recalibrating on their modeling cycles.

mtgoat666 - 2-26-2016 at 01:56 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Still waiting to hear if the photos show a reason for...


The photo is irrelevant, why do you assign any meaning to your snapshots. Your palm tree photos are as relevant as your cat pictures.


What planet is your home world?

LOL.... seriously... cat pictures?

Let's see your photo of a monument on the beach, 50 years apart so anyone can see this so-called dangerous rise in sea level.


Here is a pic of a tide guage. It's accuracy and precision are a bit better that your luddite palm tree guage, eh?

David K - 2-26-2016 at 02:36 PM

No, it isn't showing us anything asked for. As I thought, nobody can explain why the palm on the beach just above high tide, is not in the water 60 years later. If it is true, that sea level is rising dangerously, where is that happening that we can see?

Ateo - 2-26-2016 at 02:45 PM

DavidT - 2-26-2016 at 02:52 PM



The ship can't be sinking, my side just rose 100 feet.

TMW - 2-26-2016 at 02:58 PM

David the reason they won't answer your question is because they know the rise in sea level is so small overall it really doesn't affect us. For them to say so they would have to agree with what you've been saying and you know that will never happen.

Before we make any Drastic Decisions

MrBillM - 2-26-2016 at 03:45 PM

Let's wait for an accurate count on all that plastic that "might" be causing any rise.

Granted, much of the individual pieces (other than the beverage containers) will have to be assigned an "estimated" weight given the difficulty of placing them on a scale, BUT.................it should give us a rough baseline from which to move forward.

Something else that "should" be taken into consideration are ALL of those ships out there at any given time. With the dramatic increase in commercial shipping AND all of those Super-Cruise ships, THAT'S a LOT of displacement.

The Good News is that we should be able to develop a computer-model for the ships on any given day, though.

Let's get that DATA together and have a REAL serious discussion.

One LAST point to consider is ALL of the sewage worldwide that flows into the ocean. There is a LOT of S-hit, so to speak.

Somebody go to work on that one.

OK ?

blackwolfmt - 2-26-2016 at 04:34 PM

OK I will give DK a possible answer why the palm is still out of water there are not as many fish in the SOC as there was yrs ago so IMO its a volume kinda thing:lol:

back to my reposada

David K - 2-26-2016 at 04:45 PM

Thank you amigos... we can play nice and still have fun, right?

wessongroup - 2-26-2016 at 04:55 PM

Agreed DK ... think its been an interesting discussion thus far

And the only point which was being made on that specific location ... was the degree and/or measured change ... either positive or negative

btw ... What "panic" ... Not me

Change is inevitable ... think most will agree with that

However, the change can be positive or negative in most cases as it relates to a "livable Habitat" for the human species and other species ... we® can adapt in most cases and have been for sometime

Adaptive Radiation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_radiation

But, getting an idea on the degree of "adaption" which may be required would seem reasonable ... sorta like going to Baja off roading and NOT taking the necessary equipment for the trip :):)


[Edited on 2-27-2016 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by wessongroup]

David K - 2-26-2016 at 05:15 PM

My panic and drama comments are NOT necessarily Baja Nomads, but primarily the rest of the media reports that push the one side of this debate and discounts the other side in uncomplimentary terms. How is visual proof flat-earthy? To believe that in our lifetime Miami, San Diego, and other ocean cities will be underwater, well it seems so "Chicken Little" like behavior (I am hoping all here know that story).
 Pages:  1