- Local time
- 3:33 PM
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 78,606
- Reaction score
- 126,429
- Location
- NorCal Sierras
Would sea level drop if we.....
- Thread starter Cranky
- Start date
One of the few cities in the world suffering from the 'rising waters' is Venice, Italy.
But not because of the oceans rising, it is because of the foundations sinking into the mud below.
Ship and boat movements are exacerbating (big word) the situation, and there is little hope of full recovery for the older buildings.
Pumping concrete and all manor of material under the foundations is only a temporary fix at best.....but the root cause is still not due to an increase in the sea levels.
But not because of the oceans rising, it is because of the foundations sinking into the mud below.
Ship and boat movements are exacerbating (big word) the situation, and there is little hope of full recovery for the older buildings.
Pumping concrete and all manor of material under the foundations is only a temporary fix at best.....but the root cause is still not due to an increase in the sea levels.
- Local time
- 3:33 PM
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 150,162
- Location
- Granite Bay CA
No, Intellectuals with a huge financial incentive to report a specific way ARE mocked and SHOULD be.
Follow the money, man. When you look at how entangled the CDC, NIH, Bill Gates and Falsi & company are, you'd be foolish to dismiss it as a curious thing. They have something personal to gain by controlling the citizens and selling them a vaccine.
A pesticide that has been banned in the US for nearly 50 years, diseases, mining and poor practices of land management have nothing to do with so-called climate change. Once again, you still cannot bring yourself to comment on all of the failed doomsday climate predictions.
Jcharger
Well-Known Member
SEA LEVEL: Sea level changes for various reasons and in various ways. Part of the sea level question is something that has been discussed before in this thread.
Venice is an example of the regional type. The prediction from climate change would be sea level will rise of the global type. Taking data from a reputable source (I know some will argue their sources are better, but I leave that to you) we see a rise. I know people have said, well it is just 0.2 (or 0.4) meters what does that mean. That could be a point and would dictate how we respond. Even this amount appears important for some ecosystems (like ghost forests and coastal flooding and salinization).
TEMPERATURE: It also appears that there has been warming as shown in global datasets maintained by NASA.
But these also differ from smaller datasets like the one shown other posts. The predictions also differ, but it depends how those predictions were made. There is a wiggly one with no vertical axis label, which is what is referred to as a schema or cartoon and is the maker's personal interpretation. There are also model predictions like those from the IPCC that are based on fundamental physics and chemistry and dynamics.
PREDICTIONS: The claim has been made that no prediction has ever survived the test of time. I think we only need to look at the data that exists and at the predictions that have been made to see that the general model predictions have been remarkably good. Sure they can be improved, but compare observed temperatures versus predicted model temperatures and judge for yourselves.
WHAT CAN BE DONE: We might also look at the successes we have had. Ozone has come up in the recent discussions. That was dealt with by international agreement and the actions of that agreement have made a difference. Ozone may still be recovering, but its original trajectory has been stemmed. The issue of acid rain is another where human intervention has made a huge difference. It was recognized in the 1970's and 1980's that acidification of rain due to oxidation of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide, which reacts with water to form sulfuric acid, was causing big problems with watersheds in the northeast US. That was largely addressed by scrubbers on coal plants and to some extent smelters around the Great Lakes. You might say this is not climate and I would agree, but it was on the cartoon posted earlier that considered it a failed climate prediction. Land management is another. We had the dustbowl and the famines, which was in part land management. Another that is interesting to consider is the prediction that extreme weather events could have an increasing impact on us. This was made back in the 1990s and was something that was worried enough about that politicians started arguing against using the term 'rapid climate change'. Whatever you want to call them, things like drought, earlier spring, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, water resources, soil resources, extreme warmth in Europe and the West, etc.... are tied to climate. The changes in these can be viewed as abnormal (extreme) or they can be viewed as changes in the climate zones we live in. If we build for one zone and it shifts to become another, it can have an impact. That might be what we are seeing in the south. Their climate zone is shifting as though they were located a little more southerly.
LOOKING FORWARD: The argument that change is occurring is extremely strong and continues to grow stronger. The case that humans have had an impact also is very strong and continues to grow stronger. There will always be alarmists and it looks like there will always be deniers. The thing we want to do as the middle/majority that thinks about these things in a reasonable way, is to look at the evidence, (good evidence, evidence that has been reviewed and validated in rigorous ways) and seek to understand what is happening. I would be very happy if the current trends reversed as shown by some of the extremist climate change deniers I see here. And my views would be changed by a sustained reversal that fits one of the alternate views. Do I think those reversals will happen? No. But I wish they would. Unfortunately, the burden of evidence points to change and shows again and again that it has occurred and is on a trajectory that can be explained by fundamental principles that control the way climate evolves. Let's hope the deniers are right for once, but let's keep an open mind and look at the evidence and then deal with it in a responsible way. Climate is part of it, but water and soil are also critical because they represent food.
I asked myself I wonder if the military takes a stand on this. It looks like the Army presently does https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2021/05/14/ It looks like the Navy was doing this, but cancelled it in 2020. As much as I wish it were not the case, I think we will find it increasingly something that we have to pay attention to and adjust to.
Venice is an example of the regional type. The prediction from climate change would be sea level will rise of the global type. Taking data from a reputable source (I know some will argue their sources are better, but I leave that to you) we see a rise. I know people have said, well it is just 0.2 (or 0.4) meters what does that mean. That could be a point and would dictate how we respond. Even this amount appears important for some ecosystems (like ghost forests and coastal flooding and salinization).
TEMPERATURE: It also appears that there has been warming as shown in global datasets maintained by NASA.
But these also differ from smaller datasets like the one shown other posts. The predictions also differ, but it depends how those predictions were made. There is a wiggly one with no vertical axis label, which is what is referred to as a schema or cartoon and is the maker's personal interpretation. There are also model predictions like those from the IPCC that are based on fundamental physics and chemistry and dynamics.
PREDICTIONS: The claim has been made that no prediction has ever survived the test of time. I think we only need to look at the data that exists and at the predictions that have been made to see that the general model predictions have been remarkably good. Sure they can be improved, but compare observed temperatures versus predicted model temperatures and judge for yourselves.
WHAT CAN BE DONE: We might also look at the successes we have had. Ozone has come up in the recent discussions. That was dealt with by international agreement and the actions of that agreement have made a difference. Ozone may still be recovering, but its original trajectory has been stemmed. The issue of acid rain is another where human intervention has made a huge difference. It was recognized in the 1970's and 1980's that acidification of rain due to oxidation of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide, which reacts with water to form sulfuric acid, was causing big problems with watersheds in the northeast US. That was largely addressed by scrubbers on coal plants and to some extent smelters around the Great Lakes. You might say this is not climate and I would agree, but it was on the cartoon posted earlier that considered it a failed climate prediction. Land management is another. We had the dustbowl and the famines, which was in part land management. Another that is interesting to consider is the prediction that extreme weather events could have an increasing impact on us. This was made back in the 1990s and was something that was worried enough about that politicians started arguing against using the term 'rapid climate change'. Whatever you want to call them, things like drought, earlier spring, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, water resources, soil resources, extreme warmth in Europe and the West, etc.... are tied to climate. The changes in these can be viewed as abnormal (extreme) or they can be viewed as changes in the climate zones we live in. If we build for one zone and it shifts to become another, it can have an impact. That might be what we are seeing in the south. Their climate zone is shifting as though they were located a little more southerly.
LOOKING FORWARD: The argument that change is occurring is extremely strong and continues to grow stronger. The case that humans have had an impact also is very strong and continues to grow stronger. There will always be alarmists and it looks like there will always be deniers. The thing we want to do as the middle/majority that thinks about these things in a reasonable way, is to look at the evidence, (good evidence, evidence that has been reviewed and validated in rigorous ways) and seek to understand what is happening. I would be very happy if the current trends reversed as shown by some of the extremist climate change deniers I see here. And my views would be changed by a sustained reversal that fits one of the alternate views. Do I think those reversals will happen? No. But I wish they would. Unfortunately, the burden of evidence points to change and shows again and again that it has occurred and is on a trajectory that can be explained by fundamental principles that control the way climate evolves. Let's hope the deniers are right for once, but let's keep an open mind and look at the evidence and then deal with it in a responsible way. Climate is part of it, but water and soil are also critical because they represent food.
I asked myself I wonder if the military takes a stand on this. It looks like the Army presently does https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2021/05/14/ It looks like the Navy was doing this, but cancelled it in 2020. As much as I wish it were not the case, I think we will find it increasingly something that we have to pay attention to and adjust to.
Last edited:
- Local time
- 6:33 PM
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 23,328
- Reaction score
- 49,725
- Location
- State of insanity
Ok. so you tell me the sea level has risen 12" or whatever over the last whatever years. Now, please SPECIFY... I want a factual, definite answer on this... what island, coastal area, land mass, islet, etc. IS NOW COMPLETELY UNDERWATER that was not years ago. A sea level rise of that magnitude would certainly result in those consequences, on those types of land masses. No chart, graph, or crayon-colored drawing. I'm all ears, eagerly waiting.
- Local time
- 6:33 PM
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2018
- Messages
- 2,720
- Reaction score
- 6,496
- Location
- Framingham Massachusetts
JDmac72chrgr
Well-Known Member
Didn't scientists say that to congress back in the 1970s, flooding would occur by 1984 and areas of NYC & California would be gone forever?? Well, DIDN'T HAPPEN!!
Desalinization can be done using steam from gas turbine generator's heat; make electricity and fresh water in 1 shot. Navy ships have used steam for fresh water for decades. 1 thing NEVER hear about is earth's magnetic lines' strength changes, guess not in narative to $$$$ benefit certain groups. The sea will take what she wants, if you live by the sea, EXPECT IT, ADAPT, ADJUST or get the hell out, like my family did in 1940s: see towns' history of Cape May NJ and its shore line changes & South Cape May NJ, gone!!
Last edited:
- Local time
- 6:33 PM
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 36,561
- Reaction score
- 139,584
- Location
- Monroe, New York
Lets All take a break and think about your next.....
Ironbuilt
Well-Known Member
I don't know where in Minnesota you live, but I do know Omar lives there. Along with half the Somalian population...just watch the video!!
Cojohnso1
Well-Known Member
Do you have a beef with Somalian people? I personally don't know anyone from Somalia decent.
Last edited:
Cojohnso1
Well-Known Member
I just watched a documentary of the relocation of Isle De Jean Charles Louisiana. And there were still some dumbasses saying they don't believe even when standing in knee deep of water. You know. YOUR CROWD. Blaining Democrats. It's unbelievable. Even when Army Corps of engineers standing explaining the gulf is gobbling them up.
There has been more than a dozen small islands lost since 2010. 3 just last year. One was a loss of a tribe that has existed for hundreds of years. The Solomon Islands are at great risk. And looks to be next in the next few years.
It's happening now. I guess it's true. You can't fix stupid. But don't worry. There will be even more serious examples to come.
Ironbuilt
Well-Known Member
I have a beef with muslims that hate America!!
Jcharger
Well-Known Member
A foot is not a lot, but you have a point.
If you want to go with easy, it would be somewhere on the east coast, like on the chesapeake https://www.chesapeakequarterly.net/sealevel/main8/
There a bunch of islands have dropped below sea level, but that is in large part because the land is sinking as Canada rises. In Texas the land is sinking because they pumped the water our of the ground. Thinking about Canada makes me wonder if there are islands there that have risen out of the water. Might be worth a look.
1950's
More recently.
But that would be cheating because it there is regional subsidence. You can see how the trees died though and there are a number of other islands that sunk. That house collapsed more recently.
I did a search and found this article that is more of a global sea level rise where they discuss islands that have been reduced in size and attribute it to sea level rise. Might be valid, maybe not. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...wallowed-by-rising-sea-level/?sh=74efae9c5283.
I think we just see what happens as time progresses. Presumably, they are looking at what high tide does to the islands. There are also storms, I am sure that can erode, but I think it looks interesting. We can see what happens when it rises more. It certainly is rising and in a way that is consistent with what is known about the water temperature and about the loss of ice. Just has not been a huge amount so far. Will be more in the future.
I like the little cricket sound. Looks like there has been a shift from presenting evidence to asking for evidence. That is OK and fair enough. The key is asking for evidence that if it does not exist proves one's point. Sea level could still rise without losing islands. But in this case it looks like some have been lost to both kinds of changes in sea level.
Cheers.
If you want to go with easy, it would be somewhere on the east coast, like on the chesapeake https://www.chesapeakequarterly.net/sealevel/main8/
There a bunch of islands have dropped below sea level, but that is in large part because the land is sinking as Canada rises. In Texas the land is sinking because they pumped the water our of the ground. Thinking about Canada makes me wonder if there are islands there that have risen out of the water. Might be worth a look.
1950's
More recently.
But that would be cheating because it there is regional subsidence. You can see how the trees died though and there are a number of other islands that sunk. That house collapsed more recently.
I did a search and found this article that is more of a global sea level rise where they discuss islands that have been reduced in size and attribute it to sea level rise. Might be valid, maybe not. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...wallowed-by-rising-sea-level/?sh=74efae9c5283.
I think we just see what happens as time progresses. Presumably, they are looking at what high tide does to the islands. There are also storms, I am sure that can erode, but I think it looks interesting. We can see what happens when it rises more. It certainly is rising and in a way that is consistent with what is known about the water temperature and about the loss of ice. Just has not been a huge amount so far. Will be more in the future.
I like the little cricket sound. Looks like there has been a shift from presenting evidence to asking for evidence. That is OK and fair enough. The key is asking for evidence that if it does not exist proves one's point. Sea level could still rise without losing islands. But in this case it looks like some have been lost to both kinds of changes in sea level.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Doesn't prove anything. Islands and coastal cities have been getting swallowed up by the ocean for centuries............
https://www.thetravel.com/25-pictures-of-mysterious-underwater-locations-from-the-deep-sea/
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sunken-cities
Jcharger
Well-Known Member
Methinks you might be one of these guys.....
That is from the 1950's and was a bigger island before that time. Now all gone.
Yeah swallowed up. Yeah subsidence and yeah sea level rise on top of that.
But the point that the evidence asked for can be provided and when provided is discounted as not worthy is pretty amusing.
I'm signing out for a bit and will be back later. So crickets for the time being. Probably should post another question and follow it with the little crickets that I enjoy so much.
That is from the 1950's and was a bigger island before that time. Now all gone.
Yeah swallowed up. Yeah subsidence and yeah sea level rise on top of that.
But the point that the evidence asked for can be provided and when provided is discounted as not worthy is pretty amusing.
I'm signing out for a bit and will be back later. So crickets for the time being. Probably should post another question and follow it with the little crickets that I enjoy so much.
Cojohnso1
Well-Known Member
I'll agree measuring is difficult at best. A lot of variables to consider. Including ground stability. Ocean shelfs off the coast. To name just two of the bigger factors. But nobody can argue that more water certainly doesn't help. It's predicted that the world will lose Vatican City? Even with all that church money. (Not sure it's a terrible loss? Lol. But there are over a billion catholics that may disagree!)
Jcharger
Well-Known Member
I know I said I'd go, but I had a thought when I went to the can.
Discussing climate change on a car forum brings out the bad in me.
I am sure we would get along swimmingly if we were discussing cars.
Discussing climate change on a car forum brings out the bad in me.
I am sure we would get along swimmingly if we were discussing cars.
Similar threads
