• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea level rise example

Piglet said:
You can agree that the climate is changing and still disagree that it's due to human activity.
Click to expand...

One can only disagree with the extent to which humans contribute. Human contribution is undeniable.

And if one is fooled by two pics, one is totally ignorant.
 
ecofarm said:
So the OP is pure unadulterated bs intended to fool the ignorant.

Right?
Click to expand...
Not at all, it is intended to show that the hype about sea level rise is just that, hype.
The sea level has been increasing slowly for many thousand years, some periods
like the Roman period saw the level fall some, but the overall direction has been to increase.
Since we have been recording the levels accurately, ~200 years, the rate has been fairly steady.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
The idea that the observed warming will accelerate the sea level rise to many times the current rate,
has not materialized.
The 78 year separation Midway photo is important, as it shows that over a normal Human life span,
actual sea level increases may not even be observable.
 
longview said:
The recorded Sea level rise is too small to be observed in the photographs.
Keep in mind that the observed 1.38 mm/year, is less than half of the claimed global sea level rise,
and the middle of the Pacific Ocean should reflect the global rate of rise.
Click to expand...

The global sea level rise is based upon an average. The overwhelming majority of the land north of 45° latitude is still rebounding from the last period of glaciation that ended 11,700 years ago. Which means that sea levels are dropping very rapidly. The town of Skagway, Alaska, is more than 2 meters higher in elevation than it was when Alaska was purchased in 1867. The same is true for Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia. Only below latitude 45°N will you find sea levels increasing. Which means that the majority of the sea level increases are the result of land displacement, and not melting snow or ice.
 
TomFitz said:
Google Earth images don’t have elevations on them. I don’t know enough about the geography of Midway (and this is not Midway Island, in either of the images, BTW), to know how, or if, any shoreline would vanish if sea level rose 4”.
Click to expand...

The Island in Eastern Island in the Midway Atoll, I think it is about 1/2 mile from the main Island, called Sand Island.
It is unlikely that 4 inches of seal level rise would be visible.
The tides there look like they move about 17 inches every 12 hours,
so a ~4 inch rise would look like a weak fetch tide. (Where the wind blows the same direction for several days)
 
Glitch said:
The global sea level rise is based upon an average. The overwhelming majority of the land north of 45° latitude is still rebounding from the last period of glaciation that ended 11,700 years ago. Which means that sea levels are dropping very rapidly. The town of Skagway, Alaska, is more than 2 meters higher in elevation than it was when Alaska was purchased in 1867. The same is true for Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Russia. Only below latitude 45°N will you find sea levels increasing. Which means that the majority of the sea level increases are the result of land displacement, and not melting snow or ice.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I had heard about plates rebounding, but had not considered the additional displacement.
 
Glitch said:
The pathetic part comes in when the left (and it is always the left) blame sea level increases on man-made carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The pathetic part is being a denier because one was fooled by two pics. It's even more pathetic to have the bs explained and still claim it's legit.

You might wanna excuse that cult-like behavior, but I will not.
 
ecofarm said:
Wrong. The pathetic part is being a denier because one was fooled by two pics. It's even more pathetic to have the bs explained and still claim it's legit.

You might wanna excuse that cult-like behavior, but I will not.
Click to expand...

The only cult-like behavior is coming from the mentally-deranged left who only blames humanity rather than accepting science and reality. Your climate change religion is what is truly pathetic.
 
Glitch said:
The only cult-like behavior is coming from the mentally-deranged left who only blames humanity rather than accepting science and reality. Your climate change religion is what is truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

The cult like behavior is having the "two pics" bs explained and still supporting it.

There's no denying that.
 
ecofarm said:
The cult like behavior is having the "two pics" bs explained and still supporting it.

There's no denying that.
Click to expand...
Your expatiation was flawed, the runways were extended on Sand island, not Eastern Island which was in the photographs.
 
ecofarm said:
One can only disagree with the extent to which humans contribute. Human contribution is undeniable.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but if one believes the contribution is negligible, obviously, that person will be less interested in the "settled science" (of course, science, by definition is never settled), and more interested in adapting homes, technology, etc., to deal with potential changes.

And if one is fooled by two pics, one is totally ignorant.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this statement was intended for someone else, because I did not render an opinion on the photos.
 
ecofarm said:
Wrong. The pathetic part is being a denier because one was fooled by two pics. It's even more pathetic to have the bs explained and still claim it's legit.

You might wanna excuse that cult-like behavior, but I will not.
Click to expand...

No I think that bit hits home when people runa away from looking at the detail of how any particular place will be effected by any particular problem.

Then it doubles when they will not then consider the implication of no significant threat of any significant trouble which is trouble to their chosen idenity.
 
longview said:
Your expatiation was flawed, the runways were extended on Sand island, not Eastern Island which was in the photographs.
Click to expand...

There were two explanations, each sufficiently satisfying the lack of difference. We could add resolution if you'd like.

But you're gonna pretend the OP is something more than pathetic bs intended to fool the totally ignorant.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No I think that bit hits home when people runa away from looking at the detail of how any particular place will be effected by any particular problem.

Then it doubles when they will not then consider the implication of no significant threat of any significant trouble which is trouble to their chosen idenity.
Click to expand...


You can't deal with the OP, can you?

You can't admit it's bs, can you?
 
ecofarm said:
You can't deal with the OP, can you?

You can't admit it's bs, can you?
Click to expand...

What that the island shows no signs of shrinking despite it being very low lying?

Or that no significant island has suffered any such shrinkage over the last 30 years?

What bit did I miss?
 
Tim the plumber said:
What that the island shows no signs of shrinking despite it being very low lying?

Or that no significant island has suffered any such shrinkage over the last 30 years?

What bit did I miss?
Click to expand...


Completely fooled by the OP. Haha.
 
It snowed in Colorado last week. How on earth can somebody claim global warming is real?

Simple is as simple does. :roll:
 
ecofarm said:
There were two explanations, each sufficiently satisfying the lack of difference. We could add resolution if you'd like.

But you're gonna pretend the OP is something more than pathetic bs intended to fool the totally ignorant.
Click to expand...
No, the resolution of the photographs shows that the sea level on that Island has not changed a lot in 78 years.
 
longview said:
No, the resolution of the photographs shows that the sea level on that Island has not changed a lot in 78 years.
Click to expand...

So surprised you stand behind pathetic idiotic attempts to deny climate change.
 
ecofarm said:
So surprised you stand behind pathetic idiotic attempts to deny climate change.
Click to expand...
What the op is pointing out is valid within the resolution of the photographs.
the empirical data supports that the sea level at Midway has not changed a lot in the 78 years between photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom