It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

As climate change floods Florida, Marco Rubio refuses to acknowledge science

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostbook
He said: “If in fact sea levels are rising… we should spend money to mitigate that,”

The fact that he says IF tells me that he doesn't believe that Sea Level is rising. I get that he wants proof before acting on it. I, however, question his motives in his statement. Is he in someone or some organization's pocket?


The fact that he says "If", should tell you that he does not want to commit to a stance. It is a word that conveys uncertainty, not belief.

Example:
"If I were to fall off this rock, I would hurt myself."

I have no belief as to whether or not I will fall off the rock, only that I would hurt myself if I did.

Find a clip of Rubio saying, "I don't believe sea levels are rising." Then you can try to accuse him of something. But until then, there is nothing substantial here to go on, only YOUR beliefs.
edit on 10/19/2016 by scojak because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Youre right.......We havent seen Hurricanes in 100s of years, he should be running around with his hair on fire with a sandwhich board screaming "Global Warming were all going to die, DO SOMETHING"



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
If you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, does the level of water go up or down?



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach


It's safe to say Florida will be living with the effects of climate change before the rest of us. How much is the State of Florida already spending on rising sea levels?? Rising sea levels that isn't happening?

Probably quite a bit... but it is necessary. Regardless if the land subsides or the sea level rises, the effect is the same locally. Those effects must be dealt with. The difference is that local subsidence is not a global concern, and obviously has nothing to do with evil little carbon dioxide molecules running around starting heat waves.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I wonder why we are finding ancient civilizations, now completely submerged? They must have had some serious pollution going on.


Do we need to clean up our mess? Of course we do.

Do I feel sorry for idiots who build their homes on the beach? Nope.

This has been going on for thousands of years, and will continue to do so, long after we are dead. And we seriously need to stop playing chicken with mother nature. We will lose.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: abe froman




If you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, does the level of water go up or down?

1) There is far more glacial ice than there is sea ice.
2) At the current time sea level rise is due mostly to thermal expansion.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


That is false. There is localized subsidence and uplift of land masses but the rotation of the Earth, the effects of currents and winds, gravity variations, all contribute to variations in rate of sea level rise in different locations.

Average sea level is rising. How it affects different areas varies.

Oh, so which of those is carbon dioxide concentrations affecting? Is it affecting the rotation of the planet, is it affecting gravity, or is it affecting currents and wind patterns?

That's one sneaky little molecular boogeyman you have got there.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: chiefsmom




This has been going on for thousands of years,

Not really. Sea levels, like temperatures had been fairly stable for thousands of years.


Sea Level Rise

edit on 10/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, so which of those is carbon dioxide concentrations affecting? Is it affecting the rotation of the planet, is it affecting gravity, or is it affecting currents and wind patterns?

You have moved the goalposts. You first said:

Sea level cannot rise in certain places only, It either rises everywhere or it doesn't rise. That's simple physics.
Physics (some, not so simple) explains why sea levels do not change equally across the planet.

But to answer your question, the current rise in sea level is due primarily to thermal expansion. Increasing CO2 levels are increasing atmospheric temperatures. Increasing atmospheric temperatures are causing an increase in ocean heat content. More heat means sea water expands.
www.nodc.noaa.gov...


edit on 10/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I haven't moved anything, Phage. I stated that sea level rise would be global in scope and essentially uniform, while subsidence can be (and usually is) localized. Miami is built on sandy soil and uses groundwater for industries, leading to soil subsidence.

You stated sea level can rise and fall locally without global scope. You attributed the variations to several different phenomena. I simply asked which of those phenomena you thought carbon dioxide was affecting enough to cause sea level rise only in southern Florida.

Thermal expansion... OK, that is a real phenomenon. So tell me, how much have sea temperatures risen to cause this thermal expansion?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Because what we pollute is nothing compared to China. Even if we cut our emissions down to 0 it would have no effect on the ice caps.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So tell me, how much have sea temperatures risen to cause this thermal expansion?
I provided a source.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lice000
Because what we pollute is nothing compared to China. Even if we cut our emissions down to 0 it would have no effect on the ice caps.


Two things wrong there.

One who is consuming the majority of the chinese goods.

Two China has signed on to the Paris accord.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You provided a global heat content source. Heat content is not the same as temperature (related, but non-linearly due to the pressure gradient), and thermal expansion coefficients are based on temperature. If you are claiming that thermal expansion has led to a rise in sea level, I want to know what temperature rise has caused what expansion amount.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Lice000
Because what we pollute is nothing compared to China. Even if we cut our emissions down to 0 it would have no effect on the ice caps.


Two things wrong there.

One who is consuming the majority of the chinese goods.

Two China has signed on to the Paris accord.


Nerither of those things make my statement "wrong". The world buys from china and the Paris Agreement means nothing



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



If you are claiming that thermal expansion has led to a rise in sea level, I want to know what temperature rise has caused what expansion amount.
Since temperature varies with depth, heat content may be a better value to use than temperature when considering ocean basins. You might want to peruse the charts in that source, pretty interesting.

But if you want to try to use sea surface temperatures:
www.epa.gov...



edit on 10/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/19/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ah, I think I saw a tiny spark of light there! You're starting to get it.

Water temperature varies greatly with depth, as well as with latitude and currents. There is no way to accurately measure water temperature globally. Your chart shows an estimation based on quite a few assumptions and guesses... it's the best we can do. Heat energy is related to temperature (specific heat, which also varies with temperature and salinity), so there is also no way to accurately measure global ocean temperature.

Thermal expansion of seawater is also non-linear, being a function of pressure, salinity, and temperature. Seeing as we cannot measure temperature with any real degree of accuracy, there is no way we can calculate the thermal expansion of the oceans. If we cannot calculate the thermal expansion of the oceans, we cannot state that thermal expansion is responsible for sea level rise/fall.

That's just pop science trying to boost its ego.

Back to the topic: even if we could say there was thermal expansion of the oceans, that would still be a global phenomenon, not a localized one. Heating water in one area may expand it, but it is not going to raise a column of water; water will flow to fit its container (definition of a liquid). As a layman example, consider a large aquarium with a heater at one end: as the heater heats the water in that end, does the water level change only where the heater is? Or does it change uniformly throughout the aquarium? Obviously it changes uniformly, because any expansion just adds to the overall volume.

Applied to the oceans, were thermal expansion to be the cause of localized sea level rise, there would have to be a constant heating of the water so fast that it did not have time to flow outward from the heat source. The water around Miami would be boiling after a few hours of that. It is not. Ergo, thermal expansion has nothing to do with localized water levels in or around south Florida.

Can we talk about how carbon dioxide is changing the planet's rotation now?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
So is this in response to the flooding after.... a Hurricane?

Rubio is a clown... but blaming flooding from a hurricane in a state where the highest point south of I10 is about 150 feet above sea level on global warming is ludicrous.

And before anyone yaps about Matthew being unprecedented... it wasnt, it might have been but fizzled at the end... and its been nearly a decade since the last major hurricane pummeled Florida.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Florida is actually expected to be submerged in the future due to post glacial rebound. As the land mass is tipping upward in the North...eg; the great lakes, downward go the Southern regions eg; Florida. So, I would take issue with that part of the Headline.


edit on 19-10-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
It still boggles my mind that some of you guys use terms like "AGW Crowd" Since when does listening to Scientists make one part of a "crowd". And wouldn't everyone want to be part of that group of people that actually listens to scientists? I mean evolution, Quantum physics, Relativity, Chemistry, Biology..medicine...I think we've gained a lot from Science and it helps us understand the world better. If you want to live in a world without scientists and science, go ahead, but don't put down people that like, follow, listen to and benefit from science. LOL That's not denying ignorance, that is the very definition of ignorance. Don't be ignorant.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join