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

a reply to: Phage

No, it's a conundrum.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

No, it's a conundrum.

TheRedneck

Yeah. Confirmation bias can cause puzzlement when evidence contradicts one's paradigm.

a reply to: Phage

You have to be playing me Phage... please, please tell me you aren't mixing things up this badly!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
I'm not the one who's mixed up.

Your claim was that sea level rise must mean that sea level rises evenly everywhere.

Your claim was that sea level "seeks" a level because...gravity.

You can't understand why variations in mean sea level correspond to gravity anomalies.

a reply to: Phage

The gravitational anomalies are so minuscule as for their effects on sea level to be immeasurable. The anomalies themselves can barely be measured with the most sensitive instruments we have available.

Higher gravity does not cause water to 'pile up.' It simply doesn't work like that. If a gravitational anomaly were strong enough to create a measurable difference, increased gravity would lower sea level, not raise it. The resultant force acting on the water is downward (toward the center of mass) not upward (away from the center of mass).

You seem to think water acts like a solid. It doesn't. Water is a liquid, which means it flows to take the shape of its container. In this case, the container is the irregular surface of the earth, and (discounting disturbances) the top of the water level will stabilize at an equal vertical position across every point on its surface. Disturbances will act to change this vertical position; however, force is equal to mass times acceleration. That means any forces that act as disturbances must be the result of accelerations.

There is only one continuous acceleration: the rotation of the planet. Thus there is only one continuous displacement: the equatorial bulge. Everything else is temporary and zero sum. And even if it were not so, adding more water would cause the sea levels to change everywhere, because adding water is not an acceleratory process.

Talk about trying to make a mountain out of a molehill... you're trying to say that tiny, near-immeasurable anomalies in gravity cause massive shifts in matter!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If a gravitational anomaly were strong enough to create a measurable difference, increased gravity would lower sea level, not raise it.

Water is not compressible (nearly enough so). It piles up.

Talk about trying to make a mountain out of a molehill... you're trying to say that tiny, near-immeasurable anomalies in gravity cause massive shifts in matter!

Yes. Fluid matter. But it's not just me who says that.

a reply to: Phage

Water is not compressible (nearly enough so). It piles up.

OK, fine. Show me a pile of water.

Yes. Fluid matter. But it's not just me who says that.

Don't get me started on the state of our public education.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

OK, fine. Show me a pile of water.

I did.
You disregarded it. That confirmation bias thing.

a reply to: Phage

No, you showed me readings. Show me a pile.

This is ATS Phage. Pics or it didn't happen.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: MamaJ

exxon mobil fund all the deniers dodgy science too.

Should lock all the deniers up.

They shouldn't get away with asking for proof.

originally posted by: abe froman
If you have a glass of ice water and the ice melts, does the level of water go up or down?

It depends on how the ice melts!

From the top or the bottom?

a reply to: Greven


Ummm...correct me if I'm wrong...isn't there depressive crust syndrome...(or whatever the hell you call it)...under all that ice...?
Not to mention that any rise would also be combined with crustal sinking beneath the ocean due to the added weight/mass...(Think three gorges dam)...

(Remember...the crust is floating as well)

Doesn't the crust re-bound after the ice melts therefore raising the landmass...?

Wouldn't this create a zero sum offset to any ocean level rise...?

Now...before you slam me for being ignorant...let me add that the only earth science class I ever attended was in high school...40 years ago...
I'm just questioning is all...trying to figure it out under my own power...so to speak...




YouSir

a reply to: burgerbuddy



Ummm...like those volcanoes...under the West Antarctic ice sheet...?




YouSir

originally posted by: lostbook
What does ATS think?

I think it's more important to have a robust energy-based civilization than lose a little shoreline.

Of course, I don't subscribe to anthropogenic climate change nor do I think it's a sin to appreciate things like electricity, medicine and modern materials chemistry.

"Climate change"/"Global warming"

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: burgerbuddy



Ummm...like those volcanoes...under the West Antarctic ice sheet...?

YouSir

Sure, you mean the volcanoes made by Exxon Mobile?

And the methane vents made by Union Carbide?

People want to protect their money invested in beach front homes.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

There is also the fact that black-body radiation is a function of surface temperature. As surface temperature rises, the proportion of radiation available for carbon dioxide absorption and re-emission drops.

But overall emissivity increases as T^4 which is pretty big.

Taken all together, these feedbacks indicate that any appreciable increase in global temperature due to carbon dioxide levels will be limited and will restabilize at a new equilibrium point.

And, what will that be and when? Numbers matter, and they don't look good.

Given the fact that the planet has endured many much higher equilibria in the past, and given that historically warmer climates lend themselves to greater ecological expansion,

In the deep distant past? Before humans evolved, and continents were in different places?

And when the Sun's output was lower than it is now?

it is a safe bet that any new equilibrium point will be beneficial, not destructive.

That's completely unjustified.

a reply to: mbkennel

But overall emissivity increases as T^4 which is pretty big.

The percentage of radiated output at the lone frequency still decreases.

You present a common argument, but one which is based on a misunderstanding of the physics involved. The equilibrium point will shift, but that reduced percentage will act to minimize that shift. It is not just the amount of energy held that matters, but also the amount that is released. That amount increases at a faster rate than the energy held.

And, what will that be and when? Numbers matter, and they don't look good.

We don't know the numbers. That's precisely why the models are being adjusted: to try and determine the numbers. Climatologists are trying to determine which algorithms correlate with historical data. One complication is the uncertainty in that historical data.

Research reports are not based solely on success. Sometimes they are based on advancement, or even on failure. A report is required periodically to maintain funding, even if that report shows minor or no success at that time. It still shows attempt.

In the deep distant past? Before humans evolved, and continents were in different places?

Just because something happened before humans, it does not follow that it would have been deadly to humans. All terrestrial life has commonalities that outweigh their differences.

Your position on this indicates flawed logic,

That's completely unjustified.

How so?

History shows that cooler global temperatures coincide with lower populations, indicating relative difficulty in species existance. Higher temperatures correlate to expansions in population, which indicates more general viability. This is within recorded historical time frames.

Higher temperatures also correlate to increased floral production, meaning more food available for a larger population.

Your concerns here are at odds with historical records.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scojak

The issue is people that fully believe Climate Change is man made don't have any real historical context. All they have is archaeological data put to an incomplete model. An incomplete model that shows the current climate change is man made.

An indicator that they are attempting to fit the model to their belief can be found in the clouds experiment. That experiment pretty much proved that clouds have a cooling effect by reflecting the suns rays back into the atmosphere cooling the earth.

They have even more proof of this now that they found more evidence that a rapid cool down happened that flash froze the earth in what they think is a meteor strike.

So in reality we don't need carbon capture and all these exotic ideas to cool the earth. We just need to find a way to make clouds.

And this is why jumping to conclusions, fitting data to models, and acting on incomplete information could be an ecological and economic disaster.

Yes, Climate change is happening, the science proves that. But what the science doesn't prove is that the change is man made or natural. What we have is a whole bunch of scientist who's careers are invested in AGW saying climate change is man made who's predictions keep being proven false. If your hypothesis keeps being proven false then your model is wrong.

What I see happening is a whole lot of these AGW alarmist scoring lucrative private and government contracts due to their work on AGW if governments pass climate change legislation.

a reply to: gpols

There are red flags all over the planet that point to human activity is changing the planet.

Are you in denial of the CO2 spike that is directly related to burning fossil fuels for energy?