global warming and sea level rise are true. i "belive"!?
ever since i read this, how can we "deny" any longer....
----------------------------------------------------------- Q)How many inches has the sea level risen so far?
A)Sea level in the last 100 years has risen about 7 inches and is projected to increase another 6 to 36 inches or so by 2100. The insidious thing is not so much the sea level rise, but the possibility of storm surges coupled with sea level rise. [6] The Netherlands spent $10 billion on raising the levels of their dikes after a 1959 storm caused ocean waves to overflow the dikes causing major floods. The money was spent to raise the height of the dikes from 20 to 30 feet. Being a little above sea level is not enough.
they measured in a "high" place" and were incorrect? (possibly where 2 oceans connect by locks, LOL)
or MORE proof of lies, half truths and distortion on the behalf of environmentalists?
2007-09-20T07:45:40Z
malcolm-
i see you passed the "cut and paste" class at the seminar. what you posted has NO meaning to the question.
mr jello-
the 1959 "high water" is MORE irrefutable truth of global warming.
global warming was occuring at that time too, we were obviously "melting ice" during the "global cooling era".
anybody can figure that out, you dunce.
2007-09-21T06:18:17Z
"If you chose to pick one single piece of data and ignore the overwhelming majority of opposing data then you can 'prove' anything you want. I could prove the world was flat or the centre of the universe by adopting that approach." -trevor
kinda like you choosing "global warming" as the data and only one possible way it is occuring?
what's wrong? don't like others using your "scientific" methods?
2007-09-21T06:22:43Z
"The two things that are different are (1) they have never melted this fast and (2) Ice is melting that hasn't melted since the continents formed. So throw in say, another 10-15 feet. " -johnny
maybe the cavemen forgot to write it down how fast it melted for them?
at any rate you have NO proof of your statement. i do have proof of more lies by enviromentalists.
2007-09-21T06:34:01Z
bob, unfortunately the san fransico are is very active geologically. how can we be sure that the area wher the measurements are taken haven't dropped?
personally, i'd take the mark over modern science.
as dumb as that sounds, mr. Ross and mr. Lempriere had NO AGENDA in making the mark, whereas modern science does.
who would you believe?
"experts" who have been churning out lies, distortions, half truths, and failed predictions for 40 years?
or a simple mark, made by someone over 150 years ago, that SHOWS that the mean water level was at that time?
Dr Jello2007-09-20T07:25:40Z
Favorite Answer
Interesting that a single mark in Tasmania is being dismissed so quickly. What do you think the reaction would be if that mark were 30cm BELOW the current water level?
Clearly the reason for 1959's high water levels was because man lit off a couple of nuclear bombs in Japan a few years earlier. This caused the nuclear winter that caused the ice caps to melt and raise the sea levels just around the Netherlands.
At least this is what the consensus of people I asked told me, so it has to be true!
This has already been explained to you but because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions you've chosen to ignore the facts.
The article you cite refers to one single sea level measurement. Adopting such an unscientific and inaccurate approach is akin to pointing to a short person and concluding that the human race is shrinking.
There are short people, there are tall people, overall humans are getting taller. There are sea level falls, there are sea level rises, overall sea levels are rising.
If you chose to pick one single piece of data and ignore the overwhelming majority of opposing data then you can 'prove' anything you want. I could prove the world was flat or the centre of the universe by adopting that approach.
You may also be interested to know that the author of the article you refer to is not a scientist but is of course a journalist - Fintan Dunne. He's been variously described as an avowed Marxist, an arch conspiracy theorist and a Zionist disinfo. He claims that 9/11 was the work of the G8 world leaders, AIDS doesn't exist, we live in a quantum hologram, doctors are deliberately killing millions of people and that Sadaam Hussein was never captured. Seems like a reliable source of info. All this and more from his own website - http://www.fintandunne.com/
- - - - - - - - -
The flooding in Holland and the UK was the result of a storm surge (it was 1953, not 1959 but that's not your error). Storm surges are caused by a series of compounding factors - high tides, lunar allignment (spring tides), prevailing winds and cyclonic conditions. They can happen anywhere on the planet but in the case of the Dutch floods were compunded by the topography of the North Sea. If global warming had been factor then it would have been a very minor one, extensive flooding and loss of life would have occurred in any event.
It appears to me (as a personal opinion after reading the comments on this question) that the measurement of ocean level changes have been measured in very unprovable ways.
If the sea level was to rise as much as predicted, many sea port towns may be under water. Consider New Orleans, London, and other such low level places like the dikes in Holland. All under water!! It is certainly something to consider.
As suggested in other listings, a mark on a wall or only one reference is not adequate to determine the true level of the sea all over the earth and the geologists tell us the level has been higher in the past. Any measurements before the advent of the more accurate measurements of today surely could not be a very good reference for our future ocean height. One program I saw on National geographic about the Asian tsanomi showed that some islands raised several meters and that caused the big wave. A reference on those islands would be invalid as a reference because of the shift in their height above what was normal a few years before. How do we know the referenced measuring points have not changed as well?
Admittedly, if most or all the reference points have raised by the same amount, the sea level change answer would be more likely to be correct. Especially if the same measure of the change in sea level is recorded in all the reference points at or nearly the same amount, it would seem the sea level change is accurate.
To address the level of change over a long period such as indicated by geology references, one must determine at what time in the history of our planet those sea level changes took place and for how long. It seems that might be difficult to determine. Could a change in sea level happen in only one place on our earth? Not likely unless the moon stayed in geosynchronys orbit for a considerable time and there were no tides. Far out!! I believe there are no record of such activity in recorded history.
How about a large asteroid or planet affecting our tides or sea levels? No record of that, either.
Over millions of years, our planet has undergone many changes while humans were not around to see it happen.
I don't think I learn much by comparing what it was in 1927 to what it was in 1963 to what it was in 1508. It doesn't really look like anybody else does either, by the discussion.
The way I look at it, every time the ice caps have melted the oceans have risen a little over 60 feet, according to the geologic record. That's what I would expect when they melt this time. The two things that are different are (1) they have never melted this fast and (2) Ice is melting that hasn't melted since the continents formed. So throw in say, another 10-15 feet.
I encourage everyone to look at that site. Clearly it's biased. And the result is based on one mark on a wall. Here's what some other people say, based on more serious data:
"Historical records show that sea level in San Francisco Bay has risen 18-20 cm (7 inches) over the past 150 years. "
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/index.php?cat=56
"Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yrâ1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yrâ2."
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006
Honestly, which of these sources do you find more credible? One mark on a wall, or scientifically measured data with many data points? Note that the various sources I've listed have pretty similar results, too.
I truly am baffled with the discussion about "high water" in 1959. That was a storm, not a sea level rise.