Remember me
▼ Content

What about the sinking islands?



Page 1 of 212>
What about the sinking islands?09-10-2015 17:58
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
I find it strange that there doesn't appear to be a thread dedicated to the inhabitants of islands around the world threatened by rising sea levels caused by our increasing use of fossil fuels and indiscriminate land change.

Surely a few climate catastrophists sympathise with the residents of Kiribati, for example?


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
09-10-2015 19:01
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
New Zealand has an immigration policy specifically for island refugees from climate change-induced sea level rise that is expected and I recently read that one small island nation bought land on another one that is taller for it's people to move to just in case. It certainly comes up a lot in what I read, but the number of people involved is so small that they will be able to migrate to other places.

It's much different for a flat place like Bangladesh and it's large population.
09-10-2015 20:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Actually it's the equatorial poor who will take the biggest brunt of MMCC. They will lose land to sea level rise and not be able to afford to move.

I often wonder if the powers that be see this as a way of reducing the population and, thereby, mitigating MMCC - by wiping out the equatorial poor.
09-10-2015 22:13
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
When will the first inhabited coral island disappear beneath the waves?
10-10-2015 00:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Why, looking for some cheap retirement land investment?
12-10-2015 11:52
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Ask a serious question to get a stupid answer.

Doesn't anyone else here know of Charles Darwin's hypothesis regarding coral atolls?
12-10-2015 12:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
drm wrote: New Zealand has an immigration policy specifically for island refugees from climate change-induced sea level rise that is expected

If the sea level isn't rising on its own, I don't think kiwi immigration legislation is going to cause the sea level to rise either, regardless of their expectations.

drm wrote: ... and I recently read that one small island nation bought land on another one that is taller for it's people to move to just in case.

Both issues you mentioned are decisions that are not based on any science or observation of sea level rise. They are both examples of decisions based on panic-inducing fear-mongering per an "end-o-the-world" religious dogma. Neither is any kind of accurate measure of sea level or of its change. As far as any human on the planet knows, the ocean level might be lowering right now.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 13:47
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Atolls begin as fringing reefs surrounding a volcanic island (Darwin 1842). Through the process of global warming, glacial melting and/or island subsidence, the level of the sea gradually rises relative to the seabed and water begins to overtake the island. Since most reef-building corals cannot grow easily at depths of more than 150 feet (45 m) below the ocean's surface, they will begin constructing their protective calcium carbonate encasements on top of one another at a rate fast enough to keep up with the sea level rise. At the same time the corals at the surface grow laterally to stay abreast of the ever-diminishing coastline. Provided that the sea does not rise too rapidly, the corals will continue to push upward and outward well after the volcanic island is completely submerged (Fagerstrom 1987).
12-10-2015 13:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Earthling wrote:
Atolls begin as fringing reefs surrounding a volcanic island (Darwin 1842). Through the process of global warming, glacial melting and/or island subsidence, the level of the sea gradually rises relative to the seabed and water begins to overtake the island. Since most reef-building corals cannot grow easily at depths of more than 150 feet (45 m) below the ocean's surface, they will begin constructing their protective calcium carbonate encasements on top of one another at a rate fast enough to keep up with the sea level rise. At the same time the corals at the surface grow laterally to stay abreast of the ever-diminishing coastline. Provided that the sea does not rise too rapidly, the corals will continue to push upward and outward well after the volcanic island is completely submerged (Fagerstrom 1987).

All correct, except for the missing caveat explaining that the corals' continued upward pushing assumes there aren't tons of concrete, asphalt and other construction materials sitting on top.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 17:29
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Take away the concrete, asphalt and other construction materials and tell me what allows coral to keep the other atolls growing?
12-10-2015 18:18
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Earthling - A flower will grow into the air, but die if you poison the air. Coral will grow upward also, unless you poison the oceans. Some of the increased atmospheric CO2 is being absorbed into the ocean and acidifying the water which, to the coral, is poisonous as it inhibits their ability to grow more of their outer shells.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 18:29
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
A flower will grow into the air and die anyway.
12-10-2015 19:27
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Earthling, sea level rise is the root cause of the problem, but it is storms on top of that that will determine when these islands generally become problematic to inhabit. If you're still a foot above sea level but winds from a storm cause a surge that engulfs the island temporarily, then it still doesn't work. With such complicating factors, I don't have an exact timeline on when any particular island will have to move.

As to the poorest on these islands not being able to move, the low population means that wealthier countries may well provide the necessary relocation assistance. Of course only time will tell if that actually happens.

All of this is why places like Bangladesh will have a much harder time. Many, many millions of people live just above sea level and there just isn't much land higher that is available, but it's hard to see what country is going to want to take that many immigrants.
12-10-2015 19:46
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Earthling - Yes, that's true about a flower, but you haven't addressed what I stated about the effects of ocean acidification on the coral. Any thoughts?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 22:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
trafn wrote: but you haven't addressed what I stated about the effects of ocean acidification on the coral. Any thoughts?

The term "ocean acidification" is another way of saying "I'm just wrong. Ignore me."

There is no such thing as ocean acidification. The oceans have never been acidic, thus they have never acidified.

I know, I know,...you think the term means "a base solution whose pH is reducing" but it doesn't mean that. The term for that is "neutralizing" (heading towards 7.0, "neutral").

Also, the oceans are not neutralizing as far as anyone can tell. There is no science that would indicate the oceans are doing anything other than remaining at the exact same pH value. I know, I know, Wikipedia says otherwise. Just another reason why Wikipedia references are summarily dismissed.

Oh yes, I realize you were told that acidic rain water falls into the ocean, and that you were left with the impression that acidic water therefore keeps accumulating in the ocean. None of the people you trusted told you that every drop of acidic water that falls into the ocean ends up evaporating and releasing the acidifying gases right back into the atmosphere. It's a natural cycle that is a zero sum game.

The elements that make sea water base/alkali are not going anywhere, but more comes out of the earth (in negligible quantities, relatively speaking) from geological activity which would indicate that ocean pH levels should be rising, if anything, in relatively negligible quantities.

Yeah, so there is no "ocean acidification" going on. It's empty fear-mongering.

If anything, changes in local marine environments cause other changes that are being observed, just as is the case in any environment. They aren't due to the "ocean acidification" fiction.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 23:11
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Earthling - are you basing your statements here solely on Charle Darwin's 1842 synopsis of coral reefs? With all due respect to the profound nature of Darwin's work, don't you want to even consider any of the scientific work on coral reefs which has been done since 1842!

IBdaMann - as for "acidification," I apologize, but I don't want to start yet another terminology war with you. If I were writing a doctoral thesis, I could understand the need for using precise meanings only. But this is not such a thesis. It's a place to talk like regular people, with regular people, about things regular people think about with regards to climate change (oh please, don't ask me what "regular" people are, I beg you). Sadly, I'll just have to assume from here on in that when I use the word acidification, that you have no idea what I'm talking about.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 12-10-2015 23:18
12-10-2015 23:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
trafn wrote:IBdaMann - as for "acidification," I apologize, but I don't want to start yet another terminology war with you.

It's not a terminology war. You did not invent the term "ocean acidification." It is an intentionally deceptive term created by the warmazombies for fear-mongering.

You are simply repeating that same baseless fear-mongering, whether or not you are aware of it.

Those who use the term typically know exactly what they are doing and insist on staying away from the innocuously neutral, standard chemistry terminology. You are a professed "end-o-the-world" preacher so your use of the term is consistent, I suppose.

It's just that there is no such process going on.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 00:25
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - like I said, no terminology war, no warmazombies, no religion, no marxism, no doughnuts, no miley cyrus, no... (damn, I think you blew one of my fuses).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 00:29
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
From Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, one of the most respected such organizations in the world.

http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/ocean-acidification

short excerpts

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal in large quantities, the world's ocean water has gradually become more acidic. Like global warming, this phenomenon, which is known as ocean acidification, is a direct consequence of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere.


Prior to industrialization, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million (ppm). With increased use of fossil fuels, that number is now approaching 400 ppm and the growth rate is accelerating. Scientists calculate that the ocean is currently absorbing about one quarter of the CO2 that humans are emitting. When CO2 combines with seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce the seawater pH, hence the term ocean acidification
.

. . .evidence indicates that current atmospheric CO2 concentrations and ocean pH levels are at unprecedented for at least the last 800,000 years
.
Edited on 13-10-2015 00:32
13-10-2015 00:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
I fear we've reached this point in the thread:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 01:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
drm wrote: From Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, one of the most respected such organizations in the world.

I don't know about your ability to speak for countless, untold others but I'll presume that you personally hold them in high regard.

Does this mean that you are beholden to every opinion in every article hung on this website? Many are very unscientific. Many are dogmatically activist.

Let's take a look at some of what you posted:

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,

Marxists take a stark doom-n-gloom view on life and trace their invented problems back to the industrial revolution. They also like to ask themselves "How would Karl Marx have worded this?"

... the world's ocean water has gradually become more acidic.

The oceans have never been acidic. This was not written by any scientist. It was written by a fear-mongering political activist.

Like global warming, this phenomenon, which is known as ocean acidification, is a direct consequence of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere.

Pure religious warmazombie dogma. When you wrote "respected" I'm guessing you meant amongst the Global Warming Congregation. There's no science of this kind of drivel.

When CO2 combines with seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce the seawater pH, hence the term ocean acidification
.
Was there any wording in that article to the effect of "When CO2 is released back into the atmosphere via evaporation of its containing water, chemical reactions occur that increase the seawater pH, hence the term "ocean alkalinization"?

No, there isn't? They left that part out, you say? They only spoke of the lowering of the ocean pH but not of the corresponding increasing of the ocean pH? I think we can see what kind of propaganda this is, and for what purpose it was intended.

. . .evidence indicates that current atmospheric CO2 concentrations and ocean pH levels are at unprecedented for at least the last 800,000 years

The ocean's pH was exactly the same just last week. What's this need to go back 800,000 years?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 07:41
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Anyone wish to comment on the two attached links, re the so called ocean acidification and the increase in the global flora biomass?

http://smllibertyroad.com/SMLWP/Here/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dr-Patrick-Moore-Frontier-Op-Ed-Ocean-Acidification.pdf

http://www.thegwpf.com/forests-and-fields-in-record-growth-around-the-planet/
13-10-2015 08:58
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
arthur18 wrote:http://smllibertyroad.com/SMLWP/Here/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dr-Patrick-Moore-Frontier-Op-Ed-Ocean-Acidification.pdf


I can't respond to his individual points, but the writer appears to have no background in oceanoography and according to the bio on the page is an activist (a co-founder of Greenpeace it says). Given the choice, I would go with a respected institution like Woods Hole.

arthur18 wrote:http://www.thegwpf.com/forests-and-fields-in-record-growth-around-the-planet/


?? This one doesn't deal with ocean acidification. I have heard of this before and admit that it is counterintuitive to me. But the amount of carbon that this report claims has been sequestered over the last dozen years due to increased plant growth the world over is equal to about what Italy has emitted in that time, for example, so it is no game changer. But it's an interesting result, thanks for posting it.
Edited on 13-10-2015 09:00
13-10-2015 10:54
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi arthur18

I would not give much credit to the first link if I were you. He makes a lot of false assumptions that are not backed up with any data, and are not actually true. For example, it is completely inappropriate to compare Cambrian fauna with todays because the world was a very different place back then. The key thing to remember is that in the past, organisms had many thousands of years to adapt to any climatic changes. If they did not, then mass extinctions occurred. We can see this in the fossil record. Today, the rate of climate change is unprecedented compared to anything that has been experienced in the past (with the exception of climatic changes due to super volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts).

The IPCC data show that ocean pH has already reduced from about 8.125 in 1985 to about 8.09 in 2010. Given that pH is a log scale, that is a big change. For more details, see section 3.8 of IPCC AR5: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

As for the second link, the original paper is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

This paper is about the CO2 fertilisation effect. It has long been hypothesised that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a CO2 fertilisation effect in land plants, and this paper presents some satellite data that seem to confirm the existence of the CO2 fertilisation effect. We know that the land biosphere already takes up about 25% of the anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere. It will be a good thing for climate change if the land takes up a few % more, owing to the fertilisation effect. The only caveat is that the land biosphere is not a long-term sink for CO2, since the carbon is typically respired to the atmosphere again a decade or so later (unlike the oceans, which have a carbon residence time of about 1000 years). In addition, the CO2 fertilisation effect will probably saturate at some point, since other factors, such as moisture, will become limiting to plant growth. For more about the CO2 fertilisation effect, see Box 6.3 here:http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
13-10-2015 11:44
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
drm wrote:
Earthling, sea level rise is the root cause of the problem, but it is storms on top of that that will determine when these islands generally become problematic to inhabit. If you're still a foot above sea level but winds from a storm cause a surge that engulfs the island temporarily, then it still doesn't work. With such complicating factors, I don't have an exact timeline on when any particular island will have to move.

As to the poorest on these islands not being able to move, the low population means that wealthier countries may well provide the necessary relocation assistance. Of course only time will tell if that actually happens.

All of this is why places like Bangladesh will have a much harder time. Many, many millions of people live just above sea level and there just isn't much land higher that is available, but it's hard to see what country is going to want to take that many immigrants.
SLR will not affect coral atolls, they're as high above water as they've always been.
Storms haven't worsened, small islands have always been affected by them.
Only island populations have increased, causing a strain on water supplies and quality of life.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
13-10-2015 15:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
climate scientist wrote: For example, it is completely inappropriate to compare Cambrian fauna with todays because the world was a very different place back then.

You don't have to be quite so specific. You can just say, for example, that the "world" was a gaseous giant at -215degC or maybe was an atmosphere-free rock at 425degC or whatever this very different "world" was back in the Cambrian.

climate scientist wrote: The key thing to remember is that in the past, organisms had many thousands of years to adapt to any climatic changes.

The key thing for you to remember is that no organism ever had many thousands of years to adapt to anything.

Also, it turns out that species "in the past" aren't the only ones that were able to adapt owing to much evolutionary change. All currently existing species also so benefit.

climate scientist wrote: Today, the rate of climate change is unprecedented compared to anything that has been experienced in the past

Is this just more of your absurd, WACKY, unfalsifiable religious dogma...or can you explain how you calculated the "rate of climate change" all throughout earth's history?

I presume that when you write the "rate of climate change" that you mean the first derivative of the "Climate" function. Am I correct?

climate scientist wrote: The IPCC data show that ocean pH has already reduced from about 8.125 in 1985 to about 8.09 in 2010.

Oh yeah, of course they do. Soon the IPCC will be telling us that our oceans are now battery acid, knowing that no one will ever likely check.

The IPCC doesn't provide "data." They provide fear-mongering propaganda.

climate scientist wrote: This paper is about the CO2 fertilisation effect.

Perhaps you could explain why almost all these "CO2 Fertilization" reports are authored by warmazombies who conclude that additional atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to plants and thus will harm crop yields if we allow it to continue.

climate scientist wrote: We know that the land biosphere already takes up about 25% of the anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere.

We know this? Who calculated this? How was this calculated?

climate scientist wrote: (unlike the oceans, which have a carbon residence time of about 1000 years).

I thought carbon "resided" in water until the water evaporated, which would be measured in minutes or hours, no?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 18:26
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
SLR will not affect coral atolls, they're as high above water as they've always been.
Storms haven't worsened, small islands have always been affected by them.
Only island populations have increased, causing a strain on water supplies and quality of life.


I haven't said anything about coral atolls. I'm just referring to the impact of SLR itself. As the sea rises, the storm surges on top of them do as well, and that is what will determine when people on low-lying islands must leave them.
13-10-2015 18:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@everyone - a lot of interesting thoughts. Probably best to keep in mind that any literature, even scientific literature, can be interpreted/bent/skewed/twisted to make it say what you like. I guess it all depends on the level of authority you endow your resources. Here's on of my favorite on this subject at a new thread I just started:

Ocean "acidification" once and for all?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 11:26
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Earthling wrote:
SLR will not affect coral atolls, they're as high above water as they've always been.
Storms haven't worsened, small islands have always been affected by them.
Only island populations have increased, causing a strain on water supplies and quality of life.


drm wrote:
I haven't said anything about coral atolls.

They're the subject of this thread.


drm wrote:
I'm just referring to the impact of SLR itself. As the sea rises, the storm surges on top of them do as well, and that is what will determine when people on low-lying islands must leave them.
No point if you haven't got a clue as to when that disaster will happen.

Currently, sea level is on course to rise about the same amount as it did in the 20th century.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
14-10-2015 11:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Earthling - yes my pretty little Snowflake Earthling. Like you said, no point if you haven't got a clue as to when that disaster will happen, and that attitude is what made the first part of the Titanic's maiden voyage so enjoyable!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 11:44
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
What other attitude should Titanic's passengers have had, you fool?
14-10-2015 11:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Earthling - now, now, my pretty little Snowflake Earthling! Perhaps it's time for you to take your blood pressure medication (with just a dash of lithium perhaps).

Unsinkable? Really now, do you even have to ask?

By the way, remind me to never get on a boat with you!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 14:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
drm wrote: As the sea rises, the storm surges on top of them do as well, and that is what will determine when people on low-lying islands must leave them.

Similarly, as the sea lowers, the storm surges as storms have done for, well, forever, and that is why no one really perceives any sort of threat that hasn't been there for, well, forever.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2015 15:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - and look how nicely those nasty little storm surges have receded on both Mars and Venus!

If thing go the way I've predicted in my book, that's exactly what we can expect.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 21:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - and look how nicely those nasty little storm surges have receded on both Mars and Venus!

Don't forget Neptune, Saturn, earth, Jupiter and Uranus.

trafn wrote: If thing go the way I've predicted in my book, that's exactly what we can expect.

More storms?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2015 23:31
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - more storms? Of course, more storms! That is if you like sand storms.


Edited on 15-10-2015 00:27
15-10-2015 03:24
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
trafn, you seem to be turning some of the debate into juvenile attacks on people trying to obtain serious information on a particular subject. I'm not sure if anyone apart from yourself finds your attempted humor remotely funny.
Are you really here to pass on knowledge or just to promote your books?
Maybe if we just stick to facts it would be a lot more helpful for everyone concerned.
15-10-2015 03:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - more storms? Of course, more storms! That is if you like sand storms.

Is this one of those "every species is guaranteed to either become extinct or to evolve into another species" thing?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-10-2015 04:06
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Arthur18,

Perhaps you should look at everyone (including me) on this site and realize that this is not the National Science Foundation or NASA. It's a public debate sight where anyone from 2 to 102 years old can join in. Granted, I too wish that we all came here with the same attitudes and education levels, but we don't. So there's gonna be a lot of disagreement and "I'm right - you're wrong" going on and, you know what, it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong. That's just how it is. So, every now and then, everyone is gonna blow off some steam. If you don't like it, start another thread of your own. In the meantime, if you can find a public online climate debate site where everyone sips their tea with their pinkies out a perfect ninety degree angle, let me know and I'll give it a try. Until then, welcome to the mind feast of Climate-debate.com. You're probably not gonna like everything on the table, but I'm sure you'll find plenty to stuff your face with and you can just ignore the rest (including me if you like).

Oh, and by the way, if you don't think I make any serious posts here, check out some of the threads which I have started:

Is the United States doomed to be the global dumb-dumb when it comes to M2C2?

Eisenhower was right - beware us

Do man-made climate change deniers prove man-made climate change exists?

Ocean "acidification" once and for all?

So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?

Is M2C2 the "New" New Deal?

When it comes to solving M2C2, is technology our saviour or the ghost in the machine?

Why nuclear will not be a knight in shining armor in the United States

A better way to post on Climate-debate.com

Maybe M2C2 really is all about money

Are "popcorn" black holes the answer to linear entropy and, maybe, M2C2?

Are you a theologian or scientist? Ask Karl Popper.

Attention all M2C2 deniers!

Can you stil save the future from M2C2 after you've already sold it?

Is involuntary population control the answer to man-made climate change?

Will M2C2 be solved by educating the children?

When it comes to M2C2, is planet Earth really worth saving?

Where's Rock Hudson when you need him?

What's worse: the CO2 lag time, or our mental lag time.

The 2 minute warning clock on climate change

Man-made climate change and why you're a moron!

Do hydro-electic dam reservoirs really fart?

Are we really blowing up 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs every day?

Here's what happens when a United States employ gives testimony to congress on climate change

Are falsifiable models the only way to validate science?

We passed the tipping point on climate change in 1901

Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up


PS - I'm glad you liked my book.
15-10-2015 04:27
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:
Is this one of those "every species is guaranteed to either become extinct or to evolve into another species" thing?


You know, I've always pondered over the possibility that we may really be descendants of Martians (people who originally came from Mars). Now, when you think about it, that's not like getting on a greyhound. If Martians did indeed come here let's say 500,000 to a million years ago, then it was probably a long, one-way trip. Who knows, maybe they were running away from their own version of M2C2. Whatever the case, there are two problems in such travel when transporting lots of people:

1. The bigger the person, the more they require (oxygen, food, living space, etc.). Smaller people fit into smaller spaces and, in general, require less of almost everything.

2. Lots of people (big or small) require a lot of stuff, especially lots of food.

Now, to economize on travel, you'd want to do two things: send off a bunch of small people, and find a way to reduce their energy intake needs. You're all probably going down the suspended animation road regarding the reduced energy needs, but I'm thinking of a different approach.

Okay, so you basically send a bunch of Martian midgets to Earth, that way you can get more of them into the same space. As for energy, though, what if you had a way for them to absorb energy directly from the sun just like plants do? What if you could alter their skin so that at regular intervals during their space flight they could be safely exposed to and absorb (via their skin) solar EM radiation and change it into ATP (adenosine triphosphate) or other metabolic molecules? So are you guessing what I'm thinking?

What if the Martians had invented photosynthetic tattoos? In other words, they'd tattoo some or all of their bodies with physiologically active dyes (probably green colored like chlorophyll) that would allow them to directly absorb solar EM. Of course, this would probably not be sufficient for their full nutritional needs, but it might dramatically reduce their solid food intake.

Anyways, to make a long story longer, if both of these things were true - they sent off small people and those small people had photosynthetic tattoos - then those Martians would be LITTLE GREEN MEN!

Okay, a lot of conjecture, but a lot of potential science there too.
Edited on 15-10-2015 04:28
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate What about the sinking islands?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How climate change is sinking an Indian island.317-03-2019 21:17
Vanishing Islands419-08-2014 16:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact