Climate change in green land

duncan61 wrote:
Due to the Earth's shifting axial tilt – a fluctuation of 2° during 40,000 years – which is especially a result of the Moon's orbit, the Arctic Circle is moving. It is drifting north about 15 kilometres per year.

duncan61 wrote: Yes that is my understanding

berting567 wrote:
I found this video in youtube i want to know your thoughts is this real? https://youtu.be/AV2DvfWKyC0

duncan61 wrote:
Hi Tim the plumber.I am Duncan the plumber.

duncan61 wrote:
My big deal is the sea level rise claim that is just not happening.If one portion of the scaremongering is not coming true then none of it is.

duncan61 wrote:
This is the same local paper that published predictions showing Ascot racecourse underwater by 2020.It did not happen which is my point.You are using a reporters story that gets edited and you believe it.This is the problem you have to accept all the science claims but go outside and have a look.The Perth area the water level goes up and down about 300mm.Its a tidal estuary.I know I live here so stop claiming we are all going to flood out soon because we are not so if that is boy cows dodo it all is

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
My big deal is the sea level rise claim that is just not happening.If one portion of the scaremongering is not coming true then none of it is.

According to this, the sea level in Freemantle has risen about 0.2 meters from 1897 to 2011.
Using your logic, everything they say is now true unless you disagree with the Australians who maintain this record. The web page linked to has not updated it's information since 2011.

https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

This link is to the raw data from the Freemantle tidal gauge.
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

And that's about an 8 inch rise in SAE. Nothing personal but it took me all of 10 seconds to find that information. I'm bored and thought, hey, in here people go after each other for no reason, they just like doing it.
If you're wondering, Seattle, Wa. USA has about the same sea level rise over the same period of time. That's probably a better indicator of glacial melt. With feedback mechanisms, they might not understand those yet. Those could vary between different warm periods. Still, ozone depletion is AGW.

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
My big deal is the sea level rise claim that is just not happening.If one portion of the scaremongering is not coming true then none of it is.

According to this, the sea level in Freemantle has risen about 0.2 meters from 1897 to 2011.
Using your logic, everything they say is now true unless you disagree with the Australians who maintain this record. The web page linked to has not updated it's information since 2011.

https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

This link is to the raw data from the Freemantle tidal gauge.
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

And that's about an 8 inch rise in SAE. Nothing personal but it took me all of 10 seconds to find that information. I'm bored and thought, hey, in here people go after each other for no reason, they just like doing it.
If you're wondering, Seattle, Wa. USA has about the same sea level rise over the same period of time. That's probably a better indicator of glacial melt. With feedback mechanisms, they might not understand those yet. Those could vary between different warm periods. Still, ozone depletion is AGW.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
My big deal is the sea level rise claim that is just not happening.If one portion of the scaremongering is not coming true then none of it is.

According to this, the sea level in Freemantle has risen about 0.2 meters from 1897 to 2011.
Using your logic, everything they say is now true unless you disagree with the Australians who maintain this record. The web page linked to has not updated it's information since 2011.

https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

This link is to the raw data from the Freemantle tidal gauge.
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

And that's about an 8 inch rise in SAE. Nothing personal but it took me all of 10 seconds to find that information. I'm bored and thought, hey, in here people go after each other for no reason, they just like doing it.
If you're wondering, Seattle, Wa. USA has about the same sea level rise over the same period of time. That's probably a better indicator of glacial melt. With feedback mechanisms, they might not understand those yet. Those could vary between different warm periods. Still, ozone depletion is AGW.

Nope. Seattle is showing no sea level rise at all.
It is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point.

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
This is the same local paper that published predictions showing Ascot racecourse underwater by 2020.It did not happen which is my point.You are using a reporters story that gets edited and you believe it.This is the problem you have to accept all the science claims but go outside and have a look.The Perth area the water level goes up and down about 300mm.Its a tidal estuary.I know I live here so stop claiming we are all going to flood out soon because we are not so if that is boy cows dodo it all is

Their information came from PSMSL https://www.psmsl.org/ . And what you're claiming is that you can tell a sea level rise of less than 2.5 cm every 10 years. And everything you say is based on that being wrong.

duncan61 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but the chart indicates the sea was at its highest in 1920.I thought the claim was CO2 was warming the Earth and melting the ice but the chart does not show that.If you want out the discussion go away do not order me to stop bothering you.There is a pattern with you doomsday Prophets your all a bit loopy

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
My big deal is the sea level rise claim that is just not happening.If one portion of the scaremongering is not coming true then none of it is.

According to this, the sea level in Freemantle has risen about 0.2 meters from 1897 to 2011.
Using your logic, everything they say is now true unless you disagree with the Australians who maintain this record. The web page linked to has not updated it's information since 2011.

https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

This link is to the raw data from the Freemantle tidal gauge.
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

And that's about an 8 inch rise in SAE. Nothing personal but it took me all of 10 seconds to find that information. I'm bored and thought, hey, in here people go after each other for no reason, they just like doing it.
If you're wondering, Seattle, Wa. USA has about the same sea level rise over the same period of time. That's probably a better indicator of glacial melt. With feedback mechanisms, they might not understand those yet. Those could vary between different warm periods. Still, ozone depletion is AGW.

According to the IPCC the rate of sea level rise, at most, for the world is to be 59cm by 2100. That's the 4th report and with no change in the science the 5th went to 1m.

Currently the world sea level rise rate is about 3.2mm/yr at most which is half the 59cm rate.

Us plumbers are used to ideas of big problems and little problems and problems so small that they can be ignored.

This rate of sea level rise is in the 3rd catagory.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
My big deal is the sea level rise claim that is just not happening.If one portion of the scaremongering is not coming true then none of it is.

According to this, the sea level in Freemantle has risen about 0.2 meters from 1897 to 2011.
Using your logic, everything they say is now true unless you disagree with the Australians who maintain this record. The web page linked to has not updated it's information since 2011.

https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

This link is to the raw data from the Freemantle tidal gauge.
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html

And that's about an 8 inch rise in SAE. Nothing personal but it took me all of 10 seconds to find that information. I'm bored and thought, hey, in here people go after each other for no reason, they just like doing it.
If you're wondering, Seattle, Wa. USA has about the same sea level rise over the same period of time. That's probably a better indicator of glacial melt. With feedback mechanisms, they might not understand those yet. Those could vary between different warm periods. Still, ozone depletion is AGW.

According to the IPCC the rate of sea level rise, at most, for the world is to be 59cm by 2100. That's the 4th report and with no change in the science the 5th went to 1m.

Currently the world sea level rise rate is about 3.2mm/yr at most which is half the 59cm rate.

Us plumbers are used to ideas of big problems and little problems and problems so small that they can be ignored.

This rate of sea level rise is in the 3rd catagory.

I was a Machinist Mate in the Navy and helped to operate 2 boilers and related equipment that operated with an initial steam pressure of 83.4 kg/cm^2 or
1,200 psi. We used that steam to power steam turbines, sea water desalination and to launch aircraft and generate electricity.
What interests me about the following links is that I believe that my interest in engineering and physics might help me to demonstrate a common variable. If you search Natural Climate Variation, you'll probably see where I mention it every once in a while. An example, I did the search for you.;
https://www.climate-debate.com/find.php?cx=014370074460522535164%3Arfplzmdzgbu&cof=FORID%3A11&q=natural+climate+variation&stype=f

Are you aware of the Little Ice Age
https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

The Medieval Warm Period
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

The Dark Ages Cold Period
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617693898

or the Roman Warm Period
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/

Do you see a pattern here? I am asking for a friend

With that said, would you like to discuss ODSs? Maybe how the layers of our slightly upper atmosphere (up to the stratosphere) work?

p.s., What is frustrating Tim is that people like you and Duncan are willing to attack me for what I never said. And at the same time you'll tell me that you know what you're talking about. Neither of you can show 1 time where I said CO2
but you keep saying I said it.

Tim the plumber wrote:
How do Americans, well all people who were educated in imperial measurements, get SI units sooooo wrong? You can't have Kg/cm2 as a unit of pressure!!!

James___ wrote:
This is a graph that Duncan said is wrong. What's missing? Harvey, can you tell us what's missing in this graph? I want to "see" if you're observant. Your friend Duncan can help you. It's rather obvious.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/94YRkHS9SAVg7dzh6

James___ wrote: What year did global warming start?

James___ wrote: What year did CO2 levels start to rise?

James___ wrote: Those are the same year, I'll give you guys a hint. It's 1950. According to sea levels, how much did they rise between 1950 and 1995?

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
How do Americans, well all people who were educated in imperial measurements, get SI units sooooo wrong? You can't have Kg/cm2 as a unit of pressure!!!

It can be used. I prefer it because it easily translates into SAE. 14.7 psi = 1.033 kgf/cm^2. Most Americans know that 1 kg = 2.204 lbs. So from the American perspective, kgf/cm^2 makes more sense.
https://www.sensorsone.com/kgcm2-kilogram-per-square-centimetre-pressure-unit/

From now on I'll use only SAE such as gravity's force is 32.185 ft/s. No need to say 9.81 m/s, right? And it's a yard and not a meter, okay? Even a mile and not a kilometer. And pressure is measured in psi, no need for metric when there is SAE. Problem solved. I lived in Norway before I started school. Americans felt the same way about my talking differently.

@Harvey and Duncan, please explain what is missing from the sea level graph.

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
This is a graph that Duncan said is wrong. What's missing? Harvey, can you tell us what's missing in this graph? I want to "see" if you're observant. Your friend Duncan can help you. It's rather obvious.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/94YRkHS9SAVg7dzh6

I'll give you guys the answer by asking you guys some questions.
What year did global warming start?
What year did CO2 levels start to rise?
Those are the same year, I'll give you guys a hint. It's 1950.
According to sea levels, how much did they rise between 1950 and 1995?

You have to figure out that answer for yourselves. I can't give it to you.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:
This is a graph that Duncan said is wrong. What's missing? Harvey, can you tell us what's missing in this graph? I want to "see" if you're observant. Your friend Duncan can help you. It's rather obvious.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/94YRkHS9SAVg7dzh6

I'll give you guys the answer by asking you guys some questions.
What year did global warming start?
What year did CO2 levels start to rise?
Those are the same year, I'll give you guys a hint. It's 1950.
According to sea levels, how much did they rise between 1950 and 1995?

You have to figure out that answer for yourselves. I can't give it to you.

How could they know CO2 levels in 1950, when Mauna Loa monitoring station was built in 1959?

I personally can't imagine how it's possible to measure sea level. They are huge bodies of liquid, sloshing around all the time. Tide is in constant change from high to low. The max and min. aren't even the same, one day to the next. Water is added and removed from the seas, constantly, it evaporates, it rains, ice melts, cruise ships purge their crap tanks. Water gets displaced, by all the garbage dumped. The size/shape of the container changes... Basically, you could make up any numbers you like for sea level rise, and they would still have no value. Climate change is bullshit. It's a very dynamic world, everything they try to track and measure, are static, but treated as if they aren't in constant motion. If you want to track rising temperature, you just keep adding monitoring stations in the warmer climates (tropics), and go with an average.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
How do Americans, well all people who were educated in imperial measurements, get SI units sooooo wrong? You can't have Kg/cm2 as a unit of pressure!!!

It can be used. I prefer it because it easily translates into SAE. 14.7 psi = 1.033 kgf/cm^2. Most Americans know that 1 kg = 2.204 lbs. So from the American perspective, kgf/cm^2 makes more sense.
https://www.sensorsone.com/kgcm2-kilogram-per-square-centimetre-pressure-unit/

From now on I'll use only SAE such as gravity's force is 32.185 ft/s. No need to say 9.81 m/s, right? And it's a yard and not a meter, okay? Even a mile and not a kilometer. And pressure is measured in psi, no need for metric when there is SAE. Problem solved. I lived in Norway before I started school. Americans felt the same way about my talking differently.

@Harvey and Duncan, please explain what is missing from the sea level graph.

Hey, feel free to use whatever units you like

. I just get the "Arrgh!!!s" when I see such things a Kgf. The scientific training you get in any place where you use SI this is heresy! Just making life much harder than it should be. Kilogramms are a unit of mass not force. Force is in Newtons.

The degree of utter confusion and brain twist that confusing units creates is massive. As a plumber I have been on gas courses. They do the same sort of thing with converting the units they have now into imperial then doing the crazy sum then converting back. When I do it in my head in a couple of seconds they are amazed. SI units make it all easy to work out. That's what they were invented for.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
How do Americans, well all people who were educated in imperial measurements, get SI units sooooo wrong? You can't have Kg/cm2 as a unit of pressure!!!

It can be used. I prefer it because it easily translates into SAE. 14.7 psi = 1.033 kgf/cm^2. Most Americans know that 1 kg = 2.204 lbs. So from the American perspective, kgf/cm^2 makes more sense.
https://www.sensorsone.com/kgcm2-kilogram-per-square-centimetre-pressure-unit/

From now on I'll use only SAE such as gravity's force is 32.185 ft/s. No need to say 9.81 m/s, right? And it's a yard and not a meter, okay? Even a mile and not a kilometer. And pressure is measured in psi, no need for metric when there is SAE. Problem solved. I lived in Norway before I started school. Americans felt the same way about my talking differently.

@Harvey and Duncan, please explain what is missing from the sea level graph.

Hey, feel free to use whatever units you like

. I just get the "Arrgh!!!s" when I see such things a Kgf. The scientific training you get in any place where you use SI this is heresy! Just making life much harder than it should be. Kilogramms are a unit of mass not force. Force is in Newtons.

The degree of utter confusion and brain twist that confusing units creates is massive. As a plumber I have been on gas courses. They do the same sort of thing with converting the units they have now into imperial then doing the crazy sum then converting back. When I do it in my head in a couple of seconds they are amazed. SI units make it all easy to work out. That's what they were invented for.

kPa = 1 newton meter. Why didn't they just use 9.8 newton meters/m^2 as 1 pascal? Basing a system on 9.8 is no different than the SAE using systems of 12 and 16 which is what IMHO helped to inspire the metric system because it's based on the number 10 like the decimal system everyone uses.

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
1 Pascal is equal to the pressure of 1 newton per square meter. 1 Pa = 1 N / m2 ≡ 1 kg / m · s2.

This is where if pascals are divided by 9.8 then it's equivalent in kg is found or if divided by .098 then it's equivalent in grams is found. Pascals is an abstract term like Hg which is inches of mercury which is based on the mass/weight of mercury itself. And this means when I use kgf, I am using the metric system which was meant to be an international standard and now there is a new standard.
Couldn't they have just said that 1 kgf/m^2 = 1 pascal? That would've avoided using a system not based on 10.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
How do Americans, well all people who were educated in imperial measurements, get SI units sooooo wrong? You can't have Kg/cm2 as a unit of pressure!!!

It can be used. I prefer it because it easily translates into SAE. 14.7 psi = 1.033 kgf/cm^2. Most Americans know that 1 kg = 2.204 lbs. So from the American perspective, kgf/cm^2 makes more sense.
https://www.sensorsone.com/kgcm2-kilogram-per-square-centimetre-pressure-unit/

From now on I'll use only SAE such as gravity's force is 32.185 ft/s. No need to say 9.81 m/s, right? And it's a yard and not a meter, okay? Even a mile and not a kilometer. And pressure is measured in psi, no need for metric when there is SAE. Problem solved. I lived in Norway before I started school. Americans felt the same way about my talking differently.

@Harvey and Duncan, please explain what is missing from the sea level graph.

Hey, feel free to use whatever units you like

. I just get the "Arrgh!!!s" when I see such things a Kgf. The scientific training you get in any place where you use SI this is heresy! Just making life much harder than it should be. Kilogramms are a unit of mass not force. Force is in Newtons.

The degree of utter confusion and brain twist that confusing units creates is massive. As a plumber I have been on gas courses. They do the same sort of thing with converting the units they have now into imperial then doing the crazy sum then converting back. When I do it in my head in a couple of seconds they are amazed. SI units make it all easy to work out. That's what they were invented for.

kPa = 1 newton meter. Why didn't they just use 9.8 newton meters/m^2 as 1 pascal? Basing a system on 9.8 is no different than the SAE using systems of 12 and 16 which is what IMHO helped to inspire the metric system because it's based on the number 10 like the decimal system everyone uses.

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
1 Pascal is equal to the pressure of 1 newton per square meter. 1 Pa = 1 N / m2 ≡ 1 kg / m · s2.

This is where if pascals are divided by 9.8 then it's equivalent in kg is found or if divided by .098 then it's equivalent in grams is found. Pascals is an abstract term like Hg which is inches of mercury which is based on the mass/weight of mercury itself. And this means when I use kgf, I am using the metric system which was meant to be an international standard and now there is a new standard.
Couldn't they have just said that 1 kgf/m^2 = 1 pascal? That would've avoided using a system not based on 10.

1Pa is one Nm2

No 9.8 anywhere in SI. 9.8 is simply the measured acceleration of gravity/

100,000 Pa is a BAR, which happens to be about 1 atmosphere, that is the same as normal air pressure.

A Newton is a Newton. If you weigh a kilogram, a kg, you will find that it weighs 9.8Neutons. That is the force it pushes down on the earth is 1 kg x 9.8 m/s = force of 1 kg on the earth. Although this will vary a bit depending on where you are in the world.

They aimed for the acceleration due to gravity to be 10 but the place they did the thing first is a university half way between Paris and the place on the earth with the highest gravity in the world. Massive iron ore deposit a couple of hundred meters below the surface. Too deep for economical extraction.

Having this lbs(f) thing is just plain mad for anybody who is used to SI. All those equasions in physics like F=ma or KE = (mv^2)/2 (half m v squared) just work with no need to have any fiddle factors or odd weird units. All the units just come out of the maths. The energy of kinetic energy is in joules, The energy in heat is in joules. The energy in potential energy due to the height of an object released when it drops in in joules. The heat that energy goes into when it hits the floor is in joules. None of those things need any fiddle factors in them.

Imperial units I use when I am measuring a length of pipe if I need it to be about so long. Imperial units are sort of human friendly. They are fu[color=navy]cking useless for doing any sort of physics though. Even areas get messy. The moment you need to do a sum switch to SI.[/color]

The air around you has weight, and it presses against everything it touches. That pressure is called atmospheric pressure, or air pressure. It is the force exerted on a surface by the air above it as gravity pulls it to Earth.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atmospheric-pressure/

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
How do Americans, well all people who were educated in imperial measurements, get SI units sooooo wrong? You can't have Kg/cm2 as a unit of pressure!!!

It can be used. I prefer it because it easily translates into SAE. 14.7 psi = 1.033 kgf/cm^2. Most Americans know that 1 kg = 2.204 lbs. So from the American perspective, kgf/cm^2 makes more sense.
https://www.sensorsone.com/kgcm2-kilogram-per-square-centimetre-pressure-unit/

From now on I'll use only SAE such as gravity's force is 32.185 ft/s. No need to say 9.81 m/s, right? And it's a yard and not a meter, okay? Even a mile and not a kilometer. And pressure is measured in psi, no need for metric when there is SAE. Problem solved. I lived in Norway before I started school. Americans felt the same way about my talking differently.

@Harvey and Duncan, please explain what is missing from the sea level graph.

Hey, feel free to use whatever units you like

. I just get the "Arrgh!!!s" when I see such things a Kgf. The scientific training you get in any place where you use SI this is heresy! Just making life much harder than it should be. Kilogramms are a unit of mass not force. Force is in Newtons.

The degree of utter confusion and brain twist that confusing units creates is massive. As a plumber I have been on gas courses. They do the same sort of thing with converting the units they have now into imperial then doing the crazy sum then converting back. When I do it in my head in a couple of seconds they are amazed. SI units make it all easy to work out. That's what they were invented for.

kPa = 1 newton meter. Why didn't they just use 9.8 newton meters/m^2 as 1 pascal? Basing a system on 9.8 is no different than the SAE using systems of 12 and 16 which is what IMHO helped to inspire the metric system because it's based on the number 10 like the decimal system everyone uses.

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
1 Pascal is equal to the pressure of 1 newton per square meter. 1 Pa = 1 N / m2 ≡ 1 kg / m · s2.

This is where if pascals are divided by 9.8 then it's equivalent in kg is found or if divided by .098 then it's equivalent in grams is found. Pascals is an abstract term like Hg which is inches of mercury which is based on the mass/weight of mercury itself. And this means when I use kgf, I am using the metric system which was meant to be an international standard and now there is a new standard.
Couldn't they have just said that 1 kgf/m^2 = 1 pascal? That would've avoided using a system not based on 10.

1Pa is one Nm2

No 9.8 anywhere in SI. 9.8 is simply the measured acceleration of gravity/

100,000 Pa is a BAR, which happens to be about 1 atmosphere, that is the same as normal air pressure.

A Newton is a Newton. If you weigh a kilogram, a kg, you will find that it weighs 9.8Neutons. That is the force it pushes down on the earth is 1 kg x 9.8 m/s = force of 1 kg on the earth. Although this will vary a bit depending on where you are in the world.

They aimed for the acceleration due to gravity to be 10 but the place they did the thing first is a university half way between Paris and the place on the earth with the highest gravity in the world. Massive iron ore deposit a couple of hundred meters below the surface. Too deep for economical extraction.

Having this lbs(f) thing is just plain mad for anybody who is used to SI. All those equasions in physics like F=ma or KE = (mv^2)/2 (half m v squared) just work with no need to have any fiddle factors or odd weird units. All the units just come out of the maths. The energy of kinetic energy is in joules, The energy in heat is in joules. The energy in potential energy due to the height of an object released when it drops in in joules. The heat that energy goes into when it hits the floor is in joules. None of those things need any fiddle factors in them.

Imperial units I use when I am measuring a length of pipe if I need it to be about so long. Imperial units are sort of human friendly. They are fu[color=navy]cking useless for doing any sort of physics though. Even areas get messy. The moment you need to do a sum switch to SI.[/color]

I think with Americans, most items at the store are in 12 oz or 1 lb containers.
And we measure about everything in 12 inches, ie., rulers are 12 inches long. Values people are used to be exposed to on a daily basis.
If you look at our 2 litre bottle of soda, it's 67.xx ounces. 1/2 kg, 500 grams. It's weight is listed as ounces. A lot of it might be conditioning just from everyday things we use.
I have a German historical project that I'm working on and I use both SAE and metric. I calculate torque in in/lbs, f = ma and p = mv in metric. This is where learning precalculus and calculus helps me to simply things.
I also have 2 atmospheric chemistry and physics that I am pursuing. Both of those are using the metric system. The first one will actually consider how we came to understand what atmospheric air pressure is. I've read a lot of books and what they say online about atmospheric air pressure is wrong. I actually hope to demonstrate the science behind it.
With me, as a joke I might sue the US Navy. When I enlisted they said that it wasn't a job, but that it was an adventure. The "adventure" should have ended upon my discharge. working with systems that used both vacuum and pressure piqued my interest.
And the link is to why atmospheric air pressure is a unit of pressure defined as 101,325 Pa (1,013.25 hPa; 1,013.25 mbar), which is equivalent to 760 mm Hg, 29.9212 inches Hg, or 14.696 psi.

The air around you has weight, and it presses against everything it touches. That pressure is called atmospheric pressure, or air pressure. It is the force exerted on a surface by the air above it as gravity pulls it to Earth.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atmospheric-pressure/

I disagree with that. BTW, what it seems everyone missed with the sea level graph. As our planet warms, glaciers should melt increasing the sea level. The Arctic is warming 4 times faster than the temperate climatic region of the northern hemisphere which is warming twice as fast as the temperate climatic region of the southern hemisphere.
Basically, does it take 45 years for the oceans sea levels to balance out? Up to about 1950 the graph shown agreed with global warming in which CO2 levels rose by 10 or 20 ppm. I don't think they can (want to?) discuss this because then they'd have to consider mass displacement and sea levels in other parts of the world.

Tim the plumber wrote:

To get a single 1mm rise in sea level you need 361 Gt of land ice to melt. That is 361 cubic kilometers, well a little more but close enough. [/color]

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

To get a single 1mm rise in sea level you need 361 Gt of land ice to melt. That is 361 cubic kilometers, well a little more but close enough. [/color]

Why I mentioned the graph about sea level. It agreed until about 1950 with global warming. Harvey and Duncan missed that and basically everyone else.

Also, air pressure is not based on air pressure. Easy enough to understand if you know the history of science. But it seems people don't know anything before
WW II. I think that's when real science was last accomplished. After that, it became commercialized.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

To get a single 1mm rise in sea level you need 361 Gt of land ice to melt. That is 361 cubic kilometers, well a little more but close enough. [/color]

Why I mentioned the graph about sea level. It agreed until about 1950 with global warming. Harvey and Duncan missed that and basically everyone else.

Also, air pressure is not based on air pressure. Easy enough to understand if you know the history of science. But it seems people don't know anything before
WW II. I think that's when real science was last accomplished. After that, it became commercialized.

Well that has lost me.

I can measure air pressure, using either mercury or water. Mecury is easier if you can get it but water will do, just need a 34 foot height to work with.