Remember me
▼ Content

sea levels



Page 1 of 212>
sea levels13-03-2020 13:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
Hi guys been away but now I am back.I have been measuring the sea levels locally mainly Fremantle harbour and areas of tidal Swan river.If they sea was 200mm higher as is claimed on the high tides it would flood the left bank and the freeway at South Perth would go under.
.Is this 200mm gain all the time or does it go away when I am not looking because the water marks on the rocks are still the same?
.Anyone that makes this claim of sea level rise should really go have a look for themselves before believing satellite data,heard a rumour a fair few are losing there orbit.Oops
.I am aware I am taking a simple view to the AGW/CC debate but if its already happening why is the sea is not rising.Why is it happening to someone else and not me.I feel ripped off.I want my share might go start a bushfire
13-03-2020 18:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Satellites can't track it to this accuracy anyway. They have no valid reference point. Land moves, you see. It even has a 'tide'.

Your local measurements compared to your own reference point on your bit of land is about as accurate as anyone is gong to get, and that's only good for that point. It is not possible to measure a global sea level.
Edited on 13-03-2020 18:33
13-03-2020 20:16
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
ITN, a question about tides. When the land or water is moving due to tides it causes friction and eventually heat. Does moon and earth lose some kinetic and rotational energy in this process and does it mean the moon could eventually collapse on earth?
13-03-2020 20:19
allecnarf
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
What you have to appreciate is that we live on the crust of a molten sphere. That crust moves. At a single location it is very difficult to determine if the ocean is rising or the land is sinking. In recent years we are able to calculate ocean rise using satellite data, but before that we had to average all the tidal data that was available. At the onset of using satellite data there was relatively good agreement between these 2 methods, but I cannot attest to that now.

J.A. Coutts
13-03-2020 20:43
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Rather than totally relying on measurements, rely on scientific principles.
For example, water expands when it gets warmer. That's how it is now with the oceans.
Also, greenhouse gasses slow down the flow of thermal energy which results in temps going up, regardless of how accurate out sensors are.
13-03-2020 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, a question about tides. When the land or water is moving due to tides it causes friction and eventually heat. Does moon and earth lose some kinetic and rotational energy in this process and does it mean the moon could eventually collapse on earth?

No, it means the Moon is gaining kinetic energy from the larger Earth. As a result, it is moving further away, a very tiny bit each year. This can be measured by experiments left on the Moon by the astronauts that measure the time it takes for light to travel between Earth and the Moon and back.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-03-2020 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
allecnarf wrote:
What you have to appreciate is that we live on the crust of a molten sphere. That crust moves. At a single location it is very difficult to determine if the ocean is rising or the land is sinking. In recent years we are able to calculate ocean rise using satellite data, but before that we had to average all the tidal data that was available. At the onset of using satellite data there was relatively good agreement between these 2 methods, but I cannot attest to that now.

J.A. Coutts


Neither is capable of indicating a global sea level. The satellites, you see, vary in altitude somewhat as they orbit the Earth (different density of masses the satellite passes over changes its orbit slightly). While satellites can and do reference their altitudes against a land based station (located on Boulder, CO), that station too is on land that is moving.

So satellites are no better at measuring sea level than a tidal station.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-03-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Rather than totally relying on measurements, rely on scientific principles.

You deny science and mathematics.
keepit wrote:
For example, water expands when it gets warmer. That's how it is now with the oceans.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean. You are making up numbers.
keepit wrote:
Also, greenhouse gasses slow down the flow of thermal energy which results in temps going up, regardless of how accurate out sensors are.

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap light. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-03-2020 21:58
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, a question about tides. When the land or water is moving due to tides it causes friction and eventually heat. Does moon and earth lose some kinetic and rotational energy in this process and does it mean the moon could eventually collapse on earth?

No, it means the Moon is gaining kinetic energy from the larger Earth. As a result, it is moving further away, a very tiny bit each year. This can be measured by experiments left on the Moon by the astronauts that measure the time it takes for light to travel between Earth and the Moon and back.


As much as I understand this process does not go on forever. Eventually the moon is locked tidally to the earth and from that point it starts to get closer to the earth and eventually it collapses to the earth.
13-03-2020 23:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, a question about tides. When the land or water is moving due to tides it causes friction and eventually heat. Does moon and earth lose some kinetic and rotational energy in this process and does it mean the moon could eventually collapse on earth?

No, it means the Moon is gaining kinetic energy from the larger Earth. As a result, it is moving further away, a very tiny bit each year. This can be measured by experiments left on the Moon by the astronauts that measure the time it takes for light to travel between Earth and the Moon and back.


As much as I understand this process does not go on forever. Eventually the moon is locked tidally to the earth and from that point it starts to get closer to the earth and eventually it collapses to the earth.


No, at that point the Moon stays in a stable orbit. There will be only one tide on Earth, and no further changes in the orbit of the Moon will take place.

All of this is rather irrelevant, however. Before the Moon reaches such a stable orbit, the Sun will have become a red giant and engulfed the Earth and the Moon, vaporizing them.

We have a while before that happens though!



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2020 00:43
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, a question about tides. When the land or water is moving due to tides it causes friction and eventually heat. Does moon and earth lose some kinetic and rotational energy in this process and does it mean the moon could eventually collapse on earth?

No, it means the Moon is gaining kinetic energy from the larger Earth. As a result, it is moving further away, a very tiny bit each year. This can be measured by experiments left on the Moon by the astronauts that measure the time it takes for light to travel between Earth and the Moon and back.


As much as I understand this process does not go on forever. Eventually the moon is locked tidally to the earth and from that point it starts to get closer to the earth and eventually it collapses to the earth.


No, at that point the Moon stays in a stable orbit. There will be only one tide on Earth, and no further changes in the orbit of the Moon will take place.

All of this is rather irrelevant, however. Before the Moon reaches such a stable orbit, the Sun will have become a red giant and engulfed the Earth and the Moon, vaporizing them.

We have a while before that happens though!



I think there still is some tidal friction because water will move out of ideal position for example because of weather or for example some giant volcano erupts . So there is a friction and heat due to tide and that energy must come from somewhere. The moon will start to come closer to the earth and it eventually collapses to earth. As you said the sun will become red giant before all of this but this is just a theoretical thought what would happen to moon and earth eventually if the sun would not turn into red giant.
14-03-2020 01:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
ITN, a question about tides. When the land or water is moving due to tides it causes friction and eventually heat. Does moon and earth lose some kinetic and rotational energy in this process and does it mean the moon could eventually collapse on earth?

No, it means the Moon is gaining kinetic energy from the larger Earth. As a result, it is moving further away, a very tiny bit each year. This can be measured by experiments left on the Moon by the astronauts that measure the time it takes for light to travel between Earth and the Moon and back.


As much as I understand this process does not go on forever. Eventually the moon is locked tidally to the earth and from that point it starts to get closer to the earth and eventually it collapses to the earth.


No, at that point the Moon stays in a stable orbit. There will be only one tide on Earth, and no further changes in the orbit of the Moon will take place.

All of this is rather irrelevant, however. Before the Moon reaches such a stable orbit, the Sun will have become a red giant and engulfed the Earth and the Moon, vaporizing them.

We have a while before that happens though!



I think there still is some tidal friction because water will move out of ideal position for example because of weather or for example some giant volcano erupts . So there is a friction and heat due to tide and that energy must come from somewhere.

Weather is driven by the Sun. That is energy. Volcanoes are driven by the interior of the Earth. That is energy.
Xadoman wrote:
The moon will start to come closer to the earth and it eventually collapses to earth.

Nope. It never would.
Xadoman wrote:
As you said the sun will become red giant before all of this but this is just a theoretical thought what would happen to moon and earth eventually if the sun would not turn into red giant.

Of course. The Moon will simply reach a stable orbit and stay there. At that time, it's orbital period will be approximately 47 of our current days. Our day will also length, to become 47 times the current day. Thus, the Moon will stay in the same spot in the sky, just as Earth stays in the same spot in the sky when standing on the Moon.

There will be no more tides either. The Earth and the Moon will remain tidally locked to each other.

This has already happened with Pluto and it's moon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2020 01:47
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Weather is driven by the Sun. That is energy. Volcanoes are driven by the interior of the Earth. That is energy.


This energy moves water or land out of ideal tidal position. For example with water the tidal forces cause a bulge. Without tidal forces there would not be such a bulge. Lets say due to weather or smth the bulge is somewhat flattened( out of ideal position) Tidal forces will move the water or land back to ideal tidal position. There is friction( causes heat ) in this process and that energy must come from somewhere. The moon will start to get closer to the earth and eventually collapses onto the earth( assuming sun will not turn into red giant )
Edited on 14-03-2020 01:49
14-03-2020 03:25
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
Rather than totally relying on measurements, rely on scientific principles.Keepit
Now I know you are teasing.The sea is not warmer it is 23.6 deg C at Trigg beach right now in May it will be 20 deg C like always.Xadoman why you all hijacking my thread bro.Can you explain this tidal friction to me.Are you suggesting that tidal movement creates warming.The bay of Fundy has massive tides I doubt its warming anything.Get a hose pipe and a pump and push the water in a closed environment at high speed for an hour.I doubt there will be an increase in water temp
14-03-2020 03:51
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
ITN can you tell me what RQAA and all the other stuff means and what the mantra stuff is all about.I worked with a rocket scientist making scones at a tourist resort.I poop you not and he explained to me how satellites work.If they are sent a long way out to orbit they can stay there till they stop working however if their orbit is closer to the Earth they need to be boosted out near the equator as the Earths gravitational pull will diminish the orbit.Hills and mountains do not matter.What surprised me was there was no allowance for them crashing in to each other as the chances of something the size of a car banging in to each other in space is extremely unlikely.I was a boy when Skylab fell to earth in 1979 near Esperance.They got lucky as no one had control where it would crash
14-03-2020 03:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
duncan61 wrote:Can you explain this tidal friction to me.Are you suggesting that tidal movement creates warming.


Duncan, the Climate Change term you seek is "Stadium Wave" and very simply explains this phenomenon. It is found in The MANUAL:

Stadium Wave: noun
A Global Warming edict, written in an unintelligible tongue speculated to be a Latin derivative, issued by Oracle from the Climate Change "Holy Sea" known as the IPCC prophesying and explaining the current multi-decade hiaitus of Global Warming mythology.

The Stadium Wave Prophecy:

"A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data. The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics. The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic's freshwater balance. Earth's rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere."

Note on the Stadium Wave Prophesy: Scientists are already working on translating this beautiful and mysterious language.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
14-03-2020 05:21
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
I have read the Manual from start to finish and I like it.Well done.I am hoping to have answers in debate with others and I am acquiring a few.example my client claimed CO2 was like a blanket and I was not ready to answer that the blanket works on a person in contact but if the blanket is 6 feet above the person it will not do anything.I need more of this stuff.If the sea ever goes up I will convert to the church of global warming but absolutely no human on the planet can physically show me where it has happened.The golf course in England was built on reclaimed marsh land and the naval base at Norfolk has always flooded on the spring tide.I have no interest in line drawings of what could happen.Any warmazombies can take a selfie and I will convert to your faith
14-03-2020 05:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
duncan61 wrote:.example my client claimed CO2 was like a blanket

That's when you mention that a human in a blanket is his own heat source, i.e. that the analogy would be apropriate if you were talking about wrapping the sun in a blanket.

Since the earth is not it's own heat source, a better analogy would be to wrap a rock in a blanket ... and then ask when the rock's temperature increases.


duncan61 wrote: If the sea ever goes up I will convert to the church of global warming but absolutely no human on the planet can physically show me where it has happened.

... and the reason no human can show you is that the sea hasn't risen to any perceptible extent.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
14-03-2020 07:33
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
someone is seriously trying to kill you!!!

Hey richard, do you b'liv this guy????

I mean. People in this hood are into some real stuff, if I'm not mistaken.

yu gotta know two things that keep youselves safe from all ALL kinds of trouble.


The National Insurance Group Niggs and Me, Irene.

i'm a girl.
14-03-2020 10:53
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Xadoman why you all hijacking my thread bro.Can you explain this tidal friction to me.Are you suggesting that tidal movement creates warming.The bay of Fundy has massive tides I doubt its warming anything.


Sorry did not ment to hijack the thread. With every moving if there is friction there is going to be heat. For example the wheel bearing of the car heats up during driving. This friction eventually eats up all the kinetic energy a body has. If you take out the gear and let the car roll free then it is going to stop soon because of the friction. The kinetic energy transforms to heat. I also thinked about the tidal forces in my example and I think ITN is right that this friction does not cause loosing the kinetic energy of the moon and earth. It is just like rising the stone into the air and letting it fall. The earth does not loose kinetic energy in this process. But I am pretty sure that vacuum is not perfect and has small particles and debris and that causes a drag to the moon and therefore the moon will slow down bit by bit and eventually it would collapse with earth.
14-03-2020 18:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Weather is driven by the Sun. That is energy. Volcanoes are driven by the interior of the Earth. That is energy.


This energy moves water or land out of ideal tidal position. For example with water the tidal forces cause a bulge. Without tidal forces there would not be such a bulge. Lets say due to weather or smth the bulge is somewhat flattened( out of ideal position) Tidal forces will move the water or land back to ideal tidal position. There is friction( causes heat ) in this process and that energy must come from somewhere. The moon will start to get closer to the earth and eventually collapses onto the earth( assuming sun will not turn into red giant )


Currently the energy for the tides comes from the rotational inertia of Earth, not the Moon. As a result, the Earth's days are getting just very slightly longer. The Moon gains energy and moves further away also. Eventually the two will be tidally locked as I've described, in about 50 billion years or so. Of course the Sun will turn into a red giant in only about 6-7 billion years.

Don't think you have to worry too much about either of these events in your lifetime.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2020 18:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
duncan61 wrote:
Rather than totally relying on measurements, rely on scientific principles.Keepit
Now I know you are teasing.The sea is not warmer it is 23.6 deg C at Trigg beach right now in May it will be 20 deg C like always.Xadoman why you all hijacking my thread bro.Can you explain this tidal friction to me.Are you suggesting that tidal movement creates warming.The bay of Fundy has massive tides I doubt its warming anything.Get a hose pipe and a pump and push the water in a closed environment at high speed for an hour.I doubt there will be an increase in water temp


There will be a tiny amount. Water and pipes follow Ohm's law, just as wires and electrons do. Just as in a wire, no hose or pipe is 100% efficient at handling the flow. There is friction on the walls. In both cases, this provides resistance to the flow. Where there is current, and where there is pressure, and where there is resistance, there will be heating there.

Every brook, river, stream, hose, pipe, etc. generates a bit of heat. Some of that heat goes into the walls of the pipe itself, some goes into the water. Water, though, takes a lot of heat to change its temperature by one degree. The amount of heating involved here is not zero, but it's not enough to register on anything but the most sensitive of thermometers.

This of course means every ocean wave that crashes upon the shore also generates a tiny bit of heat. Tides will also, but not as much as what I've described, since water is a fluid. It can flow around itself without much friction at all. It isn't zero, but for all practical purposes it can be considered a zero.

All of the energy to move water around comes from the Sun and Earth's rotational inertia.
None of it comes from the Moon, though where the Moon is in relation to Earth's surface gives the timing for our tides.

The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth. They orbit each other. That center of orbit is about 2900 miles from the center of the Earth (inside Earth). This point is called the barycenter of that orbit. It is one reason why gravity on Earth's surface (or just above it, like in a satellite orbit) is not consistent or uniform. The result of this inconsistency is tides, two per day as Earth rotates beneath the imbalanced forces affecting it's surface.

As the Moon moves further away, it is stealing energy from the Earth. Like a brake, Earth's rotational energy slows down. Earth's day becomes just a bit longer. Eventually, the Moon will reach an orbit that is slow enough to stay in the same spot in the sky, just as Earth's rotational speed reaches a point slow enough to match it. At that point, there is no more the Moon can steal from Earth, and there will be no more tides. Earth's day will be 47 times longer than what it is now, and the Moon will take 47 of our current days to make one orbit. In other words, the Moon will orbit at the same period as our single day; both 47 days longer than our day length is now.

The two remain tidally locked like this, forever (except the Sun of course will destroy Earth and the Moon long before this happens).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2020 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN can you tell me what RQAA and all the other stuff means and what the mantra stuff is all about.

Both are the result of the repetitive fallacies that are made by the religious faithful of the Church of Global Warming (and other Democrats and socialists).

RQAA simply means a Repetitive Question Already Answered.
You will sometimes see another: YALSA (Yet Another Lame Sock Accusation), used by those who are losing arguments. They have nothing else to present, and they begin to turn to insults and accusations.

The arguments they make as likewise repetitive and based on various fallacies, so I simply refer to them by number. You can see the complete list [url=http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/134
]here.[/url]

duncan61 wrote:
I worked with a rocket scientist making scones at a tourist resort.I poop you not and he explained to me how satellites work.If they are sent a long way out to orbit they can stay there till they stop working however if their orbit is closer to the Earth they need to be boosted out near the equator as the Earths gravitational pull will diminish the orbit.

Understandable, since Earth isn't quite perfectly round (it's slightly fat).
duncan61 wrote:
Hills and mountains do not matter.

They actually do. So does passing over oceans as opposed to land. So does passing over ice as opposed to water. So do the positions of each tectonic plate as they move about. These differences are tiny, and they average out so you can keep a satellite in a stable orbit until it dies, but the satellites altitude away from Earth will vary just a bit as well. It is possible to put a satellite in geostationary orbit to minimize this, but even they are affected by moving material underneath them. Remember gravity is proportional to mass. Less dense material has less mass in a given volume.

duncan61 wrote:
What surprised me was there was no allowance for them crashing in to each other as the chances of something the size of a car banging in to each other in space is extremely unlikely.

Quite true. There is very little up there to begin with, and it's all moving the same direction (toward the east), since it's a lot easier to fling a satellite off the Earth favoring the natural spin of the Earth. The only difference is how much north/south component in an orbit we give it, and the altitude of that orbit.
duncan61 wrote:
I was a boy when Skylab fell to earth in 1979 near Esperance.

I remember when that thing fell out of the sky. It was placed in a lower orbit, just outside the atmosphere of Earth. Solar activity enlarged the atmosphere enough to create a drag on the ship, causing it to lose energy and fall to Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
They got lucky as no one had control where it would crash

Quite true. Fortunately, most of the area of Earth is unpopulated. The burn up did create a lot of pieces though, large enough to reach the surface.

It's amazing where you can find a rocket scientist!



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2020 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
duncan61 wrote:
I have read the Manual from start to finish and I like it.Well done.

I too find it wonderfully done. The Manual started here, in a thread called The Wordsmith. I started this thread specifying it was a place to define words, but the source of those definitions had to be declared and it couldn't be a dictionary (since dictionaries don't define words). In other words, I was looking for the etymology of the word.

The result was definitions for 'climate change' and 'global warming' using mythological forms, and the source given was the Church of Global Warming. No one from the Church of Global Warming could offer any other definition, so these stuck.

That idea of such a thread opened up on other forums and others contributed other definitions. The combined result you see is The Manual. To date, no one from the Church of Global Warming can offer any other definition for these words.
duncan61 wrote:
I am hoping to have answers in debate with others and I am acquiring a few.

Excellent. Stick around. You may very well acquire a few more!
duncan61 wrote:
example my client claimed CO2 was like a blanket and I was not ready to answer that the blanket works on a person in contact but if the blanket is 6 feet above the person it will not do anything.

I call this the Magick Blanket argument. It's commonly used by the Church of Global Warming.
As you noted, they completely fail to consider the source of heat is the human body itself in that case. They make the same mistake when they talk about house insulation and furnaces in the house. They are actually trying to argue a 'proof' that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Failing this, they will often turn to that other argument, which I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, where they deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Here, they actually try to argue that a colder gas in the atmosphere can warm the warmer surface of the Earth...that heat flows from cold to hot.

tmiddles in basing most of his arguments on this, substituting 'energy' for 'heat' to dodge what he is trying to do, but it is the same argument.

duncan61 wrote:
I need more of this stuff.

Stick around. You will see pretty much every kind of violation of physics by the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green presented here.
duncan61 wrote:
If the sea ever goes up I will convert to the church of global warming but absolutely no human on the planet can physically show me where it has happened. The golf course in England was built on reclaimed marsh land and the naval base at Norfolk has always flooded on the spring tide.I have no interest in line drawings of what could happen.Any warmazombies can take a selfie and I will convert to your faith

The usual examples they use are Venice, Italy, where the river is silting up and flooding the town, or the Louisiana Bayou, where the same thing is happening. Both areas are also sitting on sinking land.

They also point to the tidal stations along the southern coast of the U.S., which are recording higher tides than they used to. They too are sitting on sinking land. The entire North American plate is tilting towards the South. Since there are fewer tidal stations along the northern edge of this plate (which are showing lower tides than before), they just average 'em all together and call it 'sea rise'. Obviously, statistical math does not allow the use of biased data like this.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2020 19:51
Amanbir GrewalProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
so you mean like BIG SCIENCE?? or BiGGER?


why am i breaking down when i know everything there is to know....

i know everything!!!

yes!



now.....
14-03-2020 20:16
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
If they are sent a long way out to orbit they can stay there till they stop working however if their orbit is closer to the Earth they need to be boosted out near the equator as the Earths gravitational pull will diminish the orbit.


Atmospheric drag diminishes the orbit. The vacuum is not completely empty. Eventually they all fall to the earth, but it could take millions or billions of years.
14-03-2020 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
If they are sent a long way out to orbit they can stay there till they stop working however if their orbit is closer to the Earth they need to be boosted out near the equator as the Earths gravitational pull will diminish the orbit.


Atmospheric drag diminishes the orbit. The vacuum is not completely empty. Eventually they all fall to the earth, but it could take millions or billions of years.

Material in space doesn't produce a drag.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2020 05:51
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
From memory some are sent 30,000 kms out and they require maintenance but the ones sent out 45,000 plus do there own orbit forever as they are out the influence of the Earths gravitational pull.He was a fascinating chap and I listened intently to his dialogue.He had helped put 57 in to space at the time.
15-03-2020 07:03
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
I am weighing in on Skeptical science again and they keep showing me bits of paper with lines on it.
15-03-2020 13:17
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
duncan61 wrote:
From memory some are sent 30,000 kms out and they require maintenance but the ones sent out 45,000 plus do there own orbit forever as they are out the influence of the Earths gravitational pull.He was a fascinating chap and I listened intently to his dialogue.He had helped put 57 in to space at the time.


There is always earths gravitational pull. Gravity does not stop cold turkey at some point. Also the atmosphere does not stop cold turkey. The atmosphere gets thinner and thinner but there are particles at 45000 which cause drag if they collide with sateliite. There is friction and it causes heat. This heat comes at the expence of kinetic energy. All the satellites would collapse eventually to the earth.
15-03-2020 17:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
duncan61 wrote:I am weighing in on Skeptical science again and they keep showing me bits of paper with lines on it.

"Skeptical Science" is a misnomer.

That site is full-on Global Warming worship on bent knee. Bogus science in pursuit of the Church of Non-Catastrophic Global Warming.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
15-03-2020 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
duncan61 wrote:
From memory some are sent 30,000 kms out and they require maintenance but the ones sent out 45,000 plus do there own orbit forever as they are out the influence of the Earths gravitational pull.He was a fascinating chap and I listened intently to his dialogue.He had helped put 57 in to space at the time.


No, they ARE in the influence of Earth's gravitational pull. Otherwise they wouldn't orbit Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2020 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
From memory some are sent 30,000 kms out and they require maintenance but the ones sent out 45,000 plus do there own orbit forever as they are out the influence of the Earths gravitational pull.He was a fascinating chap and I listened intently to his dialogue.He had helped put 57 in to space at the time.


There is always earths gravitational pull. Gravity does not stop cold turkey at some point. Also the atmosphere does not stop cold turkey. The atmosphere gets thinner and thinner but there are particles at 45000 which cause drag if they collide with sateliite. There is friction and it causes heat. This heat comes at the expence of kinetic energy. All the satellites would collapse eventually to the earth.


Material in space does not cause drag.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2020 20:40
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Material in space does not cause drag.


There is also an electromagnetic drag. We know that every object above absolut zero emits electomagnetic waves. Those waves interact with other waves and materials and cause there a change in magnetic field , orientation of dipoles etc etc. This comes at the expence of kinetic energy. The satellite will eventually slow down and collapse to the earth.
15-03-2020 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Material in space does not cause drag.


There is also an electromagnetic drag.


Light does not cause drag.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2020 21:56
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Material in space does not cause drag.


There is also an electromagnetic drag.


Light does not cause drag.


I am going to quote Einstein:

Radiation will exert pressure on both sides of the plate. The forces of pressure exerted on the two sides are equal if the plate is at rest. However, if it is in motion, more radiation will be reflected on the surface that is ahead during the motion (front surface) than on the back surface. The backward acting force of pressure exerted on the front surface is thus larger than the force of pressure acting on the back. Hence, as the resultant of the two forces, there remains a force that counteracts the motion of the plate and that increases with the velocity of the plate. We will call this resultant 'radiation friction' in brief."
RE: Fremantle16-03-2020 06:33
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
I was wrong.The sea level has gone up 200mm in Fremantle according to the tide gauges but it is over 160 years so no wonder I could not pick it up in my lifetime.I am not going to pick up a few millimetres a year.While I was doing my research I came across some good stuff.The Satellite data has been modified and does not compare with the actual tide readings across the world
Attached image:

16-03-2020 06:35
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
[img][img][/img][/img]Even I can post pretty pictures
16-03-2020 06:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
[img][/img]Or maybe I cant
16-03-2020 08:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Material in space does not cause drag.


There is also an electromagnetic drag.


Light does not cause drag.


I am going to quote Einstein:

Radiation will exert pressure on both sides of the plate. The forces of pressure exerted on the two sides are equal if the plate is at rest. However, if it is in motion, more radiation will be reflected on the surface that is ahead during the motion (front surface) than on the back surface. The backward acting force of pressure exerted on the front surface is thus larger than the force of pressure acting on the back. Hence, as the resultant of the two forces, there remains a force that counteracts the motion of the plate and that increases with the velocity of the plate. We will call this resultant 'radiation friction' in brief."


Quote him all you want. Light does not cause drag.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate sea levels:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Perfect Solution To Remove Conflict Problems In The South China East Asia Sea316-09-2020 05:00
sea ice717-08-2020 09:22
hudson bay sea ice1601-07-2020 22:12
Sea Levels to rise by 1m by 2100 if global emissions target missed!!228-06-2020 16:57
sea ice717-04-2020 20:39
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact