Remember me
▼ Content

the truth



Page 2 of 3<123>
09-02-2020 03:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1220)
Since the sea level varies from place to place and from time to time you would have to take more than one or two places as examples. Not doing that is like using one biased news channel for a reporter, a reporter that selects misleading news.
Edited on 09-02-2020 03:52
09-02-2020 03:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
James___ wrote: With your post, you ignore basic common sense.

We can't all be supergenuses like you James__. That would be expecting too much. You have a cognitive superpower that we can only pray that you use for good, and not for evil.

James___ wrote: When glaciers in the mountains become less, the water is still in the mountains, right? That's your basic claim.

No. That's not my claim.

James___ wrote: Maybe you should use the world population to demonstrate the eigen level?

Right after I start counting fruit in milliamps.

James___ wrote: Even if sea levels aren't rising much, they're still rising.

... and you know this how?

James___ wrote: Your position is that no change occurs.

Nope. My position is that no human has ever discerned any change. That would include you. You merely believe that the sea level is rising ... because you were told to believe it ... by someone you trust ... by someone you consider an "authority."

You were played. Someone took advantage of your gullibility. The people who know better are buying up beach-front real estate.

James___ wrote: Change does occur. History has proven this.

Changes can occur. Speculation about history gives rise to all sorts of irrational beliefs. If you'll recall, you have quite a few doozies yourself.

James___ wrote: Harbors and lifeguard stations have changed/moved because the land itself is always changing.

Look at Google earth. So many beaches have not changed perceptibly over many decades. If there had been any noticeable sea level rise then I would have noticed it at the beach I frequented as a child, and then as a teenager, as an adult, ... and jump forward to today ... decades later, still no discernible change.

What do you have to convince me that I'm somehow mistaken?

James___ wrote: Yet you say the land never changes.

Nope. I say that land doesn't stop changing. I believe you agree with me on that.

James___ wrote: It's ignorance like yours that prevents change from being understood.

This is another reason Into the Night will never be able to match me. He just doesn't have the sheer might to prevent change from being understood like I do. His envy is so transparent.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
10-02-2020 02:05
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:
This is very clear:
IBdaMann wrote:
...I will invent a term to clarify what I mean: Eigenlevel. I define the ocean's "eigenlevel"....
The earth has one eigenlevel at any given moment, i.e. λ(t). When people talk about sea level rise they are referring to a new eigenlevel, i.e. λ(t+1), ....we don't know the ocean's eigenlevel..

So to clarify the following:
IBdaMann wrotewrote: (sea level varies) It doesn't. It cannot. This SHOULD be obvious. [hint: it has to do with the properties of water]
Harry C wrote:
.... They are invalid datasets for the purpose of the claims made. ....Climate change is an illegitimate attempt ....

I understand you're both agreeing the Eigenlevel cannot be measured. Are either of you saying, in spite of that, you somehow know it's not rising?

Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?


I am not saying it's not rising either. I detest those who make a claim that is not factual for the sake of alarmism. This is serious business and we had better have our facts straight.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
10-02-2020 03:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Harry C wrote:
I am not saying it's not rising either. I detest those who make a claim that is not factual for the sake of alarmism.


Safe to say Harry C? "Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?"

I agree that throwing any type of BS out when a serious issue is at stake is reprehensible. I would argue this is a serious issue regardless of the conclusion as it's either a serious environmental issue and/or a serious fraud being perpetrated on society.

There is a big difference between saying a claim can't be supported by the evidence because the evidence isn't use-able, and saying the evidence disproves the claim. It's pretty hard to have it both ways. Either the evidence is use-able or it's not.



link to the source
Edited on 10-02-2020 03:51
10-02-2020 05:08
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
I have learned a lot in the last 24 hours and was working in the garden yesterday and the soil was warm to touch yet that night it was cool again so the poles melt every year because the sun is pointing at them for long periods of time can we assume that the opposite pole is gaining ice.I am starting to believe that if all the ice on the planet melted nothing would happen as there are films showing all the ice in Greenland and Artic melting and not reforming and the oceans being so vast do not get affected.
10-02-2020 05:11
keepit
★★★★☆
(1220)
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.
10-02-2020 05:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/


"Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago."

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/43/15296"Observational Evidence
The principal sources for quantitative sea-level information are from sediment and coral records whose depositional environments relative to mean sea level (MSL) are assumed known and whose ages have been determined either by radiocarbon or uranium-series dating. "
10-02-2020 07:07
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
duncan61 wrote:
I have learned a lot in the last 24 hours and was working in the garden yesterday and the soil was warm to touch yet that night it was cool again so the poles melt every year because the sun is pointing at them for long periods of time can we assume that the opposite pole is gaining ice.I am starting to believe that if all the ice on the planet melted nothing would happen as there are films showing all the ice in Greenland and Artic melting and not reforming and the oceans being so vast do not get affected.



The surface of the world's oceans is listed as 361,100,000 square kilometers.
The total volume of Greenland's ice sheet is about 2,900,000 km3

The question is how long this current warming cycle will last.
10-02-2020 12:03
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.
how can you know that
10-02-2020 12:05
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
Hey I have learned to do the box thing
10-02-2020 12:06
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
O.K. so has any ice melted yet as the sea level has not gone up
10-02-2020 15:32
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
tmiddles wrote:

Safe to say Harry C? "Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?"

There is a big difference between saying a claim can't be supported by the evidence because the evidence isn't use-able, and saying the evidence disproves the claim. It's pretty hard to have it both ways. Either the evidence is use-able or it's not.


If all that was happening was that glaciers were melting (verifiably) and there was no meaningful change in precipitation events, then it stands to reason that sea levels would change. However I look at things on a mass balance basis and would want to be able to reconcile ice above sea level lost to a rise in sea level to confirm.

As to claims and evidence. We know that the default for weather is change. The question is what is abnormal. There's been flimsy data advanced to claim that the changes are beyond normal. What I would say then is that a lack of credible evidence can be enough to discredit the claim.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
10-02-2020 15:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
Harry C wrote:We know that the default for weather is change.
What do you mean by that? Like rainy one day, clear the next?

Harry C wrote:...a lack of credible evidence can be enough to discredit the claim.
For me the overstating of confidence in a claim discredits the messenger.

As to what to do with sound theories that don't have solid evidence to back them up that's a tough one.

Ice/Glacier mass seems very visible and measurable with photographic documentation.

Here we have an Iceland glacier. link Sept. 14, 1986, left, and Aug. 1, 2019 Nasa photos
10-02-2020 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
duncan61 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.
how can you know that

keepit is omniscient and knows the volume of ice on planet earth. Also, his omniscience allows him to know what portion of the earth's ice is sea ice so he doesn't include it in the calculation of ice that affects sea level ... which is a calculation that he doesn't need to make because he is omniscient.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
10-02-2020 16:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(423)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.
how can you know that

keepit is omniscient and knows the volume of ice on planet earth. Also, his omniscience allows him to know what portion of the earth's ice is sea ice so he doesn't include it in the calculation of ice that affects sea level ... which is a calculation that he doesn't need to make because he is omniscient.


.

Damn... he sure has some mad skills.
10-02-2020 17:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:
There is a big difference between saying a claim can't be supported by the evidence because the evidence isn't use-able, and saying the evidence disproves the claim.


Harry C wrote:What I would say then is that a lack of credible evidence can be enough to discredit the claim.


No, Harry, lack of evidence does not falsify a claim, although it is a strong sign that the claim is unfalsifiable, and thus is not science. tmiddles is correct in pointing out that discrediting the evidence or the falsifiability of a claim does not falsify the theory itself. Think of a court of law; just because the DA doesn't have the evidence necessary to convince a jury that the butler did it doesn't mean the butler didn't do it. Think of Christianity; just because I have never seen God and no one will show him to me doesn't mean He does not exist.

tmiddles wrote: Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?

Your statement is false as worded. I explained this to you and you insist on maintaining this wording, ergo you must expect a response of "Yes, it is disputed ... because it is false."


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
11-02-2020 02:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
IBdaMann wrote:
...just because the DA doesn't have the evidence....Think of Christianity...
Christianity, as with a lot of religions, are very vulnerable to being discredited by evidence. From producing Christ's corpse to finding that what is accounted in the Bible could not have possibly happened, the book is full of non-poetic, accounts alleging factual events that either did or did not happen. Some have tried to do this.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?

Your statement is false as worded. I explained this to you and you insist on maintaining this wording, ergo you must expect a response of "Yes, it is disputed ... because it is false."
That's not a rebuttal or an argument of any kind. You simply said no.
Edited on 11-02-2020 03:39
11-02-2020 03:56
James___
★★★★★
(2415)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

Safe to say Harry C? "Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?"

There is a big difference between saying a claim can't be supported by the evidence because the evidence isn't use-able, and saying the evidence disproves the claim. It's pretty hard to have it both ways. Either the evidence is use-able or it's not.


If all that was happening was that glaciers were melting (verifiably) and there was no meaningful change in precipitation events, then it stands to reason that sea levels would change. However I look at things on a mass balance basis and would want to be able to reconcile ice above sea level lost to a rise in sea level to confirm.

As to claims and evidence. We know that the default for weather is change. The question is what is abnormal. There's been flimsy data advanced to claim that the changes are beyond normal. What I would say then is that a lack of credible evidence can be enough to discredit the claim.



What it seems many people don't understand is that if there are fewer but more intense storms, then weather patterns have changed. I've talked with cousins in Norway who say that Norway is still rising above the waters.
It's called tectonic plate rebound caused by melting glaciers. I lived in Seattle, Wa. for many years and they say the Puget Sound is rising. If you include the Straits of Juan De Fuca then you might call it the Salish Sea.
As you say, the weather changes. It does. Glacial melt is very well documented. Sea level rise is to be expected. Will their be disasters? There will be some. But as some have pointed out, if we go by the previous interglacial period, we've only experienced 1/2 of the sea rise that is to come, naturally.
11-02-2020 06:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
James___ wrote: What it seems many people don't understand is that if there are fewer but more intense storms, then weather patterns have changed.


What it seems many people don't understand is that there is no such thing as a weather pattern. Weather is random.

It's just weather that changes, not any weather "patterns."

What it seems many people don't understand is that if there are fewer but more intense storms then you have an example of different weather that occurred.

James___ wrote: I've talked with cousins in Norway who say that Norway is still rising above the waters. It's called tectonic plate rebound caused by melting glaciers.

Are these cousins as smart as you are?

You might have noticed that mountain ranges aren't heavy enough to push themselves back down into the earth. That's because geological activity pushed them up in the first place. The weight of the ocean cannot crush the crust downward. I take it you'll be surprised to learn that a slab of ice is also insufficient.

If Norway is "rising" it's because of normal geological activity that raises mountains.


... or is this a phenomenon linked to the Norway Jet Stream?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
11-02-2020 06:21
keepit
★★★★☆
(1220)
When enough ice melts the land does rebound afterwards. It's a long slow dynamic process.
11-02-2020 06:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
keepit wrote: When enough ice melts the land does rebound afterwards. It's a long slow dynamic process.


The earth's crust is not a three-point shot from the top of the key. There's no "rebound." There is nothing about dirt that causes it to swell if you remove top-weight. Try it. Move a large rock. The depression will fill in via erosion. It won't swell or "rebound."

... and yes, that applies to dirt in Norway as well, despite its jet stream.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
11-02-2020 11:04
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
Where is the ice melting.I suggest you go there in the middle of winter and tell me how warm it is.You are thinking the planet is a basketball.Have any of you pro AGW/CC People had a look how big it is.You are being duped by Al Gore because the masses must be kept poor and working and filling the military machine that is the USA.And scared of using resources that are for the wealthy and privileged.The more I am learning the more I can see what a scam it is that CO2 is damaging the planet.I took the train in to the city last Wednesday and can only imagine the CO2 level from all the people packed in rush hour.I could tell what people had been eating but we dont get hurt by a gas we naturally exhale its lack of O2 that makes you fall asleep and die
11-02-2020 11:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
duncan61 wrote:
Where is the ice melting....You are being duped...what a scam it is that CO2 is damaging the planet.

Wouldn't it be easy to disprove that there is less ice by showing there is more ice?

Like the before after below but in reverse, or showing that it's fake photoshop work done by Al Gore's people or whatever your theory is.

a lot more here





I would suggest, Duncan, that you're falling into a trap you don't have to. Denying everything is simply a false position. I know you really want to have a strong case against global warming hysteria, that is your happy place. You'll do a lot better to come up with a sound rebuttal. So it's not IF ice is melting, it is, but why. Maybe it's a natural part of out post ice age moment in Earth's history.
11-02-2020 12:43
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
At last.Thank you so much for the pictures now if all that ice has gone why is the sea level the same as it most definitely is where I live.It has not changed in the last 168 years.Given this information I feel secure that if all the ice melts we will not flood.Check my original post.I needed information and unemotional discussion.I just had a better look at the pictures on the bottom comparison the water level looks a lot lower without the ice than with.how are you going to wriggle out of that???? its at the same location
11-02-2020 12:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
duncan61 wrote:... if all that ice has gone why is the sea level the same as it most definitely is where I live...
Guess you got nothing to worry about.
11-02-2020 13:09
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
Pollution and managing the ocean stocks are a big deal.I am a member of Recfishwest and we have had a big hand working with the state government in managing fishing seasons and marine parks.The old way was to just lock up areas and hope it solved the problem however in the last 20 years with education and closed seasons/bag limits all the stocks have recovered and good quality fish are being taken in the Perth metro area.I remember the Thames being cleaned up and salmon swimming upstream when I was a young man.I am glad I joined this forum as I have learned a lot.I have yet to see the miracle of the light going on and someone altering their stance on AGW/CC Perhaps I am the only human capable of change
11-02-2020 13:19
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
Any theories on the water levels in the photos.I have had a good look and so have some friends and the second shot with no ice is way closer and that water is a F ton lower than when all that crappy ice was floating around.Tempted to get my fly rod and go fishing
11-02-2020 13:38
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
tmiddles wrote:
This is very clear:
IBdaMann wrote:
...I will invent a term to clarify what I mean: Eigenlevel. I define the ocean's "eigenlevel"....
The earth has one eigenlevel at any given moment, i.e. λ(t). When people talk about sea level rise they are referring to a new eigenlevel, i.e. λ(t+1), ....we don't know the ocean's eigenlevel..

So to clarify the following:
IBdaMann wrotewrote: (sea level varies) It doesn't. It cannot. This SHOULD be obvious. [hint: it has to do with the properties of water]
Harry C wrote:
.... They are invalid datasets for the purpose of the claims made. ....Climate change is an illegitimate attempt ....

I understand you're both agreeing the Eigenlevel cannot be measured. Are either of you saying, in spite of that, you somehow know it's not rising?yes I do based on the photos you supplied

Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?

Edited on 11-02-2020 13:39
11-02-2020 13:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
duncan61 wrote:
Any theories on the water levels in the photos.

Are you unsure of the rising and falling water level relative to the amount of ice on Earth? All of that predates AGW of course so you're not "buying in" to some CO2 conspiracy to believe in beringia, sunken cities and the changing water level throughout Earth's history. It's all based on scraps, just like a belief in dinosaurs.

There are those who say it's all a big conspiracy.

11-02-2020 13:45
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
looking a lot like the water goes down when the ice melts.I have mentioned this before.ITN and IBDM where are you when I need you.The big deal I was made aware of is to get the correct result you would need a second earth as a test model :and warm it up to really know the result.I will call Slartibartfast and see what he is up to these days
11-02-2020 13:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
duncan61 wrote:...you would need a second earth as a test model..
So you're argument is that we give up on trying to figure it out? Because we don't have a second Earth.

How much research and technology should we abandon because we don't have a perfect laboratory setup?
11-02-2020 13:52
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
I saw that documentary it was a very wealthy Greek bloke was transporting all these big statues and a storm capsized the barge of the coast of Africa.There were way bigger ones than that or is it something else.Again are you showing a reference to sea levels before and after.Your photos were now not 2000 years ago
11-02-2020 14:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2520)
duncan61 wrote:
I saw that documentary it was a very wealthy Greek bloke was transporting all these big statues


If you want to believe sea levels have not changed go ahead.
11-02-2020 14:18
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
Do you agree the water level appears lower with less ice.I am aware it is local and any thing could make this happen.Curious where the photo of the statue is from
11-02-2020 14:33
duncan61
★☆☆☆☆
(93)
The largest collection of bronze statues have been recovered from the sea as not a lot on the land survived.I just goggled it and its from 4000 years ago before the iron age.There has been a lot recovered from the Aegean.The sea level debate is on its not about winning or losing its about the truth.The Theory I read 10 years ago was that because of all the trapped air and increased volume of sea ice it takes up less space than water even though there is land run off and Antarctica being land mass the Arctic is one big floating blob
11-02-2020 15:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
tmiddles wrote:If you want to believe sea levels have not changed go ahead.

Yes. We'll call that the rational position since there is no rational basis for believing otherwise, especially since there are things any rational adult can do to convince oneself of the lack of any discernible change in sea level or "eigenlevel."

Great point.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
11-02-2020 17:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...just because the DA doesn't have the evidence....Think of Christianity...
Christianity, as with a lot of religions, are very vulnerable to being discredited by evidence.
From producing Christ's corpse to finding that what is accounted in the Bible could not have possibly happened,

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). It is not possible to know that a corpse is indeed Christ. It is not possible to know what can and cannot be done by Christ. Mantra 5.
tmiddles wrote:
the book is full of non-poetic, accounts alleging factual events that either did or did not happen. Some have tried to do this.

YOU are trying to do this right now. Mantra 5, 30, 31.
...deleted Mantras 30...31...


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2020 17:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:

Safe to say Harry C? "Just to get it out of the way does anyone dispute that the formation of glaciers would drop the Eigenlevel and the melting of glaciers raise it?"

There is a big difference between saying a claim can't be supported by the evidence because the evidence isn't use-able, and saying the evidence disproves the claim. It's pretty hard to have it both ways. Either the evidence is use-able or it's not.


If all that was happening was that glaciers were melting (verifiably) and there was no meaningful change in precipitation events, then it stands to reason that sea levels would change. However I look at things on a mass balance basis and would want to be able to reconcile ice above sea level lost to a rise in sea level to confirm.

As to claims and evidence. We know that the default for weather is change. The question is what is abnormal. There's been flimsy data advanced to claim that the changes are beyond normal. What I would say then is that a lack of credible evidence can be enough to discredit the claim.



What it seems many people don't understand is that if there are fewer but more intense storms, then weather patterns have changed. I've talked with cousins in Norway who say that Norway is still rising above the waters.
It's called tectonic plate rebound caused by melting glaciers. I lived in Seattle, Wa. for many years and they say the Puget Sound is rising. If you include the Straits of Juan De Fuca then you might call it the Salish Sea.
As you say, the weather changes. It does. Glacial melt is very well documented. Sea level rise is to be expected. Will their be disasters? There will be some. But as some have pointed out, if we go by the previous interglacial period, we've only experienced 1/2 of the sea rise that is to come, naturally.

Puget Sound isn't rising. Same tides as always. Weather has no 'patterns' other than very general ones, which have not changed. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. Mantras 4, 25a, 28.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2020 17:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
duncan61 wrote:
At last.Thank you so much for the pictures now if all that ice has gone why is the sea level the same as it most definitely is where I live.It has not changed in the last 168 years.Given this information I feel secure that if all the ice melts we will not flood.Check my original post.I needed information and unemotional discussion.I just had a better look at the pictures on the bottom comparison the water level looks a lot lower without the ice than with.how are you going to wriggle out of that???? its at the same location

These pictures are just differences between winter and summer. They are fake data.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2020 17:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 20c...25a...19...4a...23a...28...

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate the truth:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Finally.....the truth....Tell me I'm wrong and if so, why?1808-02-2020 04:44
The Fastest & Only Way To Find Out The Real Life Truth About Global Warming & CO2 Emission2124-01-2020 19:21
Uncertain projections help to reveal the truth about future climate change719-03-2019 16:10
Is this man telling a lot of truth about our world??? (YouTube Video)020-02-2019 22:54
100% Truth about Global Warming, Climate Change1004-12-2017 04:56
▲ 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