the truth

James___ wrote: With your post, you ignore basic common sense.

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

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

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

James___ wrote: Your position is that no change occurs.

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

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

James___ wrote: Yet you say the land never changes.

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

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?

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.

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.

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.

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.

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.

Harry C wrote:We know that the default for weather is change.

Harry C wrote:...a lack of credible evidence can be enough to discredit the claim.

duncan61 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
When all the ice melts the sea level goes up hundreds of feet.

how can you know that

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.


.

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.

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?

IBdaMann wrote:
...just because the DA doesn't have the evidence....Think of Christianity...

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."

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.

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.

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.

keepit wrote: When enough ice melts the land does rebound afterwards. It's a long slow dynamic process.

duncan61 wrote:
Where is the ice melting....You are being duped...what a scam it is that CO2 is damaging the planet.

duncan61 wrote:... if all that ice has gone why is the sea level the same as it most definitely is where I live...

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?

duncan61 wrote:
Any theories on the water levels in the photos.

duncan61 wrote:...you would need a second earth as a test model..

duncan61 wrote:
I saw that documentary it was a very wealthy Greek bloke was transporting all these big statues

tmiddles wrote:If you want to believe sea levels have not changed go ahead.

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,

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.

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.

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

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 20c...25a...19...4a...23a...28...