the truth

duncan61 wrote:
Do we agree the Earth is .8 degree warmer than 1980 or is it more?

duncan61 wrote: That will not melt ice to the level it is being claimed.

duncan61 wrote:
I subscribe to the fact the poles may be changing due to our orbit varying and when it is melting in the south it is gaining in the north.

duncan61 wrote:If the Earth cools a degree in the next 30 years will the alarmists go Ooops like has happened in the past

duncan61 wrote:
But it is still at minus.To melt it has to be between 0-1 degree C.I have seen the glaciers calving and its spectacular when it happens watching ice form at the top of the hill is dull.do we all agree the glaciers are moving and it is how the rift valley in Africa was formed and all the locks in Scotland.My next question is where is the sea level rising.My local port is Fremantle West Australia and I contacted them and the sea level has been measured for the last 168 years and it has not moved at all.Is it a prediction or is it happening some where

keepit wrote:Sea level varies from place to place in the world

keepit wrote: I don't know why sea level varies from place to place.

keepit wrote: The thing about melting at the edges is that thermal energy flows from warm places to cold so that there will be a flow, molecule by molecule, at the edges of ice until there is melting.

keepit wrote: When the Ross melts enough it won't be holding back the glacier and the glacier will move to the sea. It is extremely large and is estimated to be able to raise the sea level of all the world's oceans from 4 to 10 feet.

keepit wrote:Consider the fact that if the temp worldwide decreased by only 6 degrees c., we would enter another ice age.

duncan61 wrote: Do we agree the Earth is .8 degree warmer than 1980 or is it more?

duncan61 wrote:...he freely admitted that they had to sensationalize everything...

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: I don't know why sea level varies from place to place.

It doesn't. It cannot.

duncan61 wrote:The reason I lead with the .8 degree is that is the common claim

duncan61 wrote: ... and I would like to set a benchmark we can get started on.

tmiddles wrote: IBD isn't one of you own critiques of the over confidence in sea level measurement that land can rise and fall?

duncan61 wrote:
IBdaMann.This is interesting we both appear to agree it is being made up but you are having a go at me.In this debate I am willing to concede some of the claims made by the alarmists and that the weather stations around the world claim the temperature has gone up .8 globally on average.I say so what that is not going to matter in the big scheme of things.Part of my research I discovered that the sea temperature of Perth goes from 17.6 in winter to 23.7 in summer and all the coral at Rottnest Island does not die.Why does David Attenborough declare that if the sea temperature goes up 1 degree all the coral will die

duncan61 wrote: In this debate I am willing to concede some of the claims made by the alarmists and that the weather stations around the world claim the temperature has gone up .8 globally on average.

duncan61 wrote: they claim it can pick up sea level rise.

duncan61 wrote:.P.S. whats a lock ness monster

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: I don't know why sea level varies from place to place.

It doesn't. It cannot.

IBdaMann wrote:As land moves it is never known exactly how much because it is all relative to other land that is moving. Ergo, for any given point, the estimated sea level will change over time...

keepit wrote:
Sea level varies because winds, ocean currents and river discharges vary from place to place around the earth. The condition is not static. It's a very dynamic and changing situation.

tmiddles wrote:You are saying in effect:
No one can know
But I know it's not changing

Am I wrong?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

keepit wrote: I don't know why sea level varies from place to place.

It doesn't. It cannot.

IBdaMann wrote:As land moves it is never known exactly how much because it is all relative to other land that is moving. Ergo, for any given point, the estimated sea level will change over time...

You can see how I think you're trying to have it both ways right?

You are saying in effect:
No one can know
But I know it's not changing

Am I wrong?

Harry C wrote: I don't want to speak for IBdM. I will interpret that he is saying that in order to validate the claims that are being made there is not enough precision in what they think they know to determine them as facts.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I don't want to speak for IBdM. I will interpret that he is saying that in order to validate the claims that are being made there is not enough precision in what they think they know to determine them as facts.

Yes, for the most part.

The vocabulary we have at our disposal is inadequate. The term sea level has been bastardized in the same way the word "climate" has been bastardized.

The earth has millions of climates. Nonetheless we have legitimized the concept of a contradictory "global climate" and we expect to have productive discussions about something that doesn't exist.

The ocean has countless sea levels, one for every wave and ripple. Nontheless we want to discuss a theoretical singular sea level that does not exist and expect to have productive discussions.

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..

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 ....

tmiddles wrote: 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?

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?

duncan61 wrote: I have seen the level marker at Fremantle harbour it is 4 yellow poles with a captive buoy that is mostly immersed with a large antenna sticking out the top.There is a lot of recreational boating in the area but this thing hardly moves it just goes up and down.Its 100m from the ocean so it gives accurate sea level readings before that technology a bloke in a boat just read the stick in the sand which is still there.The heights have not changed at all in 168 years.Go melt all the ice.I bet it goes down.some seasons there is masses of ice formed in winter and others not so much and it makes no difference

IBdaMann wrote (23 September 2019):
There are simple things any person can do to verify that there is no sea level rise:

1. Go to a particular beach with landmarks like lifeguard towers/shacks and notice that the surf is just as far out from the towers as it was fifty years ago (dig up old photgraphs of the beach and recall that lifeguard towers are built a certain distance from the surf for obvious reasons, and that those towers/shacks have not been moved during those decades and that the surf is not washing up to the base of the towers/shacks.

2. Notice that the British began building an air base ("Gan") on the Addu atoll in 1941. It was completed and used more heavily a decade later.
The elevation was, and is, very low (average just over one meter above sea level). The base is still there. The atoll is still there. The sea level has not changed to any perceptible degree.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: 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?

I am not. I am saying that no one knows whether it is changing or not, ergo no one can seriously claim to know that the ocean is rising.

The extent of my comment to keepit has to do with water remaining "level" and that water cannot seek different levels in different locations but there can certainly be waves and swells and ripples ... and tides (given a planet).

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?

I agree with your intent but you are not using the right wording. If a glacier in the middle of Antarctica has a bad day and just melts, that water flows a while a refreezes. The glacier is gone. The eigenlevel hasn't changed because the ice is still in Antarctica, just redistributed.

Also, let's say that an Antarctic glacier were levitated by prankster space aliens and dropped into the ocean at the equator. Yes, the eigenlevel would rise. However, Antarctic calving would therefore be reduced by the amount contributed by that glacier and thus overall ice accumulation would increase until eventually the same quantity of ice were reformed in Antarctica. This, of course, brings the eigenlevel back to its original point.

So the Global Warming argument includes the assumption that temperatures are increasing, the global climate is changing, and that Antarctica is no longer accumulating ice like it was and so the eigenlevel will not return to its former self, i.e. it will remain at a higher level.

... and the response to that is "You just pulled that out of your azz. You do not know this. You have no reason for assuming any of that."



.

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?

I agree with your intent but you are not using the right wording.