The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on June 25, 2012, 11:09:56 AM
-
I know there are differences in level between, for example, the Atlantic and Pacific .
But "water seeks its own level" is pretty much one of the most basic rules of science.
The idea that there is a "lump" between Cape Hatteras and Cape Ann makes me think some ones been smoking the mushrooms.
I know a few of you, like TW , and Crusader Rabbit, are involved with the ocean .
I would like their opinions whether this article is as stupid as it seems.
http://news.yahoo.com/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-172002416.html
Sea rise faster on East Coast than rest of globe
WASHINGTON (AP) — From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising much faster than they are around the globe, putting one of the world's most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.
U.S. Geological Survey scientists call the 600-mile swath a "hot spot" for climbing sea levels caused by global warming. Along the region, the Atlantic Ocean is rising at an annual rate three times to four times faster than the global average since 1990, according to the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MORE AT LINK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
-
It could be that certain areas are more susceptible to the forces (or their effects) causing tides than others and the high tide level there is rising faster than the high tide levels at other places?
-
Could that be all the flotsam and jetsam coming down the Potomac?
Pecos
-
If I read the article right it's a combined effect of increased volume and flow over existing topography creating sort of a giant "standing wave". I can see the same effect on a smaller scale at one of my favorite trout streams, there is a noticable "hump" in the water surface just upstream of a large rock formation...if I drop a lure into that hump I always end up with a nice brookie.
-
With the exception of the southern oceans, there is very little "mixing" of the great oceans, ie. Atlantic and Pacific. Ocean currents are generally on the surface going northerly and dive deeper when the waters cool in the North Atlantic and Pacific carrying oxygen to the deeper depths of the oceans. Without this transference, the oceans will die. Those currents only converge near the Antarctic.
Near Cape Horn and Capetown, a bit of ocean currents peel off from the two oceans but the only place that revolves continuously is the Antarctic. The differing levels of the oceans is something that is natural and not so self leveling as one would expect. Remember, the Rockies are still growing whereas the eastern mountain ranges are well past their growth stages. Of the two oceans, the Pacific is a cauldron of seismic activity.
The aforementioned is offered without any real evidence to prove any of it and my pea brained explanation of the ocean physics as supplied by my Uncle Sam some years back...
-
You can certainly get "tidal" anomalies due to the relative steepness of the shoreline. And, you get "spring tides" that far exceed the "normal" tidal ranges. And a recent study has shown that by 2050, California average tides will be five feet higher than they are now (due to the effects of global warming, so this is certainly up for dispute).
But, in the question as stated you have an awful lot of constants that need to be overcome to get the answer presented.
The force of gravity alters very little at any point on the surface of our globe.
The tidal force of the moon may have a slightly increased influence along the equator because there is greater exposure than at the poles.
But, to suggest that there is a "swollen" area between the two capes seems to be a stretch of reason and logic.
There can certainly be temporary anomalies caused by underwater volcanoes and earthquakes. These are measurable and may show an increase in the apparent height of the water. But it would be transient and normal levels would soon reassert themselves.
Tom, I have one question that might show us the answer: Did this revelation come from Al Gore or from one of his pet projects?
If that answer is "yes" it would allow us to throw this theory into the dustbin of pseudo-science like the vast majority of pronouncements by that a-hole.
A considered response by,
Crusader Rabbit
-
It's Bush's fault!
-
You can certainly get "tidal" anomalies due to the relative steepness of the shoreline. And, you get "spring tides" that far exceed the "normal" tidal ranges. And a recent study has shown that by 2050, California average tides will be five feet higher than they are now (due to the effects of global warming, so this is certainly up for dispute).
But, in the question as stated you have an awful lot of constants that need to be overcome to get the answer presented.
The force of gravity alters very little at any point on the surface of our globe.
The tidal force of the moon may have a slightly increased influence along the equator because there is greater exposure than at the poles.
But, to suggest that there is a "swollen" area between the two capes seems to be a stretch of reason and logic.
There can certainly be temporary anomalies caused by underwater volcanoes and earthquakes. These are measurable and may show an increase in the apparent height of the water. But it would be transient and normal levels would soon reassert themselves.
Tom, I have one question that might show us the answer: Did this revelation come from Al Gore or from one of his pet projects?
If that answer is "yes" it would allow us to throw this theory into the dustbin of pseudo-science like the vast majority of pronouncements by that a-hole.
A considered response by,
Crusader Rabbit
;D I only know what was in the article.
-
There is a place on the Colorado River called West Water Canyon. There is a section containing Skull Rapid and the Room of Doom. I have seen water levels as much as 3 feet higher or lower than the main channel in the Room of Doom. My point is that water does some really interesting stuff when strong currents are involved. So tidal flows being different in different areas wouldn't surprise me, depending on what kind of topography and currents are involved.
-
There is a place on the Colorado River called West Water Canyon. There is a section containing Skull Rapid and the Room of Doom. I have seen water levels as much as 3 feet higher or lower than the main channel in the Room of Doom. My point is that water does some really interesting stuff when strong currents are involved. So tidal flows being different in different areas wouldn't surprise me, depending on what kind of topography and currents are involved.
Granted, I guess we have all seen the effect of a "pile up" behind an obstruction, but the linked story doesn't mention any other factors.
It makes it sound like the melting ice cap is just all going to a section of the East coast.
Kind of like a Twinkie in Michelle Obama's butt.
-
The levels of the oceans are subjective at best. Mean Sea Levels (MSL) are a product of a variation in tidal flows from mean high tide and mean low tides averaged. Since the earth is a living thing, heaving, settling, cooling, growing hotter, shifting, pulsing and burping constantly, the levels of the land masses are shifting constantly as well.
This is why these studies are all basically conjecture on the part of scientists that don't want their studies disputed by common sense! These global warming guys are all thinking that if A occurs then B is the result! They have an agenda and no other hypothesis is plausible in their over educated, ego maniacal world!
As the earths crust cools, the land sinks a bit! Since the eastern seaboard is the elder brother to the west coast, it would stand to reason that is sinking at the same time the west coast is rising due to tectonic plates moving along the very active fault lines that cut through the western states. Sure, we have seismic issues on the east coast too but not nearly as violent or catastrophic as the west.
Again, offered with no scientific evidence to support this information! As Crusader suggested, most of this information is being dealt by questionable authority that has already been admonished by the scientific community. They're a dedicated group who will not go away until they've given the earth back to the friggin dinosaurs!
-
So basically it's like all the other Global warming BS.
Flawed and/or incomplete data presented in a prejudiced fashion.
-
So basically it's like all the other Global warming BS.
Flawed and/or incomplete data presented in a prejudiced fashion.
Put it this way, several million years ago the high deserts of Arizona, New Mexico and other western states were underwater! I dug sharks teeth out of anthills when I was kid on the high mesas outside of Albuquerque! I may still have them...
It's all cyclical! Did the land rise out of the oceans or did the oceans recede? You'll get ten differing opinions from the 5 academics you find that give a shit!
-
Years ago (2002 ? ) I was reading a copy of Popular Science.
There was an article saying that the world was ending we were going to all die because a Glacier in Greenland had receded 7 miles.
I didn't much care about "global warming" so I flipped the page to a more interesting article.
It told how Archeologists were making fantastic finds of Viking artifacts because a glacier in Greenland had receded 7 miles.
I had to flip back and check, sure enough, they were talking about the same glacier.
Global warming is BS.
-
The reasons change with every graduating class!
One year it's methane from the cow farts, another it's CO2 emission, blah, blah, blah...I suggest it's just hot air from academia as they drink their French wine and debate the finer points of world domination!
-
Academics have to much ego invested in their theories and computer models to allow interference from facts or reality.
-
All I know is that here on the gulf coast we have about a 3 foot tide on average. While in Port Everett their was a 10 foot tide almost every day.
-
All I know is that here on the gulf coast we have about a 3 foot tide on average. While in Port Everett their was a 10 foot tide almost every day.
Pacific coast of Panama has about 18 foot tidal range (average) that comes and goes twice a day. Atlantic side has about 2 or 3 feet. separated by a narrow isthmus.
yes, water does some strange things, Gore does stranger things.
-
The levels of the oceans are subjective at best. Mean Sea Levels (MSL) are a product of a variation in tidal flows from mean high tide and mean low tides averaged. Since the earth is a living thing, heaving, settling, cooling, growing hotter, shifting, pulsing and burping constantly, the levels of the land masses are shifting constantly as well.
This is why these studies are all basically conjecture on the part of scientists that don't want their studies disputed by common sense! These global warming guys are all thinking that if A occurs then B is the result! They have an agenda and no other hypothesis is plausible in their over educated, ego maniacal world!
As the earths crust cools, the land sinks a bit! Since the eastern seaboard is the elder brother to the west coast, it would stand to reason that is sinking at the same time the west coast is rising due to tectonic plates moving along the very active fault lines that cut through the western states. Sure, we have seismic issues on the east coast too but not nearly as violent or catastrophic as the west.
Again, offered with no scientific evidence to support this information! As Crusader suggested, most of this information is being dealt by questionable authority that has already been admonished by the scientific community. They're a dedicated group who will not go away until they've given the earth back to the friggin dinosaurs!
You nailed it very well. I am an engineer with a MS in Env Science and have watched this BS for 25 years. This started out with a very poorly done paper imagining all the GW stuff based on a single graph that he later admitted was wrong. Ever since then every time someone pointed out a hole in this fantasy they add another layer of complexity and declare victory. The sad thing is now all the old timers who knew enough to doubt this have been chased out and you have a lot of true believers running all the agencies and schools.
I always get people who are shocked that I don't believe all this BS but I can never get them to understand that you simply can't model something as complex as global weather the way they are pretending to do it. You have to give them credit, they have stood science on its head and demand that people prove them wrong instead of their having to prove their theory right. Everybody just nods their heads.
It ain't science if all the facts agree on everything and that is all they let through any more. I haven't heard a benefit from GW in years. It make me cranky
-
You nailed it very well. I am an engineer with a MS in Env Science and have watched this BS for 25 years.
Thanks Joe! It really was a wild ass guess of what I know of geology! I'm an uneducated fella, at least by most standards! It's nice to know I actually hit the mark on occasion... :D
I do know that measurement from a moving target is virtually impossible. Ergo, a moving landmass cannot be used as a fixed point of reference.
-
Joe,
You seem to know your stuff and have no patience with the fools.
Would you like to talk a bit about Carl Sagan's "Nuclear Winter" ;D
In short it was KGB disinformation aimed at keeping US "Intermediate range Nuke missiles out of Germany.
-
...I can never get them to understand that you simply can't model something as complex as global weather the way they are pretending to do it. You have to give them credit, they have stood science on its head and demand that people prove them wrong instead of their having to prove their theory right. Everybody just nods their heads.
These experts can't tell you for certain if it's gonna rain on Thursday, but they claim to know what's going to happen 50 years out. In a pig's eye, says I.
My 2 Cents,
Crusader
-
These experts can't tell you for certain if it's gonna rain on Thursday, but they claim to know what's going to happen 50 years out. In a pig's eye, says I.
My 2 Cents,
Crusader
It's gonna to rain on Thursday....count on it!
offered with no scientific evidence to support my position. It's a gut thing, you'll understand......
ps....I lived in Florida for a time...
-
Thing is, the first ones to keep any kind of world wide weather records were the British Admiralty.
They started keeping weather records based on the Logs of British ships around 1700 - 1750.
So the only documentary evidence only goes back 400 years or less.
Weather cycles take thousands of years.
And those "Ice core samples" and other so called "physical evidence" ?
Crap.
Levels of carbon and other things in ice are effected by outside contamination.
Look at the recent Volcano's that shut down air travel between Europe and the US.
-
Thing is, the first ones to keep any kind of world wide weather records were the British Admiralty.
They started keeping weather records based on the Logs of British ships around 1700 - 1750.
So the only documentary evidence only goes back 400 years or less.
Weather cycles take thousands of years.
And those "Ice core samples" and other so called "physical evidence" ?
Crap.
Levels of carbon and other things in ice are effected by outside contamination.
Look at the recent Volcano's that shut down air travel between Europe and the US.
As well as negating the last thirty years of recycling efforts of the entire world population!
Mother nature is a fickle bitch!
-
Here is a link to a graph of Earth temps for the past 2000 years...by what ever means were available.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
Note that there was a high point well above our current point around 1000. Also note there is a low point around 1800...which is known as The Little Ice Age. The temperature has been generally rising since that point.
Also note that Al Gore's chart started at that low point and the following rise is used to demonstrate the Global Warming Crisis and ignoring the preceding part of the graph that disproves human activity as a cause of global temperature change.
Not shown is the graph of where the GW proponents show the Earth's temperature to be in 400 years, the projected peak of Global Warming. That peak is just a bit below the peak around year 1000.
Either the Earth's temps are running at a natural cycle or the folks in 1000 BC had a completely undetected high carbon producing industrial base but managed to get it under control and reverse it's effects.
Also note that the counterparts of the GW crowd were warning of impending doom from cataclysmic drops in the Earth's temps in the 1960's.
The temps may be rising, but very little can be attributed to human activity. If this is so, we need to not be spending massive resources to curb human activity, which will only change the 400 year peak projection by a small fraction, but rather on adapting to the natural fluctuation of the Earth's temp. Build dikes, put houses on stilts or whatever works in an area, but don't waste those resources on buying carbon footprint reduction measures from an industry in which Al Gore is heavily invested.
-
Eighteen hundred and froze to death,
In 1816 Albany NY had a frost on June 6,
Rivers and lakes had ice in July and August as far South as Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
-
The funny part about this is that there was a great paper published in Science mag back in the 80's right around the time this all started called the Variable Sun. The researchers did a great job of matching various temperature measures for the last 2000 years against solar storm intensity and got a beautiful correlation.More solar storms means more energy from the sun which tracks with higher temperatures. Solar storms per year are on an 11 cycle that has other longer cycles added in to make the line unpredictable.
We had a highest ever peak in the 80's and a historic drought for 3 years around 2002. This is why we had high temps in the 90's with lower temps around 2005. I expect it will take about another 10 years for the gaps in the GW crap to get to a point where there will be actual debate.
I like solar power and electric cars, but I am offended that scientists chose to sacrifice good science to get their political way and scare people away from fossil fuels instead of doing the hard work of making the alternatives competitive.
-
The funny part about this is that there was a great paper published in Science mag back in the 80's right around the time this all started called the Variable Sun. The researchers did a great job of matching various temperature measures for the last 2000 years against solar storm intensity and got a beautiful correlation.More solar storms means more energy from the sun which tracks with higher temperatures. Solar storms per year are on an 11 cycle that has other longer cycles added in to make the line unpredictable.
We had a highest ever peak in the 80's and a historic drought for 3 years around 2002. This is why we had high temps in the 90's with lower temps around 2005. I expect it will take about another 10 years for the gaps in the GW crap to get to a point where there will be actual debate.
I like solar power and electric cars, but I am offended that scientists chose to sacrifice good science to get their political way and scare people away from fossil fuels instead of doing the hard work of making the alternatives competitive.
That seems to be the "scientific method".
If you have a political agenda that is not supported by the facts the answer is not to revise your political stance, but instead, make up facts that do support your agenda since the "unwashed masses" are to dumb to know the difference.
It's part of being a college educated liberal.
Sagan's "nuclear winter" is an example, He never submitted this KGB funded study for peer review because some, if not all, of his facts were fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Tretyakov_%28intelligence_officer%29#Claims
Another fine example of "scholastic integrity" is Michael A. Bellesiles, who's anti gun, revisionist history of guns in America was found to be "factually flawed", and use citations that had nothing to do with what he claimed they said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America#Emory_investigation_and_resignation
-
There is such a beautiful symmetry between Global Warming and Nuclear Winter.
Global Warming start to get critical, induce a bit of Nuclear Winter.
One Chicken Little Catastrophe is another's salvation. And vice versa. Simply beautiful.
-
I don't know much about the global winter theory beyond remembering when it hit the news. At the time, I thought it basically said that if you trash the atmosphere with enough nukes you will totally upset the climate which seemed reasonable enough if you don't try to get into details like how many nukes would it take and how long would it last. I don't think I really viewed it as science as much as a"it could happen" story. It did seem kind of tailored to fit the times and scare folks into pacifism.
Sagan was a really smart guy with a talent for explaining science in an approachable enthusiastic manner. As I recall he did have some fairly strong liberal beliefs that came out of the background once he got more famous. It is hard to not end up being political once you have some success reaching people as all the activists are always looking for someone to carry the banner for them.
There is a saying biology that fits: "Successful systems attract parasites" kind of fits our political process as well doesn't it.
joe
-
If I remember correctly, the theory was that large amounts of dust or other debris would be sent high into the atmosphere and would block sunlight for a long time, causing a decrease in the global temps.
Ahh..I did remember pretty much correctly....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
-
The deal was that Sagan was given papers the KGB had written by a couple of Soviet scientists, the objective was to prevent the US from deploying intermediate range nukes in Europe where they would present a major obstacle to any potential Soviet invasion of Western Europe .
The scientific disinformation campaign was intended to lend credibility to the Soviet funded Western European "peace movement".
-
The funny part about this is that there was a great paper published in Science mag back in the 80's right around the time this all started called the Variable Sun. The researchers did a great job of matching various temperature measures for the last 2000 years against solar storm intensity and got a beautiful correlation.More solar storms means more energy from the sun which tracks with higher temperatures. Solar storms per year are on an 11 cycle that has other longer cycles added in to make the line unpredictable.
We had a highest ever peak in the 80's and a historic drought for 3 years around 2002. This is why we had high temps in the 90's with lower temps around 2005. I expect it will take about another 10 years for the gaps in the GW crap to get to a point where there will be actual debate.
I like solar power and electric cars, but I am offended that scientists chose to sacrifice good science to get their political way and scare people away from fossil fuels instead of doing the hard work of making the alternatives competitive.
Not saying you or this study is wrong. I'm just going to give a friendly reminder that correlation does not equal causation.
As to climate change, I have trouble denying it's getting warming, but I don't think humans are the primary reason behind it.
-
http://bayoffundy.com/about/highest-tides/
The tides in the Bay Of Fundy are among the highest in the world. Tides are about the only thing that interferes with the "water seeks it's own level" argument. And all tides are is an alternate source of gravity itself, (Moon, not Al Gore).
-
http://bayoffundy.com/about/highest-tides/
The tides in the Bay Of Fundy are among the highest in the world. Tides are about the only thing that interferes with the "water seeks it's own level" argument. And all tides are is an alternate source of gravity itself, (Moon, not Al Gore).
I don't know about that.
I think his ass is fat enough to generate its own gravity.
It has its own zip code.
-
Not saying you or this study is wrong. I'm just going to give a friendly reminder that correlation does not equal causation.
As to climate change, I have trouble denying it's getting warming, but I don't think humans are the primary reason behind it.
Absolutely! One always needs a mechanism to clarify the relationship. Here are a couple of site if you are interested in pursuing this beyond the scope of this discussion. My point was more that the sun spot data was new and exciting at the time for those in climate research and it got ignored (in my opinion) due to the desire to have a socially relevent theory that dramatically increased funding, fame and feeling righteous. Scientists are people too!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=34#more-34
BTW if you google it, the climate is not warming lately just the weather even the believers have had to admit that "the warming has been delayed" :)
Not to worry my guns still shoot in both hot or cold weather.
-
Interesting revelation about what the leading NASA proponent of Man Made Global Warming thought over the past few years...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/busted-leaked-emails-snag-global-warming-alarmists/
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
They lamented that Mother Nature was not cooperating with their predictions that global temperatures would smash heat records last decade. They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020.
Then, they predicted, global warming would return with a vengeance.
snip...
Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”