OBX Connection Home > OBX Connection Forum > "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG
"OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG

RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The Arctic - same location 103 years ago and today...

Blue Fish


So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?


OBX Connection Sponsored Links




RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The Arctic - same location 103 years ago and today...

Blue Fish


You should have seen it 15,000 years ago!


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide

Since you're the one who brought up "healthier planet", you'll have to define what that means. I thought we were talking about sea level change? Some deny that it's even happening (?!), some agree it's happening but it's a natural cycle, and some agree that it's happening, that it's a natural cycle, and that man is accelerating that cycle.

I do have a question for those that agree the sea level is rising (regardless of cause). Do you agree or disagree that we should be preparing to deal with the rise or should we just deal with whatever happens?

John


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide

Since you're the one who brought up "healthier planet", you'll have to define what that means. I thought we were talking about sea level change? Some deny that it's even happening (?!), some agree it's happening but it's a natural cycle, and some agree that it's happening, that it's a natural cycle, and that man is accelerating that cycle.

I do have a question for those that agree the sea level is rising (regardless of cause). Do you agree or disagree that we should be preparing to deal with the rise or should we just deal with whatever happens?

John

J4yDubs


We absolutely should be preparing. Its absurd not to. Worst case scenario, we're overprepared and any solutions presented are longer lasting than expected. A far cry from the worst case scenarios for those who chose to stick their head in the sand and ignore what's coming. I suppose some take the approach of 'by the time its worth worrying about, ill be long gone', but i find that pretty distasteful. We should aim to leave the earth a better place than we found it for future generations.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide

Since you're the one who brought up "healthier planet", you'll have to define what that means. I thought we were talking about sea level change? Some deny that it's even happening (?!), some agree it's happening but it's a natural cycle, and some agree that it's happening, that it's a natural cycle, and that man is accelerating that cycle.

I do have a question for those that agree the sea level is rising (regardless of cause). Do you agree or disagree that we should be preparing to deal with the rise or should we just deal with whatever happens?

John

J4yDubs


I definitely agree that we should be preparing to deal with it.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The Arctic - same location 103 years ago and today...

Blue Fish


So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide


You're welcome to answer that for yourself. Regardless of your point of view, the difference is astonishing.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The Arctic - same location 103 years ago and today...

Blue Fish


So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide


What glacier? That is a photo depicting the loss of land ice in the Arctic.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Ice coverage changes, but when it increases, it doesn't fit into the scheme so it doesn't get much attention.




RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






Here's another "science" experiment in the meantime. Take a medium saucepan, fill it halfway with water, put it on a stove burner at low heat and allow it to warm, eventually boiling. Record the time until the water level/nucleate boiling causes it to boil over. Empty the pan, allow to cool and refill to same level. Now, take a blowtorch at similar low heat and heat the water evenly from above until (if) it boils over. Record the time (if it does boil over?).

What happens to the water when heated from below? What happens to the water when heated from above? The oceans are an amazing heat sink when heated from above, and since global warming doesn't heat from below...Which is the ocean warming scam, and which is not?

...later...

see there you go going off topic to throwing clay pots and stuff. metal, clay, conduction...who has time for this?
dude, this is simple thermodynamics. Sorry, I know that's a long word.

hatterasnc


This experiment is also irrelevant with regard to climate change analysis, ocean rise, etc. It certainly does nothing to prove the existence of an ocean warming scam.

The stated experiment relates only to heating water in different ways. In the blow torch scenario most of the heat energy from the flame gets lost to heating the air (which has a much lower specific heat capacity as compared to the water). Also because the flame is being applied only to a much smaller surface fraction of the liquid, as compared to more evenly heated metal pan used in the first scenario that is in contact with a much larger surface area of the liquid.

So yes dude.. it IS simple thermodynamics. The heat sink characteristics of water (it's ability to absorb energy) are irrelevant to the experiment since it doesn't change the fact that it requires putting the same amount of energy into the water to get it boiling in each case. The experiment shows only that there are more and/or less efficient ways to do that energy transfer.

So it's not clear to me what point you were trying to make? But FYI climate scientists are aware of the energy transfer characteristics of heating ocean water from both solar radiation and air, so those effects are taken into account.

virtual


welcome Virtual. I am sorry you are confused by the parameters of scientific investigation, and changing the parameters from freshwater to saltwater. It is important in science to answer direct questions with discovery, and if unable, to change the subject. As you have accomplished. But, hey, I'll play along.

I have done both with "saltwater" and freshwater, and ice on the edge of the bowl (land based ice) and immersed.
I have also set up a collection area and measured runoff (the effect of melting land-based ice - not glaciers, which are mainly earthen rock and soil). The results are the same, zero to negligible effect.

I think you are highly invested in your science and beliefs. And that's OK. It is the path you have chosen. Ride on.
The difference between science and beliefs is: one is proven, and one is faith.
And don't go all in on saying it is proven, fact, 4/5 of scientists believe. A reasonable person would disagree.
But hey, welcome, have fun, and enjoy!


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide

Since you're the one who brought up "healthier planet", you'll have to define what that means. I thought we were talking about sea level change? Some deny that it's even happening (?!), some agree it's happening but it's a natural cycle, and some agree that it's happening, that it's a natural cycle, and that man is accelerating that cycle.

I do have a question for those that agree the sea level is rising (regardless of cause). Do you agree or disagree that we should be preparing to deal with the rise or should we just deal with whatever happens?

John

J4yDubs


Completely agree. But not in the futile efforts of trying to lower co2. There's pretty much nothing we can do that would lower co2 enough to make a difference. I think we should stop building in coastal flood zones and start to anticipate where flood zones will be moving over time. What we build and how we build should change dramatically. We need long term planning here. Instead of spending trillions on researching trying to blame man for everything, we could use that money to carve out a better future dealing with changes we arent driving and can't control.

And I should add....using stupid ass predictions like 39 inch rise only adds to the growing pile of unfulfilled predictions from the warners. I would plan based on actual long range measurements, not fear driven panic monger wild ass guesses.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





Completely agree.

marylander

Well that's a start. Now if you could convince hatterasnc and gregmd that sea level rising is real... I'm glad to hear that you're open to preparing for it. Regardless of cause, it is happening.


And I should add....using stupid ass predictions like 39 inch rise only adds to the growing pile of unfulfilled predictions from the warners. I would plan based on actual long range measurements, not fear driven panic monger wild ass guesses.

marylander

Where is world are you guys getting these numbers from? Someone else mentioned in a different thread a 12" rise by 2030. I also wondered where that number came from, but didn't get an answer. 39"? Hopefully that was a very long term prediction.

John


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






I have done both with "saltwater" and freshwater, and ice on the edge of the bowl (land based ice) and immersed.
I have also set up a collection area and measured runoff (the effect of melting land-based ice - not glaciers, which are mainly earthen rock and soil). The results are the same, zero to negligible effect.

I

hatterasnc


Well.. It's great that you gave it a try. It's way more than most people do. I'm going to have to guess you goofed up somewhere though, or have some measurement precision problem.

But if you can continue to repeat your measurements that show zero effect in melting fresh water ice in salt water, you really need to come up with a scientific explanation for that, and publish. You seem to have discovered some new phenomenon that invalidates what science has thought to be true for years, so you might become famous and I'll be able to say I knew you when... Kewl!

https://science.wonderhowto.com/how-to/determine-density-salt-water-323848/



RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






welcome Virtual. I am sorry you are confused by the parameters of scientific investigation, and changing the parameters from freshwater to saltwater. It is important in science to answer direct questions with discovery, and if unable, to change the subject. As you have accomplished. But, hey, I'll play along.

hatterasnc


I'll ignore your assumptions about what I do and don't know about sicentific investigation for the moment. But when you want to impune others, it really helps if you're actually correct in what you say.

So far you've made a number of false and misleading statements in this thread, and in this particular case you had specifically made the case that since you can show that melting ice in water didn't increase the volume of the water that somehow proved that the oceans won't rise as a result of global warming melting sea ice. Or is there some other interpretation to your bringing up that experiment that I might have missed?

All I did was point out that was not true. I only had to change the parameters because you were clearly using incorrect parameters, ones that didn't match up to the point you were trying to prove. No subject was changed. I was just trying to correct your apparent misconceptions about how melting ice can affect water volume.



RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





Completely agree.

marylander

Well that's a start. Now if you could convince hatterasnc and gregmd that sea level rising is real... I'm glad to hear that you're open to preparing for it. Regardless of cause, it is happening.


And I should add....using stupid ass predictions like 39 inch rise only adds to the growing pile of unfulfilled predictions from the warners. I would plan based on actual long range measurements, not fear driven panic monger wild ass guesses.

marylander

Where is world are you guys getting these numbers from? Someone else mentioned in a different thread a 12" rise by 2030. I also wondered where that number came from, but didn't get an answer. 39"? Hopefully that was a very long term prediction.

John

J4yDubs


That data came from the last IPCC in 2015 ...

"The most recent projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicate that if emissions continue on their current trend, sea levels could continue to rise another 39 inches by the end of this century.

By 2050, 26 major U.S. cities will face an “emerging flooding crisis.” Globally, storm damage could cost cities from Hong Kong to Dhaka to New York trillions annually unless adaptation measures are taken. According to Climate Central estimates, 150 million or more people are currently living on land that will either be submerged or exposed to chronic flooding by 2100."

As I mentioned, there's data that shows we're in a constant rate of sea level rise and have been since the mid-1800's. At the moment, there's still ice in the Arctic, despite predictions that we'd be ice-free. And even as Arctic ice decreases, Antarctic ice seems to be growing at about the same rate as the Arctic is shrinking - even as it shifts due to thousands of undersea active volcanoes causing melting on the western side. So unless the current low solar activity is an indication of a coming cooling period, which it could be, then I assume we'll still be increasing at the same rate we have been,

Interesting read on wikipedia just now as I checked the dates on the last mini-ice age. It seems that the content has been largely re-written recently as warmists want to paint a new picture, claiming there never was a little ice age. But what I found funny was the attempts they made at explaining away the anecdotal evidence of a uniquely cold period . . .

"Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population."

The reason I find this so interesting is the factors they list as contributing toward a cooling period are exactly the same factors I believe are contributing to today's warming period. Note, though, that warmists claim warming is primarily caused by humans, though it's last in factors that caused cooling. Bit contradictory.





RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The Arctic - same location 103 years ago and today...

Blue Fish


So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide


What glacier? That is a photo depicting the loss of land ice in the Arctic.

nicki



With the greatest respect I suggest this photograph comparison is from Christian Aslund, a Swedish photojournalist who works for Greenpeace. He gathered some early photos of GLACIERS in Svalbard, Norway and compared them to his own 2002 photographs.


www.christianaslund.com/glacier-retreat#!


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide

Since you're the one who brought up "healthier planet", you'll have to define what that means. I thought we were talking about sea level change? Some deny that it's even happening (?!), some agree it's happening but it's a natural cycle, and some agree that it's happening, that it's a natural cycle, and that man is accelerating that cycle.

I do have a question for those that agree the sea level is rising (regardless of cause). Do you agree or disagree that we should be preparing to deal with the rise or should we just deal with whatever happens?

John

J4yDubs



"Healthier planet" is pretty self explanatory...….I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that some sea level change promoters are suggesting that the planet is suffering from mankind's activities and these activities are causing the climate to change resulting in sea level rise......I was simply asking if there were folks that believed the earth was in better shape when the glacier in the 1928 picture from Norway was larger?
I am sorry if some of you felt I was challenging your beliefs......I have too much respect for thinking folks to berate anyone's understanding of the mysteries of the earth's development through hundred's of thousands of years. It has been going on for a long time without us and will continue........we are along for the ride. Please enjoy the very elementary historical presentation of what the earth has been through.....fun to input your address.




dinosaurpictures.org/ancient-earth#240


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The Arctic - same location 103 years ago and today...

Blue Fish


So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide


You're welcome to answer that for yourself. Regardless of your point of view, the difference is astonishing.

Blue Fish



Agree the difference between the 1928 and 2002 photographs are astonishing. Thanks for sharing.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





I am sorry if some of you felt I was challenging your beliefs......I have too much respect for thinking folks to berate anyone's understanding of the mysteries of the earth's development through hundred's of thousands of years. It has be going on for along time without us and will continue........we are along for the ride. Please enjoy the very elementary historical presentation of what the earth has been through.....fun to input your address.

lowtide

That's a great link. Thank you. Looks like I was ocean front at one point. Just have to hold on to this property for another 100 million years and I'll make some money.


I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that some sea level change promoters are suggesting that the planet is suffering from mankind's activities and these activities are causing the climate to change resulting in sea level rise.

lowtide

The mainstream isn't suggesting that man is completely responsible for the climate change. They are suggesting that man is accelerating that time line. I absolutely hope you are right and the earth can buffer anything we throw at it. The data doesn't really fit that, but we'll revise if wrong. Alaska looks to be the place to buy to plan for the future. I've never been, but it's on my list of places to visit.

John


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I absolutely hope you are right and the earth can buffer anything we throw at it. The data doesn't really fit that, but we'll revise if wrong.

John

J4yDubs


I think the data fits that characterization precisely. It doesn't fit the models, which is the crux of the disagreements. The models are clearly flawed and so the future picture painted by the models is also flawed.

For example, while the CO2 levels continue to rise to all time highs, the temps aren't following. Yes, we see how each new official year is declared to be the hottest of all time, but we also see that we're talking hundreds of a degree, and only after NOAA manipulates the data. We also have past data that shows former hot periods have been manipulated by NOAA to look cooler (1930's). We're not stupid. We can see that the models and predictions have repeatedly failed. And we can correctly assume that the scientists who built the models don't fully understand the systems that drive climate. We still have snow. We still have polar ice caps. Polar bears are thriving. Hurricanes are statistically low, even taking last year into consideration.

We can also read. We see dissenting scientific voices with very strong credentials speaking up and providing alternative information and conclusions; some of which is that this wonderful planet we're on has mechanisms to offset & absorb heat that are not well understood. And we see that instead of engaging these voices in scientific debate, the warmers fall back on weak rhetoric, "the science is settled", "we have 100% universal scientific consensus that can't be questioned". And we read about other drivers like solar and cosmic radiation that align perfectly with temp graphs yet are "dismissed" by the warming voices because it doesn't fit the narrative. There's no funding if we conclude "all is well" or even if we determine "all is not well, but there's little puny man can do to influence that".



RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





So where is the glacier supposed to be? Which picture would indicate a healthier planet?

lowtide

Since you're the one who brought up "healthier planet", you'll have to define what that means. I thought we were talking about sea level change? Some deny that it's even happening (?!), some agree it's happening but it's a natural cycle, and some agree that it's happening, that it's a natural cycle, and that man is accelerating that cycle.

I do have a question for those that agree the sea level is rising (regardless of cause). Do you agree or disagree that we should be preparing to deal with the rise or should we just deal with whatever happens?

John

J4yDubs



"Healthier planet" is pretty self explanatory...….I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that some sea level change promoters are suggesting that the planet is suffering from mankind's activities and these activities are causing the climate to change resulting in sea level rise......I was simply asking if there were folks that believed the earth was in better shape when the glacier in the 1928 picture from Norway was larger?
I am sorry if some of you felt I was challenging your beliefs......I have too much respect for thinking folks to berate anyone's understanding of the mysteries of the earth's development through hundred's of thousands of years. It has be going on for along time without us and will continue........we are along for the ride. Please enjoy the very elementary historical presentation of what the earth has been through.....fun to input your address.


lowtide


Love that link lowtide! Thumbs up


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




There is no such thing as "settled science" or scientific consensus. Science, in it's true form, is always evolving as new information becomes available. The "warmers" ignore that very basic tenant of science out of necessity.

In addition, the warmers also tend to ignore the role of the sun in climatology. While we pretend to be able to factor the sun's role into the 'global warming' equation, I doubt strongly that we can do so with ANY degree of precision or accuracy. Our level of understanding when it comes to the sun and its quirks is still in its infancy and the last time I checked, the sun is primarily responsible for warming the planet.

Finally, there is natural activity here on Earth as well. The CO2 being belched every day from the ocean floor and from volcanoes (see Hawaii!) creates far more of an impact than fossil fuel power plants or Chevys starting up. Again, we have NO real way of predicting future natural activity here on Earth.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






I have done both with "saltwater" and freshwater, and ice on the edge of the bowl (land based ice) and immersed.
I have also set up a collection area and measured runoff (the effect of melting land-based ice - not glaciers, which are mainly earthen rock and soil). The results are the same, zero to negligible effect.

I

hatterasnc


Well.. It's great that you gave it a try. It's way more than most people do. I'm going to have to guess you goofed up somewhere though, or have some measurement precision problem.

But if you can continue to repeat your measurements that show zero effect in melting fresh water ice in salt water, you really need to come up with a scientific explanation for that, and publish. You seem to have discovered some new phenomenon that invalidates what science has thought to be true for years, so you might become famous and I'll be able to say I knew you when... Kewl!

https://science.wonderhowto.com/how-to/determine-density-salt-water-323848/

virtual


Interesting, tried it with brackish water (about 1500ppm salt (chloride) by titration), sound water (about 19000ppm) and ocean water (about 33000ppm), results were not substantially different, although the ocean saline content did yield something close to a rise, not statistically significant.

Publish? I'll leave that to the academia wonks who have to publish or perish. Too many of 'em already doing this with grant money...wait....perhaps I SHALL apply to the gravy train Banana


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




So what's going on near the pier in Rodanthe - is this just basic erosion for the Outer Banks and nothing related to what is being discussed here (rising sea levels)? Or does a TS that far off coast impact that much? I hate to see what happens to this area when a hurricane moves through off coast this year. Not sure when the picture on the Piers Facebook was taken but wow, huge difference. Two houses on Ocean Drive are literally coming apart right now. Do we expect in a few years that the sand will be back and things will be normal again around that area or is beach nourishment now required for this area? I was in Rodanthe three years ago and I am amazed at how much of he beach has gone since then.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I was looking up historical events on this day for my thread here: http://www.obxconnection.com/outer-banks-forum/forum-thread.aspx?Thread=91685

and found an event more pertinent to this thread...

On this date in 1913 the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth occurred in Death Valley. The records show on this date 105 years ago, it was 134 degrees.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG





Completely agree.

marylander

Well that's a start. Now if you could convince hatterasnc and gregmd that sea level rising is real... I'm glad to hear that you're open to preparing for it. Regardless of cause, it is happening.


And I should add....using stupid ass predictions like 39 inch rise only adds to the growing pile of unfulfilled predictions from the warners. I would plan based on actual long range measurements, not fear driven panic monger wild ass guesses.

marylander

Where is world are you guys getting these numbers from? Someone else mentioned in a different thread a 12" rise by 2030. I also wondered where that number came from, but didn't get an answer. 39"? Hopefully that was a very long term prediction.

John

J4yDubs


Generally I believe that most of what is being talked about is a natural cycle. But I also believe that the human race is speeding things up.
Now, i'm not sure whether I believe some of the projections on how much the oceans are going to rise in the next 10, 30, and 80 years. However, I think numbers like that are meant to get people's attention and get them onboard. If experts throw out numbers like "39" ocean rise in the next 1000 years", most people, wrong or right, aren't going to get too excited about it.