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




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 pictures on the Piers Facebook was taken but wow, huge difference. Two house on Ocean Drive are literally coming apart right now. Do we expect in a few year 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.

Cryogirl


We just stayed about 3/4 mile north of the pier last week. My sister's family was down a week before and rented just off the beach in the same area. The owner of their house said that the "cove" that has formed just south of the pier migrates up and down the beach and "has always been around". I know that last year the beach was wider at our house and significantly wider than it is now south of the pier.


OBX Connection Sponsored Links




RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






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

hatterasnc


Not sure why you're referencing statistical significance? Have you repeated the experiment dozens of times, so that the statistics become an way to account for your measurement error? Factors such as the salt concentration, ambient temperature and of course human error, can potentially provide small differences between trials, but I doubt that's your problem. The underlying physics of this experiment produce a repeatable, observable and quantifiable effect. Measurement precision is needed for this, so if you can't precisely enough measure the volume difference, no number of trials or statistics is going to help you.

Your various characterizations of academics, the grant process, that it's a gravy train, and implications that somehow there's some sort of global conspiracy between ALL the major international research agencies to perpetuate a global warming hoax indicate a significant lack of understanding how how that all works.

Research grants are actually really hard to get, especially in an popular topic area like climate science. So you have to be pretty exceptional to get and maintain funding. Most public research grants can be looked up, so it's easy to prove that there's no agenda associated with what their findings are meant to be. It's also actually really hard to get multiple scientists to agree with each other, let alone work together on a hoax (but hey.. it's your tin foil). The idea that there's lots of money in it, is also easily debunked. Significantly more money is being spent by private donors, the oil, gas, and coal industries funding the lobbying of politicians, public messaging on the "doubt" angle, and funding the "few" scientists who disagree with the overall consensus. The actual gravy train is If you have any kind of decent credentials if you promise to write papers that refute global warming, you're pretty much guaranteed funding by the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation, all of which have a clear political agenda. The "follow the money" argument doesn't support the hoax position, when you actually follow the money.



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.

coastguardsman


Hey coastguardsman - check your PMs. I’m a retired Coastie too.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






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

hatterasnc


Not sure why you're referencing statistical significance? Have you repeated the experiment dozens of times, so that the statistics become an way to account for your measurement error? Factors such as the salt concentration, ambient temperature and of course human error, can potentially provide small differences between trials, but I doubt that's your problem. The underlying physics of this experiment produce a repeatable, observable and quantifiable effect. Measurement precision is needed for this, so if you can't precisely enough measure the volume difference, no number of trials or statistics is going to help you.

Your various characterizations of academics, the grant process, that it's a gravy train, and implications that somehow there's some sort of global conspiracy between ALL the major international research agencies to perpetuate a global warming hoax indicate a significant lack of understanding how how that all works.

Research grants are actually really hard to get, especially in an popular topic area like climate science. So you have to be pretty exceptional to get and maintain funding. Most public research grants can be looked up, so it's easy to prove that there's no agenda associated with what their findings are meant to be. It's also actually really hard to get multiple scientists to agree with each other, let alone work together on a hoax (but hey.. it's your tin foil). The idea that there's lots of money in it, is also easily debunked. Significantly more money is being spent by private donors, the oil, gas, and coal industries funding the lobbying of politicians, public messaging on the "doubt" angle, and funding the "few" scientists who disagree with the overall consensus. The actual gravy train is If you have any kind of decent credentials if you promise to write papers that refute global warming, you're pretty much guaranteed funding by the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation, all of which have a clear political agenda. The "follow the money" argument doesn't support the hoax position, when you actually follow the money.

virtual


Dude, calm down, I'm not into chopping down your money tree or clogging your money funnel.

I think my uncertainty with seawater may have been trial bias. I was actually expecting a rise based on your accounts, and the meniscus of water level and condensation on the outer glass may have affected the accuracy of my measurement. Clearly my failure on an experimental basis. I am just a guy with a glass of water and ice cubes. I understand that common sense doesn't trump well-ffunded, settled science, and I'm cool with that.

A reasonable person may have doubts when others get defensive and write a tome discrediting the poster rather than the data.

That is all. Be well.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






Dude, calm down, I'm not into chopping down your money tree or clogging your money funnel.

I think my uncertainty with seawater may have been trial bias. I was actually expecting a rise based on your accounts, and the meniscus of water level and condensation on the outer glass may have affected the accuracy of my measurement. Clearly my failure on an experimental basis. I am just a guy with a glass of water and ice cubes. I understand that common sense doesn't trump well-ffunded, settled science, and I'm cool with that.

A reasonable person may have doubts when others get defensive and write a tome discrediting the poster rather than the data.

That is all. Be well.

hatterasnc


Dude.. Sorry if you misinterpreted my last message. I was trying to be helpful. You keep saying the experiment doesn't work for you, and brought up the notion of the statistical significance of your results. I was just pointing out that your problem isn't a statistics one, it must be experimental. Trying to apply statistics where it's not appropriate just isn't going to help you.

Anyway, I'm tempted to say that the volume increase you'll observe in this experiment (that you yourself suggested in a different form) IS from "settled science", but that might set off a whole bunch of people who keep claiming there's no such thing. So instead, I'll just say the experiment is a relatively easy one, and has been repeated and confirmed by many people. My 12 year did this in a single test so I it's not too hard, and I know you can get there with perseverance. Got my fingers crossed for you. You can always increase the volume rise by using more ice, just keep in mind all you're doing is making it easier for you to measure, not actually changing the underlying effect. All the math is actually really easy, which is of course (a simplified version of ) how climate scientists are able to convert estimated sea ice mass into ocean rise as it melts.

https://socratic.org/questions/how-do-you-calculate-mass-using-density-and-volume

Anyone else on here try this? If you have, maybe you can help Hatterasnc. He seems to be misunderstanding my attempts to be helpful.



RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I think I'll grab a beer. Can someone please pass the beer nuts?


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




The personal attack was much less helpful. Attack the argument, not the person.

What kind of beer you having Md.Chas? Big grin

John


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Let’s ask the bunny.




RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




^^ yes! JudyK quite a blast from the past when you would send us boys to timeout with a bunny pancake!
Crotalus, Redfin, Dapster, SPQ, 13#, fbgDennis, anchorman, JAM and I am sure I have missed others from the spirited disagreements back in the day... Thanks for being the Mother Vine of this message board Thumbs up
Last word....Virtual, respect you but up your game Big grin


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Let's try and keep this civil. I guess it might look like I wasn't being helpful because people don't like it when others treat people back the way the same way they were treating others. In the space of this thread hatterasnc has posted the following missives:

>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.
...
>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.
...
>... results were not substantially different, although the ocean saline
>content did yield something close to a rise, not statistically significant.

Each of these seemed like pretty blatant attempts at being intellectual put downs. All coming from someone who clearly, based on the what I observed, doesn't seem to know what he's talking about:

- HNC suggested people do an experiment to prove that melting sea ice won't raise ocean level: In reality doing an experiment that better mirrors real world conditions proves exactly the opposite.

- HNC suggested some other experiment claiming it shows that the sea has a heat sink effect that will counter global warming and ocean rise: It wasn't related to that at all and was irrelevant to sea rise.

- HNC stated that his observations of raises in volume had no statistical significance: When it wasn't the type of problem where statistical significance would be relevant.

So there's my lame "but.. Mom he started it.." excuse. Perhaps a few people may understand and forgive me for letting a little too much sarcasm through in my responses to his postings. But yes I should be a better person than that, as we all should. So for that I do apologize to hatterasnc .

And I also want to give hatterasnc a LOT of credit for actually performing the experiment. It shows an active and inquisitive mind, and a willingness to try and learn new things. That's awesome! And I mean that genuinely, with no hint of sarcasm intended. In that sense I WAS actually trying to help, and want hatterasnc to succeed with the experiment. I was actually hoping that there was a tiny chance it might even be enough to convince him that once he learned he was wrong about melting sea ice and ocean rise, he might also consider that he might also be wrong about some other things he currently thinks he knows to be true, that aren't.

But what about the rest of you? What are any of you doing to try and actually understand whether global warming is actually real or not? As I said, at least hatterasnc was willing to take a look into understanding some scientific realities. If all anyone else does is to regurgitate out the same standard climate denier myth talking points that have all been debunked (i.e. its a hoax, it's a conspiracy, the data has been fixed to skew the results, but it was a really cold winter in Antarctica in 2013, etc.) then they're just a pawn to manipulation. Even if learning the science behind this doesn't change your mind, at least you'll be able to make a reasonable argument to support your informed minority position.

FWIW. I can point to some other simple experiments that show how increased greenhouse gas traps more heat, and also other experiments that highlight how man-made contributions will increase greenhouse gas significantly over what would occur naturally. I'm happy to share this stuff if anyone cares to see them. These experiments (just like the mass, density, volume relationship that relates melting ice to sea level rise) are largely based on high school level science, all of which is actually "settled science" and not disputed by anyone.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Great response Virtual. I was all in until you brought up "settled science"...……..there is no such thing. When I was earning my bachelor degree in Geology in the early seventies, the "settled science" was global cooling...………….





RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG






But what about the rest of you? What are any of you doing to try and actually understand whether global warming is actually real or not?

virtual


Not a regular here, I don't post much, other than the occasional photo (haven't even done that in a while), but since I've been following this thread for a bit, I'll answer anyway. What I did was to spend half a decade in graduate school in marine science, my research topic was barrier island and coastal processes. In the process, I learned a fair bit about oceanography, climatology, barrier island geology, and stats, among other things. For a period of time I was employed as a barrier island specialist by the state of NC (including participating in the CRC Science Panel), until the low pay and politics were too much for me.

Of course it is real, and it is us. Although after ~25 years worth of arguing on the internet in a variety of fora, I am pretty sure there are better ways to spend one's time than trying to argue people into accepting it.



RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Let's try and keep this civil.
So for that I do apologize to Hatterasnc
.

virtual


Holy wall of words, Batman!
Apology accepted without reservation. And offered back to you.
We can agreeably disagree.
My opinions and observations were offered for info. Although I think some of my quoted words were taken out of context, I understand your investment and commitment to your beliefs.
Be Well.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I still wonder if around 15,000 years ago a couple of Neanderthals noticed melting glacial ice, and rising sea levels, and said: "Do you think our cooking fires are making the ice melt?"
Sea levels have risen, and fallen, for millions of years. That is settled science.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I still wonder if around 15,000 years ago a couple of Neanderthals noticed melting glacial ice, and rising sea levels, and said: "Do you think our cooking fires are making the ice melt?"
Sea levels have risen, and fallen, for millions of years. That is settled science.

Squid Pro Quo


And barrier islands migrate accordingly.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Sea levels have risen, and fallen, for millions of years. That is settled science.

Squid Pro Quo


I don't think anyone's arguing against that? Except maybe the people claiming it's not rising.

John


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I still wonder if around 15,000 years ago a couple of Neanderthals noticed melting glacial ice, and rising sea levels, and said: "Do you think our cooking fires are making the ice melt?"
Sea levels have risen, and fallen, for millions of years. That is settled science.

Squid Pro Quo


And barrier islands migrate accordingly.

rpemers


Speaking of migrating islands. Is Shelly Island still above water ??


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




I still wonder if around 15,000 years ago a couple of Neanderthals noticed melting glacial ice, and rising sea levels, and said: "Do you think our cooking fires are making the ice melt?"
Sea levels have risen, and fallen, for millions of years. That is settled science.

Squid Pro Quo


And barrier islands migrate accordingly.

rpemers


Speaking of migrating islands. Is Shelly Island still above water ??

kraggman



Negative.


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




Great response Virtual. I was all in until you brought up "settled science"...……..there is no such thing. When I was earning my bachelor degree in Geology in the early seventies, the "settled science" was global cooling...………….

lowtide

There is most certainly a consensus when it comes to science. And, believe it or not, that consensus can change when better data is introduced. Science isn't locked into one way of thinking. It will change, it will adapt. Awesome right?

As for your statement that the consensus in the early 70's was global cooling, nope, that was not the consensus even back then when we had far less data to work with. The consensus was, in fact, global warming. Sorry, your 70's ice age argument has been debunked for some time now. I also wouldn't use Time magazine (or Newsweek, another source of the 70's global cooling) as a reference for anything scientific.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2007/11/common-climate-misconceptions-1970s-global-cooling-concerns-lacked-todays-scientific-rigor-and-relevance/

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

"However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."

John


RE: "OBX Getting Swallowed Up" according to NG




FREE! "Project: Ice" is an award-winning film by William Kleinart. 5pm at the Ocracoke Library. All are welcome! This is the first of a six-part global series discussing how climate change and sea level rise are affecting coastal communities. Come and meet the filmmaker!