Gravity isn't caused by global warming - I'm pretty sure that's what you asked for. Shifting mass on a large scale would certainly affect the gravitational field. Would you argue otherwise?
Edit: Wow...never mind. It appears you would. LOL
Good Lord, Sanders blames terrorism on climate change...
- Thread starter millhawk
- Start date
Gravity isn't caused by global warming - I'm pretty sure that's what you asked for. Shifting mass on a large scale would certainly affect the gravitational field. Would you argue otherwise?
Edit: Wow...never mind. It appears you would. LOL
It's not a large scale. The TOTAL mass of all water on Earth is 0.023% of Earth's total mass. And land ice is obviously a tiny fraction of that tiny number.
It's enough to cause the sea level rise in the Northern Hemisphere and specifically along the east and west coasts of N. American to be 25% higher than the global avg. That's just math. Didn't you read your own link?
Not going to happen. The link is an example of the ridiculous claims people make about global warming.
See? When confronted with fact, you fall back on ""Not going to happen". I assume that's because you don't believe the planet is actually warming...but you said you do.
So if you DO believe the planet is warming...how will you prevent the ice from melting? Because if it melts, the mass lost in the southern hemisphere will spread out over the surface causing a change in the strength of the gravitational field. Like I said, that's just math...IF you believe the planet is warming.
So come clean, Trad...is the atmosphere warming or not?
The gradual warming we're seeing not going to cause the entire ice sheet to melt and in any case, the effects won't be known for hundreds if not several hundreds of years. Meanwhile, all sorts of other climate forcings could occur and change the trajectory of things.
I said it wasn't a big deal. The length of a day increases and decreases about a millisecond over the course of a year due to tides, currents and wind.
Shifts from earthquakes tend to be smaller.
Then you'll need to explain why the Pentagon has been putting out these analysis warnings through several administrations, Dem and Republican.....
One reason is these "warnings" probably suggest that more money in the DoD budget will be needed.
"Those idiots" are running the calculations of what happens when gigatons of mass is taken from the axis point (the southern pole area) and redistributed more uniformly around the planet. An exaggerated, but identical, example is how an ice skater spins faster by pulling her arms inward during a spin move. Sorry you failed math and physics in HS, but that's how it works.
And it's the same "idiots" who made miniscule, but extremely important, corrections to GPS satellites, so their clocks tracked properly to account for relativistic motion. Without that correction, which is on the order of billionths of billionths, the GPS system would not work.
Translation: I have no idea why GWB did not ask for different reports....oh....wait, he probably actually didn't have the authority to dictate their actual content.
I don't think the GPS people were the ones who wrote the British news article.
Cite your own source that he CAN itemize what they put in their analysis reports. I just pointed out to you that the GWB Pentagon identified climate change as a real threat moving forward for the US military.
If he didn't want that in there, why is it there? Why not just stick with Iraq, Iran and all the evil Muslims?
I did not intend to imply that directly, only that it's the EXACT same science being used to generate the results. You can't claim the science and scientists are 'idiots' when one calculation they obtain is something you don't agree with. I suppose you can if you're too much of an uneducated moron to understand the science.....
Of course he could order them to shelve the report. He can order them to stand at attention with trash cans on their heads all day if he wanted to do so.
Well, actually the projections show a 0.83 meter rise in sea level by 2100 IF we can manage to slow the warming trend seen right now - the trend you agree is occurring. Again...basically math with a 95% confidence level. That's mostly thermal expansion due to the oceans absorbing more of the heat that you agree is entering the atmosphere.
For the metrically challenged that's a 2.7 foot rise in mean sea level. We'll notice that.
The point is, these "changes" are so small and gradual that they are imperceivable to living things on this planet and only detectable through technology. It's not a threat to anything.
The projections are wrong. The Arctic was supposed to be ice free a couple of years ago and there's still plenty of ice up there.
And how do they know we can "manage to slow" the warming trend? They don't. We might piss away our economies in the attempt to go "carbon free" and it might not make a damn bit of difference.
The $70+ Billion in damages from hurricane Sandy (exacerbated in part by higher sea levels from climate change and melting Antarctic ice), disagrees with you.
Nope. But (SHOCKER!!!) the climate 'facts' you get from Fox News aren't really 'facts'.
Not when Congress is overseeing many of the intel reports and commissioning them....
"President" does not make you "King". Take a civics class.
Classic case of assigning cause when science says Sandy can't be blamed on global warming.
You do know that hurricanes have struck the northeast before, don't you?
If you had an ounce of reading comprehension skill, you'd understand that my point did not claim GW 'caused' hurricane Sandy.
Now you're refuting yourself. Check back when when you have your talking point straight. Maybe Al Gore has a helpline to get you back on track.
My post on the issue is above, unchanged, for you to go back and (try to) comprehend. I think this stuff is far too "complicated" for you to 'get' though, despite the fact that a 7th grader could figure it out.
That's really fudging there. The great cost came from it hitting expensive real estate in an area that was not in the least bit prepared for it. Global warming had at best a negligible effect if any at all.
***Except for that extra ~1 foot of sea level along the East coast.
The sea has been rising for thousands of years, at roughly the same rate. The small acceleration in the last century would only account for a few inches compared to the prevailing rate of rise.
So, as I said, negligible at best.
No, you're wrong, you're a sensationalism whore, and you don't understand how charts work.
That chart is intentionally misleading. Among other things it is obvious that the bottom part showing inches per decade doesn't line up with the graphic portion. Either way, look at it and it's quite obvious. The general trend of the line in the graph leads to nearly exactly where it ends up.Nope.
The chart in this link shows clearly that sea level has been rising for the last 2000 years. It also mentions the east coast of the USA is sinking due to the ongoing effects of the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet at the end of the last Ice Age, so the rate of sea-level rise relative to the land is higher than it would otherwise be.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
You are wrong. Just admit it. The effect of AGW for Sandy is negligible.
The chart I linked shows it rising for the past 6000 years, too. Only very very slowly. Then, a much faster ramp up in the past hundred years. The East coast has seen > 10" in that time which is hardly 'negligible' when it comes to storm surges.
Deny the data all you want; but the funny thing about facts is that they are true whether or not you choose to believe them.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html
Why don't you email the State of New York & inform them that they are wrong about the "more than 1 foot of sea level rise" along their coast since 1900. I'm sure you have a more accurate number than the people who actually live there...
I'm sure people have. No one is denying that the sea level has risen a foot to 15 inches there over the last hundred years, a good portion of which is due to land sinking rather than sea level rising. I never claimed it didn't. What I said and my link supports is that only a small portion of that rise can be linked to AGW. The sea level would have risen most of that whether man existed or not.http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html
Why don't you email the State of New York & inform them that they are wrong about the "more than 1 foot of sea level rise" along their coast since 1900. I'm sure you have a more accurate number than the people who actually live there...
Being very generous AWG may have contributed to 2-3 inches over the last hundred years. The tide ranges as much as six feet there and the storm surge was another 6 feet. Geography would lead to another foot or so resulting in water levels that were 13 feet above mean lower low water in Manhattan. The water was intruding whether those generous inches where added or not. When speaking of a storm surge a couple of inches is pretty much negligible.
This is the problem with alarmists arguments. You take naturally occurring events and if there is any chance of AGW contributing even a negligible amount to them blame the whole thing on man made climate change. It's that hyperbole and insistence on ignoring naturally occurring factors that makes you look just as ignorant as those who deny AWG altogether.
Now, back to Sandy, there are arguments that global warming may have contributed to a storm that big, that late, and that far north. They could hold some water (pun intended). Again, though man's contribution is a small part and extremely difficult to measure. It's also quite possible as some have suggested, and there is some evidence that man may have more directly caused Sandy by manipulation via the HAARP and HAMP systems. Ignoring the far out political theories, it's not crazy to think we have attempted to steer hurricanes away from the Gulf and lower Eastern seaboard where most hurricane damage occurs.
I'm not saying that did happen, but I wouldn't completely rule it out either. It's been a while since a strong storm has hit us. The technology does exist and this is one problem that alarmist may actually cause. We have the ability to create a much larger, and much more immediate global disaster, as an overreaction to climate change than climate change itself is.
I do appreciate your more reasoned response here.
However, the sea level increases for the East coast are not 'mostly' due to land sublimation; the majority is warming waters and actual sea levels rising due to thermal expansion and glacial land ice losses. The global average since ~1900 is at least 8"; some areas have had more, some less (due to a combination of effects). The other 4" for the East coast and NY are not all attributable to land sublimnation, they are also due to faster warming of the waters (and Gulf stream) off the coasts.
Considering the storm surges from Sandy were on the order of 6', then that was amplified on the order of at least 20% by the rising oceans, as a direct result of climate change. That difference in storm surge height is not insignificant, and creates much greater flooding damage.
Sea levels have been stable for the past 8000 years, not rising like they have in the last 100.
Joe, I linked an article earlier showing sea level rising along the eastern seaboard for the last 2000 years. You continue to try and put AGW as the sole factor in sea level rise and this is simply not true. Even in articles that support your case, they admit that it is but one factor and may only be a small part of it.
" The Battery in Lower Manhattan, with 15 inches of long-term sea level rise recorded at that location, the result of manmade sea level rise, sinking land, and ocean currents. She said the manmade contribution to the storm surge may have been a small amount."
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190
Regardless, the monetary figures for Sandy are huge because of primarily two things. Property value and lack of preparedness. One could easily and correctly blame inflation as the main reason it was so costly. The 1821 hurricane that hit the area would have caused 100-150 billion in damages today.
I'm not a denier. I just don't see the hyperbole as being helpful to anyone. My issue is and has always been the politicizing of the issue and the idea that everyone must be firmly on one side or the other with no room for honest discussion in the gray area in between.
Also, the total surge at Battery park was closer to 9 feet, the difference from the overall surge being attributed to geography. The wave setup was intensified. That is another one of the many factors involved.
" The Battery in Lower Manhattan, with 15 inches of long-term sea level rise recorded at that location, the result of manmade sea level rise, sinking land, and ocean currents. She said the manmade contribution to the storm surge may have been a small amount."
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190
Regardless, the monetary figures for Sandy are huge because of primarily two things. Property value and lack of preparedness. One could easily and correctly blame inflation as the main reason it was so costly. The 1821 hurricane that hit the area would have caused 100-150 billion in damages today.
I'm not a denier. I just don't see the hyperbole as being helpful to anyone. My issue is and has always been the politicizing of the issue and the idea that everyone must be firmly on one side or the other with no room for honest discussion in the gray area in between.
Also, the total surge at Battery park was closer to 9 feet, the difference from the overall surge being attributed to geography. The wave setup was intensified. That is another one of the many factors involved.
Last edited:
