Rising Tides?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Aug 16, 2012
2,396
1,199
743
57
#41
Apparently Star island is somewhat shielded from the ups and downs of the waves you might see coming off the ocean. This island has some of the most expensive real estate in the world so I'm guess people aren't paying millions of dollars to get washed off the island once a year. I know it's an over simplification but it looks like something sitting that close to the water would show if there had been any significant change in the last century. Again I'm not talking about 1 week or year to the next, but a century.

If nothing else, it's something I can see for myself and not take some experts word for it.
The harbor is well protected by a pair of long angled jetties. You go through them when you leave the cruise port which I have done several times. But as @steross implied, these jetties knock down waves but tidal swells are still realized. On the other hand, if there were significant drop, I would believe the scaring like one sees along the shores of Lake Mead would be evident to some degree along these seawalls here. Again, not saying there is no change, just that the change implied by the doomsdayers is not supported
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
19,964
14,440
1,743
#42
What do you mean back to? That is what the scientists who study this stuff say and I never claimed anything different. I'm not trying to talk you into there being large, small, or no change in the average water level because I am not an oceanographer. All I am telling you is that your method of trying to determine it is laughably bad in many obvious ways because you are ignoring so many shorter-term variables that have a far greater effect than the long term one you are trying to measure. You are making a very basic scientific flaw. One that makes "results" like yours useless. If you care, look up "confounding variables" because that is all you are looking at.
I've seen so many pics like the following from the Guardian:

1581964285667.png


I thought maybe, after a century, we might see some small evidence of this by now.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
28,832
33,264
1,743
oklahoma city
#43
I've seen so many pics like the following from the Guardian:

View attachment 77652

I thought maybe, after a century, we might see some small evidence of this by now.
If you want to see small evidence using your method just get a pic after a big rainstorm at high tide. It will be just as irrelevant, but would show what you are looking for.

I don't know if coastal cities are going to flood but it will likely be as @Bowers2 mentioned if it does which is slow, unnoticeable change until a tipping point. It isn't like people are going to look out and say, "One more year and that will top the wall."
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
19,964
14,440
1,743
#45
If you want to see small evidence using your method just get a pic after a big rainstorm at high tide. It will be just as irrelevant, but would show what you are looking for.

I don't know if coastal cities are going to flood but it will likely be as @Bowers2 mentioned if it does which is slow, unnoticeable change until a tipping point. It isn't like people are going to look out and say, "One more year and that will top the wall."
That's fair, and I've never been one of those "it's cold outside today so there's no global warming" types, but I would think 100 years might produce a visible difference on something like this. At least that's what I've been told by some of the more dire predictions.
 
Aug 11, 2004
1,245
87
1,678
57
Newkirk, Ok
#46

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,693
4,200
743
50
#48
That's why I was asking. I figured I would either get a response pointing out why the logic is flawed or maybe a self righteous "how can you be so stupid?" response. My money was on the latter.

Comparing the temperature of 1 day is different than the sea level. I could pick any day of the year and it appears the sea level is fairly consistent. Same with last year or next year. I get tired of trying to decide which crystal ball I believe so I looked at something that could show me for my own eyes the difference over a pretty good period of time (100 years).

So at the rate it went up in the past 100 years we are looking at a meter increase in the next 500 - 1000 years? Or that's when we get back to the crystal ball stuff.
I'm not sure where you are seeing sea level that are consistent. I have spent the past 9 years living 200 feet from the ocean and the sea level changes hour to hour and day to day are dramatic. No way you could notice 10 centimeters of change.

I don't have the knowledge base to guess what future sea-level change will be. I pretty much avoid GW debates anymore as people simply don't know what they are talking about but google the science that matches the conclusion that they already made and claim it as knowledge.
So at some point in our lifetime we might see the North Pole melted and water there instead of ice?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,816
5,703
1,743
Edmond
#56
Dan Crenshaw isn’t my representative but he’s a badass and a good follow on Twitter. He’s a proponent of common sense climate change policy.

https://twitter.com/repdancrenshaw/status/1229776851847045120?s=21
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,240
9,445
1,743
Earth
#59
I'm not sure how planting trees is going to help the climate. Other plants absorb CO2 also, actively growing grass releases considerably more oxygen per acre than trees do. Maybe if you tear out some parking lots and plant them to trees, that will help.
Just don't plant Eucalyptus...everywhere those babies are planted outside their homeland (and inside it too) fires rage..they are highly flammable and when you get an arsonist they go up like a torch. See California, Australia, Portugal and other areas worst on record fires and you will likely see this tree ablaze (we need more koalas). This IS just one example of humankind trying to do good and causing major issues.

Also if you plant more trees let them burn naturally from natural fires as needed, when we over fire fight in our forest we end up with large insect events like the recent Pine and Fir tree bark beetle infestations in the Rockies. If we let periodic fires burn the forest don't end up all being the same age and reaching old age at the same time causing a huge insect munching invasion. Certainly wintertime temps not reaching old records also has an effect on not killing larvae but even if that was too happen the event would be far smaller with healthy multi aged forest.

I truly hope Bezos Billions is invested wisely and not in pet projects forcing change on the populace and crippling the economy. I'd also like to see ONE democrat acknowledge the MASSIVE progress we have made since the 1970's on US air pollution. When I was a child out in LA the smog was so thick you could cut it...now its nearly smog free. HUGE success...but NO...we are all going to die in 7 years from Climate change. Dang people this should NOT be a partisan issue and IF folks would talk about positive progress rather than dire predictions...far more people would get on-board with sensible environmental policies.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,240
9,445
1,743
Earth
#60
So at some point in our lifetime we might see the North Pole melted and water there instead of ice?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Not this year, the artic is at it's peak sea ice level currently for about the last 20 years. Btw, Polar Bear populations are also near record highs...