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.

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
4,953
2,796
1,743
Valhalla
#28
I'll give 'em credit, the alarmists made a wise move when they went from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change."

"Climate Change" is such an easy catch-all that I hear every single time there's ANY weather-related event. It's as though floods, fires & such never happened until recently & now they're all specifically tied to "Climate Change" & don't even question it.

One of my coworkers is a wonderful lady & I really enjoy working with her, despite the fact we're generally in disagreement on most political issues. She's a Chicago Dem to the core, who oddly enough, is in favor of forced sterilization (yeah, figure that one out).

So we're talking about the environment, etc... the other day & she acutally says "you'd think someone would be working on carbon capture, renewable energy..." I'm not often surprised by her level of naivete, but I couldn't believe it. She actually thinks that it's just a matter of someone trying, then these complex issues will be solved.
You should point out to her that the republicans are actually pushing for actual carbon capture unlike the democrats and their completely impractical new green deal.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dan-crenshaws-call-out-of-bernie-and-aocs-green-new-deal

"House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled legislation focused on carbon capture and sequestration, which includes the goal of planting a trillion trees, to counter the Democrats."
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,160
33,456
1,743
oklahoma city
#30
So this brings me full circle. A couple of contradicting sites with experts who sound credible. I'm not sure who to believe, but I've still got 2 pics of the same island 100 years apart that show the same water level.

I'll check back in on Star Island about the time we play Nebraska in football again.
Were you being serious with the pics? I thought you were kidding.

What if I told you that the average temperature in Oklahoma is rising. So, to test that theory, you looked up a day 100 years ago then took the temperature of that same day this year and compared them. Would that be a good representation?

The sea-level changes that are estimated to have occurred in the past 100 years are in the 10-20 cm range. I don't know if you have ever lived by the ocean, but local/regional water level changes can be dramatic in a matter of months and tides change constantly. You aren't gonna assess that data with a polaroid.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,429
14,590
1,743
#31
Were you being serious with the pics? I thought you were kidding.

What if I told you that the average temperature in Oklahoma is rising. So, to test that theory, you looked up a day 100 years ago then took the temperature of that same day this year and compared them. Would that be a good representation?

The sea-level changes that are estimated to have occurred in the past 100 years are in the 10-20 cm range. I don't know if you have ever lived by the ocean, but local/regional water level changes can be dramatic in a matter of months. You aren't gonna assess that data with a polaroid.
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.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,160
33,456
1,743
oklahoma city
#32
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.
 

osupsycho

MAXIMUM EFFORT!!!
A/V Subscriber
Apr 20, 2005
4,953
2,796
1,743
Valhalla
#33
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 am not sure I am fully convinced but some of the stuff I have looked at says that it may be more of a slow rise and then a big jump once we reach a tipping point. In fact some scientists say that tipping point was reached in 2016. Reason being that the ocean water around the poles needed to heat up to a point where the ice starts to really melt. Again not sure if I am convinced but if true we will all likely know in our lifetime.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,429
14,590
1,743
#34
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.
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.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,160
33,456
1,743
oklahoma city
#35
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.
Tides aren't waves and having tides does not mean that you are washed off the island. Seriously, have you ever lived on the coast? It does not seem that you have an understanding of this at all.

Some areas have more tidal range than others but I am not aware of anywhere costal that has tidal range under 4 inches. And 4 inches is the estimate of the sea level difference in 100 years. So, you are looking at two pictures of something that ebbs and flows daily with the tides, changes seasonally, and changes when it rains. And, even if those things did not vary, you are looking at a long-distance picture for a 4-inch change over 100 years. It is far beyond an oversimplification, it makes absolutely no sense.
 
Oct 7, 2015
1,923
1,160
243
St. Elmo, CO
#36
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.
Tides aren't waves and having tides does not mean that you are washed off the island. Seriously, have you ever lived on the coast? It does not seem that you have an understanding of this at all.

Some areas have more tidal range than others but I am not aware of anywhere costal that has tidal range under 4 inches. And 4 inches is the estimate of the sea level difference in 100 years. So, you are looking at two pictures of something that ebbs and flows daily with the tides, changes seasonally, and changes when it rains. And, even if those things did not vary, you are looking at a long-distance picture for a 4-inch change over 100 years. It is far beyond an oversimplification, it makes absolutely no sense.
Said the dude that lives in Oklahoma.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,429
14,590
1,743
#39
Tides aren't waves and having tides does not mean that you are washed off the island. Seriously, have you ever lived on the coast? It does not seem that you have an understanding of this at all.

Some areas have more tidal range than others but I am not aware of anywhere costal that has tidal range under 4 inches. And 4 inches is the estimate of the sea level difference in 100 years. So, you are looking at two pictures of something that ebbs and flows daily with the tides, changes seasonally, and changes when it rains. And, even if those things did not vary, you are looking at a long-distance picture for a 4-inch change over 100 years. It is far beyond an oversimplification, it makes absolutely no sense.
Okay. So we're back to 4 inches a century. Or a small enough amount I need a more focused pic on an island sitting 4 feet above sea level. If the difference were as much as the people screaming on my TV were saying, I thought it would be more apparent.

I think I got my answer.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
29,160
33,456
1,743
oklahoma city
#40
Okay. So we're back to 4 inches a century. Or a small enough amount I need a more focused pic on an island sitting 4 feet above sea level. If the difference were as much as the people screaming on my TV were saying, I thought it would be more apparent.

I think I got my answer.
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.