Hey, I gotta a question. How do we really know the sea is rising? There is another possibility, isn't there?

 

Hey, I gotta a question. How do we really know the sea is rising? There is another possibility, isn't there?

There are these people called scientists. They have these tall sticks. They are supposed to put those sticks into the water and measure the height of the water, and then they are supposed to write it down. They are supposed to do it every day, sometimes several times a day. After days, weeks, months, years, decades and centuries of records, you can graph this recordings and they will show if the level going up or if it going down.

 

They say we evaporate about 3.7 feet of water per year from the surface, and the best guess for sea level rise is one to four feet by 2100. we are in good shape. of course funding could be reduced for that study.

 

How do you know that stick isn't sinking?

 

There are these people called scientists.

It is probably more complicated than that. For example, how do you know that high measured levels aren't due to sinking land? Or tidal waves? Or the tall stick got pushed too hard?

 

The tides ....http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/


Then again #12 is on the job in from his favorite reference datum.

 

They say we evaporate about 3.7 feet of water per year from the surface, and the best guess for sea level rise is one to four feet by 2100. we are in good shape. of course funding could be reduced for that study.

Is that one of those questions like "where does the white go when the snow melts"?

 

Nope. But it has to be part of the mix if your going to speculate the seas to rise four feet by the next century.

Balance the account.

 

It is, as they say, complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

 

Nope. But it has to be part of the mix if your going to speculate the seas to rise four feet by the next century.

Balance the account.

Rain...

 

Balance the account.

I believe the rise comes from thermal expansion with just a little ice melt thrown in.

 

Balance the account.

Balance the account? Does that imply there isn't enough ice to raise the level of the ocean by 4 feet?

 

Well, geology says that there is enough water stored up someplace to go another 100+ feet if nature relly wants to AGAIN.

 

Well, geology says that there is enough water stored up someplace to go another 100+ feet if nature relly wants to AGAIN.

There is FAR more than that... hang in there and I'll get back with my sources

 

If all the ice on Antarctica melted, the worlds oceans would rise by about 300 feet. Plenty of water.

The quick math, the worlds oceans are about 28x the size of Antarctica.

Average ice thickness on Antarctica is 8200 feet.

8200 / 28 = 300 feet.

"Oh, the arctic is melted and the oceans didn't rise by 300 feet, why is that?" Because that ice was floating. The Antarctic ice and other glacial ice will be more of an issue.

 

That's probably the right amount of water to get into transport. Then Australia, the Mideast, the Sahara, the SW and others would green up.

A blooming planet. Just add water.

 

How do we really know the sea is rising?

Generally speaking, measurements of something like that, over a very long time horizon, is a problem.

For example, it is easy to measure the temperature of a particular location at a given time. But what's the temperature of your house over a day, a month or a year? Or what's the temperature of your state or your country or your continent now?

Even if you have the data, you want to make sure such data is measured consistently or at least comparably, as sea level rises or temperature rises per day or per year is small and can be easily swamped by measurement noise.

With that all factored in, it is suddenly not so easy to measure things as simple as temperature or sea level.

That's precisely fraud is a real risk in climate research, and those climate researchers don't talk about their data or data collection process,

 

That's precisely fraud is a real risk in climate research, and those climate researchers don't talk about their data or data collection process,

If they did all of our data for temperature change and sea level rise would look like this.

Temp change. +1 C (+- 10C)
Sea level rise. +20 mm (+- 1 Meter)

Our local college used to have the actual field data logs in their libraries basement level and anyone could review their local studies of whatever they were getting funding for going back for decades.

Back when I went to college the second time for engineering, early 2000's, I used them for a few class reports on things that interested me. What surprised me was that in the vast majority of their data samples every one of them had margins of error range from +-10% to +-100% with the majority in +-20%- 50+% ranges.

Now what really seemed odd to me was that their research log archives went back to some of the first studies they did decades ago yet when the AGW/Climate change fuss really started getting traction (mid 2000's) all of those data log archives got sequestered to some far away location never to be seen by the public again and the library staff could only say that they were required to ship it off or potentially lose their federal funding if they didn't comply.

HMMMM... WTF? It was down in the basement level accumulating for decades not bothering anyone and now one day its such a big deal that it has to be packed up and shipped to an undisclosed location or funding will be cut?
And that's the point where I changed sides from being a AGW/ climate believer to having a very strong suspicion that it's nothing more than a huge government money and control grab scam.

 

HMMMM... WTF? It was down in the basement level accumulating for decades not bothering anyone and now one day its such a big deal that it has to be packed up and shipped to an undisclosed location or funding will be cut?
And that's the point where I changed sides from being a AGW/ climate believer to having a very strong suspicion that it's nothing more than a huge government money and control grab scam.

I'm 100% with you on that theory. Every time my government serves the population (from which it derives its authority) by concealing their activities, I dismiss all credibility.

 

...to having a very strong suspicion that it's nothing more than a huge government money and control grab scam.

You can nudge it over from "strong suspicion" to "certainty" when the actors in the scam have admitted to it:
http://www.investors.com/politics/e...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."