US tidal floods will be 'chronic' in 15 yrs, study claims

October 8, 2014 by Kerry Sheridan
High surf on the Hudson River is seen near the Statue of Liberty on October 29, 2012, as New Yorkers brace for Hurricane Sandy

Many US coastal communities already struggle with flooding at high tides, a problem that will become "chronic" in the coming 15 years due to global warming, scientists said Wednesday.

As shorelines are growing more populated, sea levels are swelling due to melting glaciers and , putting more populations at risk, said a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Particularly dire consequences are expected along the US east coast and the Gulf Coast, the report warned.

"Our analysis shows that increases in tidal flooding will be substantial and nearly universal," said the report, based on tidal gauges in 52 from the northeastern state of Maine down to Florida and along the Gulf Coast of Texas.

"That means the steady creep of sea level rise will force many communities largely unfamiliar with tidal floods today to grapple with chronic flooding in the next 15 to 30 years."

Scientists said the floods, while not catastrophic, could harm key infrastructure such as bridges and roads and cause property damage.

From 1880 to 2009, rose about eight inches (20 centimeters). Today, oceans are rising at an even faster rate.

"No longer an intangible global trend, has arrived on the doorstep of communities scattered up and down the east coast, delivered by the tides," it added.

"In the next 15 years alone, two-thirds of these communities could see a tripling or more in the number of high-tide floods each year."

Big changes in mid-Atlantic

The biggest changes are expected in the mid-Atlantic, said the report.

A pier near Malibu, California, is pictured during huge ocean swells generated by hurricane Marie, on August 27, 2014

The US capital, Washington, DC, and Annapolis, Maryland can expect more than 150 tidal floods per year by 2030.

In southeastern towns like Savannah, Georgia and Lewisetta, Virginia, "extensive flooding is expected to occur with tides alone on a regular basis within one or two decades," said the report.

"By 2045, even more places can expect to see extensive flooding, including Ocean City, Maryland, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina."

In some places, the changes may be dramatic. For instance, the northeastern town of New London, Connecticut currently experiences tidal floods about twice per year, but that could rise to 35 in 30 years.

Spots along Texas's Gulf Coast that rarely see tidal floods "could face 35 to 70 tidal floods per year by 2045," the report found.

Some places, like Norfolk, Virginia, have put up tide gates to keep floods out of downtown business districts, but that's not an option everywhere.

Miami, the world's seventh richest city, is built on porous limestone and is already losing water wells to incoming saltwater. The city of 417,000 faces more frequent flooding of business and residential areas.

"By 2030, Miami can expect the frequency of tidal flooding to increase nearly eightfold—from about six per year today to more than 45," said the report.

"And by 2045, the city can expect more than 40 times as many floods as today."

A wave crashes over a US Park Police patrol car on January 20, 2010, at Fort Point in San Francisco, California

New Jersey's coastal resort towns and gambling haven of Atlantic City—which were battered by Superstorm Sandy in 2012—are also forecast to see floods up to 90 times a year by 2030, and 240 annually by 2045.

"Such unrelenting disruption could radically change the South Jersey Shore as a place to live and play," said the report.

'Dangerous' climate change

The problem is not new, and some east coast communities have already seen "a fourfold increase in the annual number of days with tidal flooding since 1970," it found.

Local residents wade through flooded streets due to Hurricane Katrina, on August 26, 2005, in Miami, Florida

Solutions adopted by some coastal communities involve a combination of defending against the rising waters, accommodating them or retreating from them.

The report urged world leaders to take the threats seriously and plan ahead, but also to cut back on burning fossil fuels that lead to .

"Global emissions are rising rapidly, and are on a trajectory to push surface temperatures more than 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average—the threshold beyond which scientists say 'dangerous' climate change becomes unavoidable," said the report.

"To stay below this threshold, and slow the rate of rise later this century and beyond, global carbon emissions need to peak and begin to decline by the end of this decade."

Explore further: Coastal defences could contribute to flooding with sea-level rise

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

105 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cardzeus
3.8 / 5 (30) Oct 08, 2014
Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not...
betterexists
2.8 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Forget Beach Industries then!
Those who are now at the forefront in disputing global warming should be fined, their properties seized and such funds be utilized for some useful purposes.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (27) Oct 08, 2014
The sad thing is that all this could have been averted at the fraction of a cost it will (continually) keep extracting for the foreseeable future.

An ounce of prevention...
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (18) Oct 08, 2014
Let's get back to real science
@verkle
you mean like your creationist beliefs?

now that is amazingly hypocritical of you... perhaps you could give us a list of what is "real science" and what is not?
I still don't believe in these studies
so you are not someone who believes in even the possibility that our AGW effects can potentially be dangerous?

perhaps you could provide a few studies with empirical evidence from a reputable source with a high impact in climate science that shows us why you don't believe?

look at the science, not the predictions or the hype of the media, politics and blogs.

The SCIENCE says that certain things are possible and will give you a statistical probability ... that is what usually gets hyped by the media. the extreme ends of the spectrum... and they do it because it sells.

at the forefront in disputing global warming should be fined,
@better
a bit extreme, but...
not a BAD idea... :-)

Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2014
verkle muttered
There have been way too many of these "studies" by "scientists" in the last 40 years, and none of them have come to pass as predicted.
Let's get back to real science.
What pray tell verkle is YOUR definition of 'real science' and if you don't have one then please find one accepted by majority of universities - you know those places that work to alleviate suffering by tried & tested drug design & effective treatments, various cancer treatments & surgical procedures, detailed physics & chemistry - and Eg the type that allows electronics - ie Things that actually WORK so you can enjoy this relatively reliable internet... ?

verkle, would you ally yourself with any institution of 'real science' which produces actual practical results and if NOT then what is your best earnest definition/explanation of 'real science' you can muster please ?
bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not...


Thankfully, even if you don't believe in God ... He still believes in you!

* ducks for cover especially from Otto_Ghost *
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2014
Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not...


Thankfully, even if you don't believe in God ... He still believes in you!

* ducks for cover especially from Otto_Ghost *
-But he will make you suffer for eternity for your impudence. Thank god he ain't there.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2014
bluehigh uttered/claimed
Thankfully, even if you don't believe in God ... He still believes in you!
Please tell us how good this god is, at least in terms of the key aspect of human interactions & that is "communications"...

1. By what specific method does your god or any god actually communicate please ?

2. A follow up would be what specific evidence is there that any claim of a so called personal god is consistent with nature's brutal & rather successful regime of "eat & be eaten" ?

and

3. Did the claimed 'personal' god have anything to do with the billions of galaxies and the many billions of stars and their planets ?

But, to make it easy for you now, please start with question 1
MR166
2 / 5 (24) Oct 08, 2014
I just love how the warmists on this board claim that their views are based on science. At 7in/100 years the sea will rise a whole 1.4 inches in 20 years. Was article based on a "Peer Reviewed" paper? If not, why bother to support it?

Propaganda like this does not really help the cause and just makes your position look to be "Chicken Little" science.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (23) Oct 08, 2014
MR166 muttered
I just love how the warmists on this board claim that their views are based on science.
Really like:-

- irrefutable thermal properties of GHGs, re-radiation wavelengths
- Comparative specific heat
- Properties of water, eg latent heat of fusion

What training MR166 did U get to enable one D satire, did u work hard, missing Science ?

MR166 confirming again he has no education with
At 7in/100 years the sea will rise a whole 1.4 inches in 20 years. Was article based on a "Peer Reviewed" paper? If not, why bother to support it?
What is the 1.4in based upon; average, time of year, tidal influences etc. How does it compare with regional extremes affecting people Eg as in Tuvalu ?

Feeble MR166 shouldn't worry
Propaganda like this does not really help the cause and just makes your position look to be "Chicken Little" science.
You seem adept as usual at being uneducated & obtuse, working hard to ignore sidestep physics (again).

Greenland rises ~3cm/year !
MR166
2 / 5 (18) Oct 08, 2014
"How does it compare with regional extremes affecting people Eg as in Tuvalu ?"

The paper is about sea level rise along the US coast and those levels happen to be going down. Why do you try to defend garbage like this?
rgw
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
The sad thing is that all this could have been averted at the fraction of a cost it will (continually) keep extracting for the foreseeable future.

200/100 - 200 over 100 is still a fraction, as is 99/100. Using the unmodified term of 'fraction' to denote a much smaller amount is a very deceptive practice. Even if unintentionally deceptive, the unmodified term, 'fraction', should never be used in a scientific setting. It use is as bad as the now 'acceptable' use of 'decimate' (i.e. Kill one in ten 1/10) to mean annihilate, obliterate, exterminate or similar terms.
rgw
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2014
Global warming may indeed have these tidal and other serious effects; assuming the inevitable volcanism does not intervene.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
"Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not..."

That is the problem in a nut shell!

All "science" is believed to be true at the time, even when they were sacrificing virgins to insure good harvests.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 08, 2014
The AGW Cult must be truly desperate to fabricate these lies to feed their hungry Chicken Littles.
Scottingham
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2014
There is a beach house in my family that's co-owned by several relatives' respective families. There's currently a lot of contention of who gets it when, who gets to retire there etc. I'm trying to convince my side to just sell out now and buy a nice spot in the mountains. That beach house is boned!
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
MR166 proves he is either being intentionally dumb, ill or a really bad communicator with
The paper is about sea level rise along the US coast and those levels happen to be going down. Why do you try to defend garbage like this?
I don't see anything in this article stating or even linking to anything which shows any contrary re US coast levels "going down" and also not in the comments !

Its clear I am referring to the Science ?

Why can't you be a bit smarter & address the science points I have raised ?

And especially so since you claim
...on this board claim that their views are based on science.
is attempt one dimensional satire.

Then what is it they base their acceptance of GW upon and why then should they NOT consider the Science ?

Do you MR166, know what the fundamental Science of AGW is actually based upon, well you SHOULD as I & others who have graduated with strong physics backgrounds KNOW, yet it is glossed over as if irrelevant.

Education MR166 Puh-lease !
MR166
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 08, 2014
Mike I could point you to the latest paper concerning US coastal sea levels but what's the point? You would just "forget" the data just as you have "forgotten" all of the past AGW predictions that have been proven to be untrue.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2014
MR166 has lost it with
All "science" is believed to be true at the time, even when they were sacrificing virgins to insure good harvests.
Who is this "they" ?

What correlation was their ever between virgins & harvests, rather short sighted, isnt it smarter to understand issues of causation & correlation ?

Why MR166, do you ignore:-

- Irrefutable thermal properties of GHGs - absolutely proven
- Comparative specific heat
- Properties of water, eg latent heat of fusion

Do you MR166, have difficulty understanding GHG's especially that CO2 & H2O add resistivity to thermal flow to space & as a consequence there is greater heat in the climate system & oceans are >70% of surface. Most of this heat goes to oceans and sporadically according to ocean currents & distribution ?

Please answer the question, posed to many AGW deniers who have still not responded with any Science on this:-

"How can adding a GHG to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity (of heat flow) ?"

Education ?
gkam
3.1 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2014
Aren't these Deniers the same folk who got fooled, suckered, by those two draft-dodging cowards screaming "WMD!" from their Undisclosed Locations?

\Why should we afford them any credibility?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2014
MR166 proves again he is a bad communicator with
Mike I could point you to the latest paper concerning US coastal sea levels but what's the point?
Well it would be efficient & smart to do so,even if it turned out to be invalid as it can be an example of method & instrumentation. In any case it may well be correct in some places due to issues such as the Atlantic Conveyor.

The point is, subject it to analysis, communicate !

It would be a huge anomaly if ALL US coastal regions showed lower levels & raises several questions as we know ocean temperatures rise & we know water expands when it gets warmer, so logically if there were nothing wrong with measurements then one has to ask where does the water go ?

MR166
You would just "forget" the data just as you have "forgotten" all of the past AGW predictions that have been proven to be untrue.
I don't rely on media to make any predictions like you so don't assume.

afaik, the long term predictions (2100) are still on the cards..
MR166
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 08, 2014
"- Irrefutable thermal properties of GHGs - absolutely proven
- Comparative specific heat
- Properties of water, eg latent heat of fusion"

Mike your religion is a lot simpler than mine, it only has 3 commandments and no negative feedback loops to contend with.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
MR166 proves he cannot learn
"- Irrefutable thermal properties of GHGs - absolutely proven
- Comparative specific heat
- Properties of water, eg latent heat of fusion"
Mike your religion is a lot simpler than mine, it only has 3 commandments..
Mate go to a university, enroll in a course which allows you access to a laboratory you can PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF.

That is how Science works, thousands of students are unleashed on laboratories to assess FOR THEMSELVES the veracity of any number of fundamental physical properties.

Why can't you also do the same, why can't you appreciate hundreds of thousands have done this for over hundred years ???

Not one experiment has shown CO2 does NOT re-radiate.

Not one experiment has shown CO2 does NOT increase thermal resistivity.

Issues of flow, potential and resistivity are universal principles.

In Electronics V=IR

Where V=potential, I = flow, R=resistivity.

Equivalent relationships for water !

cont
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2014
Can MR166 imagine from his claim
.. and no negative feedback loops to contend with
Mate, we are talking about heat, ie Increase in entropy.

I have covered this with you before and not too long ago. Please think on this, it is easier than it appears at first, so please show some effort to understand...

1. GHG's allow the globe to retain more heat - experimentally proven not a faith.
2. Negative feedback MUST (at least) either
2.1 Increase radiation to space OR
2.2 Reduce absorption

Please speculate (ie imagine) where these negative feedback 'loops' might be likely ?

Is it some means by which GHGs actually INCREASE emission/radiation to space ?

or maybe

Is it some means that the earth's surface reflects more ?

Rising ocean temperatures & in conjunction (ie Addition) to atmospheric rising temperatures suggests there are NO current negative feedback 'loops'.

There might be in the future, so as an investigator with an opinion, suggest where we might look ?

Imagination/test ?
gkam
3.3 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2014
"Mike your religion is a lot simpler than mine, it only has 3 commandments "
---------------------------------------

This is science, not religion. What you "believe" changes nothing in reality.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2014
Was article based on a "Peer Reviewed" paper? If not, why bother to support it?
Mr166
If you will please note the Explore Further link "Explore further: Coastal defences could contribute to flooding with sea-level rise" it IS based upon a study which is linked at the bottom of that article
Pelling, H.E., Mattias Green, J.A., "Impact of flood defences and sea-level rise on the European Shelf tidal regime." Continental Shelf Research (2014), dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2014.04.011i
Propaganda like this does not really help the cause and just makes your position look to be "Chicken Little" science C'mon, if you are going to argue a point, why not bring it back to science?
pushing a bait term like chicken littles? makes me think you are going with the conspiracy options http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

surely you have a better argument than that? where is the link/evidence for
the sea will rise a whole 1.4 inches
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2014
I just love how the warmists on this board claim that their views are based on science
@mr166
so, you are saying that the links i have provided to date are not based upon science? Because that is what I am basing my views on... not on articles, peer opinions, wagers, blog site proclamations, religious stupidity or anything else
All "science" is believed to be true at the time, even when they were sacrificing virgins to insure good harvests
you are confusing science with philosophy and religion, which have never been science
in fact, they are the reason science exists
so you can make informed decisions based upon reality and not fairy tales
Mike your religion is a lot simpler than mine, it only has 3 commandments
like gkam states
This is science, not religion. What you "believe" changes nothing in reality.
There is no room for religion in science
claiming science is a religion?
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
MR166
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
"surely you have a better argument than that? where is the link/evidence for

the sea will rise a whole 1.4 inches "

Capt. if you are not keeping up with the latest papers/estimations of the rate of sea level rise it is not worth the bother to provide you with a link.

You and Mike suffer from SRD. (Selective Recollection Disorder) This has been known to be caused by increasing CO2 levels combined with pausing temperatures and increased polar ice extent.

dgc
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
"Those who are now at the forefront in disputing global warming should be fined, their properties seized and such funds be utilized for some useful purposes."

Really? And when did such propositions become part of the scientific method? Perhaps you speak of Lysenkoism? No? Then perhaps Maoism? Only state-sponsored science that is culturally correct is acceptable? Or perhaps it just could be that you cannot accept that there is nothing wrong with challenging the hypothesis that global warming is both the result of human activity and that all of the consequences are catastrophic rather than well within the range of normal as defined by the geological record?

The level of vitriol - let alone the level of pretentious hubris and criminal thinking - is beyond the pale here. Obviously many of you posting here don't really have the scientific training you purport to have; if you did, you would never foolishly argue that "science is settled". Scientific theories are always subject to disproof!
gkam
3.2 / 5 (18) Oct 08, 2014
"Really? And when did such propositions become part of the scientific method? Perhaps you speak of Lysenkoism? No? Then perhaps Maoism?"
-------------------------------------------

It was sarcasm. You missed it.
Unbiased Observer
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 08, 2014
@dgc,

There is very little point in arguing with these people or even pointing that out. They are zealots for a cause and little else.
MR166
2 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
Just in case everyone thinks that renewables are only a win win situation here is an interesting article.

http://www.dailym...FTLd2yeT
gkam
3.4 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
Shall I dig up the mortality and morbidity statistics from downwind of coal plants?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2014
"Shall I dig up the mortality and morbidity statistics from downwind of coal plants?"

Yeh, Right The last 100 years of coal power has resulted in increased mortality rates. Is that what you are trying to say??????
gkam
3.5 / 5 (22) Oct 08, 2014
I am referring to the health problems of those downwind from coal plants. They get sulfates, Mercury, radionuclides, particulates and Carbon Dioxide. Then, they have the toxic coal ash. Millions of tons of it. Want it?
Jack Wolf
4 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Considering that the W Antarctic ice sheet is disintegrating, and that Greenland's isn't too healthy either, I expect that the scientists have under called the timing of the impacts once again.
teslaberry
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
Forget Beach Industries then!
Those who are now at the forefront in disputing global warming should be fined, their properties seized and such funds be utilized for some useful purposes.


and you wonder why anyone who disagrees with global warming alarmists sometimes calls these people climate nationalist socialists. climate nazis.

i prefer climate glatzis. climate globalist socialists. as they are generally globalists who support unlimited outsourcing of labor and monetary debasement in a global government scheme as their preferred vision of 'fighting' climate change.

be careful what you say around these people. they might report you to the police. civil asset forfeiture is a real thing....
gkam
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
teslaberry probably "forgot" who imposed the Police State on us after their failure, their Criminal Negligence of 9/11.
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2014
Considering that the W Antarctic ice sheet is disintegrating...


The Rumors of WAIS Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.
pandora4real
4 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2014
Wake me if you ever manage to publish anything on climate change without my having to read the same.tedious.arguments from the same.tedious.people.

You don't argue with idiots like teslaberry. You get to know them, learn as much as you can because they're usually pretty pitiful and vulnerable. Then you wait for the opportunity to crush their nuts. I find giving them a real, major life issue to deal with often snaps them out of their conspiracy induced coma.

These people sit in their mother's basement wacking off and have no interaction with the real world. Trolling and/or online games is their entire world. The only feeling of power they will ever know is stopping someone else from accomplishing something. That's why they hate progress on climate consensus. It's like the dog thinking it's his job to raid the cat food. These losers think it's their job to keep any progress from happening. Consensus and being ignored angers them very effectively. Why do you indulge them?
TegiriNenashi
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 08, 2014
So you are enlightened, and frustrated that you religion -- "climate consensus" -- didn't take over the world by storm? Note, that scientific foundations and experimental confirmation of your belief is as shaky as your assertion about global warming skeptics being second rate individuals working from their parents basement.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2014
Well, you have to admit, I called this, and years ago. The next big thing will be that 6cm of ocean level rise will have profound effects in conjunction with earthquakes and storms.

And as usual Mike_M proclaims his ignorance loudly:
Mate, we are talking about heat, ie Increase in entropy.
making it easier for AGW-er to doubt, rather than pushing forward any veracity.

Entropy is of course related to the number of accessible states, and is related to transfered heat divided by the temperature. Delta S = summa dQ/H. Heat doesn't exactly have a 100% intuitive scientific definition either.
It seems my Pee Chem is better than your 12 scientific degrees, bub. Of course I could ahve just looked this up, but I did recognize your psuedo-science, and I would have never written something so goofy.

That makes what, 8 major misinterpretations of basic, science, but who is counting?
Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
@Waterboy

My bad. Meant to give you a 1.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2014
Yeah Vet I can see your dilemma, getting a "5" on this board pretty much means that your programming by the state has been a success!
MR166
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2014
"teslaberry probably "forgot" who imposed the Police State on us after their failure, their Criminal Negligence of 9/11."

Yup the very same "Police State" that is 10 times worse today under a liberal administration.

The very same administration that claims that limiting flights into the US will make the Ebola crisis worse.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
@Vietvet-err... 1 IS the new 5, but why?

Everything I said was demonstrably true, or at least thought provoking. 6 cm of water rise is due to anthropomorphic change, and its corrolary effects haven't been completely captured. Finally, entropy was defined a long time ago.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
Not one experiment has shown CO2 does NOT re-radiate.
-Mike_M

Again Mike screams out loudly his complete misunderstanding of the phenomenon that he mocks others with.

If CO2 did not re-radiate, it would make the phenomenon worse. Because it would simply absorb energy to become heat that would not leave the atmosphere via radiation. Compounding his error, he doesn't see blackbody radiation or thermodynamic implications either.

@Mike_M, Would you kindly stop trying to help AGW-ers? You're making them look foolish.
SamB
2 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not...

Strange to be 'thankful' ...
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
You know, maybe there is some items to question in @Waterprofits mumblings, You know I hate deniers. I think they are not only stupid, but foolish and asses as well. (At least that is what I know about them). What was recently shown was that the melting of the two poles has released enough trapped polar water that it's change Earth's gravitational field! If enough water is added from Greenland, and the polar regions from global warming melting the poles, it may even slow the rotation of the Earth!

If you know some fluid dynamics and understand how the moon creates tides, you might wonder how much that pull will drag on the earths rotation.

In the mean time you deniers can watch in horror as your $1million vacation beach house gets sucked into the approaching shore line.


ekim
3 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2014
Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not...


Thankfully, even if you don't believe in God ... He still believes in you!

* ducks for cover especially from Otto_Ghost *

I'm still going to look both ways before I cross the street (scientific observation), and I suggest others do the same.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
@HowHot, there has to be my friend. I ONLY USE physical properties. Even if I employ them in the wrong context, they still must be true, even if my conclusion is incorrect.

I think the gravity change you mention is wonderful and novel. I have NEVER even conceived of looking at gravitational impacts of AGW. I can't wait for thermostumpy to call a foul because you brought up something that isn't in a Journal and can't be verified. But look at it! It MUST be true. It may not be a powerful effect, but then it might be.

AND I AM NOT A DENIER. I have my independent reasons for AGW. I believe the crap in mainstream is designed to keep people arguing rather than reaching conclusions and action. My approach allows anyone to reach conclusions.

Reminds me; did you ever see if anyone has modeled waste heat as the source for polar melting? Waste heat would be added to the environs in a way that can not do further work. So exhaust heat after it reaches equilibrium, for example.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
@dgc,

There is very little point in arguing with these people or even pointing that out. They are zealots for a cause and little else.


Correct you are.

An example of turning natural logic on its head.
And indeed, as Capt says, straight from the premise of this thread....

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
Considering that the W Antarctic ice sheet is disintegrating...


The Rumors of WAIS Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.


As I work through the thread, any second now I'm going to come across "it's geothermal energy" is Wot's doin it.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
Consensus and being ignored angers them very effectively. Why do you indulge them?


As I've said many times on here....

Because to not do, allows ignorance to win.
Humankind deserves better than to let the worst of it's race direct it's destiny.

All we have, when it comes down to it, is our intellect to raise us above base animals.
If that is not applied - then where does that leave us.
Exactly.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
If CO2 did not re-radiate, it would make the phenomenon worse. Because it would simply absorb energy to become heat that would not leave the atmosphere via radiation. Compounding his error, he doesn't see blackbody radiation or thermodynamic implications either.


Err, water...
If CO2 did not radiate and only absorbed, did you say??

You do know of Kirchoff's Law?
Any body that absorbs EM radiation also emits it.
You talk of another universe and I sometimes wonder if you indeed occupy it.

What Mike is saying (it's unarguable) is that CO2 is a GHG - it back-radiates.
If it did not then terrestrial LW would leave straight to space (excepting attenuation by CH4, N2O, O3 H2O).
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Capt. if you are not keeping up with the latest papers/estimations of the rate of sea level rise it is not worth the bother to provide you with a link
@mr166
this argument is the same thing as me saying: if you aren't a firefighter, PhD or physicist, you are not worth talking to

post your links with your argument. I keep up with a lot of things, but some things slip through the cracks, or do not hold the same import that they do for me as they do for you (obviously)

It was a simple request, to which you gave a simple troll reply of: "nuh-uh, i'm not validating my argument with facts! deal with it"
You and Mike suffer from SRD. (Selective Recollection Disorder)
interesting
so what would be the repetitious repeating of fallacious arguments be considered?

or the ignoring of overwhelming empirical evidence?

What mental condition is that?
because you (and many other deniers) are demonstrating it in spades

you won't even validate a claim when asked nicely... so...???

MR166
1.9 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2014
First there was less snow and then there was more, it must be magic.

http://www.progre...ll.shtml
MR166
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
Here is the 7in/100year sea level link.

http://hockeyscht...ise.html
antigoracle
2 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
As I work through the thread, any second now I'm going to come across "it's geothermal energy" is Wot's doin it.

Well runrig, if you haven't figured it out yet, then no amount of tellin yuh could ever change the mind of someone brain washed by the cult.

They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed. The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier

http://www.utexas...melting/
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
Here is the 7in/100year sea level link.

http://hockeyscht...ise.html


Hockeyschtick making stuff up again.

The rate of rise has been stable for the past 20 years.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Note that the charts that hockeyschdick refers to stop at 2011. More recent info is available and average sea level has increased by 18mm. That's 6 mm per year.

http://www.4.bp.b...SA-s.png

With an overall ate of rise of ~3mm/yr

Ask yourself, why when that information is so easily available did Hockeyschedick not mention it. Answer: they want you to be stupid and hope you don't check them.

If one tries to make the case that sea level rise had decelerated up until 2011, then you have to state that it has since accelerated to double the previous rate over the past three years -- or simply recognize the ongoing trend with annual deviations.
Which is why it is a denialist Blog and the one that pushed the...."The GHE does not exist - it breaks the second law of Thermodynamics". For F F**^^g squared.

The reason for the fall at the end of their deceitful reporting period was ...
http://www.scient...el-drop/
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2014
As I work through the thread, any second now I'm going to come across "it's geothermal energy" is Wot's doin it.

Well runrig, if you haven't figured it out yet, then no amount of tellin yuh could ever change the mind of someone brain washed by the cult.

They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed. The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier

http://www.utexas...melting/

Yes we know anti, the Thwaites glacier, one of several that make up the WAIS.
Water_Prophet
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
Et tue, runrig?
1. I said it was a bad approximation, which you CAN model. It is not accurate, but you can, and it makes the situation worse, not better.
2. Don't blame me for the idiocy, I was quoting Mike.
3. Didn't you read my 2 caveats?

Kirchhoff has two laws I am aware of,
Compounding his error, he doesn't see blackbody radiation or thermodynamic implications either.
-Me
A good absorber is a good emitter, you can't read BBR without seeing that expression. So yeah, I think I covered that.
Sigh, what Mike is saying, yeah, CO2 is a GHG, JUST ASK VENUS! However, I am not on Venus, to answer your other question, and concentrations of CO2 here are too small to have an impact.
By counter example, water, everyone agrees is a much more powerful GHG has increased 400ppm, while CO2 has only increased 100 ppm.
Can anyone explain that little paradox?
Water_Prophet
3 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Dumb question, why do people still reference hockyschtick, watssup, etc.? It should be plain those things are drivel.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2014
Dumb question, why do people still reference hockyschtick, watssup, etc.? It should be plain those things are drivel.


drivel? you don't know what Mann's hokie stick represents do you, or why Freeman Dyson says "the polar bears will be fine"? The two are related.

no climate model yet has any explanation for the Viking Warm period or the Little Ice Age. They are simply ignored. The Earth has been several degrees warmer and several degrees colder than it is now in historical times, and all this is documented. The notion that the Gulf Stream affected Greenland, the Western Scottish Islands, the Eastern Scottish Islands, Belgium, Germany, Poland, and China, all reporting longer growing seasons and earlier spring in the Viking era, is too absurd to consider seriously. Not that I expect rationality to prevail. There are too many grants at stake.
Burnerjack
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
Thankfully the science is true whether you 'believe' it or not...

And yet the polar ice sheets continue to grow. While I'm no advocate of polluting the air we breathe nor the water we drink, these studies seem rather "tunnel visioned" .One thing I see omitted time and time again: The Earth is dynamic. There will be droughts. There will be floods. There will be years of record bounty, there will be years of famine. Just look at a topographical map. There you will see flood plains mapped out to 500 year floods.
What do AGW and all our energy and pollution issues have in common?: Human population growth. Our unprecedented success is the root cause of it all.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2014
Not that I expect rationality to prevail. There are too many grants at stake.
Shooty
conspiratorial rant done?
read this: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt]http://phys.org/n...firstCmt[/url]

your arguments are spelled out very well in there

One thing I see omitted time and time again: The Earth is dynamic.
@burnerjack
this is conjecture not supported by evidence
can you show where the Earths dynamic history is ignored in the scientific studies?
Your argument is the same as shooty's above, just shifted in target perspective

read this link
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt]http://phys.org/n...firstCmt[/url]

because it is relevant to your arguments and shooty's too

the type of evidence you give should match the type of evidence that the scientists use in their studies which prove AGW
all you have above is conspiratorial rantings
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2014
Hi MR166. :)
Just in case everyone thinks that renewables are only a win win situation here is an interesting article. http://www.dailym...FTLd2yeT
It is that very example of personal-political expediency you linked to that is the reason why I have been advocating for 'all sides' to drop all such personal-political' arguments and self-interest and just concentrate on the objective reality/solutions. Alternatives such as that you linked to don't make sense because it is so obviously flawed from the get go, as pointed out. Only those renewables which lower Carbon emissions and pollution should be considered as replacements for coal fuel/plants. Natural gas is one, and solar power is another, etc. Those who approved the 'aleternative' you linked to were obviously personally-politically motivated, and should be condemned from 'all sides' for it.

And before anyone jumps to any conclusions misidentifying me as one of the 'GW inculcated scientists' you and others allude to and decry, please note that my history/posts indicate that I am probably the most independent scientist, reseracher and objective observer and commentator on this or any other topic (you can confirm this for yourself by looking here...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...and seeing that the same ones who downvote you also downvote me, even though I do support the climate science and its trending/predictions.).

Good luck to us all. :)

Shootist
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2014
Rubbish Stumps, rubbish.

very sad.

This is not science or any pretense of it. It is certainly not rational discussion. We seem to have degenerated to the point that important decisions are now made by partisan debating tactics, and to have no one in the decision making process who is actually interested in understanding what is actually going on with Earth's climate.

Of course it gets boring to continue to ask the questions, only to be ignored – then after a while the opposition pretends the obvious questions do not exist, or that they have been answered to the satisfaction of any rational person.

Dairy farms in Greenland from CE 800-1200. Vineyards in Scotland during the Roman Climate Optimum and the Viking Warm Period. Too cold for all of that today.

Did you know that Iceland was completely icebound (surrounded by pack ice) for ~50 years in the 13th century? Too warm for that today.

The polar bears will be fine.
GuruShabu
2 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2014
The very same rubbish trying to induce people through fear.
IT never ends but the more they (eco_tyrany) invent the less is their credibility.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Reality it seems that you and I are almost on the same page. Show me a renewable that makes good economic sense and I will show you one that also reduces energy usage. The political and crony capitalistic entanglements of climate science makes most of it untrustworthy. It is hard to deny that there is subculture there that wants to see individual freedoms greatly limited and government powers greatly increased.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Dairy farms in Greenland from CE 800-1200. Vineyards in Scotland during the Roman Climate Optimum and the Viking Warm Period. Too cold for all of that today.


Hmm. So there are currently cattle farms in Greenland (http://ngm.nation...r-text/3 ) and vineyards in Scotland (http://www.wine-s...nery,134 ). Why did you feel the need to make these "facts" up when they're so easy to refute?
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
From your article ZZ

"Høegh would be happy, he had said earlier, if Greenland's farms were to get to the point where they grow most of their own winter fodder for their sheep and cattle; many farms, far from feeding their countrymen, now import more than half their fodder from Europe."

Do you really think that the Vikings without fodder imports, diesel and tractors could have raised livestock if it were not much warmer????

Stop with the propaganda.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2014


Hmm. So there are currently cattle farms in Greenland (http://ngm.nation...r-text/3 ). Why did you feel the need to make these "facts" up when they're so easy to refute?

Zz.... It's a denier's myth that cannot be killed - they hang on to it as though life depended on it.

That it's entirely possible at any time, and was the case then, that the N Atlantic and W Europe experienced a regional warming spell (PJS quasi-persistent Rossby ridge). It was NOT global in terms of the whole Earth warming. Pray tell if it were, then what was the driver? There is no evidence of a 'stronger' sun. Did the oceans disgorge heat everywhere at once? a sort of El Niño for the planet. Of course not. Heat/cold moves about mr shootist, and unfortunately, no, the Polar bears won't be anything like fine without late summer ice to hunt on and prepare for winter hibernation. Not for a while but the trend of melt shows it's coming.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2014
Rubbish Stumps
@Shooty
what part?because when you say
This is not science or any pretense of it
then that pretty much proves that you are not only scientifically illiterate, but that you are ignoring reality for the sake of your fears, which is where the conspiracy comes in: did you read the article? it is VERY relevant to your argument
Of course it gets boring to continue to ask the questions, only to be ignored
Consider the how we feel answering the same thing over and over with scientific evidence when all you bring to the table is conjecture
lets look at some "non science" as you put it: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
What "specifically" about this particular study is rubbish?
When you can spell it out, and prove it with the same level of evidence as presented in her paper, we can get down to brass tacks and you will understand more about historical temps which runrig has answered time and again ad nauseum already
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Did you know that Iceland was completely icebound (surrounded by pack ice) for ~50 years in the 13th century? Too warm for that today
@shooty
and this is evidence against global warming how?
then after a while the opposition pretends the obvious questions do not exist, or that they have been answered to the satisfaction of any rational person
This is one of your own tactics (all deniers do this)
Please show me the studies (any) that are wrong, and have been proven so with the same scientific method and level of evidence and precision that was taken to create the study...
Just because you cannot understand the science or the studies doesn't mean they don't answer your questions or that there is no evidence supporting AGW
this is the argument from fallacy that you are using to support your conspiracy
so i ask you to show the specifics and prove your point. show me the wrong studies and tell me how they are wrong with evidence and studies proving it
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Stop with the propaganda
@mr166
propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause
Actually, what ZZ gave you was evidence that your claim is false.
There is a difference between evidence and propaganda

lets take a look: This would be evidence - http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

Whereas this is propaganda -
First there was less snow and then there was more, it must be magic.
http://www.progre...ll.shtml
you will note that one "proves" something while the other simply makes a false statement based upon conspiracy and ignorance
(actually, given the overwhelming evidence already produced to date explaining the fluctuations and how jet stream problems from warming can cause wild fluctuations, this is stupidity)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
(actually, given the overwhelming evidence ...this is stupidity)
@mr166
please take special note that the study provided above was specifically chosen for your snow blog propaganda

you've posted this time and again in the past as some sort of proof against global warming and AGW
Well, the study I am posting I have given to you time and again in the past (as well as a video supporting and talking about the study) which is scientific evidence published in a peer reviewed reputable journal with an impact in climate science

the major difference? your "article" is based upon speculation, personal conjecture which is flawed because it is conspiratorial and justified by the individuals faith, not science

My evidence is empirical and unless you can provide the same level of evidence refuting it, stands as a testament to the flawed logic of your argument which supports my claim of it being stupidity and conspiracy based
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2014
Shootist claimed
Did you know that Iceland was completely icebound (surrounded by pack ice) for ~50 years in the 13th century? Too warm for that today.
Wow !

1. I would like to see the satellite date for that ?

2. Were there icebreakers that noted it in their logs with the benefit of GPS ?

3. Perhaps a couple of balloons were built to follow the jet stream & people took pictures ?

Where is this data re Iceland ice extent for the 13th century ?

What fossil records could there possibly be for floating ice on an ocean subject to currents ?

Shootist, polar bears are not best served by an Engineer/Designer who runs a large company, does Dyson dabble in climate science, does he have any papers published which critique thermal flows & are peer reviewed...

As always Shootist Links please, to hard data, something useful would be a nice change !

Pictures of Iceland circa 13th century would be great but, what was it called then ?

Hey please include Greenland too ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2014
Water_Prophet proves AGAIN claim of a degree in P. chem must be false with
Sigh, what Mike is saying, yeah, CO2 is a GHG, JUST ASK VENUS! However, I am not on Venus, to answer your other question, and concentrations of CO2 here are too small...
Typical qualitative statement of the uneducated, proof you lied about uni including units in physics !

Quantify ?

Water_Prophet
By counter example, water, everyone agrees is a much more powerful GHG has increased 400ppm, while CO2 has only increased 100 ppm.
Can anyone explain that little paradox?
You SHOULD know as a Physical Chemist properties of both gases can be gleaned EASILY for those TRAINED at uni !

ie. water has easy path back to earth ie within ~7day cycle whereas CO2 has NO easy path. So as someone who claims to have studied physics you would HAVE to think how did water rise ?

Doh, it must be on the back of CO2 !

GHG's increase thermal resistivity, its physics.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2014
Hi MR166. :)
Reality it seems that you and I are almost on the same page. Show me a renewable that makes good economic sense and I will show you one that also reduces energy usage. The political and crony capitalistic entanglements of climate science makes most of it untrustworthy. It is hard to deny that there is subculture there that wants to see individual freedoms greatly limited and government powers greatly increased.


Thankyou for striking that reasonable tone, mate. Much appreciated. I will now add a general caution for anyone who may be tempted to take the lazy option of just picking and choosing facile/superficial 'facts and stats' to base their thinking/opinion/conclusion on.

[continued...]
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2014
[...continued]

Eg-1, don't forget, REAL 'green & clean' alternatives will require just as much govt assistance/encouragement as all current tech/systems did in initial developmental/implementation stages, so 'economical feasibility' should be assessed in that context....also including wider social/health/economic independence/sustainability aspects.

Eg-2, don't forget that those who put forth facile/out-of-context 'arguments' based on 'greenland in prior centuries' do NOT tell you that the POPULATION then was much much less, so cattle/farming requirments and 'volumes/land' required would have been proportionatelt less than now. Which would have made it possible to feed/cultivate the (much hardier then) cattle/crops which was commensurate with population THEN. So no substantial 'imports' of feed/fuel etc would have been required THEN.

[continued...]
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2014
[...continued]

Finally, I trust that a reasonable person, like you have sounded above, will no longer ignore the real 'fits and starts' which this transition period, with all its temporary bufferings and global equialisations etc etc, will result in exactly the observed temporary local/short-term hiatuses and oscillations in the overall warming trend despite these transient transitional states from year to year. It is the trens and the decreasing 'buffering capability' that is worrying; as is the eventual triggering of the massive realease of 'fossil' methane.and CO2 once the warming has reached the tipping point for these further players to make the situation even more extreme the transition/new climate and weather and ocean/atmosphere current 'patterns'.

Good luck to us all, the reasonable and unreasonable alike. We're all in the same boat after all. :)
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
Again ZZ watch out for your links.

Grapes in Scotland from your link.

"Scotland is known for whisky rather than wine; the climate is too cold and wet to allow grapes to ripen sufficiently for the production of wine. Whisky has been made in Scotland for several hundred years and the question of whether it came to Scotland from Ireland or vice versa is a much-debated topic."

Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2014
Again ZZ watch out for your links.

Grapes in Scotland from your link.

"Scotland is known for whisky rather than wine; the climate is too cold and wet to allow grapes to ripen sufficiently for the production of wine. Whisky has been made in Scotland for several hundred years and the question of whether it came to Scotland from Ireland or vice versa is a much-debated topic."



@Mr166
zz5555 link is just not up to date.

http://www.bloomb...ges.html
teslaberry
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2014
The sad thing is that all this could have been averted at the fraction of a cost it will (continually) keep extracting for the foreseeable future.

An ounce of prevention...


wow ----DUMMIES THINK THEY CAN STOP THE OCEAN FROM RISING, THAT IS HOW MUCH YOU CLIMATE MORONS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED.

as if seas have not been unstoppably rising and falling for millions of years . the problem is that you are not using science to come to the conclusion you can stop this. you are using brainwashing religion. and you think you can stop start and control all of nature.

what's next stopping volcanoes? or starting volcanoes? or putting artificial clouds in the atmosphere? or putting chemicals in the ocean to stop the warming?

just because 'science' can prove the environment can be polluted by human activity, doens't mean you can control everything---such as the height of the ocean. ridiculous.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2014
MR166,
Thanks for agreeing with me that Shootist's "facts" were just made up.

From your article ZZ

"Høegh would be happy, he had said earlier, if Greenland's farms were to get to the point where they grow most of their own winter fodder for their sheep and cattle; many farms, far from feeding their countrymen, now import more than half their fodder from Europe."

Do you really think that the Vikings without fodder imports, diesel and tractors could have raised livestock if it were not much warmer????


Some things to consider. First, there were a bit more than 2000 Vikings in Greenland at its peak. As opposed to more than 56000 now. Trying to feed that many more people on the same amount of land won't be easy. Also remember that Greenland's farming is just restarting as the country warms - and no one thinks it will stop warming anytime soon. Finally, if you think Greenland didn't require imports in the MWP, you're quite naive.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2014
US tidal floods will be 'chronic' in 15 yrs, study claims
What a ridiculous "Chicken Little" assertion. This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.

http://nzclimates...levl.pdf

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2014
teslaberry suffering contrived indignance with
..THINK THEY CAN STOP THE OCEAN FROM RISING, THAT IS HOW MUCH YOU CLIMATE MORONS HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED.
No. The point is obviously re power sources that don't emit copious quantities of CO2 ie Prevention of GHG releases

teslaberry
as if seas have not been unstoppably rising and falling for millions of years . the problem is that you are not using science to come to the conclusion you can stop this. you are using brainwashing religion. and you think you can stop start and control all of nature.
Humans are now adding a significant perturbation: burning 230,000 litres of petrol per sec.

teslaberry
putting artificial clouds in the atmosphere?
Heard of cloud seeding ?
teslaberry
putting chemicals in the ocean to stop the warming?
Heard of iron oxide stimulating plankton ?

teslaberry
doens't mean you can control everything
No one said "everything".
Liar.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2014
ubavontuba lost it, didn't read the article either
US tidal floods will be 'chronic' in 15 yrs, study claims
What a ridiculous "Chicken Little" assertion. This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along. http://nzclimates...levl.pdf
Why do you HAVE TO lie & whats more get so easily caught out too ?

FFS
This article
"Scientists said the floods, while not catastrophic, could harm key infrastructure such as bridges and roads and cause property damage"

Yet ubavontuba LIED with
"The sea levels are catastrophically rising!"

LOL ! Article you linked didn't even use the phrase or the word ?

Why MUST you ubavontuba lie, distort & post stuff-ups that prove you make stuff up ?

Answer a key AGW fundamental.

"How can adding a GHG to the atmosphere with proven properties NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"
barakn
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2014
What a ridiculous "Chicken Little" assertion. This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.
...says the individual that spewed thousands of posts trying to convince people the LHC was going to destroy the Earth. Hypocritical much?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
What a ridiculous "Chicken Little" assertion. This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.
...says the individual that spewed thousands of posts trying to convince people the LHC was going to destroy the Earth. Hypocritical much?


That one deserved a 10 but all I can do is give you a 5. I'll owe you one.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2014
GHG's increase thermal resistivity, its physics.
Water_Prophet proves … be false with

Sigh. I know CO2 is a GHG, it just needs to be at least 10x more concentrated before it approaches importance.
Water is roughly 40x more powerful.
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
At first glance you'll say (because you're ignorant) they're nearly equal. Two things: 1. Water, though small, is non-zero everywhere, CO2 has narrow bands, only one significant one, and is zero everywhere else. 2. Concentration. Water is about 30x [CO2]. So intuitively, you need to iterate H2O absorbance 30x to get a fair comparison. Get it? (He doesn't get it.) Even small absorbencies with H2O are significant.
Doh, it must be on the back of CO2 !

So this should make this statement idiotic as well. It would require a large change in CO2 to, via equipartition, effect a change on H2O. Daily fluctuations in H2O trump CO2's primary effects. Cont
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2014
ie. water has easy path back to earth ie within ~7day cycle whereas CO2 has NO easy path.
What I think you are trying ramble here is this persistence nonsense. Modern physics renders this propaganda: http://en.wikiped...articles
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2014
Water, though small, is non-zero everywhere

Should say...
Water has 2 large germane bands, and has absorbance, though small, that is non-zero everywhere.

OK everywhere interesting to our discussion.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2014
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2014
What a ridiculous "Chicken Little" assertion. This is nothing but AGWite scaremongering. The whole, "The sea levels are catastrophically rising!" hysteria has been a lie, all along.
...says the individual that spewed thousands of posts trying to convince people the LHC was going to destroy the Earth. Hypocritical much?
So you gave up on the science? Are inflammatory lies and smear tactics all you have left? Have you no pride, at all?

Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2014
Water_Prophet proves yet AGAIN no claimed training in physical chemistry with
Sigh. I know CO2 is a GHG, it just needs to be at least 10x more concentrated before it approaches importance.
Why 10x, where is your math, your rationale, your hypothesis - r u used to making idle blurts out of thin air ?

Water_Prophet has his foot in his mouth claimed uni training again with
Two things: 1. Water, though small, is non-zero everywhere, CO2 has narrow bands, only one significant one, and is zero everywhere else.
Are you forgetting the maths of addition ?
Are you forgetting sun provides massive short wave, earth emits Long wave IR... ?

Water_Prophet with more qualitative idiocy
So intuitively, you need to iterate H2O absorbance 30x to get a fair comparison. Get it? (He doesn't get it.)
Runrig went to some trouble to get you up to speed but, unfortunately you didn't understand, again proves you cannot have achieved claimed uni training in physical chemistry !
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2014
Water_Prophet STILL doesn't get it, no uni training as claimed with this ignorance
What I think you are trying ramble here is this persistence nonsense. Modern physics renders this propaganda: http://en.wikiped...articles
No.
I never claimed this, my comment stands on its own merits. And I will add for your unfortunate lack of education:-

CO2 is a gas at STP, water is NOT, they are not "Identical_particles" or even approaching any such paradigm.

CO2 has significant re-radiations which, when still in the atmosphere, long after H2O precipitation increases along with evaporation due to higher temperatures can only ride upon the increased heat retention offered by CO2.

Why ffs can you not understand such simple logic ?

ie. Add too many blankets to0 a bed & you sweat more trying to cool off, air above gets more humid, this does NOT change the properties of the blanket, it (CO2) is going to be around for a long time increasing average humidty...
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2014
Water_Prophet AGAIN proved no uni training at even a minimal level with
. It would require a large change in CO2 to, via equipartition, effect a change on H2O. Daily fluctuations in H2O trump CO2's primary effects. Cont
They cannot trump (or replace), the effect is arithmetic ie accumulative ie Addition ie They ADD !

Explain how a unit graduate is focused only on qualitative terms please, ie How do you define a 'large change in CO2', or at least explain your terms of reference r they scientific ?

You did you the maths of integration at uni - did you, you know area under a curve, summation, addition etc ?

Water is a more powerful GHG than CO2 as well known but, why don't you see the ADDITION of CO2 adds to the propensity for H2O to evaporate more due to CO2's property of re-radiating long wave radiation 50% back to earth - its so simple yet you cannot understand/articulate that, for a claimed uni graduate in physical chemistry you are a bare faced liar !
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2014
ubavontuba didn't notice his hypocrisy
Are inflammatory lies and smear tactics all you have left? Have you no pride, at all?
You got caught out so many times ubavontuba,

Cherry picking, low intelligence, not understanding, falsely quoting, you were caught, now go back to mummy or try & be a real scientist...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2014
No Mike, you are just plain wrong. I'd demo it, but it is painfully obvious. If you don't get it, it can't be explained to you. Water is 40x more powerful. 30x more prevalent, no integration required.

"'A mind, once expanded by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions." Oscar Wilde.
Perhaps rather than retreated to the shallow furrows of what you know, you should examine other ideas.

It might make all those degrees you have applicable to reality instead of your myopic opinions.
For example, if you apply any of those degree you have to any of your opinions, they must change, unless you're insane.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2014
You know @Water dude, if you need data to work with, there is no better source than;
http://climate.nasa.gov/

These guys are actually pretty sharp and know what is going on. Perhaps if you sent your questions their way, you might get a good answer.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2014
Water_Prophet claimed
No Mike, you are just plain wrong. I'd demo it, but it is painfully obvious. If you don't get it, it can't be explained to you. Water is 40x more powerful. 30x more prevalent, no integration required.
Uni graduates in physical sciences KNOW maths is absolutely essential, historical relationship between H2O increase from CO2 is causal.

Show integration, claiming "painfully obvious" is banal excuse betraying fact the idea comes from an untrained mind which has NOT been expanded by studies in physical science !

Water_Prophet, as howhot2 advised contact experts I beg you !

Water_Prophet's double-speak not consistent with uni studies in physical sciences
It might make all those degrees you have applicable to reality instead of your myopic opinions.
For example, if you apply any of those degree you have to any of your opinions, they must change, unless you're insane.
Were u at uni studying O. Wilde in Literature - not Physical Chemistry !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
http://climate.nasa.gov/

@howhot2, don't hate me for saying this: CO2 is down from Al Gore days, it was supposed to keep spiking, Temperature is changing at rates that don't reflect/require human involvement (according to current mainstream), Arctic and Global Ice are down.

Here is what I see, should I be paranoid enough to think you see something different?:
395ppm CO2, <130 ppm delta>, 1.4 F <134 yr delta, 0.010F change per year> Arctic ice down 13%, land ice down 258 billion tons.

Remember what my crazy theory predicts at the 41million foot level: No significant temperature change, melting ice, irrelevance of CO2. Indeed, if I remember correctly, that figure for ice is near what I calculated. Near, not the same...

Was this your point? Are you coming over to the dark side?

It is a great site, it's like it is tailored to be a citation to my crazy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.