Sea Levels Rising?, ...or dropping? Options

[lunk]

It has been said for years that the sea levels will rise.
This has not come to pass.
In fact the mean sea level in Vancouver, BC has, if anything dropped.
The lowest tide ever has been reported twice, that I know of, in my lifetime,
yet, the highest tides have stayed the same.

Anecdotal, perhaps but:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

imo, lunk

[albertchampion]

i confess that i don't have evidence about "global warning" or "sea levels rising", but i know this, i have encountered degreed engineers design stuff that doesn't work based on "theories", "theories" that i have contradicted by designing solutions. based on empirical observations on how the world works.

guess what, those degreed engineers think that my provably successful solutions are flukes....that someday their idiocies of imaginary reality will be proven to be accurate.

and pigs will fly.

it is so bizarre....the adherence to wrongheadedness.

in my youth, i had no idea that so many could be so insistent on getting it inaccurately. if there is a deity, that deity must love the brain-damaged...the deity made so many of them.

[lunk]

When I think about it, if the continents are (more of less) staying the same size,
and the ocean rifts are widening, then the area of oceans are getting bigger, faster, and the ocean levels should be lowering, because surface area grows much faster,
while the diameter is increasing.

If the bathtub gets a little wider, all around, the water level drops.

...I would think

imo, lunk

[Omega892R09]

It has been said for years that the sea levels will rise.
In fact the mean sea level in Vancouver, BC has, if anything dropped.
The lowest tide ever has been reported twice, that I know of, in my lifetime,
yet, the highest tides have stayed the same.

How are these tides being measured?

If it is by tidal gauges then any measurements may not reflect the true trends in sea level change.

What is the geology doing in that area?

Just because there appears to be a drop in sea level compared to specific points on land does not necessarily mean that the sea levels are falling.

There are many places in the world where the land masses are still rebounding after glacial melting.

The Western Highlands of Scotland are one such place, whilst the south east corner of England falls. The Tibetan plateau is another. The geological history of the Himalayas (silly trend in pronunciation on that word of late into the grating, him-al-eas) and the Tibetan plateau is complex, and interesting.

Still. I have mentioned this rebound before WRT the Gulf of Bothnia where in 2001 the mean sea level was rising by about 2mm per year but that the surrounding land was rebounding by as much as 10mm per year more than canceling out any apparent apparent sea level rise.

But that isn't all.

'Coastlines rise and fall with the clashing of tectonic plates. In some places, such as Alaska and Japan, the motions are so pronounced that tidal gauges cannot be used as a reliable index of long-term sea-level change.' The Rough Guide to Climate Change pp. 108.

[lunk]

Yes, the sea level used to be higher, old beaches have been found above high tide level,
and I have seen coral from the ocean a way up on the land, much higher than the highest tides.
The oceans must have been there in the past. But that does not mean that they are rising,
it only means that the ocean is lower today.
Which fits in with my theory, confirmed by observations, that the sea level is going down.
Not rising.

As for the extinction of species, do to human activity, yes this has happened,
but are these numbers being exaggerated? I hear fantastically large numbers.
I mean shouldn't we be having a little obituary every time another species goes extinct?

The Dodo, is the only recent one I can think of, at the moment.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Dodo_1.JPG/250px-Dodo_1.JPG)

imo, lunk

[Omega892R09]

The Dodo, is the only recent one I can think of, at the moment.

Really lunk, I find that statement quite extraordinary, it demonstrates a poor sense of history, especially natural history.

The Dodo was not the only species made extinct by mariners hunting for food on many an island and archipelago, and also in the seas around. Try finding out more about the Galapagos for starters. Then there is Mauritius and a host of other places in the Indian Ocean and what is now termed Oceania. And how many species of whale were once known to science and how many now?

Then there are all the species of invertebrates. The species loss amongst these could turn out to be the most devastating of all.

Yeah! Wake up people!

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 3 2009, 11:22 AM

[Sanders]

Yeah! Wake up people!

How perverse.

Oh! Crisis! Help! Call in the government! Save us with your carbon-taxes! We need a new international governmental structure to deal with this!

The same people who are fomenting this supposed CO2 crisis are the people who make it profitable to burn rainforests.

Omega, for the record, I really think you need to start to rethink this global warming scam.

[Omega892R09]

How perverse.

Oh! Crisis! Help! Call in the government! Save us with your carbon-taxes! We need a new international governmental structure to deal with this!

The same people who are fomenting this supposed CO2 crisis are the people who make it profitable to burn rainforests.

Omega, for the record, I really think you need to start to rethink this global warming scam.

Now that is perverse on several counts.

First I was pointing out the disparity between lunk's statement of his knowledge of extinctions and the actuality of extinctions. Nothing about climate change as such.

Now for the record, you have already made your position on CO2 clear, no need to repeat it.

I have pointed out to you why I think you are basing your opinion on tainted sources but hey, lets ignore all the real evidence and continue spewing the same old BS based on propaganda endlessly recycled by the usual culprits. Did you notice the dodgy provenance on the sources you quoted?

The people who are fomenting the CO2 crisis, as you so quaintly put it, are those (most of us) producing more carbon dioxide than the planet's systems can deal with and still leave an inhabitable environment for us let alone all the other organisms in a food chain which supports us. This food chain could suddenly collapse BTW.

Now, and again for the record, you need to get your head out of the sand.

I have indicated, on a number of occasions, where I have disquiet with certain financial/political carbon measures but the underlying reasons for needing this debate are very real. I wish it wasn't this way but self denial isn't going to help anybody.

As I wrote before, I thought that you were more savvy than this.

[lunk]

How are these tides being measured?

If it is by tidal gauges then any measurements may not reflect the true trends in sea level change.

What is the geology doing in that area?

Just because there appears to be a drop in sea level compared to specific points on land does not necessarily mean that the sea levels are falling.

There are many places in the world where the land masses are still rebounding after glacial melting.

Rebounding? Massive continents are bouncing up and down on the surface of the the Earth.

Physics says that a solid or liquid cannot be compressed, but air can!

Sure put a couple of kilometers of ice on a continent, that should make it heavier, take it off,
and it will become lighter, and bound back up.

What is it that gives beneath the continent that has this property,
not solid rock, or liquid magma, these things cannot be compressed.

Omega are you saying that the Earth is hollow?

lol, lunk

[Omega892R09]

Omega are you saying that the Earth is hollow?

Not at all.

What you have failed to consider is that the more fluid mantle can be redistributed by an increase in weight above. Don't forget also that the earth's surface can be elastic and as the ocean floor is very much thinner than continental crust then the ocean floor can also distort to make space.

Besides, there is sure to be some gas content within the structure of the earths surface, even if only water vapour.

What happens when you sit on a water bed for example?

Really! Your lol on this one only serves to demonstrate the shallowness of your thought and your narrow horizons.

EDIT: Emphasis added!

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 4 2009, 12:48 PM

[Omega892R09]

Lunk.

More on species loss.

Have you thought of any others that have gone extinct during recent recorded history, and especially since man began to navigate the oceans of the world and this should include Polynesians BTW?

Hint; Easter Island amongst others in the Pacific.

Also what about Madagascar and Malaysia and Indonesia.

New Zealand should provide you with yet more inspiration.

But if all that fails try these:

Jared Diamond 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee' especially Part Five 'Reversing Our Progress Overnight'

and

'Quaternary Extinctions: Prehistoric Revolution' by Paul S Martin and Richard G Klein

Online these could help:

you can dowload this first one to read at your leasure,
MEGAFAUNA - First Victims of the Human-Caused Extinction

The ICUN Red List of Threatened Species

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY

EDIT: charset glitch

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 4 2009, 12:46 PM

[lunk]

When I walk in the mud, it oozes up and around my feet and between my toes,
as my weight upon my feet displaces the mud.

If a continent is sinking into the Earth, where is the mud oozing up?

How do you keep a heavy solid nickle-iron core in the very center of a ball
of spinning liquid (as modern science describes the Earth)?

Just how much magma is underneath us?
I've read that it is somewhere around .04 percent,
and that is mostly under volcanoes.

Seems to me that there are major flaws in the theory of continental drift.

The bathtub only has to get slightly larger for the water level to drop everywhere.

imo, lunk

[lunk]

...and another thing...

You got to be kidding, look at this list:

List of Mammals Extinct after 1500 AD

http://roboconsumer.wordpress.com/2007/09/...xtinct-mammals/
Nearly 100 mammals species extinct since 1500.

Most of which are vermin like rats, mice, and a giant vampire bat!
Leaving just 5416, remaining.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-...ber-species.php


Yet I read in a newspaper stuff like:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...ies-408605.html

More than a decade ago, Edward O Wilson, the Harvard naturalist, first estimated that about 30,000 species were going extinct each year - an extinction rate of about three an hour. Further research has confirmed that just about every group of animals and plants - from mosses and ferns to palm trees, frogs, and monkeys - is experiencing an unprecedented loss of diversity.

Scientists estimate that 12 per cent of all birds, 23 per cent of mammals, a quarter of conifers, a third of amphibians and more than half of all palm trees are threatened with imminent extinction. Climate change alone could lead to the further extinction of between 15 and 37 per cent of all species by the end of the century, the scientists say: "Because biodiversity loss is essentially irreversible, it poses serious threats to sustainable development and the quality of life of future generations."

and:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpftiF..._mtTA15UzqTfubg

Half the world's mammals are declining in population and more than a third probably face extinction, said an update Monday of the "Red List," the most respected inventory of biodiversity.

A comprehensive survey of mammals included in the annual report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which covers more than 44,000 animal and plant species, shows that a quarter of the planet's 5,487 known mammals are clearly at risk of disappearing forever.

But the actual situation may be even grimmer because researchers have been unable to classify the threat level for another 836 mammals due to lack of data.

"In reality, the number of threatened mammals could be as high as 36 percent," said IUCN scientist Jan Schipper, lead author of the mammal survey, in remarks published separately in the US-based journal Science.

Their numbers do not make any sense, and nowhere can I find a complete list of these,
so called extinct species, that come anywhere near the thousands, I hear repeatedly parroted.

imo, lunk

[Omega892R09]

...and nowhere can I find a complete list of these,
so called extinct species, that come anywhere near the thousands, I hear repeatedly parroted.

That is because you are not paying attention.

Consult some of the sources I have cited and discover the basis of the calculations and how the majority of species were not even known about, let alone counted, until recently. Not only that the vast majority of the worlds species are not even vertebrates let alone mammals with many still being unknown to science.

Further many once identified species have not had their habitats surveyed by humans for decades, or centuries even, and so there current status is unknown.

Species of freshwater fish alone in many rivers across the world have halved, or worse, in recent times.

Considering the uncertainty surround what species actually exist precise numbers are bound to differ and certainly over time.

E.O. Wilson is somebody to whom attention should be paid.

As for your precise statement above, try using the search facility at that Red List site, it is extremely powerful and flexible but can only ever be as good as the data supplied and I have indicated why there are gaps. If you had consulted Jared Diamond on this you will understand why.

However, what is known is cause for concern and your rather flippant remark concerning the Dodo was out of order. Do you know on what island that bird existed? Do you know what other species were similarly and as quickly eliminated on that island?

It seems that many here prefer quick sound bytes from newspaper articles to reading up on scientific research. To be sure, given the increasing impoverished state of community libraries, and basic education in general, getting hold of some sources can be difficult for those outside academia, I run up against such barriers. But then the promoters of the NWO prefer folk to continue in ignorance and confusion, it suits their purpose.

[Omega892R09]

Most of which are vermin like rats, mice, and a giant vampire bat!
Leaving just 5416, remaining.

Classing species as vermin just because they have a handle such as rat or mouse is an unfortunate frame of mind.

I would think it a strong possibility that such vermin, if they had thought processes as evolved as ours would class us as vermin, and with a vengeance.

[lunk]

OK, "vermin" is a little derogatory, when talking about any species.
Especially when mice and rats have been around for probably
longer than humans.
...I should have more respect.

I found the "red list", but that just shows critters nearing extinction.
(Dodo, not included)
I found a list, of mainly rodents, that have gone extinct,
but that is less than 100, since the year 1500.

Where is the list of the "said" THOUSANDS of species going extinct every year?

All I see is gross exaggerations of numbers,
with no references to actual names of species.

If there is no list of species that have gone extinct,
one can only conclude that these numbers are made up!

It's like me saying that I have a jar with thousands of invisible pennies in it, and
I can prove it by showing you 100 real ones.
Showing 100 real pennies, does not mean that I have thousands of invisible ones.

...my 2 cents worth,

and imo, lunk

[Omega892R09]

Where is the list of the "said" THOUSANDS of species going extinct every year?

That, if you do not mind me saying so is a naive question and I have suggested Diamond as a source for an ovewrview of the methodology that is behind such a number and in particular:

Jared Diamond 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee' especially Part Five 'Reversing Our Progress Overnight'

Consider in particular that not all species have been named so that only named species would appear on any such list. If that statement appears perverse to you then read that cited above.

Have you found the search facility on the Red List site yet and also the Video tutorial on how to use that powerfull search facility?

Have you had a look at Edmeades yet?

[Sanders]

Species are in fact going extinct at an alarming rate. I have a book, not related to any of this 'global warming' stuff, which presents a case whereby a forth of the species of fish which were presenti in SouthEast Asia a hundred years ago are now extinct. I don't know if that's true, it's just what I read in a book, and I don't trust anything anymore ... but I'm sure that human expansion has killed off a ton of species. A quarter of species lost in a hundred years sounds about right to me.

But that's not the same as this insane argument that CO2 is warming up the planet and that we all should be taxed so as to create more international governance ... the people who want to control everything and tax us for our CO2 footprint are the same people funding the burning of rainforests. Duh.

[Omega892R09]

Species are in fact going extinct at an alarming rate.

Well I am glad that we agree on something.

But that's not the same as this insane argument that CO2 is warming up the planet and that we all should be taxed so as to create more international governance ... the people who want to control everything and tax us for our CO2 footprint are the same people funding the burning of rainforests. Duh.

Sanders, you weary me!

I also despair at the burning of rain forests but let us please be rational about this business.

The planet is warming, there is no doubt for the trend over time is still up even though it is masked by short term fluctuations - after a high may come a drop and how CO2 increases achieve that is scientific fact.

One sign of this trend is the breaking up of the Wilkins ice shelf.

Species are being lost as temperature at lower levels in forests climb above that which keps the atmosphere moist for amphibious species and there is no similar forest at higher levels for migration. Migration is a problem for many endangered, and some recently extinct species, and not just in forests.

It is curious is it not that some are exploring the possibility of sequestering CO2 when all this sudden increase in CO2, and that cannot be denied, is due to the increased rendering of that carbon based fuel that was sequestered over millions of years, effectively locking up all that solar energy to be released over a few short centuries and at an accelerating pace. Think about it. It ain't rocket science, well not entirely.

Of course , if you wish to keep your head in the sand then that is up to you but be careful of that oily mess just beneath the surface left by the Valdez.

I see that inimitable Dr Michaels has been at it again:

Michaels’ new graph

Oh! Well!

Duh, duh duh duh duh,

EDIT: link emphasised.
duh duh!

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 5 2009, 02:35 PM

[André]

Ice has a lower density than water, and since most of this planets ice is underwater, when it melts the volume goes down. When you account for the approximately 10% of ice is above water, when that melts it cancels the reduction in volume so there should no significant changes in the water level.