So, if my recollection of basic geometry is still accurate, a sea level rise of three inches would affect that same beach (one degree gradient) by moving the shoreline inland almost 15 feet.
That's not small potatoes.
You alarmists STILL have no sense of the scale of the world around you.
St. Petersburg Beach. 15 miles south from my front door.
Like others here on this forum, I live by the ocean. I've lived by the ocean for over 30 years. I see the ocean almost every day.
We have been going 10 miles offshore to play on the same small sandbar north of Anclote Island for over 20 years. It is a little known place that us locals can go to a beach away from tourists. That sandbar is no more than 1 foot max. above the water.
It hasn't changed since 1960, (57 years) on the oldest navigation map that I have.
St. Pete Beach, (shown in the top photo), has gotten substantially *wider* in the past 25 years.
The water has not risen, but you can add that fantasy to your long and constantly growing list of "concerns".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-09-2017).]
The NASA figure of three inches of global mean sea level rise over the most recent 20 years does not depend on any data from a thousand years ago, or any data from more than 20 years ago.
Maybe NASA has it wrong, or maybe there is some not very obvious reason why the particular beaches that randye has singled out (just above) have not seen the kind of horizontal incursion that I laid out in my other post. St. Petersburg is on the Gulf Coast side of Florida. Maybe that has something to do with it.
If I were going to drill down deeper into this particular issue, about sea level, I would start by going on to the NASA website and looking for a map of the sea level topography surrounding the Great State of Florida.
I didn't say that that global warming caused these huriccanes, but warmer surface water cycles(amplified by climate change) is cause the increase in strength of the storms.
You're right, the cycles are what causes the hurricanes, but the even warmer waters contribute the massive strength and size of the storms
FACT ice age FACT the ice melted without humans doing anything. Yet now there is money to be made by FEAR as the last of the ice age slowly melts and the earth gets to it's pre- ice age temps AGAIN.. FACT before the ice age the earth was much warmer than it is now.. or there would not be oil under the artic from dino and jungles FACT
FACT those that don't know earth history get sucked into this climate change fraud .. And again YOU ARE A TEACHER YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOULD KNOW BETTER.. But then again you work for a place that doesn't teach facts, you teach an agenda and narrative of the liberal base.. and fact don't matter to you or your cause. The last ice age was NOT the first so, mr. teacher, how did the earth heat and cool in cycles without any humans or industry time and time again.. ??
THIS IS WHY IT IS DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE REWRITING OF TEXTBOOKS AND HISTORY AS THEY SLOWLY ERASE HISTORY.. EARTHS HISTORY will be no different as it's history is blocking the fraud of global man made climate change and they need it erased..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 09-09-2017).]
Maybe NASA has it wrong, or maybe there is some not very obvious reason why the particular beaches that randye has singled out (just above) have not seen the kind of horizontal incursion that I laid out in my other post. St. Petersburg is on the Gulf Coast side of Florida. Maybe that has something to do with it.
....looking for a map of the sea level topography surrounding the Great State of Florida.
The only "horizontal incursion" is in your own head.
Both coasts of Florida remain as they were when I moved to this state over 30 years ago.
Your "sea level topography" isn't static Ronald, and it's properly called: TIDES and CURRENTS.
It MOVES.
So do waves.
Those waves move up and down a sh*t load more than 3 inches at any one time all over the planet.
If you lived near an ocean you might be familiar with that instead of it all being an internet fed "academic exercise" for you......like your muslim fetish.
.....or your shade balls, atmospheric pixie dust, and pissing water into enormous volcanic calderas that haven't erupted in over 3,500 years.
Are you even remotely aware of the amount of whack-job crap you routinely spew here ?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-09-2017).]
Oh look, another thread on Pennock's where one side has facts, data, and scientific theory behind their argument, and the other side is screaming anecdotal evidence and ignoring the fact that all the facts disagree with them. When one side posts informoration that is backed up by many sources, the other side screams "well MY backyard is not different, so it's clearly a lie!". Those who say this are acting like children who can't accept the fact that they are wrong because they don't want to.
The scientific community proves me wrong? Well, might as well call them liars! It's not like they do not have the strictest, non bias methods of testing and res testing theories with high standards for data collection that must be verified by multiple sources before being released as public information. But nope, they must be wrong because my political opinion is more important!
I'm getting really sick of the stubborn refusal to accept data because people don't agree with it. Grow up. Admit that you're wrong. I'm happy to do so, and I have done it here, why can't you?
I'm getting really sick of the stubborn refusal to accept data because people don't agree with it. Grow up. Admit that you're wrong. I'm happy to do so, and I have done it here, why can't you?
...
I have stated no falsehood in this thread. Nor have I danced around my position. If you do not accept that, fine. But, do not cry when I challenge you.
You have a serious issue. The mentally ill have been left behind, and you need help. I get that, but there is nothing that I can do for you. Perhaps you should hit your rich dad up?
Do not blame an inanimate object for your extreme frustrations that you have not gotten your way in this forum. If you relax, take a breather, perhaps you will be able to continue use of a simple phone? Try it out.
Oh look, another thread on Pennock's where one side has facts, data, and scientific theory behind their argument, and the other side is screaming anecdotal evidence and ignoring the fact that all the facts disagree with them.
Yet despite your puerile histrionics, you haven't shown us one bit of any subjective, verifiable , evidence of any of your claims.
We have no verifiable reports of anyone or any place being inundated by these mythical rising seas.
By the way, you neglected to use the word *literally* your usual 3 - 4 times in your post.
You do however get 1 bonus nit wit point for using at least one of the worn out juvenile phrases such as; "Oh look," and / or "Oh wait,"
Despite your claim of being an educator, your pitiable lack of rhetorical skill coupled with your juvenile language and syntax betray you as a marginally educated, young man.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog:
Grow up. Admit that you're wrong. I'm happy to do so, and I have done it here, why can't you?
NO you haven't.
What you have done however is simply walk away from more threads where you were proven wrong or to be simply lying than we can count.
Then, like "whack-a-mole", you pop up in another thread and repeat the pattern.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-09-2017).]
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
I sincerely hope that life is never discovered on another planet because, sure as hell Progressives and Socialists will want to send them money.
What you have done however is simply walk away from more threads where you were proven wrong or to be simply lying than we can count.
Then, like "whack-a-mole", you pop up in another thread and repeat the pattern.
I like how NASA and the NOAA are not "verifiable" for you Randye. You and your crazy sources are somehow better then the 97% of climate scientists who are studying the issue?
I like how NASA and the NOAA are not "verifiable" for you Randye. You and your crazy sources are somehow better then the 97% of climate scientists who are studying the issue?
I like how NASA and the NOAA are not "verifiable" for you Randye. You and your crazy sources are somehow better then the 97% of climate scientists who are studying the issue?
You can keep right on saying the names NASA and NOAA as though you're invoking the name of God Almighty and somehow think that I'm supposed to fall to my knees in supplication, but you STILL haven't proffered one single example of anyone or any place inundated by these mythical rising seas.
I'm unimpressed....... and you're still a marginally educated young man....at best.
You do get another nit wit point for using yet another childlike phrase; "I like how..."
As I said before, your language gives away your substandard education and intellect.
quote
Originally posted by Threedog:
... the 97% of climate scientists who are studying the issue?
The adage is that "87.612% of all statistics are completely fabricated on the spot". Usually to support a thin argument.
It is notable that you haven't bucked that trend.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-09-2017).]
I like how NASA and the NOAA are not "verifiable" for you Randye. You and your crazy sources are somehow better then the 97% of climate scientists who are studying the issue?
You mean the scientist that if they show data that there is no man made climate change the money stops rolling in to keep them employed.. No more grants, no more liberal donations.. Ya, some see through that smoke screen, you not so much.
You mean the scientist that if they show data that there is no man made climate change the money stops rolling in to keep them employed.. No more grants, no more liberal donations.. Ya, some see through that smoke screen, you not so much.
I like how he completely ignores the fact that one person at NASA changed the data set to show a cooler past and a warmer present before Obama took the data to Paris. This was to show a more dramatic increase in warming. Then we get Climate Gate II and still people point to the flawed data as if came on the wings of angels.
Ok 3dog, time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about man made climate change. This is about money.
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."
Originally posted by Threedog: I like how NASA and the NOAA are not "verifiable" for you Randye. You and your crazy sources are somehow better then the 97% of climate scientists who are studying the issue?
Please, before you continue this debate, lose the 97% meme. It's simply not true and repeating it here just reinforces the notion that you've swallowed the enviro / leftist story, hook, line and sinker.
The main papers behind the 97% claim is authored by John Cook, who runs SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments that defend predictions of catastrophic climate change.
Cook’s own summary of his paper found that 97% of papers he surveyed endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.
A quick scan of his paper reveals that this is not the case. He was able to demonstrate only that a handful of scientists endorse the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.
Cook calls this an explicit endorsement with quantification (quantification meaning 50% or more).
The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, it was calculated that only 1.6 % explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50% of global warming.
Then where did the 97% come from?
Cook created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1% or 50% or 100% of the warming was caused by man. He also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply, but don’t say, that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it.
In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
Numerous scientists whose papers were classified thus by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. half of that 10 were rated incorrectly. 4 out of those 5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
So that 97% figure?
It’s based on a manipulation of data propagated by people who have an ideological agenda.
Oh look, another thread on Pennock's where one side has facts, data, and scientific theory behind their argument,
Oh look, another thread on Pennock's where Threedog will spout off a few links call them undisputed fact and not stick around to debate their validity.
I like how you, Threedog, get so emotionally wrapped up in subjects that you don't even finish them. THAT is commitment and dedication to a cause..........well,, maybe not.
I never thought of it like that, good point. If so many intolerant people are here, why not a rating bar? Good or bad, if enough people issue a rating, a bar will show up. I would post a link that verifies this undisputed fact and then leave this thread but, what would that prove.
I am curious what studies he teaches our children? I am not seeing proper English, his math is flaky, and history, well history is out the window by all accounts.
These are MY thoughts... I do not want a person with his mindset educating children. I believe he is damaging to society.
Please, before you continue this debate, lose the 97% meme. It's simply not true and repeating it here just reinforces the notion that you've swallowed the enviro / leftist story, hook, line and sinker.
........
So that 97% figure?
It’s based on a manipulation of data propagated by people who have an ideological agenda.
It is "fake science".
Will that make even a dent in your beliefs?
quote
Originally posted by randye:
The adage is that "87.612% of all statistics are completely fabricated on the spot". Usually to support a thin argument.
I am curious what studies he teaches our children? I am not seeing proper English, his math is flaky, and history, well history is out the window by all accounts.
These are MY thoughts... I do not want a person with his mindset educating children. I believe he is damaging to society.
Irrespective of his mindset, I'm simply not convinced of the truthfulness of any of his claims, particularly his claim of being an educator.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-10-2017).]
I like how he completely ignores the fact that one person at NASA changed the data set to show a cooler past and a warmer present before Obama took the data to Paris. This was to show a more dramatic increase in warming. Then we get Climate Gate II and still people point to the flawed data as if came on the wings of angels.
Ok 3dog, time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not about man made climate change. This is about money.
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."
Once again, you are buying in to fearmongering sites reporting on complete and utter BS. There is a reason the only thing you could link was 'opinion' articles.
Originally posted by Threedog: Once again, you are buying in to fearmongering sites reporting on complete and utter BS. There is a reason the only thing you could link was 'opinion' articles.
This is fun. Lets all play your stupid "my authority is more authoritative than your authority" game shall we?
Let's begin with the bios of the staff of factcheck.org. The folks that claim to be "non-partisan"
Our Staff:
Brooks Jackson Director Emeritus, FactCheck.org
Brooks Jackson is a journalist who has covered Washington and national politics since 1970, reporting in turn for the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and CNN. He joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2003 and launched FactCheck.org in December of that year.
At CNN, he pioneered the “adwatch” and “factcheck” form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements, starting with the presidential election of 1992.
(YUP, I vividly recall his "fact checking" while he shamelessly pimped for Clinton)
Eugene Kiely Director, FactCheck.org Eugene KielyEugene Kiely is a journalist who has covered government and politics for more than 20 years. Prior to joining FactCheck.org, Kiely was a Washington assignment editor at USA TODAY,
Kathleen Hall Jamieson Director, Annenberg Public Policy Center Dr. Kathleen Jamieson, Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania,
Lori Robertson Managing Editor, FactCheck.org Lori Robertson is a journalist
Robert Farley Deputy Managing Editor, FactCheck.org A journalist for more than 23 years, Robert Farley was most recently a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times for more than 13 years. (One of the local papers in my area and a notorious, raging, leftie rag)
D’Angelo Gore Staff Writer, FactCheck.org D’Angelo Gore earned his B.A. in journalism at Temple University and joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in October 2007
Vanessa Schipani Science Writer, FactCheck.org Vanessa Schipani is a science journalist and philosopher of science. As an undergraduate at the University of Florida, she double-majored in zoology and philosophy,
So I guess that Vanessa is a trained "journalist of philosophical zoology" Nope, certainly not a loopy leftie there....
Aous Abbas Website Developer, Annenberg Public Policy Center Aous Abbas earned his bachelor’s degree in information science and technology from Temple University and joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in August 2006.
A big boatload of leftie journalists all working for one of the Annenberg spin offs affiliated with the one started by known radical, domestic, terrorist William, (Bill) Ayres, (Weather Underground bomber), and close buddy to Obama.
We can get into the politics of Wallis Annenberg and the rest of her clan later if necessary. They sure do tend to fund a crap load of leftist-centric causes and institutions.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-10-2017).]
Originally posted by randye: This is fun. Lets all play your stupid "my authority is more authoritative than your authority" game shall we?
Let's begin with the bios of the staff of factcheck.org. The folks that claim to be "non-partisan"
Our Staff:
Brooks Jackson Director Emeritus, FactCheck.org
Brooks Jackson is a journalist who has covered Washington and national politics since 1970, reporting in turn for the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and CNN. He joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2003 and launched FactCheck.org in December of that year.
At CNN, he pioneered the “adwatch” and “factcheck” form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements, starting with the presidential election of 1992.
(YUP, I vividly recall his "fact checking" while he shamelessly pimped for Clinton)
Eugene Kiely Director, FactCheck.org Eugene KielyEugene Kiely is a journalist who has covered government and politics for more than 20 years. Prior to joining FactCheck.org, Kiely was a Washington assignment editor at USA TODAY,
Kathleen Hall Jamieson Director, Annenberg Public Policy Center Dr. Kathleen Jamieson, Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania,
Lori Robertson Managing Editor, FactCheck.org Lori Robertson is a journalist
Robert Farley Deputy Managing Editor, FactCheck.org A journalist for more than 23 years, Robert Farley was most recently a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times for more than 13 years. (One of the local papers in my area and a notorious, raging, leftie rag)
D’Angelo Gore Staff Writer, FactCheck.org D’Angelo Gore earned his B.A. in journalism at Temple University and joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in October 2007
Vanessa Schipani Science Writer, FactCheck.org Vanessa Schipani is a science journalist and philosopher of science. As an undergraduate at the University of Florida, she double-majored in zoology and philosophy,
So I guess that Vanessa is a trained "journalist of philosophical zoology" Nope, certainly not a loopy leftie there....
Aous Abbas Website Developer, Annenberg Public Policy Center Aous Abbas earned his bachelor’s degree in information science and technology from Temple University and joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in August 2006.
A big boatload of leftie journalists all working for one of the Annenberg spin offs affiliated with the one started by known radical, domestic, terrorist William, (Bill) Ayres, (Weather Underground bomber), and close buddy to Obama.
We can get into the politics of Wallis Annenberg and the rest of her clan later if necessary. They sure do tend to fund a crap load of leftist-centric causes and institutions.
You wouldn't be implying that they are bias........would you? Like as if the results of their fact checking could be slanted? You know, the same says it all, they check facts. ..right? Besides, a "good" journalist is nutral and only states fact as they get it.
The only "horizontal incursion" is in your own head.
Both coasts of Florida remain as they were when I moved to this state over 30 years ago.
Your "sea level topography" isn't static Ronald, and it's properly called: TIDES and CURRENTS.
It MOVES.
So do waves.
Those waves move up and down a sh*t load more than 3 inches at any one time all over the planet.
If you lived near an ocean you might be familiar with that instead of it all being an internet fed "academic exercise" for you......like your muslim fetish.
.....or your shade balls, atmospheric pixie dust, and pissing water into enormous volcanic calderas that haven't erupted in over 3,500 years.
Are you even remotely aware of the amount of whack-job crap you routinely spew here ?
Oh, boo-hoo. Randy E hurt my widdle bitty Liberal Snowflake feewings. I am going to stop worshipping my bronze figurine of Al Gore in my second floor shrine. I might not ever post another message here again.
Jesus.
As I already posted in this thread, back on Page One, and almost three months ago, there are statements online, with the imprimatur of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), that NASA has measured a global mean sea level rise of 3 inches above where it was 20 years ago, using a technology based on altimeter measurements from polar orbiting satellites that scan the entire globe. As I said here, back in September:
quote
The highfalutin terminology for "land sinking" is "subsidence".
Altimeter measurements of sea level from aircraft and orbital satellites are not affected by subsidence. They are measuring sea level from overhead by converting the time that elapses between the signal transmission and receiving the signal as an echo, reflected upwards by the surface of the sea. Very radar-like. That's how NASA does it.
It seems to me, looking at this from a somewhat educated layman's perspective, that there is nothing in this NASA determination that would have to depend on any historical baseline of sea level measurements predating these satellites. The baseline for global mean sea level would seem to have been established from when these polar orbiting satellites first became operational, and completed the first complete scan of the entire planet, 20 years ago. But this is not something I have tried to confirm.
I also said, back on Page One, that if you had a very gently sloping beach--almost flat--the edge of the beach would have to have retreated inland by almost 15 feet, compared to where it was 20 years ago, if this NASA determination of sea level rise were accurate. This is called Horizontal Incursion. It's straightforward geometry that computes how a 3-inch vertical increase in sea level translates against a beach of a very gentle one-degree gradient as it goes all the way down from land to sea level.
Now it's not quite that simple. As I said on Page One:
quote
Sea level is not the same as we move around the world's oceans. The seas actually have a topography, in the same way that land masses can have hills and valleys. Right off the California coast, there are areas where sea level has actually decreased over the last 20 years. But overall, when you look across the entire area of the globe that is covered by sea water, it's mostly rising sea levels.
So it also somewhat depends on where your beach is located.
At the top of Page Two, Randy E posted some photographs from St Petersburg, on Florida's Gulf Coast, not far from where he lives. He says that he has seen this expanse of beach become substantially larger in area over the last 25 years, instead of giving way to the sea and retreating inland. Instead of becoming smaller. And he asks "How can those NASA satellite measurements be accurate, when I am seeing the opposite of what would happen if sea levels along this coast had increased by anything even close to 3 inches over the last 20 years?"
We can also go back to Page One and see where Ray Otton (RayOtton) checked in with somewhat similar comments about some coastline that he is familiar with, on Virginia's Atlantic Coast.
So here's what I think could be going on. I am not ready to discard the NASA reports that I have seen online as grossly inaccurate, because of some technical or data processing screwup, or because it's part of a Liberal Conspiracy to boost the public's perception of Global Warming. I don't think that is the explanation.
There's another possible explanation for what's going on here.
Aside from sea level changes, there are current and wave effects that cause some beaches to lose sand to the ocean, and decrease in beach area over time, and cause other beaches to receive sand that washes onshore from the ocean and so gain beach area over time. Local effects. Localized conditions that add another layer of complexity on top of the global situation of rising sea levels.
And there are also human interventions. Cities and towns that may be replenishing sand on beaches that are heavily visited or considered valuable. Beach engineering.
So what's going on here?
I still don't have enough information, but the idea that these rudely-worded Off Topic messages from Randy E (and the more courteous messages from Ray Otton) are enough, in and of themselves, to cause me to Call Bullshit on the NASA results is risible.
Risible. Ridiculous. Premature. Not happening.
Aren't you glad that I resurrected this three months old discussion?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-01-2017).]
