Arguments about climate change

This is even simpler logic.

The tsunami was just a bigger movement than happens every single day with the movements of plates all over the Earth.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

This New Scientist aticle points out that the continents are moving from one another at up to 7cm per year. That is about 2 feet in the last hundred years.

This can not happen without changes in the ocean floor unless you want to convince us that there is a 2 foot wide crack in the Earth.

I am not surprised that the others would parrot about the sealevel but you as a geologist knows quite well that the oceon floor changes elevation all the time just as you know that the elevation of Mount Everest is rising 1 cm each year.

So I suggest that Pax, Cactus, AT and Papal Knight all camp out at the summit of Everest. In the unlikely event that they are still worried about global warming they can at least know that relative to their perch that sealevel is actually falling by 0.3 inchs a year.

Happy days and bundle up well lads.

youngdan wrote:

This is even simpler logic.

[...]

This New Scientist aticle points out that the continents are moving from one another at up to 7cm per year. That is about 2 feet in the last hundred years.

[...]

1 foot = 30.48 cm
30.48 cm x 2 = 60.96 cm
60.96 cm = 2 feet

60.96 / 7 = 8.7086 years.

Even according to your figure of 7cm per year the plates have moved the 2 feet in 8.7086 years, not 100 years.

youngdan wrote:

This is even simpler logic.

The tsunami was just a bigger movement than happens every single day with the movements of plates all over the Earth.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.041-continental-drift-the-final-proof.html

This New Scientist aticle points out that the continents are moving from one another at up to 7cm per year. That is about 2 feet in the last hundred years.

This can not happen without changes in the ocean floor unless you want to convince us that there is a 2 foot wide crack in the Earth.

It's called a mid-oceanic ridge, and it's generally a good deal wider than 2 feet. It's where the basaltic magma that makes ocean floor wells up to the surface.

youngdan wrote:

I am not surprised that the others would parrot about the sealevel but you as a geologist knows quite well that the oceon floor changes elevation all the time just as you know that the elevation of Mount Everest is rising 1 cm each year.

Indeed, and those movements are monitored across most of the world's oceans. Which is how we know that there is no global rise in the seafloor. Bits of the seafloor go up, bits of the seafloor go down - on average it cancels out. It doesn't lead to a smooth rising trend in sea-level - indeed, there's no known mechanism by which the seafloors would consistently rise on average across a century.

I've a feeling you've something about isostatic rebound lodged in your head. Ulster, for example, is actually rising higher above sea level, due to post-glacial isostatic rebound.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:

I expect the entire global warming thing to fade away. Nothing like record cold temps to set people thinking.

The bigger reason is that it is no longer needed as the economy is collapsing without it.

The impoverishing of the masses is well under way even though I was told it couldn't happened 18 months ago.

Just wait to see the changes the next 3 months bring.

People are going on about how this is the coolest year "since 2000" - as if that proved something other than their own stupidity. Trends don't go along straight lines - they fluctuate around a changing mean. If the world warms by 10 degrees, there will still be youngdans pointing out that some summer or other is the coolest for a decade, and still thinking it's something other than a slightly fancy way of saying "hey, I don't understand the science at all".

But then, we know people don't understand these things, because otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, eh? Both economies and science are so much more complex than most people can grasp, that they revert to dealing with it in the time honoured primitive way - ascribe it to a conscious agent. The modern version is a conspiracy, but the doors marked "creationism" and "god did it" are right next door.

Indeed. Just because graphs show a short to medium-term downward trajectory doesn't mean that the long-term trend is as well. As we well know from the stock exchange, just because the ISEQ takes a 6-month long rally towards 5000 from now doesn't change the underlying negative direction driving it that will take it back down to the mid 2000s. Look at this graph:



youngdan's argument could have and probably was made in the period after 1900 and 1940 to argue that the world was back on a trend of reducing global temperatures. These views were wrong since rises in greenhouse emissions and the cumulative feedback effect of previous emissions alongside natural variables like the intensity of the sun drove the long-term trend of temperatures up. Since emissions in general continue to rise;





there is nothing to suggest that this decade of cooling is anything but a temporary aberration which will be swiftly be corrected by the fundamental logic of rising greenhouse emissions. Temperatures are going to continue to increase, climate change is a reality and emissions must be sharply reduced.

It was 12 degrees here today, and we are all sitting around in t-shirts with no heating on all day. The Christmas tree lights are enough to warm the whole house.

Youngdan, if we were talking only about the future, there might be a point to this, but climate change has been going on proportionately to use of carbon energy for some time now. They have blue tongue disease in the UK and you have Nile disease in NY. You may not want to acknowledge it is going on, but the birds and the bugs know it is and are acting accordingly.

johnfás wrote:

youngdan wrote:

This is even simpler logic.

[...]

This New Scientist aticle points out that the continents are moving from one another at up to 7cm per year. That is about 2 feet in the last hundred years.

[...]

1 foot = 30.48 cm
30.48 cm x 2 = 60.96 cm
60.96 cm = 2 feet

60.96 / 7 = 8.7086 years.

Even according to your figure of 7cm per year the plates have moved the 2 feet in 8.7086 years, not 100 years.

Thanks JohnFas for pointing that out. The drift is more than 10 times what I had thought when changed into feet.

The 5 sweltering Amigos will not be happy with you pointing this out as it makes them look 10 times as foolish when they rant about 0.2 inchs

Time for Mumbo Jumbo Ibis to try and confuse the readers I see.

I knew you would be right back talking about the ridge when I quipped about the crack. We know about the ridge and it is gigantic. You say

"It's where the basaltic magna that makes ocean floors wells up to the surface"

Even Papal can figure out that this would raise the sea level. Have you really a geology degree.

You say that a rise in the floor in one oceon is averaged by a drop in the floor in another ocean. If my son made such an elementary mistake I would scould him.

"the birds and the bugs know it"



Cactus. my suspicians were correct. You are talking to the birds

youngdan wrote:

"the birds and the bugs know it"



Cactus. my suspicians were correct. You are talking to the birds

Indeed I am youngdan, and some of them are not happy with the way you are ignoring their predicament. Expect a visit soon: