Originally posted by lemon lime [b]My god you must think we are (all) incredibly thick!
Not all of you, but some of you apparently are. I never said water levels weren't rising. I was pointing out to sonhouse how his brother in laws problem may not be entirely due to rising sea levels. For a couple of guys who are always pointing out the importance of context you two win first pr ...[text shortened]... the projections meant to be entirely based on the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmosphere?[/b]
So you figure Florida is somehow subsiding and thus the apparent sea level rise? I saw the place 20 years ago and the boat landing made of concrete was in place and the beach was quite a bit back from the house. There of course have been storms that have helped with his beach front but the ocean level is a lot closer to his condo now. I saw the before and after so either Florida is falling or the sea is rising, take your pick.
Originally posted by sonhouse So you figure Florida is somehow subsiding and thus the apparent sea level rise?
The whole east cost of the US is slowly subsiding. Whether this is more or less than sea level rise I do not know.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas-20247
It is partly long term and partly due to pumping ground water.
I saw the place 20 years ago and the boat landing made of concrete was in place and the beach was quite a bit back from the house. There of course have been storms that have helped with his beach front but the ocean level is a lot closer to his condo now. I saw the before and after so either Florida is falling or the sea is rising, take your pick. But have you actually measured the water height relative to the house? Erosion of beaches is a common phenomena not directly associated with sea level rise. Sea level rise in the last decade was about 2 inches. Are you sure you would be able to notice that?
Originally posted by sonhouse So you figure Florida is somehow subsiding and thus the apparent sea level rise? I saw the place 20 years ago and the boat landing made of concrete was in place and the beach was quite a bit back from the house. There of course have been storms that have helped with his beach front but the ocean level is a lot closer to his condo now. I saw the before and after so either Florida is falling or the sea is rising, take your pick.
No sonhouse (you son of a house!) I was suggesting there could be geological forces at work exacerbating the problem. You know, the problem your brother in law has? 😕 😛
I'm not suggesting the entire length of the east coast is sinking nor am I suggesting the entire length of the west coast is rising. But I was suggesting this could be a problem where your brother in law lives.
"I saw the before and after so either Florida is falling or the sea is rising, take your pick."
Originally posted by sonhouse So you figure Florida is somehow subsiding and thus the apparent sea level rise? I saw the place 20 years ago and the boat landing made of concrete was in place and the beach was quite a bit back from the house. There of course have been storms that have helped with his beach front but the ocean level is a lot closer to his condo now. I saw the before and after so either Florida is falling or the sea is rising, take your pick.
You could have seen the place 30 years ago (or 40) and not foreseen a future problem with the place. But anyone buiding a structure close to the ocean would be wise to have a geological survey done first. And then take whatever bad news or potential problems the geologist might point out seriously.
My brother worked for a builder who, against the advice of a geologist, built a set of condominiums on what appeared to be solid ground. The owner of the propery ignored the geologist's warning and told the builder if he didn't do it he would find someone who would. So the condos were built and people moved in. About 10 years later a strong storm caused waves to beat away at the side of the hard sandstone foundation the condos were built on. So now the condos are only a few yards from the edge of a sandstone cliff... the condo owners want out, but they can't sell because no one wants to move in. So they're suing the owner who in turn is now trying to sue the builder.
Point being, not every problem with property close to a beach can be blamed on a 2 inch rise in sea level. And how much land a 2 inch rise covers depends on how gradually or abruptly the land rises.
Originally posted by lemon lime You could have seen the place 30 years ago (or 40) and not foreseen a future problem with the place. But anyone buiding a structure close to the ocean would be wise to have a geological survey done first. And then take whatever bad news or potential problems the geologist might point out seriously.
My brother worked for a builder who, against the advic ...[text shortened]... vel. And how much land a 2 inch rise covers depends on how gradually or abruptly the land rises.
We had a similar problem here in Allentown Pa. This idiot money grabbing cretin developer built an entire tract of houses on swamp ground, and strangely enough 4 or 5 years later torrential rains turned it back into a swamp, flooded the entire area. Very low ground, much lower than the surround.
So the dude was sued and they won, houses torn down and it is an empty lot again like it was before and will remain such unless money passes hands and a new construction permit is given which I would not put it past government inspectors.
Originally posted by sonhouse The evidence is already starting but people like you prefer to just hide your head under the sand preferring to just do business as usual. The land already lost in Alaska you just decide is due to local causes like storms and such. Ho Hum business as usual, move along, there is nothing here to see.
We have already been over that island in Alaska. It was not caused by sea level rise, it was caused because men extracted sand from the beach to use for concrete. They were naive and caused the problem.
Originally posted by Metal Brain We have already been over that island in Alaska. It was not caused by sea level rise, it was caused because men extracted sand from the beach to use for concrete. They were naive and caused the problem.
This island has erosion due to weaking sea ice not exploitation:
Which is 100% due to climate change. Rising sea is not the issue here.
Former thick ice protected the island from storm surges.
Now with thin or no ice storms ravage the whole island.
Which is 100% due to climate change. Rising sea is not the issue here.
Former thick ice protected the island from storm surges.
Now with thin or no ice storms ravage the whole island.
This is a different Alaskan island than what you brought up before. Climate change is natural for the most part. This example does nothing to prove man is the primary cause. Try again.
Originally posted by Metal Brain This is a different Alaskan island than what you brought up before. Climate change is natural for the most part. This example does nothing to prove man is the primary cause. Try again.
Keep your head in the sand as long as you can. I assume you already live inland so you don't have to worry about the death of corals or extinction of polar bears or permanent loss of arctic ice.
Don't worry, be happy. You may die before there are really dire effects so just keep your head in the sand.
Originally posted by sonhouse Keep your head in the sand as long as you can. I assume you already live inland so you don't have to worry about the death of corals or extinction of polar bears or permanent loss of arctic ice.
Don't worry, be happy. You may die before there are really dire effects so just keep your head in the sand.
More myths I have debunked before. You must have dementia.
Originally posted by Metal Brain More myths I have debunked before. You must have dementia.
You have already admitted there is climate change, but deny man's involvement.
So does that mean you figure business as usual, we don't need to do anything to mitigate climate change, in another 10 years everything will return to normal, Polar bears will be able to go back to the sea ice and find sea lions and such?
Originally posted by sonhouse You have already admitted there is climate change, but deny man's involvement.
So does that mean you figure business as usual, we don't need to do anything to mitigate climate change, in another 10 years everything will return to normal, Polar bears will be able to go back to the sea ice and find sea lions and such?
That is another false statement. I never denied man was a factor, I said man is not the "primary factor". I have been very consistent with this position, yet you keep on lying about it.
You alarmists are the most dishonest people I have encountered on this forum.
Originally posted by Metal Brain That is another false statement. I never denied man was a factor, I said man is not the "primary factor". I have been very consistent with this position, yet you keep on lying about it.
You alarmists are the most dishonest people I have encountered on this forum.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Natural causes started this warming trend over 300 years ago. ...
-which is totally irrelevant even if true because that doesn't in the slightest logically entail natural causes is still the primary cause of the continuation of the warming trend we are observing today for there is no logical contradiction in something being initiated by only natural causes but then massively exacerbated and made to persist via man made causes.
I have already explained and shown the scientific proof that rules out any creditable possibility of the current warming, not to be confused with any past warming which is all totally irrelevant, that the current warming is primarily caused by natural causes. This proof is the very recent dramatic cooling of the stratosphere relative to the troposphere; something that only can be explained via CO2 induced warming as being the primary cause because sun-activity or natural cycles etc cannot explain that as those natural causes would produce the opposite effect which we are not observing.
No man made global warming denier, including you, has ever given an explanation for this stratospheric cooling via natural causes not involving C)2 thus all you deniers including you have been proven wrong.
For Metal Brain: Read this
05 Sep '16 19:06
Back to Top