I did some quick math and came up with an increase in sea level from all those ships of 5/10,000 of an inch.
OT: Rutgers Sea Rise Study
- Thread starter RU Husky
- Start date
I did some quick math and came up with an increase in sea level from all those ships of 5/10,000 of an inch.
1. BS. There are few skeptics, not many. Science can't prove anything with absolute certainty. Science doesn't work that way, but it is the best tool we have.
2. Is the sustainability of life for humans worthwhile? Think long term.
3. Funny you didn't mention the fossil fuel industry who has the most to lose. So this is GLOBAL conspiracy? All of these scientists, from all of these different nations are ALL in on this conspiracy?
4. Science isn't perfect. It has never claimed to be. It is self correcting based on the best available evidence. As more evidence became available, the global cooling model was rejected. There is a much greater consensus amongst scientists for warming than there was for cooling.
5. There is no "correct" temperature. I do know humans couldn't live on Venus.
6. You can't be serious. You're suggesting plants need humans to burn fossil fuels? Plants also release CO2. CO2 is one of the products of cellular respiration, which takes place in all organisms.
7. Why is there more water vapor? Because there is more CO2. More CO2 = higher temps = more evaporation of water.
Your level of basic scientific knowledge is on par with a middle school student, yet you're arrogant enough to dismiss a global community of scientists.
I,don't know enything about this, but I know this, never before as far as anyone knows, did a tornado touched down in Greece, this year, two, I'm just saying!
@RUJohnny99 makes an interesting point, in a tangential sort of way.
One of the things that climatological sea level calculations don't take into account, one way or the other, is the change in the basin volume itself, via tectonics. Spreading centers, undersea volcanism and plate subduction change the total volume of the ocean basis by a measurable amount, which impacts what we perceive as "sea level".
Also of note, geologically, is the fact that sea level as perceived from the shoreline will tend to rise by virtue of the fact that shorelines tend to sink. They do it pretty slowly, but long-term, it's not a throwaway value.
One of the things that climatological sea level calculations don't take into account, one way or the other, is the change in the basin volume itself, via tectonics. Spreading centers, undersea volcanism and plate subduction change the total volume of the ocean basis by a measurable amount, which impacts what we perceive as "sea level".
Also of note, geologically, is the fact that sea level as perceived from the shoreline will tend to rise by virtue of the fact that shorelines tend to sink. They do it pretty slowly, but long-term, it's not a throwaway value.
I haven't attempted to check this, but here's the answer (about the impact of 30,000 container ships on sea levels) I got from asking someone who enjoys this sort of question:
Your 5.25 billion tons of water = 4.76 billion cubic meters (1000 kg/m^3). Surface area of oceans is 510 trillion square meters. Dividing the volume by the area gives the displacement, which comes out to about 0.0093 mm or 9.3 um (micrometers), which is way less than an inch.
As to whether man is causing more than a 9.3um rise in sea level through man-made climate change, I cannot say. Thing is, I'm not sure it matters much what is causing the rise in sea-level. I think what matters is what can and should be done to deal with it. Same with climate change. Who cares if it's man-made or not. The only important question seems to be what can and should be done about it.
Ultimately, I suspect it won't be all too long now before both parties fully adopt climate change and sea-level rise correction (along with other similar sorts of issues) as their own issues and attempt to differentiate, not on if they are real or man-made, but on how to address and/or cope with them. Because it seems that man-made or not, they will impact humanity.
Yes Trees. If our nations forests were managed sensibly and sustainably for carbon sequestration, we could get both a valuable and sustainable level of wood (stored carbon) as well as sequestering upwards of 30% or more of our CO2 emissions. And improved management would also reduce the dramatic emissions which are a result of the increasing size and intensity of wildfires over the last few decades.
I have observed you being pretty good with math. And I'm pretty damn bad myself. Plus I'm really lazy about it. But I'm surrounded, metaphysically speaking, by people very good with math.
The only time that "both" parties will adapt Climate change is when oil companies run out of oil or we reach 700 PPM* of CO2 in the atmosphere (* the level at which the acidification of the oceans kills off 99% of life in the sea.) Looking forward to it. Nothing is better then saying "I TOLD YOU SO", as the acid rain dissolves the muscle from our bones.
So F' the CO2 level it is all just scare tactics as every scientist, which all have to be liberal? << and that is so statistically improbable!
Haha are you for real? I mean you are clearly doing this as some sort of joke just to ruffle a few feathers right?
I dont consider myself right or left I like many other people just listen to whats logical and keep political leanings out of the equation. Clearly you are unable to do this so carry on.
Why is the offered "solution" always a tax on developed nations.. what was it... 5% of GDP.. how the hell is that going to stop global warming?
They cannot tell us what they will do with the money and its effect on global warming.. how much it will delay what percent of warming.. and so on. They cannot define that.. cannot predict it.. cannot use their "science" t even estimate it.. and we are supposed to trust all their assumptions and interpretations?
I have suggested this many times but here it goes again. How about we do all the things that can be justified for other reasons that happen to be a net positive toward global warming? Things like build out of solar and wind and geo-thermal and nuclear working from home more build out mass transit and so on.. spend the 5% of GDP on that instead of handing it to some parasitic group of UN power brokers... how about that?
They cannot tell us what they will do with the money and its effect on global warming.. how much it will delay what percent of warming.. and so on. They cannot define that.. cannot predict it.. cannot use their "science" t even estimate it.. and we are supposed to trust all their assumptions and interpretations?
I have suggested this many times but here it goes again. How about we do all the things that can be justified for other reasons that happen to be a net positive toward global warming? Things like build out of solar and wind and geo-thermal and nuclear working from home more build out mass transit and so on.. spend the 5% of GDP on that instead of handing it to some parasitic group of UN power brokers... how about that?
I'd like to know the answer to that too. I'm not well enough versed on the issue to know the correct answer.
There are efforts in the current administration, and I would imagine the past few as well, to increase the development of some of those things you mention. So to some degree, it seems to me we are doing a bit of both things.
I'm not sure how much we spend via external vs. on internal efforts to cut back on emissions or whatever else scientists believe may be affecting things. But that would seem like an interesting piece of information.
It's rainy evening. Why don't just go to Wikepedia and type Global Warming skeptics. You could drink a six pack while checkingother scientists' unsolicited and PROVEN reality.
I don't think that's true. It's not like both sides won't entrench on differing special-interest-funded ideas of what to do about it. It's not like the solutions won't present many opportunities for each side to demonize the other in hopes of winning an election so that the great American political pastime of doing mostly nothing while spending tons of money won't continue.
Only thing that will really change is that the both side's partisan brainwashing efforts will be altered enough to focus the sheeple on the "new reality" that all the special interests wish us to believe.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong about any of this. [laughing]
It's not "simplistic". It's a factor in the overall calculus. As a general rule, climatologists do a lot of math to show us what happens when the polar ice caps melt but nobody considers the fact that overall sea level is, in the long run, affected by factors other than climatology.
If you want to analyze an issue, you have to consider all factors relevant to the analysis. Any structural geologist will tell you that tectonics has done more to alter relative sea level, over the course of geological history, than climate. By a lot. On at least two separate occasions in the last 300 million years, the entire middle of what is now the United States was at the bottom of a shallow sea. Climate change was not responsible for that.
Interestingly enough, the fossil fuels currently responsible for global warming exist, themselves, solely because of changes in sea level.
