Attenboroughs Climate Concerns Aired Tonight - BBC1 9pm

[said]

Wrong! According to the Hallam curve, 250 million years ago the sea level was lower. Vail's (not "Vale") study also shows a drop in sea levels during this period. Bear in mind that if you're going that far back in earth's history, you have to take into account the changes in sea level due to both the formation of continents, and continents breaking away.

It's scientifically accepted that from 3,000 years ago sea levels were generally stable until the onset of the industrial revolution... so PNP's statement is correct.

That far back in history is when the land was mostly covered in ice, doh! Ice is compacted water! Continents are continually undulating. 3000 years is a tiny percentage of 4.6 billion years ago when Earth is said to have begun. What causes seas to rise? More water. Where does the additional water come from? Rain, which comes from a source of water already present on the planet, or from land ice melt. The ice itself from from water source already on the planet. Water does not just disappear! Tides may rise in one area and deplete in others for various reasons, including the gravitational acceleration of the Earth, undulating land above and below sea levels, orogeny etc., sea ice melts do not have any affect on sea levels - so by taking everything into consideration - of course water levels have remained stable generally since the beginning of time.
All around the country there is evidence of raised beaches from times when the seas were at a higher level and everywhere there is evidence of sedimentary rocks which prove the raising and lowering of sea levels at various times - local levels of sea water do not reflect the eustatic levels of sea water. Most of these facts do not need science - they are there to see if people just thought about them critically without being blinded by the half truths of global warming. If you still have any doubts, a colleague of mine, Don Easterbrook presents further evidence in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQR6_B6ZZg

[The PNP]

water levels have remained stable generally since the beginning of time......
there is evidence of raised beaches from times when the seas were at a higher level.....

So, which is it?

A) 'levels' stable since beginning of time.
or
B) Seas were at a higher level.

Oh, and just to confuse matters further. In an earlier post you claimed sealevel was at its lowest ever....


Fact is, most glaciers are melting, thus adding to global sealevel. If everything melted, sealevel would be many, many, (70'?) feet higher....and we'd have sharks swimming down Lord St!

[seivad]

So, which is it?

A) 'levels' stable since beginning of time.

As he was responding to my post where I said: "It's scientifically accepted that from 3,000 years ago sea levels were generally stable until the onset of the industrial revolution... so PNP's statement is correct." I assume that during the time it took for him to Google a rebuttal, he forgot what I said! So much Googling must be very disorienting.

or
B) Seas were at a higher level.

Oh, and just to confuse matters further. In an earlier post you claimed sealevel was at its lowest ever....

He did, and I refuted it. According to the source he cited, Anthony Hallam, sea levels were lower 250 million years ago.

Here's an image of the sea level changes as mapped by Hallam & Vail. It should be added that Vail was employed by Exxon to perform the study, and, as the data he used isn't available to the public, the accuracy can't be verified. However, Vail's curve does show rises and drops within the same periods as Hallam's, albeit at different levels.

[The PNP]

As he was responding to my post where I said: [I]"[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Verdana][B]It's scientifically accepted that from 3,000 years ago sea levels were generally stable until the onset of the industrial revolution

From the graph, it appears maximum rise is about 200m. Presumably the planet was completely free of ice during those times, all having melted into the sea.....Imagine how drastically the map of the modern world would be changed, if there were a similar rise on the way - with the poles melting anew due to man-made global warming!

[said]

So, which is it?

A) 'levels' stable since beginning of time.
or
B) Seas were at a higher level.

Oh, and just to confuse matters further. In an earlier post you claimed sealevel was at its lowest ever....


Fact is, most glaciers are melting, thus adding to global sealevel. If everything melted, sealevel would be many, many, (70'?) feet higher....and we'd have sharks swimming down Lord St!

A. The Eustatic levels of sea water have been stable since the beginning of time. That is overall - a generality.
B. Local levels of sea water will vary sometimes higher sometimes lower - but overall sea levels remain constant.
C. Sea levels were lower at various points in time due to the water becoming a compacted form of water - ice.
D. Glaciers are constantly moving under their own gravity. They flow like slow moving rivers. Glaciers are formed when an accumulation of snow is compressed over many years to form an Ice mass. Snow is formed from iced crystals of water that change once they have reached Earth's surface. The water to create these ice crystals comes from sea water and lakes that are always present on the planet. About 10% of land on Earth has glaciers, they are important to the water cycle. Over the years, glaciers melt and freeze on a regular basis - with 90% of land to be affected by the subsequent slight rise of sea water, it has a hardly noticeable effect.
In the past 50,000 years there has been 23 global warming events.

[The PNP]

A) Local levels of sea water will vary sometimes higher sometimes lower - but overall sea levels remain constant.

B) glaciers melt and freeze on a regular basis QUOTE



A) An impossibility.....All the worlds oceans are connected - chuck an iceberg in and all oceans rise by precisely the same amount.

B) Glaciers only do that when the climate remains stable. Global warming has caused many to melt faster and thus are now in retreat.

[said]

As he was responding to my post where I said: "It's scientifically accepted that from 3,000 years ago sea levels were generally stable until the onset of the industrial revolution... so PNP's statement is correct." I assume that during the time it took for him to Google a rebuttal, he forgot what I said! So much Googling must be very disorienting.


He did, and I refuted it. According to the source he cited, Anthony Hallam, sea levels were lower 250 million years ago.

Here's an image of the sea level changes as mapped by Hallam & Vail. It should be added that Vail was employed by Exxon to perform the study, and, as the data he used isn't available to the public, the accuracy can't be verified. However, Vail's curve does show rises and drops within the same periods as Hallam's, albeit at different levels.

Since the in depth studies of Hallam and Vail - there have been thirty five independent papers written that indicate similar results. I have tried to explain simply how the oceans may geographically rise and fall over periods of time - the issue is far more complicated, gulfs have been formed and water ways evolved into solid land due to variations of the seas. The sea movement is dependent on temperature,salinity and the various depths of the oceans. etc., . Relatively few people have studied the details - a fact that the media rely on to issue misleading information.

[said]

A) Local levels of sea water will vary sometimes higher sometimes lower - but overall sea levels remain constant.

B) glaciers melt and freeze on a regular basis QUOTE



A) An impossibility.....All the worlds oceans are connected - chuck an iceberg in and all oceans rise by precisely the same amount.

B) Glaciers only do that when the climate remains stable. Global warming has caused many to melt faster and thus are now in retreat.

Your first assumption is incorrect. Ice bodies comprise of pure water. A block of ice falling into the sea, which happens quite often - will melt due to the heat conductance of the sea water - i.e. the ice will absorb heat from the sea water until it has absorbed sufficient heat to melt. There will now be a cooler volume of water surrounding the ice block as it melts - the colder water will fall below the surface water since it is more dense than warm water. Then you would need an understanding of water masses to be able to understand how water moves in any particular region.
To understand how sea waters move, you would need to understand the different bodies of water that make up oceans, and have some understanding of the temperature, salinity, chemistry and pressures involved. There are three main independent masses of water which are influenced by the other corresponding masses - Surface, Intermediate and Deep water. For instance the AABW ( Antarctic Bottom Waters)have a temperature of between -0.8 degrees centigrade and 2 degrees C. these are the densest and coldest masses of water, the movement of this water can vary and they contain the highest level of oxygen. As you may be able to understand these waters have a great influence on the other masses of water and according movement. So to state that by chucking in an almighty iceberg into one region of water would create a rise of water overall is a very mistaken conclusion.
As for an answer to B. There have been 23 global warming incidents in 50,000 years. My ancestors appear to have survived!

[The PNP]

Since the in depth studies of Hallam and Vail - there have been thirty five independent papers written that indicate similar results. I have tried to explain simply how the oceans may geographically rise and fall over periods of time - the issue is far more complicated, gulfs have been formed and water ways evolved into solid land due to variations of the seas. The sea movement is dependent on temperature,salinity and the various depths of the oceans. etc., . Relatively few people have studied the details - a fact that the media rely on to issue misleading information.

By 'sea movement' I'm assuming you meant sealevel rise/fall...If so, then yes. Warm any water and it expands, i.e. global warming will cause sealevels to rise - even without taking account of glacial meltwater.

[said]

By 'sea movement' I'm assuming you meant sealevel rise/fall...If so, then yes. Warm any water and it expands, i.e. global warming will cause sealevels to rise - even without taking account of glacial meltwater.

No! Sea movement relates to the the three masses of water, which depend also on the geographic location of each body of water. One mass of ice thrown in at one location is not merely going to melt and be transported equally across every body of water, and will not create an equal rise in every sea.

The upper mass of water has a higher temperature, yes - this cause the molecules to move faster and if the water molecules heat sufficiently they form a gas that rises into the atmosphere as part of the water cycle. Surface warm water is subject to topical winds that act to either cool or heat it depending on the direction from where it comes from - if warm water is cooled it sinks below the surface level. So no- heat itself does not cause flooding. Recall last summer when 40 degrees Celsius was recorded in the UK for some weeks?

[The PNP]

No! Sea movement relates to the the three masses of water, which depend also on the geographic location of each body of water. One mass of ice thrown in at one location is not merely going to melt and be transported equally across every body of water, and will not create an equal rise in every sea.

What three masses? All oceans and (almost) all seas are part of the same single body of water....You can't affect one, without affecting them all by the same amount. Which is why Antarctic glacial meltwater, creates global sealevel rise. I.e. raises the sealevel at a location like ours in Southport.

Btw, heat any water (even in a test tube) and the level will always rise. Works every time - you cannae change the laws of nature!

[local]

Errh sorry to interrupt this science fest but

"ice is compacted water" ???? Post 31


that does turn the scientific world on its head.

"Its part of my field and studied in depth" !

Hmm ..................

[seivad]

Errh sorry to interrupt this science fest but

"ice is compacted water" ???? Post 31


that does turn the scientific world on its head.

"Its part of my field and studied in depth" !

Hmm ..................

A field covered in manure?

[seivad]

If you still have any doubts, a colleague of mine, Don Easterbrook presents further evidence in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQR6_B6ZZg

How did I miss this beauty? A colleague of yours... so now you're a geologist? Although I've always thought you have rocks in your head, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Next you'll be telling us that you are also affiliated with the Heartland Institute, and, like your colleague Easterbrook, you're often a guest speaker at this dubiously funded think tank. All this flitting to and fro across the Atlantic must be exhausting. Plus gallivanting across Europe for months on end. What a man!

As for Easterbrook, he's often been discredited, a bit like you really. Clicky below.

Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality

The Incorrigible Easterbrook

[Kritou]

Sound of silence .....?