Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

883 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

tmcom
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

What sort of change should we expect to see in those photos?

What's the distance from the camera to the watermark?

Since global temps, and ocean levels are supposed to be rising and accelerating over the last three years, (most search results bleat this) we should be seeing an obvious rise on Data set charts, (we don't) or according to the same sources, at least be seeing a few inches rise or more over the last 10 years, (we don't see that either).

Or the rise would be obvious, but it isn't.

And if the rise is so tiny, we need a good 100 years to notice a slight change, then at worst a baby may get its big toe more wet by the year 2100, than it does now, (l don't think that we will need an ark for that).

 

Distance yes, l had to use the fence line, (that doens't or hasn't changed in this area for the last 10 years, (l checked no construction on this area for that timeframe) although matching the high and low tide marks would work just as well, (if there was a difference, then matching images wouldn't work, or be out).

B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
14 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Since global temps, and ocean levels are supposed to be rising and accelerating over the last three years, (most search results bleat this) we should be seeing an obvious rise on Data set charts, (we don't) or according to the same sources, at least be seeing a few inches rise or more over the last 10 years, (we don't see that either).

Or the rise would be obvious, but it isn't.

And if the rise is so tiny, we need a good 100 years to notice a slight change, then at worst a baby may get its big toe more wet by the year 2100, than it does now, (l don't think that we will need an ark for that).

 

Distance yes, l had to use the fence line, (that doens't or hasn't changed in this area for the last 10 years, (l checked no construction on this area for that timeframe) although matching the high and low tide marks would work just as well, (if there was a difference, then matching images wouldn't work, or be out).

B)

 

CSIRO says we are seeing an obvious rise in the water gauges.

12_seaLevel_left.gif

Data source: Coastal tide gauge records.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

I'm not sure the photos you've provided disprove a rise of 3.3mm per year.

Using the "Rule of 57" an inch subtends about a degree at a distance of 57 inches; or, near enough to six feet or a fathom.  I'm guessing those photos were taken at a distance of beyond 600 feet; ie, they're not going to be useful for disproving rising sea levels.

Other's have the same idea as you...

https://www.upworthy.com/these-before-and-after-photos-of-rising-seas-might-make-you-demand-climate-action

What's explanation for 'ghost forests'?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/stunning-photos-of-climate-change/25/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

CSIRO says we are seeing an obvious rise in the water gauges.

Data source: Coastal tide gauge records.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

I'm not sure the photos you've provided disprove a rise of 3.3mm per year.

Using the "Rule of 57" an inch subtends about a degree at a distance of 57 inches; or, near enough to six feet or a fathom.  I'm guessing those photos were taken at a distance of beyond 600 feet; ie, they're not going to be useful for disproving rising sea levels.

Other's have the same idea as you...

https://www.upworthy.com/these-before-and-after-photos-of-rising-seas-might-make-you-demand-climate-action

What's explanation for 'ghost forests'?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/stunning-photos-of-climate-change/25/

Those are the BS ones, go to post  #547, and watch Tony's video showing a landmark in Sydney harbor, showing no noticeable high tide change over 120 years. If there is no change over 100 years then that is true for all oceans on our planet, (all oceans are interconnected).

The CSIRO is corrupted, and they told us to expect longer summers and less rain this week, based on hysteria and a money grab.

And your last links, a cyclone caused this, lol, duh, and Venice's square always floods, of course, parts of the city are sinking, since the entire city rests on wood poles hammered into the lagoon's base, and understandably it isn't stable.

Tony also did another video showing a picture taken in 1880 of Californias coastline, also showing little to no rise, so if the 3.3mm a year was correct we would be seeing, (3cm every ten years, 30cm, every 100 years, which clearly isn't happening).

B)

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 9/25/2019 at 3:31 PM, Doug1o29 said:

3:30 p.m.:  Found some data on irrigated acres by county, but not sure if I'll have enough.  Some counties have missing data.  Data highly variable.

Doug

Not much to report since I wrote this.  Mostly spent the time transcribing PDSI records.  Today I'm working on an extended abstract for a forest measurement presentation I am doing in November.  It will increase the accuracy of all types of forest measurement, including carbon sequestration.  I won't have anything much to report until at least Wednesday.

For tmcom:  climate change in Oklahoma is provable.  Humidity and temperatures are both increasing.  When I get some time, I'll post it.  Probably be at least two weeks, though.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
11 hours ago, tmcom said:

Tony also did another video showing a picture taken in 1880 of Californias coastline, also showing little to no rise, so if the 3.3mm a year was correct we would be seeing, (3cm every ten years, 30cm, every 100 years, which clearly isn't happening).

Sea level hasn't been rising that long.  For the first 30 years since 1880 there wasn't any change.  I don't know when sea levels started going up, but I'd bet that it was sometime between 1950 and 1980.  So at most, you've got 18 cm and probably more like 13 or 14 (10 cm is approximately 4 inches).  Your observations are not so clear.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Sea level hasn't been rising that long.  For the first 30 years since 1880 there wasn't any change.  I don't know when sea levels started going up, but I'd bet that it was sometime between 1950 and 1980.  So at most, you've got 18 cm and probably more like 13 or 14 (10 cm is approximately 4 inches).  Your observations are not so clear.

Doug

Or in other words, ocean levels have risen so little that there isn't anything to worry about!

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 9/29/2019 at 11:00 PM, tmcom said:

Since global temps, and ocean levels are supposed to be rising and accelerating over the last three years, (most search results bleat this) we should be seeing an obvious rise on Data set charts, (we don't) or according to the same sources, at least be seeing a few inches rise or more over the last 10 years, (we don't see that either).

Global mean temps have dropped since 2016.

Ocean levels would probably not be sensitive to short-term changes in air temps.  They respond over about 300 years.  Some deep-sea currents take 3000 years to complete a circuit of the earth.  Even if we completely stopped CO2 production right now, sea levels will continue to rise for several centuries just due to latent heat in the system.

Current projection are for one foot of sea level rise by 2100, but that is without any glacial collapses in Greenland or Antarctica.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 hours ago, tmcom said:

Or in other words, ocean levels have risen so little that there isn't anything to worry about!

:P

There wasn't.

Doug

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 9/30/2019 at 8:42 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Not much to report since I wrote this.  Mostly spent the time transcribing PDSI records.  Today I'm working on an extended abstract for a forest measurement presentation I am doing in November.  It will increase the accuracy of all types of forest measurement, including carbon sequestration.  I won't have anything much to report until at least Wednesday.

For tmcom:  climate change in Oklahoma is provable.  Humidity and temperatures are both increasing.  When I get some time, I'll post it.  Probably be at least two weeks, though.

Doug

Completed that extended abstract, but the project just keeps growing.  Now they want me to write a proposal to turn it into a seven-year project.  Won't get funded before next summer, though, so I'll still be working on Oklahoma climate change for a few more months, even if this is successful.  Anyway, the humidity data files will be delayed a couple more days.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
On 9/30/2019 at 7:33 PM, tmcom said:

Those are the BS ones, go to post  #547, and watch Tony's video showing a landmark in Sydney harbor, showing no noticeable high tide change over 120 years. If there is no change over 100 years then that is true for all oceans on our planet, (all oceans are interconnected).

The CSIRO is corrupted, and they told us to expect longer summers and less rain this week, based on hysteria and a money grab.

And your last links, a cyclone caused this, lol, duh, and Venice's square always floods, of course, parts of the city are sinking, since the entire city rests on wood poles hammered into the lagoon's base, and understandably it isn't stable.

Tony also did another video showing a picture taken in 1880 of Californias coastline, also showing little to no rise, so if the 3.3mm a year was correct we would be seeing, (3cm every ten years, 30cm, every 100 years, which clearly isn't happening).

B)

The gauge at Fort Denison does show rising sea level.  He says as much.  His graphs are dubious.  The resolution for the y-axes are too small.

None of the before and after photos are at all useful.  In fact, the photos of Fort Denison are not even taken from the same place - obfuscating any decent comparison.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The gauge at Fort Denison does show rising sea level.  He says as much.  His graphs are dubious.  The resolution for the y-axes are too small.

None of the before and after photos are at all useful.  In fact, the photos of Fort Denison are not even taken from the same place - obfuscating any decent comparison.

Ok, here we go...

Or it has been going up and down since 1914, with a 15 cm variance, for almost the last 100 years, the CSIRO data is dodgy, or it has dropped by 6cm in the last few years, lol.

https://climatealarmism.org/sea-levels-for-fort-denison-sydney-tide-gauge-1914-to-present/

This is the most accurate tidal gauge on the planet, and it does not show any accelerated ocean level rises, and no constant upward increases over the last 100 years!

Maybe it will finally sink in now!

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
On 9/30/2019 at 10:33 AM, tmcom said:

Those are the BS ones, go to post  #547, and watch Tony's video showing a landmark in Sydney harbor, showing no noticeable high tide change over 120 years. If there is no change over 100 years then that is true for all oceans on our planet, (all oceans are interconnected).


And yet, for example, at the equally well maintained Newlyn tidal gauge "Observed annual maximum sea levels are increasing at a rate not significantly different from the observed increase in mean sea level of 1.77 ± 0.12 mm y−1 "

https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-coastal-research/volume-24/issue-sp3/06-0785.1/Sea-Levels-at-Newlyn-19152005--Analysis-of-Trends-for/10.2112/06-0785.1.short

Thereby proving beyond any doubt whatsoever - by your reckoning - that global sea levels are rising ;)

(note that the global trend in maximum sea levels is slightly lower than then trend in mean sea levels)

See more here: https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
56 minutes ago, Essan said:


And yet, for example, at the equally well maintained Newlyn tidal gauge "Observed annual maximum sea levels are increasing at a rate not significantly different from the observed increase in mean sea level of 1.77 ± 0.12 mm y−1 "

https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-coastal-research/volume-24/issue-sp3/06-0785.1/Sea-Levels-at-Newlyn-19152005--Analysis-of-Trends-for/10.2112/06-0785.1.short

Thereby proving beyond any doubt whatsoever - by your reckoning - that global sea levels are rising ;)

(note that the global trend in maximum sea levels is slightly lower than then trend in mean sea levels)

See more here: https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends 

That nice, and here is a backup!

Ji4unps.jpg

Top image is from, 1859, and superimposed color, 2006, (Google images).

With no noticable change in low ocean levels, or high tidel marks, for the last almost 150 years!

This year same thing, no change!

According to the doomsters charts we should be seeing a steady rise in ocean levels, since 1880, or at least a breakaway rise in the last few years, but nada.

Yeah, the science is settled all right!

:sleepy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Yep, the moronic won't inherit the world, and we only have 12 years til we will need to change the goalposts for another round of end is nigh!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Ok, here we go...

Or it has been going up and down since 1914, with a 15 cm variance, for almost the last 100 years, the CSIRO data is dodgy, or it has dropped by 6cm in the last few years, lol.

A variance is the square of the standard deviation.  As such, the unit label properly shows the square (cm2).  The square root of 15 cm2 is 3.873 cm.  So you're talking about 1.5 inches.  In other words:  there is a 95% chance that the current sea level is within 1.5 inches of the old one.  You haven't shown that there is any change in sea level.  Conversely, you haven't shown that there wasn't a change in sea level.  Is this what you meant to say?

Every time you start posting numbers, you get it all screwed up.  Better stay away from numbers.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan

Since tmcom refuses to understand tides or accept that actual empirical tidal data from all around the world shows beyond any doubt whatsoever that sea levels are rising, here's some fun.

Proof positive that sea levels are much lower than they were just a few decades ago.   This is a pub I have drunk in, at Southwold harbour on the Suffolk coast.   Note the high tide mark from 1953 :o 


 

harbour-inn-southwold-harbour-with-sign-showing-flood-level-in-1953-BEJFP0.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Here is the problem with deniers:

Sorry, but this part isn't settled science - yet.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 hour ago, Essan said:

Since tmcom refuses to understand tides or accept that actual empirical tidal data from all around the world shows beyond any doubt whatsoever that sea levels are rising, here's some fun.

Proof positive that sea levels are much lower than they were just a few decades ago.   This is a pub I have drunk in, at Southwold harbour on the Suffolk coast.   Note the high tide mark from 1953 :o 


 

harbour-inn-southwold-harbour-with-sign-showing-flood-level-in-1953-BEJFP0.jpg

To be fair to tmcom no one knows how tides work. 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

A variance is the square of the standard deviation.  As such, the unit label properly shows the square (cm2).  The square root of 15 cm2 is 3.873 cm.  So you're talking about 1.5 inches.  In other words:  there is a 95% chance that the current sea level is within 1.5 inches of the old one.  You haven't shown that there is any change in sea level.  Conversely, you haven't shown that there wasn't a change in sea level.  Is this what you meant to say?

Every time you start posting numbers, you get it all screwed up.  Better stay away from numbers.

Doug

So unless l start showing off with big equations, l am wrong, lol. And some points are higher than others, but it averages out, doesn't keep going up. God knows what that video is supposed to prove, other than individuals who cannot see the f.....ing obvious are insane!

1 hour ago, Essan said:

Since tmcom refuses to understand tides or accept that actual empirical tidal data from all around the world shows beyond any doubt whatsoever that sea levels are rising, here's some fun.

Proof positive that sea levels are much lower than they were just a few decades ago.   This is a pub I have drunk in, at Southwold harbour on the Suffolk coast.   Note the high tide mark from 1953 :o 

FLOOD LEVELS, not actual tide levels, yeah l understand plenty. Proves nothing!

And empirical data shows no rise, and visual data shows no rise!

I guess that means sea levels are rising, (l won't say it).

Yeah, the science is crystal clear!

Or numbers are easy to fake, video and images a lot harder.

 

But l know you and others will find a way to explain this away, (eventhough you can't, oceans, interconnected) and get comfy knowing that the world will end, eventhough it won't. I can see why LS,and some others have left now.

:mellow:

Edited by tmcom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, tmcom said:

So unless l start showing off with big equations, l am wrong, lol. And some points are higher than others, but it averages out, doesn't keep going up. God knows what that video is supposed to prove, other than individuals who cannot see the f.....ing obvious are insane!

That bit you did on wind turbines was a numerical disaster.  Even using grade-school math would have produced a more-accurate result.

And now you are saying with your math that you can't tell whether sea levels are rising or falling.  So your arithmetic isn't backing up your words.

AND:  empirical data is NUMERICAL data.  It's numbers.

As of right now, I have not hit you with a big equation.  But that's coming.

 

The concern over sea levels isn't so much about the damage that it will do in the next 30 years.  It's about what MIGHT happen if we get a collapse of the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps.  Antarctica is pretty well protected from rising temps by the Southern Ocean, so you don't need to worry about it in the short run.  That leaves Greenland and temperate zone glaciers.  All temperate zone glaciers together would add maybe 18 inches to sea level.  Greenland could add 20 feet.

Could that actually happen?  It has happened before.  When the Lake Agassiz-Ojibway ice dam collapsed about 8200 PB, world sea levels rose 18 inches IN ONE EVENT.  It also caused a shut-down of the Gulf Stream, triggering the 8200 BP Cold Period (400 years).  The Greenland Ice Cap has enough ice to do that again.  At the rate we're going, Greenland will melt free of ice.  It's just a matter of time.

But think of it this way:  while the folks on Staten Island are looking for new homes above water, they will be catching fish in interior Greenland.  Think of all those vacation homes where today there is only ice.  Greenland could become a paradise, at least until rising temps fry it.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Posted (edited)
On 9/30/2019 at 4:22 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Sea level hasn't been rising that long.  For the first 30 years since 1880 there wasn't any change.  I don't know when sea levels started going up, but I'd bet that it was sometime between 1950 and 1980.  So at most, you've got 18 cm and probably more like 13 or 14 (10 cm is approximately 4 inches).  Your observations are not so clear.

Doug

Major mistake here.  Sea levels have been rising along a more-or-less logarithmic growth curve since well before 1880.  I'd lose that bet.  Too bad tmcom didn't take me up on it.  And that means that total sea level rise is around 24 cm since 1880.  My appologies.

 

Funny how many things are increasing along a logarithmic growth curve:  temperstures, CO2, sea levels, open water in the Arctic Ocean....

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That bit you did on wind turbines was a numerical disaster.  Even using grade-school math would have produced a more-accurate result.

And now you are saying with your math that you can't tell whether sea levels are rising or falling.  So your arithmetic isn't backing up your words.

AND:  empirical data is NUMERICAL data.  It's numbers.

As of right now, I have not hit you with a big equation.  But that's coming.

 

The concern over sea levels isn't so much about the damage that it will do in the next 30 years.  It's about what MIGHT happen if we get a collapse of the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps.  Antarctica is pretty well protected from rising temps by the Southern Ocean, so you don't need to worry about it in the short run.  That leaves Greenland and temperate zone glaciers.  All temperate zone glaciers together would add maybe 18 inches to sea level.  Greenland could add 20 feet.

Could that actually happen?  It has happened before.  When the Lake Agassiz-Ojibway ice dam collapsed about 8200 PB, world sea levels rose 18 inches IN ONE EVENT.  It also caused a shut-down of the Gulf Stream, triggering the 8200 BP Cold Period (400 years).  The Greenland Ice Cap has enough ice to do that again.  At the rate we're going, Greenland will melt free of ice.  It's just a matter of time.

But think of it this way:  while the folks on Staten Island are looking for new homes above water, they will be catching fish in interior Greenland.  Think of all those vacation homes where today there is only ice.  Greenland could become a paradise, at least until rising temps fry it.

Doug

Sure the Earth could spiral into the sun as well, but with 4 billion years behind us, it is pretty good odd,s it wont.

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Major mistake here.  Sea levels have been rising along a more-or-less logarithmic growth curve since well before 1880.  I'd lose that bet.  Too bad tmcom didn't take me up on it.  And that means that total sea level rise is around 24 cm since 1880.  My appologies.

Funny how many things are increasing along a logarithmic growth curve:  temperstures, CO2, sea levels, open water in the Arctic Ocean....

Doug

Total sea level rise is 24cm, lol, now the video makes sense!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 9/29/2019 at 11:00 PM, tmcom said:

Since global temps, and ocean levels are supposed to be rising and accelerating over the last three years, (most search results bleat this) we should be seeing an obvious rise on Data set charts, (we don't) or according to the same sources, at least be seeing a few inches rise or more over the last 10 years, (we don't see that either).

Where did you get this?  Global temps have been dropping since 2016.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Sure the Earth could spiral into the sun as well, but with 4 billion years behind us, it is pretty good odd,s it wont.

Total sea level rise is 24cm, lol, now the video makes sense!

:lol:

The earth's orbit is not a spiral.  You're making up stuff that can't happen.

Sorry about my mistake.  At least I can tell when I've made one and correct it.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
55 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Where did you get this?  Global temps have been dropping since 2016.

Doug

The dodgy CSIRO chart up the top, gives the supposed tidal ranges increasing since 1880, the rest of most search results.

But something has to melt, (world temp's have to go up) first, if the chart at the top of this thread, has any credibility.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.