8 million scientists in the world...go talk any of them...you're not one so your unscientific and very arrogant based opinion doesn't count for anything...
Evolution is not going to save humans from the suffering that warming will bring. Evolution just isn't that fast. It's taken humans about 20,000 years to develop blue eyes, the ability for adults to digest milk and for our brains to shrink by about the size of a tennis ball, thus saving us energy. The challenge that faces us is a short number of years compare to that. Most people care about human life. If you're simply rejecting the idea that we should be concerned about human life, you have a very serious and dangerous illness and need to get some counseling.
he reads something then becomes a scientific expert(but he isn't arrogant like scientists, lol)...during his Cambrian wonderland where he makes note of the high average air/land temperatures, well there were no land animals to enjoy those wonderful temps for another 140-150 million years so there was no evolutionary adaptation to those wonderfully warm air temps... yeah it was a Darwinian paradise according to mushroom with life expanding everywhere on the world!...
So.... considering that one meter is a normal difference from low tide to high tide along most coastlines ........ considering what happens along the Bay of Fundy...... would the 6X - 15X multiplier effect still probably continue from that region of Maine to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? I am thinking yes....... that it probably would.
I fail to see what this is all about. Why argue Flat Earth folks ? Enough evidence. Why argue climate ? The ice core records are in evidence. Do people here like to argue and contribute to Global warming ?
My objective is to get a number of thousands of people here in Nova Scotia motivated...... and at least somewhat prepared to view the larger picture so that they can begin to realize that we........ ordinary people like us Canadians......... through various media...... have the power to galvanize millions of people toward the theoretically possible objective of adding a comparable amount of desalinated ocean water to deserts....... as is melting off Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and land based glaciers. Should Sorek 2 be in Australia or California? My belief is that human productive capability has essentially no limit.... if we can agree on a goal........ and troubleshoot until various obstacles are overcome. "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." (Genesis 11) The catch is that we have to be able to imagine..... to visualize a goal. And then..... .we have to be willing to throw lots of money at that goal if we consider it to be truly worth achieving. Ecclesiastes 10:19 "A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things. " This topic also relates to achieving a common goal with many Middle Eastern nations that we have not had very good relations with in the past. The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans!
There are a billion people who don't have enough water right now. I don't see a prayer in the world of dumping trillions of dollars into watering the Sahara. We do take on pro bono activities, but let's be at least a little realistic here. It's been shown that in the US, people's opinions about climate change are tied to politics - NOT SCIENCE! If you care about climate change today, the first step in the US would be to convince people that science is real and is of interest.
Good points......... but Al Gore's Carbon Tax idea...... although it is one possible response to climate change.......... offended us Conservatives because it was obvious that bureaucrats and lawyers with a background in the Environmental Sciences would probably hijack the plan anyway....... and turn it into a bureaucratic nightmare......... And you are correct....... The Sahara would be unlikely to be the first area where large scale desalination would be implemented....... Australia, California or Texas would be much more likely....... We Conservatives could see many obvious reasons why Bjorn Lomborg Ph.D's statement was likely correct!
Blaming this on Al Gore is preposterous. It's total excuse making by right wingers who have NO real argument. ALL other countries make moves oriented toward conservation, including taxing fossil fuel. They do this without their government collecting giant revenue and without sacrificing their competitiveness in their economy. Claims that fuel tax will cost "hundreds of billions of dollars" are thrown around with ZERO evidence. Let's remember that nations which tax fuel use the revenue to offset other revenue sources such as income tax. The idea that a fuel tax would increase federal revenue are just plain political lies, as there is no reason to believe that. And, let's remember that Lomborg is one individual whose ideas are opposed by large numbers of scientists willing to sign their names to their opposition to his methodologies as well as his results. Basing an opinion on one individual is not an acceptable direction, regardless of whether that person earned a PhD.
So no reference for the "millions of scientists". And guess what? I am one of those "8 million scientists" that you are obviously talking about, so your claim is meaningless. What you are trying to vomit is propaganda, not the scientific method. Tell you what, next time if you want your claim to be taken seriously, instead of ridicule and aversion, try to reply with an APA formatted response. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#7b39c3454c7c That, my friend is what is known as a "reference". Come on, say it, "Reference". Can you say that? In knew you could. No land animals? Actually, there was no land anything back then. That was still around 40+ million years away during the Silurian. But land animals would really not come to their own until the Devonian period. This is when land animals first really flourished. And the average temperature was 86f, with no polar ice caps at all. The average global temperature today is, 58.3f. Hmmm, 18 degrees cooler than it was then. At the start there were very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which decreased throughout the period. And with that the temperatures dropped as well, down to around 60f. But strange, the end of the Devonian some 58 million years later had surface temperatures climbing back up into the upper 80f range, but no matching increase in CO2 levels. Funny, how can that be, if CO2 is the driving force in our temperatures? Temperatures dipped again a bit as the planet slipped into the Carboniferous, to 70f, finally by the middle of that epoch settling at around 58f, almost exactly what they are now. But it was an era of rapid cooling around 300 mya that led to the collapse and the start of the Permian epoch. And this was a cooling that brought global average temperatures down to around 38f. But it is also rather interesting, in that the temperature of the oceans varied widely. From water temperatures ranging from 36f in some areas, and over 100 in others. But the end of this period is really alarming. Average global temperatures of over 100f, and massive flooding and global climate instability as the massive continent sized glaciers of the Permian melting off in a few centuries, then giving way to the Triassic Epoch. Which was once again much hotter and drier than it is today. No ice caps, with daytime temperatures over 100f and night time below 30f being the norm. If there is one thing I have learned, is that we should be happy for our relatively mild climate. And anybody trying to determine the "norm" on our 4+ billion year old planet is a fool.
So no reference for the "millions of scientists". And guess what? I am one of those "8 million scientists" that you are obviously talking about, so your claim is meaningless. What you are trying to vomit is propaganda, not the scientific method. Tell you what, next time if you want your claim to be taken seriously, instead of ridicule and aversion, try to reply with an APA formatted response. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#7b39c3454c7c That, my friend is what is known as a "reference". Come on, say it, "Reference". Can you say that? In knew you could. No land animals? Actually, there was no land anything back then. That was still around 40+ million years away during the Silurian. But land animals would really not come to their own until the Devonian period. This is when land animals first really flourished. And the average temperature was 86f, with no polar ice caps at all. The average global temperature today is, 58.3f. Hmmm, 18 degrees cooler than it was then. At the start there were very high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which decreased throughout the period. And with that the temperatures dropped as well, down to around 60f. But strange, the end of the Devonian some 58 million years later had surface temperatures climbing back up into the upper 80f range, but no matching increase in CO2 levels. Funny, how can that be, if CO2 is the driving force in our temperatures? Temperatures dipped again a bit as the planet slipped into the Carboniferous, to 70f, finally by the middle of that epoch settling at around 58f, almost exactly what they are now. But it was an era of rapid cooling around 300 mya that led to the collapse and the start of the Permian epoch. And this was a cooling that brought global average temperatures down to around 38f. But it is also rather interesting, in that the temperature of the oceans varied widely. From water temperatures ranging from 36f in some areas, and over 100 in others. But the end of this period is really alarming. Average global temperatures of over 100f, and massive flooding and global climate instability as the massive continent sized glaciers of the Permian melting off in a few centuries, then giving way to the Triassic Epoch. Which was once again much hotter and drier than it is today. No ice caps, with daytime temperatures over 100f and night time below 30f being the norm. If there is one thing I have learned, is that we should be happy for our relatively mild climate. And anybody trying to determine the "norm" on our 4+ billion year old planet is a fool.
I was just sent something very specific to the effects in the BAy of Fundy. https://novascotia.ca/nse/climate-change/docs/cc_msl_hightides_bof.pdf
I so thank all of your for your assistance, the links to excellent articles and data and your reasoning on this question. I now finally feel sufficiently confident to express my own opinion on this quite challenging physics question. Although I am no expert and did not even finish university I have concluded that the 10 X to 15 X multiplier for high tides in the eastern area of the Bay of Fundy ............. could well continue to follow through if average ocean levels were to rise a significant amount. There are two primary reasons: 1. The land form of the Bay of Fundy funnels high tide waters from a very wide area of the Atlantic Ocean into a more and more narrow area. 2. The fact that the distance from Yarmouth to Truro, Nova Scotia is about 174 miles...... means that the waters of the previous high tide......... cannot sufficiently drain before the next high tide begins to come in........... WHICH MEANS THAT THE NEW HIGH TIDE WATERS..... tend to pile on top of..... the receding high tide waters! (It takes over four hours to drive from Truro to Yarmouth Nova Scotia..... and obvioulsy the receding high tide waters cannot travel as fast as our cars so each new high tide for the Bay of Fundy..... adds to the previous high tide waters that were not able to fully drain from the Fundy)! So....... a one foot worldwide average increase in ocean levels could well produce high tide levels that could be up by ten to fifteen feet along parts of the eastern area of the Bay of Fundy. https://www.bayoffundy.com/about/highest-tides/
It seems relatively clear that you did not actually use provided data to formulate your synopsis. Hopefully this study will fare better: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07055900.2012.668670
People are scared to clearly and plainly address what could potentially happen along parts of the Bay of Fundy.........if a truly huge amount of cracking and sliding of ice were to take place off the land based Greenland Ice Pack, The West Antarctic Ice Sheet or land based global glaciers. The funnelling effect will still continue even if average ocean levels rose by one foot...... and the piling up effect will also still continue with higher ocean levels so............. the fact that the difference between low tide to high tide where I live is about one meter......... and the fact that high tides range from six meters to fifteen meters along the Bay of Fundy means that...... ..... along parts of the Bay of Fundy where high tides rise by six meters under present conditions......... .... high tides could be up by an additional six feet there......... Along parts of the Bay of Fundy where high tides are up by ten meters........ and additional ten feet can be expected for high tides there..... if average ocean levels rose by one foot...... Along parts of the Bay of Fundy where high tides are about fourteen or fifteen meters....... and additional fourteen to fifteen feet should be expected for high tides.... in those areas........ This is scary information......... Your article was helpful......... but speculation on what if........ scares experts........ but I feel that this needs to be done!
Okay....believe (speculate) whatever you wish, there is no point in providing further data to be ignored. Have A Nice Day
The data did not clearly address the question of .... What would happen if average ocean levels were to rise by one foot? By average ocean levels..... I mean ocean levels up..... .all around the world by one foot....... not at low tide... and not at high tide... but in the mean ocean level range. The author was scared of that question due to the effect that the truth could potentially have on real estate prices in some areas. They were probably scared that they could be sued.
The authors were not driven by fear of real estate prices in any way and ocean levels naturally vary around the world and by ocean so there cannot be a mean.
And I can't remember which articles that it was that gave me the answer.... it may have been that very one that you just gave here again................. Whichever one it was it did do an excellent job of explaining why high tides along the Fundy are so high at this time...... under these present conditions....... which did really give me the answer to what would probably happen if ocean levels did rise significantly. Here is the other statistic that explains why we have not so far experienced a huge rise in ocean levels: Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory Gershom Gale:
Seriously...Earth crust displacement? Dennis I understand you have an interesting mindset and are prone to imagined realities but conspiracy theory is a bit too much and I hesitate to begin ignoring you. Please do not make me do so as you are entertaining.
My understanding of the most probable and most likely potentially dangerous result of the increasing build up of ice on Antarctica is the beginning of a wobble in the orbital pattern of the earth............. That would the first sign. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6332 NEWS | APRIL 8, 2016 NASA Study Solves Two Mysteries About Wobbling Earth
And for the record.... your link was helpful............. but it simply did not go into the specific question that I was asking....... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07055900.2012.668670#_i17
Actually it did, however one must use their own location, situation and brain power (thought) to arrive at any individual based conclusion. You seem to be wanting an answer to your specific situation and only you can arrive at that. You have been provided all the information to come to the result you seek but instead ignore (You just quoted it) in preference of preconceived conspiracy theory which has nothing to do with your question and is at a minimum dubious in reality based possibility. I and others cannot adjust your mind toward the acceptance of fact based data but, I can offer it and suggest you consider it.
