Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
I don't really know who is totally right, or who is totally wrong. I think the jury is still out. But thanks anyway.
You do the same.
The oceans are sinking!
- Thread starter Mick Doobie
- Start date
I don't really know who is totally right, or who is totally wrong. I think the jury is still out. But thanks anyway.
You do the same.
Well if the jury is still out, isn't it better to err on the side of caution because the stakes are so great?
Forget it. lol
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
To what degree? Who decides? How much does it cost, where does the money go, to whom is the money paid? With the environment being that experts in the field who disagree that mankind is causing catastrophic global climate change being ostracized, ridiculed and risk losing their livelihood, is there no wonder a mere 3% stand with an opposing viewpoint, with another "97%" signing on? There is even talk in some circles of making it a criminal act to disagree. Err on the side of caution indeed.
I've asked some of these questions in this thread already. No response. They are all legitimate questions, nothing "party line" about it. Healthy skepticism is, healthy. The jury is still out if we will ever suffer a nuclear attack. In the interest of erring on the side of caution, should it be mandated by the powers that be that we all pay some entity as determined by who knows who and at some as of yet undetermined cost to build bomb shelters, or given that economies across the globe will be negatively impacted should the US get hit, the US must purchase an insurance policy from who knows who to mitigate the damage? Isn't it better to err on the side of caution, because the stakes are so great? Maybe every country should be required to purchase nuclear attack insurance. It is actually not that far fetched, given the potential for somebody to get filthy rich off the deal. Imagine the potential for fraudulent claims
.Anyway, drive-bys not withstanding, if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.
DM60
Well-known member
IMO, if man is killing the planet, then eventually the planet will kill man. It will work itself out I am sure. That said, there is no way for man not to have some impact on the planet, it is just impossible. Just us being here is having an impact.
Now, global warming. Yea, maybe. Based on what has been taught, there have been many cooling/warming cycles in the history of earth. Now the question, is this current warming cycle (if it really is), caused by a natural warming cycle or is it caused by man? Or, could there be some of both? I really don't think there is concrete evidence, but theoretical speculation.
But I do say, with the technology man has today, we can do great damage in very little time. Therefore, we really do need to think about what we do more than at any other time in history. Our screw ups will just have huge impacts. I don't think too many can argue that point.
Now, global warming. Yea, maybe. Based on what has been taught, there have been many cooling/warming cycles in the history of earth. Now the question, is this current warming cycle (if it really is), caused by a natural warming cycle or is it caused by man? Or, could there be some of both? I really don't think there is concrete evidence, but theoretical speculation.
But I do say, with the technology man has today, we can do great damage in very little time. Therefore, we really do need to think about what we do more than at any other time in history. Our screw ups will just have huge impacts. I don't think too many can argue that point.
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
At the risk of repeating myself...
I'm still waiting for someone to explain, why the heck did Al Gore buy a beachfront mansion several years ago when at the time or well before he proclaimed it would be swallowed up by rising sea levels a few years ago?
What luck for Al, who could have predicted, the oceans are sinking.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain, why the heck did Al Gore buy a beachfront mansion several years ago when at the time or well before he proclaimed it would be swallowed up by rising sea levels a few years ago?
What luck for Al, who could have predicted, the oceans are sinking.
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
I don't think Al Gore is here to answer that.
who could have predicted, the oceans are sinking.
The term 'oceans are sinking' confuses me. WTF does that even mean.
DM60
Well-known member
Do we have a thread winner?
Thanks a lot dude. Now what?
Is thread winner code for thread killer?
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
There is a link in the first post of thread, article in Newsweek, "THE OCEAN FLOOR IS SINKING UNDER THE WATER WEIGHT FROM MELTING GLACIERS, AND IT’S AS BAD AS IT SOUNDS" . Did you take a look?
I don't know, they used some "elastic" mathematical equation to determine that the oceans were sinking, and stretching, or something. It's bad, real bad, it's as bad as it sounds.
Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year..... the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago...additional water from melted ice may have further stretched that floor, LiveScience reported....The results show that the ocean is changing in ways we didn't realize and is sinking further into the earth’s crust. As a result, scientists have underestimated how much sea levels are rising by as much as 8 percent. The study concludes by emphasizing that future sea level measurement should take ocean floor deformation into account in order to more accurately understand how our oceans are evolving....Small coastal areas won’t be the only ones to disappear due to rising waters, and if current estimates are correct, by 2100 the ocean will rise between 11 and 38 inches, a number that could mean that much of the U.S. east coast will be covered in water, National Geographic reported.
No word on whether National Geographic took into account that the elastic equation determined the oceans are sinking to calculate the amount of sea level rise by 2100. Either way, yes, it's bad, really bad, it's as bad as it sounds. Either that, or they are throwing shit at the wall to see what will stick. To their credit, they do throw in a "may" and an "if" every once in a while. But no matter, estimates/schmeshtimates, the science is settled. I'm leaving the coast and moving to the mountains soon anyway. So, you're on your own, suckers.
Hmm.. Remember we did learn in grade school or a'bouts, the whole thing (hell 'all things) are fluid'- given enough pressure or you look close enough.. or long enough.
So now we see we're looking pretty darn close! Four thousandths of an inch / year.. on the scale of the globe.
I bet this qualifies in the 'Oh BTW range, not 'OMFG..!'
So now we see we're looking pretty darn close! Four thousandths of an inch / year.. on the scale of the globe.
I bet this qualifies in the 'Oh BTW range, not 'OMFG..!'
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
I think .004 is approximately the width of a human hair, give or take. I don't know, that's worrisome. The ocean floor needs to sink a lot faster than that to counter an estimated sea level rise over the next 82 years of between 11 and 38 inches, give or take, may and/or if.
It's definitely going to happen, though. Science.
It's definitely going to happen, though. Science.
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
Gosh doggit, this science stuff gets so confusing. I stumbled across this on NASA website....
"The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
Weird how that .004 inches number matches exactly the amount those other scientists said the oceans are sinking each year. Odd. I think they used the earth's radius as a factor in that elastic equation thing, but I wonder if the elastic equation thing they used to calculate ocean sinkage per year takes into consideration this change in the earth's radius? Anyway, i'm not sure I understand what any of that even means, but i'm thinking they're totally underestimating the significance of a .004 inches change. It's a lot. It's bad, real bad, it's as bad as it sounds. But if sea levels rise as rapidly as estimated, the oceans sinking .004 inches per year, ocean floor sinkage is not going to be enough to prevent sea level rise from covering much of the East Coast in water by the year 2100. It's just not going to be enough, it's going to happen. Science.
"The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.
Weird how that .004 inches number matches exactly the amount those other scientists said the oceans are sinking each year. Odd. I think they used the earth's radius as a factor in that elastic equation thing, but I wonder if the elastic equation thing they used to calculate ocean sinkage per year takes into consideration this change in the earth's radius? Anyway, i'm not sure I understand what any of that even means, but i'm thinking they're totally underestimating the significance of a .004 inches change. It's a lot. It's bad, real bad, it's as bad as it sounds. But if sea levels rise as rapidly as estimated, the oceans sinking .004 inches per year, ocean floor sinkage is not going to be enough to prevent sea level rise from covering much of the East Coast in water by the year 2100. It's just not going to be enough, it's going to happen. Science.
Last edited:
DM60
Well-known member
I don't know, but it sounds like the shit is getting deeper and wider.
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
ez willis said:
Since we're being honest and not trying to be a dick...
lol
wtf is that? It for the most part has zero relevance to the subject of this thread, which was just a goof for fun thread to begin with. I don't even know what that is. You've railed on and on in spite of not knowing what you're even talking about, having not even bothered to read the link that I provided for context. Now 8 pages in you finally ask for clarification, "The term 'oceans are sinking' confuses me. WTF does that even mean?" Yeah, of course you're confused. Do you realize how off the f*cking hinge your above post sounds? It is bizarre. Unhinged with frustration and bizarre. Do you honestly believe the above quoted post resembles anything other than utterly pointless? That is your version of a rational conversation? I understand your frustration, you've been bested at your troll game. Deal with it rather than throwing a tantrum and embarrassing yourself.
Get a f*cking grip, be a man, and learn some manners. Not trying to be a dick, just being honest.
Yeah, post reported. Ha.
/drunk post
/thread
Last edited:
ibleedburgundy
The Anti-Lambo
So scientists are brainwashing people. The Republican party knows the real science. After all, scientists have ulterior motives. Scientists are corrupt. Your 8th grade science teacher was a scumbag liar. Scientists are engaging in a conspiracy across 160+ countries and dozens of languages. They've concocted thousands of studies to cover their tracks. The peer reviewers are in on it. The teachers are in on it.
There is irrefutable evidence: professional scientists do make a paycheck you know.
Better to trust Republican politicians who clearly have pure motives. Republicans are the truth. They are the only truth.
There is irrefutable evidence: professional scientists do make a paycheck you know.
Better to trust Republican politicians who clearly have pure motives. Republicans are the truth. They are the only truth.
Mick Doobie
Resist We Much
Mick Doodly said:
I don't know, you tell me, Mick. Probably not many, I would guess. They don't have to, they've been told what to think, by the democrats.
Pretty interesting and an odd coincidence that .004 inches number. We have one group of scientists referenced in the link focused on global warming climate change who say the ocean floor is sinking at an average of .004 inches per year. Then there is an article on NASA website from a totally different group of scientists, minimally related to global warming climate change, they say the earth's radius changes at an average rate of .004 inches per year. I mean, I seriously don't know what that means, but it is odd. What is that? I'm not saying it is the case, but it is almost like the science memo of the week/month/whatever is ".004 inches"....yep, sounds like a good precise number, .004 inches, plug that bitch in there, totally believable science settled.
Remember in case you ever get in a jam, it's the magic number, mum, .004 inches. Throw that average of thing in there and surely nobody will ever doubt you.
Last edited:
It's pointless, dude.