The scientific answer is currently no. But you don't accept science. So what source do you care to use? Presumably, as glaciers on land disappear, we will see more volcanic activity. The weight of glaciers appears to essentially squeeze off magma movements that lead to volcanism. So you don't accept any new scientific data. At what year do cut off all new knowledge? Science from 1965 is good but not science from 1966? And did you like populist science in 1965? You like the populist science related to ketogenic diets but do not accept populist science? Hmmmm? How exactly do you pick and choose what you believe? Are you the ultimate test of truth?
I know that. You missed my point. The 'flaw' was every time the temperature outside some do-do's home was a little colder than usual the occupant scoffed: "so much for global warming".
The increasing distance to the moon will make tides slightly smaller, not larger. You are debating with yourself.
Ok. I give you props for answering. This is the first time I've ever had anyone even attempt an answer. So if this explanation were true we should expect two things to be occurring. First, we should be observing an increase in UV spectrum radiation at the surface. Second, the warming should be more pronounced during the day vs. the night. However, on both accounts we observe the opposite happening. UV flux at the surface is declining and the warming is pronounced during the night vs. the day. But there are other problems. Ozone concentrations tend to be in phase with the solar cycle. As solar activity wanes ozone also wanes and vice versa. There is a disconnect here in that lower/higher solar activity produces a negative/positive radiative forcing on the geosphere to make it cool/warm respectively. The paleoclimate record corroborates this. So if this theory has merit then you'd have to explain how the paleoclimate record predicts that solar cycles should be forcing the Earth to cool right now since solar activity peaked in 1958 and has been declining ever since. Furthermore, ozone concentrations are more heavily influenced by the CFC effect. This is apparent in the dramatic decline (far larger than the solar cycle effect) in ozone up until the early 90's when the Montreal Protocol started having a noticeable effect. Ozone declines essentially ended in the late 90's and are now expected to begin slowly rising again over the next 100 years as the ozone layer repairs itself. Ozone is gradually increasing and so the ozone layer is thickening. But, even assuming none of those problems existed you'd still have to explain why the ozone layer suddenly started to thin on the day side post WWII. Why now and not any other time over the last 10,000 years of the current interglacial period?
Yes we know that. That's what is being said. That is, the Moon cannot explain why the water level at high tide (or low tide for that matter) is increasing. The reason the tide levels are increasing overall is because sea level is rising due to thermal expansion and an increase of mass due to melting ice.
So, why mention it when they are talking of fcurrent flooding? I am not disputing that the moon will move further away over millions of years simply that it has nothing to do now
Note that over the 20-year span, from 1880-1900, sea levels rose an average of 30mm. From 2005 to 2015, it rose about 60mm. This and a quick evaluation of graph show that the rate of sea-level rise has approximately doubled over the last century.
So ur theory is that the oceans are "full" to the brim, and ice melting will swamp the world?? When glaciers covered much of the continent, does that mean the oceans were dried up?? And what of the areas of the world where sea level is falling... did that water freeze and start to hover in the air??
No that isn't his theory. He was making the point that when glaciers melt, it adds to the ocean. It isn't like melting a cube of ice already in water. As for ocean levels in the past As for transient effects on ocean levels, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...xplains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/
And all of this b/c we drive automobiles and heat/cool our homes?? Guess Mao, Stalin, and Cousteau were right... we need to start killing off humans right away if we have any hope of saving the planet!! Can u imagine the mess we'd be in if those guys didn't kill off those 100's of millions?? What a service they've done for the future of the planet!
There are alternatives to fossil fuels. This is all because fossil fuels are cheap. But carbon-neutral alternatives will soon be price competitive at the pump. However, if you are volunteering to be the first to go...
here's a free science lesson no one is talking about sea ice.. "Get a glass, fill it half full with water" -yes the ocean.. NOW MARK THAT LEVEL! "then put in a couple of ice cubes"-represents added melted ice from land based glaciers mark that new level...it will be higher comprendre?
A much more appropriate test is to use an eye dropper of water and drip one drop into the glass. So stop being in a constant state of panic. Freeze the drop of water first of course. A water glass can't compare to any of even the smallest oceans.
The science of global warming is not hysterical. The politics surrounding it is where you will find it.
Looks like people will have to build a few feet further from the ocean until we finish the current post glacial period and begin entering a new glacial period. Some estimate that should happen within 5000 years or so.
Hmmmm So Bangladesh has nothing to worry about? Venice should relocate? There are an awful lot of cities in the Orleans that are built on Deltas
