An inhabited island has disappeared
-
For the obviosu stuff, you should ask a 4 year old kid.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!I feel like I am...
-
link[^] They conveniently decided to leave out the details...Like that the ocean has risen a few centimeters since "global warming" is purported to have begun (and it has risen much more than that in the preceding decades). So how can a 4-inch rise in water levels over 40 years completely and suddenly wipe out an entire island? Well that's not really important...
Red Stateler wrote:
So how can a 4-inch rise in water levels over 40 years completely and suddenly wipe out an entire island?
the difference in sea level can be as much as 15m, so the land might not to submerged totally all the time, but it would be uninhabitable if it is covered at high tide. for most low lying regions, there are thresholds that would keep the sea water out. as soon as the higher waves at high tide starts reaching a place, it is lost. it is only for sometime walls and barrages will stop the sea, once they are breached, the island will be lost quite suddenly. by your logic, if 4ins is not sufficient to wipe out an island, even 15m should not be sufficient(wave can be very high during bad weather). did you hear about "slow and steady wins the race?" During the tsumani that hit south Asia 2 years ago, some islands got submerged when the sea got rough, however the water never receded later on. I am not saying that it happened because you used your car, just that things are changing. if you could manage to pile up some ice at the poles and mountain peaks, it might help.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So how can a 4-inch rise in water levels over 40 years completely and suddenly wipe out an entire island?
the difference in sea level can be as much as 15m, so the land might not to submerged totally all the time, but it would be uninhabitable if it is covered at high tide. for most low lying regions, there are thresholds that would keep the sea water out. as soon as the higher waves at high tide starts reaching a place, it is lost. it is only for sometime walls and barrages will stop the sea, once they are breached, the island will be lost quite suddenly. by your logic, if 4ins is not sufficient to wipe out an island, even 15m should not be sufficient(wave can be very high during bad weather). did you hear about "slow and steady wins the race?" During the tsumani that hit south Asia 2 years ago, some islands got submerged when the sea got rough, however the water never receded later on. I am not saying that it happened because you used your car, just that things are changing. if you could manage to pile up some ice at the poles and mountain peaks, it might help.
Well something i was wondering. If water expands when it freezes + 90% of an ice berg is underwater. I AM NO EXPERT. But with the size of the polar icecaps could an increase of ice also cause the rise of the water level of the ocean? According to the pro's i am wrong (I have no claim to be right), but it possible. That was my 2cents
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness. ~Sheik Abd-al-Kadir
I can't always be wrong ... or can I? -
Red Stateler wrote:
So how can a 4-inch rise in water levels over 40 years completely and suddenly wipe out an entire island?
the difference in sea level can be as much as 15m, so the land might not to submerged totally all the time, but it would be uninhabitable if it is covered at high tide. for most low lying regions, there are thresholds that would keep the sea water out. as soon as the higher waves at high tide starts reaching a place, it is lost. it is only for sometime walls and barrages will stop the sea, once they are breached, the island will be lost quite suddenly. by your logic, if 4ins is not sufficient to wipe out an island, even 15m should not be sufficient(wave can be very high during bad weather). did you hear about "slow and steady wins the race?" During the tsumani that hit south Asia 2 years ago, some islands got submerged when the sea got rough, however the water never receded later on. I am not saying that it happened because you used your car, just that things are changing. if you could manage to pile up some ice at the poles and mountain peaks, it might help.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
the difference in sea level can be as much as 15m
ummmm...What[^]? Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level. 4 inches is nothing compared to the 2.5 foot constant rising and lowering tides. Islands come and go all the time. To say that an island was wiped away because of a 4 inch rise in sea levels (keep in mind that this is consistent with pre-"global warming" sea rising) is...well...ludicrous.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
by your logic, if 4ins is not sufficient to wipe out an island, even 15m should not be sufficient(wave can be very high during bad weather).
Ummmmm...What? Many islands don't even rise 15m above sea level at their highest point. That's like saying that if you claim that lighting a match won't destroy a city, then that same logic means that neither will a nuclear explosion.
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
the difference in sea level can be as much as 15m
ummmm...What[^]? Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level. 4 inches is nothing compared to the 2.5 foot constant rising and lowering tides. Islands come and go all the time. To say that an island was wiped away because of a 4 inch rise in sea levels (keep in mind that this is consistent with pre-"global warming" sea rising) is...well...ludicrous.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
by your logic, if 4ins is not sufficient to wipe out an island, even 15m should not be sufficient(wave can be very high during bad weather).
Ummmmm...What? Many islands don't even rise 15m above sea level at their highest point. That's like saying that if you claim that lighting a match won't destroy a city, then that same logic means that neither will a nuclear explosion.
Red Stateler wrote:
Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level.
Oh, that makes sense. It doesn't differ between areas because it is the average of the differences.:rolleyes:
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
the difference in sea level can be as much as 15m
ummmm...What[^]? Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level. 4 inches is nothing compared to the 2.5 foot constant rising and lowering tides. Islands come and go all the time. To say that an island was wiped away because of a 4 inch rise in sea levels (keep in mind that this is consistent with pre-"global warming" sea rising) is...well...ludicrous.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
by your logic, if 4ins is not sufficient to wipe out an island, even 15m should not be sufficient(wave can be very high during bad weather).
Ummmmm...What? Many islands don't even rise 15m above sea level at their highest point. That's like saying that if you claim that lighting a match won't destroy a city, then that same logic means that neither will a nuclear explosion.
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time? That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas). You somewhere in the thread seem to make a point that 4ins was not good enough because waves are more than 4ins high. I am claiming that waves are much higher, and if height of a wave is some metric, 15m would not be sufficient either.
-
Well something i was wondering. If water expands when it freezes + 90% of an ice berg is underwater. I AM NO EXPERT. But with the size of the polar icecaps could an increase of ice also cause the rise of the water level of the ocean? According to the pro's i am wrong (I have no claim to be right), but it possible. That was my 2cents
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness. ~Sheik Abd-al-Kadir
I can't always be wrong ... or can I?A floating ice block is equivalent to melted water as far as water level is concerned. Volume of water displayed by iceberg == volume of water locked in the block. However, the water that gets blocked over Greenland/Antarctica and in glaciers over high mountains does not contribute to sea level. similarly for ice shelves.
-
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time? That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas). You somewhere in the thread seem to make a point that 4ins was not good enough because waves are more than 4ins high. I am claiming that waves are much higher, and if height of a wave is some metric, 15m would not be sufficient either.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time?
Not "sea level" since that's a constant at any given time.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas).
Yeah...That's my point. The sea can be rough, it rises and falls with the tides. There are huge waves from time-to-time. And yet this article is claiming that a 4 inch rise over 40 years is (not "might be", mind you) responsible for an island disappearing. Yeah...OK. That's sensationalism at its best.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
You somewhere in the thread seem to make a point that 4ins was not good enough because waves are more than 4ins high. I am claiming that waves are much higher, and if height of a wave is some metric, 15m would not be sufficient either.
I said 4 inches isn't enough to wipe an island off the map. It assumes that the island was originally no higher than 4 inches above high tide at its highest point. It would require that no wave was higher than 4 inches high once high tide came in. It would require that that never received 4 inches of rain. It's just a retarded claim meant to instill fear in those gullible enough to take it at face value. 15 meters is quite different and to assume some lame logical equivalence between a 4 inch wave (more like a wavelet) and a wave 50 feet high (something that can completely engulf a 5-story building) is just nonsensical. My guess is that this tiny island I've never heard of faced the same fate that all islands will eventually face. It simply eroded away.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level.
Oh, that makes sense. It doesn't differ between areas because it is the average of the differences.:rolleyes:
The definition of "sea level" is the average. So no, "sea level" does not change at any given moment in time. *jingle jingle*
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time?
Not "sea level" since that's a constant at any given time.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas).
Yeah...That's my point. The sea can be rough, it rises and falls with the tides. There are huge waves from time-to-time. And yet this article is claiming that a 4 inch rise over 40 years is (not "might be", mind you) responsible for an island disappearing. Yeah...OK. That's sensationalism at its best.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
You somewhere in the thread seem to make a point that 4ins was not good enough because waves are more than 4ins high. I am claiming that waves are much higher, and if height of a wave is some metric, 15m would not be sufficient either.
I said 4 inches isn't enough to wipe an island off the map. It assumes that the island was originally no higher than 4 inches above high tide at its highest point. It would require that no wave was higher than 4 inches high once high tide came in. It would require that that never received 4 inches of rain. It's just a retarded claim meant to instill fear in those gullible enough to take it at face value. 15 meters is quite different and to assume some lame logical equivalence between a 4 inch wave (more like a wavelet) and a wave 50 feet high (something that can completely engulf a 5-story building) is just nonsensical. My guess is that this tiny island I've never heard of faced the same fate that all islands will eventually face. It simply eroded away.
Red Stateler wrote:
It simply eroded away.
:gasp: It couldn't be! :rolleyes: I'm with you here. I thought a 3" rise in sea level was suppoesd to flood Manhattan or something like that.
BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
The definition of "sea level" is the average. So no, "sea level" does not change at any given moment in time. *jingle jingle*
jingle jingle yourself, jackass.
Red Stateler wrote:
Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level.
That statement is still nonsensical BS and my sarcastic response is still appropriate, so here it is again:
oilFactotum wrote:
Oh, that makes sense. It doesn't differ between areas because it is the average of the differences.:rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
The definition of "sea level" is the average
Wrong. That would be the mean sea level. It does vary between areas and it varies at the same location. If you want to talk about the mean sea level, that would be constant, at least for the time frame used to calculate the mean.
Red Stateler wrote:
So no, "sea level" does not change at any given moment in time.
So? You are responding to a different post:
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time? That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas).
-
jingle jingle yourself, jackass.
Red Stateler wrote:
Sea level doesn't differ between areas. It's an average of the overall sea level.
That statement is still nonsensical BS and my sarcastic response is still appropriate, so here it is again:
oilFactotum wrote:
Oh, that makes sense. It doesn't differ between areas because it is the average of the differences.:rolleyes:
Red Stateler wrote:
The definition of "sea level" is the average
Wrong. That would be the mean sea level. It does vary between areas and it varies at the same location. If you want to talk about the mean sea level, that would be constant, at least for the time frame used to calculate the mean.
Red Stateler wrote:
So no, "sea level" does not change at any given moment in time.
So? You are responding to a different post:
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time? That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas).
oilFactotum wrote:
Wrong. That would be the mean sea level. It does vary between areas and it varies at the same location. If you want to talk about the mean sea level, that would be constant, at least for the time frame used to calculate the mean.
Really, genius? sea level[^] the horizontal plane or level corresponding to the surface of the sea at mean level between high and low tide. *jingle jingle*
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Wrong. That would be the mean sea level. It does vary between areas and it varies at the same location. If you want to talk about the mean sea level, that would be constant, at least for the time frame used to calculate the mean.
Really, genius? sea level[^] the horizontal plane or level corresponding to the surface of the sea at mean level between high and low tide. *jingle jingle*
Red Stateler wrote:
Really, genius?
Yes, dickless wonder. http://www.answers.com/topic/sea-level[^] "Sea levels vary greatly from one location to another" "Sea level therefore fluctuates in periods ranging from seconds to a year as a result of these factors. Thus for some purposes it is necessary to know the mean sea level (MSL) in a particular area, determined by averaging the elevations of the sea's surface as measured by mechanical tide gauges over long periods of time"
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
ok, so what do you call the level of sea water at a given moment at a given time?
Not "sea level" since that's a constant at any given time.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
That can change by upto 15m for places(at high tides and rough seas).
Yeah...That's my point. The sea can be rough, it rises and falls with the tides. There are huge waves from time-to-time. And yet this article is claiming that a 4 inch rise over 40 years is (not "might be", mind you) responsible for an island disappearing. Yeah...OK. That's sensationalism at its best.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
You somewhere in the thread seem to make a point that 4ins was not good enough because waves are more than 4ins high. I am claiming that waves are much higher, and if height of a wave is some metric, 15m would not be sufficient either.
I said 4 inches isn't enough to wipe an island off the map. It assumes that the island was originally no higher than 4 inches above high tide at its highest point. It would require that no wave was higher than 4 inches high once high tide came in. It would require that that never received 4 inches of rain. It's just a retarded claim meant to instill fear in those gullible enough to take it at face value. 15 meters is quite different and to assume some lame logical equivalence between a 4 inch wave (more like a wavelet) and a wave 50 feet high (something that can completely engulf a 5-story building) is just nonsensical. My guess is that this tiny island I've never heard of faced the same fate that all islands will eventually face. It simply eroded away.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not "sea level" since that's a constant at any given time.
I did not ask you what not to call it, anyways if sea water level seems more reasonable to you, its ok with me.
Red Stateler wrote:
It assumes that the island was originally no higher than 4 inches above high tide at its highest point.
what if it was 4 inches higher that high tide level + wave height in the area?
Red Stateler wrote:
It simply eroded away.
it is a possibility for sure, but don't say it as if you know everything. If I can't prove it was because of global warming, you can't prove it had nothing to do with it. If everyone shuts his/her eyes and stay this stubborn we would be caught unprepared if(and when) it happens. I am not holding my breath though, and lets hope all this is indeed fear-mongering.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Really, genius?
Yes, dickless wonder. http://www.answers.com/topic/sea-level[^] "Sea levels vary greatly from one location to another" "Sea level therefore fluctuates in periods ranging from seconds to a year as a result of these factors. Thus for some purposes it is necessary to know the mean sea level (MSL) in a particular area, determined by averaging the elevations of the sea's surface as measured by mechanical tide gauges over long periods of time"
:laugh: You mean....there is such a thing as waves? No way! Per the several definitions on the page you linked and per the dictionary, "sea level" is defined as the mean sea level. In fact the very text you quoted was meant to elaborate for people who don't understand what "sea level" actually is by explaining it. You expectedly didn't get it. I know you just won't understand that because such concepts are beyond the grasp of the retarded. So I'll just give you this: *jingle jingle*
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Not "sea level" since that's a constant at any given time.
I did not ask you what not to call it, anyways if sea water level seems more reasonable to you, its ok with me.
Red Stateler wrote:
It assumes that the island was originally no higher than 4 inches above high tide at its highest point.
what if it was 4 inches higher that high tide level + wave height in the area?
Red Stateler wrote:
It simply eroded away.
it is a possibility for sure, but don't say it as if you know everything. If I can't prove it was because of global warming, you can't prove it had nothing to do with it. If everyone shuts his/her eyes and stay this stubborn we would be caught unprepared if(and when) it happens. I am not holding my breath though, and lets hope all this is indeed fear-mongering.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
what if it was 4 inches higher that high tide level + wave height in the area?
Then the net result would still be 4 inches higher than 40 years ago. Have you ever been to a beach? Do you really think 4 inches would do much, considering the 2.5 foot rise the tides bring in? The liked article didn't elaborate on any details. It just made the claim that global warming resulted in an island being wiped off the map. Yeah...OK.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
it is a possibility for sure, but don't say it as if you know everything. If I can't prove it was because of global warming, you can't prove it had nothing to do with it. If everyone shuts his/her eyes and stay this stubborn we would be caught unprepared if(and when) it happens. I am not holding my breath though, and lets hope all this is indeed fear-mongering
I think you're too quick to accept some news article that doesn't elaborate on any details. It simply said rising seas (4 inches over the past 40 years) somehow (and it would have to be gradually) washed an island away. Yeah...OK. Coastlines are constantly being reshaped. To arbitrarily attribute a common natural phenomenon to global warming is nothing short of absurd.
-
:laugh: You mean....there is such a thing as waves? No way! Per the several definitions on the page you linked and per the dictionary, "sea level" is defined as the mean sea level. In fact the very text you quoted was meant to elaborate for people who don't understand what "sea level" actually is by explaining it. You expectedly didn't get it. I know you just won't understand that because such concepts are beyond the grasp of the retarded. So I'll just give you this: *jingle jingle*
Red Stateler wrote:
"sea level" is defined as the mean sea level.
No, sea level is sea level and mean sea level is mean sea level. I am not suprised that a dickless wonder such as yourself can't figure that out.:rolleyes:
-
Red Stateler wrote:
"sea level" is defined as the mean sea level.
No, sea level is sea level and mean sea level is mean sea level. I am not suprised that a dickless wonder such as yourself can't figure that out.:rolleyes:
You should put up http://dictionary.oilFactotum.com. That way every time you misuse a word term "sea level" (the definition of which was clearly stated in the real dictionary), you could just redefine it to make yourself seem less stupid.
-
You should put up http://dictionary.oilFactotum.com. That way every time you misuse a word term "sea level" (the definition of which was clearly stated in the real dictionary), you could just redefine it to make yourself seem less stupid.
I haven't misused to term. But you, dickless wonder, constantly fail to understand the meaning of words. Sea level is just the most recent example. Since you are also a shameless troll, you will never cease arguing your incorrect position.:rolleyes::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
what if it was 4 inches higher that high tide level + wave height in the area?
Then the net result would still be 4 inches higher than 40 years ago. Have you ever been to a beach? Do you really think 4 inches would do much, considering the 2.5 foot rise the tides bring in? The liked article didn't elaborate on any details. It just made the claim that global warming resulted in an island being wiped off the map. Yeah...OK.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
it is a possibility for sure, but don't say it as if you know everything. If I can't prove it was because of global warming, you can't prove it had nothing to do with it. If everyone shuts his/her eyes and stay this stubborn we would be caught unprepared if(and when) it happens. I am not holding my breath though, and lets hope all this is indeed fear-mongering
I think you're too quick to accept some news article that doesn't elaborate on any details. It simply said rising seas (4 inches over the past 40 years) somehow (and it would have to be gradually) washed an island away. Yeah...OK. Coastlines are constantly being reshaped. To arbitrarily attribute a common natural phenomenon to global warming is nothing short of absurd.
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you really think 4 inches would do much, considering the 2.5 foot rise the tides bring in?
I don't think you want to listen to what the other person is talking. I asked what if the high tide + wave height was 4 inches less than the embankments at the island. now where does the tidal variation come into picture at all? even if there is a 15m tidal rise, I am considering all land exposed by low tide as waste uninhabitable land. you somehow want be believe that if something happens relatively slow it can not cause any difference, even if it continues for long time frames. missing something huh?
Red Stateler wrote:
To arbitrarily attribute a common natural phenomenon to global warming is nothing short of absurd.
who said global warming can't be natural? can we do something to limit its effect is the question. heard of the flood gates of Venice? and how is islands with population of 10,000 vanishing a common phenomenon?
