An inhabited island has disappeared
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The big question is, how much of this was a natural event, and how much was it caused by man ?
Let me rephrase that question: Would changing our behavior help?
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!Yes, I would agree that that is a question worth asking.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
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:
OK. We'll just go ahead and ignore that pesky little dictionary... *jingle jingle*
-
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?
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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.
And I said the net result would be 4 inches higher. Ever been to the beach?
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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?
Actually I said that it suffered the same fate that will eventually befall all islands. It probably eroded away.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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?
It's common because coastlines are constantly being reshaped. That's a natural phenomenon. Apparently rising sea levels are also natural, since the rate of rising has been about constant for the past 100 years...before "global warming".
-
OK. We'll just go ahead and ignore that pesky little dictionary... *jingle jingle*
It's clear you have.:rolleyes:
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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.
And I said the net result would be 4 inches higher. Ever been to the beach?
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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?
Actually I said that it suffered the same fate that will eventually befall all islands. It probably eroded away.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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?
It's common because coastlines are constantly being reshaped. That's a natural phenomenon. Apparently rising sea levels are also natural, since the rate of rising has been about constant for the past 100 years...before "global warming".
Red Stateler wrote:
And I said the net result would be 4 inches higher
What would people do when they see that there is a risk of the island getting drowned? they will pile up something on the coast to keep the water away. what happens when the piling gets breached? the island gets submerged. I don't hope you can understand it, but try this. push an empty glass(open end up) in a bucket of water(tell someone to stir the water for you if you want it to be turbulent). If you slowly do it, there will be very little water in the glass until major portion of glass is in. Then the turbulence will start to throw water in(even though the still water is much lower still). For an island, some water thrown in will dry up/flow back to the sea. The water level of calm sea at low tide is still way lower then the brim. However, as more and more waves manage to breach the brim, the water no longer dries up but starts to accumulate in the lower regions. Assume a height of waves forms a Gaussian distribution. when the average sea level goes up by 4 inches, more waves get inland (at high tide). If the threshold was way to the right earlier, the increase in number of waves that cross grows exponentially.
Red Stateler wrote:
Ever been to the beach?
I have seen two different seas and an ocean, 7 coastal cities, and can not count the number of beaches I have seen. Turbulent sea at high tide, and a beach where the water was almost stagnant. However much I try to not get personal, you can't manage it. Get over the "I know everything and the other person is an idiot" attitude. if you think islands will lots of people on them getting submerged is common, mind if you lookup some references?
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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.
And I said the net result would be 4 inches higher. Ever been to the beach?
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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?
Actually I said that it suffered the same fate that will eventually befall all islands. It probably eroded away.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
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?
It's common because coastlines are constantly being reshaped. That's a natural phenomenon. Apparently rising sea levels are also natural, since the rate of rising has been about constant for the past 100 years...before "global warming".
Red Stateler wrote:
Apparently rising sea levels are also natural, since the rate of rising has been about constant for the past 100 years
how is that apparent to you? wikipedia sea level rise[^]
From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr; since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr
if you have sources more reliable than NASA please share them with us. and no, your gut feeling + intuition does not count as a reliable source.
-
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece[^] I don't need to worry though, I live at least a 1000kms from sea (though the Ganges is 10kms from my home). -- modified at 2:58 Tuesday 26th December, 2006 clickable link
An esturine sand bank disapears? So what. Esturine sand banks are constantly shifting and changing. Being formed and destroyed. Look at this image, you can see it clearly.http://www.satelliteviews.net/cgi-bin/w.cgi?c=in&UF=387417&UN=484044&AF=T_L[^]
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception