Should storm-damaged states get federal aid?

towermonkey wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

major bean wrote: Which doctored emails have you received from the "experts" which convinced you? 100 feet? Until your post, it has always been a couple of dozen inches.
I did not know that people who study dirt and rocks are weather experts. Interesting.

There are a lot of things you have no clue about. Just a little information for you. Climatic change is not weather. Relative changes in sea level as well as changes in climate leave a signal in sedimentary rocks. The pleistocene low stand left wave cut terraces on the reefs there that are now 125 feet below sea level. Mangrove peat that forms at sea level is already 20 or more feet below sea leave in many places like Florida and Belize. Perhaps you ought to do a little research to calculate the total rise in sea level once all the ice melts.

When did this 20 foot change that you claim actually take place? It would seem that mangrove peat would disappear somewhat rapidly in an underwater environment. I haven't heard of the Crystal River nuclear power plant having any trouble due to rising water levels. I haven't heard of anyone with beach front property losing their homes due to this. 20' is a huge amount of change and would wipe out most of the Florida coast.

Uploaded with [url=http://imageshack.us:j5n7luun]ImageShack.us[/url]

You are looking at a present day map, so sea level has already arived at where it is. Take another look in 200 years and you will note a smaller Florida landmass.

kresspin wrote: There's another facet of climate change, isn't there, Doc, regarding melting polar ice?

Now we're seeing the polar ice melting so much that it is possible to navigate a true "Northwest Passage" by ship, from the Atlantic to the Pacific... and with much less polar ice reflecting the sun's rays, the Earth is absorbing more solar radiation (heat) than it did previously. The melting ice is also releasing methane (a warming gas) trapped in the Arctic tundra. Greenland glaciers are moving into the sea almost twice as fast as 10 years ago.

http://zfacts.com/p/222.html

Reciprocal processes are everywhere to be observed and when viewed in light of various kinds of data, the trends are inescapable. Either you accept what is happening or you deny it. All you point out i s consistent with the long term trends of sea level rise. The only place you can get water to fill the ocean basins higher is by melting ice, water currently or formerly trapped on land. The larger the ice sheet, the lower sea level and conversely the less ice the higher sea level will stand. Changes in glacial coverage impacts reflected vs absorbed radiation that in turn translates into heat thereby setting off a domino effect of other processes responding to the changes.

As and aside, much confusion remains with climatologists regarding global warming when one tries to understand present day glacier behavior. Some are ablating (shrinking in size), others are advancing (growing in size). It's contradictory observations like these that fuels global warming debates among climatologists. They are trying to detect minor changes on a human time scale and that is not always easy to do.

The Dutch have a vested interest in understanding sea level changes.

In September 2008, the Delta Commission presided by Dutch politician Cees Veerman advised in a report that The Netherlands would need a massive new building program to strengthen the country's water defenses against the anticipated effects of global warming for the next 190 years. This commission was created in September 2007, after the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina prompted reflection and preparations. Those included drawing up worst-case plans for evacuations. The plan included more than €100 billion, or $144 billion, in new spending through the year 2100 to take measures, such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes.
The commission said the country must plan for a rise in the North Sea up to 4.25 feet (1.3 meters) by 2100, rather than the previously projected 30 inches (0.80 meters), and plan for a 6.5–13 foot rise by 2200.[38]

The dutch have kept sea level records since 1700 and since 1850, they have experience a rise of approx 1.5 mm/year. If you don't believe in global warming, then explain to me why the Dutch have recorded rising sea level. Where is the huge volume of water coming from if not from melting ice?

Re: the dutch and rising sea water...

The naysayers might claim the Netherlands is sinking, rather than the ocean rising.

Dutch debunked....again...again..over and over..

n Denmark: Researchers Debunk Global Warming and Sea Level Rise

December 3, 2009 (LPAC) — Welcome to Denmark, where two of the nation's three major newspapers, and one of the two national TV networks have run significant coverage questioning the climate change hysteria during the past few days.

The national TV network, DR, interviewed two solar researchers, Henrik Svensmark, internationally known for his research showing how the mediation of cosmic rays by solar activity is controlling the climate, and Christoffer Karoff, a Danish solar researcher specializing in asteroseismology.

When the host asked Svensmark about the claims of global warming, he replied: "They have put science aside." He said that there has been global cooling during the past 10 years, and he linked that to the low solar activity. He also said that the future temperature of the world will prove who is right.

Karoff stressed that the return of sunspot activity to a maximum on the 11-year cycle has been overdue for two years. Low sunspot activity correlates with cooling periods. Many solar researchers now believe there will be a deep solar minimum, equivalent to the medieval low-temperature period when the Oresund strait separating Sweden and Denmark froze over, allowing Swedish troops to cross on the ice and attack Copenhagen.

Today's Jyllands-Posten had an article debunking claims about sea level rise from melting ice caps. One of the world's most knowledgeable ice researchers, Peder Steffensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute, states: "The oceans can not simply rise two meters by the year 2100." The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) research leader Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen is quoted, "The report from the UNEP is unserious, because it is total speculation. A two-meter rise of the world's oceans is unrealistic over 100 years, according to my knowledge." He says that even if the world temperature really rose by 6-10 degrees, it would take 600-1,000 years to melt all of the Greenland icecap.

By the way, who would miss Florida if it sunk?

kresspin wrote: Re: the dutch and rising sea water...

The naysayers might claim the Netherlands is sinking, rather than the ocean rising.

I'd have to look into the dutch geology to make a definitive statement. There are only three ways sinking takes place. The first is due to tectonic motion as along faults, the second through sediment compaction and the third is though lower heat flow. Heat flow influence is generally something limited to volcanic regions, so that is a highly unlikely explanation. Tectonics a;so has a low probability since it is associated with fault blocks and not regions the size of the Netherlands. Sediment compaction (as in N.O.) could be a viable explanation if the Netherlands represents a deltaic setting. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Netherland .

The Netherlands is mostly composed of deltaic, coastal and eolian derived sediments during the Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Fairly all of the west Netherlands is composed of the Rhine-Meuse river estuary,

Much of the reason why NO has subsided so much is because of all the peat accumulations. Subsidence studies are difficult in the Netherlands as there are no firm benchmarks. The only way to get around this problem is to admit that the Netherlands data is perhaps best viewed as a relative sea level change until comparative data can be calculated from stable regions. I'm not about to do that research, so I'll be content with a relative sea level rise data set.

Contrary to what most believe it has not been warmer on the planet the past 10 years. Danish professor believes that the effect of CO2 is overstated in the international climate models.

While we almost daily hear stories about it to be warmer in Greenland, the ice in Antarctica melts, or that the sea around the North Pole is now almost free of ice shows temperature measurements that in 10 years has not been warmer on the planet.

In the southern hemisphere, it has become noticeably colder, while the return has been slightly warmer in the northern hemisphere.

You will need to use Google Translator...

http://jp.dk/indland/article1239088.ece

residenttroll wrote: Dutch debunked....again...again..over and over..

n Denmark: Researchers Debunk Global Warming and Sea Level Rise

December 3, 2009 (LPAC) — Welcome to Denmark, where two of the nation's three major newspapers, and one of the two national TV networks have run significant coverage questioning the climate change hysteria during the past few days.

The national TV network, DR, interviewed two solar researchers, Henrik Svensmark, internationally known for his research showing how the mediation of cosmic rays by solar activity is controlling the climate, and Christoffer Karoff, a Danish solar researcher specializing in asteroseismology.

When the host asked Svensmark about the claims of global warming, he replied: "They have put science aside." He said that there has been global cooling during the past 10 years, and he linked that to the low solar activity. He also said that the future temperature of the world will prove who is right.

Karoff stressed that the return of sunspot activity to a maximum on the 11-year cycle has been overdue for two years. Low sunspot activity correlates with cooling periods. Many solar researchers now believe there will be a deep solar minimum, equivalent to the medieval low-temperature period when the Oresund strait separating Sweden and Denmark froze over, allowing Swedish troops to cross on the ice and attack Copenhagen.

Today's Jyllands-Posten had an article debunking claims about sea level rise from melting ice caps. One of the world's most knowledgeable ice researchers, Peder Steffensen, from the Niels Bohr Institute, states: "The oceans can not simply rise two meters by the year 2100." The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) research leader Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen is quoted, "The report from the UNEP is unserious, because it is total speculation. A two-meter rise of the world's oceans is unrealistic over 100 years, according to my knowledge." He says that even if the world temperature really rose by 6-10 degrees, it would take 600-1,000 years to melt all of the Greenland icecap.

By the way, who would miss Florida if it sunk?

Thanks for that reference, though only a news report and not a scholarly paper. Both scientists focus on the here and now and do not take into account the massive geological data that is available to provide long term trends. I do find it interesting their mention of solar activity as having a direct correlation on earth temperature. This is something that many climatologist have debunked because all their trends which they would like to blame on man-made Co2 emissions actually correlate directly with sunspot activity.

I would have to agree with Steffensen with regard to the magnitude of SL rise over a 100 year time period. Historical records (see the chart I posted) do not support such a meteoric rise even at the best of times. I'm unfamiliar with the report they reference, but as I said, simply considering historical trends, such a fast rise is unattainable.

RockDoc, how many months, years, decades, centuries has Denmark been concerned of the rising waters?

residenttroll wrote:

Contrary to what most believe it has not been warmer on the planet the past 10 years. Danish professor believes that the effect of CO2 is overstated in the international climate models.

While we almost daily hear stories about it to be warmer in Greenland, the ice in Antarctica melts, or that the sea around the North Pole is now almost free of ice shows temperature measurements that in 10 years has not been warmer on the planet.

In the southern hemisphere, it has become noticeably colder, while the return has been slightly warmer in the northern hemisphere.

You will need to use Google Translator...

http://jp.dk/indland/article1239088.ece

Google translators leave much to be desired as experience tells me with their efforts on German.
Frankly, I don't put much stock in the effect of CO2 with regard to climate change.

The fact that Ice melts is at odds with conclusions regarding temperature measurements. Ice melts when it gets warmer not colder. If ice sheets have shrunk as observed by satellite images, it seem reasonable that something with regard to the stability of ice has changed. If it is not temperature, I would like to hear a viable alternative explanation. Also, this is a process that has been ongoing since the last ice age 120,000 years ago. So we have data that are not consistent with one another, always a clear indication that an interpretation has missed something in its formulation.

residenttroll wrote: RockDoc, how many months, years, decades, centuries has Denmark been concerned of the rising waters?

I'm ignorant on this topic.