"Oh woe, no mo Moe."
Posted on 08/16/2004 5:06:16 AM PDT by ckilmer
Well, I'm 1100 feet above sea level in northern NJ. Bring your jammies if things get wet at your place...
good post!
Adder -- Did humans cause the "little Ice Age"?Well put.
aruanan -- Europe was still warming up from the Little Ice Age in the latter half of the second millennium.
dirtboy -- Most likely? Hasn't this nimrod ever heard of the Little Ice Age, and the warmer period prior to that, that would have affected sea levels?
So, if carbon emissions really were to blame, it would be vastly better for the environment to burn hydrocarbon fuels than it was to burn wood, since there were so few people around then compared to now. :') IOW, the climate is natural.William the Conqueror's Global WarmingLloyd Keigwin, a researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution... concluded that although sea surface temperature (SST) in the northern Saragasso Sea is now about 1 degree centigrade warmer than 400 years ago during the Little Ice Age, it is about 1 degree cooler than about 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. Keigwin's conclusions are based on his study of sediment accumulation in the Saragasso Sea... Eleventh century society burned no gasoline. There were no electric power plants to burn coal. No chemical plants emitted volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Airplanes, reputed to emit as much of the greenhouse gases as the eighth most polluting nation, were still 900 years away from being invented.
by Steven J. Milloy
I like the closing sentence -- "future decision-making could be made based on scientific data and not on political expediency". I wouldn't count on it, but that would be great.Caves reveal clues to UK weatherAt Pooles Cavern in Derbyshire, it was discovered that the stalagmites grow faster in the winter months when it rains more. Alan Walker, who guides visitors through the caves, says the changes in rainfall are recorded in the stalactites and stalagmites like the growth rings in trees. Stalagmites from a number of caves have now been analysed by Dr Andy Baker at Newcastle University. After splitting and polishing the rock, he can measure its growth precisely and has built up a precipitation history going back thousands of years. His study suggests this autumn's rainfall is not at all unusual when looked at over such a timescale but is well within historic variations. He believes politicians find it expedient to blame a man-made change in our weather rather than addressing the complex scientific picture.
by Tom Heap
That is only about 100 years' worth of rise at the present rate of around 1 to 2 millimetres per year, implying that nearly all of it has occurred since 1900. While there is no proof that human activity is to blame, "I can't think of a natural process that would have started in 1900," he says.
While Gregory cautions that this does not prove that global warming is responsible, both he and Lambeck agree that the results fit the rise in ocean volume expected from global warming melting glaciers in the industrial age.
LOL… Oh yea, I’d bet the farm on this.
Okay, Tom, NOW I'm ready to add it to GGG. ;')In the shadow of the MoonAt 8.45 on the morning of 15 April 136 BC, Babylon was plunged into darkness when the Moon passed in front of the Sun. An astrologer, who recorded the details in cuneiform characters on a clay tablet, wrote: "At 24 degrees after sunrise-a solar eclipse. When it began on the southwest side, Venus, Mercury and the normal stars were visible. Jupiter and Mars, which were in their period of disappearance, became visible. The Sun threw off the shadow from southwest to northeast." If present-day astronomers use a computer to run the movements of the Earth, Moon and Sun backwards from their present positions, like a movie in reverse, they find something very odd. The total eclipse of 15 April 136 BC should not have been visible from Babylon at all. The zone of totality should have passed over the Spanish island of Mallorca, 48.8 degrees west of Babylon-a difference of more than one-eighth of a complete rotation of the Earth, or 3.25 hours. The only explanation is that the planet's rotation has slowed since 136 BC, making the day longer. Of course, there are many other records of the ancients observing cosmic events, from supernovas to comets, but the value of these sightings to modern science is limited. Reports of eclipses, however, are in a class of their own. If the Earth has accumulated a change in orientation equivalent to an eighth of a turn in just over 2000 years, then we can infer that the day has lengthened by an average of a few milliseconds a century. This is an extraordinarily precise figure to deduce from historical records. In fact, it is without precedent.
New Scientist
30 January 1999
book mentioned in article
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. Coincidence?
Italy has a lot of volcanic activity, and the land rises and sinks. Years ago, National Geographic had an article about the Pelagrean Fields and the Naples region. They had pictures of Roman ruins that had recently submerged, and others that had popped up out of the sea. They were worried that there might be another major event in the region, along the lines of Vesuvius . . .
Totally ignores quite conclusive opposing data from New Zealand.
In addition, the increase in global CO2 antedated the Industrial Revolution by, I believe, a couple hundred years. The origin of the increase isn't known. I remember reading somewhere, though, that an increase in temperature was what led to the increase in CO2, not vice versa; perhaps an increase in temperature through an increase in solar activity causes methane hydrates that are near the edge of stability to release methane, the methane becomes oxidized and produces CO2.
1.22 plus or minus...what?
I'm willing to bet that the 1.22 has an uncertainty that is comparable to--and perhaps larger than--the 13 centimeter difference.
In any case, the quoted value is completely worthless without an uncertainty.
I've heard that the problem with Venice is that they've dredged the harbor, making it deeper for ships, but also allowing more water in with the tides.
"Oh woe, no mo Moe."
LOL, no p[roof, plenty of conjecture.
Hre's mine....perhaps Italy is sinking.
Crock.
Sea level changes can also be attributed to shifts in tectonic plates, volcanic activity, etc.
You HAVE to gvie the Chicken Littles credit - they NEVER give up. Once they have formed an opinion, they tailor all evidence to confirm it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.