Rep Mo Brooks (R-Al) opines that sea level rise due to rocks and dirt

[Crick]

Rep Brooks: "...net, not fluctuations"

Yeah, real brain trust there.

Brooks is an ass. All his attempts to limit Duffy's ability to answer clearly show that the last thing he's after is the truth.

 

[Crick]

Brooks insisted that sea level had been rising continuously since the dawn of man. Homo Sapiens appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago. Here are the data.

That look like a continuous rise to any of you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Brooks insisted that sea level had been rising continuously since the dawn of man. Homo Sapiens appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago. Here are the data.

That look like a continuous rise to any of you?

Pretty chart, but where is the link?

 

[eagle1462010]

Rep Brooks: "...net, not fluctuations"

Yeah, real brain trust there.

Brooks is an ass. All his attempts to limit Duffy's ability to answer clearly show that the last thing he's after is the truth.

And the thread that he's an idiot is an attempt to Frag a man who was asking for other factors that could effect the data.................Pardon me when I fragged your side for manipulated data on another thread.................Where your side absolutely LIED about data.........................

And in this case his meaning was taken as he thought throwing a rock in the Ocean to raise the levels..............Which was CLEARLY NOT HIS INTENT..................................................

I posted another Factor that in Chesapeake was the deciding Factor..............

Perhaps your side didn't take that into consideration as well......................As what I posted according to reports was the main factor there.

 

[Crick]

Do falling rocks cause sea level rise? Science weighs in (opinion) - CNN

How do I know? I did the math.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government agency tasked with monitoring the air and the seas, notes that the global sea level is rising at an average rate of about an eighth of an inch (3.3 mm) per year. In very rough numbers, the surface of the Earth is 200 million square miles. About 71% of the Earth is covered by water, so a global rise of sea level of an eighth of an inch is the same volume as a cube about 6 miles on a side. To give a sense of scale, the US has an area of about 4 million square miles. To get the necessary volume, you'd have to scrape off the top four inches of soil from the entire country. That's a lot of dirt.
And the world's oceans don't experience anywhere near that kind of sedimentation. The amount of sediment carried to the sea by the world's rivers is about 14 billion tons a year, which works out to be about 1.2 cubic miles (five cubic kilometers) of rock, or 0.5 percent of the amount required to raise the sea level by the observed eighth of an inch (3.3 mm) per year.
So, rocks falling into the ocean and silt from rivers isn't the cause of sea level rise.
Now this isn't intended to shame anyone who believed that sea level rise and sedimentation were somehow connected. It's a reasonable conjecture and worth evaluating. But it's not true. That's the beauty of using science. You can test ideas and see if they're right or not.

So, besides being an asshole, Mo Brooks (R-Al) is a fooking idiot.

So, were sea level rise due solely to sedimentation and erosion, this graph's right end would be at a value of 0.045 inches, vice 9. That's less increase than the length of one of those dashes that make up the zero line.

 

[Jessica123]

People like this shouldn't be anywhere near power as they're extremely dangerous and probably belong under adult supervision.

I am serious.

 

[eagle1462010]

Pearson - Science News

About 20 kilometers southwest of New Orleans, one of the U.S. Geological Survey's benchmarks sits atop a concrete column that pokes above the waves about 5 meters from the shore of Couba Island. The small brass disk, one of thousands that the agency has installed throughout the country, serves as a reference point for surveyors and mapmakers. Why did agency personnel place what should be a readily accessible guidepost in the thigh-deep waters of a Louisiana bayou? The answer's easy: They didn't. When the disk was installed in 1932, it sat high and dry in someone's backyard.

Several factors have contributed to making the benchmark's locale wet. In recent years, the sea level has risen slowly but surely. Just as gradually, the land that the benchmark sits upon has subsided—in part because of the extraction of oil and natural gas from strata beneath the bayou. But another important cause of the ground sinking is the waning of sediment deposition by the Mississippi River. Between the land slowly sinking and the water rising, Louisiana each hour is losing ground equal to two football fields.

The dearth of sediment now reaching river deltas isn't a trend unique to the Mississippi. It occurs even though human activities such as agriculture and deforestation are eroding land faster than ever before, boosting the amount of silt and other material carried by rivers through their inland reaches. The problem is that much of that suspended sediment never reaches the sea because it gets trapped by thousands of dams—a situation that will only get worse if the construction of dozens of large dams in developing nations around the world goes ahead as planned.

At today's rates, erosion triggered by human activity around the globe would scour away enough material to fill the Grand Canyon in just 50 years, says Wilkinson.

Scientists have monitored the flow of silt and other material to the sea in less than 10 percent of the world's rivers. Most of those measurements have now ceased—many of them victims of budget cuts a decade or more ago, says Syvitski. To estimate human impact on sediment flow, he and his colleagues developed several analytical tools.

 

[Crick]

Shall we do the math?

Grand Canyon National Park Facts | Grand Canyon Helicopter Tours | Grand Canyon Day Tours | 702-851-3290 say it is 5.45 trillion cubic yards. In one year, Wilkinson's conclusion is that human triggered erosion would produce 2% of that volume, or 109 billion cubic yards. The volume of current annual sea level rise is approximately a cube 6 miles on a side, or 216 cubic miles. There are 1760 yards in each mile so we get a volume of 216x1760x1760x1760, or 1,177,583,616,000 cubic yards. One 50th of the Grand Canyon would provide 0.00009256 of the required volume.

I am really impressed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Shall we do the math?

Grand Canyon National Park Facts | Grand Canyon Helicopter Tours | Grand Canyon Day Tours | 702-851-3290 say it is 5.45 trillion cubic yards. In one year, Wilkinson's conclusion is that human triggered erosion would produce 2% of that volume, or 109 billion cubic yards. The volume of current annual sea level rise is approximately a cube 6 miles on a side, or 216 cubic miles. There are 1760 yards in each mile so we get a volume of 216x1760x1760x1760, or 1,177,583,616,000 cubic yards. One 50th of the Grand Canyon would provide 0.00009256 of the required volume.

I am really impressed.

Why is the Geological survey benchmark marker under water now below New Orleans................

Is it a contributing factor or not...................Hardly throwing a stone into the water and causing sea level rise..............

In all.......the data says the sediment NOT MAKING IT THERE do to the dams is a problem. And the Land mass going down to fill the holes from drilling.

It was placed there in 1932 on dry land........now under water...........was it due to sea level rise, land mass going down, and or loss of sediment from damming up the rivers............or erosion from the sea.....................or all of the above............

Hardy throwing a rock into the water.............Bottom line you tried to fabricate he's an idiot when he asked for other factors.......while the sediment is a small percentage of overall levels............it is still a factor...............whether you like it or not.

 

[Lysistrata]

This guy has white hair. How can anyone that old be ignorant enough to pose these questions to the director of Woods Hole. How long can Brooks continue to be an ignorant little bitch? How did this happen in our modern society that this little boy has the power to question the leader of our major scientific institutions? Looks like this moron is from Alabama. It figures.

 

[Jessica123]

This guy has white hair. How can anyone that old be ignorant enough to pose these questions to the director of Woods Hole. How long can Brooks continue to be an ignorant little bitch? How did this happen in our modern society that this little boy has the power to question the leader of our major scientific institutions? Looks like this moron is from Alabama. It figures.

If we don't put a stop to idiots like this then this nation is finished as any kind of respectable power. Idiocy like this should be treated as dangerous.

 

[Lysistrata]

This guy has white hair. How can anyone that old be ignorant enough to pose these questions to the director of Woods Hole. How long can Brooks continue to be an ignorant little bitch? How did this happen in our modern society that this little boy has the power to question the leader of our major scientific institutions? Looks like this moron is from Alabama. It figures.

If we don't put a stop to idiots like this then this nation is finished as any kind of respectable power. Idiocy like this should be treated as dangerous.

It seems that we are taking a huge U-turn back into the Dark Ages. In spite of our strides in medicine, science, understanding of our humanity, we seem to find ourselves in the hands of primitive tribalists from previous centuries. These people are primitive and just down from the trees. They want us all to join them in their caves and tents. This seems to be what places like Alabama are all about.

 

[skookerasbil]

My God..... if there should ever be an award for most trivial thread in this forum this one certainly would get a nomination for sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

Brooks insisted that sea level had been rising continuously since the dawn of man. Homo Sapiens appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago. Here are the data.

That look like a continuous rise to any of you?

Past environmental changes and human development |

A similiar chart and link.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rep Brooks: "...net, not fluctuations"

Yeah, real brain trust there.

Brooks is an ass. All his attempts to limit Duffy's ability to answer clearly show that the last thing he's after is the truth.

And the thread that he's an idiot is an attempt to Frag a man who was asking for other factors that could effect the data.................Pardon me when I fragged your side for manipulated data on another thread.................Where your side absolutely LIED about data.........................

And in this case his meaning was taken as he thought throwing a rock in the Ocean to raise the levels..............Which was CLEARLY NOT HIS INTENT..................................................

I posted another Factor that in Chesapeake was the deciding Factor..............

Perhaps your side didn't take that into consideration as well......................As what I posted according to reports was the main factor there.

And posted a main factor in Sweden and Norway. Exactly the opposite. However, with satellites, we are able to determine that the sea level is rising. And the primary reason is sea water warming and ice melt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. What does the lab work show as a necessary reduction in CO2 in order to end climate change once and for all?

A. We have consensus, we don't need any stinking lab work

 

[OldLady]

Sea level rise – or land subsidence?

Confusion arises because discussions often involve “relative sea level rise” – which combines glacial isostatic and groundwater subsidence, along with actual sea level rise – just as we just did with our 2 feet per century total. However, the term obscures what is really going on and lends itself to climate alarmism, by leaving the false impression that the entire problem is melting icecaps and rising seas.

It clearly is not. Focusing attention on alleged “manmade climate cataclysms,” supposedly driven by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, will result in our spending hundreds of billions of dollars to replace oil, gas and coal with expensive, subsidized, land-intensive renewable energy systems – while foregoing hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs and economic growth. Meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia and other developing nations will continue doing what they must to lift billions out of abject poverty and disease: burn more fossil fuels, thereby emitting more CO2.


Those nations are not about to succumb to the Obama EPA “social cost of carbon” con game. This is the fraudulent scheme under which bureaucrats blame U.S. oil, gas, and coal for every climate and weather event, habitat and species loss, and other problem that they can possibly conjure up anywhere in the world – while completely ignoring the phenomenal and undeniable benefits of using those fuels, and the equally important benefits of having more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

To you, it's all about money. We only have one planet; think of the responsibility we have to keep it livable. Maybe worth a little more than money.

The U.N. estimates we need to spend 76 trillion to achieve that!! How much do you think we need to spend?

As much as it takes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Worldwide, we are going to spend that much to build new energy infrastructure, and replace existing infrastructure. So that is not a problem at all. Spending that money on infrastructure that does not harm our descendants seems to me to be a wise investment.

 

[Crick]

Brooks insisted that sea level had been rising continuously since the dawn of man. Homo Sapiens appeared on Earth 200,000 years ago. Here are the data.

That look like a continuous rise to any of you?

Pretty chart, but where is the link?

My apologies.

1. Martinson D. et al., 1987: Age dating and the orbital theory of the ice ages: Development of a high-resolution 0 to 300,000-year chronostratigraphy, Quaternary Research, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 1987, Pages 1–29

 

[Crick]

No comments Tommy boy? Has sea level been rising continuously for the last 200,000 years? Did Rep Mo Brooks (R-Al) FUCKING LIE or is he just THAT FUCKING STUPID???