Sea Level will Rise... Uh, No it won't... LOL

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Sea Level will Rise... Uh, No it won't... LOL

You can't make up this stuff.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2194994f-63ec-3682-becc-326948d1c6b3/ss_lar...

It will... it won't... it will... it won't...

They're not scientists... they're weather forecasters!

And if that's not enough, here's another howler:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/26c25ea7-18c6-3210-baca-65ed4d885397/ss_is-...

Guess the planet decided to make room!

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The earth is shrinking (law

The earth is shrinking (law of thermodynamics). The land structure is eroding due to wave and wind action and the seas are absorbing the solid matter and therefore spreading. Most of the rain (natures means of purifying the water to make it suitable for plant growth) falls back into the oceans. Man, instead of slowing this process, allows it to continue unabated. Unfortunately, it occurs so slowly that man has been conditioned to believe it really isn't happening and if it is it is man's fault and it can be stopped and reversed if only we throw money at the problem.

The only one's to do anything about it were the Dutch. If the government of The Netherlands were to try and do the same thing today their population, instead of doing something would simply flee to higher ground.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
So when the land structure

So when the land structure erodes, it doesn't create more space for the water to occupy?

If I dive into a lake, go below the water surface, and dig a hole in the bank, how much does the water level go up?

Your theory must be why the Colorado river is overflowing the Grand Canyon.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
If the volume of land above

If the volume of land above the water does not exceed the current volume of water in the oceans the earth will ultimately be covered in water and will ultimately freeze as the earth cools to the temperature of the atmosphere (law of thermodynamics). Erosion follows no specific pattern and is a random but continuous event caused by wind, waves and tidal action caused by the earth's rotation. Humans will not be around when this occurs for reasons I have already stated.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
"If?" Wow....a rare

"If?" Wow....a rare uncertainty. What "if" it does exceed the volume of water?

Can't you spare us the suspense and come up with the answer now?

"World coming to an end. Details in my next book, out next year."

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
None of that has anything to

None of that has anything to do with the content of the links. But it does provide a third totally contradictory theory...

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The "if" is necessary because

The "if" is necessary because it requires calculating the volume of earth above current sea level and the volume of water in the oceans. In addition the temperature would have to be taken into consideration since water expands when it cools and earth contracts. These are not beyond our capability but with all useless facts they are not worth pursuing because the human race will not be around when it occurs, "if" it occurs.

In my book "The Real Economy" I posit why the dinosaurs disappeared and since they didn't use money it is logical their demise occurred because they ran out of food. There is more detail in the book to support this conclusion and in deference to those whose attention span is lost if a post is more than one page I will not repeat it here. Humans have been able to augment nature to the point where we have maximized the production of an acre of arable land with additional water and fertilizer. For each new mouth to feed, we need cultivate just over one acre of arable land. There has not been any appreciable addition to the agricultural base as far as land is concerned, only a maximization of its production since the drought of the 1930s. The reason being land is more valuable in the mercantile (currency) economy than it is in the agricultural (barter) economy. So much so that your government has to subsidize the growing of grains and protect produce farmers with tariffs.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
So the only "logical"

So the only "logical" explanation for the end of the dinosaurs is "lack of food?"

There are no other possible explanations?

For example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22137-two-separate-extinctions-brought-end-to-dinosaur-era/

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
Wrong book, MU.

Wrong book, MU.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
The article itself questions

The article itself questions the validity of its own conclusion. How can an event in the Yucatan (meteorite) have affected the dinosaurs whose bones have been unearthed in Montana.

As I have explained, population numbers are predicated on the availability of a food supply. Zero food supply, zero population.
You first have to reach a population number that is supported by the food supply and consumes only so much of it leaving a certain amount to replenish itself the following year. For example, about 10% of the wheat crop is necessary to reproduce the amount that will germinate and grow in the following season. It is different for each plant species. If the species consumes all of the crop, there will be none for the following year. In the Jurassic period as now there were plant eating and meat eating species. One obviously feeding on the other. The dependence is purely at the whim of nature because animals do not cultivate other than humans and the amount of food available is regulated by the conditions of nature as to soil and particularly water. Soil nutrients are carried from the high ground to the low areas by streams and rivers and the amount of this is dependent on random rainfall. Seeds are also blown by the wind or carried in the bellies of birds or other animals who discharge them in places other than where they were eaten but not digested.

When nature chooses to reduce the amount of rain the next years crop will fall below the previous and when that is insufficient to feed the population and still provide enough surplus to at least replace the crop some of the animals, birds and others who feed on plant life will become susceptible to diseases or alternatively some will starve to death. In the case of meat eaters, when their prey is reduced in number they will begin eating each other, the females and young being the most susceptible and their population thereby reduced. Once this downward spiral begins it cannot be shut off because even if the rains return there is less seed to germinate.

This theory is more plausible because it does not rely on some catastrophic event whose full impact is impossible to assess.

I cite a recent (19th century event) that supports the above theory. In the 1840s Ireland's potato crop underwent a catastrophic event that wiped out nearly the entire crop of potatoes. It did not affect the wheat crop. Ireland at the time was divided between Catholics and Protestant and one depended on potatoes and the other wheat. Much of the wheat crop was used to produce alcohol that provided income to the wheat farmers and those who depended on them. Thousands died and many others migrated, mostly to the United States while the wheat dependent portion of population continued converting most of their wheat into alcohol.

This brings to mind the situation in the United States in the 1930s when a drought lasting two years spread throughout the Midwest. The reduction of the wheat and corn crop snowballed to those who were dependent on these crops; the harvesters, the processors and distributors. Unemployment reached as high as 25% in many places. Would it surprise you to learn that at the same time we were exporting nearly 50% of the wheat crop and even a higher percentage of the corn crop?

In a barter economy neither of these events would have had the catastrophic consequences they experienced. We have adopted an economy and a means of exchange that requires people to exchange their time for currency with which to buy life's essentials. If you don't work you don't eat, unless others are charitable and share their surplus with you. We have in the process constructed a government that is now able to determine who gets how much of what through the system of taxation.

The human animal requires food, clothing and shelter in order to survive, even in our temperate climate and more so as you go north. Even those who have the least surplus are willing to share food and surplus clothing with those in need. Nearly all balk at taking in the homeless. Our economic system is near its peak as I said we still have significant surplus in food but it requires currency to buy it. We have shifted the ability to work to obtain this currency to foreign countries where cheaper labor is readily available and their governments have yet to establish welfare systems of the magnitude we have in the United States. By the same token we have not reduced the population to stop adding to those requiring welfare to survive. To exacerbate the situation we encourage immigration and continue to provide charity in excess of requirements to the favored few who enable the government to continue the practice. I cite myself as an example. During my working life I managed to save enough for my wife and I to live on for more years that we could anticipate living after retiring. Yes, I paid into the Social Security system the maximum required nearly every year. The total of our contribution came to about $45,000. This amount was not set aside to return it to us at 65 but spent by the government to pay those who reached that age and were part of the system. Since retiring in 1998 my wife and I have received over $350,000 in Social Security Payments, the money coming from the involuntary contributions of those working. As jobs are disappearing or not being created faster than the population, those working will continue to have pay higher contributions to keep the system solvent. Many are denied this largess because they do not qualify and others are provided it while contributing nothing. A system like this cannot survive and it is all caused by the economic system and its exchange mechanism that we have adopted. There is a better way and I describe in the book my detractors have criticized yet have not read.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
So consuming toxins,

So consuming toxins, catastrophic climate disruptions, epidemics of dinosaur flu, and any other possible cause are illogical.

And you have examined them all, and have concluded your explanation is valid.

I'm impressed. Your scholarship and genius know no bounds.

While you're at it, can you explain why all others get it wrong?

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
All that is nice but for us

All that is nice but for us simple people I just want to know, should we store kcals in waterproof containers or not ?

Log in to post comments