One giant hoax

Don M. said:
This morning, there was a Tsunami warning for Alaska and much of the upper West coast....due to a major earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska. The warning was cancelled a few hours later, as the ocean waves did no reach the coast. However, there were a lot of people evacuating low lying areas...just in case. This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.
Click to expand...

There is an attempt here to link underwater earthquakes to global warming.?
 
Camper6 said:
There is an attempt here to link underwater earthquakes to global warming.?
Click to expand...

No...my post was trying to point out the "relationship" between natural disasters, such as an underwater earthquake...and the increased consequences such events may have if/when the oceans rise substantially. I guess I failed to explain this better so some could "grasp" the increasing dangers caused by these natural interactions. In this particular case, the Tsunami Did Not reach land...but the next one may. Parts of the Alaskan shoreline are receding at an accelerated pace due to encroachment of the ocean, and many shoreline settlements are moving inland. Here is a report of just one such instance.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...g-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate
 
Congratulations, Don. You have proven that big storms can erode the beach. And that houses built as close to the shore as possible occasionally have the sand washed away from underneath them. Nothing new there. That has been happening through all of man's recorded history.

I still see no evidence, what-so-ever, that man is causing any climate change. But please, let me know if you think it is time to build an ark
 
Don M. said:
No...my post was trying to point out the "relationship" between natural disasters, such as an underwater earthquake...and the increased consequences such events may have if/when the oceans rise substantially. I guess I failed to explain this better so some could "grasp" the increasing dangers caused by these natural interactions. In this particular case, the Tsunami Did Not reach land...but the next one may. Parts of the Alaskan shoreline are receding at an accelerated pace due to encroachment of the ocean, and many shoreline settlements are moving inland. Here is a report of just one such instance.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...g-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate
Click to expand...

But Don. This is your post.

This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.

Well no. If the oceans slowly rise, it has nothing to do with underwater earthquakes which are the result of tectonic plate movement.

There may be more earthquakes coming. There may be less earthquakes coming. Totally unrelated to rising oceans or warming oceans or climate change. There is no scientific proof that AGW has anything to do with more hurricanes or tornadoes or severe weather.



The mantle of the earth is unstable.
 
Don M. said:
No...my post was trying to point out the "relationship" between natural disasters, such as an underwater earthquake...and the increased consequences such events may have if/when the oceans rise substantially. I guess I failed to explain this better so some could "grasp" the increasing dangers caused by these natural interactions. In this particular case, the Tsunami Did Not reach land...but the next one may. Parts of the Alaskan shoreline are receding at an accelerated pace due to encroachment of the ocean, and many shoreline settlements are moving inland. Here is a report of just one such instance.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...g-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate
Click to expand...

But Don. This is your post.

This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.
Click to expand...
Well no. If the oceans slowly rise, it has nothing to do with underwater earthquakes which are the result of tectonic plate movement.

There may be more earthquakes coming. There may be less earthquakes coming. Totally unrelated to rising oceans or warming oceans or climate change. There is no scientific proof that AGW has anything to do with more hurricanes or tornadoes or severe weather.



The mantle of the earth is unstable.



2014 set a record for low tornado activity.

The polar vortex, for all the suffering it caused this winter, has brought about a major societal benefit: record-setting low tornado activity.

The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) reports the number of tornadoes classified at intensity EF-1 or higher (on the 0-5 EF scale) this calendar year ranks lowest in 62 years of records and perhaps 100.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-tornado-season-on-record-and-fatality-free/
 
I've reached a point where I've decided that discussing Climate change with hard core climate change deniers is an exercise in futility. Most have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or even stepping backward in terms of any legislation to protect the environment.
I'm personally a fence sitter on this issue. I don't know if those trying to protect the environment are correct - or to what degree they are correct, but I'm a somewhat cautious person and my attitude is "What if they are correct?" Why not take some precautions now. If they are correct and the destruction of our earth reaches an irreversible point, it's a bit late to be saying, "Oops! Sorry! Guess I was wrong." If they're wrong, no real harm has been done except maybe to a few disgustingly fat wallets.
 
Having made it clear that I am not a believer in global warming or whatever PC term, I'd like to also say that I am a proponent of many efforts to clean the air and our environment. Though I am doubtful about climate change in relation to mankind, I do appreciate having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.
 
Dragonlady said:
I've reached a point where I've decided that discussing Climate change with hard core climate change deniers is an exercise in futility. Most have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or even stepping backward in terms of any legislation to protect the environment.
I'm personally a fence sitter on this issue. I don't know if those trying to protect the environment are correct - or to what degree they are correct, but I'm a somewhat cautious person and my attitude is "What if they are correct?" Why not take some precautions now. If they are correct and the destruction of our earth reaches an irreversible point, it's a bit late to be saying, "Oops! Sorry! Guess I was wrong." If they're wrong, no real harm has been done except maybe to a few disgustingly fat wallets.
Click to expand...

Remember now. The core issue.AGW meaning humans are responsible.

What if they are correct? Well what if they are not? Then why are we spending time and money on a problem that either does not exist or is unsolvable.

Let me ask you a question? Are tornadoes caused by humans.
 
Camper6 said:
Remember now. The core issue.AGW meaning humans are responsible.

What if they are correct? Well what if they are not? Then why are we spending time and money on a problem that either does not exist or is unsolvable.

Let me ask you a question? Are tornadoes caused by humans.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't concern myself too much about people who try to avoid coming up with proof of man caused global warming. They have no proof.

The entire hoax is merely an attempt to hamstring democracies and give economic advantage to their pals in socialist nations.

Any discussion of tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, or profit is only a "red herring" and is meant to keep us from uncovering their true agenda.
 
Traveler said:
I wouldn't concern myself too much about people who try to avoid coming up with proof of man caused global warming. They have no proof.

The entire hoax is merely an attempt to hamstring democracies and give economic advantage to their pals in socialist nations.

Any discussion of tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, or profit is only a "red herring" and is meant to keep us from uncovering their true agenda.
Click to expand...

Case in point

Camper says:
Remember now. The core issue.AGW meaning humans are responsible.

What if they are correct? Well what if they are not? Then why are we spending time and money on a problem that either does not exist or is unsolvable.

Let me ask you a question? Are tornadoes caused by humans.
Click to expand...

This also
 
Quite the reverse, Big Horn. The mantle plays a part in sustaining life on the surface.

The mantle of the earth is the rather plastic layer between the crust and the core. It is hotter than the surface layers and is heated from below by the core. This sets up very slow convection currents that draw heat upwards and result in the upwelling of magma that drives continental drift. Where the tectonic plates collide, the edge of one plate is forced upwards while the other is forced down and melts into the mantle again. The result is volcanoes, new mountains and earthquakes. If these events had not happened over the time the earth's high places would long ago would have been flattened and the oceans would cover the whole earth to great depth. The renewal process of mountain building allows life as we know it to be sustained.
 
Warrigal's post is exactly correct. I would add one other type of continental drift, called the "slip-strike". This type does not build mountains, but rather it happens when two adjoining plates move passed each other (rather like when two cars side-swipe each other).

This is most commonly seen in the many California fault lines. The most famous of those being the San Andreas Fault, which was responsible for the devastating 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. Geologists say that given enough time, Los Angeles will become a western suburb of San Francisco.

As 2 tectonic plates move passed each other, greater and greater stress builds up until, finally, the plates "break" and tremendous energy is released causing an earthquake. Occasionally, one plate can move as much as 20 feet in a single massive quake. When this happens we can see a highway, or street, cut in two and one section moves many feet from were it was originally built.

Slip-strike earthquakes, however, have nothing to do with any possible climate change.

The type Warrigal spoke of can, indeed, cause a change in LOCAL weather. All of India was once adrift in the Indian Ocean. It eventually pushed North and collided with Southern Asia (rather like a head-on auto collision). That collision is responsible for the building of the Himalayan Mountain Range. In that type of movement, one tectonic plate slides UNDER another tectonic plate causing "up-thrusting". Up-thrusting causes a great change in the LOCAL climate, but in no way effects the entire earth.
 
Thanks Traveller for the additional information.

Australia is relatively free of seismic events because we sit in the centre of the Australasian plate. New Zealand is on the edge, as is New Guinea and most of SE Asia. However, the last two days have seen a number of little quakes in northern NSW, some of which have been felt or heard by residents. Remembering the last earthquake that caused a lot (by our standards) of damage in Newcastle, some of my Aussie forum friends are holding their breath.
 
Big Horn said:
Does that mean the end of life on Earth? :D
Click to expand...

In time the sun will lose its energy. It will expand and consume the Earth. Yes the end of the Earth will take place. For now we have a molten core and tectonic plates and faults will rub and slide against each other and earthquakes will take place.

We are not even at the point of being able to predict them with certainty.
 
Warrigal said:
Thanks Traveller for the additional information.

Australia is relatively free of seismic events because we sit in the centre of the Australasian plate. New Zealand is on the edge, as is New Guinea and most of SE Asia. However, the last two days have seen a number of little quakes in northern NSW, some of which have been felt or heard by residents. Remembering the last earthquake that caused a lot (by our standards) of damage in Newcastle, some of my Aussie forum friends are holding their breath.
Click to expand...

Jeopardy. No glaciers in Australia? There you go. You survived without them.
 
There was an ancient glaciation the covered most of Australian continent. It was during the carboniferous when the northern hemisphere was tropical and laying down vegetation that formed the coal deposits that fueled the Industrial Revolution. Our coal deposits were formed later during the Permian period.

Although parts of Australia do experience some snow, the continent is too flat to produce glacial deposits.

On the other hand, New Zealand being much younger geologically and with higher mountains and a more southerly aspect does produce glaciers but like many they are all retreating.
 
Warrigal said:
There was an ancient glaciation the covered most of Australian continent. It was during the carboniferous when the northern hemisphere was tropical and laying down vegetation that formed the coal deposits that fueled the Industrial Revolution. Our coal deposits were formed later during the Permian period.

Although parts of Australia do experience some snow, the continent is too flat to produce glacial deposits.

On the other hand, New Zealand being much younger geologically and with higher mountains and a more southerly aspect does produce glaciers but like many they are all retreating.
Click to expand...


And when they do retreat gradually, there will be no difference in New Zealand. They will survive without them.

In fact if glaciers disappear there will be more land for cultivation.

Why do we worry so much? Nature will take care of everything. Always has. Always will.
 
Of course nature will take care of everything. Not necessarily good for humans, though. But so what? Why should we survive? That's that real question, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top