Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[HarveyH42]

Here are some photographs of several underwater cities. 7 Submerged (Underwater) Wonders of the World | Design + Ideas on WU

I search 'sunken cities', and was surprised there are so many, almost anywhere in the world, ocean, inland. Must be hundreds of them. The few sites I looked, weren't shacks on the beach either, some impressive stone work that must have take quite a few years to build. Didn't read into the how or why they sank, was in awe of how many places there are, and seem pretty well intact. What's that European city, with all the canals and boats? Venice? Guess this isn't CO2 related, so must be discarded or omitted from consideration.

Aside from the arguments, going back to look at some more of those sunken cities, they look pretty cool, but want to get a better idea of how many, locations, most recent, and of course the theories as to how they got there.

 

[kchriste]

Here you go. Its taken right from the USGS website.
Do the math on the math on the estimated time frames VS the estimated level changes and then compare that number to the estimated average annual changes we have been recording of the last 100 plus years

You still haven't named a city which was flooded by 25ft of water due to natural global warming in the last 2000-4000 years.

Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists. Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level.

Your are contradicting yourself with your own posts. Thank you.

Just ask around the scuba diving forums for suggested ruins anywhere in the world or do a general Google search. You will find countless references to places dating back from 500 to more that 5000 years.

This is YOUR hypothesis. It is up to YOU to substantiate it.

 

[kchriste]

Here are some photographs of several underwater cities. 7 Submerged (Underwater) Wonders of the World | Design + Ideas on WU

Neat pictures! But as you'll note from the website:

Some of these were sent into the water via earthquakes, tsunamis or other disasters thousands of years ago.

They don't mention global warming as the cause.

What's that European city, with all the canals and boats? Venice? Guess this isn't CO2 related, so must be discarded or omitted from consideration.

First off, Venice was built on flooding land and rivers were diverted as an strategic attempt to ward off attacks from land. Venice is slowly sinking because it was built on a swampy river delta. Alteration of the river flow stopped the deposit of sediment which countered the natural erosion of the land. Also, the drilling of too many artesian wells into the periphery of the lagoon has contributed to the sinking also.

 

[killivolt]

Increasing CO2

The Balance of the Ocean. In terms of PH and the impact of Acidification.

Interesting thought? If the Ocean is the regulator for the earth and it's natural eb and flow to the heat cycle of the earth over time.

I see how eruptions, plate tectonics, and so forth generate CO2 and consequently heat. No doubt. But to say there is no reason for alert above that and that mankind has little effect as to naturally occurring instances is not at all the way to view it.

The Oceans concentration of CO2 absorbing ability lie's largely on the balance of PH also.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know the result of acidification in a Refrigeration unit and it's consequences. I would only amplify that to see the result of what is happening to the Ocean.

Is an increase in CO2 responsible for increase in heat and therefore a trickle down effect of occurrences seen in the scientific data and evidence of a decline in wild life and coral.

kv

 

[HarveyH42]

Wonder how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributed to beer...
Would worry about acid oceans, the acid rain thing didn't pan out either, besides, all that melting snow and ice should dilute it...

 

[tcmtech]

This is YOUR hypothesis. It is up to YOU to substantiate it.

What exactly are you referring to?
Is it my hypothesis that the people who scuba dive would have far more accurate references to where to dive at than me?
Well, yes I think so!
I have yet to hypothesize anything. I just give reference to what I have read and belive to understand. If your thinking they are wrong as to where to dive at you go and prove it. Until then I have no reason to question them.

If your referring to sea level changes from ice age related effects here is what I have understood.

Around 20000 years ago the sea levels where around 125 meters lower. (USGS data which can be cross referanced to numerous other reliable data sources.)
Present global warming and climate change believers say that the ocean levels are rising at a rate of 2 - 4 millimeters per year. (Most global warming sites and agencies have similar numbers in this range.)

As far as my math says, 125000 / 20000 = 6.25 Milli meters per year average rise. If you use the half way point where the last ice age ended at around 10000 years ago it would be closer to an average of 12.5 millimeters a year. Or about 3 -4 times faster than what we are currently seeing!

My understandings of grade school math says 2 - 4 millimeters is less than 6.25 millimeters. So wouldn't that suggest that the ocean level changes are slowing down or are behind that average natural rate and not ahead of it?

So where is the smoking gun evidence behind human induced global warming causing rapid sea level rises?

And by the way 6.25 x 5000 = 31.2 meters or roughly 102 feet.
That may be why many or those 5000 year old ruins found in geologically stable locations are always sitting in water of 100 feet deep or less.

 

[BrownOut]

If you look at more recent history, from 6000 years ago to present, the rate is about 300 Micro Meters per year, for a total of about 2 meters, and in the last 2000 years, the rate is much less. Levels began to rise rapidly in the last 100 years and are now up about 20cm over the period.

5000 year old ruins built at sea level would only be under less than 4 feet of water now.

 

[tcmtech]

So what kept them from accumulating the typical levels of erosion and degradation that are associated with near surface tidal pool conditions for 5000 years plus the expected influences of 2000 years of humans scavenging for materials?

At around 4 feet down and during low tides people tend to scavenge anything they can get their hands and ropes on that can be used for building materials.
Much of what I see in pictures doesn't look too weather worn for spending most of 5000 years only partially submerged and often times in locations nearer to larger cities that would take any old structures they could find and use them for parts.

Also can you explain the ecological and environmental events that relates to the geological proof that the ocean levels have been at times around 65 feet higher in the past?
What caused those levels to occur between the previous ice ages around 30K - 35K years ago? That would suggest far more glacial melting had occurred to reach that level than whats happening here.

 

[kchriste]

What exactly are you referring to?
Is it my hypothesis that the people who scuba dive would have far more accurate references to where to dive at than me?

So how many sunken ancient city ruins or constructions are there to dive at in the world now that are under 2000 years old that are located in 50 feet or less of water along ocean coastal lines firmly attached to continental plates that would not have allowed for geological subsidence to account for their submersion?
I think every populated continent has a few.
Just asking from an amateur scuba divers perspective of fun places to visit.

Name a city that is less than 2000 years old and is underwater due to natural global warming. It shouldn't be hard for you since according to you, "every populated continent has a few."

 

[BrownOut]

So what kept them from accumulating the typical levels of erosion and degradation that are associated with near surface tidal pool conditions for 5000 years plus the expected influences of 2000 years of humans scavenging for materials?

At around 4 feet down and during low tides people tend to scavenge anything they can get their hands and ropes on that can be used for building materials.
Much of what I see in pictures doesn't look too weather worn for spending most of 5000 years only partially submerged and often times in locations nearer to larger cities that would take any old structures they could find and use them for parts.

I don't know what pictures you're looking at, but I'm using the same data as you are for tracking ocean levels. If you believe the levels from 18K years ago, it shouldn't be so hard to believe the same data showing the levels for 5K years ago.

Also can you explain the ecological and environmental events that relates to the geological proof that the ocean levels have been at times around 65 feet higher in the past?
What caused those levels to occur between the previous ice ages around 30K - 35K years ago? That would suggest far more glacial melting had occurred to reach that level than whats happening here.

Why not 20 Million years ago? The Earth has gone through many catastrophic events in it's history. So man made GW warming is just the latest.

 

[kchriste]

So what kept them from accumulating the typical levels of erosion and degradation that are associated with near surface tidal pool conditions for 5000 years plus the expected influences of 2000 years of humans scavenging for materials?

One more nail in the coffin for the "cities were flooded by natural global warming" theory of yours. By your own conclusions above, it would have taken many 100s of years for the city to disappear under water due to slowly rising sea levels at a rate of "an average of 12.5 millimeters a year". A more reasonable explanation is a quick sinking of the city by an earth quake or similar event.

 

[tcmtech]

Did you mis this part in the earlier post?

What exactly are you referring to?
Is it my hypothesis that the people who scuba dive would have far more accurate references to where to dive at than me?
Well, yes I think so!
I have yet to hypothesize anything. I just give reference to what I have read and belive to understand. If your thinking they are wrong as to where to dive at you go and prove it. Until then I have no reason to question them.

Check my location, North Dakota and I am at best a part time second year diver. I have yet to get to the ocean and dive. So I have no personal ocean diving references to use and never claimed too!
If you cant use a general Google search for something this basic I won't help you.

But for those who do want to find some interesting reference material do some general searches for underwater archeology and geology. Either will bring up many sources that do give time lines to many under water ruins and the related ecological and geological events that occurred both locally and globally regarding the demise of the inhabitants who built and lived in these places.

Here is an interesting article on the sea level changes as have been recorded over the last near century. There are many others similar but this one was the easiest to relocate. World Climate Report Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown

 

[kchriste]

Wonder how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributed to beer.

Probably less than that from beer swilling urban rednecks and their pickup trucks. Note the use of the word urban. Nothing wrong with a farmer who needs a F350 with dualies to haul some hay around. What I object to is the city folk who drive these behemoths just for a fashion statement and have a truck box that has never seen even a shovel load of dirt, load of lumber, etc.

the acid rain thing didn't pan out either, besides, all that melting snow and ice should dilute it...

It has been mitigated a little by the use of low sulfur diesel and low sulfur coal. Probably not enough to compensate for the increased use of these fuels due to economic expansion.

 

[BrownOut]

We saw some data earlier on this thread that shows one of the acid rain agents, nitrogen oxide compounds, has been significantly reduced. Probably one reason we don't hear much about it nowadays.

 

[Sceadwian]

It could also be a flaw in the original science that said it was a problem in the first place, seeing as how there is VERY little science involved in climate discussions, just rabid opinion.

 

[kchriste]

If you cant use a general Google search for something this basic I won't help you.

Why should I try and find data to support your flawed argument? There is none.

Here is an interesting article on the sea level changes as have been recorded over the last near century. There are many others similar but this one was the easiest to relocate. World Climate Report Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown

Why would I trust a blog put out by "New Hope Environmental Services" which is founded by Pat J. Michaels who was retained by Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep, Green Mountain Ford Mercury, Joe Tornabene's GMC, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, DaimlerChyrsler and General Motors as an "expert witness" in a case where the auto manufacturers and dealers were suing George Crombie, the Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and others in a bid to prevent the state from regulating greenhouse gases?

 

[HarveyH42]

Probably less than that from beer swilling urban rednecks and their pickup trucks. Note the use of the word urban. Nothing wrong with a farmer who needs a F350 with dualies to haul some hay around. What I object to is the city folk who drive these behemoths just for a fashion statement and have a truck box that has never seen even a shovel load of dirt, load of lumber, etc.

I drive a '91 Explorer, not to proud of it, but got it free because a hurricane drop a tree limb on it, no major damage though. Did have to get the transmission worked on. Gas wise, it's on a few dollars more than my '88 Nissan truck. I'm not picky about what I drive, just basic transportation.

It has been mitigated a little by the use of low sulfur diesel and low sulfur coal. Probably not enough to compensate for the increased use of these fuels due to economic expansion.

I still remember people were afraid to go out in the rain back then, even though it was only in some areas, and more of a cumulative effect. I can see how we had control over the burning sulfur, since it probably didn't come from any nature source, maybe a volcano. CO2 is a whole different deal, since there are also many natural sources we have no control over. Wonder if the volcano in the Philippines has erupted yet, have to check the news. It'll be interesting to see how it effects the CO2 numbers, also a golden opportunity for the climate scientists, since it will introduce tons of crap into the atmosphere, they'll be able measure how fast and far it spreads.

 

[kchriste]

Yes, it will be interesting to see. **broken link removed** may have the information you are looking for.

 

[tcmtech]

Why should I try and find data to support your flawed argument? There is none.

Start showing us yours to support your claims. You and brownout have been saying its irrefutable and can easily be proven that global warming is happening and so far you two have the least amount of supporting anything on this thread.

Brownout at least posted a interesting and fairly accurate link and explanation as to how CO2 forcing works! I give him a full A+ for that one! I found it informative and convincing. Its real, its provable, and it measurable!
Unfortunately its net effects appear to fall into the same general numerical area as to what our total human production of greenhouse gasses fall into as well. .03% of total net when given a fair balance with the naturally occurring effects.

Post #347

If you look at more recent history, from 6000 years ago to present, the rate is about 300 Micro Meters per year, for a total of about 2 meters, and in the last 2000 years, the rate is much less. Levels began to rise rapidly in the last 100 years and are now up about 20cm over the period.

5000 year old ruins built at sea level would only be under less than 4 feet of water now.
__________________

I would like to see a similar post now relating to his comments on sea level rises in the last 5000 year time frame. If either of you can post a real scientifically based and globally confirmable proof of it I will accept it!
So far what I have been seeing in the geological sites doesn't seem to give much reference to any such evidence.
In that field of science a 100 foot sea level rise in a 200 year or less time frame is a big event and would be extensively documented and studied!

Oh and by the way how many countries have present day coastal cities that are near 1000 years old. I am pretty sure they would have loads of local people who could show historical proof of something like that happening!

Any of you coastal city guys got any historical data that confirms any large sea level rises for the last 200 years or so?
Say about a 50 - 90 feet(15 - 27 meter) change or there abouts?

For reference the present New York city area and the New York Harbor have been continuously settled and documented since early 1600's and the harbors original depth at that time was around 17 feet to the solid bedrock bottom. It was not until the early to mid 1900's and up to the present that it was deepened from the original natural 17 foot level to around the now 45 foot level it is currently at.
I dont know about you but thats around 400+ years of American time line that has no record of any 100 foot sea level change.

 

[kchriste]

Start showing us yours to support your claims

You first. You use the typical tactic of GW deniers. You make a statement and try and pass it off as fact and avoid backing it up with any solid data at all. When questioned, you simply resort to evasive maneuvers and hope your previous falsehoods get buried in the noise.
SO I ASK YOU AGAIN:
Name a city that is less than 2000 years old and is underwater due to natural global warming.