Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's third law. But in this case, is it that the climate is getting warm? Secondly, there are so many people out there who believe in Science! (aka the official science) and unbiased open science. So what are all those scientists saying on the subject, and more interestingly, why all those Darwinists aren't believing them? I have not researched. Would anyone like to tell me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, hasanhh said:

 

ln this article, https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-intel-agencies-tell-165840840.html , there is a picture of the Navy's port facilities and the caption that climate change/sea level rise is affecting the area.

Well, it always did. From the Colonial area, one end of the Dismal Swamp Canal is in Norfolk. Norfolk has always been in the Tidewater area of Virginia.

Comparatively, from the 1960s to 2000, New Orleans went from 7 feet below Sea Level to -20 and feet below Sea Level.  This came about from drawing ground water. Similarly, Norfolk draws its Water Resources from underground aquifers and supplies city and regional needs. [lt has one of the best water systems in the country].

Also, the Norfolk area is a small part of Virginia's low, broad, flat, coastal plain known as the Tidewater Region --where tides have always affected rivers and streams.

So, if Norfolk is wetter, it is not because sea levels are rising, but that the ground is sinking.

Just doing a quick google search, it looks like the rise in sea levels is a product of both sea level rise and land subsidence. 

What data are you referring to when you say that the rising water elevation is only due to land subsidence?

 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, glaciers and ice caps are becoming smaller. That's quantified. And there also is subsidence caused by misuse of groundwater resources. Obviously subsidence is human caused and we don't really know the long term effects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But.. but aren't we all moving to mars in 2021 this time??? Why should we care what happens to this rock.

On a more serious note, what do Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Micho Kaku have to say on the subject? I'm wagering that they don't believe in global warming?

Edit: Nevermind I googled and they both say global warming is real.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

But.. but aren't we all moving to mars in 2021 this time??? Why should we care what happens to this rock.

On a more serious note, what do Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Micho Kaku have to say on the subject? I'm wagering that they don't believe in global warming?

Edit: Nevermind I googled and they both say global warming is real.

Even IF colonization of nearby planets and moons is done, the resources of Earth will still be needed. 

I, personally, believe man-made climate change is a real phenomenon. It's happened before, that a creation changed it's environment into one is could be longer thrive in. Oxygen was toxic to the earliest organisms that released it as waste. 

But even if it turns out to not be real or not be human induced, what harm can come from seeking to care for our planet? Being clean and responsible is part of being a good Muslim, right? So why would it be ok for us to trash the air, water, and soil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Just doing a quick google search, it looks like the rise in sea levels is a product of both sea level rise and land subsidence. 

What data are you referring to when you say that the rising water elevation is only due to land subsidence?

 

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf

That answer is why l referred to New Orleans. Water was continually pumped out of the ground until the city was mostly below sea level.

 

Added from reading link:

l forgot about the San Joaquin Valley as an illustration.

The flooding pictures are reminiscent of Venice, are they not?

Thanks

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎29‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 5:14 AM, notme said:

Is climate change even really happening? And if it is, is it caused by human activities?

Yes, climate change is happening really. Think, billions of human built heat exchangers like engines etc. are working 24 hours a day. Sun is our natural source of heat plus the human activities/industrial revolution produce more heat in atmosphere. Do we have any cooling process for earth's atmosphere? Do all the heat produced by us, escape into the space? 

There is a cooling system in place for us, the hot air normally rises up and moves towards both poles. Air cooled down when it come in contact with huge glaciers & ice caps. That is what scientists were pointing out from last two decades, the ice sheet is collapsing, getting thinner & thinner, the glaciers are melting causing the sea level to rise. This is happening at this very moment. 

Apart from these human activities, We see in Quran following verses which are related to this topic:

"Do they not see that We are bringing destruction upon the land by curtailing it of its sides? And Allah pronounced a doom - there is no repeller of His decree, and He is swift to take account." (Quran 13:41) 

"Nay, We gave provision to these and their fathers until life was prolonged to them. Do they not then see that We are visiting the land, curtailing it of its sides? Shall they then prevail?" (Quran 21:44)

There are possibly two ways we can understand the term "nanqusuha min atrafeha" (curtailing it of its sides), One of them is rising water levels & second may be population growth. If these are not the cases, then we need to see whether earth is shrinking from its sides? :) I guess, this is not the case, otherwise we would have detected its change in shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 12, 2017 at 11:57 PM, hasanhh said:

That answer is why l referred to New Orleans. Water was continually pumped out of the ground until the city was mostly below sea level.

 

Added from reading link:

l forgot about the San Joaquin Valley as an illustration.

The flooding pictures are reminiscent of Venice, are they not?

Thanks

What? I just asked where you got your data to suggest the rising water levels in the Chesapeake were not due to sea level rise, but because of groundwater withdrawal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

What? I just asked where you got your data to suggest the rising water levels in the Chesapeake were not due to sea level rise, but because of groundwater withdrawal.

According to this article, it's probably both. It's a PDF. Download only if you feel it is safe to do so. It's by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iCambrian said:

What? I just asked where you got your data to suggest the rising water levels in the Chesapeake were not due to sea level rise, but because of groundwater withdrawal.

As @notme wrote, it is in the USGS report you posted. An average of 4mm per annum as l remember after two days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

As @notme wrote, it is in the USGS report you posted. An average of 4mm per annum as l remember after two days.

This link that notme posted, doesn't say that the rising water elevations, are purely due to subsidence. 

It says that subsidence accounts for roughly 53% of sea level rise measured at the bay. Meaning that other factors, including global sea level rise, are accounting for the rest.

" So if Norfolk is wetter, it is not because sea levels are rising, but that the ground is sinking", this statement doesn't appear to reflect what the article says.

if I'm missing something, just let me know, I didn't read thoroughly, so I could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground sinks.

Inland away from coastal areas it is called "ground failure" --something your homeowners' insurance doesn't cover because it occurs without warning. --look at Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Ground sinks.

Inland away from coastal areas it is called "ground failure" --something your homeowners' insurance doesn't cover because it occurs without warning. --look at Florida.

A sinkhole caused by dissolution in karst layers is not the same as land subsidence caused by water table depletion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, notme said:

A sinkhole caused by dissolution in karst layers is not the same as land subsidence caused by water table depletion. 

Geologically Correct. However, in the Mid-West we have ground failure in areas devoid of karst --from the near absence of limestone in many localities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of any erosion or subsidence, the prior link does not exclude global sea level rise as being in part, the cause of sea level rise In the Chesapeake. Or that part of the observed sea level rise in the Chesapeake, is a product of global sea level rise.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCambrian & @notme

l found this and the second one was found while looking for more. Interesting.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses    gaining .23mm per year   EDIT: search title "nasa study mass gains of antarctic"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-artic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming    models are inadequate, it takes observations

Edited by hasanhh
link problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hasanhh

These are nice, thanks for sharing.

i didn't really come to debate or anything, but to share just some general observations. With that said, the sources of your information discuss acceleration of loss of sea ice on a global level and in the arctic. The nasa article also notes a decrease in acceleration of the annual gain of Antarctic sea ice expansion.

so the articles are nice, though they appear to both indicate a warming climate.

what I would do, and I'd do it now, but I'm not at a computer, I'd just get the data myself for square miles of sea ice expansion over the past 50 or 100 years and I'd just plot it and see what it shows. 

Maybe I can get around to that soon. As of now, the articles appear to be discussing loss of sea ice, or deceleration of sea ice gains, and an overall total loss of sea ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example of why l think "global warming" is a myth, like "hole in the ozone" and "acid rain" were/are:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/antarctica-green-climate-moss-environment/ 

Here is the :hahaha:able  part:  "growth records going back thousands of years"  --like there is no biological decay in Antarctica.

@notme & @iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, notme said:

@hasanhh the article you linked about Antarctic ice mass says the increase in snowfall is caused by warming. 

 

Yet, Antarctica is still a desert.

Besides, we a focusing on land-sinking and "sea rise".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Yet, Antarctica is still a desert.

Besides, we a focusing on land-sinking and "sea rise".

Sorry. Just recalling the topic title. Proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 9:57 AM, Ron_Burgundy said:

People who think its a myth they got their degrees from Trump University. 

People who follow Fads find False endings and Failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • If you are a mu'min then you will eventually be let into Heaven. But if you were a sinful and a transgressing person, some say you may be punished for a while in Jahannam for your actions. Now, the question is: what if you didn't pray or go to Hajj or fast in Ramadhan or pay obligatory zakat? Will you still be considered a mu'min in the Afterlife?  That question is interesting.
    • I haven't seen a specific narration. It seems to be the reason some fuqaha have this ruling is because it comes under nahi an al munkar. Also, some fuqaha say all sins are punishable under the Islamic court - and this is done through ta'zir. And not wearing hijab would be a sin.
    • It is the best option. Even if it means having one less sin under your name, that means something in Islam. @notme they are much better for boys. Trust me I know from personal experience. If you were to be present in some of the conversations that boys have in the playground about girls you might faint lol
    • Bloomberg and aljazeera.com both reported 12 days ago that the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority sent a list with hundreds of names to lenders, telling them to freeze any accounts linked to them. Today (November 20, 2017) Reuters is reporting that over 2,000 bank accounts have been frozen. 
    • Of course the story of Adam and Eve was much better suited for them. The Bible and the Quran are far from the only old cultures telling similar stories. 
×