|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 15, 2019 20:55:56 GMT -8
So...where did all the water go? With those shark teeth being found, have to assume oceans were that high. I started to research this tonight, and I came across a report on the Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, by the US Department of the Interior. The report was way too long and too deep for a layman, but what I did gather from it, was that it wasn't only a case of water levels dropping. Also factored in are changes in land elevation, as some areas sank while other areas rose upwards. In fact, the present elevation of Anaheim Hills above sea level, may be more likely due to the land rising up rather than the sea dropping. All of this occurred over millions of years. pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0420a/report.pdf |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 16, 2019 12:28:41 GMT -8
...I have to believe that reflooding the Salton Sea to offset the rise in ocean levels would have the same impact as punching a pinhole in an Olympic swimming pool. The more I think about it, the more I think I was way off on this and you are right. Just looking at a globe and the amount of surface that is ocean compared to a 100 mile long sea made me think it would be like taking a drinking glass full of water out of that Olympic swimming pool. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 16, 2019 21:47:55 GMT -8
So...where did all the water go? With those shark teeth being found, have to assume oceans were that high. I started to research this tonight, and I came across a report on the Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, by the US Department of the Interior. The report was way too long and too deep for a layman, but what I did gather from it, was that it wasn't only a case of water levels dropping. Also factored in are changes in land elevation, as some areas sank while other areas rose upwards. In fact, that the present elevation of Anaheim Hills is possibly more likely due to the land rising up rather than the sea dropping. All of this occurred over millions of years. pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0420a/report.pdfThis has piqued my curiosity even more now, and put into this context, makes the whole notion of controlling climate change to stave off a few inches of ocean level rise even more ludicrous. Thanks Prof |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 19, 2019 18:37:13 GMT -8
"Climate Change" caused by human activity is a complete hoax and should be ridiculed back into the socialist hole it crawled out of.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 20, 2019 22:27:54 GMT -8
Democrats are the real Science Deniers (they also refuse to concede that an unborn baby is a human being).
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 21, 2019 20:37:46 GMT -8
"Climate Change" caused by human activity is a complete hoax and should be ridiculed back into the socialist hole it crawled out of. Is there any "science" that reconciles the truly DRAMATIC changes in climate / sea levels, etc that occurred prior to 1960? We're talking about water levels 1,000 FEET higher. You're right, the 2-3 inch rise in sea level is laughable that it's even in the same conversation. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 22, 2019 8:27:07 GMT -8
“All of this occurred over millions of years.” - Bick
Yet the Democrats can fix all this in just 12 years!
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 22, 2019 9:58:20 GMT -8
So...where did all the water go? With those shark teeth being found, have to assume oceans were that high. I don't think it's a matter of missing water. It's presumably that the land under question was significantly lower at the time (below sea level), and since elevated by subduction occurring at the boundaries of tectonic plates.................Luca Of course, right after I typed this I took the trouble to look a few posts above and see that I basically repeated what the Professor already stated. As Emily Litella once said, "Never mind." |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 22, 2019 11:03:03 GMT -8
“All of this occurred over millions of years.” - Bick Yet the Democrats can fix all this in just 12 years! That's because they're really, really good. It seems they always have simple, ready-made solutions to complex problems because they know what's best in all situations. They are never stumped by a problem, regardless of its magnitude, complexity, or inter-relatedness with other issues. And their solutions always involve higher taxes and more government involvement. It's part of what makes them so endearing. If you want examples of how a liberal government solves problems quickly, simply and permanently, just look at how Los Angeles has fixed homelessness and traffic congestion. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 22, 2019 13:17:17 GMT -8
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
|
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Mar 23, 2019 5:03:01 GMT -8
My thoughts. Climate change is real. I'm not sure I can agree it's because of anything we did (or not), but it is a real thing. Pollution is real and people are being affected by it. Air pollution. Water pollution. Noise pollution. Light pollution. Thermal pollution. All real. All affecting life on this planet. I'm not sure any of it is irreversible, but I do know it is changing many forms of life (including human life). Whether or not global warming is man made, we should do something to curb pollution. And more than just a pinhole in an Olympic sized swimming pool.
New technologies are expensive and often slow to be adopted. Government regulations and subsidies help with adoption and if we can do something to help clean up the planet, why don't we?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 23, 2019 12:50:59 GMT -8
I'm wondering if anyone actually believes the climate doesn't change, didn't change, won't change again... Or that we could do anything about it.
Now pollution? That IS a fact that we caused it, and should do something to correct it.
Why can't we all just focus on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 23, 2019 15:05:12 GMT -8
I don't live in California, but I did from 1958-1991. I went outside to get the mail a few days ago, around 4 pm and looked up to see the moon, a mile high jetliner with contrails, and the most beautiful deep blue sky anybody ever saw. I had two reactions.
1. How amazingly beautiful it was, and
2. How easy it is to miss it here because we take it for granted, because days like this here are very common.
My point is that the bad air quality seems to stay in the areas that cause it. I'd guess, (emphasis on the word guess, since I've never been there) the worst areas are the big cities in China and maybe India, followed by the big cities elsewhere. My state has a few big cities with smog, but nothing like California smog. The areas around me are more rural, it's true, but surrounded by coal mines and gas wells. No visible air pollution here ever. So, if there is a problem with air pollution, doesn't it follow that if we need to do something about it, the areas that cause it (big blue cities) are the areas that need to do something about it. Everything is fine here in rural red America.
But no...Our Democrat governor (Hickenlooper, on his way out of office) and his Democratic State Senate and Democratic State Assembly decided we needed to adopt California's more stringent environmental policies, adding about $2000 to the price of a new car, and it will probably result in the entire state having to have yearly smog checks on our cars. Luckily this is all in the courts now, due to a lawsuit by car dealerships. If they fail, people will just buy their cars from neighboring states damaging our economy.
All this despite the fact that we have no problem in 95% of the state. And yes, that's despite the fact that we have coal mines, natural gas wells, fracking, and we even have COWS here. Maybe the Democrats clamoring for all this green new deal nonsense ought to concentrate on the big cities that they control, especially along the two coasts, because that's where the problems are...not here in rural red America.
|
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Mar 24, 2019 6:33:25 GMT -8
I don't live in California, but I did from 1958-1991. I went outside to get the mail a few days ago, around 4 pm and looked up to see the moon, a mile high jetliner with contrails, and the most beautiful deep blue sky anybody ever saw. I had two reactions. 1. How amazingly beautiful it was, and 2. How easy it is to miss it here because we take it for granted, because days like this here are very common. My point is that the bad air quality seems to stay in the areas that cause it. I'd guess, (emphasis on the word guess, since I've never been there) the worst areas are the big cities in China and maybe India, followed by the big cities elsewhere. My state has a few big cities with smog, but nothing like California smog. The areas around me are more rural, it's true, but surrounded by coal mines and gas wells. No visible air pollution here ever. So, if there is a problem with air pollution, doesn't it follow that if we need to do something about it, the areas that cause it (big blue cities) are the areas that need to do something about it. Everything is fine here in rural red America. But no...Our Democrat governor (Hickenlooper, on his way out of office) and his Democratic State Senate and Democratic State Assembly decided we needed to adopt California's more stringent environmental policies, adding about $2000 to the price of a new car, and it will probably result in the entire state having to have yearly smog checks on our cars. Luckily this is all in the courts now, due to a lawsuit by car dealerships. If they fail, people will just buy their cars from neighboring states damaging our economy. All this despite the fact that we have no problem in 95% of the state. And yes, that's despite the fact that we have coal mines, natural gas wells, fracking, and we even have COWS here. Maybe the Democrats clamoring for all this green new deal nonsense ought to concentrate on the big cities that they control, especially along the two coasts, because that's where the problems are...not here in rural red America. The price of a car is not going to be $2,000 more because of the extra emissions restrictions. Most manufactures sell new cars that meet the same emissions standards, the more stringent standards. It's called 50-sate emissions and they do it for a lot of reasons. This article does a pretty good job of explaining things, with quotes from many auto industry leaders. Make no mistake, the auto industry would prefer a single, nationwide, standard for auto emissions. www.cbsnews.com/news/rollback-of-auto-emission-standards-will-you-pay-more/ |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Mar 24, 2019 6:45:41 GMT -8
I'm wondering if anyone actually believes the climate doesn't change, didn't change, won't change again... Or that we could do anything about it. Now pollution? That IS a fact that we caused it, and should do something to correct it. Why can't we all just focus on that? Completely agree. The reason climate change continues to make headlines is that before these alarm bells sounded, nobody much cared about pollution. They believed it was isolated and reversible. I can pour this motor oil down the drain and the sewage treatment plant will take care of it. Oh wait, that drains to the ocean? Well, the ocean is pretty big and this is just a couple quarts of oil ... so. Counteracting the natural tendency to pollute requires something more significant than pictures of an Indian shedding a tear or an owl saying "give a hoot don't pollute". I was in Delhi, India in November. One of THE worst cities for pollution in the world. A big reason for that is that farmers burn their fields to clear them. It's illegal but they continue to do it. The smell of smoke is significant. You can see the air. It was a haze over everything. Get out of the city and things are much better. Science has shown that this pollution can get up in to the atmosphere and then travel many miles, affecting other areas. It isn't isolated. It can't be isolated. It's a global problem and it requires a global effort. Climate change has become the poster child that replaced that Indian and that Owl. So while I don't think there really is enough science to support the idea that global warming is really a man made phenomenon. I'm OK with the narrative because at the end of the day, it's all about pollution anyway. |
|
