Republican lawmaker: Rocks tumbling into ocean causing sea level rise

[GMDino]

To be fair I believe he was "just asking" if that could be the REAL cause.  

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise

Quote:The Earth is not warming. The White Cliffs of Dover are tumbling into the sea and causing sea levels to rise. Global warming is helping grow the Antarctic ice sheet.


Those are some of the skeptical assertions echoed by Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee yesterday. The lawmakers at times embraced research that questions mainstream climate science during a hearing on how technology can be used to address global warming.

A leading climate scientist testifying before the panel spent much of the two hours correcting misstatements.

The purpose of the hearing was to focus on how technology could be deployed for climate change adaptation. But the hearing frequently turned to the basics of climate science. Many of the questions by Republicans and Democrats alike were directed to Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said he was bothered that established climate science has not been questioned more by the committee, which has accused federal climate scientists of fraudulently manipulating climate data and subpoenaed their records.

"I'm a little bit disturbed by, No. 1, over and over again, I hear, 'Don't ever talk about whether mankind is the main cause of the temperature changing and the climate changing,'" he said. "That's a little disturbing to hear constantly beaten into our heads in a Science Committee meeting, when basically we should all be open to different points of view."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, entered into the record an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that claimed sea levels are not rising because of climate change, a view that rejects thousands of scientific studies. The piece was written by Fred Singer, who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which promotes the rejection of mainstream climate science.

"To solve climate change challenges, we first need to acknowledge the uncertainties that exist," Smith said in his opening remarks. "Then we can have confidence that innovations and technology will enable us to mitigate any adverse consequences of climate change."

At one point, Smith showed a slide of two charts that he said demonstrated how the rate of sea-level rise does not equal the sharp spike in the consumption of fossil fuels. When Smith pointed out that rates of sea-level rise have only increased slightly compared with the rate of fossil fuel use, Duffy pointed out that his chart was from a single tide gauge station, near San Francisco, and that sea levels rise at different rates around the world. Smith did not show rising atmospheric CO2levels or temperatures, both of which have climbed steadily in recent decades as emissions have increased.

Quote:Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up.

Representative Mo Brooks (R–AL)

"The rate of global sea-level rise has accelerated and is now four times faster than it was 100 years ago," Duffy told Smith in response to the charts.

"Is this chart inaccurate, then?" Smith asked.

"It's accurate, but it doesn't represent what's happening globally; it represents what's happening in San Francisco," Duffy said.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) questioned Duffy on the factors that contribute to sea-level rise, pointing out that land subsidence plays a role, as well as human activity.

Brooks then said that erosion plays a significant role in sea-level rise, which is not an idea embraced by mainstream climate researchers. He said the California coastline and the White Cliffs of Dover tumble into the sea every year, and that contributes to sea-level rise. He also said that silt washing into the ocean from the world's major rivers, including the Mississippi, the Amazon and the Nile, is contributing to sea-level rise.

"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said.

Duffy responded: "I'm pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects."

Brooks added that Antarctic ice is growing. That was true a few years ago, and scientists say it does not disprove the theory of global warming because different factors affect the Arctic and Antarctic rates of melting.

"We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage," Duffy said.

"I'm sorry, but I don't know where you're getting your information, but the data I have seen suggests — " Brooks said.
Duffy answered: "The National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

"Well, I've got a NASA base in my district, and apparently, they're telling you one thing and me a different thing," Brooks said. "But there are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic."

Earlier this year, NASA researchers determined that Antarctica's ice loss has accelerated in the last decade. More broadly, sea ice extent at both poles set a record low last year. Scientists are racing to better understand the changes occurring in Antarctica because much of its ice is land-based, meaning it could drive sea-level rise around the world as it melts.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said scientists said in the 1970s that the Earth was cooling, a popular talking point of climate skeptics and the subject of a fake Time magazine cover that has become a meme. Duffy corrected him and said that was essentially an outlier position at the time and that scientists long ago determined that humans were warming the planet.

Posey also asked how carbon dioxide could be captured in permafrost in the periods before humans existed. Duffy told him that it was from non-decayed organic matter. Human activity is now causing the Arctic to warm and thaw the ground, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, Duffy said.

Posey then asked about theories related to warming being beneficial for habitats and to people.

"What do you say to people who theorize that the Earth as it continues to warm is returning to its normal temperature?" Posey asked.

"Look, if you want to characterize a temperature above today's temperature as normal, you're free to do that, but that doesn't mean that's a planet we want to live on," Duffy said.

"I don't want to get philosophical; I'm trying to stay on science here," Posey said.

"I'm not getting philosophical; I'm getting extremely practical," Duffy said. "I'm being extremely practical — if we let the planet warm 2 or 3 degrees, we will have tens of meters of sea-level rise, and the community where I live will essentially cease to exist."

Posey responded: "I don't think anybody disputes that the Earth is getting warmer; I think what's not clear is the exact amount of who caused what, and getting to that is, I think, where we're trying to go with this committee."

Correction, 5/17/2018, 12:35 p.m.: A previous version of this story mischaracterized a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, which claimed climate change is not the cause of sea-level rise.

...sigh...

Quote:Republicans on the U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee

...don't understand science.

[*Nately120*]

Checkmate, science-lovers!

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Understanding that it would take a lot, many, many, so many "rocks", the number is unimaginable to figure out, he isn't wrong.

One rock, the size of your fist in a Olympic size swimming pool isn't going to make a visible difference but the water displaced from the rock taking up the space has to go somewhere.

Again, for sea levels to rise from falling rocks into the worlds oceans was just stupid to say.

[*michaelsean*]

Really really big rocks. Some of the best rocks. We can put this up there with Guam tipping over and a black hole swallowing up the missing Malaysian flight.

[Belsnickel]

I wish there was someone there that could've pulled up a whiteboard and worked out the math for the mass of land required to fall into the ocean to raise the sea level by one inch.

[6andcounting]

(05-18-2018, 09:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wish there was someone there that could've pulled up a whiteboard and worked out the math for the mass of land required to fall into the ocean to raise the sea level by one inch.

We have big, big water and a lot of rocks. Lots of rocks. So many rocks. Believe me. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Not saying this guy is right, but it does bring up an interesting question....

China is making a bunch of man-made islands for naval/air bases. That combined with ever-increasing naval shipping for the global economy, and I am a little curious as to what, if any, difference that makes.

If the fake China islands and all the naval shipping/warships/etc were all magically removed from the world's oceans all at once, how much would it drop? Would it be a measurable amount? I don't think that's the difference, but it is interesting to think about.

[hollodero]

(05-18-2018, 09:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wish there was someone there that could've pulled up a whiteboard and worked out the math for the mass of land required to fall into the ocean to raise the sea level by one inch.

Quote:How large would the volume of these rocks have to be to explain sea level rise? Washington Post reporter Philip Bump did the math. With an estimated sea level rise of 3.3 mm per year spread across an estimated surface area of 362 million square kilometers (140 million square miles) of ocean, that's a total volume of about 1.2 trillion cubic meters (42.3 trillion cubic feet) of water. To displace that much water, you'd need to drop that same volume of rocks into the ocean.

That amount of matter is equivalent to "a sphere of earth a bit over 8 miles [12.8 km] in diameter," Bump wrote. "If the sphere were stone, it would weigh about 6.6 quadrillion lbs. [3 quadrillion kilograms]."

Drop that much stone into the ocean once a year — every year — and, yes, you could see the annual sea level rise scientists have reported.

So, are Earth's coastlines losing 6 and a half quadrillion lbs. of stuff to the sea every year? That's highly unlikely. To put it in terms of one of Brooks' own examples, the Cliffs of Dover dumped an estimated 100 million lbs (45 million kilograms) of chalk into the sea after a sudden collapse last year, the BBC reported. That's a lot of chalk — but avalanches like that would have to happen 66 million times every year (or 180,000 times a day) in order to raise the entire sea level by 3.3 mm.

Brooks wasn't wrong for suggesting a link between erosion and sea level rise, though. Numerous studies have observed a connection between the two forces, just not the in the way Brooks proposed: Rising sea levels are definitely resulting in more and more coastal erosion, the literature says — not the other way around.

https://www.livescience.com/62613-erosion-causes-sea-level-rise-mo-brooks.html


...so, that whole thing of course ranks right among the guy who brought the snowball to congress, or the one who claimed global wobbling is an issue nefariously neglected by science, or the guy who used ice cubes in a glass of water to prove melting ice can't rise sea levels.

Just making up stuff to disprove scientists for ideological reasons and banking on enough people believing you out of very similar reasons is one of the more annoying traits of some US politicians. No major party elsewhere in the advanced world sails on that ship any more.

[BmorePat87]

In other anti-science, pro-*****-stupid news... has anyone heard of the anti-evolution argument that hinges on our Rh +/- blood?


Rh factor is whether or not your have this particular protein. In the 30's, it was called the "Rhesus Factor" after the monkey because scientist erroneously thought it was related to the monkey. That was soon dismissed in a few years, but the name stuck, so they changed it to "Rh" to avoid confusion. 

Some people still think it's related to those monkeys, so the belief is that +/- means you either have Rhesus monkey blood or you don't. So they argue that evolution can't be real because how do some of us have monkey blood and some don't? 

[fredtoast]

My theory is that fish are getting fatter and having more babies.


Fish today. Fat and lazy. Not like the fish back in my day.

[Benton]

(05-18-2018, 11:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not saying this guy is right, but it does bring up an interesting question....

China is making a bunch of man-made islands for naval/air bases. That combined with ever-increasing naval shipping for the global economy, and I am a little curious as to what, if any, difference that makes.

If the fake China islands and all the naval shipping/warships/etc were all magically removed from the world's oceans all at once, how much would it drop? Would it be a measurable amount? I don't think that's the difference, but it is interesting to think about.

Probably not measurably. If the math in the story Holldero pasted is right, and if my math is close, it would take a surface area of about 3/4 the size of Australia (3 million square miles) to displace the water. 

We've had ships in the water for as long as we've had tools. Granted, never as many as now. It's unlikely there would be so sudden an influx of ships (or man-made islands) as to increase water levels very much.

[*Nately120*]

The fact that this guy even admits the sea level is rising is a giant leap forward, if you ask me.

[hollodero]

(05-21-2018, 11:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: The fact that this guy even admits the sea level is rising is a giant leap forward, if you ask me.

The art of low expectation. Maybe it is a step forward from complete denial of the undeniable, but there's little practical difference between the "rising sea levels are fake news" stance and the "rising sea levels have 100% natural causes" stance. Both mean politics, or the human kind, don't have to react in any way, maybe apart from building protections against the sea. Which Trump himself did at one of his golf courses.

But as long as guys like that applaud cutting back regulations against CO2 emissions - amongst others - and abandoning the Paris accord, I consider that little to no progress.

[*Nately120*]

(05-21-2018, 12:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: The art of low expectation.

And then some.  Hey, I'm just saying if I were a republican politician I'd deny that the ocean levels are even rising.  Who are you gonna believe?  Facts or a guy with an R by his name?  Case closed.

[Millhouse]

The oceans have been rising since the end of the last ice age from natural climate change. There are countless settlements and ancient coastal sites under water, whether from 1000s of years ago or last few hundred years, so trying to deny that is being dumb.