[Martin15]

uwish uwish:

sort of misleading..

Sort of ? Yeah, just a little bit.

This happens every fall. All the "global warming (TM)" hysteria is bullshit.

[DrCaleb]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Like I've said before, not me, but people with more knowledge of the subject think it's possible and my meagre science back ground tells me to listen to those with more of that knowledge than I have. Are you one of the science wizards?? I'm not.

Neither am I. But I know where to find the experts, and where to avoid the oil company funded deniers. You don't have to be an expert, you just have to keep an open mind and have a high school understanding of how science works.

For example, Fiddly could easily have found, along with his 'highest tide in the 70's 1966 figure, that Venice high tides have been occurring more frequently in the recent years than in all the past historical records.

$1:

The waters in Venice peaked at 1.87m (6ft), according to the tide monitoring centre. Only once since official records began in 1923 has the tide been higher, reaching 1.94m in 1966.

$1:

St Mark's Basilica was flooded for the sixth time in 1,200 years, according to church records. Pierpaolo Campostrini, a member of St Mark's council, said four of those floods had now occurred within the past 20 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50401308

So, it's getting worse.

Martin15 Martin15:

This happens every fall. All the "global warming (TM)" hysteria is bullshit.

So when people post things without any evidence, you can easily see their arguments are without merit. Then you can do a little of your own digging to see how wrong their opinions are.

For example, here is a list of very high tides kept in the records in Venice since the middle ages:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acqua_alt ... since_1923

As opposed to Martin's assertion, you see some 'Decembers' 'Februaries' and 'Aprils ' in there.

[raydan]

[stratos]

$1:

Quote:St Mark's Basilica was flooded for the sixth time in 1,200 years, according to church records. Pierpaolo Campostrini, a member of St Mark's council, said four of those floods had now occurred within the past 20 years. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50401308So, it's getting worse.

only problem I have with this is that it has been proven Venice is sinking. So it does make sense that as it sinks further more places will flood more often.

Now if they start getting surges around 6 feet more then just this once then the global warming crowd can speak up more. If we go another 30 years before it happens again then they can't.

[Martin15]

stratos stratos:

only problem I have with this is that it has been proven Venice is sinking. So it does make sense that as it sinks further more places will flood more often.

Notice no other city in the Entire Adriatic is mentioned.
Trieste
Ancona
Split
Pula
Bari

Nothing.

Why?
Venice is built in a swamp, the others are built on rock.
And the sea isn't rising, because it is only Venice.

$1:

Now if they start getting surges around 6 feet more then just this once then the global warming crowd can speak up more. If we go another 30 years before it happens again then they can't.

53 years ago, it was worse than the last couple days. When there was no global warming.
Of course they will tell you about the massive amounts of rain last week,
or the full moon's high tides, or none of that.

It's only ever the globullshit warming agenda, which is nothing more than a scam
to steal more tax money from you.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Quote:St Mark's Basilica was flooded for the sixth time in 1,200 years, according to church records. Pierpaolo Campostrini, a member of St Mark's council, said four of those floods had now occurred within the past 20 years. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50401308So, it's getting worse.

only problem I have with this is that it has been proven Venice is sinking. So it does make sense that as it sinks further more places will flood more often.

Now if they start getting surges around 6 feet more then just this once then the global warming crowd can speak up more. If we go another 30 years before it happens again then they can't.

The link I posted earlier explains this. Not all coastal cities have the same foundation. More water on Earths crust will mean more sinking of the crust, and more flooding. Different places will behave differently. Scandinavia is mostly rock, and will sink less than New Orleans or Venice, which are soft sand and weaker rock.

Places like Florida and New York already experience massive King Tides that exceed anything ever recorded.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6130901/new- ... te-change/

The problem with waiting 30 years is that the Earth does not react instantly to such changes. I posted in the Science thread a study that the ozone hole will take another 60 years to repair itself despite mitigating it 20 years ago, because that is the time scale Earth operates on. Waiting 30 years to mitigate things we see right now means 100 years to go back to 'normal', assuming we stop doing that thing instantly.

How deep under water will coastal cities be then? As I've been writing for a long time now, it will be cheaper to fix the problem now than fix the damage later.

[stratos]

I specifically was talking about Venice. You posted that the last 6ft surge happened in 1966. Now 43 years later it happened again and is being blamed on global warming. IF that is the case then it will happen again with in less time. We keep being told that it will only get worse. Here's where some prof to back it up will be found.

By your statement of the earth does not react instantly means that the 1966 surge was caused by what global warming starting in the 1920's? Approximately every 40yrs type of reaction?

IF global warming is the cause then we will see 6ft surges happening more often in Venice. Not every 30-40 years.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

I specifically was talking about Venice. You posted that the last 6ft surge happened in 1966. Now 43 years later it happened again and is being blamed on global warming. IF that is the case then it will happen again with in less time. We keep being told that it will only get worse. Here's where some prof to back it up will be found.

I also posted a link that extreme tides have been happening and recorded since 1923, in a city that has been recording them for 1500 years. Why do we need to wait another 30 years to see what the last 100 years has already shown?

$1:

Exceptional high waters since 1923
The levels reached by high waters, engraved on the walls of Ca' Farsetti, Venice's City Hall.
The levels reached by waters, painted outside a Venice shop

According to the records of the Tide Monitoring and Forecast Centre of Venice,[2] these are the maximal documented levels (in decreasing, not chronological, order):

194 cm on November 4, 1966
187 cm on November 12, 2019
166 cm on December 22, 1979
158 cm on February 1, 1986
156 cm on October 29, 2018
156 cm on December 1, 2008
151 cm on November 12, 1951
149 cm on November 11, 2012
147 cm on April 16, 1936
147 cm on November 16, 2002
145 cm on December 25, 2009
145 cm on October 15, 1960
144 cm on November 13, 2019
144 cm on December 23, 2009
144 cm on November 3, 1968
144 cm on November 6, 2000
143 cm on February 12, 2013
143 cm on November 1, 2012
142 cm on December 8, 1992
140 cm on February 17, 1979
Maximum high tide level: 1.94 m recorded on November 4, 1966
Minimum ebb tide level: −1.21 m, recorded on February 14, 1934
Maximum difference between a high tide and the following ebb tide: 1.63 m, recorded on January 28, 1948, and on December 28, 1970
Maximum difference between an ebb tide and the following high tide: 1.46 m, recorded on February 23 and 24, 1928, as well as on January 25, 1966

stratos stratos:

By your statement of the earth does not react instantly means that the 1966 surge was caused by what global warming starting in the 1920's? Approximately every 40yrs type of reaction?

IF global warming is the cause then we will see 6ft surges happening more often in Venice. Not every 30-40 years.

And by the time we see that pattern (that we already see), trillions of dollars in real estate around the world, including Venice, will be under water.

It's not like Hansen didn't post his 'hockey stick' graph 30 years ago.

[uwish]

you mean the one with fake data?

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/ ... key-stick/

if global warming is the cause of flooding then it must be the cause of their canals running dry as well...

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/11/ ... so-fickle/

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

For example, Fiddly could easily have found, along with his 'highest tide in the 70's 1966 figure, that Venice high tides have been occurring more frequently in the recent years than in all the past historical records.

Well seeing as you're admitting to reading my posts now Doc, allow me to respond.

I saw the statement "second highest tide flooding?" in the OP, noticed it was being ignored did a quick scan, saw an article claiming the record was 'less than 50 years ago and came up with 70s. Didn't look at the date of the article. (It was late at night that I read it.)

But I am glad to hear you found it so easy to locate the data for the tidal history of the area. Good for you.

Now can you look through all this data you're bragging about that apparently only you care about and respond to this more important challenge I made (seeing as you're responding now):

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh do cut the crap. Or show me 6 foot rising sea levels, or tell me how global warming affects the moon.

Nut up Bud. Show us this data you're bragging about that shows global warming affecting the gravitational pull of the moon. There is no 6 foot rise in global sea rise levels for the era you'd like to claim you have data for.

Stop bragging about all this data you claim only you are considering if you don't actually have any that matters.

[N_Fiddledog]

Put her on snooze control little proggies. Go shine up your Greta medallions or something. The rest of us are going to hear the other side of the story from Jame Delingpole at Breitbart:

Delingpole: No Venice Isn’t Flooding Because Climate Change

$1:

Venice is flooded – again – and the mayor Luigi Brugnaro is blaming climate change. This has become the standard dog-ate-my-homework excuse for desperate politicians and administrators who want to dodge their responsibilities while simultaneously attracting media sympathy and aid money.

But it’s rubbish, of course. The real reason for Venice’s plight is whichever idiot who decided all those years ago to build the city on a series of swampy islands at the edge of a lagoon.

On the plus side, this helped the Venetians build a wealthy maritime empire and later to extract gazillions of euros from tourists who think it’s romantic being propelled in a funny looking boat down rancid, rat-infested canals by a man in a stripy shirt with a long stick. On the downside, Venice is slowly going the way of Atlantis.

There is nothing weird about Venice flooding at this time of year. From Autumn to Spring is the season known as ‘acqua alta’, when the tides in the Adriatic are higher than usual, so it’s not uncommon for attractions like Piazza San Marco to be inundated with water rather than the usual hapless travellers being fleeced for a 20 Euro cappucino.

In 2003, Venice began building a flood barrier – known as Moses – which was supposed to put an end to all that. But as is the way with Italian public works projects — in fact, all public works projects everywhere — it has run fearfully overbudget, become riddled with corruption, and taken much longer than originally planned.

This is being billed as the ‘worst flooding in Venice in 50 years’. But it’s still two inches short of the ‘worst ever’ flooding in 1966. Which rather invites the question: if it’s ‘climate change’ that is causing it now, what was the cause 53 years ago when CO2 levels were about 90 ppm lower?

Could it be, maybe, that Venice is sinking, that tides will rise, and that flooding every now and then is what Venice does.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/1 ... te-change/

[N_Fiddledog]

Global warming doesn't affect tides and a 6 foot rise in the tide off Venice does not imply a 6 foot rise in global sea levels. Last I heard sea level was rising at about 7 inches a century.

And if you're not implying either of those two Macguffins what are you talking about? Data for what, Doctor Data?

[llama66]

Just give everyone a free bucket when they go to Venice.

[Martin15]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And by the time we see that pattern (that we already see), trillions of dollars in real estate around the world, including Venice, will be under water.

Biggest reason Globull Warming (TM) is all just a bullshit steal more tax money scam.

If it was real, the banks would stop financing coastal real estate.
Instead, the gave Obongo $15million for his oceanfront property.
I guess he and his bankers know stuff.

[DrCaleb]

Martin15 Martin15:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And by the time we see that pattern (that we already see), trillions of dollars in real estate around the world, including Venice, will be under water.

Biggest reason Globull Warming (TM) is all just a bullshit steal more tax money scam.

If it was real, the banks would stop financing coastal real estate.

Try insuring an oceanfront property.

Martin15 Martin15:

Instead, the gave Obongo $15million for his oceanfront property.
I guess he and his bankers know stuff.

You need to stop getting fed your bullshit by the right wing media.

$1:

The details of the potential sale have not been made public and, as TMZ reported, “it’s not a done deal just yet. We’re told there are contingencies so it’s possible it could fall apart.” The property in question in the affluent Massachusetts community is listed at just shy of $15 million and does have waterfront access.

As of Sept. 6, 2019, no sales report of the purchase had been logged with the Dukes County Registry of Deeds. We reached out to the Obama family press office to inquire about the status of the transaction but have not received a response. All major reporting on the topic, at this point, stems from TMZ’s “multiple island sources.” Both the realtors and representatives for Grousbeck have provided no statements to the news media.

As such, we are unable to independently verify the claim that the Obamas have placed an offer on this house or assess if the sale has gone through. If further details of the transaction come to light, we will update this page accordingly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama ... -vineyard/


Once again, your opinion disappears in a *poof* of factual information.