AI
Tuesday, July 06, 2021 11:06:15 PM
Ok, thanks .. "I would wait for peer review and experimental testing before considering gravity being that significant of an effect due to deglaciation. Not saying it isn't a consideration, but I believe he is overstating it."
That goes to my being more confused about what your problems with his position was when i wrote this .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164771775 .. than i am after reading your above.
Just trying to marry yours with his. Your other, here ..
The isostatic rebound occurs where the glaciers held the ground down. It is very pronounced in the u.s. particularly in the great lakes region. But much of the country was not covered in glaciers in the last ice age. So what is it rebounding from? It isn't. And that is where the ocean gets deeper from melting ice. Rebound in the immediate vicinity of a great weight being removed is not a new thing. But that is not what most shorelines are dealing with.
He mentions the southern hemisphere at one point. and that it is where the most pronounced average depth increase will be. Because the water just changes form, and the weight is then distributed over the whole of the oceans. I think the tweak of adjusting the rebound in the glacial zones as a main force is a good headline, but makes it appear that ocean rise is not real or something.
Rock adjusting upward makes a difference in a localized way, but not globally. Perhaps tektonically on a geologic timescale. Finding a place where the ocean has not risen and featuring that as a generalization is disingenuous, methinks. Doesn't give solace to Bangladesh now, does it? Or florida.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164771290 .. helps me too.
So please, maybe, ignore my above plea.
For now.
That goes to my being more confused about what your problems with his position was when i wrote this .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164771775 .. than i am after reading your above.
Just trying to marry yours with his. Your other, here ..
The isostatic rebound occurs where the glaciers held the ground down. It is very pronounced in the u.s. particularly in the great lakes region. But much of the country was not covered in glaciers in the last ice age. So what is it rebounding from? It isn't. And that is where the ocean gets deeper from melting ice. Rebound in the immediate vicinity of a great weight being removed is not a new thing. But that is not what most shorelines are dealing with.
He mentions the southern hemisphere at one point. and that it is where the most pronounced average depth increase will be. Because the water just changes form, and the weight is then distributed over the whole of the oceans. I think the tweak of adjusting the rebound in the glacial zones as a main force is a good headline, but makes it appear that ocean rise is not real or something.
Rock adjusting upward makes a difference in a localized way, but not globally. Perhaps tektonically on a geologic timescale. Finding a place where the ocean has not risen and featuring that as a generalization is disingenuous, methinks. Doesn't give solace to Bangladesh now, does it? Or florida.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164771290 .. helps me too.
So please, maybe, ignore my above plea.
For now.
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
