Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Exploiting Tomorrow's Solar Eclipse To Help Understand Sea Levels

timothy posted about a year ago | from the world-in-miniature dept.

Earth 92

mdsolar writes "Tomorrow at dawn on the U.S. East Coast, a partial solar eclipse will rise. Solar eclipses have many uses. They can confirm the Theory of Relativity, allow study of the solar corona, and this week, help prepare for global warming induced sea level rise. The tides induced in the oceans when the Sun and Moon are aligned are particularly high (and low) and give a foretaste of the effects of sea level rise in the coming decades. Maryland's Department of Natural Resources is asking for photos of these King Tides to help with preparation for the effect of sea level rise. Way to get out front, Maryland."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45314819)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

way to get out front...?...? (0)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year ago | (#45314855)

is this 'code' for some USA-speak?

Yes, it is. (2, Informative)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45314917)

To "get in front of a problem" is slang, meaning to take steps to mitigate a predicted problem before it happens.

I've only heard it in use recently, so it's probably a recent addition. It's the "ounce of prevention" that is worth the "pound of cure".

(With gratitude to all the UK people who take the time to explain British slang. :-)

Re:Yes, it is. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45314993)

Fuck you. You're a stupid fucking cunt and your web page is shit. Go fuck yourself and just get the fuck off the internet. Bitch ass trick.

Re:Yes, it is. (3, Informative)

Moridineas (213502) | about a year ago | (#45315015)

I'm American and I've definitely heard "get in front of a problem" but I've never heard it shortened to just "get out front" as it was in the story (nor removed from context as it was). I was confused as well. Perhaps the submitter was just being idiosyncratic.

Re:Yes, it is. (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#45315167)

And on that note, I would like to issue a general ban on "foretaste," as although it is a legitimate word with a mainstream dictionary definition, it is too silly.

Re:Yes, it is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315251)

And on that note, I would like to issue a general ban on "foretaste," as although it is a legitimate word with a mainstream dictionary definition, it is too silly.

Does that make you a carpet muncher?

Re:Yes, it is. (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a year ago | (#45316829)

It is meant here to be in the lead, doing the kind of things the President's executive order will encourage before the executive order was promulgated. From TFA:

"The White House underscored that point on Friday when it issued a new executive order directing federal agencies to help states and communities prepare for the effects of climate change, including sea-level rise, storms, and droughts."

Re:Yes, it is. (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45315555)

" It's the "ounce of prevention" that is worth the "pound of cure"."

The rest of the world left ounces and pounds behind decades ago

Re:Yes, it is. (2)

Moridineas (213502) | about a year ago | (#45315705)

Ounces and pounds are still in common usage in the UK (the country that the GP referred to!). Don't let that stand in the way of an opportunity for you to try to attack the US though. We appreciate your fresh take on the metric system!

Re:Yes, it is. (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | about a year ago | (#45316651)

Common usage is overstating it. Nothing you can buy is marked in ozs and lbs. Some things still come in suspicious kg weights - e.g. a jar of curry paste is 283g (10 ozs). Schools haven't taught imperial since the 70s.

About the only common non-metric units are pints and miles. Peoples weight is often (though not exclusively) expressed in stones and pounds.

Re:Yes, it is. (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about a year ago | (#45320351)

That misses the point. Figures of speech often remain popular beyond the times where they were coined, so they'll often contain anachronistic terms.

Re:Yes, it is. (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year ago | (#45317539)

you mean it's "A Stich in time saves nine" saying.

What I see is that the gubbermint, instead of spending our taxpayer provided dollars for this are asking the public to provide free research when it's god damn easy enough to simply put a fucking camera up and focus it on one of the tide markers (known height/depth) and simply snapshot the damn thing every 5 minutes.

Now if what they've asked is that people take pictures while out an about during this eclipse for area's they don't have cameras (what store/mall/parking lot doesn't have em?).

Re:way to get out front...?...? (0)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#45315769)

It might be a way of praising Maryland for being open about the existence of global warming and what it will cause in the future, instead of politicizing it by burying its head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

Re:way to get out front...?...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315995)

It might be a way of praising Maryland for being open about the existence of global warming and what it will cause in the future, instead of politicizing it by burying its head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

I'm in agreement; that was its intent. However, an enthusiastic thumbs up from an outsider as if they were reading him in the moment always seems out of place and corny.

Re:way to get out front...?...? (1)

GateGuy (973596) | about a year ago | (#45316905)

Somehow, Maryland is going to tax its citizens for the rising tide.

The State is already taxing its citizens for rain.

Re:way to get out front...?...? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#45316877)

Actually, the correct expression is "get out in front". It means to act before a bad thing happens and start mitigating the consequences before they occur (which may not quite get to the gist of the meaning). The best way to describe what this idiom means is to use the type of events from which it derived. The term derives from the idea of the best way to deal with a run away horse or horse drawn carriage. The best way is to get out in front of it and either get control of it, or, if that is not possible, divert it to where it will do the least damage.

CO2 = Nutrient, not pollutant (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45314945)

"Climate change" is natural cycles, not caused by humans. NIPCC report is at http://nipccreport.com

Re:CO2 = Nutrient, not pollutant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315477)

Isn't that the report written by Fred Singer who the the NIPCC claims is "an atmospheric physicist" yet has never even had a freshman level course in atmospheric physic, wrote the "Oregon Petition" and was paid by ExxonMobil to setup the Science and Environmental Policy Project. (http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html)? Do you mean the first NIPCC report written (http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html) Dr. Frederick Seitz, of whom PhillipMorris stated that Seitz was: "quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."?Are you pointing to the sections written Craig Idso who works for the Coal Giant Peabody Energy?

Re:CO2 = Nutrient, not pollutant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315671)

Why don't you point us to the sections that are factually wrong instead of insinuating so by connecting people to organization you think have a conflict of interest.

Or does the science speaking for itself seem problematic in this case?

Re:CO2 = Nutrient, not pollutant (1, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year ago | (#45316255)

It would be easier to point out the sections that are factually correct than what is wrong with the NIPCC report. To be generous it probably wouldn't take more than a paragraph or two.

Re: CO2 = Nutrient, not pollutant (1)

Alex Cane (3296683) | about a year ago | (#45319937)

If it only takes a paragraph or two, indulge us. I'm sure world hunger can be boiled down to half a page.

Re:CO2 = greenhouse gas (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about a year ago | (#45325787)

It is also worth noting that the Heartland institute and many of these same players once shilled for the tobacco industry - downplaying the link between smoking and lung cancer. Once that well dried up they found clients in the fossil fuel industry. Their climate change report focuses on the 3% of papers that they consider favourable to their position and ignores the vast literature on the subject. By cherry picking they are able to paint a rosier picture than those who consider the full body of scientific evidence.

Re:CO2 = Nutrient, not pollutant (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | about a year ago | (#45316473)

"Climate change" is natural cycles, not caused by humans. NIPCC report is at http://nipccreport.com/ [nipccreport.com]

The report from the NIPCC ("Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change") is a piece of trash propaganda from the libertarian Heartland Institute. To confuse people, It was released just two weeks prior to the IPCC report ("International Panel on Climate Change", a board of U.N. climate experts). The real IPCC report is at http://www.ipcc.ch/ [www.ipcc.ch] .

sigh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45314957)

Just more evidence that the US is the Root of global warming. When can we just round up and gas the conservashits, rethuglicans and deniers?

Nice, but.... (1)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#45315079)

Isn't this what we have math for?

Re:Nice, but.... (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45315183)

Math is nice, let you build models, make predictions and so on, but it could describe anything possible or impossible in any potential universe, To be sure that it fits in our universe, you must contrast it with reality. Einstein's theory was a bunch of complex equations, but was matching those equations predictions with reality that gave them validity.

In this particular case, observing it could tell that our guesses had some ground, or that were more or less severe of what is really happening, because maybe some factors we aren't measuring or aren't fully understood yet.

Re:Nice, but.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315441)

Mmm hmm; I get the impression that a lot of "science" graduates that came after my time didn't get that lecture about avoiding extrapolation like the plague.

what kind of 'extrapolation'? (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about a year ago | (#45315619)


FItting an arbitrary model with many degrees of freedom to one data set? yeah extrapolation is worrisome.

Extrapolating consequences of fundamental microscopic laws of physics interlinked and verified by millions of experiments and observations over a century of human civilization? No other extrapolation in the known human world is as useful or as secure.

Re:Nice, but.... (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#45315209)

Mathematical models is like software, in that in theory they work great, but in practice the fail many times, in many unexpected ways. Also, complex models require real data to calibrate. ie there tend to be many parameters that we need results to find their specific values.

Re:Nice, but.... (-1, Flamebait)

mbkennel (97636) | about a year ago | (#45315623)


It's not mathematical models----it's specific physical models which are represented in mathematics, combined with the empirically powerful knowledge of universal physical law.

Re:Nice, but.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315931)

"empirically powerful knowledge of universal physical law". Please stop with the buzzwords.

Re:Nice, but.... (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#45315245)

We really need to get to the root of how antropogenic climate change is causing solar eclipses. If this keeps happening eventually the moon will come between the Earth and the sun permanently, leading to an eternal night cursed with ever increasing temperatures. Crops will simultaneously wilt and catch fire. With the right global publicity board report we should be able to get a bunch of powerless scientists to achieve a high degree of consensus about the subject, and then do nothing.

Re:Nice, but.... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#45317241)

We're assholes for trying to crush our economy currently. It's like people in 1900 crushing their economy, slowing technological advancement to "help" us here in 2013.

In 50-100 years, maybe less, we will be able to (for one example among a dozen) be able to create giant sheets in space similar to space sails already being proposed, tested, and actually used, and just block some sun. A few percent should be more than enough (1% of the sun's energy is less than 3 degrees of temperature). The worst issue will being careful not to artificially induce an ice age.

But don't worry about it for now. Literally no need to.

Re:Nice, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320615)

How will that fix the ocean acidification caused by increased CO2 levels?

Re:Nice, but.... (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about a year ago | (#45321565)

We don't have to wait for some future technology (I'm still waiting for my flying car...). We have cheap and available technologies today that are underutilized.

Re:Nice, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45323141)

I knew we would face a future full of terminators, just not that kind.

Re:Nice, but.... (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year ago | (#45315291)

Isn't this what we have math for?

Most people don't understand math and think you are just trying to baffle them with bullshit. If you do an experiment though, which most people also don't understand, they'll think you're dazzling them with brilliance. There are some stupid "experiments" on youtube about the GFC involving balloons and weights and strings that operate on this principle.

Re:Nice, but.... (2)

dov_0 (1438253) | about a year ago | (#45316073)

Talking of math and science in general, this idea isn't related to either. What the hell are pictures and videos of a single king tide going to tell us about about anything EXCEPT the level of that single king tide. There simply isn't enough data to show anything. No real measurements, no real data.

Re:Nice, but.... (0)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year ago | (#45316269)

You don't think pictures and videos are real time data? There is a wealth of information that can be gleaned from them. If we compare the real world results to our expectations of what they would be they provide a reality check on the science that led to those expectations.

Re:Nice, but.... (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#45316911)

It will tell us how the incoming water distributes as it comes in. There are some non-intuitive ways that the flow of incoming water reacts to obstacles and other features of the land (such as low points) as a result of fluid dynamics. While our understanding of fluid dynamics can explain what happens, the complexity of the interactions with a rising tide make it impractical to fully catalog those effects in advance. The data that can be gleaned from these pictures will be useful for dealing with storm surge issues as well.

I'm Going To Use It (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#45315133)

I'm going to use it to convince a primitive culture that my God has eaten the sun and that if they don't worship him and agree to build a pyramid, that they will never see their precious sun again! Muahahahahahahah! I figure I can get that all wrapped up by the time it pops back out again.

Prior Art (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45315951)

I'm going to use it to convince a primitive culture that my God has eaten the sun

So just like AGW, only convincing people to give you money directly to save them from the doom you insist is real, instead of proxying funds through the government first.

It's always good to cut out the middle man.

Re:Prior Art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45316475)

If you want to make up a story for AGW, it would be more like "the little magic men that power your car engines fart too much, and it's hurting the world"...

I don't understand why people accept car engines, but not global warming, which is based on the physics of the same molecules.

Re:Prior Art (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#45317733)

I could try over at the Fox News building, but I don't think it'd fly. They strike me as being scientifically illiterate over there, but I don't think they're THAT scientifically illiterate. I'm sure a few of them accidentally learned something in school before signing on with Rupert Murdoch.

Hybrid eclipse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315163)

This eclipse is special because it will transition from annular to total. The transition occurs at a precise point SE of Bermuda. Anyone planning to go there by boat or plane?

Re:Hybrid eclipse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315733)

This eclipse is special because it will transition from annular to total. The transition occurs at a precise point SE of Bermuda. Anyone planning to go there by boat or plane?

The annular eclipse starting point, the precise point of the transition and the ending point of the total eclipse form a triangle and open the door to the end times.

USA Today (1)

ShaunC (203807) | about a year ago | (#45315233)

Did anyone else notice that the USA Today logo was custom-tailored to the article? Thought that was a nice touch.

Re:USA Today (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year ago | (#45315347)

Hmmm. No, I don't see a logo. NoScript must block it.

Re:USA Today (3, Funny)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year ago | (#45315391)

Dang, where are you at? NoScript only passed partially in front of the logo in my area. You're really lucky to see the full eclipse!

Eclipse not needed (4, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year ago | (#45315445)

This is cute, but the difference in tidal forces between an eclipse and any other full moon is not very much-- the moon and sun are still pretty closely lined up. If it's within a few months of an eclipse, the difference is trivial. Or, for that matter, a lunar eclipse would also be as good.
Next month's full moon will have (very slightly) higher tides-- the Earth is a month closer to perihelion.

Re:Eclipse not needed (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year ago | (#45315569)

I think you meant new moon, not full moon.

Re:Eclipse not needed (2)

Mt._Honkey (514673) | about a year ago | (#45315661)

New moons and full moons have essentially the same tides, because the tidal force is quadrupolar. [wikimedia.org]

Re:Eclipse not needed (3, Funny)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a year ago | (#45316011)

But full moon eclipses are quite rare. Granted they can be devastating and in fact indicate severe climate and geologic upheavals.

Re:Eclipse not needed (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | about a year ago | (#45317343)

Ah, for a mod point. C'mon people who have them, this is funny!

Eclipse not needed, but Editing is (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year ago | (#45319081)

yes, editing would be nice here...

Strike that. Reverse it.

Re:Eclipse not needed (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year ago | (#45316607)

New moons and full moons have essentially the same tides, because the tidal force is quadrupolar.

You are wrong. At new moon, moon and sun are almost in a straight line, so the force of moon and sun are added up. At full moon, moon and sun are in opposite directions, so their forces subtract.

The lovely image that your link shows demonstrates that there is a tide at the side pointing to the moon, and on the other side. Totally true, that's why we have high tide every twelve hours. Still, the side pointing to the moon has a slightly higher tide because it is closer. And a big influence is that the moon doesn't go in a circle around earth, but in ellipse.

So the highest tide happens when the moon on its ellipsoidal path around earth is closest to the earth, on the side that points to the moon, if it coincides with a new moon.

Re:Eclipse not needed (2)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year ago | (#45318193)

At new moon, moon and sun are almost in a straight line, so the force of moon and sun are added up. At full moon, moon and sun are in opposite directions, so their forces subtract.

No. Tidal forces come from the gravity gradient, not the gravity magnitude, and the gradient works both ways. If the Earth and Moon orbits were exactly circular and coplanar, full moon and new moon tides would be the same.

Lunar tides are larger than solar tides because, yes, the moon is closer, so its gravity gradient is larger even though the magnitude of its gravitational force is smaller. We have lunar tides because the side of Earth away from the moon is 0.034% farther from the Moon than the near side; we have solar tides because the dark side of Earth is 0.0068% farther away from the Sun than the light side.

The largest possible tide will occur if Earth is at perihelion, the Moon is at perigee, and the Moon is on the Earth-Sun line, on either side of Earth -- a pretty rare occurrence.

Re:Eclipse not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45319125)

> The lovely image that your link shows demonstrates that there is a tide at the side pointing to the moon, and on the other side. Totally true, that's why we have high tide every twelve hours.

It is actually just over 12hours by around 18minutes.

But your 'lovely image' is complete crap. Tides do not occur everywhere when the moon is overhead*. The moon does not 'lift' the tide at all. Consider this. If the tide was 'lifted' by the gravitational attraction of the moon and/ or sun, then a pressure gauge put on the sea floor would show no change between low tide and high tide, but it does and it is exactly changed by what is expected by the height of water above it.

The moon does not revolve around the earth. They both revolve around a common centre of gravity which is a few thousand km away from the earth's centre (but still inside the earth). This means that there is an unbalanced centrifugal force that is opposed to the moon. The moon's gravity applies to every single particle in the earth, not just the bit facing it. Gravity reduces as the distance increases so the gravitational pull on the side away from the moon pulls _towards_ the moon (the opposite of the diagram) but slightly less than of the facing side. At the facing and opposite sides the gravity opposes the difference in centrifugal force in the earth caused by the earth-moon rotation not being centered on the earths centre. The nett result is that there is more forces acting on the _sides_ of the earth (as viewed from the moon) as it is dragged towards the moon (somewhat closer to the moon) or away from it (somewhat further away and more under the influence of that small centrifugal force).

There is no 'lifting' of water, the forces act horizontally (at all depths) tending to make the water slosh from side to side (east-west) in the north pacific and atlantic, and rotate in the south pacific.

* In New Zealand the tides circulate around the country so at any one time there is a high tide somewhere and a low tide somewhere else with every state in between these. This means that no matter where the moon is there is a high tide somewhere: they do not all coincide with the moon overhead. This applies to the whole of the South Pacific where the tides circulate like spokes of a wheel.

Re:Eclipse not needed (4, Informative)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a year ago | (#45316007)

I don't think parent post is quite right.

The spring tide of an eclipse day is probably not significantly higher than any other spring tide when all other things are equal. But the existence of perigee and perihelion means that other things may not be equal.

This particular eclipse happens near perigee, as the Moon nears its closest approach to the Earth. This does make for a king tide, a high tide that is significantly higher than other spring tides. Also the Earth is coming up on perihelion in a few weeks, as parent post states, when it is at its closest approach to the Sun. That will also push the tide higher.

Additionally, Maryland is positioned relative to the line of the eclipse such that the tidal bulge will be higher at Maryland's shores than at, say New York or Georgia, that are at roughly the same longitude.

Perigee approaches [Re:Eclipse not needed] (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year ago | (#45319039)

This particular eclipse happens near perigee, as the Moon nears its closest approach to the Earth. This does make for a king tide, a high tide that is significantly higher than other spring tides. Also the Earth is coming up on perihelion in a few weeks, as parent post states, when it is at its closest approach to the Sun. That will also push the tide higher.

Except that the new moon in December is even closer to lunar perigee. The December new moon is one day away from lunar perigee, while this new moon is three days off.

In January, we get perigee and the new moon at the same time, with perihelion only three days off. This is probably the highest tide of all, although the moon is slightly further inclined off the sun-Earth line. In any case, though, the point is that there really isn't a significance to the eclipse-- an eclipse isn't really much different in tides.

Re:Eclipse not needed (0)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45316069)

What I thought made this pretty pointless is that one gets pretty close to that every two weeks with new and full moons. Even when the Sun and Moon aren't lined up well, it's not that much of a difference.

Re:Eclipse not needed (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45317481)

"Next month's full moon will have (very slightly) higher tides-- the Earth is a month closer to perihelion."

And you'll get even more extreme tides when the Sun passes between the Earth and the Moon.

Re: Eclipse not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320011)

Extreme on the low end at least thanks to the complete boiling off of all sea water. Of course all the land mass will be vaporized as well, giving you nothing to measure said tides against. Nice.

Surfin Safari (2)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#45315557)

Oh don't think of it as man induce global warming, so much as, ever changing real estate values in the evolution of a planet.
I confess, It's my fault. In order to bring surf tourism to Kansas, I've calculated the precise amount of beans fed to cattle to produce the correct results.
Call me a nut, but I farm beans and raise cattle and manufacture my "special feed" sold at cost around the state. It is a Holy thing to bring the masses to the rental property.I cite the "Surfi-ism" lectures by St. Lex of the Luthoran Church. " Upon this rock, I build my church", the rock of course, being Kryptonite.
Stay tuned for more puzzling evidence.

Re:Surfin Safari (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#45316081)

I'll idle my SUV in observance of your holy work.

Re:Surfin Safari (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#45316893)

Praise Bob!

Re:Surfin Safari (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year ago | (#45316281)

Better recheck your calculations. The lowest elevation in Kansas is 679 feet and maximum sea level rise if all of the great ice sheets were to melt is far less than 300 feet.

Re:Surfin Safari (2)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#45316889)

Take into account all the pissing going on with environmentalists, recalculate.

Let me get this straight (2)

reboot246 (623534) | about a year ago | (#45315641)

The sun and/or moon in their various cycles can effect the tides on Earth, but they have no effect on changes in the climate?

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315687)

Yes, clearly no one before ever noticed the sun affects the climate...

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#45315903)

I'm sure a few people have noticed. But to be sure, I'll run a simulation.

Einstein's Jewish Science Still in Doubt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45315715)

From rhe summary:

... Solar eclipses have many uses. They can confirm the Theory of Relativity, allow study of the solar corona, ...

Have to keep checking; you know, just in case.

Eclipse as Propoganda (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45315969)

Nothing like using an unusually high tide to scare people about global warming, even though ocean levels are now predicted to rise something like 4" over 100 years (NOT four feet as the government website sadly parrots) ... the variance of a good spring tide can be more than that.

It's just really sad to see people conned in the name of science.

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (2)

rrohbeck (944847) | about a year ago | (#45316225)

4"? Where does that nonsense come from?

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45318855)

The IPCC. Keep reading the other replies to my post for the informative AC response that includes a link, rather than your contentless fear-mongering.

The EPA report someone else links to was from the older study before the IPCC realized they'd been had. Sorry you have not come to the same realization yet.

The question you have to ask yourself is, are you truly capable of making an informed decision based on real facts? Or are you going to allow yourself to be led by insular opinions that agree with your preconceptions forever?

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45316565)

There is a lot of uncertainty on the sea level rise, because it's not clear what people are going to do in the next century. Even so, I've never heard of an estimate as low as 4". I'm curious where you get your information if you don't trust, you know, the climatologists that work on this. (Admittedly, the EPA description [epa.gov] dumbs it down a bit too much, but still....)

Still, a devastating effect can come from even small changes. You may be thinking "ah, if the sea level rises a few inches, it changes nothing!"... but say that when the storm hits, and your seawall is just barely holding back the storm surge now....

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#45316937)

Actually, this may be using the hype over global warming to gather data that is useful for other things. This data should be useful for making plans for dealing with storm surge. While storm surge occurs often, it is difficult to gather data on it while it is happening because of the danger to those who attempt to actually do so. Tides happen slowly enough that untrained people can take pictures and make measurements without endangering themselves (not that it is completely safe, there are people who are foolish enough to put themselves into situations that even at the slower pace of a rising tide will put them into danger).

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45318881)

I don't know, like you say it's quite a lot of difference between a really high tide and a storm surge, which can be pretty bad in any high tide... what could you really glean from studying a normal tidal movement that would help understand a surge?

A surge means water many feet higher than even an unusually high tide will bring.

In any case the Maryland website makes it pretty clear they aren't out to understand anything better, they want images to further propaganda. I'm not sure what kinds of images they think a high tide would really deliver on that front though, it's not like you can show whole city skylines under water from a 4" higher tide...

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (2)

bunratty (545641) | about a year ago | (#45317297)

According to the EPA [epa.gov] , sea level rise is predicted to be 30 to 70 inches over the next 100 years. That sounds much closer to all the other estimates I have heard. That sea level rise is enough to cause hundreds of millions of people and the corresponding infrastructure to relocate. And there's no reason that the sea level will magically stop rising after 100 years. It'll keep rising unless we can somehow scrub the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Reference for the 4" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45317367)

For some data in supporting change in the range of 4 inches, consider:

- Wikipedia's chart [wikipedia.org] shows that the change in sea level for the past hundred years has been 6 inches. This chart comes from from the US EPA.

There is no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Sea level rose rapidly after then end of the last ice age; since then it has been levelling off since. [wikimedia.org] Even IPCC states recently published estimates of sea level rise over the last decades remain within the range of the TAR values (i.e., 1–2 mm yr–1) [www.ipcc.ch] . One to two mm per year equates to 4-8 inches per century.

Values above this range can be - and are - produced by models. Models can say anything, depending on the assumptions baked into them. In this case, the assumptions must be questioned carefully, since there is no evidence of an increase in sea level change.

Re:Reference for the 4" (2)

Layzej (1976930) | about a year ago | (#45320505)

There is no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is increasing

No evidence except for the measurements and data. Here's a graph from NOAA. [noaa.gov]

Sea level rose rapidly 10,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. They have been fairly stable for the last 8000 years until levels began to climb again in the 20th century.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. - See http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html [noaa.gov]

Re:Reference for the 4" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45320589)

> Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per y

But those are wrong, by definition, since they don't show enough of an increase to force action.

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (1, Troll)

Layzej (1976930) | about a year ago | (#45319617)

ocean levels are now predicted to rise something like 4" over 100 years (NOT four feet as the government website sadly parrots)

That can't be right. The current rate of sea level rise is 3.6 mm/year. The rate is accelerating - it was 1.7 mm/year in the early 70's. 3.6 mm/year * 100 years is over 1 foot. With continued acceleration 4 feet sounds reasonable. 4 inches is not. - http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf [climatechange2013.org]

Re:Eclipse as Propoganda (2)

Layzej (1976930) | about a year ago | (#45321481)

Modded troll? Really?

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45316061)

@global warming

latest mantra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45316491)

Guess they didnt get the memo.

The crisis mongers latest mantra is GLOBAL COOLING....

Sure beats levying a carbon tax (1)

davide marney (231845) | about a year ago | (#45316517)

Hey, asking citizens to just get out their cameras and document how a king tide affects their properties is fine with me. That's cheap, easy, and makes sense. Sure beats questionable schemes like carbon "taxes".

I would have expected they'd be about the same.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#45317803)

... as they would be any new moon. Sure, the sun and moon aren't precisely aligned in the sky, but they are still in the same general direction. Would the precise angle make *THAT* much of a difference in height?

Re:I would have expected they'd be about the same. (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about a year ago | (#45346311)

Would the precise angle make *THAT* much of a difference in height?

No. Because the tidal bulge of water on the Earth's surface leads (mental check ... yes, leads) the sub-lunar point by a substantial degree as the bulge is dragged to the east by the rotation of the Earth relative to the Moon and the Sun (that's why both Moon and Sun rise in the east, unlike on Mars where one moon rises in the east and one (the faster-orbiting one) rises in the west.

The degree of lead varies with roughness of the seabed and coast profile and lots of other things, but it's why high tide isn't at exactly the same time all along a line of longitude. (Not that the Moon's orbit is precisely equatorial to the Earth's either, which would make astronomy relatively boring.)

this is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45326805)

Totally ignores any of the science involved. This is just plain dumb and stupid; leave it to a well-intended non-scientist, but thanks for the laugh anyhow

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?