Unusually High Tide Today

Navigation

User login

Online users

emmettoconnell
circular_ruins

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

GRuB
ktcoxster
making a differ...
johnmac
circular_ruins

Unusually High Tide Today

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 09/07/2006 - 8:57pm.

As I was going from downtown toward the West side this evening. I noticed a very high tide. It was higher than I remember seeing it; ever. This was around 5:30 p.m. Tide was scheduled to peak at 6:38 p.m. (according to salt water tides.com). The height in feet of the predicted tide was 15.5 feet. But the water was at a level higher than when the tide has been predicted at over 17 feet.

The high water was above where it was last winter, when the rains and floods elevated the water in Budd Inlet.

Any thoughts? Global warming came to mind. Is it possible that we could be seeing the effects of ice melt? What other factors (besides run-off, which was virtually non-existent today) could contribute to such high water?

[September 9 addition:]

High High Tide on September 9th.

Robert Whitlock's blog
Login or register to post comments

HIgh Water

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 6:22am.

Really folks, the water was only a couple feet away from swamping the boardwalk at Bayview.

Oh no run for the hills, the caps have melted, LOL

Submitted by OlyCop on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 5:16pm.

I saw Al's show and I found it interesting. Clearly there is no doubt there is global warming. But there are enough scientists out there that disagree with Gore and others that I'm still not sold "we" are the cause of the warming.

"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

Should I consider myself mocked?

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 11:39pm.

Oh well; as Albert Einstein once said, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." But enough of that! I've had my poke, now onto serious matters.

I too, am interested in these studies, and the scientists which purport them, that supposedly refute anthropogenic global warming science.

Doeth the laws of cause and effect not apply to human energy consumption?

For everyones viewing

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 1:47pm.

For everyones viewing pleasure, took me 3 minutes btw, which is about all the more time I care to put into this any longer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

List them

Submitted by hrstruggle on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 5:38pm.

OlyCop: While I may or may not have the time to follow this debate through, I think I speak for others when I ask you to list those scientists who disagree with Gore's concerns regarding global warming. Give me a chance to hear your concerns and please be specific.

One of Gore's main points in the film was that every time a "scientist" emerged who refuted this work, they were usually a shill for the energy industry or somehow tied to them.

Never said

Submitted by OlyCop on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 7:19am.

I never said I thought we shouldn't try to reduce our dependance on petroleum, or to continue to make strides to protect our environment. I just haven't bought off on the human causes for global warming. There are plenty of arguments against that belief. But please don't confuse my reluctance to believe "we" are the cause of global warming, with a disregard for our eco-system. You see, I don't need a threat to make be concerned for the environment, others do. There is likely the genesis for the global warming scare, IMO.

Since I'm not trying to argue a point, I have no desire or the time to list my resources. We all have computers, and know how to use them. If you want to research the other side's perspective you can do so. I won't waste my time or yours spoon-feeding you the information.

I got on my soapbox for a bit, and had to erase it all.

I will say that just because Gore says something, doesn't mean it's true.

"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

I have a computer and I know how to use it

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:54am.

And I was unable to find substantiation for your claim that there are "enough scientists out there that disagree with Gore" to justify buying a Hummer, or whatever you said. Instead, I found this, from Wikipedia: "However, the strong scientific support for man-made global warming implies that such alternative opinions are not widely held. In the journal Science, an essay by Naomi Oreskes considered the abstracts of all 928 scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keyword "global climate change". Dr. Oreskes concluded that none of these abstracts attempt to refute the position that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to recent warming. [17] [18]"

Yeah, "I'm not sold 'WE' are

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 10:12am.

Yeah, "I'm not sold 'WE' are the cause of warming." is the same as "to justify buying a hummer.." very nice Janet. I'm glad you provided links because I'm not sure what to believe of your typed message at this point.

I don't expect you to believe me. I'm not a cop.

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 10:49am.

Personally, I don't find that making a statement referring to citations and then refusing to produce them does much to provide credibility. I have a different approach. I won't ask for your faith. So click away.

Oh, and that thing about the Hummer? That was a joke, Norm. Sorry you didn't find it funny.

Must be a "leftist" funny

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 10:55am.

Must be a "leftist" funny thing because I didn't find it all that amusing, simply a statement with spin to make the original poster look bad.

We all have a special spot

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 10:57am.

...for hummers in our lives.

Norm, I provided citations, unlike Oly Cop

Submitted by jlw on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 11:12am.

And you jumped all over me because you didn't like my joke. Don't you see how this drags down the level of discourse here? I am feeling very tired of the way you pounce all over other people's posts, often without any justification.

I pounce when I feel people

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 4:10pm.

I pounce when I feel people cross lines. Olycop not citing sources doesn't cross a line, joke or not you sounded insulting, see the difference? I felt completely justified by doing this, I'm sorry you don't think so but it's YOUR joke, of course. If I were to say, "Oh you know that Janet, she never shuts up about her abortion pill." That not only isn't funny, but it's not correct and it's not right. Yes, oly didn't provide any links, so don't you think that maybe his argument doesn't stand well on it's own? Does it need you pouncing all over him in order to push the point further?

I didn't feel I was pouncing on Oly Cop

Submitted by jlw on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 11:17am.

Apparently, you see it differently. You often seem to see people crossing lines, and you seem to feel compelled to jump into the fray and straighten them out, often in an insulting manner. To me, it feels that many of olyblog's discussions have recently been derailed by your participation, becoming not about the original issue, but about your bickering with the other posters.

But I really owe you some thanks, Norm, because you have made doing yardwork more fun than reading Olyblog, and the hedge really needed clipping.

Hey, I do what I can.

Submitted by Norm on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 12:51pm.

Hey, I do what I can.

Effective Communication

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 3:28pm.

Now, how did that second paragraph serve the conversation? I know it's hard to resist the temptation to throw in a zinger. But that's what it takes. Try to stick to the issues and the facts - don't lower yourself to adhominem attacks. How would you feel if someone told said that you take the fun out of things? Though it may be true, it might be hurtful and/or insulting. I would be hurt. I am not picking on you. I am also by no means innocent of taking a few jabs and pokes, or shooting a zinger or two on occassion (perhaps in the context of this very thread - sorry Officer Tupper.) I know that I feel better when I don't though.

Just something to think about and maybe work on, that's all. The principles of non-violent communication can be very helpful in these situations. Here's a link to more information about nonviolent communication: http://www.cnvc.org/ I have found this to be helpful and useful. Norm, have you checked it out?

I'm not sure how anyone

Submitted by OperaGirl on Fri, 09/08/2006 - 5:54pm.

I'm not sure how anyone could think that the massive amounts of chemicals/gasses/etc that we produce does not have a serious effect on the enviroment. And what is sad to me is that there are so many little things that one can do to help with this situation that we are facing but from what I have seen, don't want to put any effort into it and "change their lifestyle".

Baby Steps?

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:35am.

Exactly. If everyone who believed that we are the cause of global climate change started to change their lifestyle (in order to reduce individual impacts,) we would begin to see positive change. It's too late to prevent the change, the ball is rolling, it will take thousands of years for the environment and atmosphere to regulate itself and normalize.

But we still need to make changes, so as to lessen the impacts down the road. The fact that we aren't making wholesale changes as a society is a testament to the denial in which our society operates. It's clinical at this point. And one sick puppy.

Ahhhh, thank you for your

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:38am.

Ahhhh, thank you for your diagnosis Dr. Whitlock, I'm sure the surgeon general will look into this now that you you have posted this on the internet.

You're welcome Norm

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:43am.

Thanks for your supportive gestures.

If it were global warming

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:33am.

If it were global warming that was responsible for your supposed unusually high tide, wouldn't it consistently be a higher tide? I mean, if this water has melted off the ice caps and raised the global tide level where would it hide on the days where it wasn't higher than normal here? For that matter, if the tide can naturally fluctuate higher than a normal tide, and then back to normal the next day, I'm betting this can happen without a global warming happening also. So, have the tides been steadily a foot and a half higher than normal? or is the water hiding out and only coming in when they know an Al Gore fan is around to notice?

That's what I am saying

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:41am.

The tide prediction was 15.6 yesterday (and today.) But the water was higher than I have seen it, when it was predicted at over 17 feet. Plus, the 17 foot tide occurred when there was major run-off due to last winter's deluge. Does that make sense?

I didn't say that the high water is related to global warming or increased sea levels. The unusually high water left me thinking about global warming though, and what it will be like, when the predicted 1 to 3 foot sea level rise occurs within the next century (1 to 3 foot prediction is very conservative, some scientists predict a more severe rise.)

Have the tides been consistently higher? Is the water level rising? I don't know. It would be a full time job to monitor the behaviours of the tides. I don't have the time, or the resources to do it.

But I do think that it's an interesting and important question to ask.

I'm sure someone out there

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:45am.

I'm sure someone out there is though, and if it were consistently high you know that one of the news media places would be all over it. I KNOW my Dad who frequently fishes and goes clam-digging would be all over it too. SO my vote is "Nay" I don't think it has anything to do with global warming. That's not to say that I don't think we should slow down our consumption habits, in fact I think we should slow them down in many MANY areas. So I guess I'm saying "no" but agreeing with your process behind your curiosity about the tides. For more than one single reason we need to plan a little better for the future instead of constantly living with/for the next administration, 4 years just isn't a good goal at this point for anything.

First of all, how much

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 11:27am.

First of all, how much global warming is taking place?

I've read numerous articles, including one today while trying to sort out where to jump into this thread, which cite NASA satellite data as basically coming back and saying there's not a whole lot going on.

And is the study period for global warming only 27 years? It seems ridiculous to me to just pick a three decade period and point to that as a definative sign that our planet is undergoing an unnatural change.

The temperature over this study period has only increased .13 degrees Celsius per decade.

So really, can we define how much of that .13 people are actually responsible for? What if it's only .01?

It seems to me people are spending their time worrying about something that we may or may not have control over.

And don't take this to mean that I'm dumping oil in my backyard. I think we should respect the environment, plants and animals. But at the same time I don't think we should worship it, which is what I believe many end up doing.

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Study Period Upwards of One Million Years

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 12:48pm.

TFI, You deserve to familiarize yourself with the science. Using ice cores in such places as Antarctica and Greenland, scientists have been able to establish global CO₂ levels for some 800,000 years or more.

I wonder which is more

Submitted by OlyCop on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 3:13pm.

I wonder which is more harmful to the environment for every 100 miles traveled? My Hummer (don't have one) or Janet B's 1967 VW Bus?And I bet our fuel consumption levels are similar.

As far as more scientists saying that humans are the cause of climate change, if they are wrong its doesn't mean anything, even if they shout louder, they are still wrong. It's happened in the past. Most scientists thought Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be a wasteland for decades, they were wrong. Most scientists thought some health ailments were caused by a microbe, they were wrong, they were caused by diet. You can look at history and frequently the majority of the scientific community were wrong about things, where the minority were proven correct. So saying that "most say" doesn't prove they are correct, only that if they are wrong they will be remembered in history too.

TFI is correct environmentalism is a religion. And the drum beaters on the human caused global warming, are their fundamentalists. LOL

One last thing. Autos producing large quantities of CO2 has only been going on for the last 30 years. The advent of the catalytic converter caused this. Prior to the Catalytic converter autos produced more CO than CO2.

"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.

Photos From Tonight's High High Tide

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 7:48pm.

These were taken within minutes of tonights predicted 15.6 foot high high tide.

High water

Submitted by Sarah on Sun, 09/10/2006 - 2:13pm.

Rob, thanks for posting these. I'm down there relatively often and I don't think I've ever seen the water that high, even after rain storms.

What'd tonights measurement

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 8:01pm.

What'd tonights measurement end up being? If you happen to know. I'm not normally down there during high tide so this is all new to me.

Not sure

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 8:47pm.

I don't know where to find info on the actual height. Just the prediction. An investigation is in order.

Hmmm, the port doesn't keep

Submitted by Norm on Sat, 09/09/2006 - 9:14pm.

Hmmm, the port doesn't keep track of this in some manner? From your pictures the water sure looks high, but as I stated earlier I don't know what the norm is ( no pun intended )

The Fate of the Ocean

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:05pm.

"News: Our oceans are under attack, and approaching a point of no return. Can we survive if the seas go silent?"

Link is to an article by Julia Whitty that is published in Mother Jones.

"Warning: bigger carbon cut needed to avoid disaster"

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 9:00pm.

Leading researchers say government has misled public and call for 90% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050

John Vidal, environment editor
Friday September 15, 2006
The Guardian

Drastic action is needed if Britain is to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, a ground-breaking environmental report warns today.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: