Rising sea levels - What's the big deal?

[ddoubleez]

Oceans levels rising 50% faster than thought
June 26th, 2008, 3:03 am · 7 Comments · posted by Leigh Boerner

Rising sea levels might some day affect O.C. coast lines.
Get out those hip-waders, folks–it might be getting deep in here.

Ocean levels are rising faster than previously thought, says Peter Gleckler, climate scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. In fact, they’re rising a lot faster–50% to be exact. This equates to a two and a half inch rise over the last 42 years. What this means for Orange County beaches remains unclear, however. The rise is not just due to more ice melting and filling up the oceans more. It’s also because the water itself getting warmer.

“Oceans have been warming as a result of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” says Gleckler. “It is worrying that the ocean seems to be warming more quickly than we thought.”

The focus of the study, recently published in Nature, was to take another look at ocean levels over the last 50 years. And what they found were several errors. But these were specific and systematic errors, which allowed them to be corrected. Gleckler and his team made these corrections, and discovered that the ocean had indeed risen more than was estimated in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.


9dFCiKFcT7s&feature=related

bffp7Sr5IBc&feature=related

k7Ykib02sDY&feature=related

And before you say this will not effect me MOST of the global population settled in costal cities for trade and biomass from the oceans.... Many more depend on a consistant sealevel for safe irrigation........

[Juan.Camaney]

Back when I was in elementary school, for our 6th grade field trip we went to Topanga Canyon over by Malibu (ie the coast). The purpose of our field trip was to go look for fossils. Fossils of what, you ask? Sea shells. Now...why would we go up into the mountains to go look for signs of life that belong in the sea? Could it be that maybe a long long time ago there was a lot more water in the sea? I dunno, I'm not a scientist or anything (:eddie: ) but I do know this...everything that you have quoted up there is heresay and assumptions. Working with that kind of data and not taking into consideration that the earth's core is about as flexible as the skin on a water balloon...I tend to just shake my head.

[ddoubleez]

Back when I was in elementary school, for our 6th grade field trip we went to Topanga Canyon over by Malibu (ie the coast). The purpose of our field trip was to go look for fossils. Fossils of what, you ask? Sea shells. 1) Now...why would we go up into the mountains to go look for signs of life that belong in the sea? Could it be that maybe a long long time ago there was a lot more water in the sea? I dunno, I'm not a scientist or anything (:eddie: ) 2) but I do know this...everything that you have quoted up there is heresay and assumptions. 3) Working with that kind of data and not taking into consideration that the earth's core is about as flexible as the skin on a water balloon...I tend to just shake my head.

1) Now...why would we go up into the mountains to go look for signs of life that belong in the sea?

Answer:

Plate Tectonics

And yes 160 million years there was more water in the sea, in addition to you seashells being pushed up by plate movement....

You see when there was more carbon in the atmosphere 90 and 160 million years ago.. This carbon warmend the atmosphere and brought the average climate up several degrees c. There were no ice at the polls and the oceans were stagnate.... A process that took the earth 100 of thousands of years sequestered that carbon and some of it became oil, and the earth cooled.. We have found that carbon and are releasing it back into the atmosphere...

2) hear·say (hîrs) KEY

NOUN:

Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

as·sump·tion (-smpshn) KEY

NOUN:

The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
Presumption; arrogance

The measurements are not assumptions and the data indicating that the sea level is rising is not hearsay.....

3) Now please tell me how the earth core is effecting the sea level.... I am in the mood for a laugh!

[Juan.Camaney]

1) Now...why would we go up into the mountains to go look for signs of life that belong in the sea?

Answer:

Plate Tectonics

And yes 160 million years there was more water in the sea, in addition to you seashells being pushed up by plate movement....

You see when there was more carbon in the atmosphere 90 and 160 million years ago.. This carbon warmend the atmosphere and brought the average climate up several degrees c. There were no ice at the polls and the oceans were stagnate.... A process that took the earth 100 of thousands of years sequestered that carbon and some of it became oil, and the earth cooled.. We have found that carbon and are releasing it back into the atmosphere...

So then, you are saying that in the time perdiod since we started the industrial revolution, we are doing what the earth toook 160 millions of years to do? Does this sound reasonable to you?!


2) hear·say (hîrs) KEY

NOUN:

Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

as·sump·tion (-smpshn) KEY

NOUN:

The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
Presumption; arrogance

The measurements are not assumptions and the data indicating that the sea level is rising is not hearsay.....

3) Now please tell me how the earth core is effecting the sea level.... I am in the mood for a laugh!
I'm glad you learned to use dictionary.com or whatever it is you are using, but if you arent willing to accept that scientists are continuously correcting their own models and that it in turn makes anything they say heresay, then I don't know what to tell you. I mean, look at how many we already proved are changing their minds. The term went from global warming to climate change in a hurry, didn't it?

As for your number 3....I'm getting a laugh out of your comments just fine....try not believing everything your idols tell you, open up your mind to the possibility that they are wrong, and realize that you are not Bear Grylls and even if you think you would survive if you were dropped in the middle of the wilderness with nothing that is made by evil oil that you would probably die a very dull and boring death and the rest of the world will do just fine without hunting or gathering.

[ddoubleez]

So then, you are saying that in the time perdiod since we started the industrial revolution, we are doing what the earth toook 160 millions of years to do? Does this sound reasonable to you?!


What I am saying is it took us less than 100 years for us to re-release carbon that has been trapped for 160 million and 90 million years... Yes...

Carbon deposits of alge and planton were covered by moving plates and when pushed to the right depth for the right amount of time, oil was formed... If it were deeper or hotter it became natural gas... Not as deep oil shale or tar sands....

So if we are re-releasing carbon that was sequestered in this time period, it would be logical to look at the weather and climate for those periods.....

[Juan.Camaney]

What I am saying is it took us less than 100 years for us to re-release carbon that has been trapped for 160 million and 90 million years... Yes...
and you believe this?! 100 years...the lifetime of many people who live that long....versus 160 MILLION years. We released enough carbon in 100 years....36,500 days (give or take) versus 58,400,000,000. :eek3:

[gemo]

ddoubleez, are you really in Uzbekistan?
Also are you Uzbeki or just living there for now?

I'm not trying to be racist just never knew a Uzbeki that could type english.

[Juan.Camaney]

Read the rules of this fourm, gemo. Send the guy a PM.

[fmb]

I'm all for saving energy, recycling, and using less petroleum products. Hell, it makes alot sense. Sometimes, I think these things should be left to the scientists to sort out. Here's an example of what I'm thinking:

Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."

They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.

"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.

In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid," and that "global warming is accelerating."

Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein's characterization of a problem he says doesn't exist.

"He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it's accelerating, and whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence," Deming told FOXNews.com.

"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."

Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.

"Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,"Deming said. "What he's doing here is he's writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that's not right. It's not reporting. It's propaganda.

"This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It's not fair and balanced."

A spokesman for the Associated Press said that the news agency stands by its story. "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others," spokesman Paul Colford told FOXNews.com in an e-mail.

Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story's approach to the issue.

"There's very little that's right about it," Fox said. "And it's really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.

"One guy like him can be very destructive and alarming. Yeah it's freedom of speech, but its dishonest."

Like Deming, Fox said global warming is not accelerating. "These kinds of temperatures cycle up and down and have been doing so for millions of years," he said.

He said there is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. "It's silly to lay it all on man-made carbon dioxide," Fox said. "It was El Nino in 1998 that caused the big spike in global warming and little to do with carbon dioxide."

Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes, he said.

James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.

"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world," O'Brien said. "But everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming."

He took issue with the AP article's assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.

"When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.

"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."

He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people."

O'Brien said he doesn't discount the potential effects man is having on the environment, but he cautioned that government should not make hasty decisions.

"There is no question that the Obama administration is green and I'm green, and there's no question that they're going to really take a careful look at what we need to do and attack problems, and I applaud that," O'Brien said.

"But I'm really concerned that they're going to spend all the money on implementation of mitigation, rather than supporting the science."

[Juan.Camaney]

Would you look at that....rep fmb.

The problem with mass hysteria is that it's like Bill O'reilly. No matter how many experts he has on his show, if he disagrees with them enough, people will start believing him. Same with these "studies"...throw enough numbers around to where people quit checking your facts and all of a sudden, it's true. Like the line "play it again, Sam" from Casablanca....that is not the way it's said, but that's the way its quoted by everyone.

[fmb]

The idea of having a policy of doing the right things to save on resources, lower costs, and have a clean environment is good.

I want this change (or whatever you term it) to come about because of good science, good government, and good practice. I've always been wary of any "scientist" (real or imagined) that screams gloom and doom. As an example of how this argument has changed over the decades, when I was in grade school (mid-late '70's) the prevailing screeching was the earth was heading for a new ice age; however, that tactic didn't work. Next thing you know, the idea is repackaged into global warming.

Don't scare me with potentially unreliable science. Give me good scientific studies, performed over a period of time, and I'll be on everyone's ass involved with making the best decision for me and my offspring.

Besides, rising ocean levels will give YaMon new surfing locations and my buds at Gitmo different waterboarding opportunities.

[ravenshrike]

What I am saying is it took us less than 100 years for us to re-release carbon that has been trapped for 160 million and 90 million years... Yes...

Carbon deposits of alge and planton were covered by moving plates and when pushed to the right depth for the right amount of time, oil was formed... If it were deeper or hotter it became natural gas... Not as deep oil shale or tar sands....

So if we are re-releasing carbon that was sequestered in this time period, it would be logical to look at the weather and climate for those periods.....
Of course, this assumes that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. Give the around 800 year lag shown in the ice cores between temp and CO2 this is highly unlikely.

[Krasch]

Of course, this assumes that CO2 is the primary driver of climate. Give the around 800 year lag shown in the ice cores between temp and CO2 this is highly unlikely.
Far more likely is the steady increase of solar radiation that has been ongoing for the last 100 years. In fact if one looks at the Northern Hemisphere Land Tempurature numbers and compares them to solar radiation levels, the graphs coincide with a remarkable level of correlation.

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

But I'm sure the next step will be that the tree hugger/global warming alarmists will start to blame man for the sun's increase in activity, because we all know that any climate change that may be occurring just can't be due to anything other than us little human beings now could it...

[Juan.Camaney]

Or the fact that the earth's magnetic fields have been changing a lot these last few decades and are going away. If we look to a neighbor planet like mars....we see what happened to them. Pretty fucking desolate for a planet rumored to be able to handle life based on its characteristics.

[Krasch]

Or the fact that the earth's magnetic fields have been changing a lot these last few decades and are going away. If we look to a neighbor planet like mars....we see what happened to them. Pretty fucking desolate for a planet rumored to be able to handle life based on its characteristics.
Indeed it is far more likely that ultimately the state of the climate has very little to with us, and if it goes south there will be very little we can do barring leaving Earth for elsewhere should that be an option.

To believe we have the ability to upend the climate, we who can't even recreate short term weather systems effectively nor affect them appreciably, is the height of hubris itself. How very arrogant an attitude...

[ddoubleez]

Far more likely is the steady increase of solar radiation that has been ongoing for the last 100 years. In fact if one looks at the Northern Hemisphere Land Tempurature numbers and compares them to solar radiation levels, the graphs coincide with a remarkable level of correlation.

http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif

But I'm sure the next step will be that the tree hugger/global warming alarmists will start to blame man for the sun's increase in activity, because we all know that any climate change that may be occurring just can't be due to anything other than us little human beings now could it...

Sorry I have not kept up with this, my apologies....

You see we can measure the increase of radiation from the sun and determine what they refer to as the level of forcing.. The case here is one to two percent which is about 1.5 to 3.0 watts per square meter.... The changes in the past decade have been ten time this... Climateologist will confirm that there is an influence from the sun changing itself, but can not make up the percentage of change you are talking about...

Here is a powerpoint for you:

http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~holland/phy207/Climate_Forcing.ppt#256,1,Climate Forcing and Feedback

Sllide 26 will show you the percentage of solar change relitive:

http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~holland/phy207/Climate_Forcing.ppt#281,26,Slide 26

And I have perscribed this lecture before and obviously you have not watched it, this is covered here:

http://today.caltech.edu/theater/19922_cable.ram

[Juan.Camaney]

again we had called a truce on global climate change