|
Post by steve on May 9, 2011 9:38:53 GMT
woodstove
Woodstove, your question is diversionary. The sea level rise has been and will obviously be accelerated by increasing temperatures that are primarily caused by anthropogenic warming.
That people are prepared to promulgate all sorts of nonsense and pseudoscience to pretend it is not happening (Mörner etc.) is indicative of the level that the sceptic debate is prepared to fall to.
Fred, I suspect most of us here are going to die long before sea level becomes an issue for safety. But coastal protection will be a significant investment that may need to be planned in our lifetimes. Leaving aside the direct effects of the Japanese tsunami, I wonder how many billions will be required just to deal with the fact that the level of parts of the Japanese coast has fallen by 1 metre in places (ie. building up coastal defences, relocating infrastructure etc.)
|
|
ZL4DH
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 128
|
Post by ZL4DH on May 9, 2011 10:07:45 GMT
Woodstove, your question is diversionary. The sea level rise has been and will obviously be accelerated by increasing temperatures that are primarily caused by anthropogenic warming. Steve wrote That people are prepared to promulgate all sorts of nonsense and pseudoscience to pretend it is not happening (Mörner etc.) is indicative of the level that the sceptic debate is prepared to fall to.
And then some of us sceptics have lived by the sea and played by the sea all our lives(66yrs) and haven't noticed any rise at all, and i still tie my boat up to the same post as i did when i was a kid and the tide goes out and comes in just the same as it did back then.I think observation wins over guesswork anytime, and as for your diversionary comment about Japans coastal level falling what has that got to do with sea level rise, that would have cost billions anyway and no amount of planning would have mitigated that or stopped it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 9, 2011 10:29:00 GMT
I think you would need to be very sensitive to notice a sea level rise of less than 15cm in 60 years.
The point about the Japanese sea defences is that the reality of the situation focuses the minds on the cost where a somewhat theoretical argument about the needs for defences in 50 or 100 years time does not (even if we have to start paying for them well before they're required).
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 9, 2011 12:25:29 GMT
Steve:
1. Mörner has measured sea level, personally, thousands of times. Is this a claim that you can make?
2. My own observations of sea level are not worthless.
3. No ports have needed to be retooled to deal with rising sea levels.
4. I cannot think of a more diversionary thing to mention in this context than the tragedy in Japan.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 9, 2011 13:44:19 GMT
Steve: 1. Mörner has measured sea level, personally, thousands of times. Is this a claim that you can make? Môrner is not the only person to have done so. Since he is in a minority of about one on his observations, and since his observations are well out of line with observations of ocean heat content and land ice loss, I think he should be discounted by anyone who wants to make a sane and sensible argument. According to the plot above your own observations seem to be taking place in an area where sea levels may have been faling since 1992. So I am happy to take your observations on trust. I still don't believe you would have detected a 5-10cm rise. [Correction: I remembered your location wrong - as you say you are in Austin I don't know what ocean you visit regularly] No ports need to be retooled to deal with a sea level rise of 5cm. Please be serious It's fine to get emotional about these things. But getting emotional won't hold back the sea or build up the sea defences.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 9, 2011 14:49:11 GMT
Which of Mörner's measurements do you reject? Not his views, mind you, but his measurements.
I grew up in California and saw the coast constantly. I return there regularly and have pointed out here that not a single surf spot has been affected by AGW or imaginarily rising seas. I also lived and worked on the coast of Rhode Island for about a decade and not one fisherman there reported seeing sea levels rise during his entire lifetime. I see the sea in Rhode Island on all my trips to in-laws there, and can assure you that sea level in the northeastern United States is not rising.
And, again, over any length of time worth talking about (centuries), sea level doesn't generally stay stable. It's not in the nature of water to stay stable, Steve.
What if we are, though, heading to the highstand witnessed during the Eemian? What proof is there that this is (a) a bad thing and (b) resultant from human-caused co2 emissions?
You've got 15 feet of rising sea levels to go before I'm willing to attribute an inch to humankind, in other words.
The notion that sea levels are supposed to remain at a spot determined by Leftists is hilarious!
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on May 9, 2011 15:36:32 GMT
Woodstove, your question is diversionary. The sea level rise has been and will obviously be accelerated by increasing temperatures that are primarily caused by anthropogenic warming. Steve, that statement is so wrong in so many ways. Let me correct it for you... Woodstove, your question is spot on... The sea level rise has been constant for many decades, certainly since prior to any possible anthropogenic effects. Thus any attempt to connect changes in sea level to anthropogenic causes is either some useful idiot parroting misinformation that they are not intelligent enough to understand. Or they are lying through their teeth for a more sinister reason. Say, riding the AGW funding gravy train, or attempting to enact political changes that normally would not be accepted by anyone who thinks that governments should have limited power and exist to help the people they govern, not enslave them.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 9, 2011 16:56:12 GMT
dontgetoutmuch
No it isn't. The sea level is rising. The rate is faster than recent pre-industrial times. The rate is faster from the latter part of the 20th Century up to now - as you'd expect with rising temperatures.
Probably this is not the thread to discuss your paranoid views about enslavement.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on May 9, 2011 17:46:49 GMT
northsphinx, the image is relative to the geoid, not relative to local land. So if the sea level is rising slower than the land level the image will still show the sea level rising even though the local tide gauges would see the level falling. Is the geoid constant? Or does the earth radius change ? From wiki: "The variation in density and crustal thickness causes gravity to vary on the surface, so that the mean sea level will differ from the ellipsoid. This difference is the geoid height, positive above or outside the ellipsoid, negative below or inside. The geoid height variation is under 110 m on Earth. The geoid height can have abrupt changes due to earthquakes (such as the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake) or reduction in ice masses (such as Greenland). Not all deformations originate within the earth. Gravity of the Moon and Sun cause Earth's surface to undulate by tenths of meters at a point over a nearly 12 hour period (see Earth tide)." You say 3 mm?
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on May 10, 2011 5:13:22 GMT
dontgetoutmuch No it isn't. The sea level is rising. The rate is faster than recent pre-industrial times. The rate is faster from the latter part of the 20th Century up to now - as you'd expect with rising temperatures. Probably this is not the thread to discuss your paranoid views about enslavement. You could not be more wrong. Sea level has not risen for almost a decade now, while C02 has steadily increased, sea level has actually declined for 2 years now. You are exactly 100% opposite of reality as far as blaming sea level rise on anthropogenic C02. The stupid alarmists are making things worse for themselves, now, as they have no explanation for the rise in sea levels that predate anthropogenic C02 emissions. Followed by a period where they appear to be in sync but then diverge again. Any sane person can look at the data and conclude that C02 is not the driver for sea level rise. The real world strongly disagrees with your position Steve, those of us who live here are finding your sad attempts to cling to your convictions painful to watch and wonder when reality will sink in...
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 10, 2011 9:02:35 GMT
northsphinx,
I believe the measurements would be relative to the centre of the geoid, not to the surface of the geoid at sea level. I suppose that if you could fold in the results from the GRACE satellite you could do another plot relative to the surface of the geoid which may show some differences by cancelling out impacts of geoid changes.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 10, 2011 9:05:24 GMT
dontgetoutmuch
I think you are looking at the sea level plot the wrong way around. Perhaps changes in your local geoid are upsetting your sense of balance.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on May 10, 2011 10:16:08 GMT
Steve; Please explain for us how CO2 can be the reason for uneven change of sea level in pacific as east of japan. How can CO2 affect locally?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 10, 2011 10:44:31 GMT
northsphinx
Who said CO2 is the reason? What is the variability in sea level of this region over a typical ENSO cycle?
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on May 10, 2011 14:20:41 GMT
|
|