The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Yes, islanders in many parts of the world are seriously concerned.  Not just the Pacific.

I've been to Cay Caulker, a small tourist island off the coast of Belize.  The last time I went there, they had tried building a steel wall around the island.  They had constructed a wall of roof panels, out in the surf - to try and keep increasing levels of sea water from lapping up on their beaches.  I knew at first glance it wouldn't work, and it didn't.   Caulker is one of who knows  how many islands which are facing dire situations.   Also, their community generator was initially built at grade level, but has been put up on blocks (at least once).  Now it's a meter above grade.

I was just in the Maldives. They are doing the same thing. New construction is being built way up. I'd say if they are spending the extra money to do this, they've got to have a good reason. And probably know more about this than any of us here.

[ExpatOilWorker]

7 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Yes, islanders in many parts of the world are seriously concerned.  Not just the Pacific.

I've been to Cay Caulker, a small tourist island off the coast of Belize.  The last time I went there, they had tried building a steel wall around the island.  They had constructed a wall of roof panels, out in the surf - to try and keep increasing levels of sea water from lapping up on their beaches.  I knew at first glance it wouldn't work, and it didn't.   Caulker is one of who knows  how many islands which are facing dire situations.   Also, their community generator was initially built at grade level, but has been put up on blocks (at least once).  Now it's a meter above grade.

On a longer time scale sea-level rise is massively slowing down.

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Yes, islanders in many parts of the world are seriously concerned.  Not just the Pacific.

I've been to Cay Caulker, a small tourist island off the coast of Belize.  The last time I went there, they had tried building a steel wall around the island.  They had constructed a wall of roof panels, out in the surf - to try and keep increasing levels of sea water from lapping up on their beaches.  I knew at first glance it wouldn't work, and it didn't.   Caulker is one of who knows  how many islands which are facing dire situations.   Also, their community generator was initially built at grade level, but has been put up on blocks (at least once).  Now it's a meter above grade.

 

A cay is not really an island. It is an accumulation of sandy sediment driven onto existing reefs by winds and current. In a geologic sense they are ephemera.

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

On a longer time scale sea-level rise is massively slowing down.

So, what's your point?   .....that sea levels rise after ice ages?   Yea, thanks for the info.

 

What's at issue is what's happened in past decades, and projections for the next hundred years and beyond.  That chart doesn't address that.

 

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

A cay is not really an island. It is an accumulation of sandy sediment driven onto existing reefs by winds and current. In a geologic sense they are ephemera.

call it what you want, geologically, I'm sure there are many ways islands get created.

Yet, for the folks residing there, it's an island, and is the firmament upon which they try to exist.

[lannarebirth]

17 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

call it what you want, geologically, I'm sure there are many ways islands get created.

Yet, for the folks residing there, it's an island, and is the firmament upon which they try to exist.

 

And they are not alone. I personally own waterfront property and understand the risks associated with that. Frankly, in this whole GW/CC story I am far less interested in oceans rising than I am with ocean acidification and oxygen depletion. The former offers decades and centuries for adaptation if necessary. The latter is a possible extinction level event.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by lannarebirth

[ExpatOilWorker]

38 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

So, what's your point?   .....that sea levels rise after ice ages?   Yea, thanks for the info.

 

What's at issue is what's happened in past decades, and projections for the next hundred years and beyond.  That chart doesn't address that.

 

call it what you want, geologically, I'm sure there are many ways islands get created.

Yet, for the folks residing there, it's an island, and is the firmament upon which they try to exist.

It sure make the current whopping 20 cm rice in more than 130 years look like a natural event.

You are welcome for the information. Happy you learned something new.

 

[canuckamuck]

5 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

It sure make the current whopping 20 cm rice in more than 130 years look like a natural event.

You are welcome for the information. Happy you learned something new.

 

Really people should be alarmed at how stable everything has been. History shows things can and do change much more rapidly,  and that is without industrialization. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

I actually used to be an idealist and believed in GW, but when the propaganda machine starting pumping out blatant lies, I smartened up and started to thinking for myself. Now I am a free man and don't worry at all for the future.

[craigt3365]

24 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

I actually used to be an idealist and believed in GW, but when the propaganda machine starting pumping out blatant lies, I smartened up and started to thinking for myself. Now I am a free man and don't worry at all for the future.

Sad. You should be able to understand that was just done to make a point. National geographic is a good media organization. Not the time to bury your head in the sand.

[lannarebirth]

31 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sad. You should be able to understand that was just done to make a point. National geographic is a good media organization. Not the time to bury your head in the sand.

 

Outcomes are complicated and highly speculative. What CAN be done is to maintain and improve upon cleaning our own sources of water and reduce emissions. We can refuse to trade with countries that contribute excessively to pollution of air and water. It's a twofer. Brings jobs back to the West and incentivises the East to accelerate their emission control efforts.

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

Edited November 22, 2017 by lannarebirth

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Outcomes are complicated and highly speculative. What CAN be done is to maintain and improve upon cleaning our own sources of water and reduce emissions. We can refuse to trade with countries that contribute excessively to pollution of air and water. It's a twofer. Brings jobs back to the West and incentivises the East to accelerate their emission control efforts.

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

Quote

 

 

But for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier. That's largely because their many structures—seawalls, roads, and water and electricity systems—are locked in place.

 

 

Very good article. A few here should read it. From that article.

Edited November 22, 2017 by craigt3365

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Can you please provide a credible link that shows why these Pacific islands are now gone? Thanks.

I never said that. Vanishing is not the same as gone.

 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

said this already, doesn't matter what the website is 'no trickszone' whatsupwhiththat..  it links to peer reviewed scientific research..  the co2 global warming people often say their theories are supported by such research but the reality is the more reliable and definitive research indicates inconvenient truths; like for example that it was warmer, with higher sea levels only 1000 years ago and even much warmer with even higher sea levels than that-5000-7000 years ago..

Can you provide links directly to the "peer reviewed scientific research", preferably in English and with peer reviewed scientific analysis of the data?  The only links I found in your source were to one German language website and pages of unprocessed data. 

 

Better yet, can you provide examples of credible sources for science news that use or review notrickszone.com?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A certain politician claimed that too, and was ridiculed for it.

 

Levels haven't risen to the point of being noticeable in Pattaya, nor thousands of miles away in my home country.

Can you give us an example of actual sea level rise anywhere, but please don't use the famous disappearing islands of the Pacific, which may be vanishing for reasons unrelated to sea level. On a few famous beaches around the world would be good.

How about the location of the over-priced "winter Whitehouse"?

 

" The mean sea level has risen noticeably in the Miami and Miami Beach areas just in the past decade.  Flooding events are getting more frequent, and some areas flood during particularly high tides now; no rain or storm surge necessary [1]. "   http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2014/10/03/sea-level-rise-in-miami/  

 

More generally:

 

"Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, 3,000 calendar years ago to present, sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD."

 

"Since 1880, the ocean began to rise briskly, climbing a total of 210 mm (8.3 in) through 2009 causing extensive erosion worldwide and costing billions.^[17]"

 

"Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.^{"     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Current_state_of_the_sea_level_change}

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Greenland is and has always been melting. It is the rate of melt that is significant.

If you believe in your last paragraph, then you agree nothing realistic is being done to reverse the CO2 levels as governments are the only entities capable of doing so.

BTW, I DON'T believe governments, led by people with a variety of motives and variety of backgrounds (but very rarely led by scientists), are capable of recognizing a global problem and taking a cooperative global approach to solving it, which is the basis of everything I have been saying. I guess you haven't actually read any of my posts.

You don't believe governments, you don't believe the global consensus of scientists and, I assume, you don't believe the measurements showing sea levels, temperatures and CO2 concentrations rising at historically unprecedented rates.

 

Once could almost think you believe what you want to believe without regard to evidence.

[KiChakayan]

The AH who wrote this should get off his back and start mountaineering, during the 40 years I have been regularly to the Alps, Andes and Himalayas I have been witness to the blatant withdrawal of the glaciers.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

On a longer time scale sea-level rise is massively slowing down.

Please note the post immediately above this one. Eight thousand years of stability came to an end about 150 years ago.

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said that. Vanishing is not the same as gone.

 

A credible showing either would be appreciated.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, KiChakayan said:

The AH who wrote this should get off his back and start mountaineering, during the 40 years I have been regularly to the Alps, Andes and Himalayas I have been witness to the blatant withdrawal of the glaciers.

We trekked several glaciers in Patagonia several years ago. The recession was staggering. Beyond belief.

[thaihome]

[boomerangutang]

excerpt from article, from US's NOAA:

 

"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets"

 

SOURCE

 

Note to people posting graphs which span tens of thousands of years:  It's not germane to the issue at hand.  What's important is the past several decades and the future hundreds of years.  That time span is a flick of an eye geologically.  

If you were a forensic scientist and you were called in to inspect a human skeleton in the forest - you wouldn't be concerned with prior ice ages.  You'd focus on the past weeks/months, because that's what relates to the issue at hand.  Time frame, Watson.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

excerpt from article, from US's NOAA:

 

"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets"

 

SOURCE

 

Note to people posting graphs which span tens of thousands of years:  It's not germane to the issue at hand.  What's important is the past several decades and the future hundreds of years.  That time span is a flick of an eye geologically.  

If you were a forensic scientist and you were called in to inspect a human skeleton in the forest - you wouldn't be concerned with prior ice ages.  You'd focus on the past weeks/months, because that's what relates to the issue at hand.  Time frame, Watson.

Fake news! It's all political propaganda.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, thaihome said:

That's exactly what I saw in Patagonia. Exactly.

 

Impossible to deny climate change.

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

excerpt from article, from US's NOAA:

 

"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.

The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets"

 

SOURCE

 

Note to people posting graphs which span tens of thousands of years:  It's not germane to the issue at hand.  What's important is the past several decades and the future hundreds of years.  That time span is a flick of an eye geologically.  

If you were a forensic scientist and you were called in to inspect a human skeleton in the forest - you wouldn't be concerned with prior ice ages.  You'd focus on the past weeks/months, because that's what relates to the issue at hand.  Time frame, Watson.

Both the short and the long time frame graphs are important We are not inspecting bodies in the forest we are investigating climate, which began a long time ago and has cycles of different durations. You'd make a fine climate scientist, deciding to ignore some of the data so your theory fits better.

[canuckamuck]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That's exactly what I saw in Patagonia. Exactly.

 

Impossible to deny climate change.

You should have seen it 20,000 years ago.

[uncleeagle]

The crux of this idiot authors story is that the global warming brigade are wrong because the Antarctic ice mass has been increasing since the 1990s. The rest of his diatribe consists of irrelevant red herrings.

 

But if this tedious, ignorant fool bothered to check even some basic facts, as opposed to repeat the usual conspiracy theory website drivel like a parrot, he would have found that:

 

1.a 20 year trend in which the antarctic ice was melting has now reversed and its ice mass has been falling now for several years.

 

2. the reason for the 20 year rise was increased antarctic precipitation due to warmer temperatures which is actually consistent with global warming models, and indeed led to rising ice levels, but that these warmer temperatures are now causing more melting. 

 

3. Repeating scientific words without undestanding is something any idiot can do for a while to seem smart but after a while everyone will realise exactly what you are...which is an idiot.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by uncleeagle

[craigt3365]

20 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You should have seen it 20,000 years ago.

I did.

[ExpatOilWorker]

 

44 minutes ago, uncleeagle said:

The crux of this idiot authors story is that the global warming brigade are wrong because the Antarctic ice mass has been increasing since the 1990s. The rest of his diatribe consists of irrelevant red herrings.

 

But if this tedious, ignorant fool bothered to check even some basic facts, as opposed to repeat the usual conspiracy theory website drivel like a parrot, he would have found that:

 

1.a 20 year trend in which the antarctic ice was melting has now reversed and its ice mass has been falling now for several years.

 

2. the reason for the 20 year rise was increased antarctic precipitation due to warmer temperatures which is actually consistent with global warming models, and indeed led to rising ice levels, but that these warmer temperatures are now causing more melting. 

 

3. Repeating scientific words without undestanding is something any idiot can do for a while to seem smart but after a while everyone will realise exactly what you are...which is an idiot.

 

 

 

Melting for 20 years, then reversed and the ice mass is falling. What kind twisted science is this?

Edited November 22, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker

[sauvagecheri]

Some land areas are also sinking due to various factors such as the pumping of ground water..or other natural causes

Sent from my GT-N8000 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

That's exactly what I saw in Patagonia. Exactly.

 

Impossible to deny climate change.

I guess you didn't care to see Perito Moreno, since it is still growing.

 

Did you by any chance visit Comodoro Rivadavia?