It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sea levels 'to surge at least a metre'

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
We should stop arguing over what it's called and whats causing it. The dinosaurs died off and I'm pretty sure to them their idea [if they had any] of the Earth was destroyed as they knew it. I think we are headed for a massive change!


I agree completely. I find it a little odd that many people seem to focus on the man-made aspect (or whether or not man contributes at all). Weather goes in massive cycles with big periods of warming and freezing and little periods - those little periods being described in fairly modern history with 'little ice ages' and so on. To look for ways to ride these changes out and adapt &c. makes perfect sense, even if you think that man has contributed little or nothing to the changes themselves.

Yes, some of these scenarios might not happen in the lifetimes of the posters on these boards, but it's increasingly likely they will in the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren. I find arguments like 'huh, I'll be dead and gone. What do I care?' bizarre, to say the least.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Oh man get a grip.

Please if you're just looking for a quick laugh may I suggest BTS.


Maybe, it's just me...

But the custom at ATS is to have SOMETHING on topic...

You know... Make some contribution...

Or... I don't know...

Answer my question?



Oh NO! The sky is FALLING! The sky is FALLING!

What ARE we going to do?


If the shoe fits...




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Oh man get a grip.

Please if you're just looking for a quick laugh may I suggest BTS.


Maybe, it's just me...

But the custom at ATS is to have SOMETHING on topic...

You know... Make some contribution...

Or... I don't know...

Answer my question?



Oh NO! The sky is FALLING! The sky is FALLING!

What ARE we going to do?


If the shoe fits...



Alright. This chartfrom sateliite measurements in sea level averages shows the yearly rise has been increasing since the 1990's. That means that it is not just on a steady increase but an exponential increase.

Since 2000 the average sea level rise has been about 2mm per year so it has risen 2 cm in the last 10 years. But the sea level rise each year is growing, and this group of scientists have shown by their calulculations that it will probably hit 1m in the next 90 years or possibly even 1.9m if we keep on going the way we are.

The sky isn't falling but it takes an exceedingly short sighted person not to take notice of trends and try to plan ahead for them. Look up the word contingency.

[edit on 11/3/09 by Shere Khaan]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


See... Now that wasn't so hard.

So wading thru that entire diatribe...

The answer is 2cm.

Less than an inch in 10 years!



Good thing we are the MOST intelligent species on the planet...

At that rate we should be able to adapt to get out of natures way.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


You see, that's why I put the diatribe in because you don't appear to understand the word INCREASING. It may not seem like much to you but when it gets to a couple of inches in a decade it will have a serious impact for our children.

I'm the sort of person who cleans up after myself. I don't like leaving problems for others to fix or deal with.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


Nothing personal Sheere Khaan, but that dog won't hunt.


Your concern quite geniune...

Exponential simply isn't the trend.


If someone was to go back and look at the ice that has supposedly melted in time X, the corresponding rise SIMPLY ISN'T THERE.

It's for a LOT of factors... probably far outside of the scope of this thread.

But I am game...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
IF IF IF IF IF IF

That's all you hear from the global warming theorists. A bunch of IFs and MAYBE's. MEANWHILE ... Fargo, North Dakota is just emerging from the worst blizzard they've had in years. Last week the eastern coast states of the U.S. were blanketed with snow, ice and record cold temperatures and right now as I type it is 39 degrees and raining here in Dallas, in March, during spring break.

I guess those global warming scientists will blame the record cold temperatures this year on La Nina, just like they did last year?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Geez, the world is bigger than the US. Tell these guys the sea level isn't rising.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


Time to move...

Nature is quietly amused at the contention that we are the dominant species on the Earth.

We're not even sentient!

...Or get some water wings! I hear they're on sale at Walmart.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


i will sound likea broken record, but islands sink below the waterline due to erosion and geological processes.

take the Hawaiian islands, Mauna Loa is standing tall, while f-ex. the French Frigate Shoals island does not, but it wasn't always that way. their relative sea level is rising, i won't deny that, but it strains credulity that a forecast is inundating these islands.

after all, can you honestly give us solid data of a material (beyond something that's measured in mm and is therefore drowned out by tides and weather patterns) sea level rise since , say 1900 or 1950?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 



i will sound like a broken record, but islands sink below the waterline due to erosion and geological processes.


You sound like a broken record...

Me too.


The problem dear Shere Khaan is not that sea levels rise and fall, it's that humans believe they really have anything to do with it.

Humans have an elevated sense of their impact on the vastness that is Earth. Humans are simply incapable of understanding that they do NOT really have anything to do with what is happening on a global scale.

And as much of a contradiction as it might sound... The ONE thing they CAN control... the devastating of ENTIRE ECOSYSTEMS is the one thing they chose to do nothing about.

An old example...

In the USA, Weyerhaeuser totally destroyed the rainforest on the Olympic Pennisula. It's GONE baby..

But you will NEVER hear any mention of that. (They've got LOTS of laywers
).

There are countless examples of exactly this type of devastation...

I for one find NO end to the amusement that the 'Greenies' have been redirected SO EASILY on this wild goose chase that is 'Global Warming'... now called 'Climate Change' (Cuz it just wasn't showing up?
)

They have totally been duped...

And absolutely have NO clue!




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


heck, if you took a look at my threads and posts, you'd find that I am probably 'green', these GW people otoh aren't.

they're just a cult. the creed is irrelevant, only the goals matter. like conquest, power and whatnot.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I guess all has been discussed already.....

Thing is, we are indeed talking about events that will occur long after I'm dead. I mean, we are talking about events in 90 or 100 years hence.

If you take a serious look at our planet, and how erosion and tectonics have shaped its surface over millenia.

Generations of the flora and fauna have adapted....because this ole' Earth changes slowly, in Human terms.

We will adapt....there will be deaths....and technology will attempt (because no other species HAD tech) will attempt to survive.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 




Sorry Long Lance... I had the spray noozle on the widest possible setting.


I always intuitively had you figured as a 'green'... a real one.


Psst. Don't tell anyone I'm one too... But certainly not a GW (or a CC).




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Some people won't lose their skepticism until the ocean waters are actually lapping up on Kansas. (lol)

In the distant past, when humanity was constrained to isolated groups of hunter gatherers, sure, when the climate got bad one place, they moved on. They did so in pace with the climate - which was, relatively speaking, a slow and manageable process.

Today is different. Millions of people live in fixed locations - concrete, asphalt, brick and steel structures that you just can't pick up and move on when the waters rise.

Across the globe billions of people, and their material possessions are at risk. What is the solution? It is hard to imagine what else can be done other than to abandon the coasts.

No amount of diking or levees will withstand the kind of rise predicted.

I lived until recently on the shore of a large lake. In the years when the water level was high, the waves were higher still. The effects of storms and wave action was multiplied. The same will be true for all the shores of the oceans as the water level rises.

This is a real problem with no easy solution. I am not sure it is preventable, by any means, or to be coped with. Escape will be the only solution.

Of course, the people in Kansas and Wyoming and the like can afford to be skeptical and will probably remain so forever. They can intellectualize ad nauseum because it ain't really their problem.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


i will sound likea broken record, but islands sink below the waterline due to erosion and geological processes.

take the Hawaiian islands, Mauna Loa is standing tall, while f-ex. the French Frigate Shoals island does not, but it wasn't always that way. their relative sea level is rising, i won't deny that, but it strains credulity that a forecast is inundating these islands.

after all, can you honestly give us solid data of a material (beyond something that's measured in mm and is therefore drowned out by tides and weather patterns) sea level rise since , say 1900 or 1950?


I was going to post this in my video post but I thought it might come across as churlish to argue this point before it was made.

This is not one island, it is many. Tuvalu, Kiribati, Vanauatu, Fiji, the COok islands, the Marshall Islands are all facing the same issues, and no, the Pacific tectonic plate is not sinking. What's more, the Maldives is setting up a fund to buy a new homeland. The President isn't basing this on a doomsday report, but a solid report of various methods of measuring the sea level over a long period of time. I'll save you the effort: the 2004 report that said the sea level was falling was plain wrong and a narrow range of data.

And finally, here is a page of slanty little charts that show a progressive sea level rise for hundreds of years.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


What? No mention of Florida?


It is just as bad as any of those atoll, islands, etc...

Another 10 years... Another 2cm...

STILL won't be threatened.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


erosion is happening everywhere, obviously.

water + waves + sandy or coral islands --->> loss of land.

heck even the cliffs of Dover are receding, even though it's not in any way related to inundation, just water erosion.

[edit on 2009.3.13 by Long Lance]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Of course erosion happens everywhere. The water cycle of the planet shaped the lands and continents.

The sea level has been rising for this centruy and all of the last and the amount it rises every year is increasing. I don't care if it is global warming or sun spots causing it, but simply ignoring a global problem because it doesn't fit your paradigm is not healthy.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
The trouble I always have with these "computer models" is that they can be tweaked to give whatever output is required to fit the particular theory currently in vogue. Keep tweaking the input data and you'll get a range of scenarios which, given the dynamics of natural weather cycles long term, can give wildly varying results.
The output result is therefore one of complete conjecture based on supposition alone, NOT necessarily fact, but grabs headlines and attention.

Not so many years ago we were all told to expect the start of the new ice age by now.


You know, the ice age comes right after the spike in temperatures. Throughout the historical record it shows a peak in temps and then a sharp drop. The recent and current melting at the poles is unprecedented. With the Arctic Ocean uncovered it will be able to absorb more of the suns heat for half the year and it will be a new source of evapotranspiration.

A personal theory of mine is that the increased weight of water in new locations on the globe results in higher vulcanism which results in particulates in the air that block the suns light thereby cooling the planet. The soon ice free Arctic sea provides a heap of moisture resulting in mega winter storms in the far north leading to a quick accumulation of snow and starting the process of glaciation of the North again. The snow sticks around and reflects a portion of light energy back out to space and ice age here we come.

Can you imagine the ocean effect snows up there as more areas become ice free?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join