It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


It's Too Late : Only 10-years before open sea in the Arctic

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:57 AM
Rising Sea Levels Are Increasing Risk Of Flooding Along South Coast Of England

paras 3&4

Their work has added collectively about 150 years worth of historic data to the existing record of English Channel sea-level change and extended the data along the south coast. Their findings are published in the latest edition of the journal Continental Shelf Research.

The data shows that both average sea levels and extreme sea levels have been rising at a similar rate through the 20th Century. The rate of rise is in the range 1.2 to 2.2 mm per year, with 1.3 mm per year recorded at Southampton.

Just on a quick search, by no means exhaustive, I've been able to locate two more reports, one scientific, indicating locally rising sea and water levels in different parts of the world.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 10:20 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by elfie

I'll say it again: it is physically impossible to change the ocean level at one point without changing it globally, short of varying the gravitational constant at that one point.

Water seeks its own level. If you pour water in one side of a pool, the water level on that side does not keep rising independently of the other side. The oceans are the same way, just on a grander scale. Any sea level rise in one area will affect sea level everywhere. Within a week, the levels would stabilize globally.

The reports you mention of actual measurements are reports of land shrinkage, erosion, or are referencing historical changes such as what happened during an ice age. Yes, the ice level will drop oceanic levels, but the effect is not as great as some would have us believe. Even at the height of the last ice age, when New York City would have been covered by a mile of ice had it existed, there were still oceans with sea levels not very far removed from what we have today.

The typical cause of a shoreline retreat is not rising sea levels, but rather subduction of the land or erosion of the shore. I assure you, if sea levels were to rise by a single foot, you would hear more panic in the streets than you can imagine.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

At the rates quoted the a one foot rise in sea level occurs over a century. Yes, I agree with you that a one foot rise, instantaneously, would be quite shocking. From everything I can tell, is not being documented, nor predicted. Glacial melting in the arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, along with the increased severity of storms and subduction/subsidence are all contributing to the shoreline erosion that is being documented. None of it happens in a vacuum. The net effect is rising sea levels.

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (requires subscription)

Sea levels rising faster than expected: scientists

Rising sea levels threaten East Coast

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada

This article predicts an even greater rise of one meter:

We should be alarmed about rising sea levels
para 4

Sea levels had already been rising for almost 400 years, as the world recovered from the Little Ice Age. That much was perfectly natural. But the process has been accelerating: a two-centimetre rise during the 18th century became six centimetres in the 19th century and 19cm in the 20th. In the 1990s, the rate rose by 50 per cent, reaching the equivalent of 30cm in a century, and is now nearer 40cm. If things continue, a one-metre rise by 2100 looks more than likely: indeed, the Thames Barrier is already being raised more and more often to protect London, and some studies suggest a new and bigger barrage could be needed as soon as 2030.

Rising seas threaten Shanghai, other major cities 10-19-09

edit: to fix link

[edit on 19-10-2009 by elfie]

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 04:27 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by elfie

Meltwater from land-based glacial melts will raise sea level; there is no dispute over that. But what is getting me are the references to localized phenomena. Perhaps I am not explaining my concern enough, so let me try again:

If you take a body of water, be it a pool or a lake or a pond, and you add water to it in one location, the water will not remain in that one location. The water you add will spread out over the entire area of the body of water, until it is equally distributed over the entire area.

Most bathtubs are built so that the inlet (the faucet) is on one end of the tub. when the faucet is turned on, the water coming in does not stay under the faucet; it fills the tub evenly.

The same thing happens on a global scale with oceans. Any increase in the amount of water will cause a corresponding rise everywhere, not just in Shanghai, or London, or Boston. So when iI see something like this:

Coastal waters from New York to North Carolina have crept up by an average of 2.4 to 4.4 millimeters (0.09 to 0.17 inches) a year, compared with an average global increase of 1.7 millimeters (0.07 inches) a year, the EPA said in a report.

This makes me wonder how this could possibly be happening?

Land on the other hand, moves tectonically at differing rates, since it has much less viscosity than water. So this tells me that tectonic movement could be a more apt culprit than sea level change. Also, erosion along beaches is a known culprit for removing ocean-front land from existence and allowing the ocean to 'expand' into populated areas. This could be another culprit.

Since elevation is measured from sea level, the only way to really determine is by comparing known fixed locations with current sea levels, or to observe rising levels everywhere. This is not happening. The same resorts in Myrtle beach that I frequented two decades ago are still there with the same amount of beach. Anyone familiar with that area will be aware of the extremely gradual slope of the beach, which means that a centimeter of rise would remove several feet of beach, quite enough to be noticeable.

This removal of beaches is simply not happening in South Carolina. Neither have I seen any indication of it in Florida or Mobile. And surely the extremely expensive real estate along the beach in the Los Angeles area would generate a HUGE news story should it be shrinking. I have heard nothing about that.

"We used to play on the river banks and swim in the water when I was growing up. But the river is higher now," says Ma Shikang, an engineer overseeing Shanghai's main flood gate, pointing to homes below water level near the city's famed riverfront Bund.

(emphasis mine)

Now, exactly how does rising sea levels raise the river level? Well, of course it would do so if the sea level rose to above the river level, but that would also mean that the river was no longer a river. It would then be salty and a part of the sea. There's no mention of such a phenomenon occurring.

More confusion... unless one were to consider that more runoff would raise the river level. Yes, that would raise the sea level as well, but technically so does spitting in the ocean. Neither will raise such a massive body of water by perceptible levels.

All these observations are further complicated by the fact that waves are regular in the ocean, and can contribute many many times the differentials claimed, only they do so at a faster pace. Tides as well, make large oceanic differences due to the gravitational influence of the moon. Even storms can 'push up' water levels locally for short periods of time. None of these indicate a rise in sea levels, only a temporary rise due to outside influences. All of them create temporary rises and falls in local levels only.

The only way a true change on sea level could be detected is by comparing perceived rises across the globe. So far, no such global phenomenon has been observed; it is all localized and therefore not global; it is therefore not due to an overall sea level rise.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:57 PM
Two points need to be made regarding the arctic. First of all, the sensationalistic articles that claim that this is the first time in human history that the arctic will be ice-free, are basing that claim on satellite observations which began in the 1970's, and oceanographic surveys of the arctic which have only been carried out since about 1972.
The second point concerns the fact that the entire solar system is warming, not just the earth, but again, the time frame of human observation is only a few decades.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

Making any claim regarding long-term trends, based upon a few decades of data is certainly not in keeping with the scientific method.
Of course, politicians are not bound to adhere to scientific methods, but for the rest of us, I would not draw any conclusions from what may be a blip in the long history of climate conditions on Earth (and the solar system).

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Hi Redneck
I'm not going to argue the point because I don’t know for sure perhaps someone else knows. However I was involved some years ago assisting some hydrologists in retrieving data from a lake remotely (telemetry is what I do) apparently even a lake is not level it depends on a number of conditions. I can’t remember them but there is a stack of things that make water unlevel

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by majestictwo

Sorry to not conform. I'm kinda good at that.
Hence my membership on ATS! (well, I guess that is conforming somewhat)

Actually I guess I should announce it when I'm being sarcastic!
Which is alot of the time......

I just dont see much ever getting done about many of these problems.
Including the corruption and wholesale looting of everything we once held dear about this country. The sheep dont care anymore, why should I?

Let me put that post in another way.
We may as well enjoy what we have left because this seems to be as good as it will ever get. We will make sure of it.
The status quo is too important not to maintain at all cost.

We value things and stuff over people, critters and yes, even our only
place to live! This is a suicidal and unsustainable way of thinking!
Doesn't anyone see this for cripes sakes?

It's like an addiction. We are in a perpetual state of denial.
Climate change is but one example of this lack of concern.
I wont go on a rant here, I'll spare you all.
I just don't hold out not much hope for our species.(without direct intervention)
Sorry to admit it. We would much rather have wars.
(yes that was sarcastic)

I operate a small farm (as well as work a full time job), and I have
seen these changes firsthand over the past several decades.
I dont need some scientist to tell me what my experience has already shown me.
Indeed it is imperative I understand my local weather for obvious reasons.
Things are changing for all of us, like it or not.
No one can tell me that my eyes are lying to me. Sorry.
They get checked regularly and are fine. Been told I have eagle eyes actually.
We are mighty small fish on a big blue planet, but if you put enough fish
in a bowl, sooner or later it starts to affect things. Like the water.
Ever notice how overpopulation is a taboo subject?
Not sure if totally on topic, but I felt I owed you this explanation since this is your thread. Carry on.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:32 AM

Originally posted by dodadoom

It's like an addiction. We are in a perpetual state of denial.
Climate change is but one example of this lack of concern.

it is not up to you to judge peoples' intentions, is it?

imho, the best approach would have been for AGW proponents to actually lump CO2 in with toxic pollutants (strictly form a PR point of view of course) but i think i understand why it wasn't done that way.

it's supposed to be a singular issue, ie. thou shalt not have any fear other than the fear of global warming

many many other important topics are continuously being swept under the rug, such as questionable modern agricultural practices and soil depletion, land use in general, toxic pollutants and many more. these threaten the very base of our lives, yet people don't listen and keep talking about carbon this carbon that when in fact their so called efforts at curbing CO2 are ineffective at best and for the most part outright detrimental to the environment. point that out (corn fuel) and you'll hear that 'in only a few years' things will change.... some of these posts are from '06, now go figure, all talk and empty at that. one might be inclined to believe that people can learn -if they want to. the lesson here seems to be that one can 'win' any debate by ignoring all views but your own while bringing a self-reinforcing majority to the table.

you can see this by looking at peoples' fixation on mobile power generation, ie. ethanol for cars but still straight fuel oil for heating. why is that? a saving is a saving, isn't it? no matter where and how it was achieved.

it's all about visibility, never real gains and that's why we (those who bother to look) can see mercury filled CFLs next to open refridgerators, filled with disposable aluminium cans. pure lunacy if you think about it for even one second.

PS: the willful ignorance on environment related subjects cennot be attributed to 'good will' - rather the opposite. just look at this forum, conflicting but incontrovertible evidence is ignored, dissenting views are reduced to 'anti-science' and pro-AGW topics get bumped and bumped by people who are all singing the same refrain. (but no original lyrics) is that your model for discourse??

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:26 PM
I just came across this new claim concerning Global Warming. It would be funny, if this issue were not so serious:


A MEDIUM-sized dog has the same carbon impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year, a new book claims.

Time To Eat The Dog: The Real Guide To Sustainable Living also suggests a cat is equivalent to running a Volkswagen Golf.

The findings are based on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets.

Even a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, say the book’s authors Robert and Brenda Vale.

But rabbits and chickens were eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners, while a canary or a goldfish does little harm to the planet, the authors said.

Pretty soon, they'll blame Aunt Tillie for rocking her chair while knitting.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:41 PM

It's Too Late : Only 10-years before open sea in the Arctic

Too late for what? Why in the world would we want to stop a natural cycle?

[edit on 24/10/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by majestictwo

This is another BS excuse by envirolunatics trying to sell the global warming hoax as fast as possible before we keep getting colder due to the low activity of the Sun.

With the earth's magnetic field having large breaches from time to time because it is very weak, alongside with the oceans still having some warm stored this could explain the areas where there is still some warming, but on the overall we have been having worse winters, they have lasted longer, and started earlier in many parts of the world. Not to mention the increased magmatic activity underground which has been increasing in frequency.

There is even recent research which indicates that the warming is being caused by the oceans, and not by the atmosphere.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Pretty soon, they'll blame Aunt Tillie for rocking her chair while knitting.

Yep, that shows the stupidity that the environlunatics will try to come up with trying to sell their hoagwash....

Like I said a few years back, soon enough we will all be walking around with CO2, and methane sensors strapped close to our behinds and our noses/mouth if we allow the environlunatics to keep using their scaremongering tactics to control us, and if we give in to their idiotic demands which at the end will not stop, nor will they mitigate Climate Change.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Too late for what? Why in the world would we want to stop a natural cycle?

Well I guess we dont know what its too late for becuse we haven found out yet obviously. Who knows it may be too late because we are past a point of no return. We may find its too late because we caused the loss of many species of creatures - we will find out one day.

I don't think I suggested to stop a natural cycle and in any case how the heck could you do that?

But since you mention it perhaps we should try to stop the un-natural cycles.. Coal fired power stations, petrol driven cars, well this list goes on I guess.

To make bunkum of climate change (warming or cooling) and in-turn blame it on natural cycles is stupidity. Its the same as saying that all the cars in the world, all the industry, chemical pollution and the list goes on have no effect whatever. Everything has an affect on everything else including having a dog, thanks ProfEmeritus previous post.

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:19 PM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

This is another BS excuse by envirolunatics trying to sell the global warming hoax as fast as possible before we keep getting colder due to the low activity of the Sun.

I think of an "envirolunatic" as someone who has no, care, responsibility, regard for others or enthusiasm for their own or others environment.

From the rest of your post it sounds like you agree there is climate change due to various reasons. The question is are you ready and are you prepared to minimise your own personal contribution.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:30 PM
One of the things that needs to happen, is the removal of politics, regarding the issue of climate change and the environment, in general.
I doubt that anyone believes that pollution is good for the environment, and WE should ALL do whatever we can to remove dangerous pollutants from the atmosphere.
However CO2 is another issue. First of all, if there were no CO2, three would be no plant life, and without plant life, we would not exist.
My good friend TheRedneck and I, last year vowed to plant new trees this year, and I know we both did. We should ENCOURAGE the natural cycle of life--namely CO2--->Plants-->Oxygen--->Animal Life--->plants.
Does mankind affect the natural cycle? Yes, but to what degree? That is the big question. Looking at the history of earth's climate changes, we know that before mankind, the earth was much warmer many times, and much cooler many times.
I believe that we should err on the side of caution. Without REALLY knowing whether the climate is warming or heading towards another ice age, we should not do anything drastic. We may push the earth in the wrong direction more quickly.
Cut pollution? Absolutely.
Take action regarding CO2 without knowing which way the earth is heading?-A potential for disaster.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 08:02 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by majestictwo

There are only two things I know of which can affect the level of a body of water, and both depend on gravitational influences.
  1. Tidal forces form the moon offset the normal gravitational pull of the earth and cause water levels to rise, creating a phenomenon we know as 'tides'. This rise (and subsequent fall) of water levels is regular and predictable, based on the location of the moon relative to the location under observation at any given time. It is not an absolute change, either. The average tidal changes in any given location average out over time.

    In the condition where the tide is actively rising or falling (which is most of the time, incidentally), one side of a given body of water will be higher or lower than the other, since the moon is in motion relative to it. The condition is, however, as previously stated, temporary and averages itself out over time. It will cause differences in direct relation to the physical area and dimensions of a given body of water.

  2. Gravitational anomalies can be present in some locations due to an irregular distribution of matter within the earth. In simpler terms, if an area of higher density than the surrounding area exists within the earth, there will be a slight gravitational anomaly as more mass is pulling on one area than on another. These conditions are slight, barely perceptible in all but the most severe cases, to the point of being discovered in my lifetime (I remember reading an article about the discovery of gravitational anomalies due to mass distribution only 15? years or so ago).

Now, that's what I know about it, discounting such things as pressure vents, etc. If anyone else has any information on this, I would love to hear about it.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

One of the things I think about is the idea, which was very prevalent in the 1970's, to "harvest" icebergs from Antarctica, and drag them to arid sections of the world, for drinking water and irrigation. I remember reading several scientific papers that calculated pulling power, drag, ice met, and duration of the trip, and concluding that such a feat would be economically possible, as well as technically feasible.
Such efforts would also tend to mitigate some of the ice melt, since the remaining iceberg mass would end up on land.
Does anyone know what happened to those efforts?

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:33 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

You know, I had forgotten about that! I used to watch the advent of the idea, hoping it could be used to irrigate desert areas into farmland for food production. I really have no idea what happened, as it seems the concept just slipped off the radar.

Such an enterprise would provide innumerable acres of new farmland and could ease many of the water quality problems of some more metropolitan areas, like California. It would also slow any potential sea level rise as you state, not that I believe such is going to be a major concern anyway.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I found a very interesting recent patent concerning the transportation of icebergs using a rather ingenious method:

Here is the abstract:

Improvements to a process for moving icebergs from Antarctica to arid destinations wherein the iceberg is thermally insulated on bottom and sides with kelp grown into mats, pushed with a subtug below sea level to direct its force vector throught the iceberg's center of gravity, stopped at a destination site by pawls extending from bedrock at the bottom of a channel which has multiple rolldams made of rollable round discs which can open the channel to allow passage of the iceberg and close the channel to contain melt water.

I won't take space reproducing the entire link, but the link does explain the claims and methodology, and it is quite interesting.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:10 PM
I have a few friends involved in the shipping business. One of them was telling me recently that his company is VERY interested in an iceless arctic because they aim to establish a shipping shortcut from Asia to North America through the arctic once it becomes iceless. They are very excited about it because it will rapidly shorten shipping times and costs.

These are hard-headed, conservative heavy-industry businesspeople who have already accepted the fact and are making plans for it, not dreadlocked trustfundafarian vegans.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in