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.

 

Rising seas threaten 180 U.S. cities by 2100: study

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Rising seas threaten 180 U.S. cities by 2100: study


www.rawstory.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rising seas spurred by climate change could threaten 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, a new study says, with Miami, New Orleans and Virginia Beach among those most severely affected.

Previous studies have looked at where rising waters might go by the end of this century, assuming various levels of sea level rise, but this latest research focused on municipalities in the contiguous 48 states with population of 50,000 or more.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Another study released on the ever-debated subject of "climate change", which seems to be a highly divided area between the scientific community.

Possibly 9% of all coastal cities and territories being swallowed up by the ocean by centuries end?

I will let the reader draw their own conclusions on this latest research...

Fear mongering, alarmism?

Or legitimate cause for concern, and something we should be acting upon?

Let's hear it...

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
One group says 3.5 degrees the other 8 degrees these clowns are just pulling numbers outta the air. Its already on record that the CRU and NASA have published falsified data or incorrect data so why do we believe these computer models now? Thats all these guys do is punch in the numbers they want to achieve the outcome they've already decided. Rain,snow,floods,hurricanes,landslides,fires,drought __________ (fill in the blank) is all due to man made global warming. Its gotten ridiculous anymore. Fact is co2 makes up .04 of the dreaded greenhouse effect If it wasn't for the greenhouse effect we would all freeze.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
There has been no observable rise in mean sea level. If's and's and but's don't equate to much no matter how many computer models you throw at it. It's all hypothetical supposition based on possible changes that have yet to occur.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
First thing that popped to mind: They're really putting the numbers out there to try and subconsciously distract us with 'future' events as current events climb to an all time high. What that is yet is anyone's say, as lots is kept from us. 2100? That' WAYYY out there. 3 Middle Eastern presidents have supposedly had a 'stroke'. All had uprisings in their countries. A way for them to flee?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


DD, try an experiment with me. Fill a glass with ice cubes and a drink of your choice- right up to the brim.

Now let the ice melt. Oh no the ice is melting!! Once it has all melted, tell us what happens to the map of coastal cities you wisely set the glass on.

Next experiment: fill a glass 10 inches tall with snow, Let it melt, then measure the depth of meltwater.

The ocean is REALLY big. In our lifetime? I bet on no problem at all.

edit on 17-2-2011 by Chakotay because: The ice cubes are pack ice. The snow is glacial ice...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


It's all BS. Nobody can predict what the future will be 90 years from now. Even if it was true there is nothing anyone can do about it. Mother nature will do its thing regardless of man.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a) Water expands when frozen
b) Earth tends to balance itself out ie. Warmer summer, more precipitation come winter.
c) By the time this is of concern we will probably have next to free energy sources and will be converting ocean waters into fresh waters.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Just an observation correct me if i'm wrong, but if you place ice in a glass full of water then the water level stays the same, and when that ice melts, the water level stays the same, so if the ice caps were to melt surely the sea level would stay the same?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

SEA LEVEL IN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC IS STABLE

Abstract: Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.


link to PDF



Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud


Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.

EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?

Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted.

So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics.

So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording.
So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend. Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that.


Link to PDF



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BarmyBilly
Just an observation correct me if i'm wrong, but if you place ice in a glass full of water then the water level stays the same, and when that ice melts, the water level stays the same, so if the ice caps were to melt surely the sea level would stay the same?
Yes, but their argument is that the ice on land will melt and run into the oceans thus raising the sea levels. The ice already in the oceans should not be an issue. I still call "bunk", but I believe that is part of their claim.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BarmyBilly
 


Ice sheets that form over water will not increase the sea level if they melt. The ice is already displacing the water so there would be no change. Just like if you let an ice cube melt in a glass of water.

Ice that is formed over land that melts and runs off into the ocean will increase the levels but it would be a very small amount and hardly noticable.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Gotta love the usual ignorant comments from ATS's resident "armchair scientists."

Keep on believing that things are wine and roses. Keep on dreaming...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


So you believe sea level is rising, when the hard evidence implies the exact opposite? If I showed you a computer model of the sky falling suppose you'd buy that one too right? Who's the ignorant one again?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BarmyBilly
 


"When liquid water is cooled, it contracts like one would expect until a temperature of approximately 4 degrees Celsius is reached. After that, it expands slightly until it reaches the freezing point, and then when it freezes it expands by approximately 9%. "

Wiki and multiple sources confirm this.

edit on 17-2-2011 by TheRemedial because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   


This graphic shows the possibility if we continue with the poles and glaciers melting, the water has to go somewhere.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BarmyBilly
 

reply to post by Chakotay
 


WRONG!


Although that is true in a glass of water. If the Northern Ice cap melts it will not add any increase in sea level height however [and this is what everybody always forgets and or overlooks]

If the South pole melts the majority of that Ice is presently on land and will increase sea levels dramatically.
edit on 17-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Ok; So correct me if I'm wrong here because I might be using bad logic.

We have observed in recent years a huge arctic and antarctic receding of the ice sheets, not to mention the arctic melting to record ice melts in the summer. If melting ice would cause an increase in sea level it logically follows that not only would we see some increase by now but we should also be able to able to detect a slight variation in winter / summer depending on the amount of water being held as Ice on the poles.

As far as I can tell all evidence of the sea level actually increasing doesn't hold up when taken on a world wide level and no seasonal fluctuations exist.

If I am wrong please let me know.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


In that case, simple logic dictates that liquid water would take up 9% less space than the equivalent mass in ice. In other words, if all the ice on earth was floating in the water and the ice melted, there would be no rise. If the ice was in a fixed location, ie not floating, but displacing the surrounding water level and it melted, the level of water would drop.

Right?

reply to post by SLAYER69
 


At the current rate of Antarctic ice melt the contribution to global see levels is thought to be in the region of 0.3mm/y. It's negligable. Although coastal regions of Antarctica are losing ice through melt, the interior is gaining ice at the rate of 25-50GT/y, which will of course slowly make its way back down to the coastal areas where of course some of it will melt. Round and round we go.

edit on 17-2-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Wrong

A vast majority of Antarctic Glaciers are already below sea level. While they are indeed on a landmass there is still a large percentage below sea level. I never seem to see this taken into account when the calculations are made.

The number I can't seem to find that would give us a real answer, and to be able to determine if you really were wrong as I said is what the percentage of glacial ice below sea level really is.




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join