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: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



I love your threads OP so this isn't intended for you. But.....2100? At this point, we're not even sure we're going to make it to 2012 the way 'they're' making everything sound.


Who actually read that and thought "Holy s***, we're screwed"? I don't think many.
We have these sniper-like CME's, a new planet/star on it's way in, Betelgeuse possibly exploding, Yellowstone possibly erupting, New Madrid possibly quaking and they want us to worry about 88 years from now?

Let's worry about the rising sea levels THIS year!




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Antarctica is one of the largest land mass. Practically the entire continent is covered under hundreds of feet with snow and ice. What you've mention is fine along it's vast coast but if the entire continent melted it would cause the oceans to rise.

Try that lame glass of water experiment again. But this time fill the glass with water and two ice cubes to the brim. Then stack two additional ice cubes on the floating ice. [that will simulate the ice on Antarctica's land]

Come back after it all melts....

edit on 17-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

How sad!

I'm going to store this "study" right next to the transcript of Dr. Hansen's 1988 sworn testimony before Congress that Manhattan would be under water by 2010.
Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate

As a bookmark, I'll use the latest printout of the Univ. of Colorado measurements showing ZERO mean sea level increase over the last 20 years.
sealevel.colorado.edu...

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I often wonder if they want us to worry or if they just want more grant money and to sell more newspapers... While I'm suspicious at heart and my experience shows me people love to hide stuff just because they can; I almost think this is some scientists looking for grant money and some news outlets selling the scare.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a) Sea level stable past 10 years in the study ( I would bet it's been relatively stable the past 100 years)
b) Fresh water is pumped from earth used and dumped in rivers which go to the oceans
c) Fresh water is constantly flowing into the ocean
d) Fresh water is brought back by percipitation
e) Did not a chunk of the cap go floating off recently?
f) How many fancy SAT. images have to seen of the caps melting?
g) What impact have the melting caps shown on levels in the past 10 years? (Nothing)

I don't know you tell me who is the wiser.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


True Slayer, if the entire continent of Antarctica melted it would cause the oceans to rise.
But that's a pretty big "if" don't you think?

I highly doubt there will ever be a time when Antarctica is not covered with ice. It would never get warm enough there to melt all of the ice.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


But what is the total mass of ice above sea level vs the total mass of ice below sea level. If you can find those numbers (I can't) we can try the glass of water experiment using the correct proportions and see what happens.

All ice under sea level will cause a 9% (Roughly) decrease in sea level, plus the mass of the ice above sea level -9% for shrinkage (H20 doesn't experience shrinkage in the cold). If there is a positive result that is the mass that is added, negative is the mass taken away.

Unless you know that the answer is positive because you have the numbers you really don't know who is right or wrong...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Fist the facts.

nsidc.org...


Global sea level rose by about 120 meters during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilized between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year. Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s, provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 millimeters per year.

Antarctica and Greenland, the world's largest ice sheets, make up the vast majority of the Earth's ice. If these ice sheets melted entirely, sea level would rise by more than 70 meters.


So an increase of 10 Meters in sea level wouldn't be that unrealistic.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


The total mass below sea level is irreverent. If that melts it will add almost nothing but IF the ice on Antarctica melted [The Land] it would cause sea level rise.

I'm not agreeing we will be flooded out anytime soon. But it's basic physics



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


All I am saying is the mass below sea level is very significant because it is currently displacing 9% more water than it will if melted.

If the calculations are taking into account ALL the ice below and above sea level they would be incorrect. I suspect that when we look a very high percentage of the Antarctic ice will indeed be below sea level.

I'm happy to be shown wrong here as I have no vested interest in the argument.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You know what else wouldn't be to unrealistic. A volcano going off and sending us into a mini ice age freezing the north and south poles up again at an expedited pace. Or maybe an Asteroid.. Or maybe a quake at the sea will open up and all the pockets where will pump oil from will be filled..

I'll be damned the sea rose a toenails worth over the past twenty years which were very warm care of the sun.. I would be much more concerned with sudden unpredictable events such as Quakes etc.. Or just have a beer and play with your kids if you have them and make peace with the fact there is nothing you can do about that.

-Regards



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


And the likelyhood of that happening is? Well it's zero isn't it. Between 1960 and 2005 the East Antarctic Ice sheet, which accounts for some 77% of ice on the planet, gained approximately 10000 cubic kilometers of ice. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (10%) lost 4500 cubic kilometers. That's still a net gain of 5500 cubic kilometers over 45 years. At the current rate of melt it would literally take thousands of years to melt, assuming there was zero net gain. So forgive me if I'm not all that bothered about my house floating away.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Thanks OP for raising the subject of sea level again. I continually bang on about it.

The reason sea level is supposed to rise was because of global warming which would raise the temp of the sea water which would expand and cause the increase in level.

I would accept that argument in principle, only problem is that I have lived by the sea for 50 years and there is no rise in sea level. Therefore there is no global warming. End of story.

In the 1960's scientists told us sea level would rise so much that London would be under water by now. To try to save London they built the Thames Barrage to hold back the water.

Guess what ..... the Thames Barrage has never been used to this day, and the scientists who made such nonsence claims had to eat their words.

London is abosolutly fine, the water level at Big Ben is exactly the same as it has always been.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Fair enough neither do I.

edit on 17-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


I was putting to rest that lame Glass of water argument nothing more.

edit on 17-2-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Islands are disappearing.

news.mongabay.com... Carteret Islands are almost invisible on a map of the South Pacific, but the horseshoe scattering of atolls is on the front-line of climate change, as rising sea levels and storm surges eat away at their existence.

For 20 years, the 2,000 islanders have fought a losing battle against the ocean, building sea walls and trying to plant mangroves. Each year, the waves surge in, destroying vegetable gardens, washing away homes and poisoning freshwater supplies.


Great Barrier Reef Australia
Rising sea levels will not only displace human populations -- coral reefs are expected to be impacted by changes in ocean levels and temperatures. The communities that depend upon these marine resources will be affected as well. Photo by R. Butler
Papua New Guinea's Carteret islanders are destined to become some of the world's first climate change refugees. Their islands are becoming uninhabitable, and may disappear below the waves.

You can crunch the numbers all you want, but the documented proof of Islands starting to sink under the waves clearly demonstrates that ocean levels are rising. This is happening around the globe.







posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
It is just as likely that sea levels drop and much of the world is covered in ice by 2100.

The computer models being used to make these projections have also been shown be wrong in many instances, especially when the climate data being used was found to be inaccurate, and even fraudulent.

They may as well be predicting that pigs will develop the ability to fly in 2100.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You have discovered soil errosion. It is very different from what we are talking about here.
second line.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


Soil erosion doesn't send waves crashing over the island.

You are clutching at straws.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Your talking about a completly different thing m8.

There are lots of places where the sea shifts sands around or eats away at cliff faces. That is because of the action of the sea and waves and tides, nothing to do with rising sea levels.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join