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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Except it isn't happening around the globe or if it is, then it most certainly is not due to a rise in global sea levels because there has been zero observable rise in those levels. The only global rise it purely speculative and is based on computer models feed skewed data. Garbage in, garbage out. There may very well be local rises in specific areas which may or may not cause issues in those areas but it is not a global issue.




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


No but the constant bombardment of wind, rain, waves is exactly what soil errosion is. The land is saturated with water and is literally sinking and slipping into the sea because it's. well, sand and not ROCK.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Melting sea ice should mean that the ocean levels would drop, at least at first, because water as ice takes up more volume than in liquid form. That sea levels continue to rise as the Arctic ice cap continues to melt, shows how bad the situation is, and how it is going to get worse.

www.alaskadispatch.com...


"The foremost conclusion is quite simply that the ice is melting much faster than we were aware of. That's a fairly dramatic conclusion, which might have dramatic implications."

Numerous studies in recent years have raised alarms about the rapid pace of disappearing Arctic ice. The retreating ice will eventually open new sea lanes to greater commercial traffic, and will expose the Arctic's rich oil and gas deposits to greater exploration.


And as the arctic ice melts, sea levels will rise much more quickly, without arctic ice to cool the currents that flow through the arctic. Darker seas will also absorb more heat, continuing to accelerate the problem.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


Gee, then all the islands in the world should have disappeared by now


Or are you trying to claim tropical storms are something new?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Here is the real bad news.

www.guardian.co.uk...


Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.


The evidence that global warming is happening is overwhelming. You people can do the monkey thing, and close your eyes and cover your ears and dance around saying "NO NO NO" all you want, but you are in denial of reality.

If anything, the estimate of a 1 meter rise in the next hundred years is probably grossly underestimated.

Nobody knows haw much change will happen, only that it is currently happening.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Stop name-calling. Take that peace-n-love helmet off and fill it with water and ice.

Put it in a kid wading pool to scale, and measure the less-than-dramatic results...

Do the experiment, and the math of ice volumes and sea volume.

Climate models based on the current rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to 0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099 (IPCC 2007).

Oooh. A whole half a meter. That is NOT going to drown my bayfront property.

All the ice on Antarctica is a spit in the ocean, math whiz.

edit on 17-2-2011 by Chakotay because: The only lame experiment is the one that a man is too lazy to make...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Is all soil the same? Are all under water currents the same velocity? Are some places more windy than others? Is seismic activity the same in all places on earth? etc etc.

We could list hundreds of variables that potentially debunk or render your rising sea level claiming islands arguement, up for debate, essentially in limbo for years until proper studies are conducted. In other words, nothing to worry about folks, the theory is a stretch of imagination. The simulations all suspect.

-Regards



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Take a cup of ice water and a cup of ice. Let all the ice melt. Then pour the water in the cup that was just ice into the cup that was ice and water, and see if the level doesn't rise.

The vast majority of scientists back the evidence that global warming is occuring, only a handful of highly paid corporate stooges who claim to be scientist disagree.

Ah, but people will always choose to believe what they want to believe.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


Yes, the ways you can deny reality is limitless.

However, the evidence still proves you wrong.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Fist the facts.



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.


Sadly, your "source" relies upon the IPCC2007 report for "facts." It is an admittedly political, not scientific, document.



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.


Believing that men would be alive to witness Antarctica and Greenland as dry land is mythical at best. No one remotely poses this as a likelihood. More exaggerated trash to stir emotions.

"Fist the facts."

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Chakotay
 


Here is a good breakdown at USGS.

You can see on the chart that the oceans make up over 96.5% of total water on earth. and 2.5% is freshwater, of that 2.5% freshwater 68% percent is in Glaciers.

So about 1.75% of the water on earth is held in a glacier. If they all melt what is the total in possible sea level increase?

So lets take our glass of water remove 3.5% of the water. There is the sea level. Freeze the percentage of that which is held as a glacier. Then submerse it in the water with the correct proportions above and below water level. Then let it melt and tell me what happens.

I'll give you a star if you do it!
Source:
ga.water.usgs.gov...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Islands are disappearing.

The 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.


The islands have suffered this fate for their entire existence. They are coral, and frequently submerged. When foliage takes root, the land mass increases from coral sand. When foliage dies, the sand is washed away and subsidence returns. This is entirely natural, and the population are descendants of emigrants from other islands.


Like many other atolls throughout the Pacific Ocean this one is very low-lying and its main constituent, the coral, needs to be covered in water most of the time. Land is created by the ocean when some vegetation, such as a coconut palm or mangrove shoots, take a hold in the very much shallower parts of the reef. One tree leads to a slight buildup of coral sand around its base. This leads to more trees (palms) and the size of the individual islets on the reef grow. Over the long period the islands progress from the seaward edge of the atoll towards the lagoon as the sand is blown and washed towards the calmer shore. It is easy to determine the direction of the prevailing winds by observing the position and condition of the islets on the reef.

Palms or trees that become exposed in storms usually die by losing their grip in the little sand left at the end of the storm season. Sometimes whole islets get washed right away.

en.wikipedia.org...

More exaggerated hype.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Its about 200-250 feet. Now we just have to calculate the probability of all the ice melting.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

The evidence that global warming is happening is overwhelming.


It is still actively debated. Depending upon your reference frames, you can show warming or you can show cooling.

The real questions are rate and causation. No one agrees on the answers to those; the models don't even agree.

A lot of people are getting very rich, a lot are getting celebrity, and governments are stealing money by attributing causation to man, and making the rate/consequences catastrophic.

More exaggerated junk "science."

deny ignorance
jw


edit on 17-2-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Except wiki provides no source that shows coral islands sink back into the sea. Sounds like someone made up some nonsense.

Provide a legitimate link, and maybe you will have something. There are numerous Islands around the globe sinking due to rising sea levels. You can find the reports using Google, I just linked to the first one on the list.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I am absolutely at a loss here so I will not continue this debate. I am at a loss because the facts of the matter are that the oceans have been claimed to be going up 1.7mm - 3mm steadily for 10 years. 10mm in a CM so therefore at the MAX current ratewe have 30CM or about a foot in 100years and that's running with the assumption that we will stay at around the same average temperature or perhaps increase slightly which is highly unlikely.

Many scientists are saying we are headed for a cool down right now.
This is running with the assumption there will be no volcano going off and cooling the earth.
No meteor impacts
No human innovations

For all we know we will end up creating massive canals from the ocean inland to be converted in to fresh water and energy. Furthermore, the scientists and their funding is typically suspect and leads back to gov's whom are always on the lookout for new ways to tax the GP. Carbon credits? The real problems in this world are the tankers and corporation dumping industrial chemicals into the fresh water supply and the ocean.. That's a problem, contamination... I wouldn't even worry about rising water unless it's coming from a TSUNAMI (Earthquake) Meteor impact or human's messing with new all powerful weapons in teh future.

Be realistic, please for the sake of people who just get worked up over nothing. Rising sea levels is a non issue where as my expamples are potentially.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


It is not actively debated in the scientific community, there is a major consensus that global warming is in fact occurring, and sea levels are rising.

The only people debating this are people paid large sums of money by corporations to debate global warming.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 

Do you even read what you post?


The vast majority of scientists back the evidence that global warming is occuring ... .


No, they do not. Many educated people with degrees accept global warming; very few actually attempt to "back" or support the theory independently.

That is why it is a theory. It has yet to be proven with reproducible experiments or results from models.

Tree rings do not agree with actualobservations, and so must be manipulated.
Ice cores are inconsistent in time and place, and so must be adjusted.
Even real-time data has to be compensated and adjusted for "anomalous" or "extraneous" reports and ambient conditions.


... only a handful of highly paid corporate stooges who claim to be scientist disagree.


More exaggerated trash. Ad hominem is neither factual nor valuable. It is evidence of weakness.

deny ignorance
jw



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by jdub297
 


It is not actively debated in the scientific community, there is a major consensus that global warming is in fact occurring, and sea levels are rising.

The only people debating this are people paid large sums of money by corporations to debate global warming.





It's not debated among 'paid' scientists because they would talk themselves out of a job.

Go to google and search 'sea levels falling' and find plenty of people actively debating that reported rising levels are a fraud and that there is evidence to show that levels are actually falling.


Here is one report I was looking for Falling Sea Levels past 6 Years
edit on 17-2-2011 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by jdub297
 

It is not actively debated in the scientific community, there is a major consensus that global warming is in fact occurring, and sea levels are rising.


"It" being AGW, is continually debated. "It" being warming trends over time is actively debated. No one questions that climate changes over time.

The existence of "consensus" has been denied by none other than the AGW guru from the East Anglia CRU, Dr. Phil Jones (of lost manipulated records fame).

The "polls" that have been offered to support such claims have correctly been discredited for selective interpretation, population sample size and criteria, and qualification for "agrees entirely with" (20%), agrees somewhat (30^), and agrees in part (18%), among other things.

The University of Colorado observations do not support rising sea level claims.


The only people debating this are people paid large sums of money by corporations to debate global warming.


You cannot prove this. More exaggerated trash. It ignores people such as Drs. Hansen and Jones, who have become both famous and wealthy as paid AGW advocates.

deny ignorance
jw



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join