Rapidly Melting Glacier Will Raise Sea Levels 'For Decades To Come'

It's not just the rise in sea levels that causes the problems.

It's the increased in moisture in the atmosphere causing more stronger storms like many Cat 5 hurricanes than one or two, and then you have the possibility of stalling the North Atlantic conveyor belt, which will if stalled cause a new mini ice age.

Just follow the storms, as they're the greatest sign of things to come. Mankind acts, Nature reacts.

Who needs doomporn, when you have this species called humans?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: strongfp

That still doesn't mean that the continents are moving quick enough to effect the climate like we are seeing it.

Sure it is. Considering entire lakes dry up in less than a few thousand years, mountain ranges creating their own weather systems, and earth quakes destroying entire ecosystems one major geological event can be the deciding factor.

A few thousand years? It's only been 100 years since we noticed that we were affecting the climate with human produced greenhouse gases.

Point of order, it's only been 100 years since SOME people CLAIMED that we were affecting the climate with human-produced greenhouse-gases (also called 'plant food' in certain circles.)

Though in the end, I still don't believe you. You are going to have to post some data and scientific studies to back up your claim that we can attribute much of the changing climate to continental drift.

There is some merit, if one takes the long-view. An inch per year isn't much, but it adds up over hundreds of thousands of years. It would have to be a pretty significant butterfly effect for a mountaintop to move about 2 feet and completely modify weather patterns globally. Locally, maybe.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

That would certainly affect the average and the trend line.

And the drop in 2010 wouldn't?

How did the first six months of 2015 get adjusted so that it increased by more three times the average.

What makes you think it was adjusted to do that? Why not just "adjust" away the drop in 2010? Did the thought that something which caused the drop in 2010 stopped happening occur to you? That there was a sort of rebound effect?

so for all we know there was a dip in ocean levels from which we are only now recovering.

Yes, there was a dip in 2010. And we're pretty sure about why that happened.


Again, why is it that when the data seems to support your position, you tout it. But when it doesn't, you reject it?
Actually, you don't have to answer. I know why:
skepdic.com...

So,the oceans are rising 2.7 mm+/- .4mm per year?What is that about the thickness of a ten penney nail?How in blazes do they measure that,what with tides,currents,coriolis forces?
This is really unbelievable,no matter how accurate the instrumentation.


Nope can`t believe it.

a reply to: Sunwolf

How in blazes do they measure that,what with tides,currents,coriolis forces?

In the case of the data being discussed, satellite based radar. That data correlates well with tide station data.

Nope can`t believe it.

Ok. I think the residents of Kiribati might have a different point of view.

a reply to: Phage

OK - I will transfer the values to xel and get the standard deviation. That should tell us if the jump in 2015 or the dip in 2010 is outside the norm.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
You mean you can't see that they are by looking at the graph?

The annual "noise" is just that. The trend is quite clear.

What was the sea level rise rate per year before the industrial revolution?

The land bridge at the Bering Straight comes to my mind.

What was the rate of sea level rise that buried the land bridge under water?

Did the rising ocean ever stop since then?

a reply to: liejunkie01

What was the rate of sea level rise that buried the land bridge under water?

Quite rapid at the end of the last glacial period.

Did the rising ocean ever stop since then?

Yes, pretty much so. They actually seemed to decline a bit. But not much. We can't be very precise about that.
notrickszone.com...

The thing is, it doesn't take an extreme change to cause real problems for our modern world.

a reply to: Phage

I have now examined the data and a i do have a few questions

www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov...

I can't quote from the web site to which I have linked, however, you will notice that the site states the satellites are accurate to within 3 or 4 mm, but the data itself is given to 3 places after the decimal, implying an accuracy that simply does not exist. The graph itself that you provided shows an accuracy of +/-0.4 mm

An error of 3 or 4 mm whether up or down will give a very different result

There is one data point (2012) which lies outside 3 standard deviations and appears to be an outlier.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I can't quote from the web site to which I have linked,

I will help:

A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001-2013) and Jason-2 (2008-present) estimate global mean sea level rise every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm.

www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov...

An error of 3 or 4 mm whether up or down will give a very different result

Will it? Will it affect the trendline significantly? Try randomly adjusting the data points with that range of uncertainty and see if it does.

The graph itself that you provided shows an accuracy of +/-0.4 mm

As I said previously, that is the margin of error for the trendline, not the data.

a reply to: Phage

well there are 22 years of data - if each point was lower by 4 mm than the stated data point (88 mm), we would have a trend line that drops by 19 mm from start to finish. that is a little bit of a difference I think.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: tanka418

You know I did the math on page 1 correct? Plus that is 5 billion tons a YEAR. Every year it is another 5 billion tons. That starts to add up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

More real-time evidence of man made climate change and global warming. This isn't a model. This is happening NOW.

This is NOT evidence of man-made climate change. It doesn't prove causation.

....It's like a giant circle of cognitive dissonance...

Yeah. A lot of that going around.

Bump.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tanka418

You know I did the math on page 1 correct?

Where?!!? All I see in your OP s you posting and accepting someone else's data. And, there is little to no indication about its true source! And, by source, I don't mean some scientist who is using second hand data (data he didn't collect)

Plus that is 5 billion tons a YEAR. Every year it is another 5 billion tons. That starts to add up.

And while 5 billion ton seems like a lot of water...it is, in reality, just over 1 cubic mile, or just enough "melt" to raise the ocean levels...what was that; 0.01inches per year...so that 18 inches Mr. Scientist reports will only take the next 1800 years to accumulate... I seriously believe that the weather is a bit more dynamic than that!

5 billion ton...is about 1/350, 000, 000 of the total of all water on Earth...

Y'all need to sort out and get a grip on your magnitudes.

Dooooom! Doooooom!

We keep hearing this stuff and much like end times prophecy , the dates and "thresholds" come and go , and nothing happens

It's the equivalent of bible thumping end time prophecy

No wonder people compare militant climate change to religion

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Dooooom! Doooooom!

We keep hearing this stuff and much like end times prophecy , the dates and "thresholds" come and go , and nothing happens

Erm. It's happening.


From the International business Times:

Even Fiji has been forced to move its own citizens from low-lying areas. The cost of relocating three villages was about $2 million. But with an estimated 45 other communities likely to need resettling in the next 10 years, the government doesn’t have sufficient funds to continue such making such moves, the South Pacific island nation recently warned.

...The Maldives has constructed an artificial island and created a sovereign wealth fund that could be used to buy land elsewhere.

In contrast, Tuvalu, with a population of a little more than 10,000, has left the decision about whether to migrate to its citizens, with some of them taking advantage of an agreement with New Zealand that allows 75 people to emigrate there every year. ...

...In addition to increasing sea levels, islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans are now faced with a lack of arable land because of the salination of soil. Big cyclones and typhoons have also wreaked havoc in recent years.

...“The big question: Who, then, is responsible for the people and for the small island states that are most severely affected?” asked Kathleen Newland, a co-founder and senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington. “Relocation seems to be the only possibility.”

Now is the time to discuss coordination and plan for what could be the next refugee crisis, said Simati, the Tuvalu permanent representative to the U.N. who has already witnessed small islets disappearing in his native country. He hopes global leaders will commit to an ambitious target in Paris.

a reply to: soficrow



And yet polar ice caps are gaining ice.....

Just saying not buying the doom porn

They always claim huge cataclysms and they are always wrong

It may be melting, let's see just how high it really raises the oceans

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Which poles, and which area of the poles? What thickness or lack their of in the surrounding areas just off land. Spread out, thin, and not making up for the loss best I can tell.

Someone didn't do their research.