Global warming is coming to my suburb

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Rezlooper

I was referring to your response concerning the increase of ice mass in Antarctica.

But, if you want to play whack-a-link, we can.

Our global records do not go back 120 years. I am still not convinced our present measurements are truly representative of the global mean temperature. Humans live on land, which covers only 1/3 of the surface, and cannot survive in much of that area due to temperature extremes. Our measurements in those areas where we do not live are either satellite-based (which means indirect measurement) or sporadic weighted readings which are, by definition, subject to error. There is also the noise factor, since all the measurements give mean differentials which are orders of magnitude below typical daily fluctuations. Finally, the stability of the sensors themselves has not been verified to my satisfaction, since many of them are located in areas where the local environment has changed drastically due to expansion of civilization (parking lots instead of open fields, for example).

That is not a direct rebuttal of mean global surface temperature rise; it is a concern over the accuracy of the reports that mean global surface temperature is rising.

Do you disagree with spectral analysis of the atmosphere showing CO2 absorbing some bands of radiation?
Do you disagree that humans are emitting vast quantities of CO2?
Do you disagree with the Stefan–Boltzmann law?

If you accept these three things, then you must accept that warming at the surface will happen with an increase in CO2, and we're to blame for that happening. Bickering over temperature measurements is a distraction.

a reply to: Greven

• 1)Water seeks its own level. It is not possible for water to 'pile up' in one location for any appreciable length of time. If you think it is, please take a picture of a pile of water a day post it here.
  
  
• 2)Glacial rebound and land subsidence alter the height of the land, not of the water surrounding it.
  
  
• 3)The gravitational anomalies you speak of are so miniscule as to be unable to affect sea level by a measure able amount. They are only being studied to understand the details of how gravity works.
  
  Incidentally, the mass of Antarctica ice compared to the planetary mass is 1/1850 the mass of a housefly compared to a 120 lb. woman. I suppose if a housefly lands on her head her skirt will rise?
  
  
• 4)Local pressure gradients can alter sea level. Current changes can alter pressure gradients for a short time. To maintain a pressure gradient would require something to do so, like a pump continually pumping sea water faster than it could disperse. Care to tell me where these massive pumps are located? We should unplug them.

Physics is not silly. Believing in magic is.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Again, you seem to not understand.

Historically, sea level is relative to the location it is measured. There isn't a uniform sea level across the Earth. There are a multitude of different interactions that influence tides, which determine sea level, since it's the mean height of the ocean.

I'm calling your post silly because you lack this background knowledge. Taking 'silly' out of context and saying I'm calling physics silly is really quite pathetic and behavior ill-fitting even a regular member of ATS.

My mention of gravitational anomalies was not in reference to sea level rise, note that I specifically didn't mention it there where I did on the other points. It is in reference to your 'temporary' gravitational anomalies, since these are relatively more permanent.

Please go learn about the disparate sea levels across the globe.
Learn how the Gulf Stream keeps sea levels lower.

a reply to: Greven

Feel free to keep believing what you believe. I'll stick with actual textbooks and professors.

BTW, I'm just a researcher who works with the Marshall Space Flight Center. I'm sure you know much more about physics than I.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Boring appeal to authority and apparent 'knowledge' that you don't deign to share in rebuttal.

Your behavior here is typical of that in previous interactions. You've learned nothing at all.

a reply to: Greven

I shared knowledge. You rejected it. Your right.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

• 1)Water seeks its own level. It is not possible for water to 'pile up' in one location for any appreciable length of time. If you think it is, please take a picture of a pile of water a day post it here.
  
  

The Ekman transport theory states that water piles up along the Western boundaries of oceans, so water does, in its own way, pile up.

This is quite a self explanatory link (with diagrams!) that explains ocean currents and how they can affect water depth.

Ocean currents

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck

A federal government report at the time found sea levels around Australia's west and far north have risen the most, with an eight-millimetre rise recorded since the early 1990s.

Your source

It is not physically possible to raise sea level in one area more than another without changing the gravitational constant. We do not have the technology to do that. The only known way the gravitational constant can change is by addition or subtraction of external masses (the moon creates high and low tides), and this effect is temporary.

That statement is fact no matter who reports otherwise.

What is orders of magnitude more likely is that the land has settled, lowering by the reported 8mm. Land does not have the viscosity of water and can raise or lower over time. Reclaimed land, especially if part of that reclamation included raising the surface via back filling, is especially susceptible to settling. Oceanfront land is also susceptible to settling as ocean currents tend to remove sediment, causing the land around to slowly settle.

I also find it strange that this problem has worsened to such a degree over about 1/4" of relative water/land level change. If that is so, the whole area has been on the verge of destruction since the 1990s. We can't even grade to that precision.

I hope the residents manage to correct their problems, but I consider those reporting this story to be nothing more than activists for political bull-shavings. It's just more doom-porn propaganda.

Hi. This post is very silly.

1) Sea level is a relative measurement (it's the mean sea level at a particular place - note that this is the mean of high and low tides).
2) Sea level is rising in some places and falling in others (glacial rebound vs land subsidence, for example).
3) There are a lot of gravitational anomalies on Earth anyway (and seen in satellite readings).
4) Currents alter sea levels greatly (if the Gulf Stream ceased flowing, the East Coast could suddenly become inundated with a few feet of water).

so is this post incorrect?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Sure the earth goes through heating a cooling cycles but to deny that we're outside the normal ranges is pure ignorance

Is global warming really going to matter when the elite start hitting the Big RED NUKE buttons soon ?

If you are right, prove it. Take all these fact and ram it down every government official's throat now.

They have the money and power to make changes. However, they are more interested in a nuclear war with Russia.

Why worry about the rising sea levels when 7 billion people are about to be wiped out via cancer and nuke blasts ?

a reply to: Flavian

I already mentioned that.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

• 4)Local pressure gradients can alter sea level. Current changes can alter pressure gradients for a short time. To maintain a pressure gradient would require something to do so, like a pump continually pumping sea water faster than it could disperse. Care to tell me where these massive pumps are located? We should unplug them.

The effect is minor and quickly disperses once the pressure gradient is removed.

Is it your hypothesis that there has been a current shift in Fremantle?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

In all honesty, physics was never a strong point for me but if you read the link, the pressure gradient is pretty constant due to the rotation of the Earth.

What is evident from the link is that the Southern Ocean does not have the same swirling currents as other oceans and seas. The current is constant West to East and one of the things that can influence sea level height is changes to the thermocline and the salinity of the water. If Western Antartica is melting at unprecedented levels (for humanity rather than geologically), then surely that will ultimately affect both the salinity and the thermocline? And push that Eastwards (ie towards Australia).

Both that link (and another from Woods Hole) indicate that the Southern Oceans affect the thermocline all over the planet. Changes there will, eventually, impact globally.

Whilst you clearly have a huge understanding of physics (wouldn't have got your job otherwise), i will take the word of dedicated Ocean Scientists over those of a Space Monkey (which is admittedly a much cooler job!). I mean no offence there - as a simple analogy, you go to your Oncologist for your cancer needs rather than your Obstetrician.

a reply to: Flavian

The effect is simply a pressure gradient. There's nothing earth-shattering about it.

Three things affect sea level: the total amount of water available, the gravitational pull exerted on the water, and the pressure acting on the water. The gravitational pull explains tides, as the gravity of the moon either adds to or subtracts from the gravity of the earth in various locations. This can also be considered as pressure, but it's easier to understand using gravity.

The pressure from ocean currents is what we are discussing. The actual equation for pressure is a balance between water coming into an area and water able to leave an area. If the water comes in faster than it can leave, the pressure becomes higher, and yes, this will lead to an anomaly in sea level. However, since major ocean currents are fairly stable, the two factors balance at some point and the anomaly is constant.

Sea level rise, the increase in the height of mean sea level, can only increase if one of these three factors change. The moon is still where it is supposed to be; no change there. The ocean currents have not been reported as changing. Therefore the only possible way sea level can increase is if there is a change in the total amount of water.

Such a change would, after a few days for the differential to stabilize, affect every single ocean and shoreline on the planet. Tides and current anomalies would simply rise along with the mean sea level. They are simply offsets to the mean sea level itself.

We have not seen that. Therefore we have not seen a substantial increase in sea level. We see locations where the land is subsiding.

There are some who will use complex explanations to convince people that sea level is rising differently than it must. Those complex explanations can almost always be boiled down to application of simple physical laws. If an explanation cannot be presented consistent with the basic laws of physics, the claim is almost always wrong.

Oh, and land is constantly rising and falling in unpredictable patterns. That's why we have mountain ranges and why evidence of land-based life has been found on the sea floor. Mean sea level is much more stable. That's why the argument that sea level is measured relative to land is utter nonsense.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

nope wrong on that one dude