Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bobgnote, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed...this is a serious concern. But, as stated we will not be able to stop it (due to politics and economics) and must instead Adapt or Die...eventually,
     
  2. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just don't see how that happens. Doesn't water seek its own level? Isn't sea level actually sea level?
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sea levels are affected by wind patterns so you will see different levels in different areas. That one was caused by a change in ocean circulation. Oceans also slosh back and forth like water in a bowl.
     
  4. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, but over time a rise in one area would result in a rise in all others. As I see it, anyway.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sea level is only consistant in that all the oceans and seas are at the same level on average worldwide (except for the Med, special case there).

    However, sea levels have increased dramatically over a relatively short period of time, geologically speaking.

    Are you aware that in around 12,000 BCE, the first humans reached Argentina? Japan first discovered pottery, the Reindeer was domesticated, and Homo Sapiens were painting bison on cave walls in Spain.

    And there was no San Francisco Bay.

    In fact, the shoreline of California at that time was over 19 miles to the West from where it is today.

    [​IMG]

    Also, ENgland and Ireland were directly connected to Europe. As was Sicily to Italy.

    People are simply vein enough to think that the way things are now, is how they have always been, and should always remain. And any changes in that have to be our fault.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not necessarily, even different oceans are at different levels. You are talking about a huge amount of water that covers 71% of the earth and different parts of the earth have slightly different strengths of gravity. Obviously the moon's gravity affects levels in different areas at different times. There may be things that affect it that is not even known.
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another interesting little picture, for those that do not understand how much the oceans have risen in a geological timespan.

    The coastlines of the Earth, circa 16,000 BCE.

    [​IMG]

    This is roughly a 110 meter worldwide reduction of shorelines from where it is today.

    And what was the shoreline of Florida like during the last major interglacial? (the Pre-Illinoian interglacial, from 2.5 million to 500kya)

    [​IMG]

    So those that scream hysterically about never before seen ocean levels are only speaking from the narrow view of sentient humans living today in a historical period. Geology shows that we are nowhere even close to historical high ocean levels.
     
  8. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Currents matter.

    The trade currents happen to be disrupted, so areas experience higher tides. like between Cape Hatteras and Boston.

    I guess sloshing needs to be explained, if you don't bathe, when you're on the road, again.

    But YEAH, THE WATER BACKS UP, ON EASTERN SHORES, as the world turns.

    Try soap, in the ears, enough to do the job.:fingerscrossed:
     
  9. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't have a "historical" post, so don't refer to that. You simply aren't competent, where you don't post backup.

    You have a "hysterical" post. IT'S YOURS. So what, about what was, when you examine it, unintroduced, rambling?

    You have no point, to make, about any part of our transition, to getting whacked, over your consumption, to justify your pollution.

    You happen to claim a soft cap, so no wonder, about point-deficit, I guess.:icon_fork:
     
  10. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mushroom, you don't post links, to your graphs, and they are unusable, as transition, and you leap, to the term, "major interglacial," which you should have explained is BEFORE TODAY'S QUATERNARY ICE AGE, WHEN OUR ORBIT AND SUN WERE BOTH DIFFERENT.

    Go out and buy a new cap. Your old one ain't on so good.
     
  11. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It may be easy for you to laugh.... but.....
    I live about a hundred miles from 143,000 acres of productive farmland that is
    protected from high tides by dikes........

    and that same land is in the area of the world's highest tides....
    due to the funnelling effect on tidal waters by the Bay of Fundy......

    Those 143,000 acres are serving as something of a canary in a coal mine.....
    they will be gone first and will serve as a warning to residents of Florida, New Orleans, New Jersey, New York
    and many other areas in America.

    Where I live the difference between low tide to high tide is only about one meter......
    along the Bay of Fundy the difference can be 15 - 17 meters in places so........

    would a one foot / 30 centimeter rise in ocean levels result in an ocean level rise of 4.5 meters along parts of the Fundy????

    I am not certain about this..... There are complicating factors....... but this is possible that the 15X factor could follow through......

    Thus my concern to.......

    http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...saving-new-orleans-florida-rising-oceans.html
     
  12. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mushroom and DennisTate like this.
  13. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Actually... I think that the seven hundred and ten TRILLION dollars in the worldwide Derivatives markets will force us to embark on the alternative theory on stabilization of the climate through mega-scale desalination of ocean water which would soon make it possible for us to keep ocean levels stable in spite of the statistic that the last time that global atmospheric temperatures rose by three degrees ocean levels may have risen by more than twenty meters over about four centuries.

    Australia may be able to set the example that can save us..... or will it be California and Nevada?

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/australia-a-long-term-solution.566579/
     
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Playing with the salinization of the oceans is the most guaranteed to completely screw up both the ecology and the climate of the planet. And with more fresh water flowing into the oceans, the salinity level is actually dropping. It is during an ice age that more and more water is removed from the oceans and Is sequestered into ice caps, and the salinity level rises.

    Not sure who is feeding you that junk science, but anybody who has studied geology knows that is a crock of crap. The oceans contain 5 x 10<16> tons of salt. That 5 times 10, with 16 zeroes after it. If anybody thinks that even if we put every bit of energy into doing that would make a difference, they have rocks in their head.

    If we wanted to remove salt, we would be best to do it naturally. Say block off the Gulf of California and let it evaporate naturally, creating a natural salt sink.
     
  15. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As of 2020
    There is zero evidence of sea levels rising
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, there is plenty of evidence. They have been rising for over 35,000 years after all. Otherwise the San Francisco Bay would still be a river valley, and the coast would still be 20 miles West at the Channel Islands (which is how it was when humans first reached the area).

    What there is not is any evidence of is appreciable increase of it caused by humans.
     
    Quasar44 likes this.
  17. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes I am referring to last 20 years not the upper Paleolithic era lol
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  18. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  19. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not debatable by any rational person that humans have causes a drastic acceleration in sea level rise in the past 20 years.

    Thus, deniers will try to debate it. They'll tell you that the tidal gauges are wrong, the satellite data is wrong, the increased flooding is a myth, and we should all believe their conspiracy theory over the hard data and our own lying eyes. That's why few people pay any attention to them.
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, there is still rising sea levels. And while the "chicken little" types will scream that it is "accelerating", in reality the deviations are in the amounts that are expected when discussing something of this magnitude. Such things are global in scale, and can only be really measured over scales of hundreds (as in 500) years at the minimum, and thousands of years in reality.

    If you look at the entire scope of time from the end of the last Ice Age, we have had multiple instances where the melt sped up (Medieval Warm Spell), and then was actually followed by sea levels lowering during the Little Ice Age.

    To even take a period of time like 5, or 10, or even 25 or 100 years and try to claim it is the normal over a global scale when we are still in an event that takes tens of thousands of years to show real differences is to me idiotic.

    Ignore the fact that many dispute when the Little Ice Age ended, let's say it was 200 years ago. 200 years ago the sea levels were still dropping, because glaciers were increasing in size worldwide. And even when the event ended and today, we have yet to match the sea levels of the Medieval Warm Spell because glaciers that accumulated during the LIA are still melting.

    Or are people really stupid enough to believe that all the ice accumulated during that period simply vanished once temperatures started to rise?

    There is a reason that among "scientists", the Geologists tend to resist the AGW scare as nonsense. We are used to thinking of a period of 10,000 years as a "blink of an eye", 1 million years as "OK, this is interesting enough to start to look at", and even 100 or 1,000 years as the difference in milliseconds in a computer operation.

    I started to study geology almost half a century ago. At a time when not even the Yellowstone Caldera was understood as it is today. I generally laugh when somebody tries to scream at me that a 5 or even 25 year period is of any importance in a planet over 4.5 billion years old. And I find it funny when I point out to them that during the last Climate Maximum (and most others before then) that the Earth was so warm that we had no North Pole Ice Cap at all, and Palm Trees were growing as far north as where Anchorage sits today. And the outer several hundred miles of Antarctica was actually a rather temperate climate and ecology.

    We have migrated between "Snowball Earth" and millions of years with no polar ice caps at all. In fact, in the history of our planet permanent ice caps are a gross aberration and nowhere near the norm. We even had periods of warm climate stable enough for dinosaurs to evolve to live in areas which had 6 month day and 6 month night cycles at the poles.

    If that does not drive how unusual our climate is from the "Historic norms", I have no idea what does. Yet, for some reason they scream at me I am a "climate denier". No, I am not a denier. I am just not so reactionary and inbred Conservative that what we experience today just HAS to be the way it is tomorrow.
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn’t read it did you. Global mean stated in the paper would lead to 4.4 inches of sea level rise by 2100 and they think the TG over state rise by up to 0.2 mm per year.
     
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,628
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Obamas aren't too concerned. They bought Martha's vineyard, on an island barely above sea level.
     
  23. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,704
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How are you finding these years-old threads?
     
  24. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's the global mean over the last century, which started out at zip in 1900 and crept upward, and which is totally different from the current fast sea level rise.

    And yet you're using that number from the distant past to claim that the paper says current sea level rise is no different from natural sea level rise.

    The paper did most certainly not say what you claimed. That was all your own weird spin.
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still didn’t read it eh?
     

Share This Page