Rise in sea level can't be stopped: scientists

Rising sea levels cannot be stopped over the next several hundred years, even if deep emissions cuts lower global average temperatures, but they can be slowed down, climate scientists said in a study on Sunday.

[tina anne]

Good luck getting every nation on earth to agree to anything by 2020. Let alone the drastic cuts they are talking about. The real news was that sea level rate of rise slipped from 3.1mm to 2.3mm in the period between 2005 and 2010. So between now and the turn of the century the seas will rise a amazing eight inches instead of the 10 3/4 inches. Or in other words what is now the low tide mark will be the high tide mark. Of course in 2100 the only things that will still be there will be historical landmarks.

[Earthling-1]

We're living in an interglacial, folks and guess what happens during interglacials.
Correct, there's no getting away from it, sea level rises during interglacials and falls during glacial events.
Sea level will continue to rise until the next ice age gets underway.

[Steve Case]

As this Colorado graphic
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
illustrates, the rate of sea level rise has been slowing down over the last 20 years and probably some time before that. Should that trend (-0.06 mm/yr²) continue, here's what the projection looks like:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2saytc4.jpg
I'm not claiming that a drop in sea level of 300 mm by 2100 is realistic, but it does indicate that the catastrophic claims made by the other side clearly aren't based on any rational assessment of the empirical record.

[SpaceBlues]

Steve Case wrote:

As this Colorado graphic
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
illustrates, the rate of sea level rise has been slowing down over the last 20 years and probably some time before that. Should that trend (-0.06 mm/yr²) continue, here's what the projection looks like:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2saytc4.jpg
I'm not claiming that a drop in sea level of 300 mm by 2100 is realistic, but it does indicate that the catastrophic claims made by the other side clearly aren't based on any rational assessment of the empirical record.

No way, Steve.

You are NUTS!

[LoL]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>No way, Steve.
You are NUTS!

WHY DIDN'T YOU or ANYONE AT YOUR CHURCH REALIZE THAT Dr.s MANN, JONES, BRIFFA, and others were using M.A.G.I.C.A.L. H.O.C.K.E.Y. S.T.I.C.K. BORE-HOLE MATH that MAKES HOCKEY STICKS from
CALIBRATION DATA?

WHY DIDN'T YOU or ANYONE at AL GORE'S CHURCH of ALTERNATE ENERGY

RECOGNIZE that M.A.G.I.C.A.L. T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.S.

are MAKE BELIEVE?

YOU DIDN'T REALIZE because YOU are ILL EDUCATED LIBTARDS who WOULD BELIEVE AREA 51/BIGFOOT if SOMEONE DIDN'T FORCE YOU to SITES where such DRIVEL is
POSTED as INTERNET CHERCH SIGNTS.

[Steve Case]

I wrote earlier:

http://i48.tinypic.com/2saytc4.jpg
I'm not claiming that a drop in sea level of 300 mm by 2100 is realistic, but it does indicate that the catastrophic claims made by the other side clearly aren't based on any rational assessment of the empirical record.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>No way, Steve.
You are NUTS!

I'm not nuts, the acceleration of sea level rise really is -0.06 mm/yr² over the last 20 years, and an extrapolation of that really would come out to a drop in sea level by 2100 and I really did say that's not realistic. What I didn't say, and should have, is that predicting the opposite is NUTS!

[Earthling-1]

Sea level rise is probably slowing down because there's much less ice left to melt than there was ten thousand years ago.
Ö¿Ö

[tina anne]

Earthling-1 wrote:

Sea level rise is probably slowing down because there's much less ice left to melt than there was ten thousand years ago.
Ö¿Ö

Let’s not forget how the shore slopes. Which means you need far more water once the oceans overflowed the continental shelf.

[Steve Case]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Let’s not forget how the shore slopes. Which means you need far more water once the oceans overflowed the continental shelf.

You should run the numbers on that. I haven't done so, but my gut reaction is that the effect, and you've posted this many times, isn't all that much. Until you run the numbers or find a good source that has done exactly that, it's a mere assertion.

[tina anne]

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
You should run the numbers on that. I haven't done so, but my gut reaction is that the effect, and you've posted this many times, isn't all that much. Until you run the numbers or find a good source that has done exactly that, it's a mere assertion.

I did way back when they were claiming that the Greenland Ice sheet would melt and flood NYC. It turns out that very little had been done with research into evaporation in open ocean enviroment or shore line gradients. I lucked out that at least the USMC had done the research into shore line gradients around the world and did find a formula for evaporation from pools.

[Steve Case]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
I did way back when they were claiming that the Greenland Ice sheet would melt and flood NYC. It turns out that very little had been done with research into evaporation in open ocean enviroment or shore line gradients. I lucked out that at least the USMC had done the research into shore line gradients around the world and did find a formula for evaporation from pools.

"It turns out that very little had been done with ... shore line gradients."

And the numbers are?

[tina anne]

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
"It turns out that very little had been done with ... shore line gradients."
And the numbers are?

Fourteen degrees accord to the USMC.

[Steve Case]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Fourteen degrees accord to the USMC.

??????????
What does 14° mean?

[tina anne]

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
??????????
What does 14° mean?

Average Shore line gradient.

[Earthling-1]

tina anne wrote:

Average Shore line gradient.

There is no such thing as "Average Shore line gradient."

[Steve Case]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Average Shore line gradient.

Then you need to figure out total length of shore line, and with some trig the area for each millimeter in rise and the total are of the world's oceans. I think you're going to find out that the effect isn't very much.

Now if the sea were to actually rise many feet, as our friends the liberals claim, and large areas were to flood - well then maybe. But that's not really going to happen.

[tina anne]

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>There is no such thing as "Average Shore line gradient."

Of course there is. Just add the shore line gradient for any given unit of measurement of shoreline (inch, foot, centimeter, meter, mile, or kilometer) and divide by the total number of units. Of course I instead just used the numbers compiled by the USMC. But I sure the Royal Marines crunched the same numbers for planning purposes.

[tina anne]

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you need to figure out total length of shore line, and with some trig the area for each millimeter in rise and the total are of the world's oceans. I think you're going to find out that the effect isn't very much.
Now if the sea were to actually rise many feet, as our friends the liberals claim, and large areas were to flood - well then maybe. But that's not really going to happen.

I needed the number for a model I was writing when our alarmist friend were busy claiming that Greenland's melting ice sheet was going to flood NYC up to the second floor. All the models at the time ignored the gradient which is a major factor. It turns out for every unit of increase you need 2.4 time the volume of water than for the previous unit.

[PHD]

And the above i.e. "Tina” less than a box of rocks speaks again from its toothless wonder. Aren’t you getting tired of making a dummy of your self? Do show all your work instead of copying someone else.

[Earthling-1]

tina anne wrote:

I needed the number for a model I was writing when our alarmist friends were busy claiming that Greenland's melting ice sheet was going to flood NYC up to the second floor. All the models at the time ignored the gradient which is a major factor. It turns out for every unit of increase you need 2.4 time the volume of water than for the previous unit.

So I should be safe for a while, at 500 metres AMSL?