Sea-level rise accelerates faster on ...

Sea-level rise accelerates faster on US east coast

There are 65 comments on the New Scientist story from Jun 25, 2012, titled Sea-level rise accelerates faster on US east coast. In it, New Scientist reports that:

Sea level rise off the US east coast is accelerating up to four times faster than the global average.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
wondering

Tupelo, MS

#1 Jun 25, 2012
Warm water expands,so it is easy to figure out ,it's all that hot air in D.C.Get them dang polititions out and things will cool dowm.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#2 Jun 25, 2012
Oh no, here we go, is this the 'mine is bigger than yours' competition?

We just got the info that the west coast was going to see high sea level rises and now the east coast is trying to upsurp the top sea level rise standing.

My guess Europe and Asia, maybe Austraila will try to garner first place before this contest is over.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#3 Jun 25, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
Oh no, here we go, is this the 'mine is bigger than yours' competition?
We just got the info that the west coast was going to see high sea level rises and now the east coast is trying to upsurp the top sea level rise standing.
My guess Europe and Asia, maybe Austraila will try to garner first place before this contest is over.
A similar competition is ongoing where they all boast about how much they are going to reduce their carbon emissions.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#4 Jun 25, 2012
Does it matter where the worst problem occurs? Only to locals.. but everyone is local to the PLANET and the problem is GLOBAL.

Given time, we will have to deal with this just about everywhere.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.h...
So we are 'on track' and the only question is which scenario we will choose for the future..
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php...

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#5 Jun 25, 2012
Your links show this graph:
http://www.nap.edu/books/12782/xhtml/images/p...
Which clearly shows an acceleration of sea level rise.
This screen shot
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
from a Colorado University presentation
"Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era? "
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/docum...
Shows a negative sea level rise of (-0.06 mm/yr).
If you project that out, it looks like this:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2saytc4.jpg
There is nothing to support the claims in you links that sea level could go as high as 1.8 meters by 2100. It has to average 5 times the current rate in order to reach that level. Nothing indicates that we are on that track.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#6 Jun 25, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
Your links show this graph:
http://www.nap.edu/books/12782/xhtml/images/p...
Which clearly shows an acceleration of sea level rise.
A "projected' acceleration based on climate models and interacting feedbacks. There is NO evidence that climate is a 'linear' system. In fact, climate scientists would laught hysterically if you tried to show it was.
Steve Case wrote:
This screen shot
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
from a Colorado University presentation
More playing. The current slope of 3.2mm/year is a clear acceleration from the century average of about 1.8 mm/year. The graph you show doesn't have a 'statistical' trend. The 'regression fit' of a negative acceleration is meaningless since it is influenced mostly by 'noise' in the endpoints. Fact is that the CURRENT acceleration is too small to be measured due to large decadal and year to year variations. Exponential trends produce large offsets but their early trends are often small enough to overlook.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/...
Steve Case wrote:
"Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era? "
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/docum...
Shows a negative sea level rise of (-0.06 mm/yr).
A faulty analysis, mainly based on the effects of ENSO at the selected endpoints. The reference doesn't answer it's own question, does it? Are there errors in millimeter radar ranging from orbit? Maybe. Is the basic trend (3.2mm/year) correct? Likely.
Steve Case wrote:
If you project that out, it looks like this:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2saytc4.jpg
Fundamentally there is NO basis for that projection. Unlike the scientific studies which not only look at the current data but also the contributions and causes.
Steve Case wrote:
There is nothing to support the claims in you links that sea level could go as high as 1.8 meters by 2100. It has to average 5 times the current rate in order to reach that level. Nothing indicates that we are on that track.
Science disagrees with you. But any *sshole can have an opinion. Even you.

Maybe you should be looking are REAL issues that may obscure or exaggerate the current trends.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#7 Jun 25, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
A "projected' acceleration based on climate models and interacting feedbacks. There is NO evidence that climate is a 'linear' system. In fact, climate scientists would laught hysterically if you tried to show it was.
I didn't show it as a linear system. I showed you what the current acceleration is, and it's negative. You can't change that no matter how much bafflegab you paste up here.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
More playing. The current slope of 3.2mm/year is a clear acceleration from the century average of about 1.8 mm/year.
Pasting the absolute sea level record onto the relative sea level record is comparing apples and oranges. We have the entire tide gauge record, and I don't care about the bullshit that Church & White spew out, it continues to be around 1.8 mm/yr.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
The graph you show doesn't have a 'statistical' trend. The 'regression fit' of a negative acceleration is meaningless since it is influenced mostly by 'noise' in the endpoints.
Colorado University didn't think it's meaningless as they are trying desperately to come up with "the Dog Ate My Homework" excuses for why it is. If it were meaningless as you say, they would have said so.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Fact is that the CURRENT acceleration is too small to be measured due to large decadal and year to year variations. Exponential trends produce large offsets but their early trends are often small enough to overlook.
Oh I follow your math; it's the physics of the situation that are highly improbable. If your small early trend is correct, the later stages have to be on the order of ten times the current flow. All the world's rivers and glaciers would have to be flowing ten times as fast as they are today. How do you figure that's going to come about? Magic?
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
A faulty analysis, mainly based on the effects of ENSO at the selected endpoints. The reference doesn't answer it's own question, does it? Are there errors in millimeter radar ranging from orbit? Maybe. Is the basic trend (3.2mm/year) correct? Likely.
Tide gauges don't back that up.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Fundamentally there is NO basis for that projection. Unlike the scientific studies which not only look at the current data but also the contributions and causes.
(cont)

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#8 Jun 25, 2012
(cont.)
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Fundamentally there is NO basis for that projection. Unlike the scientific studies which not only look at the current data but also the contributions and causes.
I don't intend it as a prediction; I use it to show that the prediction from your side of things obviously isn't coming true. Just exactly when is that negative (-.06 mm/YR) acceleration going to change sign and make your fairy tale come true? By the way, it has to do more than just change sign, it has to be around +0.4 mm/yr over 6 times as much absolute change as today's rate in order to get to Rahmstorf's 1.8 meter by 2100 bullshit prediction.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Science disagrees with you.
Climate science really isn't science. It's propaganda and politics. President Eisenhower warned us about this sort of thing over 50 years ago. He was right.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
But any *sshole can have an opinion. Even you.
In the end, your side always resorts to name calling. and other forms of character assassination.
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Maybe you should be looking are REAL issues that may obscure or exaggerate the current trends.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
"Scientific American" along with "National Geographic" went over to the dark side years ago. I have the same opinion of them as your side has of "Fox News"
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Thanks for the link. What you don't understand is the energy requirement to keep physical function on track with an exponential increase.

You guys also don't understand that the warmer a system gets, the more heat leaks out. Heat leaks are negative feedbacks to the increasing heat.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#9 Jun 25, 2012
Try answering the points instead of converting them to red herring misinterpretation. i.e. I didn't say you showed it as a linear system. I said that the 'curve fitting' was statistically meaningless. And that exponential acceleration is nearly linear in the beginning, hard to separate from a linear slope due if there is a large noise component. But enough of your drivel. Your persistent misreading and spinning is a waste of time to correct.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#10 Jun 25, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Try answering the points instead of converting them to red herring misinterpretation. i.e. I didn't say you showed it as a linear system. I said that the 'curve fitting' was statistically meaningless. And that exponential acceleration is nearly linear in the beginning, hard to separate from a linear slope due if there is a large noise component. But enough of your drivel. Your persistent misreading and spinning is a waste of time to correct.
Oh I almost forgot! This from your prvious epistle:
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
A faulty analysis, mainly based on the effects of ENSO at the selected endpoints.
Someone over at Skeptical Science made a complaint very similar to yours. So I took all the the endpoints and ENSO stuff out and it looked like this:

http://i51.tinypic.com/2nq5ifc.jpg

Face it, "Global Warming" and the associated sea level scare is a giant load of exaggerated bullshit.

“WE never came from Africa!”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#11 Jun 26, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Try answering the points instead of converting them to red herring misinterpretation. i.e. I didn't say you showed it as a linear system. I said that the 'curve fitting' was statistically meaningless. And that exponential acceleration is nearly linear in the beginning, hard to separate from a linear slope due if there is a large noise component. But enough of your drivel. Your persistent misreading and spinning is a waste of time to correct.
this is all based on an ASSUMPTION that IF the temperature rose 2 degrees THEN this MIGHT happen. But it hasn't hardly risen at all.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#12 Jun 26, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
A "projected' acceleration based on climate models and interacting feedbacks. There is NO evidence that climate is a 'linear' system. In fact, climate scientists would laught hysterically if you tried to show it was.
<quoted text>
More playing. The current slope of 3.2mm/year is a clear acceleration from the century average of about 1.8 mm/year. The graph you show doesn't have a 'statistical' trend. The 'regression fit' of a negative acceleration is meaningless since it is influenced mostly by 'noise' in the endpoints. Fact is that the CURRENT acceleration is too small to be measured due to large decadal and year to year variations. Exponential trends produce large offsets but their early trends are often small enough to overlook.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/excel-help/...
<quoted text>
A faulty analysis, mainly based on the effects of ENSO at the selected endpoints. The reference doesn't answer it's own question, does it? Are there errors in millimeter radar ranging from orbit? Maybe. Is the basic trend (3.2mm/year) correct? Likely.
<quoted text>
Fundamentally there is NO basis for that projection. Unlike the scientific studies which not only look at the current data but also the contributions and causes.
<quoted text>
Science disagrees with you. But any *sshole can have an opinion. Even you.
Maybe you should be looking are REAL issues that may obscure or exaggerate the current trends.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
You need to do a little better job of checking your facts. First part the CU average is 3.1 not 3.2 and if you try using just the last decade it goes down not up.

As for the Scientific American article, they based everything on simulations i.e. models although they are trying to not use the word models since the climate community has had a few "problems" with model accuracy lately. As in that within a decade the models rarely resemble what is happening in the real world.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#13 Jun 26, 2012
DudTenners wrote:
<quoted text>this is all based on an ASSUMPTION that IF the temperature rose 2 degrees THEN this MIGHT happen. But it hasn't hardly risen at all.
The proper analogy would be racing along a strip of highway and seeing a major slide blocking it down the road. You don't know if you will crash into a big boulder, slide off the road into the ravine, etc but you DO know that it won't be desirable. And you do know that it is time to hit the brakes.

But of course, you probably don't drive yet so you wouldn't know..
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#14 Jun 26, 2012
DudTenners wrote:
IF the temperature rose 2 degrees THEN this MIGHT happen. But it hasn't hardly risen at all.
Oh and this nonsense should be corrected too. Of the 2C rise, we have already experienced almost 1C in warming of the global average surface temperature. To give a comparison for scale, ice ages (a major change in climate you might agree)are accompanied by about a 3C to 5C change in average temperature.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#15 Jun 26, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
Oh and this nonsense should be corrected too. Of the 2C rise, we have already experienced almost 1C in warming of the global average surface temperature. To give a comparison for scale, ice ages (a major change in climate you might agree)are accompanied by about a 3C to 5C change in average temperature.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, world temperatures since 1850 are up about 0.7C.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#16 Jun 26, 2012
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
The current slope of 3.2mm/year is a clear acceleration from the century average of about 1.8 mm/year.
You could have made a similar comment in the decade centred on 1980, when sea level was rising at the rate of 5.31 mm/yr, that was "a clear acceleration."
But you couldn't have said that in the decade centred on 1964, with sea level falling at the rate of - 1.49 mm/yr, could you, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, because that was "a clear" deceleration, wasn't it?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#17 Jun 26, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
I have no idea what you are trying to say, world temperatures since 1850 are up about 0.7C.
Is that 0.7C above or below the normal/ideal world temperature?
ֿ
LoL

Sacramento, CA

#18 Jun 26, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and this nonsense should be corrected too. Of the 2C rise, we have already experienced almost 1C in warming of the global average surface temperature. To give a comparison for scale, ice ages (a major change in climate you might agree)are accompanied by about a 3C to 5C change in average temperature.
IT is ON THE COOL SIDE of the 100 YEAR NORM: THE INTERNET

is L.A.D.E.N. with B.L.I.N.K.I.N.G..GIFs OF

FALSIFIED DATA FOUND by PEOPLE CHECKING AUTHENTIC PAPER ARCHIVE RECORDS of EARLY 20TH CENTURY.

"BEFORE 1999/ AFTER 2000 HANSEN ADJUSTMENTS" *BLINK BLINK, FOOL!*

"NOAHH FOUND FALSIFYING RECORDS COOLING PAST TO MAKE TODAY LOOK WARM" *B*L*I*N*K* B*L*I*N*K* SH**FORBRAINS!

"AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT FOUND FALSIFYING RECORDS COOLING PAST COMPARED TO AUTHENTIC ARCHIVED PAPER RECORDS"

SMILE MOFO because the F.L.A.S.H.bulbs ARE B.L.I.N.K.I.N.G. to CATCH that BEFUDDLED, DOPE-ADDLED MOONBAT L.I.B.T.A.R.D.
LOOK
ON YOUR IGNORANT
face.
LoL

Sacramento, CA

#19 Jun 26, 2012
BLINK,
BLINK,
BLINK,
MOTHER F**KER!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#20 Jun 26, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
The proper analogy would be racing along a strip of highway and seeing a major slide blocking it down the road. You don't know if you will crash into a big boulder, slide off the road into the ravine, etc but you DO know that it won't be desirable. And you do know that it is time to hit the brakes.
But of course, you probably don't drive yet so you wouldn't know..
Except it turns out the entire slide is nothing more than fog rolling down the hill and you can drive right on thru it.

Sorry, but the only rocks are those who still believe in man made global warming. And I have been driving for decades.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Officials solve mystery of explosion on Rhode I... Jul 24 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News New research maps out trajectory of April 2015 ... Jul 24 Kate 1
News Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix 'perve... Jul 20 ELIAS IBARRA 9
News Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix 'perve... Jun '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 30
News Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation Explains Glob... Apr '15 SpaceBlues 1
News Japanese reactor radiation detected off B.C. coast Apr '15 RDL 2
News Shrinking of Ice Shelves Raises Sea Level Concerns Apr '15 Earthling-1 10
More from around the web