Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Jul 2, 2009 Full story: New Scientist 3,119

FOR a few minutes David Holland forgets about his work and screams like a kid on a roller coaster.

Full Story
Ted Kennedy - Aquaman

UK

#2306 Dec 4, 2012
that rising water was what caused the trouble at Chappaquiddick. Not my fault at all!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2307 Dec 4, 2012
[QUOTE who="steve's case of the itch"]Works out to a 2% grade [/QUOTE]

Suspect somewhere along that 300 mile gradient that some mountain slopes, cliffs & some Oceanic trenches might be a bit steeper..... maybe not like the Abyss, but I did like Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.
PHD

Overton, TX

#2308 Dec 4, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
I even gave you an example
An example and a poor one but it never answerd the question.
PHD

Overton, TX

#2310 Dec 4, 2012
Did Steve Case send you to that youtube thing?
PHD

Overton, TX

#2311 Dec 5, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
I even gave you an example
Weather is the atmospheric condition over a small area and a short period of time.
Climate is the atmospheric condition over a large area and a long period of time.
So to keep it simple for you if weather /climate measure was in seconds and area, one second one foot would be weather and two seconds and two feet would be climate. Do you see it weather is climate and climate is weather.
Steve Case

Milwaukee, WI

#2312 Dec 5, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>
Weather is the atmospheric condition over a small area and a short period of time.

Climate is the atmospheric condition over a large area and a long period of time.

So to keep it simple for you if weather /climate measure was in seconds and area, one second one foot would be weather and two seconds and two feet would be climate. Do you see it weather is climate and climate is weather.
Somehow you've gotten off the original question. Let me refresh your memory:
You wrote:

Well now sea levels drop to record lows and by your logic beach front property increases. Good one did you stay up all night to calculate that statement? Oh I get your logic less water more beach front. So without water more beach front. What would be the distance from water would you consider beach front? Also by your logic we all have beach front property. Where I live you would have to drive 300 miles to see the beach front. Do explain your logic to all.

I wrote:

More water = less land = less beach front. Less water = more land = more beach front.
Example: Island with beaches disappears under waves, beachfront on that island disappears.
With respect to your point about weather being climate and climate being weather uh well one is the average of the other over a sufficient period of time, 30 years is the usual number. Otherwise I don't get your point.

I try to take the longest data set available. I use HADCRUT for temperature (since 1850), all of the satellite sea level record (since 1979) and all of the tide gauge record (since 1807). CO2 goes back to 1959 but extrapolates quite nicely for several decades before that. Most other measures are spotty. Oh the ice pack record goes back to 1979, but I don't pay much attention to it. I suppose I would if it were growing each year, but receding ice isn't going to affect me.
PHD

Overton, TX

#2313 Dec 5, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow you've gotten off the original question. Let me refresh your memory:
<quoted text>
With respect to your point about weather being climate and climate being weather uh well one is the average of the other over a sufficient period of time, 30 years is the usual number. Otherwise I don't get your point.
I try to take the longest data set available. I use HADCRUT for temperature (since 1850), all of the satellite sea level record (since 1979) and all of the tide gauge record (since 1807). CO2 goes back to 1959 but extrapolates quite nicely for several decades before that. Most other measures are spotty. Oh the ice pack record goes back to 1979, but I don't pay much attention to it. I suppose I would if it were growing each year, but receding ice isn't going to affect me.
Let me refresh your memory. The statement was weather and climate are the same and they go hand in hand with each other. You use extrapolate, spotty, receding and doesn’t effect me. As I explained weather and climate are measured in time and distance. The time and distance measured could be seconds apart depending on how accurate you want your measurements to be. Therefore they are one and the same. You make use of Semantic gymnastics to support your self serving thinking. You really really don't know do you? Oh when your neighbor passes gas it affects you.
LessFactMoreHype

Spain

#2314 Dec 8, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
I don't get your point.
No surprise, he never has one.
PHD

Overton, TX

#2315 Dec 8, 2012
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
<quoted text>No surprise, he never has one.
One you made an ASSumption of your---self again. I never mentioned my gender. Two if you could muster up a brain cell or two you might get it. Three your the one AKA "dirtling" that never has a clue.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2316 Dec 8, 2012
If you're worried about sudden sea level rise then look out for sudden sea level fall. That's a tsunami, not a good chance to pick up sea shells. PHD, come back, can you hear me?
PHD

Overton, TX

#2317 Dec 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
If you're worried about sudden sea level rise then look out for sudden sea level fall. That's a tsunami, not a good chance to pick up sea shells. PHD, come back, can you hear me?
No one listens to you.The sea level rise and fall really really means nothing.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2318 Dec 15, 2012
Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought
PHD

Overton, TX

#2319 Dec 15, 2012
Sea level rise really really means nothing. Oh my bad more sea front property.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2320 Dec 24, 2012
Western Antarctica has warmed unexpectedly fast over the last five decades, weather records confirm, adding to sea-level rise concerns in a warming world.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefai...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2321 Dec 24, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Western Antarctica has warmed unexpectedly fast over the last five decades, weather records confirm, adding to sea-level rise concerns in a warming world.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefai...
Funny thing is that the biggest problem they have in the area is things being buried. Which would indicate that your warming record which only goes back five decades is if anything more likely to cause sea levels to fall not rise.

What you have is an attempt to cause fear based on a what if. Fine, what if a astroid was to be knocked out of the astroid belt and hit the earth. It is just as likely and would cause far more damage. Even your link admitted that currently the contributions from that part of the world only amount to a few millimeters a decade. They only have five decades worth of temperature recording from weather stations that keep being buried by snow which is messing with the measurements. Five decades isn't what you call alot when compared to the average temperature records on the rest of the planet which go back centuries. The article even admits that they have very little data and also admits that the ice sheet in question is growing.

The fact is that you have something based on a single sensor that had gaps in the record and a software error. They attempted to recalibrate and fill in the gaps. They used that one because it had been there the longest but is still a single record filled with blank spots and errors for an automated weather station that spends part of each year buried.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/24/scienti...
PHD

Overton, TX

#2322 Dec 24, 2012
Sea level rise really really means nothing. Oh my bad more sea front property.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#2323 Dec 24, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing is that the biggest problem they have in the area is things being buried. Which would indicate that your warming record which only goes back five decades is if anything more likely to cause sea levels to fall not rise.
What you have is an attempt to cause fear based on a what if. Fine, what if a astroid was to be knocked out of the astroid belt and hit the earth. It is just as likely and would cause far more damage. Even your link admitted that currently the contributions from that part of the world only amount to a few millimeters a decade. They only have five decades worth of temperature recording from weather stations that keep being buried by snow which is messing with the measurements. Five decades isn't what you call alot when compared to the average temperature records on the rest of the planet which go back centuries. The article even admits that they have very little data and also admits that the ice sheet in question is growing.
The fact is that you have something based on a single sensor that had gaps in the record and a software error. They attempted to recalibrate and fill in the gaps. They used that one because it had been there the longest but is still a single record filled with blank spots and errors for an automated weather station that spends part of each year buried.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/24/scienti...
Since the interior of the Antarctic never thaws, and the increased precipitation from a warmer atmosphere does add to the snow fall in the continent, it is academic why the interior snow levels are increasing.

Perhaps Santa will have to move to the South Pole soon. Merry Christmas.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#2324 Dec 24, 2012
Try to understand that the Arctic ice is melting much faster than the models projected.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2325 Dec 24, 2012
From Nature Geoscience: A complete temperature record for Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, spanning from 1958 to 2010, establishes West Antarctica as one of the fastest warming regions globally.

Indeed: Central West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth.

A lone denier here is not qualified to judge the data or the study.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2326 Dec 24, 2012
However, I would not argue "for a robust long-term meteorological observation network in the region."

Leave the Antarctic region alone but work on reducing the greehouse gas emissions everywhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
How Scientists Unraveled the El Nino Mystery Dec 7 SpaceBlues 1
'Project Recover' Searches for Long-Lost World ... Nov '14 Kid_Tomorrow 1
CO2 curve ticks upward as key climate talks loom (Nov '09) Oct '14 Brian_G 259
Study: Warming Temperatures In Pacific Not Asso... Sep '14 litesong 2
Pakistan earthquake island belching poisonous gas (Sep '13) Sep '14 Snark Snark 13
Swinging CO2 Levels Show The Earth Is 'Breathin... (Aug '13) Sep '14 Earthling-1 80
Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate ch... Aug '14 Jim the Hoax Denier 3
More from around the web