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
PHD

Overton, TX

#2650 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Penny, you may want to use your spellchecker before posting. Also, review the difference between "your" & "you're" - not to mention knowing what the shift key does to the 5 key - eh? ya think?
Of course I'm not 100% wrong because I understand some of the undeniable scientific facts. Obviously I could be wrong, even to a large percentage, but it couldn't reach 100% because there are facts about AGW/CC that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
There you have it more insults. You just can't answer any response without calling names and having a high concern for typos and grammar. You can't be that ignorant that a spelling or grammar error confuses you. As I mentioned before youíre in most of your response are 100 % correct with your scientific science fiction. You again display the rodent effect when your back is against the wall.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2651 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you have it more insults. You just can't answer any response without calling names and having a high concern for typos and grammar. You can't be that ignorant that a spelling or grammar error confuses you. As I mentioned before youíre in most of your response are 100 % correct with your scientific science fiction. You again display the rodent effect when your back is against the wall.
Calling names? Huh? What name did I call you? You did call me a rodent in your response, however.

I said you could be more careful with typos (as we all could be...). I admit it's my fetish to object to the "your-you're" confusion; it's incredibly common today, but should be VERY easy to figure out. Just substitute "you are" & if the sentence still makes sense, use "you're."

Again, science makes progress, things really do become known about the world. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's science fiction.
PHD

Overton, TX

#2652 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling names? Huh? What name did I call you? You did call me a rodent in your response, however.
I said you could be more careful with typos (as we all could be...). I admit it's my fetish to object to the "your-you're" confusion; it's incredibly common today, but should be VERY easy to figure out. Just substitute "you are" & if the sentence still makes sense, use "you're."
Again, science makes progress, things really do become known about the world. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's science fiction.
Your incorrect again, I did not call you a rodent. I said your displayed the rodent effect. Again science makes progress until an error is discovered and then it becomes scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2653 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Your incorrect again, I did not call you a rodent. I said your displayed the rodent effect. Again science makes progress until an error is discovered and then it becomes scientific science fiction.
Accusing someone of displaying the rodent effect & calling someone a rodent aren't that much different, now, are they? I'd say not. You could have just said the "Bruce effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect
PHD

Overton, TX

#2654 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Accusing someone of displaying the rodent effect & calling someone a rodent aren't that much different, now, are they? I'd say not. You could have just said the "Bruce effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect
Not much different but they are different. Much like science and scientific science fiction. I'd say so!!

Since: Mar 09

San Antonio, TX

#2655 Feb 16, 2013
Don't know much about the Bruce effect but do know about the Foo, Foo effect.

Way to go Foo, Foo.
PHD

Overton, TX

#2656 Feb 16, 2013
Yes ,I do know the dumbass affect. You display it daily bozo wanna be a clown.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2657 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Not much different but they are different. Much like science and scientific science fiction. I'd say so!!
There she goes again.

Except PennyHD has admitted several things today.

#1 She has NO college degrees
PROOF:
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes itís true I don't have a degree like you do. I will make an effort to learn BS so I could be just like you. Then I could post cut and paste useless scientific science fiction babble. Can you tell me what school you attended so I can be just like you?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin ...
#2 She also said the 100x sheís put out posts on scientific science fiction. That doesnít mean she disagrees with it.

PROOF:
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said anybodyís statement was wrong ,,,. I do say its scientific science fiction.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

CONCLUSION: So that explains why PennHD has a tizzy when anyone posts science links.

She probably doesn't understand it...
and to her... it really is the same as "scientific science fiction

I am NOT joking!
PHD

Overton, TX

#2658 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
There she goes again.
Except PennyHD has admitted several things today.
#1 She has NO college degrees
PROOF:
<quoted text>
#2 She also said the 100x sheís put out posts on scientific science fiction. That doesnít mean she disagrees with it.
PROOF:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
CONCLUSION: So that explains why PennHD has a tizzy when anyone posts science links.
She probably doesn't understand it...
and to her... it really is the same as "scientific science fiction
I am NOT joking!
Again, no I donít have a degree in BULL S. only you qualify for that type of degree. So do to your limited mental capacity let me repeat. No I don't have that degree in Bull S. only you could qualify fort that type of degree. You do show all that you are the best and was top of your class. I bet they gave you that Bull S. Medal of Honor.
sun

Longview, WA

#2659 Feb 18, 2013
you guys an your name calling,the only rodent i can think of is rabbit down the hole thing,hope ya can get out
PHD

Overton, TX

#2660 Feb 18, 2013
No its rodent effect.
KeXueKuangRen123

Columbia, MO

#2661 Feb 20, 2013
I've been reading all the comments, and thank all of you taking your time to actually think about this topic. There were some long and thoughtful comments, although for the most part it was just people fightingÖ

Thereíre definitely two ways to approach this topic:
1) The majority of people believe that sea level rising equals polar ice melting, and that polar ice melting equals global warming.
2) The people arguing against this might say there are not really enough scientific facts out there to prove that these three things are equivalent to each other.

One note is that the ice in the water does not affect sea level rising; only the ice on the land does. If you ever feel like you have nothing to do, try the following experiment: take a cup and fill it with water. Add a piece of ice into it. After the ice melts, youíll notice the water level didnít change, in other words, your cup didnít overflow. Itís the same thing with the earth: the ice thatís already in the ocean thatís melting doesnít affect anything, itís the ice on land that might side down into the water that scientists are concerned about.

Although the topic is ďSea level rising: itís worse than we thoughtĒ, I think it goes down to the question: Does a rise in sea level really equal global warming? I really canít think of any other reasons it might rise, but who knows? Scientists are always arguing~

And I wanted to add in my opinion on some of the previous posts on which countries should be in charge of global warming moderating. If you didnít know already, countries around the world already got together to discuss. We know that developed countries are producing way less carbon dioxide than developing countries. The argument for developing countries is that developed countries have already been through the development process, thus the amount of total carbon dioxide that has been produced is way more than the amount produced by developing countries.

My thought on this is we really aren't the government or something, in other words, we really canít control anybody but ourselves, so why not start out with ourselves?

Since: Mar 09

San Antonio, TX

#2663 Feb 21, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
I've been reading all the comments, and thank all of you taking your time to actually think about this topic. There were some long and thoughtful comments, although for the most part it was just people fightingÖ
Thereíre definitely two ways to approach this topic:
1) The majority of people believe that sea level rising equals polar ice melting, and that polar ice melting equals global warming.
2) The people arguing against this might say there are not really enough scientific facts out there to prove that these three things are equivalent to each other.
One note is that the ice in the water does not affect sea level rising; only the ice on the land does. If you ever feel like you have nothing to do, try the following experiment: take a cup and fill it with water. Add a piece of ice into it. After the ice melts, youíll notice the water level didnít change, in other words, your cup didnít overflow. Itís the same thing with the earth: the ice thatís already in the ocean thatís melting doesnít affect anything, itís the ice on land that might side down into the water that scientists are concerned about.
Although the topic is ďSea level rising: itís worse than we thoughtĒ, I think it goes down to the question: Does a rise in sea level really equal global warming? I really canít think of any other reasons it might rise, but who knows? Scientists are always arguing~
And I wanted to add in my opinion on some of the previous posts on which countries should be in charge of global warming moderating. If you didnít know already, countries around the world already got together to discuss. We know that developed countries are producing way less carbon dioxide than developing countries. The argument for developing countries is that developed countries have already been through the development process, thus the amount of total carbon dioxide that has been produced is way more than the amount produced by developing countries.
My thought on this is we really aren't the government or something, in other words, we really canít control anybody but ourselves, so why not start out with ourselves?
A couple of thoughts, thermal expansion is also a factor in sea level rise. Also when ice reaches the bottom of the sea and builds on the sea bed ice can stack up higher than that which would float. Then ice that melts would contribute to sea level rise because it is not buoyed by the sea.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2664 Feb 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of thoughts, thermal expansion is also a factor in sea level rise. Also when ice reaches the bottom of the sea and builds on the sea bed ice can stack up higher than that which would float. Then ice that melts would contribute to sea level rise because it is not buoyed by the sea.
We don't have enough pressure, even at the bottom of our oceans, to get high-pressure, "hot" ice, so all our (natural) water ice floats. It's been hypothesized on extrasolar planets if they have very deep oceans, which would develop enough pressure to have "hot" ice at their bottoms.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2665 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
I've been reading all the comments, and thank all of you taking your time to actually think about this topic. There were some long and thoughtful comments, although for the most part it was just people fightingÖ
Trolls and Spammers do tend to do a lot of the posting. That is the problem with free speech. The people with the least to say say the most.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
Thereíre definitely two ways to approach this topic:
1) The majority of people believe that sea level rising equals polar ice melting, and that polar ice melting equals global warming.
Untrue. The real factor is that arctic ice melting is a sign of the level of warming in the arctic. And this has a connection to the melting rate over Greenland which is most vulnerable to ice sheet retreat. And there is the problem with tipping points. As the arctic become ice free or reduced ice more and more of the season, solar capture increases (adding to temperature rises) and the danger of major methane release from the permafrost is enhanced. You missed these points in reducing the conversation to a 'talking point' summary.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
2) The people arguing against this might say there are not really enough scientific facts out there to prove that these three things are equivalent to each other.
But the conversation is not about AGW causing arctic ice melt but that the reduced ice cover is clue to climate change (warming of 4C or so in the norther polar region) CAUSED by AGW.
The discussion ALSO mentions Antarctic ice cover which is slightly increased (due to stronger and colder winds reaching out from Antarctic continental landmass) so the discussion is NOT as 'simplistic' as you present.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2666 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
One note is that the ice in the water does not affect sea level rising; only the ice on the land does.
Wrong again. A large portion of our current sea level trend is due to thermal expansion of the oceans. As well, even melting sea ice has SOME effect on sea level (a minor one caused by fresh water vs saline)
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
If you ever feel like you have nothing to do, try the following experiment: take a cup and fill it with water. Add a piece of ice into it. After the ice melts, youíll notice the water level didnít change, in other words, your cup didnít overflow. Itís the same thing with the earth: the ice thatís already in the ocean thatís melting doesnít affect anything, itís the ice on land that might side down into the water that scientists are concerned about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And experiments are only as valid as they are relevant. Since you are not melting the ice into brine, the experiment is invalid to your argument.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
Although the topic is ďSea level rising: itís worse than we thoughtĒ, I think it goes down to the question: Does a rise in sea level really equal global warming? I really canít think of any other reasons it might rise, but who knows? Scientists are always arguing~
No. Nobody has said that the two are equal. In fact,the rate of sea level rise may be much greater than the change in global temperatures. It may not affect the arctic, etc etc. And yes, scientists have open minds and discuss many points. You may feel it is a sign of conflict or weak confidence but the scientists will tell you it is just the open discussion about minor points and future events while the AGW theory is well constructed and backed by 97%+ of the climate scientists that actually know what the climate is about.
Oh, and you get a small number of 'cranks' and 'tobacco scientists' that you are apparently listening to with equal weight. Try learning a few things about the subject yourself and you will find it easy to week out these.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2667 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
And I wanted to add in my opinion on some of the previous posts on which countries should be in charge of global warming moderating. If you didnít know already, countries around the world already got together to discuss. We know that developed countries are producing way less carbon dioxide than developing countries.
Your knowledge is crap. Only in the last few years has ANY country exceeded US totals and that was because China has FOUR TIMES the population. On a per capital basis, the emissions from the developed world are almost an order of magnitude larger than the developing world. And fair allocation of the 'common sewer' MUST be based on equal opportunity and equal restraint. Not on smaller countries trying to equal the output of larger ones.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
The argument for developing countries is that developed countries have already been through the development process, thus the amount of total carbon dioxide that has been produced is way more than the amount produced by developing countries.
An internationally mandated carbon tax that is set per country relative to their total output to date would be the best way to allow smaller countries to catch up. The funds collected can be rebated to the consumer to prevent damage to the economy. The higher PRICE of energy at the moment of use will do much to reduce energy consumption independent of overall growth.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
My thought on this is we really aren't the government or something, in other words, we really canít control anybody but ourselves, so why not start out with ourselves?
Certainly individual efforts are needed but there is also a need for common ground and common effort. I cannot, by myself, choose a car with high gas mileage if car companies don't make them. So CAFE standards are needed to push car companies towards lower fuel usage. Etc. The individual is not king.
KeXueKuangRen123

Columbia, MO

#2673 Feb 23, 2013
Thank-you, people who replied to me. I agree that I don't know a lot about this topic, but I definitely care about this topic. I just wanted to point out true you cannot buy a car with high gas mileage if they didn't make it, but you certainly could pick the car with the higher gas mileage out of all the cars already made. This is what I meant by starting out individually.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2674 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
Thank-you, people who replied to me. I agree that I don't know a lot about this topic, but I definitely care about this topic. I just wanted to point out true you cannot buy a car with high gas mileage if they didn't make it, but you certainly could pick the car with the higher gas mileage out of all the cars already made. This is what I meant by starting out individually.
They have to exist at SOME level before you can buy them. i.e try buying a car with safety glass in 1960. Or a car with 30+mpg in 1960. It has taken COLLECTIVE (i.e government) action to create the conditions where the companies even CAN build such cars without putting themselves at disadvantage. As long as EVERYONE is required to produce such changes, it is not a major risk to the individual companies.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2675 Feb 23, 2013
"KeXueKuangRen123"

Note. I am not trying to be negative about your post. I am 'rebutting' it in classic debating form. I hope you can take a few points from it.

Cheers.

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
CO2 curve ticks upward as key climate talks loom (Nov '09) Oct 1 Brian_G 259
Study: Warming Temperatures In Pacific Not Asso... Sep 23 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
Severe drought is causing the western US to ris... Aug '14 SpaceBlues 2
Bad news for sea-level rises as quickening Anta... Aug '14 SpaceBlues 5

Oceanography People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE