Sea level rise: It's worse than we th...

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

There are 3768 comments on the New Scientist story from Jul 2, 2009, titled Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought. In it, New Scientist reports that:

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

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

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#44 Sep 29, 2011
Flippant Bozo wrote:
Do you suppose the polar bears are responsible?
Probably.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#45 Sep 29, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>There's evidence for the projected increase. I'm currently studying it. The matter has to do with dams, etc. I won't get into it just yet.
It happens with research that's years ahead of the news.
The evidence that's behind us doesn't support the claim for acceleration. Glaciers have been receding, and temperatures have been going up right along and sea level is going up at a steady rate. The rate is not increasing. It does undulate over a period of decades but there is nothing to indicate that it will suddenly take off. Alluding to some as yet undisclosed evidence that you're studying has about as much worth in this discussion as Cactus Jack's famous pitcher of warm spit.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46 Sep 29, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Your side of the coin when they talk about increasing rates aren't talking about short term variations such we are seeing right now, they are talking about a long term acceleration. The Church and White paper says 0.13 mm/yr so if it's going up 3.20 mm/yr now, in ten years they're saying it should increase to 4.5 mm/yr. I'm telling you that there is utterly no empirical evidence to support that claim. Zero zip nada. Not a Goddamn shred.
I have invited you to download the satellite record and see for your self. Don't believe me, and don't believe Church, White, Rahmstorf or anyone else. Go to the source and check it out. It's not that difficult to do and the folks at Mr. Excel dot com will provide all the help you need.
Perhapsa this will help.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#47 Sep 29, 2011
Just another Bozo wrote:
Perhapsa this will help.
"Perhapsa" not.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#48 Sep 29, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>"Perhapsa" not.
Not as good as your seallevel though....

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#49 Sep 29, 2011
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhapsa this will help.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
So I went through your link and I find that they tell us about their charts:
The blue line shows the same quantity from the sea-level hindcast of Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009) computed from global temperature data.
That's right, they're measuring sea level with a thermometer.
If one subtracts out the non-climatic sea level change due to water stored in artificial reservoirs on land...
They account for reservoirs but ignore water pumped out of aquifers don't they.
The satellite altimeter record shows a slight deceleration since 1993.
But this time interval is far too short to draw any conclusions.
Uh huh, nothing to see here move along.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#50 Sep 29, 2011
Science on demand??

"Supporting long-term measurements is not easy through the normal funding mechanisms, which expect to see results on time scales of typically four years or less," said Keeling. "Few science agencies are happy to commit to measuring variables over longer periods but the value of tracking changes in the atmosphere doesn't stop after four years. Decades of measurements were required to unravel the features highlighted in this paper."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#51 Sep 29, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
So I went through your link and I find that they tell us about their charts:
<quoted text>
That's right, they're measuring sea level with a thermometer.
<quoted text>
They account for reservoirs but ignore water pumped out of aquifers don't they.
<quoted text>
Uh huh, nothing to see here move along.
Most of the water pumped out of aquifers either seeps into the water table or is evaporated into the atmosphere. very little reaches the oceans. The long term sea level rise has accelerated during the past century.

There are many questions surrounding climate change. One big question is how the changing climate will affect the oceans. The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year. In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year. The Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states that "there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century." NOAA

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#52 Sep 29, 2011
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Most of the water pumped out of aquifers either seeps into the water table or is evaporated into the atmosphere. very little reaches the oceans.
You made that up didn't you?

The water tables are being depleted, and just exactly where do you think the water that evaporates into the atmosphere winds up?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
The long term sea level rise has accelerated during the past century.
No it hasn't. Chuch & White edited out the tide gages they didn't like in order to have it come out that way.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
There are many questions surrounding climate change. One big question is how the changing climate will affect the oceans.
It isn't.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year.
Hey! you got one right.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year.
I don't know what rate they started out at in 1992 but by 2004 they had it jacked up to 2.8 mm/yr and by 2008 they upped the ante to 3.3 mm/yr and in light of the recent fall in sea level, they added the GIA adjustment of 0.3 mm/yr this last May for what can only be described as a colossal fudge factor to boost the scary scenario and they now have it back up to 3.2 mm/yr. I think the whole damn thing is bullshit through and through.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
The Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states that "there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900.
So they say.
They also said in their third assessment report
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_t...
"...one can infer that the onset of the acceleration occurred during the 19th century,...Coastal evolution evidence from parts of eastern North America suggest an increased rate of rise between one and two centuries before the 20th century..."

Thanks to Earthling for the link
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century." NOAA
There isn't a shred of observational data to back that up.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#53 Sep 30, 2011
Groundwater Levels Draining Fast
These fast-shrinking subterranean reservoirs are essential to daily life and agriculture in many regions.
THE GIST

Groundwater is being pumped away at rates that have more than doubled since the 1960s.
Agricultural irrigation is largely responsible, accounting for up to 80 percent of groundwater use worldwide.
Much of the drained groundwater ends up in the oceans where it is contributing to sea level rise.
-
If the water being pumped is not returning to the aquifers, where is it going? More than 95 percent ends up in the ocean, the authors say, where the quantity of groundwater reaching the sea is making an important contribution to sea level rise. The team concluded that groundwater has contributed 25 percent of the sea level rise observed since 2000.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/groundwater-a...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#54 Sep 30, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
Groundwater Levels Draining Fast
These fast-shrinking subterranean reservoirs are essential to daily life and agriculture in many regions.
THE GIST
Groundwater is being pumped away at rates that have more than doubled since the 1960s.
Agricultural irrigation is largely responsible, accounting for up to 80 percent of groundwater use worldwide.
Much of the drained groundwater ends up in the oceans where it is contributing to sea level rise.
-
If the water being pumped is not returning to the aquifers, where is it going? More than 95 percent ends up in the ocean, the authors say, where the quantity of groundwater reaching the sea is making an important contribution to sea level rise. The team concluded that groundwater has contributed 25 percent of the sea level rise observed since 2000.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/groundwater-a...
There is no doubt that the water ultimately ends up in the ocean. Even the impounded water in reservoirs ends up there. Part of the irrigation water is lost by evaporation and plant transpiration. This water goes into the atmosphere and is rained out. Part of this is caught in the reservoirs, part lands on permeable land and is once again part of the ground water system. Part of the water seeps into the ground where it also becomes part of the groundwater. The reason the aquifers such as the Ogallala aquifer are being depleted is that the water source for the aquifer is remote from where the supply is found. The irrigation water that is lost to the ground does not necessarily go back into this aquifer.

So, we can say that the water ultimately ends up in the oceans but I doubt that it is responsible for 25% of the sea level rise today. That is just someones wild guess.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#55 Sep 30, 2011
Thanks for the link to that one, I know I had seen that somewhere.
Black Cloud

UK

#56 Sep 30, 2011
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Your oft repeated lie.
Here's the usual evidence that disproves it: ice melt was low and stable for 2000 years before the industrial revolution. It's now happening at a rate "greater than almost all periods for ~4000 years".
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/10k.html
Looks to me that 20th century menting is way below the avarage for the last 10000 years.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#57 Sep 30, 2011
Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought,

We thought it would be like a day at the beach.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#58 Sep 30, 2011
pathetic Bozo wrote:
There is no doubt that the water ultimately ends up in the ocean.
Water doesn't, "end up" anywhere in particular, it circulates.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
Even the impounded water in reservoirs ends up there.
See above comment.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
Part of the irrigation water is lost by evaporation and plant transpiration.
Did you try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?
pathetic Bozo wrote:
This water goes into the atmosphere and is rained out.
Wow, thanks for that, I'd never have known if you hadn't told me.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
Part of this is caught in the reservoirs, part lands on permeable land and is once again part of the ground water system.
Where did you learn all these amazing facts that most 15 year olds know, university?
pathetic Bozo wrote:
Part of the water seeps into the ground where it also becomes part of the groundwater.
You really are mine of hitherto unknown information, you should write a groundbreaking paper on the subject.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
The reason the aquifers such as the Ogallala aquifer are being depleted is that the water source for the aquifer is remote from where the supply is found.
This is the whole point, aquifers do not refill as fast as they're being drained.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
The irrigation water that is lost to the ground does not necessarily go back into this aquifer.
Start writing that paper now and mark it URGENT.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
So, we can say that the water ultimately ends up in the oceans
Please see my first reply above.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
but I doubt that it is responsible for 25% of the sea level rise today.
Considering the rest of your post, that doesn't surprise me at all.
pathetic Bozo wrote:
That is just someones wild guess.
So do something useful and research the subject.
Sitting their making your own, "wild guess" is pointless.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#59 Sep 30, 2011
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that the water ultimately ends up in the ocean. Even the impounded water in reservoirs ends up there. Part of the irrigation water is lost by evaporation and plant transpiration. This water goes into the atmosphere and is rained out. Part of this is caught in the reservoirs, part lands on permeable land and is once again part of the ground water system. Part of the water seeps into the ground where it also becomes part of the groundwater. The reason the aquifers such as the Ogallala aquifer are being depleted is that the water source for the aquifer is remote from where the supply is found. The irrigation water that is lost to the ground does not necessarily go back into this aquifer.
So, we can say that the water ultimately ends up in the oceans but I doubt that it is responsible for 25% of the sea level rise today. That is just someones wild guess.
You have a point, 25% does seem a rather high figure to assign to sea level rise from wells pumping aquifers dry. And in that vein, allow my to point out that every single issue brought up by your side is equally an exaggeration. There is not one data base involved in Global Warming that isn't adjusted, cherry picked, or corrected in some way in order to make your case. Real Climate ignoring the pumping of aquifers is an example of that.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#60 Sep 30, 2011
Ok they haven't pumped the Ogallala dry yet but they're working on it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#61 Sep 30, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a point, 25% does seem a rather high figure to assign to sea level rise from wells pumping aquifers dry. And in that vein, allow my to point out that every single issue brought up by your side is equally an exaggeration. There is not one data base involved in Global Warming that isn't adjusted, cherry picked, or corrected in some way in order to make your case. Real Climate ignoring the pumping of aquifers is an example of that.
It is obvious that both sides adjust data to suit their agenda. I have studied environmental issues for decades and have seen that no matter what the facts are, there is always an attempt to destroy the science when it gets in the way of corporate profits. I have no doubts that the burning of fossil fuels is causing environmental problems and a factor in global warming. However, the issue is so complicated that like tobacco, CFC's, asbestos, benzene, or hundreds of other environmentally damaging substances have allowed illegitimate controversy to cloud the issue.

What I see with climate science is science reacting to a politically oriented diversion for reasons of profit or political power. While there are many questions because of the complexity of the issue of climate science, I do not believe there is any conspiracy between the scientists to work for world government or the destruction of capitalism. The scientists will get paid for their work no matter what the outcome. These are red herrings thrown in to muddy the water. The outcome of this is a growing public distrust of science. Too bad.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#62 Sep 30, 2011
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L17401, 5 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL048604

Contribution of global groundwater depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise
Key Points

Global groundwater depletion during 1900–2008 balances more than 6% of sea-level
Depletion rate has steadily increased in recent decades
Flux-based approach is relatively unreliable
-
Removal of water from terrestrial subsurface storage is a natural consequence of groundwater withdrawals, but global depletion is not well characterized. Cumulative groundwater depletion represents a transfer of mass from land to the oceans that contributes to sea-level rise. Depletion is directly calculated using calibrated groundwater models, analytical approaches, or volumetric budget analyses for multiple aquifer systems. Estimated global groundwater depletion during 1900–2008 totals &#8764;4,500 km3, equivalent to a sea-level rise of 12.6 mm (>6% of the total). Furthermore, the rate of groundwater depletion has increased markedly since about 1950, with maximum rates occurring during the most recent period (2000–2008), when it averaged &#8764;145 km3/yr (equivalent to 0.40 mm/yr of sea-level rise, or 13% of the reported rate of 3.1 mm/yr during this recent period).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL0...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#63 Sep 30, 2011
Just another Bozo wrote:
What I see with climate science is science reacting to a politically oriented diversion for reasons of profit or political power.
It's good to know you can see that happening, but I doubt you see it from both sides.

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
News The world's clouds are in different places than... Jul '16 Too Easy 14
News With La Nina around the corner, dry weather in ... Jun '16 Kev 1
News new Scientists find minivan-sized sponge, world... May '16 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
News El Nino, La Nina patterns may be keys to predic... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Sewage in the CRD: Scientists question need for... Mar '16 crazy 1
interesting course (Mar '16) Mar '16 Hanalei 1
More from around the web