• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

bfoutch

Well-known member
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLe..._NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

According to this paper from NOAA - which used actual measurement data from Jason-1 and Jason-2 altimetry observations of total sea level, improved upper ocean steric sea level from the Argo array, and ocean mass variations inferred from GRACE gravity mission observations - sea level rise is less than 1.5mm per year. Not something to get overly excited about.

The washingtonpost.com article is based on computer models and reconstructions, not real world measurements. Not to mention that there are many drivers to the current slight but steady rise in sea level; primarily the isostatic response of the seafloor to the last glaciation, the crustal uplift of previously glaciated areas, the role of plate tectonics, and the impact of erosion on land with subsequent deposition along the continental margins.

I might also add that humans are pretty good at adapting to change and that we do not live in a static world. Take a look at what changes have happened in east Shanghai in just the past 26 years (as of 2013).

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/08/26-years-of-growth-shanghai-then-and-now/100569/

The first image is an animation, so give it time to run between the views. The river is the Huangpu and is at near sea level. It empties into the mouth of the Yangtze River where it flows into the nearby East China Sea. Looking at the before and after photos, there doesn't seem to be much change in river height over the last 26 years.
 
Last edited:

bfoutch

Well-known member
This chemical is what you should be truly worried about. It will impact your life much sooner than global warming and the government is doing absolutely nothing to protect you from it's many serious and even lethal effects. Thousands are dying from exposure to it every year, and yet not one government agency is protecting you from coming into contact with this chemical every single day. Just inhaling it can kill you:
http://www.dhmo.org/
http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html
 

fugl

Well-known member
This chemical is what you should be truly worried about. It will impact your life much sooner than global warming and the government is doing absolutely nothing to protect you from it's many serious and even lethal effects. Thousands are dying from exposure to it every year, and yet not one government agency is protecting you from coming into contact with this chemical every single day. Just inhaling it can kill you:
http://www.dhmo.org/
http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html

Ah, the elephantine humor of the extremist. . ..
 

fugl

Well-known member
Or "asinine", maybe? Trouble is, there're so many good adjectives out there it's often difficult to settle on just the right one. ;)
 

MarkGelbart

Well-known member
Sea level is rising at the fastest rate in 2800 years.

Really? They only go back 2800 years? Why are they cherry-picking the data?

Sea level was much higher than it is today 120,000 years ago when most of Florida was under water.
 

fugl

Well-known member
Sea level is rising at the fastest rate in 2800 years.

Really? They only go back 2800 years? Why are they cherry-picking the data?

Sea level was much higher than it is today 120,000 years ago when most of Florida was under water.

Sigh. . ..To call the "data" you cite "cherry-picked" would be doing them way too much honor: they're simply irrelevant. 2800 years ago the human population was minuscule compared to today, and there were no huge coastal cities to worry about. 120,000 years ago, modern humans were still confined to Africa at a band level of social organization (if that), and the first hominids in the New World wouldn't arrive for another hundred millennia.
 

MJB

Well-known member
Sea level is rising at the fastest rate in 2800 years.

Really? They only go back 2800 years? Why are they cherry-picking the data?

Sea level was much higher than it is today 120,000 years ago when most of Florida was under water.

So 2800 years and millions of data points to you is cherry-picking? Your peer-reviewed paper supporting your point doubtless is being submitted as we correspond, but it would also be useful if you could cite other such papers in your post, rather than unsupported assertions...

Cherry-picking is one of the five main telltale techniques of climate change denial, and has featured strongly over the last decade or so, but I would suggest decreasingly so nowadays.

By focusing on short-term blips in noisy data (and 2800 years with all these data points, by definition, isn't short-term, because it affords multiple forms of trend analysis and ways of countering noisy data), those who want to maintain the status quo can distract from the long-term threats posed by climate change. Climate contrarians most frequently deploy this strategy using global temperature and Arctic sea ice data.
MJB
PS The other telltale techniques are fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations and conspiracy theory. Watch this space folks, to see if they appear.
PPS The RAF Phantom FGR2's AN/AWG12 Multi-Mode Radar employed forms of cleaning up noisy data in the 1980s, many of which techniques have been refined 30+ years and integrated in mathematical modelling.
 

locustella

Well-known member
Pristine mustached bat Pteronotus pristinus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pristine_mustached_bat
lived or at least used to visit some Florida caves until the end of Pleistocene, when rising sea level caused flooding of caves.
There was something in RSS channels once about skeleton of a prehistoric girl found in a cave under water near Yucatán Peninsula or similar information. In the past that cave or place was apparently above sea level.
By the way - coasts of Florida and neighboring islands were much closer than today, because the Gulf of Mexico was shallower. So maybe birds or even bats were able to fly between them ?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top