• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 28 centuries.

More buildings going up, less residential area. many more workers from the entire metropolitan area. You can't just count residence within the city limits. You have to count the entire metro area for those who commute to work.

I'll bet your blog didn't tell you about the daytime population increase of the metro area... It requires so much more water for an ever growing workforce.

Do you have any critical thinking skills? I said there were studies as well. The studies point to reduction of the ground water. I don't know if blogs do or not, because I don't seek the advice of blogs like you do. I already knew of subsidence, so I did appropriate searches for papers on the topic. There are several out there if you search.

It looks like you haven't been reading papers which disagree with your point about land subsidence. From Rutgers Univ, a brief explanation about sea level rise along the Jersey coast does note that land subsidence has contributed to sea level rise but that it is only about one fourth to one third of the increase
In the 20th century, sea level rose by 12 inches at bedrock locations
(Bayonne, Trenton, and Camden). Along the Jersey shore from Sandy
Hook to Cape May, it rose an additional four inches due to compaction of
sediments caused by natural effects and groundwater withdrawal. There is
a 95% probability that the 20th century rate of sea-level rise along the
New Jersey shore was faster than it was in any century in the last 4,000
years.
 
It's one of four factors. I never claimed the sea didn't rise from thermal expansion and ice melt. I'm just pointing out there are other factors besides AGW. An addition four inches on top of the 12" confirms what I am saying. It doesn't dispute it.

The graph attached to your link has more than half of the sea level rise due to Atlantic City sinking. Shows a global sea level increase of 0.6 feet, but 1.4 feet for Atlantic city!

See, what I said is confirmed when you do your own homework!

Atlantic City Sea Level.jpg
 
Last edited:
I believe Professor Curry might say your line is too flat.

I'm sure she would. Like all denizens of Denierstan, self-deception is her forté.

Sea level has overall been rising for thousands of years;

It hasn't been rising this fast for thousands of years. Which is the whole point of this thread.
 
An addition four inches on top of the 12" confirms what I am saying. It doesn't dispute it.

Yes it does. You originally claimed that subsidence was the biggest factor. Don't you remember?
 
Yes it does. You originally claimed that subsidence was the biggest factor. Don't you remember?

For Atlantic City.

See the graph in Sommer's link?


View attachment 67197811

0.6 feet global and an additional 0.8 feet subsidence... Looks like the biggest factor to me for Atlantic City...

If I'm wrong, please explain to us all how I am misinterpreting the graph...
 
I believe Professor Curry might say your line is too flat.

Be very careful to check the original source for this guys graphs. He has a history of 'editing' schematics to grossly exaggerate them in his favour :wink:
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
So you think that a range of values between 2mm and 5mm per year is anything other than F. all?

I think that it's not flat. Don't you?

I think it's within the range of F.all.

Because cities are built with one sea level in mind. A city is either flooded, or it's not. And when the sea level reaches that tipping point, the frequency of flooding goes way, way up, very very fast. Like this:

Nothing that a 2 foot high sea defence will not solve then.
 
Except that the population of Atlantic City has been declining since the 1930's. Ooops. What exasperates me the most is people who get their science from blogs instead of reading the literature. Because if you had read the literature, you would already know that endogenous sea level rise is a greater contributor than subsidence, by a factor of two, in Atlantic City.

So, LOL yourself.

The Ayatollahs of Denierstan lie to you, and the ignorant followers of Denierstan dogma never question their lies.

Too many unwitting fools in the world.

Is it your position that Atlantic city has not droped in altitude relitive to the rest of the world and that the increase in flooding there is replicated all around the world or is Atlantic city a bit of a special case?


Which is it?
 
Is it your position that Atlantic city has not droped in altitude relitive to the rest of the world and that the increase in flooding there is replicated all around the world or is Atlantic city a bit of a special case?


Which is it?
No matter how many times we expose his misguided faith, he stays faithful.

I don't expect any acknowledgement of error. He has no shame.
 
No matter how many times we expose his misguided faith, he stays faithful.

I don't expect any acknowledgement of error. He has no shame.

Yep, even when you post the graph which shows a half foot increase of sea level globally and a foot of subsidance he cannot understand that 1 is bigger than 1/2.

Deep faith that.
 
Yep, even when you post the graph which shows a half foot increase of sea level globally and a foot of subsidance he cannot understand that 1 is bigger than 1/2.

Deep faith that.

It was he who brought up Atlantic City without any verification what so ever. Just proves he applies pure confirmation bias to what he reads from some pundit.
 
I guess they just forgot about this critically important information when they edited the study and cleared it for publication.

Moreover, all the peer reviewers (oh, right, they're in on the plot too) must have overlooked this.

Seems like you should be sending strongly worded correction letters into PNAS rather than blabbering on DP about this.
Any data below the accuracy of the measuring system is a guess.
Are you contesting that NASA page says they can only measure sea level accuracy down to 30 mm?
Technology
because that is what they say.
The reason is the wavelength of the measuring signal.
 
Any data below the accuracy of the measuring system is a guess.
Are you contesting that NASA page says they can only measure sea level accuracy down to 30 mm?
Technology
because that is what they say.
The reason is the wavelength of the measuring signal.

You know very well what I'm saying, and you are avoiding my point like a hot poker.
 
Yes, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it means. The ancient Greeks didn't have clocks, yet they measured the length of the synodic month to an accuracy of less than 0.6 seconds. (I'll wait until your head is done exploding.) The accuracy of any individual measurement can quite easily be exceeded by a series of measurements.
Think if someone told you that it is exactly 26576 feet from the edge of their driveway to their work parking space.
You say, Wow how did you measure it so accurately?
They say well my cars trip odometer is in 1/10 miles, I recorded 100 trips,
Some came in at 5.0 miles, some at 4.9, and some at 5.1 miles.
I averaged them with a spreadsheeet, and came up with 5.333333... miles, and rounded to the nearest foot.
Interesting, you say!
 
I think that it's not flat. Don't you?



Because cities are built with one sea level in mind. A city is either flooded, or it's not. And when the sea level reaches that tipping point, the frequency of flooding goes way, way up, very very fast. Like this:

atlantic_city_num.jpg
We are really lucky, NOAA has a century old tide gauge in Atlantic city.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720
Funny thing, it does not show any acceleration in the rate of the rise!
 
It looks like you haven't been reading papers which disagree with your point about land subsidence. From Rutgers Univ, a brief explanation about sea level rise along the Jersey coast does note that land subsidence has contributed to sea level rise but that it is only about one fourth to one third of the increase
The is little doubt that the sea level at Atlantic City rose over 12 inches in the last century, (it was measured with a gauge,)
Sea Level Trends - State Selection
But Sandy hook, looks to be almost the same rate, not 4 inches per century faster.
Sea Level Trends - State Selection
 
You know very well what I'm saying, and you are avoiding my point like a hot poker.
Can you show how to mathematically extract a 5 mm measurement, from a 30 mm accurate system?
 
Think if someone told you that it is exactly 26576 feet from the edge of their driveway to their work parking space.
You say, Wow how did you measure it so accurately?
They say well my cars trip odometer is in 1/10 miles, I recorded 100 trips,
Some came in at 5.0 miles, some at 4.9, and some at 5.1 miles.
I averaged them with a spreadsheeet, and came up with 5.333333... miles, and rounded to the nearest foot.
Interesting, you say!

Again, you outsmart the PNAS editors and authors.

But you waste this brilliance on a message board.
 
Again, you outsmart the PNAS editors and authors.

But you waste this brilliance on a message board.
Again, Can you show how to mathematically extract a 5 mm measurement, from a 30 mm accurate system?
 
Not my point, you know it.
The reports and graphs are showing numbers, purported to come from the sea level altimeter satellites,
which are several times finer that the system is capable of measuring.
Are you saying they are able to extract data that is not present?
 
I'm sure she would. Like all denizens of Denierstan, self-deception is her forté.


It hasn't been rising this fast for thousands of years. Which is the whole point of this thread.

Seems to me like Professor Curry has a grip on that.

The IPCC AR5 includes the following figure of sea level rise over the last century (Figure 3.14)

Figure 3.14 18-year trends of global mean sea level rise estimated at 1-year intervals. The time is the start date of the 18-year period, and the shading represents the 90% confidence. The estimate from satellite altimetry is also given, with the 90% confidence given as an error bar. [AR5 WGI Figure 3.14]
 
The reports and graphs are showing numbers, purported to come from the sea level altimeter satellites,
which are several times finer that the system is capable of measuring.
Are you saying they are able to extract data that is not present?

Haven't read the paper. I doubt you have either.

But you sure know how to critique the unread paper on the Internet.
 
Haven't read the paper. I doubt you have either.

But you sure know how to critique the unread paper on the Internet.
I read the abstract, and their findings are not consistent with the empirical data,
as shown in post #3
The accuracy or lack thereof of the sea level altimeter satellites, was a response in post #19,
in response to someone showing a graph of the changes in the rate of sea level rise.
The satellites lack the accuracy to produce such a graph.
They have done some really good science to get the satellites within 30 mm, but beyond
the theoretical limit of 22mm, it is pure subjective guesswork.
Pulses and waveforms: Aviso+
The fundamentals of physics do not change because you feel they should.
A single antenna cannot resolve beyond 1 wavelength of the measuring wave.
To go beyond that would require phase information, which the system does not possess.
 
Back
Top Bottom