• 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 level rise example

The Democratic Party's stance: "Anyone who believes in evolution and that the earth evolves is wrong. Until the industrial revolution and for the previous 50 million years, the earth's climate and sea level had never changed, not one millimeter, not 1/100th of a degree. All geologists have always been and are liars. Teaching evolution in schools should be outlawed."
 
That is precisely what it means, and I left out Nome and Prudhoe Bay for the same reason you left out that sea levels are dropping in Alicante II, Spain, Piraievs, Greece, and Nagapattinam, India.
lol

You mean, you didn't mention the outliers to your own list of outliers? Nice.


They are statistical anomalies that do not conform to the norm. Post-glacial rebounding is the chief reason for the changes in sea levels...
Oh, really? So how does the loss of glaciers thousands of years ago explain the sudden spike in sea levels, not long after humans started emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases?

chart.jpg

It's not like it is correlated to CO2 -- oh, wait, it is! Who'da thunk it?

chart.jpg

The 2 Degrees Institute


And again! Satellites measure the amount of glacial rebound. In fact, the amount of rebound is small, and it is removed from sea level rise figures.

This is called "glacial isostatic adjustment" or GIA. Sea level rise is currently around 3.3mm per year, and 0.3mm of that is GIA. (What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it? | CU Sea Level Research Group)

Thanks for displaying your lack of understanding.
 
lol

You mean, you didn't mention the outliers to your own list of outliers? Nice.



Oh, really? So how does the loss of glaciers thousands of years ago explain the sudden spike in sea levels, not long after humans started emitting massive amounts of greenhouse gases?

View attachment 67272608

It's not like it is correlated to CO2 -- oh, wait, it is! Who'da thunk it?

View attachment 67272610

The 2 Degrees Institute


And again! Satellites measure the amount of glacial rebound. In fact, the amount of rebound is small, and it is removed from sea level rise figures.

This is called "glacial isostatic adjustment" or GIA. Sea level rise is currently around 3.3mm per year, and 0.3mm of that is GIA. (What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it? | CU Sea Level Research Group)

Thanks for displaying your lack of understanding.

There is no sudden spike in sea levels. Your source is completely bogus, as usual. Next time find a source that isn't pushing a Marxist fascist agenda and one that has a least a little science. Your propaganda sources are laughable. It is very evident that all you have are lies.
 
Yes, there were no icebergs until the last 100 years. :roll:

What is even more amazing is that these leftist freaks want to preserve these glaciers and permafrost. They think melting snow and ice is a "bad thing." How mentally deranged is that? They would bring back another 100,000 years of glaciation, if they could. These leftist freaks have serious mental issues.
 
:roll:

Your denials have no basis whatsoever. What a surprise.
Brest, France has the oldest tide gauge in the world.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
190-091_meantrend.png

The sudden change in pitch shown in your graph, seems to be strangely missing in France.
And Poland
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
And Germany
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
Even San Francisco, California
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
One has to wonder where the people who did your graph, saw the massive change in pitch.
 
Brest, France has the oldest tide gauge in the world.
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
190-091_meantrend.png

The sudden change in pitch shown in your graph, seems to be strangely missing in France.
And Poland
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
And Germany
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
Even San Francisco, California
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents
One has to wonder where the people who did your graph, saw the massive change in pitch.

Don't confuse the poor man with reality. He is having a difficult enough time remembering his Marxist talking points. The last time there was a "spike" in sea levels was between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago. For the last 4,000+ years sea levels have averaged an increase of 1.7mm/year.

Sea Level Spike.jpg
 
Don't confuse the poor man with reality. He is having a difficult enough time remembering his Marxist talking points. The last time there was a "spike" in sea levels was between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago. For the last 4,000+ years sea levels have averaged an increase of 1.7mm/year.

View attachment 67272612
Least we forget the circular harbor or Carthage from 2700 years ago, is still plainly above water.
Cothon - Wikipedia
 
Don't confuse the poor man with reality.
:roll:


The last time there was a "spike" in sea levels was between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago. For the last 4,000+ years sea levels have averaged an increase of 1.7mm/year.
*bzzt* wrong.

You didn't source your graph, but it wasn't hard to find the actual article. This is what he actually says:

During the past few millennia, sea level rose slowly and may
have fluctuated by a meter or two above or below present levels. As a consequence,
shorelines have been relatively stable, especially compared with the rapid excursions
experienced during much of the post-glacial period.

Over the past century the rate of sea level rise globally, based on long-term tide
gauge data, has averaged 1.7 mm/year (Church and White 2006). This rate is reflected
in regional tide gauge data (NOAA 2010a). Global satellite altimetry suggests an
increase has taken place over the past approximately 15 years, to about 3.1 mm/year

(Jevrejeva et al. 2006). Even at the current relatively slow rates of sea level rise,
U.S. shorelines are retreating at an average of 1 m/yr, with northern Gulf of Mexico
shorelines exceeding the average, at 1.8 m/year, and exhibiting some of the more
extreme local erosion rates (Dolan et al. 1985; Davis 1997).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent assessment
of the potential for future sea level rise, projected a sea level rise by the year
2100 of 18–59 cm
, depending on the emissions scenario...
have raised the possibility that the IPCC projections
are underestimates, perhaps by more than a factor of two, due to an incomplete
understanding of the contribution of large ice sheets—Greenland and Antarctica—to
global sea level rise.

Some recent studies have examined indications that global climate may be nearing
a tipping point, beyond which natural systems shift to a new equilibrium position.
Projections of both greenhouse-induced temperature change and ice-sheet-induced
sea level rise raise the possibility that the atmosphere and the oceans may be
approaching such a point. Shorelines such as those of the northern Gulf are currently
in a dynamic equilibrium with sea level rise. But over the past 6,000 years, global
shorelines have not experienced the rates of sea level rise projected for the next
century.
Overstepping and drowning of shorelines is a possible response if sea level
rise accelerates to rates last observed during the deglacial era.

(Emphasis added)
(PDF) Sea level history of the northern Gulf of Mexico coast and sea level rise scenarios for the near future

For those who can't read properly: Sea level rates were stable for thousands of years, and started rising in the 20th century. The rate of sea level rise is now accelerating -- in fact, it's gone from 3.1mm/yr in 2011 to around 3.4mm/yr in 2019.

Similarly, here's Donoghue in a 2009 article, discussing the research grant for the results summarized in that paper:

"This project is crucial because the rates of change in environmental parameters predicted for the near future are much greater than those of the past several millennia. For example, some of the worst-case sea-level rise scenarios predicted for the near future have not been experienced by the coastal system for more than 8,000 years."
Florida State News and Events

And of course, Donoghue is using the same type of proxy data used for the chart I linked.

Thanks for helping prove my point.
 
:roll:



*bzzt* wrong.

You didn't source your graph, but it wasn't hard to find the actual article. This is what he actually says:

During the past few millennia, sea level rose slowly and may
have fluctuated by a meter or two above or below present levels. As a consequence,
shorelines have been relatively stable, especially compared with the rapid excursions
experienced during much of the post-glacial period.

Over the past century the rate of sea level rise globally, based on long-term tide
gauge data, has averaged 1.7 mm/year (Church and White 2006). This rate is reflected
in regional tide gauge data (NOAA 2010a). Global satellite altimetry suggests an
increase has taken place over the past approximately 15 years, to about 3.1 mm/year

(Jevrejeva et al. 2006). Even at the current relatively slow rates of sea level rise,
U.S. shorelines are retreating at an average of 1 m/yr, with northern Gulf of Mexico
shorelines exceeding the average, at 1.8 m/year, and exhibiting some of the more
extreme local erosion rates (Dolan et al. 1985; Davis 1997).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent assessment
of the potential for future sea level rise, projected a sea level rise by the year
2100 of 18–59 cm
, depending on the emissions scenario...
have raised the possibility that the IPCC projections
are underestimates, perhaps by more than a factor of two, due to an incomplete
understanding of the contribution of large ice sheets—Greenland and Antarctica—to
global sea level rise.

Some recent studies have examined indications that global climate may be nearing
a tipping point, beyond which natural systems shift to a new equilibrium position.
Projections of both greenhouse-induced temperature change and ice-sheet-induced
sea level rise raise the possibility that the atmosphere and the oceans may be
approaching such a point. Shorelines such as those of the northern Gulf are currently
in a dynamic equilibrium with sea level rise. But over the past 6,000 years, global
shorelines have not experienced the rates of sea level rise projected for the next
century.
Overstepping and drowning of shorelines is a possible response if sea level
rise accelerates to rates last observed during the deglacial era.

(Emphasis added)
(PDF) Sea level history of the northern Gulf of Mexico coast and sea level rise scenarios for the near future

For those who can't read properly: Sea level rates were stable for thousands of years, and started rising in the 20th century. The rate of sea level rise is now accelerating -- in fact, it's gone from 3.1mm/yr in 2011 to around 3.4mm/yr in 2019.

Similarly, here's Donoghue in a 2009 article, discussing the research grant for the results summarized in that paper:

"This project is crucial because the rates of change in environmental parameters predicted for the near future are much greater than those of the past several millennia. For example, some of the worst-case sea-level rise scenarios predicted for the near future have not been experienced by the coastal system for more than 8,000 years."
Florida State News and Events

And of course, Donoghue is using the same type of proxy data used for the chart I linked.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

You do realize that subsidence is not the same thing as sea level rise,
and that predictions are not observations?
 
:roll:



*bzzt* wrong.

You didn't source your graph, but it wasn't hard to find the actual article. This is what he actually says:

During the past few millennia, sea level rose slowly and may
have fluctuated by a meter or two above or below present levels. As a consequence,
shorelines have been relatively stable, especially compared with the rapid excursions
experienced during much of the post-glacial period.

Over the past century the rate of sea level rise globally, based on long-term tide
gauge data, has averaged 1.7 mm/year (Church and White 2006). This rate is reflected
in regional tide gauge data (NOAA 2010a). Global satellite altimetry suggests an
increase has taken place over the past approximately 15 years, to about 3.1 mm/year

(Jevrejeva et al. 2006). Even at the current relatively slow rates of sea level rise,
U.S. shorelines are retreating at an average of 1 m/yr, with northern Gulf of Mexico
shorelines exceeding the average, at 1.8 m/year, and exhibiting some of the more
extreme local erosion rates (Dolan et al. 1985; Davis 1997).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most recent assessment
of the potential for future sea level rise, projected a sea level rise by the year
2100 of 18–59 cm
, depending on the emissions scenario...
have raised the possibility that the IPCC projections
are underestimates, perhaps by more than a factor of two, due to an incomplete
understanding of the contribution of large ice sheets—Greenland and Antarctica—to
global sea level rise.

Some recent studies have examined indications that global climate may be nearing
a tipping point, beyond which natural systems shift to a new equilibrium position.
Projections of both greenhouse-induced temperature change and ice-sheet-induced
sea level rise raise the possibility that the atmosphere and the oceans may be
approaching such a point. Shorelines such as those of the northern Gulf are currently
in a dynamic equilibrium with sea level rise. But over the past 6,000 years, global
shorelines have not experienced the rates of sea level rise projected for the next
century.
Overstepping and drowning of shorelines is a possible response if sea level
rise accelerates to rates last observed during the deglacial era.

(Emphasis added)
(PDF) Sea level history of the northern Gulf of Mexico coast and sea level rise scenarios for the near future

For those who can't read properly: Sea level rates were stable for thousands of years, and started rising in the 20th century. The rate of sea level rise is now accelerating -- in fact, it's gone from 3.1mm/yr in 2011 to around 3.4mm/yr in 2019.

Similarly, here's Donoghue in a 2009 article, discussing the research grant for the results summarized in that paper:

"This project is crucial because the rates of change in environmental parameters predicted for the near future are much greater than those of the past several millennia. For example, some of the worst-case sea-level rise scenarios predicted for the near future have not been experienced by the coastal system for more than 8,000 years."
Florida State News and Events

And of course, Donoghue is using the same type of proxy data used for the chart I linked.

Thanks for helping prove my point.

Anyone who cites the IPCC is pushing propaganda, not science. You have completely lost your grip on reality, a common failing among the fanatically religious. I certainly wouldn't put it past you to believe that New York City has been under 20 feet of water since 2010 exactly as James Hansen and Al Gore predicted, such is your delusional mental state. Pull your head out of your posterior and take a look at reality for change. Sea levels have not changed significantly in more than 4,000 years and they are not likely to change significantly in the future until after the current interglacial period ends and we return to another long period of glaciation. Then sea levels will drop significantly, as they have done scores of times in the past.

It is only your religion, and pure unadulterated hubris, that causes you to believe that a single species can have any effect on the global climate. It has nothing to do with reality or science.
 
Anyone who cites the IPCC is pushing propaganda, not science.
lol

Wow, you really aren't reading your own sources, are you?

The graph you posted in #85 was from the same exact article I quoted! The man who made the graph you posted is the one citing the IPCC. Comedy gold.

For future reference, you shouldn't cherry-pick. In addition to being fallacious, you're likely to get caught.


Sea levels have not changed significantly in more than 4,000 years and they are not likely to change significantly in the future until after the current interglacial period ends and we return to another long period of glaciation.
Sea levels HAVE changed significantly in the past 100 years. The rate of sea level rise is accelerating. This is a direct result of human impacts on the climate. Even your own source accepts this. These are established scientific facts.

Or perhaps you think NASA was infiltrated by Trotskyites?

Global sea level rise is accelerating incrementally over time rather than increasing at a steady rate, as previously thought, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 — enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities, according to the new assessment by Nerem and colleagues from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; CU Boulder; the University of South Florida in Tampa; and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. The team, driven to understand and better predict Earth's response to a warming world, published their work Feb. 12 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This is almost certainly a conservative estimate," Nerem said. "Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that's not likely."

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere increase the temperature of air and water, which causes sea level to rise in two ways. First, warmer water expands, and this "thermal expansion" of the ocean has contributed about half of the 2.8 inches (7 centimeters) of global mean sea level rise we've seen over the last 25 years, Nerem said. Second, melting land ice flows into the ocean, also increasing sea level across the globe.

New study finds sea level rise accelerating – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


It is only your religion, and pure unadulterated hubris, that causes you to believe that a single species can have any effect on the global climate. It has nothing to do with reality or science.
Oh man... The irony is just too much.

There is no "hubris" here. I'm not the one doing the research, thus I have no reason to be proud of anything. All I'm doing is actually accepting the science.
 
I am above 2000 ft elevation. I do not care what sea levels do.

When man is in charge of global climate, then talk to me about your problem.
 
I am above 2000 ft elevation. I do not care what sea levels do.

When man is in charge of global climate, then talk to me about your problem.
My home is at 29 ft above sea level, and I am not concerned at all.
The data simply does not support the alarm.
 
I am above 2000 ft elevation. I do not care what sea levels do.

When man is in charge of global climate, then talk to me about your problem.

I was at 120.7 meters in elevation when I bought my property in 2003. My property is now 120.71632 meters in elevation as the sea levels continue to drop by 0.96mm/year.
 
I was at 120.7 meters in elevation when I bought my property in 2003. My property is now 120.71632 meters in elevation as the sea levels continue to drop by 0.96mm/year.

Makes sense to me.
 
My home is at 29 ft above sea level, and I am not concerned at all.
The data simply does not support the alarm.

Sea level rise was never a issue when I purchased my property, but tsunamis were considering that I live in a very earthquake prone area. The property had to be at least 5 miles from the coast and above 100 meters in elevation for that reason.
 
My home is at 29 ft above sea level, and I am not concerned at all.
The data simply does not support the alarm.

In Fremont, my elevation was 27 feet and I never saw or heard that sea rise was ruining the SF Bay Area either.
 
Sea level rise was never a issue when I purchased my property, but tsunamis were considering that I live in a very earthquake prone area. The property had to be at least 5 miles from the coast and above 100 meters in elevation for that reason.

I can see justification for that rule. I do not get why the news only shows us photos of the natives shack homes about to tumble into the sea. It was long ago time to remove them to far better shelters.
 
The eastern island of Midway, 1941:

View attachment 67272356

Satellite view today:

View attachment 67272358

The island is 1.25 miles long. Why hasn't it shrunk due to rising sea levels?

Oh hell! Most folks know the climate is changing, look at the ICE AGE. The questions are 1. what is the cause and what part human behavior plays in it. 2. How dramatic is the change and how quickly are those changes really happening. Contrary to the climate change fanatics there is great disagreement among noted climate scientist.
Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
 
Sea level rise was never a issue when I purchased my property, but tsunamis were considering that I live in a very earthquake prone area. The property had to be at least 5 miles from the coast and above 100 meters in elevation for that reason.
Storm surge would be a concern were I closer the coast, but the Gulf is about 30 miles from me,
and the maximum storm surge in the last few decades was about 15 feet.
 
I can see justification for that rule. I do not get why the news only shows us photos of the natives shack homes about to tumble into the sea. It was long ago time to remove them to far better shelters.

To which "native shack homes about to tumble into the sea" are you referring?

The biggest issue we're having in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley is with the erosion of the Matanuska River every Spring. Rivers like to carve new paths for themselves, and if you build too close to one you may end up losing a large piece of your property. So much for humanity controlling the climate. They can't even control a river.

Matanuska River Hydrology and Geomorphology: Insights about Flooding and Erosion
Matanuska-Susitna Borough - Erosion Alert on Matanuska River
Matanuska River Erosion
Watch: A log home falls off the eroding Matanuska River bank - Anchorage Daily News
 
Back
Top Bottom