Sea Level Rises?

[Happy82]

Composite Guru said:

Eric Mc said:

So, between 25,000 and 10,000 years ago it rose dramatically but in more recent times,(the last few thousands of years) it has continued to rise but at a much lower rate.

Thats because everyone was driving around in V8's back then polluting the environment.

I thought they had electric vehicles on Terra Nova?

[Uhura fighter]

The Dutch should know, we should ask them to do us a report........


50% / 20% meh, all the same






(UN report )

[Diderot]

Digga said:

Are you taking your measurements at low tide?

Nope! https://p.twimg.com/Abe_pgbCEAIxvGt.jpg:large

[Uhura fighter]

Diderot said:

Nope! https://p.twimg.com/Abe_pgbCEAIxvGt.jpg:large

[Digga]

Uhura fighter said:

Diderot said:

Nope! https://p.twimg.com/Abe_pgbCEAIxvGt.jpg:large

See, last spring tide was just before 2010.

[blueg33]

I must look out my Degree Dissertation as it was on the subject of sea level changes. But basically sea levels will continue to rise for a while as overall we are still coming out of an ice age and they are nothing like as high as they were before the last ice age.

Having said that, when sea levels were much higher there was also much more volcanic action, and the ash caused a greenhouse effect and elevated the earths average temperature, hence reducing the size of the global ice mass.

I can't remember the rest, but for the record the clearest indications of sea level change can be seen in Fiji

[Diderot]

Digga said:

See, last spring tide was just before 2010.

[Facefirst]

blueg33 said:

I must look out my Degree Dissertation as it was on the subject of sea level changes. But basically sea levels will continue to rise for a while as overall we are still coming out of an ice age and they are nothing like as high as they were before the last ice age.

Having said that, when sea levels were much higher there was also much more volcanic action, and the ash caused a greenhouse effect and elevated the earths average temperature, hence reducing the size of the global ice mass.

I can't remember the rest, but for the record the clearest indications of sea level change can be seen in Fiji

You wrote that stuff in your degree dissertation? Ash causing a greenhouse effect? Here is a short and basic article from NASA that completely refutes what you say. Here is an article with links to evidence that refutes the 'coming out of an ice age' meme.

[The Black Flash]

Facefirst said:

Here is an article with links to evidence that refutes the 'coming out of an ice age' meme.

Now that, sir, is either deeply disingenuous or a colossal misunderstanding.
That link is concerned with the "little ice age" in the 1700s; not the last Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago.

[stew-S160]

chris watton said:

You know, I love history, especially Ancient history – I love reading about how man and civilisation have progressed, and at times, made the occasional step in the wrong direction with disastrous consequences – all the warning signs are there before the disaster happens, but they happen anyway. I also know that geological history is part of our history – it has to be.

I say this because I genuinely feel that, for the past decade or so, we have had to endure an age of ‘anti-enlightenment’, where we are expected to suspend disbelief, rip up everything we have learnt before and swallow what the new age ‘scientists’ preach (and preach is the correct word in this context) Everything before year zero is supposed to be forgotten about, and the new doctrines embraced - -anyone who disagrees are non-believers who have no interest in man’s future apart from their own.

‘Real’ periods of ‘real’ enlightenment throughout our history have brought about positive change, along with an increase in population, general well-being and advances in technology. I truly believe that the new faith want to take us into civilisation’s third Dark Age, using the same tactics that have been implemented since the dawn of time. I always hope that we, as a civilisation are too canny to allow this to happen – but I’m not so sure anymore. I find it scary how useless our ‘betters’ are and how gullible we still seem to be.

Very well said. I've thought this for some time.

[Facefirst]

The Black Flash said:

Facefirst said:

Here is an article with links to evidence that refutes the 'coming out of an ice age' meme.

Now that, sir, is either deeply disingenuous or a colossal misunderstanding.
That link is concerned with the "little ice age" in the 1700s; not the last Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago.

Oh right, so when the poster I responded to said this:

blueg33 said:

But basically sea levels will continue to rise for a while as overall we are still coming out of an ice age.

What he meant was not the last ice age but the one before that? I see...

EDIT TO ADD:


'At the far right of this plot it is possible to observe the emergence of climate from the last glacial period of the current ice age. During the Holocene itself, there is general scientific agreement that temperatures on the average have been quite stable compared to fluctuations during the preceding glacial period.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Tempera...

Edited by Facefirst on Wednesday 12th October 15:44

Edited by Facefirst on Wednesday 12th October 15:45

[The Black Flash]

Facefirst said:

The Black Flash said:

Facefirst said:

Here is an article with links to evidence that refutes the 'coming out of an ice age' meme.

Now that, sir, is either deeply disingenuous or a colossal misunderstanding.
That link is concerned with the "little ice age" in the 1700s; not the last Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago.

Oh right, so when the poster I responded to said this:

blueg33 said:

But basically sea levels will continue to rise for a while as overall we are still coming out of an ice age.

What he meant was not the last ice age but the one before that? I see...

No-one I've ever heard has considered the cold period in the 1700s to be "An Ice Age" in the sense of a period of glaciation. It is always referred to as "the little ice age".

[Facefirst]

The Black Flash said:

No-one I've ever heard has considered the cold period in the 1700s to be "An Ice Age" in the sense of a period of glaciation. It is always referred to as "the little ice age".

Fair enough, but it doesn't make any difference to the net result: 'coming out of the ice age' doesn't explain current sea level rises, and the research explained in this article claims that the melt associated with the last ice age stopped about 6,000 years ago:

'Global sea level rose by a total of more than 120 metres as the vast ice sheets of the last Ice Age melted back. This melt-back lasted from about 19,000 to about 6,000 years ago, meaning that the average rate of sea-level rise was roughly 1 metre per century.'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/10120...

[Melvin Udall]

So explain the rise since 1860.

[Facefirst]

Melvin Udall said:

So explain the rise since 1860.

This is far more readable than it appears at first glance and provides the answers you need better that I ever could:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

[Melvin Udall]

Facefirst said:

Melvin Udall said:

So explain the rise since 1860.

This is far more readable than it appears at first glance and provides the answers you need better that I ever could:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

I'm curious how sea level rise, constant since 1860, can be blamed on man.

[Facefirst]

Melvin Udall said:

I'm curious how sea level rise, constant since 1860, can be blamed on man.

Me too. Let me know what you find out.

[blueg33]

Facefirst said:

You wrote that stuff in your degree dissertation? Ash causing a greenhouse effect? Here is a short and basic article from NASA that completely refutes what you say. Here is an article with links to evidence that refutes the 'coming out of an ice age' meme.

Ash causes greenhouse effect by containing warm air in the atmosphere that would have been lost to the upper atmosphere. Global dimming does as the article says also occur. When I looked at it the balance of view was that the impact of ash caused some warming this is because there was not a total ash cloud but rather isolated but mobile ash clouds. These tend to allow some solar gain but also trap the warm air. This localised warming with reduced cooling caused an increase in the average temperature of the surface of the earth through the diabatic process. What I meant is that this is a contributory factor not the principle factor.

You can refute the coming out of an ice age bit all you like, but I am not talking about the "Little Ice Age" but the last glacial maximum that occurred 25,000-13,000 years ago from which the earth is still recovering. I also didn't mention that some of the sea level change evidenced in the northern hemisphere since the last real ice age is due to the tectonic plates rising following the release of the weight of glaciers.

My dissertation was some time ago, so there is no much more data available, but it remains contradictory.

There is a further problem. There are no properly reliable records going far enough back in time. We have hypotheses and we have evidence to support those hypotheses. When I was researching all this it was clear that just about every study found more data to support its hypothesis than refute it regardless of what the hypothesis was. IMO this is because people like to prove themselves right

It is interesting, that back in the late 80's when I was studying this stuff the focus was on global temperature change being caused by earths core heat and orbit changes, there has been a paradigm shift that generally focuses on man's impact and likes to ignore other effects even though the bulk of the evidence that I have seen points towards mans action as being a short term effect that is hard to differentiate from recorded fluctuations.

(I think I have written this badly, but my excuse is that I am trying to work and just doing this piecemeal)

[Facefirst]

blueg33 said:

Ash causes greenhouse effect by containing warm air in the atmosphere that would have been lost to the upper atmosphere. Global dimming does as the article says also occur. When I looked at it the balance of view was that the impact of ash caused some warming this is because there was not a total ash cloud but rather isolated but mobile ash clouds. These tend to allow some solar gain but also trap the warm air. This localised warming with reduced cooling caused an increase in the average temperature of the surface of the earth through the diabatic process. What I meant is that this is a contributory factor not the principle factor.

This runs contrary to everything that I have read on the subject. Would you mind telling me (roughly) where you got your information from? I know it wa a long time ago. My understanding is that the only way that volcanic eruptions might contribute to warming rather than cooling is through the GHGs they emit.

blueg33 said:

You can refute the coming out of an ice age bit all you like, but I am not talking about the "Little Ice Age" but the last glacial maximum that occurred 25,000-13,000 years ago from which the earth is still recovering. I also didn't mention that some of the sea level change evidenced in the northern hemisphere since the last real ice age is due to the tectonic plates rising following the release of the weight of glaciers.

All the evidence I have seen does indeed refute this. The IPCC report says that the big melt from the last period of glaciation stopped over 2,000 years ago.

blueg33 said:

My dissertation was some time ago, so there is no much more data available, but it remains contradictory.

There is a further problem. There are no properly reliable records going far enough back in time. We have hypotheses and we have evidence to support those hypotheses. When I was researching all this it was clear that just about every study found more data to support its hypothesis than refute it regardless of what the hypothesis was. IMO this is because people like to prove themselves right

This sounds dangerously like tin-foil hat stuff. That said, publication bias is a well known problem so I don't doubt what you say in the round. I think you have things arse about face though - people might like to 'prove themselves right', they might just form their hypothesis on the strength of the evidence...

blueg33 said:

It is interesting, that back in the late 80's when I was studying this stuff the focus was on global temperature change being caused by earths core heat and orbit changes, there has been a paradigm shift that generally focuses on man's impact and likes to ignore other effects even though the bulk of the evidence that I have seen points towards mans action as being a short term effect that is hard to differentiate from recorded fluctuations.

(I think I have written this badly, but my excuse is that I am trying to work and just doing this piecemeal)

I did an undergrad degree in geology and at no time did anyone mention the earths core heat as being a driver of the climate (OK, beyond temporary volcanic effects, but I'm reading that you mean direct heat from the core driving the climate). Orbital changes? Yeah, sure, but these things have been considered when aggregating the evidence for climate change and the 'theory' behind it.

Here is a little history of 'global warming theory':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_ch...

As you can see even before 1970 scientists were beginning to take the idea of an enhanced greenhouse effect seriously. By the 1980's there was enough evidence to take a very close look at the evidence in a coordinated way. By 1988 the first modelling was used to form policy and those very old models are still pretty accurate even by today's standards. They're not perfect though, but in 1988 technology was pretty primitive compared to today, and there is more observational data available to help tweak the model parameters.

The reason that there has been a 'paradigm shift' as you put it is because the evidence demands it; it doesn't ignore other effects at all and there is a mountain of work investigating natural variability and climate forcing. Indeed, it is precisely because of all this work that climate scientists are able to quantify drivers of climate change, putting CO2 from emissions are the main climate forcing.

[FourWheelDrift]

Graph of global sea levels over time, not just back to the last lowest in the 1800s either.



Same as the always changing global climate.