iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Sea Levels Rising At Fastest Rate In 2,100 Years: Study

Sea Levels Rising Fast

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID   06/20/11 07:00 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- Sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, according to a study that offers the most detailed look yet at the changes in ocean levels during the last 2,100 years.

The researchers found that since the late 19th century – as the world became industrialized – sea level has risen more than 2 millimeters per year, on average. That's a bit less than one-tenth of an inch, but it adds up over time.

It will lead to land loss, more flooding and saltwater invading bodies of fresh water, said lead researcher Benjamin Horton whose team examined sediment from North Carolina's Outer Banks. He directs the Sea Level Research Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania.

The predicted effects he cites aren't new and are predicted by many climate scientists. But outside experts say the research verifies increasing sea level rise compared to previous centuries.

Kenneth Miller, chairman of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University, called the new report significant.

"This is a very important contribution because it firmly establishes that the rise in sea level in the 20th century is unprecedented for the recent geologic past," said Miller, who was not part of the research team. Miller said he recently advised New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the state needs to plan for a sea level rise of about 3 feet by the end of the century.

Horton said rising temperatures are the reason behind the higher sea level.

Looking back in history, the researchers found that sea level was relatively stable from 100 B.C. to A.D. 950. Then, during a warm climate period beginning in the 11th century, sea level rose by about half a millimeter per year for 400 years. That was followed by a second period of stable sea level associated with a cooler period, known as the Little Ice Age, which persisted until the late 19th century.

Rising sea levels are among the hazards that concern environmentalists and governments with increasing global temperatures caused by "greenhouse" gases like carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels like coal and oil over the last century or so.

Although melting icebergs floating on the sea won't change sea level, there are millions of tons of ice piled up on land in Greenland, Antarctica and elsewhere. Melting that ice would have a major impact by raising ocean levels.

The result could include flooding in highly populated coastal cities and greater storm damage in oceanfront communities.

While the new study does not predict the future, Horton pointed out that it does show "there is a very close link between sea level and temperature. So for the 21st century when temperatures will rise, so will sea level."

Two of his co-authors calculated in an earlier paper that sea level could rise by between 30 and 75 inches by the end of this century. And it might even rise faster than that, Martin Vermeer of Aalto University in Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact reported in 2009.

"Accurate estimates of past sea-level variability provide a context for such projections," co-author Andrew Kemp of Yale University's Climate and Energy Institute said in a statement.

Horton's team studied sediment cores from salt marshes at Sand Point and Tump Point on the North Carolina coast to develop their calculations of sea-level change over the two millennia. They analyzed microfossils in the cores and the age of the cores was estimated using radiocarbon dating and other methods.

For the years since tide gauges have been installed, those findings closely track the results from the study, the researchers noted. The study is being published in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

While Horton's report is the first to produce a continuous record of the past 2,000 years "other studies show similar changes, especially concerning the acceleration in sea level rise in the 20th century," Miller said.

___

Array

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- Sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, according to a study that offers the most detailed look yet at the changes in ocean levels during the las...
WASHINGTON -- Sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, according to a study that offers the most detailed look yet at the changes in ocean levels during the las...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,755
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (40 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:45 AM on 07/16/2011
"The last IPCC report, which was issued in 2007, forecast an ocean level rise of up to 59 centimeters by the end of the century. Now, the UN experts must once again sift through hundreds of reports, and the haggling over their findings is not unlike the bargaining for the best price at the bazaar. On the one hand, researchers have published forecasts that are far higher than the result reported in the last IPCC report. On the other, sea level measurements have yet to prove any meaningful rise though there is agreement that they are, on global average, rising.

Der Spiegel 7/15/11
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:05 PM on 07/18/2011
More from that Der Spiegel article; even just a one meter (~3 feet) global sea level rise over the next 90 years would be catastrophic for many coastal regions, of course.

------------------------------------------------------

Studies have shown that the thick layer of ice on Greenland has begun melting faster. And that massive amount of water has to go somewhere...

It is vital to intensify research into those glaciers in Greenland which stick out into the ocean. They are threatening to collapse...

"Without a better understanding of how the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will react to warming air and warming oceans, we simply cannot say" what will happen in the future, said Josh Willis, an ocean researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

As a result, researchers don't agree on what to expect. Whereas James Hansen expects a five meter rise, his colleague Simon Holgate says that "I think that even in the highest emission scenario we won't exceed a global average of one meter of sea level rise by 2100."

----------------------------------------

Hey Richard2,

Downthread you claimed that the sun is "moving into a cool phase".

Again, we are now moving into the WARMING phase of the11-year solar cycle.

I asked you to explain and cite exactly what you were talking about and you have repeatedly ignored the question.

Please answer the question; thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:04 PM on 07/14/2011
"Climate alarmist have warned the people of California for many years that sea level rise was going to flood Silicon Valley"...

Your point is that there is no catastrophic sea level rise in some areas of California. This is true. However, it is not true of the globe, and this story includes more than just some areas of California. Assuming that all things are equal by using your particular violates the classic logical rule that the particular can never be used to define the general.

Moreover, it doesn't in any way disprove that the processes that keep catastrophic ocean flooding from affecting some points in California today will do so in the future, nor that sea level rise isn't occuring.

It's a canard, in other words, and you know it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:37 AM on 07/16/2011
The "processes" you refer to include the movement of tectonic plates along the San Andreas Fault. Mankind has no way to affect the movement of tectonic plates on this planet. We can only study them, and adapt to what we learn. Are you predicting that these processes will decrease or cease in the near future? Is there any credible science to back up your suggestion?

It is human vanity to misallocated resources to prepare for a non existent problem, accelerated sea level rise, rather than to prepare for a deadly and well documented problem, the periodic abrupt movements of the San Andreas Fault, which has killed thousands of people in the past and surely, given the huge population growth in California since the last giant quake, will kill many thousands of people in California again sometime in the next 200 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
04:34 PM on 07/17/2011
Spoken like a true pro, Richard. Really, I am impressed. Jimboy71 calls you on cherry-picking one region and you seamlessly switch to a red herring with a false comparison thrown in for grins. Problem is, you're still avoiding the big questions. Peddle your wares after you can explain this:

The PR firm's memo outlining how they plan to take the astroturf attack on science model they developed for big tobacco and sell it to big oil and coal, then export the model to Europe: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 API memo showing how big oil's trade association sells the very same model to its stakeholders: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4466&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=API%20Plans%20Major%20Disinformation%20Campaign%20%28April%2C%201998%29&Cache=False

The 2002 memo from Frank Luntz showing how he sells it to the GOP: http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment

George Monbiot's discovery of how PR uses online operatives to spread their memes and disrupt honest discourse: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

And the recent revelation that software bots are being deployed for the same purpose: http://www.desmogblog.com/are-climate-deniers-and-front-groups-polluting-online-conversation-denier-bots
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
07:55 PM on 07/20/2011
So, Richard...

Why do we have a PR firm called APCO Worldwide's memo from 1994 describing how they plan to sell the TASSC model to other industries like the oil industry, then four years later we have a memo from the American Petroleum Institute describing that very same strategy to attack the Kyoto Protocol?

Seems mankind has found a way to manipulate public opinion.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:36 PM on 07/13/2011
More on the "Sea Levels Rising At Fastest Rate In 2,100 Years" study here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:23 AM on 07/13/2011
For a much more thoughtful journey through the history of sea level discussions, consider Historic Variations in Sea Levels, a study in three parts, at judithcurry.com

Enjoy, and bring some popcorn.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:24 PM on 07/13/2011
Hey Richard2,

Downthread you claimed that the sun is "moving into a cool phase".

Again, we are now moving into the WARMING phase of the11-year solar cycle.

I asked you to explain and cite exactly what you were talking about and you ignored the question - who woulda thunk it.

Please answer the question; thanks.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:35 PM on 07/13/2011
Hey R2,

It seems only Part 1 of said "history of sea level" has been published. Part 1 deals with sea level rise up to Roman Times but not more recently, which is to say during the time period of the study this thread is the subject of.

Perhaps I missed the Parts 2 & 3 of reports though, which would include a discussion of sea level during the time period of the study this thread is the subject of - if so please provide a link to those reports; thanks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
06:03 PM on 07/12/2011
Study: Fine Particle Pollution From Coal Plants Continues To Cause Serious Health Problems. From an analysis conducted by research firm Abt Associates for the Clean Air Task Force on fine particle pollution, which the EPA's recently finalized cross-state air pollution rule limits:
[F]ine particle pollution from existing coal plants is expected to cause nearly 13,200 deaths in 2010. Additional impacts include an estimated 9,700 hospitalizations and more than 20,000 heart attacks per year. The total monetized value of these adverse health impacts adds up to more than $100 billion per year. This burden is not distributed evenly across the population. Adverse impacts are especially severe for the elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease. In addition, the poor, minority groups, and people who live in areas downwind of multiple power plants are likely to be disproportionately exposed to the health risks and costs of fine particle pollution.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107080007
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy M Brito
Veritas
07:56 PM on 07/11/2011
I have a question to one of my friends; gallon, Reed, Pharos, Jimboy, Chrisd3 etc. Is it true that a rise in sea level could make volcanoes more sensitive to eruptions due to a tension in the subduction zones?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
11:00 PM on 07/11/2011
Answered this twice. Both gone.

Short answer, maybe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy M Brito
Veritas
11:26 PM on 07/11/2011
Sorry I missed it. I was just reading up on some relatively new theories and was trying to bounce one of them off somebody.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:19 PM on 07/11/2011
As Richard2 is well aware but would have you believe otherwise, globally sea levels are rising.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:15 PM on 07/11/2011
Maybe. As I am aware, the Colorado data indicates that global sea levels rose until 2010, and have since then declined, as shown on the Colorado trend line. The Colorado trend indicates the 2011 sea level is lower than the 2010 sea level.

Some satellite data indicates a sea level decline starting earlier than 2010. In either case, neither mirrors the situation along the coast of California, where the average sea level for the entire decade, 2000-2009, was lower than the previous decade, 1990-1999.

With the sun moving into a cool phase, and the oceans turning cooler, it is possible that we will observe further declines in sea level measurements over the next few years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
10:21 PM on 07/11/2011
Richard, are you aware of PR firm APCO Worldwide's 1994 memo --Thoughts on TASSC Europe-- outlining their plan to expand the market for science denial?

As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our European colleagues suggest include:

Global warming .
Nuclear waste disposal .
Diseases and pests in agricultural products for transborder trade .
Biotechnology .
Eco-labeling for EC products .
Food processing and packaging
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

Are you aware just four years later the same strategy was sold by API to oppose Kyoto?

1994 TASSC Memo: we encourage a TASSC group in Europe to focus on a few key messages, such as: (i) science should never be corrupted to achieve political ends; (ii) economic growth cannot afford to be held hostage to paternalistic, overregulation; and (iii) improving indoor air quality is a laudable goal that will never be accomplish ed as long as tobacco smoke is the sole focus of regulators .

1998 API Memo: National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Science_Communications_Plan_%281998%29

Are you aware?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
01:08 AM on 07/12/2011
The whole trend along the graph provided by U. of Colorado  moves in an up and down fashion one year to the next and it is nothing new.  This behavior is simply the way trends work. The overall trend is trending steadily upward.  One can not look at one years data, from 2011 until now,  and establish a trend.   It is silly.  Average sea levels for a decade means little.  What scientists work with such numbers besides deniers who want to cherry pick results?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
08:17 PM on 07/10/2011
The sea levels at all sixteen of the tide stations along the coast of California indicate that the average sea level during the decade of the 1990s was higher than the average sea level of decade of the 2000s. NOAA's tide station website has the individual graphs, which anyone can review at their leisure.

Is it logical that sea levels would be marginally declining along the west coast of the U.S. at the same time that "sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,100 years?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:11 PM on 07/10/2011
Sounds like California is rising.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:51 AM on 07/11/2011
Sounds like the coast is rising, consistent with what we would expect in a subduction zone and on the continental plate. The mountains got there somehow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
10:52 AM on 07/11/2011
Not to forget isostatic rebound.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:12 AM on 07/11/2011
"The sea levels at all sixteen of the tide stations along the coast of California indicate that the average sea level during the decade of the 1990s was higher than the average sea level of decade of the 2000s."

You might possibly be a special kind of denier that has the ability to read a graph, but I doubt it. Why haven't you already linked to the data?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
09:54 AM on 07/11/2011
"...the average sea level at La Jolla measured with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography tide gauge was 81.8 centimeters for the 1980s (1980-1989), 84.6 cm for the 1990s and 82.9 cm for the 2000s (relative to mean lower low water, the point of reference used on tide tables).

Therefore, local sea level was 1.7 centimeters lower on average in the decade of the 2000s than during the decade of the 1990s."

"From the San Diego Union-Tribune April 4, 2011
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:32 PM on 07/11/2011
Funny how Richard2's San Diego Union-Trib­une citation doesn't claim what he asserts above, isn't it.

Hey R2,

Where's your link demonstrating that "all sixteen of the tide stations along the coast of California indicate that the average sea level during the decade of the 1990s was higher than the average sea level of decade of the 2000s"?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:44 PM on 07/09/2011
Ho hum. The comments are boring. Irrational people do not understand rational arguments so trying to explain science to them is a waste of time. The American southwest is burning while the Missouri-Mississippi watershed is flooding because warmer oceans mean bigger Hadley cells. As the Hadley cells expand the northern edge moves farther north, causing desertification of the areas where the cell's hot dry air descends. This pushes precipitation northward resulting in record snow and rain and consequent flooding. The intelligent people will sell their property to the deniers and move to better climates and higher ground. The unintelligent will rebuild in the fire zones and flood zones and be surprised again the next time it happens. Ho hum.
11:03 AM on 07/10/2011
Good thing the oceans aren't warming...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

"Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all "
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
04:30 PM on 07/10/2011
Why did you stop at the half-truth and not give the article's conclusion?

"Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
07:55 PM on 07/10/2011
LA: "oceans aren't warming...">>

Let's ask NASA:

"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. (8)"

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
09:03 PM on 07/08/2011
Let's see if we can help the denialists with their scream therapy, shall we?

Scientists have known for over a hundred years that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. We also know that it re-emits it.

Why do denialist slime-it changers not want to acknowledge that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared?

Why do denialists subscribe to the dictates of the Heartworm Institute?

Why do denialists believe that climatologists, oceanographers, and atmospheric physicists are wrong but Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are right?

Why do the arguments against the science of global warming dovetail so neatly with the business plans of the worlds richest fossil fuel companies?

Why would anyone believe Lord Monkton or James Delingpole over Nobel Laureates?

Perhaps the right wing authoritarian mind thinks only what it is told to think, and it thinks that everyone else just thinks what they are told to to think too.

The concept of someone thinking for themselves seems to be lost on the right wing authoritarian AGW denialists.

So step up and scream deniars! Now is your chance! Go for it! Al Gore!! Al Gore!!! Scream!!!!
12:47 PM on 07/09/2011
Stevo, it does seem, after the above rant, that you're the one doing the hysterical screaming here.

Any person who is genuinely sceptical of the AGW theory will have done their homework and would not deny that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.

Most often, the main reason behind someone's scepticism is centred around the uncertainty of (amongst other things):-

1. To what extent the increase in anthropogenic-driven CO2 concentrations is increasing the world's mean termperature, and how that will manifest itself in the years to come;

2. The negative feedbacks which are in play and which could likely to counteract any such warming;

3. What other factors are at involved, e.g. solar activity (which is usually swept under the carpet by AGW alarmists);

4. To what extent should any mild warming be dealt with by the huge increases in taxation and control that many governments and the IPCC would foist upon us;

5. Why there has been a lack of warming (or even a slight cooling) over the last 13-16 years and why this cannot be satisfactorily explained by the alarmists' preponderance of using out of date and carefully-manipulated climate models;

6. How much behind-the-scenes rent-seeking and trough-snouting are driving the alarmists' predictions;

7. How effective the supposed solutions (such as solar and wind factories, land/forest-commandeering for biofuel crops, and carbon dioxide taxes) are actually going to be.

Etc.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
01:26 PM on 07/09/2011
"Why there has been a lack of warming (or even a slight cooling) over the last 13-16 years"

See now that's why we use the term denier instead of skeptic. There is plenty of well documented evidence of warming. Consider for instance 2005 as the hottest year, or 2010 as the hottest year, all notably within the past 13 years. Consider that the average temperature over the 2000's decade was well above the 90's or any other decade on record. Consider that all of the years of the 2000's were higher than all but one of the 90's. Even the COOLEST year of the 2000's was warmer than all but one of the 90's. This is after the 90's was the warmest decade ever recorded to that point.

So then you just deny all of this evidence and go ahead and state that there has been no warming for 13 years. That's why we use the term denier.

Further, the solar output has not been 'swept under the rug". It has been well studied and well documented.

Vague, un-backed claims with condescending terms like "behind-the­-scenes rent-seeki­ng and trough-sno­uting" have nothing to do with discussions of science, but everything to do with denier ranting.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
01:27 PM on 07/09/2011
If you don't want to be called a denier then you must 1) accept the facts. 2) stop sounding like a denier.
if you truly want to be a skeptic, then you could start by explaining how satellites in space have measured a reduction in infrared heat being released from the Earth into space. That reduction is at exactly the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. This is not a theory,n or a computer model, nor a statistical construct. It is a direct measurement that shows that CO2 is altering the thermal balance of the Earth by blocking the normal release of heat into space. As a skeptic, you will have to explain how this direct measurement does not evidence warming of the planet. Same heat in, less heat out, and you have to explain how that is not warming the planet. Explain it with scientific proof, not with denier ranting. Explain it in a way that fits all the other evidence. Good luck with that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
04:44 PM on 07/04/2011
Rev ALGORE, Alchemist-in-Chief reports that sea levels will rise by 20 feet by 2015.
In related news The Reverend's movie has to have 25 govt "alarmist warnings" prior to airing in all schools.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
09:52 PM on 07/08/2011
"ALGORE.... has to have 25 govt "alarmist warnings" prior to airing in all schools."

Nonsense. The conservative British judge approved the film to be part of the British curriculum without any warnings. He did ask that some of his own comments added to the material for teachers, but nothing needed to be said to the children.

You lie because you have too.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:18 AM on 07/09/2011
Perhaps you didn't receive my last comment. The answer to your question is Dixicrat, the prequel to the modern-day Republican.

LBJ said the Democratic Party would lose the Southern White vote for a generation after the passage of Civil Rights Legislation during the 1960's.

He was correct in his prediction. After Blacks were given equal protection and opportunity under the law, Dixicrats deserted the Democratic Party in droves and entered the Republican Party. This was the purpose of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", essentially race baiting and fear mongering, which has been the Republican Party's primary campaign strategy ever since.

So in reality it's the Republican that is the racist, not the Democrat, (which is what you were clumsily trying to imply in your question to me), and since the Republican Party has historically been the party of big business (Capitalism), the Capitalist (Republican) does indeed have the heart of a slave owner.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
12:31 AM on 07/09/2011
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

p.s. OBAMA 2008 - N0B@MA 2012
08:50 AM on 07/09/2011
That was about the same time the Communist Party joined the Democrat party also, wasn't it?
10:07 AM on 07/04/2011
This article is based on a fatally-flawed study that is only being given air time and column inches because it serves (at face value) to support the CAGW hypothesis. The trouble is that when you look at it more closely, it's a study based on dubious assumptions and only deals with a tiny stretch of coast (in the global scheme of things).

Someone might well pop and say "yes, but if sea level is going up in North Carolina, it must be going up everywhere at the same rate". No. If you do a study on sea levels in Scotland you would discover that sea levels are falling, whereas the same study in southern England would tell you the opposite. This is because land rises and falls too.

Satellite measurements show that the global rate of sea level rise has tailed off in recent years, probably as a result of the global cooling phase we've been in since the late 90's - and, the rate of sea level rise is far lower than even the lowest of the WMO and IPCC alarmist estimates.

The problem is that they don't ever admit they were wrong, they just sweep it under the carpet and then rehash other dodgy studies and climate model predictions into more agit-prop articles like this one.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
09:53 PM on 07/08/2011
"Satellite measuremen­ts show that the global rate of sea level rise has tailed off in recent years..."

Show us the evidence.
12:26 PM on 07/09/2011
There's plenty out there, Doc - do feel free to conduct your own homework on this point.

Similarly to the age-old riposte of "weather is not climate", taking a narrow snapshot of sea levels in one location and then extrapolating them across the world in order to alarm people and further one's own (and/or one's own pay-master's) agenda, is highly inadvisable - which is what has been done in this NC study.

It's a bit like saying that Katrina (as an example of many such alarmist proclamations) was directly caused by AGW, when in fact wild and severe weather has been declining over the last few years and is now at a 40-year low. Good headline-grabbing fodder for the MSM, but of little help to everyone else.
09:18 AM on 07/09/2011
"The researchers found that since the late 19th century – as the world became industrialized – sea level has risen more than 2 millimeters per year, on average. That's a bit less than one-tenth of an inch, but it adds up over time."
OK, even if that's true, that's less than 10" in 100 years (and me so young). Is 10" of sea rise over 100 years a catastrophe? How does that compare with Al Gore's claims of a 20' rise? With the NAS estimate of 4" to 35" over the 21st century? If this is caused by the sun, what can we do about it? If it is caused by AGW, what can we do about it given the current state of the solar energy and wind power lack of viable alternates? And if some current speculations that the earth may be entering a new Ice Age pan out, what will that mean to the alarmists? I suspect we will have a viable source of alternate energy in 20 or 30 years or so but if the source of any global warming turns out to be solar caused, what will alternate sources of energy do to roll back the sea?
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
10:58 AM on 07/09/2011
The decade of the 80's was hotter than the 70's. Then the 90's were hotter than the 80's. Then the 2000's were hotter than the 90's. Then 2010 was the hottest year ever recorded. Do you see a trend?

Now if we assume that the 2010's will be hotter than the 2000's. and the 2020's will be hotter than the 2010's and so on, what does that mean for the rate of sea level rise? If you apply more and more heat to ice does it continue to melt at a constant rate or does it melt faster and faster?

The rate of sea level rise is not expected to be constant for the next 100 years. As the Earth gets hotter and hotter the ice will melt faster and sea level will rise faster.

This process can not be reversed, so once it starts it is too late. It has to be stopped before it becomes a problem. A good time to do that is right now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
10:49 PM on 07/03/2011
Are you capable of doing anything except post urls?
What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:23 PM on 07/03/2011
What a useless comment. Sounds like my charts and links don't fit your world view. Still afraid of the truth are you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
04:46 PM on 07/04/2011
LUV IT.................hilarious...................
Now we'll see all the Wizard's acolytes get on your case.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
01:25 PM on 06/30/2011
Yet the sea level at the San Francisco tide station remains lower than its peak readings during the 1990s. What are you going to believe, actual physical measurements at tide stations, or computer model projections and scenarios?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:58 PM on 06/30/2011
There you go again, trying to confuse the faithful with facts. Do you not realize that for the CAGW narrative to be effective, small children and the weak-minded need to be frightened by climate science quacks and their Sham-Wow projections.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
10:06 PM on 07/08/2011
"There you go again, trying to confuse the faithful with facts."

The confusion is most likely to come from his/your misleading statements.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:35 PM on 07/10/2011
I bet you're a hoot a party.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
04:47 PM on 07/04/2011
It depends what pays the most...............................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
08:35 PM on 07/10/2011
I know big oil pays more than honest research. So do you.