The sinking islands

[Bama Brian]

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>
>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high tides.
>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So sad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>
>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>> thousand years now.
>>>
>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across what
>>>> is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were just a
>>>> peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>
>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>
>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>>>> there's nothing that should be done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>
>> :
>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the yellow
>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>
> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious acolytes.
>
>> Here's what's relevant:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>
> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>
>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since the
>> peak of the last Ice Age
>
> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>
> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago
> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising
> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>
>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>
> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>
>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's estimated
>> rate of rise)
>> = 48,000 years
>>
>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice Age, so
>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>> = 150 ft
>>
>> Something wrong here.
>
> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>
>
> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>> rate of rise per year should be
>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>
>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can be
>> Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the world
>> as it is.
>
> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.

More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not surprised.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

Bama Brian wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high
>>>>>> tides.
>>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So sad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>>
>>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>>> thousand years now.
>>>>
>>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across
>>>>> what is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were just a
>>>>> peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>>
>>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> or:
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>>>>> there's nothing that should be done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>>
>>>
>>> :
>>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the yellow
>>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>>
>>
>> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious acolytes.
>>
>>> Here's what's relevant:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>>
>>
>> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>>
>>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since the
>>> peak of the last Ice Age
>>
>>
>> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>>
>> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago
>> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising
>> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>>
>>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>>
>>
>> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>>
>>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's estimated
>>> rate of rise)
>>> = 48,000 years
>>>
>>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice Age, so
>>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>>> = 150 ft
>>>
>>> Something wrong here.
>>
>>
>> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>>
>>
>> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>>
>>> rate of rise per year should be
>>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>>
>>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can be
>>> Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the world
>>> as it is.
>>
>> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.
>
> More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not surprised.

No ability to counter my arguments. Why am I not surprised. You're not
really stupid, why do you try so hard to seem stupid on this issue?

--Jeff

--
I object to violence because when it
appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

 

[Bama Brian]

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and more
>>>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high
>>>>>>> tides.
>>>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So sad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>>>> thousand years now.
>>>>>
>>>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across
>>>>>> what is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were just
>>>>>> a peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or:
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>>>>>> there's nothing that should be done.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>>>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the
>>>> yellow
>>>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious acolytes.
>>>
>>>> Here's what's relevant:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>>>
>>>
>>> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>>>
>>>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since the
>>>> peak of the last Ice Age
>>>
>>>
>>> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>>>
>>> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago
>>> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising
>>> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>>>
>>>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>>>
>>>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's estimated
>>>> rate of rise)
>>>> = 48,000 years
>>>>
>>>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice Age, so
>>>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>>>> = 150 ft
>>>>
>>>> Something wrong here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>>>
>>>> rate of rise per year should be
>>>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>>>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>>>
>>>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can
>>>> be Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the
>>>> world as it is.
>>>
>>> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.
>>
>> More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not
>> surprised.
>
> No ability to counter my arguments. Why am I not surprised. You're not
> really stupid, why do you try so hard to seem stupid on this issue?

You don't have an argument in this thread - just personal attacks. If
you have a valid response, point to it and we'll discuss it. Until
then, you're just behaving like a small child with his hands over his
ears, shouting "you're wrong".

--
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

Bama Brian wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high
>>>>>>>> tides.
>>>>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines from
>>>>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So sad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>>>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>>>>> thousand years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across
>>>>>>> what is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were just
>>>>>>> a peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or:
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>>>>>>> there's nothing that should be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> :
>>>>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>>>>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the
>>>>> yellow
>>>>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious acolytes.
>>>>
>>>>> Here's what's relevant:
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>>>>
>>>>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since the
>>>>> peak of the last Ice Age
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>>>>
>>>> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago
>>>> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising
>>>> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>>>>
>>>>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>>>>
>>>>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's estimated
>>>>> rate of rise)
>>>>> = 48,000 years
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice Age, so
>>>>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>>>>> = 150 ft
>>>>>
>>>>> Something wrong here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>>>>
>>>>> rate of rise per year should be
>>>>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>>>>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>>>>
>>>>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can
>>>>> be Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the
>>>>> world as it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.
>>>
>>>
>>> More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not
>>> surprised.
>>
>>
>> No ability to counter my arguments. Why am I not surprised. You're not
>> really stupid, why do you try so hard to seem stupid on this issue?
>
>
> You don't have an argument in this thread - just personal attacks. If
> you have a valid response, point to it and we'll discuss it. Until
> then, you're just behaving like a small child with his hands over his
> ears, shouting "you're wrong".

OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea level
rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last ice age
18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of the rise
occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.

--Jeff

--
I object to violence because when it
appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

 

[Bama Brian]

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in deeper
>>>>>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more and
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented high
>>>>>>>>> tides.
>>>>>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So sad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>>>>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>>>>>> thousand years now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across
>>>>>>>> what is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were
>>>>>>>> just a peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or:
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the point,
>>>>>>>> there's nothing that should be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :
>>>>>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>>>>>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the
>>>>>> yellow
>>>>>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious acolytes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's what's relevant:
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since
>>>>>> the peak of the last Ice Age
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years
>>>>> ago
>>>>> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising
>>>>> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's
>>>>>> estimated rate of rise)
>>>>>> = 48,000 years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice
>>>>>> Age, so
>>>>>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>>>>>> = 150 ft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something wrong here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>>>>>
>>>>>> rate of rise per year should be
>>>>>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>>>>>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You can
>>>>>> be Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal with the
>>>>>> world as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not
>>>> surprised.
>>>
>>>
>>> No ability to counter my arguments. Why am I not surprised. You're not
>>> really stupid, why do you try so hard to seem stupid on this issue?
>>
>>
>> You don't have an argument in this thread - just personal attacks. If
>> you have a valid response, point to it and we'll discuss it. Until
>> then, you're just behaving like a small child with his hands over his
>> ears, shouting "you're wrong".
>
> OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea level
> rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last ice age
> 18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
> recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
> second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of the rise
> occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
> the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
> mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
> average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
> atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
> has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.

First, the seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
That is an indisputable fact.

Second, when you look at that first chart, adjacent to the first
paragraph, you will see that the claimed rise is a linear function from
about 1880 to 2000, showing a total rise of 20 cm. 20 cm over 120 years
is roughly 1.7 mm per year - a rise which tallies with other reputable
sources. This number is also less than the 0.1 inch (2.54mm)
per year claimed elsewhere.

Third, the rise in sea levels is linear; i.e., it has not accelerated
with the rise in human population. In the year 1900 there were an
estimated 1.6 billion people, but in 2000 there were an estimated 6.1
billion people, with the time required for the next billion people added
to the population shortening to a mere 12 years. IOW, the population
growth rate has been on an exponential curve, while the sea level rise
has been linear. Because of this, I doubt that it is technic
civilization that is the direct cause of the increase in sea level rise.

As to the head of the Goddard Institute's prediction, that does not
match either the satellite data, or the historic tidal gauge data. Even
if the satellite data is correct at a rise of 3.4cm per year, we will
see a rise in sea levels of 340cm, or 3.4 meters over the next hundred
years - and not the claimed five meters.

But as the seas rise, we have less fresh water coming from the glaciers
to cause the rise simply because there are less glaciers to melt.
Indeed, the article points out that scientists today are not certain
whether the accretion of ice vs the melting outflow is positive or
negative, WRT Antarctica and Greenland.

The Wiki article further points out that most of Greenland and
Antarctica are above the permafrost line and cannot melt in any time
frame less than millenia.

One final point. It is not clearly established exactly what the human
contribution to Global Warming really is. Yet GW - and Global Cooling -
clearly existed before the development of human civilization. Until we
know exactly what causes _natural_ GW, we will have an interesting
experience with attempts to cure it.

As I said in other posts, we will simply adapt to the changing climate,
as we have always done. Or we will learn how to control the climatic
changes - provided, of course, that they are not driven by changes in
solar output.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

Bama Brian wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>>>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded the
>>>>>>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in
>>>>>>>>>> deeper
>>>>>>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>>>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>>>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more
>>>>>>>>>> and more
>>>>>>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>>>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented
>>>>>>>>>> high tides.
>>>>>>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to shorelines
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So sad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not have
>>>>>>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>>>>>>> thousand years now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk across
>>>>>>>>> what is now the English Channel - and the British Isles were
>>>>>>>>> just a peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or:
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the
>>>>>>>>> point, there's nothing that should be done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>>>>>>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite the
>>>>>>> yellow
>>>>>>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious
>>>>>> acolytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's what's relevant:
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since
>>>>>>> the peak of the last Ice Age
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000
>>>>>> years ago
>>>>>> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant,
>>>>>> rising
>>>>>> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's
>>>>>>> estimated rate of rise)
>>>>>>> = 48,000 years
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice
>>>>>>> Age, so
>>>>>>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>>>>>>> = 150 ft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Something wrong here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rate of rise per year should be
>>>>>>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>>>>>>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You
>>>>>>> can be Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal
>>>>>>> with the world as it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not
>>>>> surprised.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No ability to counter my arguments. Why am I not surprised. You're
>>>> not
>>>> really stupid, why do you try so hard to seem stupid on this issue?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't have an argument in this thread - just personal attacks.
>>> If you have a valid response, point to it and we'll discuss it.
>>> Until then, you're just behaving like a small child with his hands
>>> over his ears, shouting "you're wrong".
>>
>>
>> OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea level
>> rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last ice age
>> 18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
>> recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
>> second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of the rise
>> occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
>> the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
>> mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
>> average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
>> atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
>> has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.
>
> First, the seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. That
> is an indisputable fact.

Yeah, they were rising at a tenth or two of a millimeter for 3,000 years
and are now rising at ten times that rate or more.

> Second, when you look at that first chart, adjacent to the first
> paragraph, you will see that the claimed rise is a linear function from
> about 1880 to 2000, showing a total rise of 20 cm. 20 cm over 120 years
> is roughly 1.7 mm per year - a rise which tallies with other reputable
> sources. This number is also less than the 0.1 inch (2.54mm)
> per year claimed elsewhere.

The 0.1 inch was only for the last decade or so. You keep trying to
linearize non-linear changes.

> Third, the rise in sea levels is linear; i.e., it has not accelerated
> with the rise in human population. In the year 1900 there were an
> estimated 1.6 billion people, but in 2000 there were an estimated 6.1
> billion people, with the time required for the next billion people added
> to the population shortening to a mere 12 years. IOW, the population
> growth rate has been on an exponential curve, while the sea level rise
> has been linear. Because of this, I doubt that it is technic
> civilization that is the direct cause of the increase in sea level rise.

Sea level rise is not linear. Here's a better graph of a shorter term
that just shows the rise caused by melting glaciers.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

"Right now TOPEX/Poseidon has been seeing an average yearly increase of
2.8 millimeters (0.11 inches) in global sea level," says University of
Colorado engineering professor Dr. Steve Nerem, a member of the
TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 science team.

"It looks like sea level rise as we now observe it began in the middle
of the 19th century," says Douglas, an expert on the history of sea
level rise and its consequences. "We have a preponderance of evidence
that the current rate is considerably faster than for the previous
several thousand years, although there is still some disagreement among
scientists about this."

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Sea_level_rises.html

> As to the head of the Goddard Institute's prediction, that does not
> match either the satellite data, or the historic tidal gauge data. Even
> if the satellite data is correct at a rise of 3.4cm per year, we will
> see a rise in sea levels of 340cm, or 3.4 meters over the next hundred
> years - and not the claimed five meters.

But we could easily see an increasing rate of increase.

> But as the seas rise, we have less fresh water coming from the glaciers
> to cause the rise simply because there are less glaciers to melt.
> Indeed, the article points out that scientists today are not certain
> whether the accretion of ice vs the melting outflow is positive or
> negative, WRT Antarctica and Greenland.

Rignot and his colleagues have been using radar measurements from
several different satellites to find out just how fast ice sheets are
discharging into the ocean. He and his colleagues recently found that
glaciers in Greenland are accelerating in response to climate warming.
The loss of ice doubled between 1996 and 2005.

"There are a lot of changes taking place in Greenland," says Rignot,
"and we expect to see acceleration in ice loss continuing north in the
next ten years." By tracking the flow of glaciers around the globe,
researchers will have a much better idea about the rate of change.

Melting ice on Greenland raised global sea level by three and half
meters (about 11 feet) in the last interglacial," Rignot says, "this is
where we are heading and it looks like we could get there much sooner
than we thought."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006061422488.html

> The Wiki article further points out that most of Greenland and
> Antarctica are above the permafrost line and cannot melt in any time
> frame less than millenia.

As the map on the following site shows, there's very little permafrost
in Greenland.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/permafrost.html

> One final point. It is not clearly established exactly what the human
> contribution to Global Warming really is. Yet GW - and Global Cooling -
> clearly existed before the development of human civilization. Until we
> know exactly what causes _natural_ GW, we will have an interesting
> experience with attempts to cure it.

The experts, including experts appointed by Bush from the National
Academy of Sciences, say that humans are causing global warming.

> As I said in other posts, we will simply adapt to the changing climate,
> as we have always done. Or we will learn how to control the climatic
> changes - provided, of course, that they are not driven by changes in
> solar output.

Of course, you are far from an expert on climatology.

--Jeff

--
I object to violence because when it
appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

 

[Bama Brian]

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From The Associated press, 12/3/07:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bali-sinking-islands,0,3895892.story
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By CHARLES J. HANLEY | AP Special Correspondent
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> KILU, Papua New Guinea -
>>>>>>>>>>> Squealing pigs lit out for the bush and Filomena Taroa herded
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> grandkids to higher ground last week when the sea rolled in
>>>>>>>>>>> deeper
>>>>>>>>>>> than anyone had ever seen.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What was happening?
>>>>>>>>>>> "I don't know," the sturdy, barefoot grandmother told a visitor.
>>>>>>>>>>> "I'd never experienced it before."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As scientists warn of rising seas from global warming, more
>>>>>>>>>>> and more
>>>>>>>>>>> reports are coming in from villages like this one on Papua New
>>>>>>>>>>> Guinea's New Britain island of flooding from unprecedented
>>>>>>>>>>> high tides.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's happening not only to low-lying atolls, but to
>>>>>>>>>>> shorelines from
>>>>>>>>>>> Alaska to India.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So sad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Such crocodile tears.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it's been happening since the last Ice Age.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, dimwit, it happened _after_ the last Ice Age. You may not
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> noticed, but North America hasn't been covered in ice for several
>>>>>>>>> thousand years now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> About ten thousand years back, people were able to walk
>>>>>>>>>> across what is now the English Channel - and the British Isles
>>>>>>>>>> were just a peninsula jutting off Europe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kewl. But not relevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ston...12-m-Depth-on-the-English-Channel-62431.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1103_031103_britainrepopulation2.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or:
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35o4hw
>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/w203
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't plan to lose any sleep over it. Even more to the
>>>>>>>>>> point, there's nothing that should be done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe if we buried you up to your neck on a beach in Bangladesh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> You and I both would be dead of old age before the water rose high
>>>>>>>> enough to be a threat to me - or to the Bangladeshis, despite
>>>>>>>> the yellow
>>>>>>>> journalism of the GW acolytes of the new religion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah. Just like the Creationists. Scientists are religious
>>>>>>> acolytes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's what's relevant:
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obfuscation? Obfuscation is relevant? I expected that from you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 400 feet in 18,000 years is Wiki's claimed sea level rise since
>>>>>>>> the peak of the last Ice Age
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gosh you read ONE sentence and that makes you an expert?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000
>>>>>>> years ago
>>>>>>> to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant,
>>>>>>> rising
>>>>>>> at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1]"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's see where this claimed rise takes us, math-wise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here comes the lying with statistics bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> = 400 ft x 12 inches per foot / .1 inch per year (today's
>>>>>>>> estimated rate of rise)
>>>>>>>> = 48,000 years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's only been 18,000 years since the last peak of the Ice
>>>>>>>> Age, so
>>>>>>>> = 18,000 yrs x .1 inch per year (claimed rise) / 12 inches per foot
>>>>>>>> = 150 ft
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something wrong here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. You're either ignorant or lying. Or both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the rise really is 400 feet, then the average
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rate of rise per year should be
>>>>>>>> = 400 feet x 12 inches / 18,000 yrs
>>>>>>>> = 0.26 inches per year estimated rise
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the sea level rise is _slower_ now than it was before. You
>>>>>>>> can be Chicken Little if you want, Jeff. But I'd rather deal
>>>>>>>> with the world as it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can be an idiot all you want, Brian, but that's your reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More Ad Hominems from a Priest of Global Warming. Why am I not
>>>>>> surprised.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No ability to counter my arguments. Why am I not surprised.
>>>>> You're not
>>>>> really stupid, why do you try so hard to seem stupid on this issue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't have an argument in this thread - just personal attacks.
>>>> If you have a valid response, point to it and we'll discuss it.
>>>> Until then, you're just behaving like a small child with his hands
>>>> over his ears, shouting "you're wrong".
>>>
>>>
>>> OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea level
>>> rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last ice age
>>> 18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
>>> recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
>>> second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of the rise
>>> occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
>>> the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
>>> mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
>>> average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
>>> atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
>>> has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.
>>
>> First, the seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
>> That is an indisputable fact.
>
> Yeah, they were rising at a tenth or two of a millimeter for 3,000 years
> and are now rising at ten times that rate or more.
>
>> Second, when you look at that first chart, adjacent to the first
>> paragraph, you will see that the claimed rise is a linear function
>> from about 1880 to 2000, showing a total rise of 20 cm. 20 cm over
>> 120 years is roughly 1.7 mm per year - a rise which tallies with other
>> reputable sources. This number is also less than the 0.1 inch (2.54mm)
>> per year claimed elsewhere.
>
> The 0.1 inch was only for the last decade or so. You keep trying to
> linearize non-linear changes.
>
>> Third, the rise in sea levels is linear; i.e., it has not accelerated
>> with the rise in human population. In the year 1900 there were an
>> estimated 1.6 billion people, but in 2000 there were an estimated 6.1
>> billion people, with the time required for the next billion people
>> added to the population shortening to a mere 12 years. IOW, the
>> population growth rate has been on an exponential curve, while the sea
>> level rise has been linear. Because of this, I doubt that it is
>> technic civilization that is the direct cause of the increase in sea
>> level rise.
>
> Sea level rise is not linear. Here's a better graph of a shorter term
> that just shows the rise caused by melting glaciers.

Sea level rise also has not tracked the growth in human population.

>
> http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

According to this chart, sea level rise has been less than an inch over
45 years. So where has the extra water come from to cause the greater
rises quoted elsewhere?

>
> "Right now TOPEX/Poseidon has been seeing an average yearly increase of
> 2.8 millimeters (0.11 inches) in global sea level," says University of
> Colorado engineering professor Dr. Steve Nerem, a member of the
> TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 science team.
>
> "It looks like sea level rise as we now observe it began in the middle
> of the 19th century," says Douglas, an expert on the history of sea
> level rise and its consequences. "We have a preponderance of evidence
> that the current rate is considerably faster than for the previous
> several thousand years, although there is still some disagreement among
> scientists about this."
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Sea_level_rises.html

Sea level rise beginning in the middle of the 1800's? Just what was the
trigger then? Horse-drawn SUV's? Wood-fired electric plants?

Actually, it began a bit further back as the Little Ice Age waned. Note
the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware - the river
used to freeze over back in the 1700's when the Revolutionary War was
fought. What that tells me is that either it doesn't take a technic
civilization to destabilize climate, or that Global Warming exists as a
poorly understood natural process. Look up the Medieval Warm period and
the Little Ice Age, for example, both of which impacted North America as
well as Europe.

The issue here is what, exactly, the human race may be contributing to
the process of GW.

>> As to the head of the Goddard Institute's prediction, that does not
>> match either the satellite data, or the historic tidal gauge data.
>> Even if the satellite data is correct at a rise of 3.4cm per year, we
>> will see a rise in sea levels of 340cm, or 3.4 meters over the next
>> hundred years - and not the claimed five meters.
>
> But we could easily see an increasing rate of increase.

That's speculative.

>> But as the seas rise, we have less fresh water coming from the
>> glaciers to cause the rise simply because there are less glaciers to
>> melt. Indeed, the article points out that scientists today are not
>> certain whether the accretion of ice vs the melting outflow is
>> positive or negative, WRT Antarctica and Greenland.
>
> Rignot and his colleagues have been using radar measurements from
> several different satellites to find out just how fast ice sheets are
> discharging into the ocean. He and his colleagues recently found that
> glaciers in Greenland are accelerating in response to climate warming.
> The loss of ice doubled between 1996 and 2005.

Duplicating a loss between 1920 and 1940 - but the ice sheet recovered
from 1940 on. It may, or may not, recover again.

>
> "There are a lot of changes taking place in Greenland," says Rignot,
> "and we expect to see acceleration in ice loss continuing north in the
> next ten years." By tracking the flow of glaciers around the globe,
> researchers will have a much better idea about the rate of change.
>
> Melting ice on Greenland raised global sea level by three and half
> meters (about 11 feet) in the last interglacial," Rignot says, "this is
> where we are heading and it looks like we could get there much sooner
> than we thought."
>
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006061422488.html
>
>> The Wiki article further points out that most of Greenland and
>> Antarctica are above the permafrost line and cannot melt in any time
>> frame less than millenia.
>
> As the map on the following site shows, there's very little permafrost
> in Greenland.
>
> http://nsidc.org/sotc/permafrost.html

Uh-huh. Here's another point on Greenland. From:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm

"If there were substantial melting of the Greenland ice cap, and
especially of the titanic volume of ice that buries Antarctica, the
water released would raise the oceans in a tide that crept higher and
higher for centuries. It had happened before

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

Bama Brian wrote:
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea level
>>>> rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last ice
>>>> age
>>>> 18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
>>>> recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
>>>> second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of the
>>>> rise
>>>> occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
>>>> the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
>>>> mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
>>>> average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
>>>> atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
>>>> has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
>>> That is an indisputable fact.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, they were rising at a tenth or two of a millimeter for 3,000 years
>> and are now rising at ten times that rate or more.
>>
>>> Second, when you look at that first chart, adjacent to the first
>>> paragraph, you will see that the claimed rise is a linear function
>>> from about 1880 to 2000, showing a total rise of 20 cm. 20 cm over
>>> 120 years is roughly 1.7 mm per year - a rise which tallies with
>>> other reputable sources. This number is also less than the 0.1 inch
>>> (2.54mm)
>>> per year claimed elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> The 0.1 inch was only for the last decade or so. You keep trying to
>> linearize non-linear changes.
>>
>>> Third, the rise in sea levels is linear; i.e., it has not accelerated
>>> with the rise in human population. In the year 1900 there were an
>>> estimated 1.6 billion people, but in 2000 there were an estimated 6.1
>>> billion people, with the time required for the next billion people
>>> added to the population shortening to a mere 12 years. IOW, the
>>> population growth rate has been on an exponential curve, while the
>>> sea level rise has been linear. Because of this, I doubt that it is
>>> technic civilization that is the direct cause of the increase in sea
>>> level rise.
>>
>>
>> Sea level rise is not linear. Here's a better graph of a shorter term
>> that just shows the rise caused by melting glaciers.
>
> Sea level rise also has not tracked the growth in human population.

That is a red herring. Nobody is proposing that human metabolism is
responsible for global warming. And the Earth's temperature is not
currently at equilibrium.

>> http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
>
> According to this chart, sea level rise has been less than an inch over
> 45 years. So where has the extra water come from to cause the greater
> rises quoted elsewhere?

Thermal expansion of the oceans.

>> "Right now TOPEX/Poseidon has been seeing an average yearly increase of
>> 2.8 millimeters (0.11 inches) in global sea level," says University of
>> Colorado engineering professor Dr. Steve Nerem, a member of the
>> TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 science team.
>>
>> "It looks like sea level rise as we now observe it began in the middle
>> of the 19th century," says Douglas, an expert on the history of sea
>> level rise and its consequences. "We have a preponderance of evidence
>> that the current rate is considerably faster than for the previous
>> several thousand years, although there is still some disagreement among
>> scientists about this."
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Sea_level_rises.html
>
> Sea level rise beginning in the middle of the 1800's? Just what was the
> trigger then? Horse-drawn SUV's? Wood-fired electric plants?

The industrial revolution began in the late 18th century.

> Actually, it began a bit further back as the Little Ice Age waned. Note
> the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware - the river
> used to freeze over back in the 1700's when the Revolutionary War was
> fought. What that tells me is that either it doesn't take a technic
> civilization to destabilize climate, or that Global Warming exists as a
> poorly understood natural process. Look up the Medieval Warm period and
> the Little Ice Age, for example, both of which impacted North America as
> well as Europe.

Ah, the usual red herrings.

> The issue here is what, exactly, the human race may be contributing to
> the process of GW.

Massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

>>> As to the head of the Goddard Institute's prediction, that does not
>>> match either the satellite data, or the historic tidal gauge data.
>>> Even if the satellite data is correct at a rise of 3.4cm per year, we
>>> will see a rise in sea levels of 340cm, or 3.4 meters over the next
>>> hundred years - and not the claimed five meters.
>>
>>
>> But we could easily see an increasing rate of increase.
>
> That's speculative.

There are plenty of positive feedback loops, including arctic sea ice
melting, less snow cover on subpolar land masses, methane release from
melting permafrost, etc.,.

>>> But as the seas rise, we have less fresh water coming from the
>>> glaciers to cause the rise simply because there are less glaciers to
>>> melt. Indeed, the article points out that scientists today are not
>>> certain whether the accretion of ice vs the melting outflow is
>>> positive or negative, WRT Antarctica and Greenland.
>>
>> Rignot and his colleagues have been using radar measurements from
>> several different satellites to find out just how fast ice sheets are
>> discharging into the ocean. He and his colleagues recently found that
>> glaciers in Greenland are accelerating in response to climate warming.
>> The loss of ice doubled between 1996 and 2005.
>
> Duplicating a loss between 1920 and 1940 - but the ice sheet recovered
> from 1940 on. It may, or may not, recover again.

In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global
temperatures showed cooling since 1945.

The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global
Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol
cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause.
However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most
frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.

As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate
change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and
Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized
the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon
dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons.[26]
Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied
human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric
gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the
temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by
1979.[20]

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

So, you see, that's another red herring. There's no scientific evidence
that another cooling period will begin any time soon.

>> "There are a lot of changes taking place in Greenland," says Rignot,
>> "and we expect to see acceleration in ice loss continuing north in the
>> next ten years." By tracking the flow of glaciers around the globe,
>> researchers will have a much better idea about the rate of change.
>>
>> Melting ice on Greenland raised global sea level by three and half
>> meters (about 11 feet) in the last interglacial," Rignot says, "this is
>> where we are heading and it looks like we could get there much sooner
>> than we thought."
>>
>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006061422488.html
>>
>>
>>> The Wiki article further points out that most of Greenland and
>>> Antarctica are above the permafrost line and cannot melt in any time
>>> frame less than millenia.
>>
>>
>> As the map on the following site shows, there's very little permafrost
>> in Greenland.
>>
>> http://nsidc.org/sotc/permafrost.html
>
> Uh-huh. Here's another point on Greenland. From:
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm
>
> "If there were substantial melting of the Greenland ice cap, and
> especially of the titanic volume of ice that buries Antarctica, the
> water released would raise the oceans in a tide that crept higher and
> higher for centuries. It had happened before

 

[Bama Brian]

Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> Bama Brian wrote:
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea
>>>>> level
>>>>> rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last
>>>>> ice age
>>>>> 18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
>>>>> recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
>>>>> second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of the
>>>>> rise
>>>>> occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
>>>>> the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
>>>>> mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
>>>>> average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
>>>>> atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
>>>>> Studies
>>>>> has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, the seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
>>>> That is an indisputable fact.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, they were rising at a tenth or two of a millimeter for 3,000 years
>>> and are now rising at ten times that rate or more.
>>>
>>>> Second, when you look at that first chart, adjacent to the first
>>>> paragraph, you will see that the claimed rise is a linear function
>>>> from about 1880 to 2000, showing a total rise of 20 cm. 20 cm over
>>>> 120 years is roughly 1.7 mm per year - a rise which tallies with
>>>> other reputable sources. This number is also less than the 0.1 inch
>>>> (2.54mm)
>>>> per year claimed elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> The 0.1 inch was only for the last decade or so. You keep trying to
>>> linearize non-linear changes.
>>>
>>>> Third, the rise in sea levels is linear; i.e., it has not
>>>> accelerated with the rise in human population. In the year 1900
>>>> there were an estimated 1.6 billion people, but in 2000 there were
>>>> an estimated 6.1 billion people, with the time required for the next
>>>> billion people added to the population shortening to a mere 12
>>>> years. IOW, the population growth rate has been on an exponential
>>>> curve, while the sea level rise has been linear. Because of this, I
>>>> doubt that it is technic civilization that is the direct cause of
>>>> the increase in sea level rise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sea level rise is not linear. Here's a better graph of a shorter term
>>> that just shows the rise caused by melting glaciers.
>>
>> Sea level rise also has not tracked the growth in human population.
>
> That is a red herring. Nobody is proposing that human metabolism is
> responsible for global warming. And the Earth's temperature is not
> currently at equilibrium.

Human metabolism? Never said anything about that.

But the exponential rise in human population means an exponential rise
in consumption of resources, with accompanying rises in greenhouse
gases. Yet the exponential rises are not accompanied by exponential
rises in sea levels, let alone temperatures.

>
>>> http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
>>
>> According to this chart, sea level rise has been less than an inch
>> over 45 years. So where has the extra water come from to cause the
>> greater rises quoted elsewhere?
>
> Thermal expansion of the oceans.

Riiiggghhhttt. I believe that thermal expansion of water occurs - but
I'm not sure it accounts for the greater sea level rises.

Proof, please.

>
>>> "Right now TOPEX/Poseidon has been seeing an average yearly increase of
>>> 2.8 millimeters (0.11 inches) in global sea level," says University of
>>> Colorado engineering professor Dr. Steve Nerem, a member of the
>>> TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 science team.
>>>
>>> "It looks like sea level rise as we now observe it began in the middle
>>> of the 19th century," says Douglas, an expert on the history of sea
>>> level rise and its consequences. "We have a preponderance of evidence
>>> that the current rate is considerably faster than for the previous
>>> several thousand years, although there is still some disagreement among
>>> scientists about this."
>>>
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Sea_level_rises.html
>>
>> Sea level rise beginning in the middle of the 1800's? Just what was
>> the trigger then? Horse-drawn SUV's? Wood-fired electric plants?
>
> The industrial revolution began in the late 18th century.

Began in the late 18th. Not the middle. Even so, there's going to be a
lag between industrial activity and the sea level rise. So somehow, the
seas began rising in advance of the industrial activity?

>
>> Actually, it began a bit further back as the Little Ice Age waned.
>> Note the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware - the
>> river used to freeze over back in the 1700's when the Revolutionary
>> War was fought. What that tells me is that either it doesn't take a
>> technic civilization to destabilize climate, or that Global Warming
>> exists as a poorly understood natural process. Look up the Medieval
>> Warm period and the Little Ice Age, for example, both of which
>> impacted North America as well as Europe.
>
> Ah, the usual red herrings.

Nothing red here. Both existed, and both impacted not only Europe, but
North America as well - just as the great ice sheets of the Ice Age did.
Yet the IPCC models do not account for these events. And Mann's
discredited "Hockey Stick" graph does not show them at all.

>
>> The issue here is what, exactly, the human race may be contributing to
>> the process of GW.
>
> Massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Probably so. Still, Global Warming existed long before the human
contribution of these gases. So the question was, and still is, exactly
what is the human contribution to GW?

>
>>>> As to the head of the Goddard Institute's prediction, that does not
>>>> match either the satellite data, or the historic tidal gauge data.
>>>> Even if the satellite data is correct at a rise of 3.4cm per year,
>>>> we will see a rise in sea levels of 340cm, or 3.4 meters over the
>>>> next hundred years - and not the claimed five meters.
>>>
>>>
>>> But we could easily see an increasing rate of increase.
>>
>> That's speculative.
>
> There are plenty of positive feedback loops, including arctic sea ice
> melting, less snow cover on subpolar land masses, methane release from
> melting permafrost, etc.,.

Still speculative.

>
>>>> But as the seas rise, we have less fresh water coming from the
>>>> glaciers to cause the rise simply because there are less glaciers to
>>>> melt. Indeed, the article points out that scientists today are not
>>>> certain whether the accretion of ice vs the melting outflow is
>>>> positive or negative, WRT Antarctica and Greenland.
>>>
>>> Rignot and his colleagues have been using radar measurements from
>>> several different satellites to find out just how fast ice sheets are
>>> discharging into the ocean. He and his colleagues recently found that
>>> glaciers in Greenland are accelerating in response to climate warming.
>>> The loss of ice doubled between 1996 and 2005.
>>
>> Duplicating a loss between 1920 and 1940 - but the ice sheet recovered
>> from 1940 on. It may, or may not, recover again.
>
> In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global
> temperatures showed cooling since 1945.
>
> The cooling period is well reproduced by current (1999 on) Global
> Climate Models (GCMs) that include the effect of sulphate aerosol
> cooling, so it (now) seems likely that this was the dominant cause.
> However, at the time there were two physical mechanisms that were most
> frequently advanced to cause cooling: aerosols and orbital forcing.
>
> As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate
> change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and
> Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized
> the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon
> dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons.[26]
> Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied
> human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric
> gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the
> temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by
> 1979.[20]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
> So, you see, that's another red herring. There's no scientific evidence
> that another cooling period will begin any time soon.

Except for the reports of decreased solar activity. Or the reports
which say that the particulate aerosols are even more abundant now than
they were in the 1970's.

>
>>> "There are a lot of changes taking place in Greenland," says Rignot,
>>> "and we expect to see acceleration in ice loss continuing north in the
>>> next ten years." By tracking the flow of glaciers around the globe,
>>> researchers will have a much better idea about the rate of change.
>>>
>>> Melting ice on Greenland raised global sea level by three and half
>>> meters (about 11 feet) in the last interglacial," Rignot says, "this is
>>> where we are heading and it looks like we could get there much sooner
>>> than we thought."
>>>
>>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2006/2006061422488.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Wiki article further points out that most of Greenland and
>>>> Antarctica are above the permafrost line and cannot melt in any time
>>>> frame less than millenia.
>>>
>>>
>>> As the map on the following site shows, there's very little permafrost
>>> in Greenland.
>>>
>>> http://nsidc.org/sotc/permafrost.html
>>
>> Uh-huh. Here's another point on Greenland. From:
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm
>>
>> "If there were substantial melting of the Greenland ice cap, and
>> especially of the titanic volume of ice that buries Antarctica, the
>> water released would raise the oceans in a tide that crept higher and
>> higher for centuries. It had happened before

 

[Jeffrey Turner]

Bama Brian wrote:

> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. You cited the first sentence of the wikipedia article on sea
>>>>>> level
>>>>>> rise, that sea level has risen 400 ft since the peak of the last
>>>>>> ice age
>>>>>> 18,000 years ago and then compared the "average" to the recorded rise
>>>>>> recently of one-tenth of an inch a year for a decade. You missed the
>>>>>> second and third sentences of that article, which read "Most of
>>>>>> the rise
>>>>>> occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of
>>>>>> the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2
>>>>>> mm/yr.[1]" So the rise for the recent decade was over ten times the
>>>>>> average of the three millennia before we started pumping CO2 into the
>>>>>> atmosphere. And the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
>>>>>> Studies
>>>>>> has predicted a rise of five meters over the next century.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the seas have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
>>>>> That is an indisputable fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, they were rising at a tenth or two of a millimeter for 3,000
>>>> years
>>>> and are now rising at ten times that rate or more.
>>>>
>>>>> Second, when you look at that first chart, adjacent to the first
>>>>> paragraph, you will see that the claimed rise is a linear function
>>>>> from about 1880 to 2000, showing a total rise of 20 cm. 20 cm over
>>>>> 120 years is roughly 1.7 mm per year - a rise which tallies with
>>>>> other reputable sources. This number is also less than the 0.1
>>>>> inch (2.54mm)
>>>>> per year claimed elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The 0.1 inch was only for the last decade or so. You keep trying to
>>>> linearize non-linear changes.
>>>>
>>>>> Third, the rise in sea levels is linear; i.e., it has not
>>>>> accelerated with the rise in human population. In the year 1900
>>>>> there were an estimated 1.6 billion people, but in 2000 there were
>>>>> an estimated 6.1 billion people, with the time required for the
>>>>> next billion people added to the population shortening to a mere 12
>>>>> years. IOW, the population growth rate has been on an exponential
>>>>> curve, while the sea level rise has been linear. Because of this,
>>>>> I doubt that it is technic civilization that is the direct cause of
>>>>> the increase in sea level rise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sea level rise is not linear. Here's a better graph of a shorter term
>>>> that just shows the rise caused by melting glaciers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sea level rise also has not tracked the growth in human population.
>>
>>
>> That is a red herring. Nobody is proposing that human metabolism is
>> responsible for global warming. And the Earth's temperature is not
>> currently at equilibrium.
>
>
> Human metabolism? Never said anything about that.
>
> But the exponential rise in human population means an exponential rise
> in consumption of resources, with accompanying rises in greenhouse
> gases. Yet the exponential rises are not accompanied by exponential
> rises in sea levels, let alone temperatures.
>
>>
>>>> http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
>>>
>>>
>>> According to this chart, sea level rise has been less than an inch
>>> over 45 years. So where has the extra water come from to cause the
>>> greater rises quoted elsewhere?
>>
>>
>> Thermal expansion of the oceans.
>
>
> Riiiggghhhttt. I believe that thermal expansion of water occurs - but
> I'm not sure it accounts for the greater sea level rises.

The greenhouse-gas-induced thermal expansion contribution to sea-level
rise between 1880 and 1985 is estimated at 2-5 cm. Projections are made
to the year 2025 for different forcing scenarios. For the period 1985-
2025 the estimate of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is 0.6-1.0