• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Sea level rise - where is it then?

Recommended Posts

Here are the records for (up to) the last 160 years.  In that time there has been about a 10cm - 20cm rise depending upon where you are.  This is consistent with general sea level rise over the last two millenia (e.g. the Thames was tidal to Westminster in Roman times and is now tidal to Teddington).  Aberdeen's rate of rise is lower than the rest because Scotland is rebounding from the weight of the glaciers whereas the south of Britain is sinking slightly. 

So the rate of rise is roughly 1cm every 10 years for the last 2,000 years and there is no sign of that accelerating; although variability has increased.  

I appreciate that I am looking backwards rather than forwards but these all look like natural processes to me despite the vast level of industrialisation and fossil fuel burning.  So how figures like 25 cm for 2050 (roughly ten times the current rate) or 100cm by 2100 (nearly 100x the current rate) are arrived at esacpes me.  These fall less into the realm of prediction and more into that of "making it up".

 

brecs.gif

http://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need a reference. The standard one is Newlynn. Still, it may not be the sea coming up, but rather the land sinking. Although Scotland is OK, as the land is still rising after the ice melted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was making every allowance there for the way the southern states have this slow manner of speaking but he does give the impression of a man who has difficulty dressing himself in the morning.  It axctually truns out that there is a medical reason for this (so why is he still in government?):

Quote

In December 2009, Johnson revealed that he had been battling Hepatitis C (HCV) for over a decade, which resulted in slow speech and a tendency to regularly get "lost in thought in the middle of a discussion".

For anyone not wishing to watch the video Hank spends most of it pointlessly and self-contradictingly discussing the dimensions of Guam before asking if putting another 8,000 US Marines on it may be putting too much weight on it and so cause it to tip over.

35 minutes ago, MrPin said:

You need a reference. The standard one is Newlynn. Still, it may not be the sea coming up, but rather the land sinking. Although Scotland is OK, as the land is still rising after the ice melted.

Newlyn's the second line from the bottom in the graphic Mr Pin, it's probably too small to read on a phone.

From the top they are:

Aberdeen

North Shields

Sheerness

Newlyn

Liverpool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Humans convinced of their own rightness present most arguments in a quasi-religious way now, it seems (ie if you don't agree you're a bad person). Apparently we need another few years of slaughtering each other to bring us to our senses again, maybe after the next war we'll have the brains to use modern tech to change ourselves for the better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was channel hopping last night and came across some scientist type talking about theartiic melting which will result in a 100ft rise in sea levels within a 100 years. I turned over. The UK is fucked if that happens. I won't be hear to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

I was channel hopping last night and came across some scientist type talking about theartiic melting which will result in a 100ft rise in sea levels within a 100 years. I turned over. The UK is fucked if that happens. I won't be hear to see it.

I'm betting the Arctic didn't melt!xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

I was channel hopping last night and came across some scientist type talking about theartiic melting which will result in a 100ft rise in sea levels within a 100 years. I turned over. The UK is fucked if that happens. I won't be hear to see it.

He's probably got a funding application in.

Why I particularly selected sea level, rather than the standard global warming thread, is that I live close to the sea and know my stretch of coastline very well.  I know what floods at high tide and what very occasionally floods at the highest tides.  When I hear the predictions of rise I can visualise to where the high tide will rise if it goes up a foot, two foot, three foot.

I have known this area well for over thirty years and other than for some cliff falls there has been no obvious change.  And as the charts in my OP show that's not surprising as sea level has risen a bare inch in that time and that is entirely in line with historic trends.

But I am expected to believe that it will now suddenly start leaping up and rise by 12 inches in the next thirty years, rising as much every two and a half years as it has done in the last thirty?  Thirty years in which we have burning oil and coal like nobody's business whilst destroying the ozone layer and it has had an impact so small that it isn't measurable except with the eye of faith.

Pull the other one it has bells upon it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I hve similar experiences with Swansea and Gower. Although a part of the prom on Swansea sea-front regularly is covered at high tides these days. But I suspect that is more to do with that particular bit being in front of some yuppy houses and the Council are simply putting off building up the sea-wall there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to believe that we started to enter a new ice age about 3-400 years ago, which was delayed by the industrial revolution.  As we've now curbed increases in CO2 emissions then the ice-age can reassert itself.  We'll have sea levels dropping and glaciers in Scotland (maybe not in 100 years, but likely in a bit longer).

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

I happen to believe that we started to enter a new ice age about 3-400 years ago, which was delayed by the industrial revolution.  As we've now curbed increases in CO2 emissions then the ice-age can reassert itself.  We'll have sea levels dropping and glaciers in Scotland (maybe not in 100 years, but likely in a bit longer).

And you have as much chance of being right as anyone because nobody actually knows.

Mind if a big asteroid hits (which we're unlikely to see until it hits the upper atmosphere 1 second before impact) or Yellowstone blows (which is overdue and the land has been shifting there over the last few decades) then we'll be into the equivalent of a nuclear winter and the new ice age anyway.  Nobody will then care about the precise number of molecules of Nitrous Oxide coming out of a car's exhaust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

How does that work exactly? 

There is a lot more water, but the shape and movement of the earth and gravitational effects is distributing it unevenly? So by the time it actually effects Europe and the UK, lots of other places will have already gone the way of Atlantis? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

To answer the question 'Where is it then?", from a UK perspective the answer is: "Somewhere else"

How strange.  Now I fully understand that particular circumstances can mean sea water levels rise more in particular locales (where a glacier melts, wher eincreased rainfall comes down a river) or by thermal expansion but the interconnectedness of the seas and oceans and their constant churn should mean that bar the usual rotational effects (one side of the Pacific is higher than the other) it will all level out.  But accoridng to that map it's risen 10 times more in North Australia than it has here.

All I can think is that there is a very slow equalisation process so that North Australian rise will start sinking as the water flows to areas of lower level.

 

Edit: and also from that link:

Quote

How high sea level will rise in the future is a vital question that is closely linked to climate change. Since the second half of 2006, a singular trend has been observed on the global mean sea level curve. The mean sea level trend seems to be weaker, or even reversed. Interannual variations, bias in sampling measurements, contribution of La Niña, there are several assumptions.

 

So that's why I'm not noticing any rise in sea levels.

Because they're falling.

Where is the panic and all the news stories about falling sea levels then?

Edited by Frank Hovis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

How does that work exactly? 

There is a lot more water, but the shape and movement of the earth and gravitational effects is distributing it unevenly? So by the time it actually effects Europe and the UK, lots of other places will have already gone the way of Atlantis? 

 

ocean currents, winds (surface pressure) and gravitation (bathymetry) are the main reasons, others are the bounce back of land from glaciation etc

For example, the easterly equatorial Trade winds push water west from S. America towards Indonesia and in so doing generate a 'slope' in the sea surface, so to speak. (It's the periodic weakening of the Trade winds during an El Nino that allows this warm water to slop eastwards across the Pacific changing the ecology of the seas of Peru and Chile, description here.)

19 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

How strange.  Now I fully understand that particular circumstances can mean sea water levels rise more in particular locales (where a glacier melts, wher eincreased rainfall comes down a river) or by thermal expansion but the interconnectedness of the seas and oceans and their constant churn should mean that bar the usual rotational effects (one side of the Pacific is higher than the other) it will all level out.  But accoridng to that map it's risen 10 times more in North Australia than it has here.

All I can think is that there is a very slow equalisation process so that North Australian rise will start sinking as the water flows to areas of lower level.

Which is why the Pacific Islanders are a bit concerned and the inhabitants of Florida should be. In fact, it is calculated that there is insufficient money in the insurance market to pay for the claims from the projected flooded real estate in Florida, alone.
 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MrPin said:

I'm betting the Arctic didn't melt!xD

Since it's floating ice then even if it does it won't make sea levels rise! The ice on Greenland melting would be a real bummer though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Parry in the Arctic is worth a watch.

Watch the 30s of sequence starting at  37.04 (it's in English), which will give you an idea of the scale of Greenland ice loss.

(Keep going with the clip and you will see some extraordinary exploratory mining.)

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.