Send Message
Weather | Buy&Sell | Forums |  |
Weather | Buy & Sell | Gallery | Forums | |
So I said 10 feet by mistake. A 10 INCH increase will be devasting according to the link yet we are to believe that the previous 8 inch rise was not observable?
Please explain.
Yep, if the link said a 10" rise would be devastating it's obviously crap, you can work that out for yourself. You must have seen enough, everyday garden storm surges, while you were sailing on the swan, to know that an 18" (50cm) storm surge just floods a little bit of foreshore.
And yes obviously a 10' water level rise would/will be devastating. It's not just the water rise, it's the increase in erosion. Not so bad where there are hard rock cliffs. But where there are only sand dunes expect to see the coastline vanish fairly quickly. But a 10' rise (over 3m) won't happen overnight, and the predictions for just how long it will take are very flaky, there's just too many factors working in both directions, to get an accurate handle on it.
And there is a lot of infrastructure around the world, that's not 3m above sealevel. One of the US's military airports is unusable because it's already half under water. And none of the agencies are allowed to mention "climate change", because Donald gets upset!
If you want to see some of the problems real scientists have in publishing papers that in any way challenge the accepted narrative, here's an example of the difficulty of so called peer review
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
your "truth" is only the convenient bits that suit you. That isn't science either.
your "truth" is only the convenient bits that suit you. That isn't science either.
So the local rise is relative and overall is absolute, is that what you are saying?
That's dense text, but nothing a layman can't handle. The line that TA is referencing is
When discussing trends, the quantity of most interest to coastal managers, engineers and planners, is the rate of mean sea-level rise relative to the land, referred to herein as relative mean sea level (RMSL).
Which makes good sense. There are places where land rises and falls and also where there is siltation and erosion.
The oddest thing I noticed about the article is that it mentions sea level changes in mm, except for once, right at the beginning, where it says that sea levels around Vic and Tas were 0.3m lower than now prior to the 19th c. Why didn't they say 300mm?
I guess that's what I meant by local, the rise relative to the land depends on if the local land is rising or falling.
And erosion and siltation aren't really lowering and raising the land, just shifting the coastline. I doubt any data of relative water levels use this. Another but gradual cause is continental plate collisions, one plate goes up the other goes down. But a big effect is subsidence, have a look at Jakarta.
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-24/jakarta-is-running-out-of-time-to-stop-itself-sinking/11190928
This is a huge problem for Indonesia, add sea level rise on top of that, and they are in big trouble.
Some subsidence is very local, we like to build on land close to water This land can be unconsolidated terra firma. So it compacts under the weight.
We also like to pump up the ground water, this too can cause very localised subsidence. Venice is a place that has stopped using it's ground water and this has slowed the sinking considerably.
The thin layer of earth crust that we occupy is very mobile and complex. I believe we still have a lot to learn about it.
Unless you are logjam and are certain we live in a dome on a flat earth. And all that needs to happen is that we sacrifice all our wealth and sovereignty to the mother Gaia that controls the domes air con settings.
Relative sea level rise is not necessarily local, it is just the local is where we have tide gauges.
Vertical land movement happens everywhere, we just do not measure it.
But this is a good discussion, it is good the read, discuss and learn.
I find the stuff on isostatic loading on the continental plates interesting, though it is new knowledge for me.
All this doom and gloom is absurd. World grain production now 2400m tons cf. 1950 600m tons. Salmon in the Thames; 40m+ pink salmon going up the Fraser a few years ago, the most since 1905. London air, 15 counts today; 200 in 1950; 400 in 1920; 600 in 1900.
Less hunger; more education. In 1930s, 100 TIMES MORE fires in USA than last year.
......GW the latest in a long line of "crises", "panics" - Russian nukes; Germans wanting to invade; sacrificing virgins, the Aztecs, to stop bad crops; being good and not having fun or going to hell. ALL RUBBISH.
More oil today, and 95% of planet unexplored. Forests flourishing everywhere - TWICE as many trees in USA today cf. 1900. Only ONE farm worker today cf. 49 in 1945. Like picking cotton, eh? Cutting hay with sickle? Fun jobs! LESS hurricanes, not more.
My challenge - name 2 bad things PRESENTLY caused by GW. Great barrier reef losses, NOTHING to do with GW. (The coral at Timor Leste 3C warmer and THRIVING!) The sea NATURALLY buffered, so very difficult to change pH. Far more Polar bears.(Lookit! They do NOT eat all Summer, and prefer loafing on the beach like us! Less ice means MORE fish/seals for later on - fat city for the bears!)
Cold kills 20 times more people than heat. And Canadians don't want it a bit warmer? "Oh, no! We love shuvelling snow."
We are being lied to. CO2 half of what you eat; breathe pure O2 and you DIE from respiratory failure. CO2 triggers breathing reflex.
