Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.
Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.
Though I had a look and it said actually sea water would rise slightly because if you add fresh water to salt water the level will rise.
If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.
Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.
However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.
People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.
Searcher44, maybe your eyes are detecting something ordinary human beings can not see, but nothing in my OP comes from the Blog you mention, go ahead, go to the blog, and find something in my OP that you can quote, that is from the blog, from the blog. Feel free.
Thanks, when I read your OP last night I was curious what your source was but too tired to reply. Now this morning your link raises more curiosity. You criticize another poster rather harshly for using a blog as source material;
"From a blog Old Crock?.......But on to your post, a blog is a really weak, a step below wikepedia"
And yet your link;
lists its source as a blog, as they state near the end, "Extracted from here and its numerous links", which leads us to this site,
"JoNova", no doubt a blog which the author confirms by her request for donations, "Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!" So this is the ultimate root of my curiosity this morning and leads to a question; "Don't you think criticizing a reply to your OP as more or less worthless because of its blog referencing when the OP itself is based on blog material could encourage a reader to dismiss the OP as worthless and for him/her to conclude that you yourself have been very illogical and hypocritical?"
Searcher44, maybe your eyes are detecting something ordinary human beings can not see, but nothing in my OP comes from the Blog you mention, go ahead, go to the blog, and find something in my OP that you can quote, that is from the blog, from the blog. Feel free.
Thanks, when I read your OP last night I was curious what your source was but too tired to reply. Now this morning your link raises more curiosity. You criticize another poster rather harshly for using a blog as source material;
"From a blog Old Crock?.......But on to your post, a blog is a really weak, a step below wikepedia"
And yet your link;
lists its source as a blog, as they state near the end, "Extracted from here and its numerous links", which leads us to this site,
"JoNova", no doubt a blog which the author confirms by her request for donations, "Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!" So this is the ultimate root of my curiosity this morning and leads to a question; "Don't you think criticizing a reply to your OP as more or less worthless because of its blog referencing when the OP itself is based on blog material could encourage a reader to dismiss the OP as worthless and for him/her to conclude that you yourself have been very illogical and hypocritical?"
Talking about reaching, SEARCHing, the JoNova site has zero references to the Isle of the Dead or the Benchmark made by Ross in 1841.
Nice try, maybe in another 43 SEARCH's you can come up with something.
My OP is not based on the Blog that you mention, in any way, shape, or form. Maybe next time read the page you reference, as I advice Old Crock to do.
Not one bit of my content is from the "link" you claim proves your wild accusation. Go ahead follow/cut/paste/quote/link/post.Okay now you're not just being curiosity provoking, you're exhibiting either massive stupidity or a crude attempt to evade the charge of hypocrisy. You provided the link to the site from which you clipped and pasted the article in your OP. That site states uncategorically that they extracted this material from the JoNova Blog "and its numerous links", so obviously everything in your OP comes from the blog your link cites. The chain of evidence leading to the ultimate source of your OP could be followed by a child with a popsicle temperature I.Q. I don't know why you're having such a hard time following it. And if you think I'm going to slog around the internet searching out all JoNova blog posts and following "it's numerous links" to verify your OP, don't hold your breath. It's Searcher44, not Searcher4u.
The chain of evidence leading to the ultimate source of your OP could be followed by a child with a popsicle temperature I.Q
And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).
You won't live long enough to see if the occasional flood, or wave washing across a shore, is a change in climate. Funny how words like belligerent and ignorance suit yourself better than the people you throw them at, maMOOT. Was it not maMOOT who so elegantly explained climate is 1000's of years of our environment, but what you see on the news today is simply weather?And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).
Ah, more of your belligerent ignorance routine, your standard response to having your attempts at fraud busted.
Tidal flooding is both weather and climate. An individual occurrence of it is weather. The long-term pattern of it is climate. The long-term pattern of increasing numbers of tidal flooding events is due to sea level rise.
Nothing in my OP is from this page, Old Crock, how about showing us where my quote is on this page or any page on the blog. Go ahead Old Crock, show where on this Blog they mention the Isle of the Dead, or simply wear your title of liar.150 year old mark shows no ocean rise
Extracted from here and its numerous links.
Leftist media saturates the news. Fight back. Send articles to your friends, politicians, local media, and facebook.
And where is here?
The scandal of sea levels — rising trends, acceleration — largely created by adjustments « JoNova
The scandal of sea levels — rising trends, acceleration — largely created by adjustments
Headlines across Australia yesterday told us the dire news that a new study finds that “Sea level rising faster in past 20 years than in entire 20th century“. A new paper by Watson et al is driving the headlines, but underneath this Nature paper is a swamp of adjustments, an error larger than the signal, and the result disagrees with many other studies and almost all the raw measurements. Paper after paper kept showing that sea levels rates had slowed (e.g Chen showed deceleration from 2004, Cazenave said in the last decade sea-levels had slowed 30% (but argued post hoc adjustments could solve that). Beenstock used 1000 tide gauges and found no acceleration of sea levels over the last 50 years. A different researcher — Phil Watson, found that Australian sea levels rose faster before World War II then slowed down.)
While my initial post was from a blog, it refered to this source, which I put in a later post. It is from real scientists, and not the denialists at Jo Nova.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2011.pdf
This report was prepared by: National Tidal Centre Australian Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 421 Kent Town SA 5071 Australia Tel: (+618) 8366 2730 Fax: (+618) 8366 2651 Email: [email protected] Website: Oceanography Quality Certification: I authorise the issue of this Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report for July 2010 - June 2011 in accordance with the quality assurance procedures of the National Tidal Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Elektra, once again you have been outed as not so very intelligent. Really, start investigating before making a fool of yourself.
I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
Sea level rises aren't what worry me the most.
If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.
So, the reality is, if the Antarctic and Arctic melt a little, the effects might not be noticed at first. Later on when more and more land based ice is melting, then that is when problems will occur.
The problem is the PH levels of the oceans. I read about sea lions dying off because they can't cope with the level of change of the PH in the oceans. Other sea creatures will be the same, and this is the biggest and most worrying part of polluting the atmosphere we're going to see first.
Oh yea, like the mad scientists can not manipulate their studies to make the gauges and satellite data match. All it takes is their fancy "adjustments" of the data or a slight, "calibration" in their favor.I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
The actual studies show a match between gauges and satellite data, so that's another conspiracy of yours debunked.
Recent sea level trends and accelerations: Comparison of tide gauge and satellite results
Now, the average change of tidal gauges should read lower than the calculated sea level rise, even after accounting for land rising and falling. And that reason is ... the oceans are getting deeper. All the post-ice-age melt water going into the oceans had weight, and that added weight is pushing down the ocean bottoms. If there was no current change in water mass in the ocean or water temperature, sea level would be dropping 0.3mm/year, until it gradually stabilized at a new equilibrium.
That is, measured at the shoreline, current sea level is rising at an average of 3.0mm/year, not 3.3mm year. The 0.3mm/year is tacked on to compensate. 3.3mm/year is the "what sea level rise would be if the shape of the oceans was fixed" number.
And no, that's not cheating, because it's always been done that way, and because those same adjustments are used back to the distant past. So when graphs showed a sea level rate of change of 0.0mm /year, the sea level at the shoreline was actually falling slightly. The difference in the rate of sea level rise is unchanged.
always the abstract, never the paper.I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
The actual studies show a match between gauges and satellite data, so that's another conspiracy of yours debunked.
Recent sea level trends and accelerations: Comparison of tide gauge and satellite results
Now, the average change of tidal gauges should read lower than the calculated sea level rise, even after accounting for land rising and falling. And that reason is ... the oceans are getting deeper. All the post-ice-age melt water going into the oceans had weight, and that added weight is pushing down the ocean bottoms. If there was no current change in water mass in the ocean or water temperature, sea level would be dropping 0.3mm/year, until it gradually stabilized at a new equilibrium.
That is, measured at the shoreline, current sea level is rising at an average of 3.0mm/year, not 3.3mm year. The 0.3mm/year is tacked on to compensate. 3.3mm/year is the "what sea level rise would be if the shape of the oceans was fixed" number.
And no, that's not cheating, because it's always been done that way, and because those same adjustments are used back to the distant past. So when graphs showed a sea level rate of change of 0.0mm /year, the sea level at the shoreline was actually falling slightly. The difference in the rate of sea level rise is unchanged.
Because you can not adjust a mark set in stone like you can cherry pick and manipulate tide gauges and satellite records.Oh yea, like the uneducated, amoral bloggers can't simply lie out their joint asses to make it look as if the world were not getting warmer and that sea levels weren't rising.
Elektra, why do you think the single location of Isle of Dead - for which you don't have particularly good data - should hold more significance than tide gauges and satellite records from the rest of the world over?
Hey, maMOOT, you don't realize that R.G. Dean is DISAGREEING with what you cherry picked from the abstract!I think the actual tide gauge average is closer to 2mm/yr because there are more areas that are rising due to GIA than sinking due to land subsidence. but the idea is clear. tide gauges on the actual coastlines where we interact with the oceans is showing much less SLR than mid ocean where it cannot be checked and doesnt matter anyways. isnt it odd that there was a large step change exactly at the same time that satellite altimetry came online?
The actual studies show a match between gauges and satellite data, so that's another conspiracy of yours debunked.
Recent sea level trends and accelerations: Comparison of tide gauge and satellite results
Now, the average change of tidal gauges should read lower than the calculated sea level rise, even after accounting for land rising and falling. And that reason is ... the oceans are getting deeper. All the post-ice-age melt water going into the oceans had weight, and that added weight is pushing down the ocean bottoms. If there was no current change in water mass in the ocean or water temperature, sea level would be dropping 0.3mm/year, until it gradually stabilized at a new equilibrium.
That is, measured at the shoreline, current sea level is rising at an average of 3.0mm/year, not 3.3mm year. The 0.3mm/year is tacked on to compensate. 3.3mm/year is the "what sea level rise would be if the shape of the oceans was fixed" number.
And no, that's not cheating, because it's always been done that way, and because those same adjustments are used back to the distant past. So when graphs showed a sea level rate of change of 0.0mm /year, the sea level at the shoreline was actually falling slightly. The difference in the rate of sea level rise is unchanged.
