Sea levels raise above the means trend line once again!

[ScienceRocks]

Sea levels are now rising once again with the latest data point above the "means" finally. So it was only a short term down turn! Lets see if we see a period of faster sea level rises now.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

It appears that we're now at the second or third highest data point on the jason 1 or 2 graph!

 

[Douger]

You have zero understanding of physics.
Grab a glass and fill it to the brim. Put it in the freezer. It will rise out of the glass like an iceberg (or explode a bottle).Once the ice melts(it might) the sea levels will retreat.
Here's a confused murkin bleating on the subject. murkins voted for "it".
This B duh bess you B habbin.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg]3-25-2010_Hank_Johnson_Guam_Tip_Over.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[code1211]

We continuously hear/read about the disastrous rise of ocean levels. Finding real world evidence of the rise is a difficult matter. Below are links to three representations of Coney island in New York.

Pre 1900, it was an island. Now it's a peninsula and the map from 1890 compared to the areial photo from before 1990 to the "from space" photo seem to show an expanding beach and ever larger land mass exposed above water.

Similar examples from around the world exist. Witness Venice, Spanish coastal defenses in Florida from pre 1700 and so on. If the oceans are rising, why are the shores staying where they were?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/1879_Coney_Island.jpg

File:ConeyIslandAerial.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Coney Island from space.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Douger, I didn't think you were that ignorant. It is the ice on land that creates the sea level rise. And it is rising. South America has had particularly disturbing losses in their glaciers. And both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice by the giga-tons per year.

 

[IanC]

here is the Aviso sea level site. click on time series to get graphs and play around with different areas, different satellites, different adjustments etc.

Products and images selection: Aviso

here is a web page of someone who has been covering sea levels and the various changes that have been employed over thte last few years to keep the levels rising. The Inconvenient Skeptic » Global Sea Level Still Dropping

follow his links to get a full story of what has been happening.

 

[konradv]

We continuously hear/read about the disastrous rise of ocean levels. Finding real world evidence of the rise is a difficult matter. Below are links to three representations of Coney island in New York.

Pre 1900, it was an island. Now it's a peninsula and the map from 1890 compared to the areial photo from before 1990 to the "from space" photo seem to show an expanding beach and ever larger land mass exposed above water.

Similar examples from around the world exist. Witness Venice, Spanish coastal defenses in Florida from pre 1700 and so on. If the oceans are rising, why are the shores staying where they were?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/1879_Coney_Island.jpg

File:ConeyIslandAerial.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Coney Island from space.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!!! You cite all those Coney island wiki pages, but forgot the main page, which plainly says the reason it's now a peninsula is because of landfill! FAIL!

Coney Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[code1211]

We continuously hear/read about the disastrous rise of ocean levels. Finding real world evidence of the rise is a difficult matter. Below are links to three representations of Coney island in New York.

Pre 1900, it was an island. Now it's a peninsula and the map from 1890 compared to the areial photo from before 1990 to the "from space" photo seem to show an expanding beach and ever larger land mass exposed above water.

Similar examples from around the world exist. Witness Venice, Spanish coastal defenses in Florida from pre 1700 and so on. If the oceans are rising, why are the shores staying where they were?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/1879_Coney_Island.jpg

File:ConeyIslandAerial.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Coney Island from space.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!!! You cite all those Coney island wiki pages, but forgot the main page, which plainly says the reason it's now a peninsula is because of landfill! FAIL!

Coney Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to start a cherry farm.

The reason that it's not an island is that the creek had stopped being dredged and it filled in the area between the island and the mainland. The Beach, though, was not affected by the creek, any landfill efforts or by rising sea levels.

It is YOU who needs to show the devastating effects of the rising oceans. I don't see it and can produce examples in which the shoreline is stable for millennia or actually receding as it has near Heculaneum in Italy.

Don't bother with the Pacific Islands that are sinking because they are sinking, not being engulfed by rising waters. Show me where there are coastal cities or beaches somewhere in the world that are being overrun by rising ocean levels. There are plenty to choose from. There have been ports in use worldwide for centuries that are still in use. Beaches that have been documented all over the world that are still in use and still, well, there.

If there is a crisis, there should be some evidenced of it somewhere. Produce it.

 

[PredFan]

I have been going to Cocoa Beach to surf since 1971. the water is at the exact same levels today that it was when I first went there.

 

[konradv]

I have been going to Cocoa Beach to surf since 1971. the water is at the exact same levels today that it was when I first went there.

Well, if anecdotes are evidence now, I've been playing golf for almost 50 years now and I've played more Jan. rounds in the last 20 than in the previous..., wait, I NEVER played golf in Jan. before that!!!

 

[IanC]

tide gauges put the rise at ~2mm/yr since coming out of the LIA. satellite gravity measurements put the rise at ~3mm/yr since they came on line in the 90's. a lot of the satellite increase is in the parts of the world where there is a lot of seismic activity. is the extra 1mm/yr real or an artifact of the massive calculations done to produce a number out of readings that have error ranges in centimetres rather than millimetres? it is rather telling that the slow down of ocean rise in the last decade has been met with larger and larger adjustments, including the nonsensical rebound adjustment that adds 0.3mm/yr now but ignores the ridiculous results that would be present if you carried it back in time.

 

[code1211]

tide gauges put the rise at ~2mm/yr since coming out of the LIA. satellite gravity measurements put the rise at ~3mm/yr since they came on line in the 90's. a lot of the satellite increase is in the parts of the world where there is a lot of seismic activity. is the extra 1mm/yr real or an artifact of the massive calculations done to produce a number out of readings that have error ranges in centimetres rather than millimetres? it is rather telling that the slow down of ocean rise in the last decade has been met with larger and larger adjustments, including the nonsensical rebound adjustment that adds 0.3mm/yr now but ignores the ridiculous results that would be present if you carried it back in time.

That is something that is absolutely rejected by the Warmers. You must accept what they say as Gospel but you may never, never apply what they say to the real world.

2 mm/year? Let's apply that to the period from 1850 to present. That 322 mm or more than 12 inches of vertical rise of the sea level around the world.

However, we know for an absolute fact that most of the coastlines are unchanged and some are expanded. Facts undermine the argument of the Warmers and yet they say that science supports their case.

Are facts now the enemy of science?

Worldwide Wholesale Distribution of Valves, Fittings, Tubing & Flanges: World Wide Metric

 

[theHawk]

Yea all the doom and gloom hysteria about rising sea levels has come and gone. I remember decades ago it was an imminent threat.

The warmers are, and always have been, full of shit. Guess thats why they've moved on to being shitters now.

If they truely cared about ecological conservation issues they'd leave their political molestation of it out.

 

[whitehall]

The freaking graph is set up to look gigantic but in real life you could barely see it. It's in millimeters. We are led to believe that the satelite radar is that accurate and there aren't a bunch of "scientists" who feed fudged data in order to keep the federal grants flowing.

 

[Old Rocks]

tide gauges put the rise at ~2mm/yr since coming out of the LIA. satellite gravity measurements put the rise at ~3mm/yr since they came on line in the 90's. a lot of the satellite increase is in the parts of the world where there is a lot of seismic activity. is the extra 1mm/yr real or an artifact of the massive calculations done to produce a number out of readings that have error ranges in centimetres rather than millimetres? it is rather telling that the slow down of ocean rise in the last decade has been met with larger and larger adjustments, including the nonsensical rebound adjustment that adds 0.3mm/yr now but ignores the ridiculous results that would be present if you carried it back in time.

That is something that is absolutely rejected by the Warmers. You must accept what they say as Gospel but you may never, never apply what they say to the real world.

2 mm/year? Let's apply that to the period from 1850 to present. That 322 mm or more than 12 inches of vertical rise of the sea level around the world.

However, we know for an absolute fact that most of the coastlines are unchanged and some are expanded. Facts undermine the argument of the Warmers and yet they say that science supports their case.

Are facts now the enemy of science?

Worldwide Wholesale Distribution of Valves, Fittings, Tubing & Flanges: World Wide Metric

I guess we have to choose between the unsupported flap yap of an internet poster and the science in an article published in a peer reviewed science journal. Really hard decision, right?

http://www.igsoc.org/annals/v52/59/a59a019.pdf

CONCLUSION

Recent (post-2003) components of the sea-level budget appear in plausible agreement with observations: steric sea level is rising at 0.6mma–1 (ranging from 0.05mma–1
(Levitus and others, 2009) to 1.1mma–1 (von Schuckmann and others, 2009)). Despite large uncertainties in steric component, the agreement between the modeled TS and
that estimated from observations over the 1955–2005 period argues that despite such a wide range in recent estimates, the TS component is reasonably well constrained. Mass
contributions from GRACE estimates of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are 1.1mma–1 (with uncertainties of 50% due to the short time period of the
GRACE data). Small glaciers and ice caps contribute
1.30.2mma–1. This compares with an observed sealevel rise rate of 3.3mma–1. Hence the budget is in fair agreement with the observations.

 

[IanC]

tide gauges put the rise at ~2mm/yr since coming out of the LIA. satellite gravity measurements put the rise at ~3mm/yr since they came on line in the 90's. a lot of the satellite increase is in the parts of the world where there is a lot of seismic activity. is the extra 1mm/yr real or an artifact of the massive calculations done to produce a number out of readings that have error ranges in centimetres rather than millimetres? it is rather telling that the slow down of ocean rise in the last decade has been met with larger and larger adjustments, including the nonsensical rebound adjustment that adds 0.3mm/yr now but ignores the ridiculous results that would be present if you carried it back in time.

That is something that is absolutely rejected by the Warmers. You must accept what they say as Gospel but you may never, never apply what they say to the real world.

2 mm/year? Let's apply that to the period from 1850 to present. That 322 mm or more than 12 inches of vertical rise of the sea level around the world.

However, we know for an absolute fact that most of the coastlines are unchanged and some are expanded. Facts undermine the argument of the Warmers and yet they say that science supports their case.

Are facts now the enemy of science?

Worldwide Wholesale Distribution of Valves, Fittings, Tubing & Flanges: World Wide Metric

I guess we have to choose between the unsupported flap yap of an internet poster and the science in an article published in a peer reviewed science journal. Really hard decision, right?

http://www.igsoc.org/annals/v52/59/a59a019.pdf

CONCLUSION

Recent (post-2003) components of the sea-level budget appear in plausible agreement with observations: steric sea level is rising at 0.6mma–1 (ranging from 0.05mma–1
(Levitus and others, 2009) to 1.1mma–1 (von Schuckmann and others, 2009)). Despite large uncertainties in steric component, the agreement between the modeled TS and
that estimated from observations over the 1955–2005 period argues that despite such a wide range in recent estimates, the TS component is reasonably well constrained. Mass
contributions from GRACE estimates of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are 1.1mma–1 (with uncertainties of 50% due to the short time period of the
GRACE data). Small glaciers and ice caps contribute
1.30.2mma–1. This compares with an observed sealevel rise rate of 3.3mma–1. Hence the budget is in fair agreement with the observations.

climatesciencespeak for-- the numbers and obsevations are all over the map but our predetermined conclusions werent categorically proved wrong so we will keep making the same claims, hoping that mother nature will switch the trends in our favour again before we look like jackasses.

 

[bripat9643]

I have been going to Cocoa Beach to surf since 1971. the water is at the exact same levels today that it was when I first went there.

Well, if anecdotes are evidence now, I've been playing golf for almost 50 years now and I've played more Jan. rounds in the last 20 than in the previous..., wait, I NEVER played golf in Jan. before that!!!

Noting the actual sea level at the beach is not an "anecdote"

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd taken a class on how to fix motorboats...

New figures: More of US at risk to sea level rise
14 Mar.`12 - WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 4 million people across the United States, from Los Angeles to much of the East Coast, live in homes more prone to flooding from rising seas fueled by global warming, according to a new method of looking at flood risk published in two scientific papers.

The cities that have the most people living within three feet (one meter) of high tide — the projected sea level rise by the year 2100 made by many scientists and computer models — are in Florida, Louisiana, and New York. New York City, often not thought of as a city prone to flooding, has 141,000 people at risk, which is second only to New Orleans' 284,000. The two big Southeast Florida counties, Miami-Dade and Broward, have 312,000 people at risk combined.

All told, 3.7 million people live in homes within three feet of high tide. More than 500 US cities have at least 10 percent of the population at increased risk, the studies said. "Southeast Florida is definitely the highest density of population that's really on low coastal land that's really most at risk," said lead author Ben Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central. Climate Central is a New Jersey-based group of scientists and journalists who do research about climate change.

The studies look at people who live in homes within three feet of high tide, whereas old studies looked just at elevation above sea level, according to work published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research and an accompanying report by Climate Central. That's an important distinction because using high tide is more accurate for flooding impacts, said study co-author Jonathan Overpeck, a scientist at the University of Arizona's Institute of the Environment. And when the new way of looking at risk is factored in, the outlook looks worse, Overpeck said. "It's shocking to see how large the impacts could be, particularly in southern Florida and Louisiana, but much of the coastal U.S. will share in the serious pain," Overpeck said.

And it's not just residents of coastal areas who will be hurt by this, said Sharlene Leurig, a senior manager for the insurance program at Ceres, a Boston-based investment network. Most coastal areas get flood insurance from the federal program and with more flooding, the program will have to spend more and that will come out of all taxpayers' wallets, she said. Sea level has already risen about 8 inches since 1880 because warmer waters expand, Strauss said. In addition to the basic physics of ever-warming water expanding, scientist say hotter climate will cause some melting of glaciers in Greenland and western Antarctica that would then cause seas to rise even more.

More New figures: More of US at risk to sea level rise - Yahoo! News

 

[The Infidel]

Sea levels are now rising once again with the latest data point above the "means" finally. So it was only a short term down turn! Lets see if we see a period of faster sea level rises now.

CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

It appears that we're now at the second or third highest data point on the jason 1 or 2 graph!

But but...... what about this?​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU]Obama Promises The World - YouTube[/ame]