Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

bobgnote

Rookie
Nov 24, 2008
1,258
38
0
Some think NOLA goes down, first.

Others think Virginia and North Carolina areas will go under, next.

Other people think Florida will be swamped, since it has been suffering a drought, and when it gets flooded, sink-holes form, to collapse, under whatever wash-over comes along.


Let's get this started, since here comes SLR!

Scientists warn US east coast over accelerated sea level rise | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Sea level rise is accelerating three to four times faster along the densely populated east coast of the US than other US coasts, scientists have discovered. The zone, dubbed a "hotspot" by the researchers, means the ocean from Boston to New York to North Carolina is set to experience a rise up a third greater than that seen globally.

Asbury Sallenger, at the US geological survey at St Petersburg, Florida, who led the new study, said: "That makes storm surges that much higher and the reach of the waves that crash onto the coast that much higher. In terms of people and communities preparing for these things, there are extreme regional variations and we need to keep that in mind. We can't view sea level rise as uniform, like filling up a bath tub. Some places will rise quicker than others and the whole urban corridor of north-east US is one of these places."

The hotspot had been predicted by computer modelling, but Sallenger said: "Our paper is the first to focus on using real data to show [the acceleration] is happening now and that we can detect it now."

The rapid acceleration, not seen before on the Pacific of Gulf coasts of the US, may be the result of the slowing of the vast currents flowing in the Altantic, said Sallenger. These currents are driven by cold dense water sinking in the Arctic, but the warming of the oceans and the flood of less dense freshwater into the Arctic from Greenland's melting glaciers means the water sinks less quickly. That means a "slope" from the fastest-moving water in the mid-Atlantic down to the US east coast relaxes, pushing up sea level on the coast.

"Coastal communities have less time to adapt if sea levels rise faster," said Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute Germany, who published a separate study in the same journal, Nature Climate Change, on Sunday. Rahmstorf's team showed that even relatively mild climate change, limited to 2C, would cause global sea level to rise between 1.5 and 4 metres by the year 2300. If nations acted to cutting carbon emissions so the temperature rise was only 1.5C, the sea level rise would be halved, the researchers found.

--------------------

Yeah, right. They keep bandying carbon trade, when CO2-biomass needed to be here, yesterday, in at least the form of legal hemp and widely grown switchgrass. But noooo! We have Obamacare, finally reviewed, before SCOTUS, and it might go under, before Florida does.

We need a re-greening plan, for every desert, every polluted land and water area, in the world. But noooo. We have support for fascist Israel, Taiwan, Bahrain, and other tyrants, with drones killing, but defense money, running out, while poisonous fracking is debated, and it is neither regulated nor banned, outright, like it ought to be.

Humans are not smart men, or women, generally, where wingnuts and Obama-geeks predominate. We need to cut the carbon footprint, of fascism and special-interest socialists, to achieve re-greening.

Who's going down? Review it, here. But Virginia and North Calinkey pubs won't let rats or anybody else call it SLR, which we should also review, while going down, to higher tides.
 
tsunami_fake-1.jpg



One thing about Florida going down is.................where do we then suggest the k00ks go if Disney is no longer? IDK............I guess they all go to California. When is that scheduled to go under?:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Florida is being nibbled away now, I don't see all the way under until the end.
 
Aerosols may also play a role in explaining variations in NEH SLRDs. The mid-century low (Fig. 4) may have been forced by volcanic aerosols reflecting radiation and lowering air temperatures25 and slowing14 SLR. The authors of ref. 26 found 76% of the variance of detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures from 1860–2005 could be explained by aerosol emissions and volcanic eruptions. In regard to the role of cycles, the single ~ 60-yr pattern in Fig. 4a does not seem associated with 10–30 yr sea-level variations discussed in ref. 27. With our limited series length, the presence of cycles, for example associated with natural ocean variability and/or AMO, is indeterminate. In the Holocene geologic record of an NEH marsh, the authors of ref. 28 found evidence of several rapid SLR increases separated by 900 yr or more that they associated with gyre changes. Regardless, our correlations suggest that should temperatures rise in the twenty-first century as projected, the NEH SLRD will continue to increase. If future sea-level variability is forced by aerosols and/or is part of a cycle, SLR in the NEH may also alternately fall below and rise above projections of IPCC scenarios alone.

Our analyses support a recent acceleration of SLR on ~ 1,000 km of the east coast of North America north of Cape Hatteras. This hotspot is consistent with SLR associated with a slowdown of AMOC.​

From the actual paper.


So, where do they state that the measured changes are due to anthropogenic CO2?
 
Last edited:
Another failure of Obama:(

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto]Obama speech oceans receding, planet healing - YouTube[/ame]
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
From the actual paper.

So, where do they state that the measured changes are due to anthropogenic CO2?

Hey. Quasi-mo-doodoo. Link your queer shit. I hate assholes who won't link a study, since nobody can search up the references or the context. Eat shit, bitch.

Aerosols are not anthropogenic, unless volcanoes erupted because humans caused enough of a sea level rise, to make a difference, during maximum tidal wash, which can trigger volcanic eruptions.

Humans did cut down trees and burn fossil fuel, for years, queer.
 
From the actual paper.

So, where do they state that the measured changes are due to anthropogenic CO2?

Hey. Quasi-mo-doodoo. Link your queer shit. I hate assholes who won't link a study, since nobody can search up the references or the context. Eat shit, bitch.

Aerosols are not anthropogenic, unless volcanoes erupted because humans caused enough of a sea level rise, to make a difference, during maximum tidal wash, which can trigger volcanic eruptions.

Humans did cut down trees and burn fossil fuel, for years, queer.
I just added the link, which was contained in your OP. I'm always surprised by people who don't go straight to the source, rather they let a journalist think for them.

Who knew scientific papers were "queer shit", too? :dunno:
 
o
Manmade global warming causes volcanic eruptions.

Sure it does

Sure it does
Exactly. For those who were too lazy to actually go to the paper, nothing in there links anthropogenic CO2 to their measurements of rising sea level rates. And, correlation is not necessarily causation, but leave it to a journalist to say it is.
 
Aerosols may also play a role in explaining variations in NEH SLRDs. The mid-century low (Fig. 4) may have been forced by volcanic aerosols reflecting radiation and lowering air temperatures25 and slowing14 SLR. The authors of ref. 26 found 76% of the variance of detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures from 1860–2005 could be explained by aerosol emissions and volcanic eruptions. In regard to the role of cycles, the single ~ 60-yr pattern in Fig. 4a does not seem associated with 10–30 yr sea-level variations discussed in ref. 27. With our limited series length, the presence of cycles, for example associated with natural ocean variability and/or AMO, is indeterminate. In the Holocene geologic record of an NEH marsh, the authors of ref. 28 found evidence of several rapid SLR increases separated by 900 yr or more that they associated with gyre changes. Regardless, our correlations suggest that should temperatures rise in the twenty-first century as projected, the NEH SLRD will continue to increase. If future sea-level variability is forced by aerosols and/or is part of a cycle, SLR in the NEH may also alternately fall below and rise above projections of IPCC scenarios alone.

Our analyses support a recent acceleration of SLR on ~ 1,000 km of the east coast of North America north of Cape Hatteras. This hotspot is consistent with SLR associated with a slowdown of AMOC.​

From the actual paper.


So, where do they state that the measured changes are due to anthropogenic CO2?

They state that some of the rise might be associated with increased temperatures. And that if the temperature continue to rise, so will the sea level in that area.
 
o
Manmade global warming causes volcanic eruptions.

Sure it does

Sure it does
Exactly. For those who were too lazy to actually go to the paper, nothing in there links anthropogenic CO2 to their measurements of rising sea level rates. And, correlation is not necessarily causation, but leave it to a journalist to say it is.

Lordy, lordy, Sis soiling herself again.:badgrin:
 
Florida is being nibbled away now, I don't see all the way under until the end.

I haven't noticed any vast hoards of refugees fleeing Florida. In fact, I haven't even noticed anyone selling their homes on the beach.
 
Coastal erosion and rising oceans are indeed a very serious matter.

Coastal Areas Impacts & Adaptation | Climate Change | US EPA

The coastline of the United States is highly populated. [1] Of the 25 most densely populated U.S. counties, 23 are along a coast. [1] Coastal and ocean activities, such as marine transportation of goods, offshore energy drilling, resource extraction, fish cultivation, recreation, and tourism are integral to the nation's economy. [2] Coastal areas are also home to species and habitats that provide many benefits to society and natural ecosystems.

Climate change could affect coastal areas in a variety of ways. Coasts are sensitive to sea level rise, changes in the frequency and intensity of storms, increases in precipitation, and warmer ocean temperatures. In addition, rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing the oceans to absorb more of the gas and become more acidic. This rising acidity could have significant impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems.
 
They state that some of the rise might be associated with increased temperatures. And that if the temperature continue to rise, so will the sea level in that area.

They MIGHT be associated with increased temperatures? Why are all scientific papers about global warming stuffed full of all these weasel words? They MIGHT also be associated be associated with unicorn farts. The later claim is just as scientifically valid.
 
Aerosols may also play a role in explaining variations in NEH SLRDs. The mid-century low (Fig. 4) may have been forced by volcanic aerosols reflecting radiation and lowering air temperatures25 and slowing14 SLR. The authors of ref. 26 found 76% of the variance of detrended North Atlantic sea surface temperatures from 1860–2005 could be explained by aerosol emissions and volcanic eruptions. In regard to the role of cycles, the single ~ 60-yr pattern in Fig. 4a does not seem associated with 10–30 yr sea-level variations discussed in ref. 27. With our limited series length, the presence of cycles, for example associated with natural ocean variability and/or AMO, is indeterminate. In the Holocene geologic record of an NEH marsh, the authors of ref. 28 found evidence of several rapid SLR increases separated by 900 yr or more that they associated with gyre changes. Regardless, our correlations suggest that should temperatures rise in the twenty-first century as projected, the NEH SLRD will continue to increase. If future sea-level variability is forced by aerosols and/or is part of a cycle, SLR in the NEH may also alternately fall below and rise above projections of IPCC scenarios alone.

Our analyses support a recent acceleration of SLR on ~ 1,000 km of the east coast of North America north of Cape Hatteras. This hotspot is consistent with SLR associated with a slowdown of AMOC.​

From the actual paper.


So, where do they state that the measured changes are due to anthropogenic CO2?

You-Are-Awesome.gif
 
Florida is being nibbled away now, I don't see all the way under until the end.

I haven't noticed any vast hoards of refugees fleeing Florida. In fact, I haven't even noticed anyone selling their homes on the beach.

Lived on the coast my entire life and I have not seen a change in the coastline, other than hurricane damage, yet.

But Im waiting :tongue:
 

Forum List

Back
Top