So, if sea levels are rising....why is this happening?

[Ravi]

Yes, we understand you can't understand basic logic. You didn't address what I said, you merely posted that which I already have. Care to make a statement or are you too stupid to be able to string more than curses together?

What said had nothing to with reality or the article.

Generally, for erosion to occur....the water level has to be LOWER...so you can expose the ocean floor. See how that works?

wut? You don't live by the beach, do you?

 

[jc456]

The deniers are being especially craven and dishonest today. Not one of 'em has the 'nads to explain why their really stupid theory supposedly dispoves sea level rise, given that the tidal range at Borth of 5 meters totally overwhelms the 2 meter sea level rise of the past 5000 years.

They're also being especially stupid and cultlike with their whackaloon conspiracy theory about how there's no sea level rise. According to the denier kooks, all the data from tidal gauges and satellite altimetry is being faked. Thousands of people would have to be involved, but hey, deniers like to go big with their insane conspiracy theories.

Sadly for them, they're forced to lie. First, if sea level rise is true, there has to be global warming, hence they have to flat out deny it's happening. Second, their whole cult here is proudly lying. To a denier herdbeast, nothing is more important than his status within the herd, hence they're all vying for the cult brownie points that come along with proudly lying for the cult.

Who are you talking to?

 

[westwall]

What said had nothing to with reality or the article.

Generally, for erosion to occur....the water level has to be LOWER...so you can expose the ocean floor. See how that works?

wut? You don't live by the beach, do you?

I used to live in Santa Barbara...that count?

 

[mamooth]

Who are you talking to?

"The deniers" should have given you a clue about who I was talking to.

You kooks are denying sea level rise. That makes you look crazy and especially cultlike. Only fanatical cultists would work as hard as you all do to deny something so readily observable.

Sea levels are rising, and the rise is accelerating. The 20th century average was +1.7 mm / year. It's now up to +3.3 mm / year. The only way to explain that acceleration is warming. Hence, you all have motivation to attempt to deny the obvious. Unfortunately for you, you look insane when you try.

 

[jc456]

Who are you talking to?

"The deniers" should have given you a clue about who I was talking to.

You kooks are denying sea level rise. That makes you look crazy and especially cultlike. Only fanatical cultists would work as hard as you all do to deny something so readily observable.

Sea levels are rising, and the rise is accelerating. The 20th century average was +1.7 mm / year. It's now up to +3.3 mm / year. The only way to explain that acceleration is warming. Hence, you all have motivation to attempt to deny the obvious. Unfortunately for you, you look insane when you try.

Yeah 2 and 3/4 inches in 23 years, ewwwwwwww, watch out, the bottoms of your feet may get wet. haahhaahahahahahahahaahaha, stick to your brain surgeries.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, we understand you can't understand basic logic. You didn't address what I said, you merely posted that which I already have. Care to make a statement or are you too stupid to be able to string more than curses together?

What said had nothing to with reality or the article.

Generally, for erosion to occur....the water level has to be LOWER...so you can expose the ocean floor. See how that works?

What ocean floor? A coastline isn't an ocean floor. Do you imagine words that aren't on the page.

 

[dnsmith35]

The Earth is in constant change no matter if it is climate or tectonic shifts. They have found remnants of sea life in the Rocky mountains.

The Earth is always in constant change and no amount of money or the amount of feel good laws will stop it.

That being said, then we should just accept our fate gracefully, knowing that the ultimate outcome of the flooding of the oceans will put billions of people at risk of famine, and death due to changes in the environment that we are orchestrating. What the hell, nobody lives forever anyway.

I am quite sure global warming is taking place. I am not sure if it is being caused by man. We have had warmer climates in the past and much colder climates in the past. What is understood so far is, if the earth does warm, it will shift the best arable land north and could have a positive effect on agriculture. It appears we as humans are much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age.

BUT, I do believe we need to curb our use of fossil fuels if for no other reason than we many need more time to find adequate power source replacements.

One of the least explored alternatives is wave power. The oceans never stop having waves, though they vary in height and in location, but that does not present an impossible solution.

 

[westwall]

What said had nothing to with reality or the article.

Generally, for erosion to occur....the water level has to be LOWER...so you can expose the ocean floor. See how that works?

What ocean floor? A coastline isn't an ocean floor. Do you imagine words that aren't on the page.

The coastline is classified as the littoral. Back when Utah was an inland sea it looked just like this.

 

[Crick]

From the lead post's article:

This submerged forest of Borth is not new. First flooded some 5,000 years ago by rising sea levels after the last ice age, it has been there as long as locals remember, coming and going with the tides and occasionally disappearing under the sand for years on end. But the flood and storms that battered Britain earlier this year radically changed the way archaeologists interpret the landscape.: A quarter-mile long saltwater channel cutting through the trees, revealed by erosion for the first time, provided a trove of clues to where human life may have been concentrated and where its traces may yet be found.
...
Scanning the army of ghostly spikes protruding from the sand here one recent morning, Dr Bates said it was as if nature were making a point: The recent torrential rains, linked by a growing number of climatologists to human-induced climate change, have provided an ancient laboratory to study how humans coped with catastrophic climate change in the past.
*************************************************

The trees were not revealed by descending sea levels. They were exposed by erosion from flooding caused by torrential rainfall. This entire thread is a waste of time because someone (poster Westwall), apparently, can't read.

 

[bripat9643]

It was a real eye opener for us to see how much higher the Caribbean Sea was this last visit. The last time we were there was 2010. In just 4 years, we could actually see where the islands were losing land.

If you want to see some of the most beautiful islands in the world, don't wait because, they ARE disappearing.

That's funny. We go to Hawaii every year and there is no difference. I have a friend in St. Lucia and they say all is normal there too.

I have lived in Florida for 20 years, and the beaches are the same size they were when I moved here.

 

[Ravi]

Generally, for erosion to occur....the water level has to be LOWER...so you can expose the ocean floor. See how that works?

wut? You don't live by the beach, do you?

I used to live in Santa Barbara...that count?

Im surprised then that you don't realize that rising tides are one of the main causes of beach erosion.

 

[Kosh]

One of the most exaggerated claims made in The Inconvenient Truth is that if half of Antarctica's and half of Greenland's icecaps were to melt, sea levels would rise twenty feet or more, flooding coastal cities and islands. The images used in the video are very graphic and alarming. While Gore's claim is technically more or less correct, the message he gives that it could happen in the next few decades is completely false. First, as noted above, earth has experience much warmer temperatures in the past and neither icecap melted. It would take thousands of years at these temperatures for that to happen. Second, even the highly political and biased reports from the IPCC say that at the very most, ocean levels might rise 23 inches in the next 100 years, and only then if warming continued to increase at the rates experienced in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Third, we are likely entering a cooling period, so the issue is no longer relevant. In fact, Greenland's icecap is not losing ice mass, and the rise in ocean levels has slowed significantly.

 

[itfitzme]

One of the most exaggerated claims made in The Inconvenient Truth is that if half of Antarctica's and half of Greenland's icecaps were to melt, sea levels would rise twenty feet or more, flooding coastal cities and islands. The images used in the video are very graphic and alarming. While Gore's claim is technically more or less correct, the message he gives that it could happen in the next few decades is completely false. First, as noted above, earth has experience much warmer temperatures in the past and neither icecap melted. It would take thousands of years at these temperatures for that to happen. Second, even the highly political and biased reports from the IPCC say that at the very most, ocean levels might rise 23 inches in the next 100 years, and only then if warming continued to increase at the rates experienced in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Third, we are likely entering a cooling period, so the issue is no longer relevant. In fact, Greenland's icecap is not losing ice mass, and the rise in ocean levels has slowed significantly.

Saying, "we are likely entering a cooling period" is completely false. Statistical likeliness is easily defined and temperature record clearly supports that the temperatures are likely to continue increasing. I can walk you through the calculations, if you like. We have all the computational tools we need! Excel has a great stat packakge as do many websites.

 

[Crick]

It is true that if we had no AGW going on, Earth's temperatures over the last century or so would likely have decreased slightly. That has been mentioned in several of the IPCC assessment reports.

 

[itfitzme]

This is the temperature graph that we all know so well

Evn without going through the effort of a consice statistical analysis, it is patently obvious that it is extremely likely that the temperature trend will continue to increase.

The green bars are standard stastistical uncertainty indicators. The very short term trend is well within the bounds of this uncertainty and no case can be made for "likely cooling".

There are two periods in the graph which are in excess of the uncertainty, the largest being about 1940. That one is associated with the PDO. (I ran the regression on it a few months ago. Pretty the ADO didn't correlate much). That 1940 dip is huge compared to any variability that has occured since.

There is zero case to be made for a cooling trend. And you don't need to have any training in stats to see that

 

[Crick]

I'm not saying the world is cooling. I fully agree with the temperature graph you posted. I'm saying that the sum of the forcing factors EXCLUSIVE of AGW effects have been going down over time. The warming we're experiencing from CO2 and deforestation is IN SPITE OF a natural current tendency to cool slightly.

 

[Kosh]

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation.

 

[itfitzme]

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation.

You missed a decimal point in the r^2 for TSI.

The r^2 value is the pecentage of the dependent viable that is accounted for by the independent variable. There is no question that solar irradiance accounts for a larger percentage of the earths temperature. The PDO also has a marked effect on the the land ocean temperature.

Nobody has ever claimed that the earth temperature isn't substantially caused by then. You seem to be missing the point.

The correlation of TSI is not 100%. Nor does TSI and PDO account for all of it and none of the temperature rise.

The big problems with your r^2 values is

A) r, the coefficient of correlation, and the r^2 value are always between 0 and 1. An "r2=>70" is not possible.

B) When a multivariate regression is done, the sum of all the r^ values cannot add up to greater than 1. There more than 100% of something.

C). An r^ of 0.44 for CO2 would be that 44% of the variability in temperature is accounted for by CO2. 44% is, in no case, poor. 44% is damn near half.

 

[Kosh]

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation.

You missed a decimal point in the r^2 for TSI.

The r^2 value is the pecentage of the dependent viable that is accounted for by the independent variable. There is no question that solar irradiance accounts for a larger percentage of the earths temperature. The PDO also has a marked effect on the the land ocean temperature.

Nobody has ever claimed that the earth temperature isn't substantially caused by then. You seem to be missing the point.

The correlation of TSI is not 100%. Nor does TSI and PDO account for all of it and none of the temperature rise.

The big problems with your r^2 values is

A) r, the coefficient of correlation, and the r^2 value are always between 0 and 1. An "r2=>70" is not possible.

B) When a multivariate regression is done, the sum of all the r^ values cannot add up to greater than 1. There more than 100% of something.

C). An r^ of 0.44 for CO2 would be that 44% of the variability in temperature is accounted for by CO2. 44% is, in no case, poor. 44% is damn near half.

And proof on how the AGW cult will manipulate data to prove their religion.

Almost all evidence for man-caused global warming originates with eight climate change models called global climate models or GCMs. These are very sophisticated models, so sophisticated that they have to be run on super computers. However, the modelers are not climate scientists and have to get all their information from climate scientists. The modelers also admit that although they use thousands of variables in their models, those variables make up less than half of all the variables that impact climate. Not only that, every one of these models is based on the premise that CO2 warming must occur physically in a certain way, a way that is now proven not to be what has actually happened. The earth did not warm in the twentieth century like these models said it must.

 

[itfitzme]

While the correlation between atmospheric increases in CO2 and earth's temperatures is poor (r2=0.44), it is much better for solar irradiance and solar activity (r2=>70 -- The higher the rs value the greater the correlation). It has long been known that solar irradiance by itself does not provide enough energy to cause the warming on earth experienced in the twentieth century. However, when combined with the type of solar irradiance that is emitted during high periods of solar activity every 11 and 22 years (the solar cycle), there is a poorly understood, but good correlation. Solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other solar activity reach a maximum during the peak of each solar cycle and somehow influence ocean temperatures and therefore climate. One of the leading theories on this interaction is the interaction between solar activity and incoming cosmic radiation on cloud formation.

Somewhere in this forum posted the results of a multivariate regressiom on PDO, TSI, and CO2. Alone, TSI and PDO are not sufficient to account for the variability in global mean temperature. And they don't account for any of the increasing temperature since 1970.

Everyone knows that the sun makes the Earth warm. Kindergarteners knows that. What the rising CO2 level accounts for is increase in global mean temperature. And, as long as atmospheric CO2 continuesmto increase, the Earth's temperature will continue to increase because, while the sun is the source of the energy, the CO2 is,what keeps it from radiating away.