EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:19 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Ann Vole wrote:
and the dutch are already below sea level so they are not going to accept hype... you can be sure they are taking their study seriously.

It is now an established fact that only 10 000 years ago, the global sea level rose a few hundred feet creating the ocean separating Antarctica and Australia (and New Guinea, New Zealand, Tasmania).



I think that's a very old theory. I think these days Continental drift theory is accepted and Antarctica and Australia are generally thought to have separated in the late Cretaceous.

And the dutch pay a lot of taxes to build those dykes. With sea level rise you get bigger dykes and more taxes. eventually it will get to the stage were sustaining coastlines is untenable. They are already doing that in my country in East Anglia with managed retreat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20471
Location: Southeastern US
spot1234 wrote:
Ann Vole wrote:
and the dutch are already below sea level so they are not going to accept hype... you can be sure they are taking their study seriously.

It is now an established fact that only 10 000 years ago, the global sea level rose a few hundred feet creating the ocean separating Antarctica and Australia (and New Guinea, New Zealand, Tasmania).



I think that's a very old theory. I think these days Continental drift theory is accepted and Antarctica and Australia are generally thought to have separated in the late Cretaceous.

And the dutch pay a lot of taxes to build those dykes. With sea level rise you get bigger dykes and more taxes. eventually it will get to the stage were sustaining coastlines is untenable. They are already doing that in my country in East Anglia with managed retreat.


But didn't you see where the one meter rise would clearly be easy to cope with?

Quote:
Also it's not that hard to build sea defences. 39 inches will be easy to cope with
.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:59 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Do you have a referance to an actual scientific paper which says that a 1m sea level rise is on the cards?


Did you miss the link I posted after the chart to the actual scientific paper the legislature made "illegal" to use. It has the references used in the determination of the rise presented.

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/slr/NC%20Se ... 0Panel.pdf

A set of sea-level curves is presented in Figure 2, which present scenarios of differing rates of SLR acceleration. The curves are projected to 90 years in the future (2100 AD) and the initial rate of rise is set at 4.27 mm per year (Zervas, 2004). A rise of 0.4 meter (15 inches) is considered a minimum, since this is the amount of rise that will occur given a linear projection with zero acceleration. Various models and observations indicate that accelerated rates of SLR in the future are likely (IPCC, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2007; Pfeffer et al., 2008). In fact, various investigations indicate a two- to four-fold increase in rates of rise over the last century (Church and White, 2006; Rahmstorf, 2007; Kemp et al., 2009).

Rahmstorf (2007) proposed that there is a roughly proportional relationship between global mean near-surface air temperature and global MSL. Rahmstorf’s “method” for projecting future SLR has been adopted by several states and municipalities. The method has produced highly accurate hindcast results, particularly for the thermal expansion component of rise, and predicts a total rise of 0.50 meter to 1.4 meters (20 to 55 inches) by 2100. Rahmstorf cautions that delayed positive feedbacks might result in the method underestimating the contribution from land ice, resulting in total rise of over 1.4 meters. In spite of this caveat, the Science Panel believes that the Rahmstorf method is robust and 1.4 meters a reasonable upper limit for projected rise.

Pfeffer et al (2008) attempted to constrain the upper limit of land ice contribution to sea level by investigating the physical ability of glaciers and ice sheets to discharge into the ocean. The research was intended to provide a basis and methodology for incorporating land ice contributions into calculations of future global MSL. The research concluded that a range of 0.80 meter to 2 meters is a more plausible range than the figures presented by the IPCC. A 2-meter rise is considered very unlikely, but still possible, and could only occur with rapidly accelerated and very high rates of warming and ice sheet melting.


The assesment report you quoted is not a peer reviewed paper.

4.27 mm per year is more than a 2 fold increase in sea level rise over last centuary so the proposed 2-4 fold increase is already factored into that. Don't apply another 4 fold multiplier.

You want there to be a 1.4m sea level rise by 2100. Where is all the water coming from and how much temperature increase is expected to give such a reasult?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:08 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
spot1234 wrote:
Ann Vole wrote:
and the dutch are already below sea level so they are not going to accept hype... you can be sure they are taking their study seriously.

It is now an established fact that only 10 000 years ago, the global sea level rose a few hundred feet creating the ocean separating Antarctica and Australia (and New Guinea, New Zealand, Tasmania).



I think that's a very old theory. I think these days Continental drift theory is accepted and Antarctica and Australia are generally thought to have separated in the late Cretaceous.

And the dutch pay a lot of taxes to build those dykes. With sea level rise you get bigger dykes and more taxes. eventually it will get to the stage were sustaining coastlines is untenable. They are already doing that in my country in East Anglia with managed retreat.


When the great ice sheets of the northern hemasphere melted they did so quickly and all together because they were all at low altitude and close in temperture to melting anyway. Today's land ice is at high altitude and mostly not at all vunerable to small changes in tempertaure. Antarctica would meed a 20 degree c rise to get any melting of land ice (peninsular excepted).

Small increases in temperature will cause the terminal piont of the ice to move up in altitude. 1 degree c will produce a 100m increase in altitude of the end point of the ice.

It is fairly easy to add up the amount of such ice which is vunerable to a specific temperature increase. Dividing by the surface area of the world's oceans is also easy. The result is generally in the range of 7-12cm. Thermal expansion produces a similar number.

The Dutch will increase the height of their dykes for less cost than they spend on trafic lights.

We in England are having a "managed retreat" because we want to have a dooms day scenario play out. It's a strange mental condition, we need a feeling of being doomed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:28 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20471
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Do you have a referance to an actual scientific paper which says that a 1m sea level rise is on the cards?


Did you miss the link I posted after the chart to the actual scientific paper the legislature made "illegal" to use. It has the references used in the determination of the rise presented.

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/slr/NC%20Se ... 0Panel.pdf

A set of sea-level curves is presented in Figure 2, which present scenarios of differing rates of SLR acceleration. The curves are projected to 90 years in the future (2100 AD) and the initial rate of rise is set at 4.27 mm per year (Zervas, 2004). A rise of 0.4 meter (15 inches) is considered a minimum, since this is the amount of rise that will occur given a linear projection with zero acceleration. Various models and observations indicate that accelerated rates of SLR in the future are likely (IPCC, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2007; Pfeffer et al., 2008). In fact, various investigations indicate a two- to four-fold increase in rates of rise over the last century (Church and White, 2006; Rahmstorf, 2007; Kemp et al., 2009).

Rahmstorf (2007) proposed that there is a roughly proportional relationship between global mean near-surface air temperature and global MSL. Rahmstorf’s “method” for projecting future SLR has been adopted by several states and municipalities. The method has produced highly accurate hindcast results, particularly for the thermal expansion component of rise, and predicts a total rise of 0.50 meter to 1.4 meters (20 to 55 inches) by 2100. Rahmstorf cautions that delayed positive feedbacks might result in the method underestimating the contribution from land ice, resulting in total rise of over 1.4 meters. In spite of this caveat, the Science Panel believes that the Rahmstorf method is robust and 1.4 meters a reasonable upper limit for projected rise.

Pfeffer et al (2008) attempted to constrain the upper limit of land ice contribution to sea level by investigating the physical ability of glaciers and ice sheets to discharge into the ocean. The research was intended to provide a basis and methodology for incorporating land ice contributions into calculations of future global MSL. The research concluded that a range of 0.80 meter to 2 meters is a more plausible range than the figures presented by the IPCC. A 2-meter rise is considered very unlikely, but still possible, and could only occur with rapidly accelerated and very high rates of warming and ice sheet melting.


The assesment report you quoted is not a peer reviewed paper.


You did not request a peer reviewed publication, you asked for a scientific paper, which this is. It is also reviewed by peers in the process due to the creation of a diverse committee chosen beforehand.

Quote:
4.27 mm per year is more than a 2 fold increase in sea level rise over last centuary so the proposed 2-4 fold increase is already factored into that. Don't apply another 4 fold multiplier.


"this is the amount of rise that will occur given a linear projection with zero acceleration"

Quote:
You want there to be a 1.4m sea level rise by 2100. Where is all the water coming from and how much temperature increase is expected to give such a reasult?


I do not want a 1.4 m sea level rise by 2100. I would like to think my children would be able to use our place at the beach after I am gone, but that would be very hard to do with such an increase.

I believe the water is expected to come from the continental glaciers, further thermal expansion of the oceans, Antarctia, and Greenland.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:24 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:14 am
Posts: 85
Wayne Stollings wrote:


Having 3,375 miles of shoreline, a 39 inch sea level increase would be easy to cope with? :shock:

Not to mention the estuaries which would have to have similar defenses built and all without ever admitting there was an impact since it would affect the economic development of the areas.


Could be worse if you lived in Norway...........

Coastline: 25,148 km (includes mainland 2,650 km, as well as long fjords, numerous small islands, and minor indentations 22,498 km; length of island coastlines 58,133 km)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:32 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20471
Location: Southeastern US
Besoeker wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


Having 3,375 miles of shoreline, a 39 inch sea level increase would be easy to cope with? :shock:

Not to mention the estuaries which would have to have similar defenses built and all without ever admitting there was an impact since it would affect the economic development of the areas.


Could be worse if you lived in Norway...........

Coastline: 25,148 km (includes mainland 2,650 km, as well as long fjords, numerous small islands, and minor indentations 22,498 km; length of island coastlines 58,133 km)



True, but all they have to do is make sea level rise illegal and it goes away ... really. :mrgreen: :crazy:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:52 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Tim the Plumber wrote:

We in England are having a "managed retreat" because we want to have a dooms day scenario play out. It's a strange mental condition, we need a feeling of being doomed.



Oh, is that why they use a managed retreat strategy rather then spending millions trying to protect every static caravan site along the coast. To make us feel doomed.


IT'S A CONSPIRACY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20471
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
Ann Vole wrote:
and the dutch are already below sea level so they are not going to accept hype... you can be sure they are taking their study seriously.

It is now an established fact that only 10 000 years ago, the global sea level rose a few hundred feet creating the ocean separating Antarctica and Australia (and New Guinea, New Zealand, Tasmania).



I think that's a very old theory. I think these days Continental drift theory is accepted and Antarctica and Australia are generally thought to have separated in the late Cretaceous.

And the dutch pay a lot of taxes to build those dykes. With sea level rise you get bigger dykes and more taxes. eventually it will get to the stage were sustaining coastlines is untenable. They are already doing that in my country in East Anglia with managed retreat.


When the great ice sheets of the northern hemasphere melted they did so quickly and all together because they were all at low altitude and close in temperture to melting anyway. Today's land ice is at high altitude and mostly not at all vunerable to small changes in tempertaure. Antarctica would meed a 20 degree c rise to get any melting of land ice (peninsular excepted).

Small increases in temperature will cause the terminal piont of the ice to move up in altitude. 1 degree c will produce a 100m increase in altitude of the end point of the ice.

It is fairly easy to add up the amount of such ice which is vunerable to a specific temperature increase. Dividing by the surface area of the world's oceans is also easy. The result is generally in the range of 7-12cm. Thermal expansion produces a similar number.

The Dutch will increase the height of their dykes for less cost than they spend on trafic lights.

We in England are having a "managed retreat" because we want to have a dooms day scenario play out. It's a strange mental condition, we need a feeling of being doomed.


How much do they spend on traffic lights there? Over a billion euros a year seems like a lot to me.

http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/delta ... ummary.pdf

Cost

Implementation of the Delta Programme until 2050 involves a cost of 1.2 to
1.6 billion euros per annum, and 0.9 to 1.5 billion euros per annum in the
period 2050–2100. Coastal flood protection in the Delta Programme is mainly
achieved by beach nourishments. If this method is intensified so that the coasts
of the Netherlands grow say 1 km in a seawards direction, thus creating new
land for such functions as recreation and nature, it will involve an additional
cost of 0.1 to 0.3 billion euros per annum.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
as for expanding dykes, it is much like pizza sizes... add a couple inches diameter and the pizza size doubles. Every added meter is much more material needed to be added then the previous meter. With the Dutch already having rather tall dykes, it is going to be far more expensive for them to increase their dykes then it would be for other nations to create new dykes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 6:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Do you have a referance to an actual scientific paper which says that a 1m sea level rise is on the cards?


The issue of sea level rise is pretty complicated.
The first step is to attempt to calculate the average sea level rise that has taken place using the historical data.
This sounds simple but is not for the following reasons
1 The land maybe rising or sinking due to local geological effects.
2 The weather patterns and prevailing winds can have a marked effect on local and even global sea level.
3 Changing in sea currents.
4 Dams and ground water extraction

The result is that sceptics have a field day cherry picking the data to prove any thing the want to believe. It is not difficult to find locations where the local sea levels relative to the land have actually fallen. Unfortunately it is also possible to find places where the relative sea level to land level is well above average.

To estimate future average sea levels is not very useful from a practical point of view because what really is important is to know what the sea level rise is likely to be in your area.

Even if the average sea level is at the low end of the IPCC sea level predictions It will mean that some some locations will experience local sea levels far in excess of the average but with a few fortunate places not seeing much rise.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:52 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2240
Location: Central Colorado
Well, if they can make a law against sea level rise, why not a law to lower this 5.5*F temperature rise in the US since 1980??
Like, behold! It shall be 5* cooler by US LAW!!! Then Nature will have to comply, right? Or they could make all the thermometers read cooler, by Law, and then it is all in our heads, right? Count each person as a half person, by law, and then we won't be as overpopulated, right? The traffic jams are just an illusion!!! \:D/ :- #-o :lol:
1995;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMywOal ... r_embedded

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group