global warming and sea level rise are true. i "belive"!?

Question

ever since i read this, how can we "deny" any longer....

-----------------------------------------------------------
Q)How many inches has the sea level risen so far?

A)Sea level in the last 100 years has risen about 7 inches and is projected to increase another 6 to 36 inches or so by 2100. The insidious thing is not so much the sea level rise, but the possibility of storm surges coupled with sea level rise. [6] The Netherlands spent $10 billion on raising the levels of their dikes after a 1959 storm caused ocean waves to overflow the dikes causing major floods. The money was spent to raise the height of the dikes from 20 to 30 feet. Being a little above sea level is not enough.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_faq.htm#inches

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

yet, according to this, it's about 1 inch LOWER since 1841.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~gulufuture/future/weather02.htm

so how do you want it, alarmists...

they measured in a "high" place" and were incorrect?
(possibly where 2 oceans connect by locks, LOL)

or MORE proof of lies, half truths and distortion on the behalf of environmentalists?

malcolm-

i see you passed the "cut and paste" class at the seminar. what you posted has NO meaning to the question.



mr jello-

the 1959 "high water" is MORE irrefutable truth of global warming.

global warming was occuring at that time too, we were obviously "melting ice" during the "global cooling era".

anybody can figure that out, you dunce.

"If you chose to pick one single piece of data and ignore the overwhelming majority of opposing data then you can 'prove' anything you want. I could prove the world was flat or the centre of the universe by adopting that approach."
-trevor

kinda like you choosing "global warming" as the data and only one possible way it is occuring?

what's wrong? don't like others using your "scientific" methods?

"The two things that are different are (1) they have never melted this fast and (2) Ice is melting that hasn't melted since the continents formed. So throw in say, another 10-15 feet. "
-johnny

maybe the cavemen forgot to write it down how fast it melted for them?

at any rate you have NO proof of your statement. i do have proof of more lies by enviromentalists.

bob, unfortunately the san fransico are is very active geologically. how can we be sure that the area wher the measurements are taken haven't dropped?

personally, i'd take the mark over modern science.

as dumb as that sounds, mr. Ross and mr. Lempriere had NO AGENDA in making the mark, whereas modern science does.

who would you believe?

"experts" who have been churning out lies, distortions, half truths, and failed predictions for 40 years?

or a simple mark, made by someone over 150 years ago, that SHOWS that the mean water level was at that time?

Answer 1

Interesting that a single mark in Tasmania is being dismissed so quickly. What do you think the reaction would be if that mark were 30cm BELOW the current water level?

Clearly the reason for 1959's high water levels was because man lit off a couple of nuclear bombs in Japan a few years earlier. This caused the nuclear winter that caused the ice caps to melt and raise the sea levels just around the Netherlands.

At least this is what the consensus of people I asked told me, so it has to be true!

Answer 2

This has already been explained to you but because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions you've chosen to ignore the facts.

The article you cite refers to one single sea level measurement. Adopting such an unscientific and inaccurate approach is akin to pointing to a short person and concluding that the human race is shrinking.

There are short people, there are tall people, overall humans are getting taller. There are sea level falls, there are sea level rises, overall sea levels are rising.

If you chose to pick one single piece of data and ignore the overwhelming majority of opposing data then you can 'prove' anything you want. I could prove the world was flat or the centre of the universe by adopting that approach.

You may also be interested to know that the author of the article you refer to is not a scientist but is of course a journalist - Fintan Dunne. He's been variously described as an avowed Marxist, an arch conspiracy theorist and a Zionist disinfo. He claims that 9/11 was the work of the G8 world leaders, AIDS doesn't exist, we live in a quantum hologram, doctors are deliberately killing millions of people and that Sadaam Hussein was never captured. Seems like a reliable source of info. All this and more from his own website - http://www.fintandunne.com/

- - - - - - - - -

The flooding in Holland and the UK was the result of a storm surge (it was 1953, not 1959 but that's not your error). Storm surges are caused by a series of compounding factors - high tides, lunar allignment (spring tides), prevailing winds and cyclonic conditions. They can happen anywhere on the planet but in the case of the Dutch floods were compunded by the topography of the North Sea. If global warming had been factor then it would have been a very minor one, extensive flooding and loss of life would have occurred in any event.

Answer 3

It appears to me (as a personal opinion after reading the comments on this question) that the measurement of ocean level changes have been measured in very unprovable ways.

If the sea level was to rise as much as predicted, many sea port towns may be under water. Consider New Orleans, London, and other such low level places like the dikes in Holland. All under water!! It is certainly something to consider.

As suggested in other listings, a mark on a wall or only one reference is not adequate to determine the true level of the sea all over the earth and the geologists tell us the level has been higher in the past. Any measurements before the advent of the more accurate measurements of today surely could not be a very good reference for our future ocean height. One program I saw on National geographic about the Asian tsanomi showed that some islands raised several meters and that caused the big wave. A reference on those islands would be invalid as a reference because of the shift in their height above what was normal a few years before. How do we know the referenced measuring points have not changed as well?

Admittedly, if most or all the reference points have raised by the same amount, the sea level change answer would be more likely to be correct. Especially if the same measure of the change in sea level is recorded in all the reference points at or nearly the same amount, it would seem the sea level change is accurate.

To address the level of change over a long period such as indicated by geology references, one must determine at what time in the history of our planet those sea level changes took place and for how long. It seems that might be difficult to determine. Could a change in sea level happen in only one place on our earth? Not likely unless the moon stayed in geosynchronys orbit for a considerable time and there were no tides. Far out!! I believe there are no record of such activity in recorded history.

How about a large asteroid or planet affecting our tides or sea levels? No record of that, either.

Over millions of years, our planet has undergone many changes while humans were not around to see it happen.

Answer 4

I don't think I learn much by comparing what it was in 1927 to what it was in 1963 to what it was in 1508. It doesn't really look like anybody else does either, by the discussion.

The way I look at it, every time the ice caps have melted the oceans have risen a little over 60 feet, according to the geologic record. That's what I would expect when they melt this time. The two things that are different are (1) they have never melted this fast and (2) Ice is melting that hasn't melted since the continents formed. So throw in say, another 10-15 feet.

Answer 5

You say:

"yet, according to this, it's about 1 inch LOWER since 1841."

http://homepage.eircom.net/~gulufuture/future/weather02.htm

I encourage everyone to look at that site. Clearly it's biased. And the result is based on one mark on a wall. Here's what some other people say, based on more serious data:

"Historical records show that sea level in San Francisco Bay has risen 18-20 cm (7 inches) over the past 150 years. "

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/index.php?cat=56

"Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2."

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006

http://www.csiro.au/news/ps13f.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11083/dn11083-2_426.jpg

(Graph)

This is the best data I've found, satellite data:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Honestly, which of these sources do you find more credible? One mark on a wall, or scientifically measured data with many data points? Note that the various sources I've listed have pretty similar results, too.

I truly am baffled with the discussion about "high water" in 1959. That was a storm, not a sea level rise.

Answer 6

Lol. So a single mark on a single location is Tasmania is proof positive that sea levels have been dropping. I especially liked this but of frivolity: "When we look at the Ross-Lempriere 1841 bench mark, one thing becomes crystal clear: There has been no sea level rise this century - none at all."

Answer 7

Hi my friends! It took me some time to prepear a new video for you. But today I uploaded it to youtube. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aZpSRZjnpA Sorry, the sound is not the best, but I hope you understand the message. In fact, if you understand Spanish, there are a much more videos about "Global Warming" which I recorded from the tv here in Mexico. I am German, but I live now in Mexico City and after investigating about Global Warming I started my proyect: "Lights Out 9999" because I think it is important that we all get more information about it and start to take care about our unique place, called Earth. Even if there are still people thinking that Global Warming is not true we all should be more concerned about our future and take care about our environment. I invite you all to join "Lights Out 9999" and if you also have some information, videos, photos, ideas etc., please feel free to contact me, send me what you got and I will publish it on my new website: http://www.otumba.com/lightsout9999 Sorry if my English is not that good, but I try my best. I also ask you to help me to translate everything to more languages, because it is very important that everybody in every country can understand what I put on this website. By now I only have one good friend who is helping me a lot (Will Wyckoff), but I need more people, more information, languages. I hope I can count on you. Also if there is another organisation, lets work together! Our planet is very sick and we are all doing our part of destroying it. So, I think it is our obligation to cure it, change many things. We have to learn that money and power is not everything. And there is not to much time left, very soon we are reaching the "point of no return". Cientists are telling us that if we don´t act in the next 10 years, it is to late - and between 50 and 100 years it could be that life will be impossible on Earth. Think about your families, kids, grandsons, friends. Thank you very much for your time and I hope, I can count on you.
Here are all my links about my movement:

http://www.otumba.com/lightsout9999

http://lightsout9999.spaces.live.com (it´s in Spanish)

http://www.youtube.com/cancunhans (there are about 30 videos in three languages (English, Spanish and German)

Answer 8

What I am wondering, is why are there no locks on the Suez Canal? Also, the entire San Fransisco bay are is one of the most alarming areas in the US, as far as subsidence is concerned, parts of Sacramento have sunk below sea level, and the entire deltaic system including San Francisco is the victim of subsidence.

Answer 9

you are correct, we are in big trouble!

Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[4]
Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.[1] The range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized.[1] This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.
An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, including sea level rise, increased intensity of extreme weather events,[5] and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.
Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. There is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 10

lol what was the question...? ...<(^\/^)>...How many inches has the sea level risen so far? Higher than it was yesterday,but not as high as Tomorrow!