Rising Sea Levels: How do the Danes Fare?

Krummhorn

Administrator
Staff member
ADMINISTRATOR
Interesting thread ...

Not a geologist either, but maybe an answer to the non rising of the shorelines of Hawaii could be that the ice sheets as a solid take up a certain displacement on/in the water - as the ice solid melts, it is only replacing the physical displacement of a solid form into a liquid form.

An analogy to the above: If one fills a tall glass with ice, then fills to the top with water, leaves it on the counter until the ice melts, the glass does not overflow or spill out onto the counter. I think the same thing happens with the ice sheets. Maybe?
 

Ouled Nails

New member
Krummhorn,
It has risen well above secular averages during the last fifteen years (and so have forest fires, btw). But it has risen unevenly for reasons mentioned above. The EPA, which is hardly a radical bureaucratic institution, has a website on this particular topic which identifies the numerous variables involved in tracking the relevant data. NOTE that it's narrative is partly based on the conservative projections of the IPCC in 2007, which that panel has just revised upward in the article I referred to above:
Globally:
  • Indonesia, Thailand, and Bangladesh are experiencing above-average sea level rise.
  • Northwestern Australia is experiencing below-average sea level rise, a trend that is evident in much of the ocean between western Australia and East Africa.
  • Most of the Pacific and Atlantic basins are experiencing average to above-average sea level rise.
  • Many coastal areas outside of the U.S., Europe and Japan have too few tide gauges to be sure about long-term trends in regional sea level rise.
Is the rate of sea level rise accelerating?
  • The IPCC expresses high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century. During the 20th century, sea level rose at an average rate of 4.8 to 8.8 inches per century (1.2-2.2 mm/year).
  • Tide gauges show little or no acceleration during the 20th century.
  • Satellite measurements estimate that sea level has been rising at a rate of 9 to 15 inches per century (2.4-3.8 mm/yr) since 1993, more than 50% faster than the rate that tide gauges estimate over the last century.

CD,
I am confronted here with the same contradiction I encounter elsewhere when global warming skeptics rely on the ideological arsenal of two very different counter-arguments in their attempts to argue against global warming:
1. there is no global warming (the MIT expert you refer to);
2. there is global warming but it is not cause by human factors.
These positions, if convenient in addressing different sets of data, are incompatible.
Please take a look at US forest fire data and note how many record years we have experienced in the last fifteen years:
Years with over 3 million acres of burnt forest and wild lands:
1969, 1976, 1980, 1988, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.....

Years with over 7 million acres burnt:
1963, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

These data are collected by the US National Interagency Fire Center, another largely non-ideological institution:
http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info/fires_acres.htm
When responding to such data, the skeptics jump on the ideological position no.2 mentioned above. But when discussing rising sea levels, they often prefer ideological position no. 1.:grin: That, in itself, makes me doubt the credibility of their arguments.
 

Ouled Nails

New member
And why should the number of tropical storms, of hurricanes and of major hurricanes have significantly increased as well?
All data for the USA only:

1. avg. number of tropical cyclones
2. avg. number of hurricanes
3. avg. number of major hurricanes

1966-2006:
1. 11.1 --2. 6.2 --3. 2.3

1977-2006:
1. 11.4 --2. 6.3 --3. 2.5

1987-2006:
1. 12.6 --2. 6.8 --3. 2.9

1997-2006:
1. 14.5 --2. 7.8 --3. 3.6
Source:
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES TROPICAL CYCLONES FROM 1851 TO 2006
(AND OTHER FREQUENTLY REQUESTED HURRICANE FACTS)

Eric S. Blake
Edward N. Rappaport
Christopher W. Landsea

National Weather Service
National Hurricane Center
Miami, Florida


April 2007
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha ON,

May I ask where is the correlation between Hurricanes and global warming? You mention forest fires - many of those in California have been set by arsonists - a few are caused by Lightning strikes. Then there is the problem of how Forest lands are managed. When a preponderance of brush is allowed to grow for years on end without the dead brush vegetation being cleared away, then the fuel for major conflagrations is present.

Major fires have swept through areas since before written record was established. Archaeological digs establish such. The effects of Hurricane devastation on people can be minimised by having people move away from coastal areas, establishing inundation zones - Moving New Orleans out from the below sea-level bowl that it is in. It is a crime to develop that area. Yes, people will be people and all most, if not all people love a view of the ocean. I take a risk by living in Hawaii - And I pay for it handsomely through elevated insurance premiums.

Back to the alarmism: Some governments, NGO's, political action and interest groups play on people's fears since the aformentioned groups know that many people are scientifically illiterate and/or ignorant. Then there are those whose research grant gravy train feedbag will be taken away if they do not publish findings that appease this and that *alphabet soup* research funding organizations. Its a sad situation that so many are scientifically illiterate - Because of that, they easily fall victim to carefully scripted agitation propaganda that serves to whip up hysteria.
 
Last edited:

Ouled Nails

New member
Concerning forest fires, all the variables you refer to --including human factors-- are timeless thus, IMHO, irrelevant to the current trend upward. For instance, arsonists were active during the early 1930's for the sole reason to get a job amidst a deepening Great Depression. The whole arson-focused rationale used to explain Australia's recent tragedy, i.e., a psychological profile of the "impotent" arsonist, equally fails to explain why the same behavior did not generate similar catastrophes in previous decades.

IOW, anti-global warming arguments such as these are epiphenomenal: they fail to tackle the actual phenomenon. Not only that but, in the case of arsonists, they could easily result in miscarriages of justice because the fire generated by such human behavior is not necessarily what led to such conflagrations. Again, it's convenient but not convincing.

Forest fires have been increasing in numbers and in magnitude because there are more extensive and prolonged droughts. California is already rationing water (in early March!); Texas has been faced with early drought conditions as well. Elsewhere, in Argentina, Australia, South Africa, more droughts ....

I have got to go, sorry.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha ON,

If we focus on upward and downward trends then it would be interesting to see data reflecting the period from the time of the Industrial Revolution until todays date. Again, it is too easy to just generate reams of data models based on pre-inputted inferences and then project that events *X,Y, and Z* are going to happen or are maybe in the process of happening.

Then there is the problem of where temperature-reading sensors are placed - some have been unfortunately placed near exhaust ducts or are located in metropolitain areas where much heat is generated by the Sun's rays being absorbed by the black-top and then re-radiated as heat or how buildings absorb or reflect Solar radiation, the throngs of people, car, trucks, machinery.

Imo, one must take the prognostications with much salt since too much of the science behind the propaganda is just that - Propaganda! If we lived in a perfect world with perfect systems and perfect knowlege, then it might be a different story.
 
Last edited:

Ouled Nails

New member
I have appreciated this exchange of views, CD, if only to better understand our respective positions on "global warming" related issues.

If these issues turn out to be nothing more than the product of widespread scientific "malpractice," they could still contribute to R & D for cleaner and more efficient technologies, which is not such a bad outcome.

If, on the other hand, they prove fairly realistic, if not accurate, they could once again make life less costly and healthier for my grand-children and their children.

As long as "taking sides" does not result in complacency and indifference, I am satisfied that this little exchange was not a waste of time.
cheers
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha ON,

I have very much benefitted from the dialogue between us - A *growth phase* I would denote it as.

With sincere respect,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:
 
Top