Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The o.p. seems to have a pretty good handle on the science of all this so maybe s/he can explain why the U.S. Navy is spending millions of dollars evacuating the Marshall Islands.
Being that the asphalt is black, or grey, I guess it should be on the Black Living forum. Is that what you had in mind?
"Black living forum" sounds like it's for black people. "Grey living forum" sounds like it's for senior citizens. But since it involves floods from sea level rise, maybe we should call it the "wet living forum."
"Anyway what you are claiming would mean there was no relationship between changes in sea level and glaciation. But this is plain old not true, we know from many lines of evidence that periods of glacial minima correspond to increases in sea level. Are you also claiming there have been no changes in sea level in previous climate shifts?"
First, I am not claiming that there is a unitary factor that affects the seacoasts and where the ocean and land meet. My point initially was, and still is, that the claims of hundreds of feet differences in sea level at the coasts due to ice melt is hogwash. If you noted the data on interglacial rise as cited earlier, it was less than a hundred feet. I wasn't there. I didn't influence it. Al Gore wasn't there. He most certainly didn't influence it.
If you want to claim I am saying stuff that I am not, go right ahead. If you want to try to find any excuse to dismiss what I have said, no matter how much you have to stretch, go right ahead. However, if that is your stance, it is a religious one and I don't argue against religious positions as it is a waste of my time and probably irritating to you.
Unitary factor? If you mean one global scale change in sea level that is exactly what eustatic change is, GLOBAL.
Holy strawman. No one credible says hundred of feet. You said 20' before. Now you are moving the goal posts by an order of magnitude. Even that would be silly on a global scale. But in some areas, isostatic change, including the sinking of the non rebounding plate, and other confounding factors could see that order of magnitude change. The ocean, despite being water, does not "lie" nicely or equally all the way around. There are some 200+ factors that cause tides to vary so much on a local level, many of these would effect sea level rise causing it to minimal in some places, like Greenland, and exaggerated in others, like Florida.
Holy strawman 2. AL GORE IS NOT A SCIENTIST. He is a politician. I never mentioned Gore, you bring him up to distract from the science.
Your claim that I responded to (and that you have not remotely proven) is that isostatic rebound will more than compensate for sea level rise from melting glaciers. It won't, and fundamentally it can't as it is LOCALIZED by its very definition and "3rd grade physics". We haven't even gotten to the fact that rate of change between sea level rise and isostasy is several orders of magnitude different. In fact the rebound from the last glacial maxima is still ongoing since it is so slow. Its change is typically 10mm/yr in either direction. Far, far less than the rate of melting of glaciers and sea ice.
Shall we now address your claim that melting sea ice and ice shelves cannot contribute to sea level rise? Thermal expansion absolutely means melting ice, and its corresponding thermal expansion as whatever proportion of it joins the meso/epipelagic zones , will have some increasing effect on sea level rise. Additionally, water at depth aka greater pressure has proportionally larger increase per added unit heat. In fact more than half of all sea level rise in the past 100 years can be attributed to steric/thermal expansion. And while the research is ongoing WOCE has absolutely found heating of the ocean at depth GLOBALLY.
Religion? Ah the last bastion of those who cannot prove their points. Look, the science is complicated, but as an oceanographer this is not something I "read up on" or tried to utilize my memory of physics 101. I have been studying the ocean for over 20 years. Googling does not compensate for actual study.
Your back of the napkin calculation are so flawed I would need days to go by line by line. But I guess I will take a crack at it.
1.We already dealt with the ice cube in glass example ignoring steric sea level rise.
2.You call the asthenosphere a liquid. It is not. Not particularly meaningful for the calculation but shows the limits of your knowledge base.
3. W dealt with your raft analogy and assertion that entire plates rise up uniformly. Not true, the FACT that the other "end" of plates are buoyed upwards during periods of glacial, and corresponding sink when its removed (thus increasing apparent sea level) shows why you are wrong about isostatic rebound and your belief it is global in nature.
"The North American tectonic plate wasn't evenly loaded during that ice age: ice sheets were sitting on what is now Canada and Greenland, while most of today's United States remained ice free. This ice load pushed the mantle out from under Canada and buoyed up the United States. Today, the U.S. side of the North American plate is sinking like the downhill end of a seesaw as the northern side continues to lift."
4. Ugh the rest of the "math" is based on such flawed reasoning as to be laughable.
5. Morner. He has published some great work on isostasy and eustasy, particularly in the 70s. He is literally in the textbooks when it comes to oceanography. The refutations of his current position are well known, and easily found. I respect his prior work to much to delve into the well documented issues on his motivations but again, they can be found.
6. Al Gore. Again, not a scientist. A well informed layman in many areas, but pretending he a scientist and then holding up things he misrepresents as refutation for the science is a logical fallacy. Your knee jerk reactions and desperate need to bring him into a discussion of the science is telling. Lets be clear, he and the IPCC got the nobel peace prize not a scientific nobel. And make no mistake, he did everyone a great service by bringing climate change discussion to the masses. No one likes to listen to scientists, we speak slowly, carefully, and are hardly exciting. If you refuse to accept anthropogenic climate change and its effects go ahead, your acceptance is not needed but it is highly unlikely that you would not have bothered to educate yourself to what ever degree google has provided without his influence.
I don’t know,,,, should I believe the 97% of Earth Scientists or the 3% of the ones that don’t believe it? It’s not my opinion that humans play a role in global warming it’s a fact. If you can’t believe in their facts what can you believe in ~ the 3%?
Hawaii is sliding into deeper water and a new island will be popping up behind us, they already named it, Loihi.
So...please could we invent a giant braking system and also we don't need the competition for tourist dollars from a brand new island so a big stamper to keep Loihi down please....since we decided to spend $$$ on unavoidable future stuff....
It is called isostatic rebound, and in areas where glaciers exist, it can account for approx 1 cm of upward movement a year. Which is great, if you are a region covered in ice, like Greenland or Antarctica. If you are not one of those areas there is no rebound.
Additionally, those non glacial land masses that are part of the same continental plate, will frequently see the opposite change. To use your, (what was it 3rd grade physics?) the land masses are like a raft "floating" on the plastic asthenosphere. Now take a really large land mass like North America (which is mostly one plate) and put something very heavy on one end, like a glacier. What effect will that have on the other end of the "raft"? It will cause it to rise up higher than the end being pushed on. Now remove that heavy object what happens? The end that had the glacier does rise, but the other end also sinks an equal amount. This is why the effects of isostatic change (the pushing of glaciers) is always localized rebound not global.
This is great! I took Geology and Marine Science in high school and college and I don't remember learning about isostatic rebound (or if I did, it must have really not interested me at the time. ).
Hawaii is sliding into deeper water and a new island will be popping up behind us, they already named it, Loihi.
So...please could we invent a giant braking system and also we don't need the competition for tourist dollars from a brand new island so a big stamper to keep Loihi down please....since we decided to spend $$$ on unavoidable future stuff....
Well, it's not like you're lacking for higher ground, on those islands.
This is great! I took Geology and Marine Science in high school and college and I don't remember learning about isostatic rebound (or if I did, it must have really not interested me at the time. ).
It depends on how old you are. You may have gone through school when plate tectonics was just a theory, not a proven fact. They didn't teach this stuff in school back then. Some schools would have covered isostatic rebound, though. IKB shouldn't assume that it was part of a universal curriculum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
