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 above article contains a chart containing relative sea level change projections. Note that the projections show a significantly accelerating sea level rise over current trends. Concern about sea level rise and climate change will escalate as observed sea level rise accelerates to reflect the much higher rates of acceleration contained in the projections. Note that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration high projection estimates 2 feet of sea level rise before 2050, over four times the amount of sea level rise that would be expected if the current rate of sea level rise continued.
Why would sea level rise accelerate? The answer is found in two even more recent reports.
First, consider a science factoid known well to every middle school student. Ice melts beginning at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Centigrade). Below those temperatures, ice melt is minimal. Above those levels, ice melt occurs and accelerates with even higher temperatures.
A landmark study of ice melt across the entire Greenland ice sheet was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Nature" last week. The study's lead author notes that Greenland ice melt not only is increasing, it is accelerating.
One of study's authors (third paragraph from the end of the following article) noted that even a small change in temperature in recent years has resulted in an exponential increase in Greenland ice melt. The lead author noted earlier in the article that already observed ice melt and sea level rise will be "dwarfed" in coming years as the climate continues to warm. Note that Greenland ice melt currently accounts for only 22 percent of sea level rise.
Also released last week was the NOAA's 2018 Update of its Arctic Report Card. The 2018 update emphasizes the rapid warming of the Arctic region compared to the rest of the world, and the consequences.
<<In 2018, surface air temperatures in the Arctic continued to warm at roughly twice the rate relative to the rest of the globe, a phenomenon that has been termed "Arctic Amplification." The year 2018 was the second warmest year on record in the Arctic since 1900 (after 2016), at +1.7° C relative to the long-term average (1981-2010). Arctic air temperatures for the past five years (2014-18) have exceeded all previous records since 1900....
As a result of atmosphere and ocean warming, the Arctic is no longer returning to the extensively frozen region of recent past decades. In 2018 Arctic sea ice remained younger, thinner, and covered less area than in the past. The wintertime maximum sea ice extent measured in March of 2018 was the second lowest in the 39-year record, following only 2017. For the satellite record (1979-present), the 12 lowest sea ice extents have occurred in the last 12 years. >>
Harold Wanless, chair of the geological sciences department at the University of Miami, believes that climate change authorities are underestimating the impact of accelerating ice melt in making their sea level rise projections. Wanless has projected 3 feet of sea level rise in south Florida within 30 years.
It’s been since the 80s they said this... our coast still stands most of the erosion and loss on our outer banks has been due to natural changes (these islands are large shifting sand bars) and the fact developed islands don’t get to go through that natural process so instead they just erode away into the sea. Now that’s a much bigger threat to our coast... see shell island in the 90s and topsail beach today. Now that is a threat. Tbh the entire outer banks should be a dedicated natural area... 0 development.
as an ignorant on the subject, I was wondering this morning about the melting ice, and here you post this article. That's intriguing.
I did just now google ice v water, and found this...
Quote:
The molecules in water are more tightly packed than in ice, so water has greater density than ice. Don't let the fact that ice is a solid fool you! As water freezes it expands. So, ice has more volume (it takes up more space, but has less density) than water.
so help me understand, in a nutshell if possible:
1. as the icecap melts, it occupies less space in water form...therefore, why would sea level rise anyway?
2. If the icecap melting - and maybe other factors including more rain falling - does raise sea level, how much icecap is there that can be melted, and does it REALLY raise all the ocean levels up to 33 feet?
quasi-unrelated - are the icecaps "salt water", "fresh water", or somewhere in between? Does their melting have a greater effect on sea life than it will on sea level?
as an ignorant on the subject, I was wondering this morning about the melting ice, and here you post this article. That's intriguing.
I did just now google ice v water, and found this...
so help me understand, in a nutshell if possible:
1. as the icecap melts, it occupies less space in water form...therefore, why would sea level rise anyway?
2. If the icecap melting - and maybe other factors including more rain falling - does raise sea level, how much icecap is there that can be melted, and does it REALLY raise all the ocean levels up to 33 feet?
quasi-unrelated - are the icecaps "salt water", "fresh water", or somewhere in between? Does their melting have a greater effect on sea life than it will on sea level?
Sea level rise is an average, it rises more in some places than others and that has to do with ocean currents. I know for New England for example when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is negative sea levels rise. The icecaps are fresh water so greater melt of them interferes with ocean circulation, and yes sea life.
The biggest concern is Antarctic Ice shelves that are cantilevered over the ocean - in other words they are not resting on the ocean water. These could break/slide off causing a sudden noticeable change in sea level. Consider the glaciers calving that you see in Alaska videos. One minute they are supported by land, the next contributing to the ocean. The Antarctic shelves are much much larger.
In addition you have snow melting in Greenland, the Rockies, etc and making its way into the ocean. This is a slower process but will have an effect.
What am I missing, I see no sign of the movers and shakers giving up their east and west coast water front mansions despite this news that I am sure the vast majority take as fact. Why are they not acting on this dire news? There actions or lack there of speaks volumes saying what I am not sure?
as an ignorant on the subject, I was wondering this morning about the melting ice, and here you post this article. That's intriguing.
I did just now google ice v water, and found this...
so help me understand, in a nutshell if possible:
1. as the icecap melts, it occupies less space in water form...therefore, why would sea level rise anyway?
2. If the icecap melting - and maybe other factors including more rain falling - does raise sea level, how much icecap is there that can be melted, and does it REALLY raise all the ocean levels up to 33 feet?
quasi-unrelated - are the icecaps "salt water", "fresh water", or somewhere in between? Does their melting have a greater effect on sea life than it will on sea level?
Melting sea ice actually increases sea level marginally because fresh water has a greater volume than salt water.
Melting sea ice is not what will accelerate sea level rise in coming decades. The sea level rise will be spurred by glaciers calving into oceans, perhaps after sea ice supporting the glaciers melts away. Just the collapse into the ocean of one threatened Antarctica glacier, the Thwaites glacier, could raise ocean sea levels almost immediately by three meters (about 10 feet).
A powerful new NASA satellite likely will provide enhanced empirical evidence of ice melt rates (and dangers) in coming years. It may be the satellite that saves the world.
Ice melt from land surface sheet ice will be the biggest contributor, with Antarctica increasingly the largest source of sheet ice melt fresh water flowing into the oceans.
Again, the problem is that surface temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic increasingly are above freezing. This results in a situation, as explained in post one, where sheet ice melt and sea level rise increases exponentially compared to prior decades as surface temperatures now have increased above the freezing point. Although temperatures warmed in past decades, this earlier warming only generally increased the temperatures to levels still below the freezing point. Now, however, warming has reached or passed the tipping point and increases surface temperatures above the freezing point.
As noted in post 1, Arctic temperatures are warming twice as fast as in the rest of the world. As a result, experts studying the melt rates of the Greenland ice sheet warn that future ice sheet melt and resulting sea level rise will "dwarf" what has been seen n the recent past.
Unfortunately, as sea ice disappears, the darker oceans absorb more sunlight and reflect less. Ditto, on land surfaces no longer covered by snow or ice. The end of this article offers a theory that forest fires also are depositing carbon black on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, also reducing reflection and increasing the absorption of sunlight.
So what is called the "albedo effect" is contributing to the "Arctic Amplification" discussed in the recent update to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Arctic Report Card (see post 1).
The albedo effect is not the only negative feedback loop that may accelerate Arctic warming. Perhaps of most concern is the possibility (likelihood?) of a vicious methane feedback loop taking hold.
Methane is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the thawing of frozen methane deposits in the Arctic and deep oceans has the potential to release massive amounts of methane, resulting in a vicious methane feedback loop that could greatly accelerate global and ocean warming, ice melt and sea level rise.
<<Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve.>>
Methane already is contributing 15 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually to the earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide emissions as a result of fossil fuel consumption annually accumulate in the atmosphere at the rate of 35 billion metric tons, by comparison.
Stop blaspheming in the Church of the Warming Planet.
Facts do not support anthropogenic climate change.
Nor have any of the dire predictions (since the 1970s) appeared.
We want to believe.
We want alarmism to drive the world into submission to the globalists who really care about our future.
. . . .
NORTHWEST PASSAGE YACHT SINKS IN THICK ICE https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...thick-ice/amp/
ICE CAP DIDN'T MELT?
The sunken vessel Anahita, like about a dozen other yachts, was on its way east-west through the Northwest Passage. This summer, however, the ice in the Arctic is persistent. Unlike in previous years, so far there has not been a clear path.
[SHAKES FIST AT SKY]
CURSE YOU GLOBAL WARMING!
What am I missing, I see no sign of the movers and shakers giving up their east and west coast water front mansions despite this news that I am sure the vast majority take as fact. Why are they not acting on this dire news? There actions or lack there of speaks volumes saying what I am not sure?
So you are assuming "movers and shakers" (whatever that means and whoever they are) are what? Smarter than everyone else? More rational than everyone else? Understand science better than everyone else? Are able to extrapolate data over long future periods of time better than everyone else? Have access to information that non-movers and shakers don't have? Have so much money they don't care if their house washes away? I don't get what your premise is.
What am I missing, I see no sign of the movers and shakers giving up their east and west coast water front mansions despite this news that I am sure the vast majority take as fact. Why are they not acting on this dire news? There actions or lack there of speaks volumes saying what I am not sure?
^^^^^This. More sky is falling B.S. When the elites change their lavish, fossil fuel sucking lifestyles, I MAY take notice. Until then, it is just an elitist scam to confiscate more of my money for BIG GOVERNMENT to waste.
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.
