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.
Even if I was to live for another 100 years I still would not be concerned. I am 19 miles from the shoreline but I'm almost 300ft above sea level.
I'm not concerned either. Not one bit and I live by the coast, on flatland MD so about 4ft above sea level. And I work on the water and have traveled extensively up and down the coast for 30 years. Funny how with all this sea level rise and our east coast cities being under water that the docks at the marinas up and down the coast are the same height from mean high water that they have been for years.
not going to happen...guess you never heard of tectonic plates
thank about this for a minute...the tower of London was built 1000 years ago...at sea level....and it still exists, still is at sea level, and not under water
What the devil does that have to do with what i typed magoo? Once sea temps run away the jet stream goes away ray. Massive die off's will be 140 years out. Not that i am gonna murry as all of us banging away on here will be dead fred way before we get to that point.
William the Conqueror began building, what is now known as the Tower of London, in 1078. The Tower is situated on the north bank of the river Thames, within the tidal section at the eastern extremity of London. There were no flood-control locks at this time, the first being built in 1633. The Tower was constructed a few feet above the high tide mark and still sits a few feet above the high tide mark. Many tapestries and paintings of the Tower shortly after its completion show that the sea level has not changed! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Tower_(1).JPG
1000 years and no significant sealevel change
the sea level is the same as it was 150 years ago
the sealevel is nearly the same as it was in 1842
...in fact it is BELOW the sealevel mark made in 1842
In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" reference mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
For a wonderful examination of Sea Level change from 1841 to 2004, this picture is worth a thousand words:
The 1841 sea level benchmark (centre) on the ‘Isle of the Dead’, Tasmania. According to Antarctic explorer, Capt. Sir James Clark Ross, it marked mean sea level in 1841. Photo taken at low tide 20 Jan 2004. Mark is 50 cm across; tidal range is less than a metre.
Let’s read that again and consider four things:
#1) - the mark was placed at mean sea level. The word “mean” in this use denotes the “mathematical average”. The sea rose above it and set below it by an equal amount during the tidal cycle.
#2) - The mark was made in the middle of the tidal range in 1841 and it was photographed 163 years later at the bottom of the tidal cycle.
#3) - the tidal cycle is one meter and the mark is 50 centimeters or one-half meter long.
#4) - the mark is sitting about 30 or 40 centimeters above the water in the photograph. Given that there is some wave surge, it looks like the level of the ocean has not changed one bit in 163 years.
Land rises in some areas and falls in others. Of course there will be some places where land has risen over the past 100 or 1000 years at the exact same rate as general sea level rise. That doesn't mean the sea isn't rising.
The Tower was constructed a few feet above the high tide mark and still sits a few feet above the high tide mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Land rises in some areas and falls in others. Of course there will be some places where land has risen over the past 100 or 1000 years at the exact same rate as general sea level rise. That doesn't mean the sea isn't rising.
guys.....London is sinking....not rising
"Unfortunately London and the South East are sinking, irrespectively of climate change, at the rate of about 2 millimetres per year, which makes around 20 centimetres a century."
Given the impending doom of CO2 and the need for strong immediate action, clearly we need to shut down as many nuclear power plants as possible and then burn natural gas and coal to make up the shortfall in energy production.
you keep dancing around this fact...all of the increase in CO2....all of the increase in global warming...has come directly or indirectly from China
USA CO2 emissions have not increased....USA emissions are the same as it was 50 years ago
....for the past 50 years....China has been 100% responsible for all of the increase in global warming
obviously....China does not think global warming is a problem for them at all
We have no right to tell other countries to cut down on their pollution after we've already gone through our industrialization phase making us cumulatively the largest polluter in the history of the world.
US per capita is far worse than China's and that's including the fact that we offshored our pollution to other countries that produce the goods that we purchase.
Perhaps you might want to direct your disgust for pollution towards our military which is one of the biggest polluters on Earth, poisoning our own people in Hawaii.
We have no right to tell other countries to cut down on their pollution after we've already gone through our industrialization phase making us cumulatively the largest polluter in the history of the world.
I see, so you would say the same thing about lead, arsenic, mercury, CFC's, DDT, etc etc
..guess since the whole world banned that crap....global warming is not that dangerous at all then is it?
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.