sda2.jpg

September 27, 2009

Put on your snorkels! Head for the hills!

...but take your time; there's no rush. The IPCC's own Third Assessment Report estimated that the global sea level is rising at a rate of 1.0 to 2.4 millimetres - one-tenth to one twenty-fifth of an inch per year. There is some regional variability; in the south of China, for example, the sea rises about a tenth of an inch per year, while in northern China it rises at a rate of approximately one-fiftieth of an inch per year.

United States President Barack Obama, speaking at the U.N., sees the grave danger...

"Rising sea levels threaten every coastline...On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes..."

...and raises taxes:

"And yet, we can reverse it...we're making our government's largest ever investment in renewable energy-- an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits -- projects that are creating new jobs and new industries. We're investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances -- helping American families save money on energy bills in the process. We've proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks -- a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil. We're moving forward with our nation's first offshore wind energy projects. We're investing billions to capture carbon pollution..."

Yes, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who stand idly by, and those who understand that we simply must act now.

Posted by EBD at September 27, 2009 7:12 PM
Comments

How does cutting emissions "reverse it"?

Posted by: allan at September 27, 2009 7:20 PM

Stupid,bumbling,ignorant,hypocritical,brain dead,lefturd,communist,socialist,eco-cultist a**holes.Hope I didn't miss anything.
Oh. And we should support the OWE on this one.I can see the US businesses heading our way(out west of Mcguintyland)now,and it is one looonnnggg,welcome line.

Posted by: Justthinkin at September 27, 2009 7:22 PM

Thanks for the Armstrong & Miller, EBD: absolutely brilliant stuff. And it is true, the main reason why I've decided to stand idly by is because the people who understand that we must act now are actually causing more trouble than they're worth. I mean, 997 out of 1,000 times, we don't need to act now, but there's money to be made in selling those other three cases, so we're endlessly besieged by shysters who are selling other than those three cases.

The simplest example of this is that we would be better off increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by a factor of four (unfortunately, humans alone can't do that), and raising the temperature by a few degrees (unfortunately, humans alone can't do that), but you tell that to kids these days: they won't believe you.

Posted by: Vitruvius at September 27, 2009 7:23 PM

I'd be afraid, after all, your shoes may get wet in about......300 million years if you live in Halifax

Posted by: robins111 at September 27, 2009 7:29 PM

Funny how all those coral atolls that have survived thousands of years of rising ocean levels are now, somehow in danger of flooding due to global warming induced rising oceans.

Funny how coral atolls that have adjusted their elevations for centuries by natural growth now are getting flooded. Maybe it has something to do with the Islanders overfishing all the fish that eat coral and digest it out as sand. Kill off the fish, and the coral can't keep itself healthy and the islands sink.

And all those impoverished Islanders start screaming to be taken in as refugees into New Zealand & Australia, where the welfare flows and life is easy if you can carry off a good climate refugee scam.

Posted by: Fred at September 27, 2009 7:35 PM

Obamugabe is obviously not bright enough to be the anti-christ. I'm even starting to doubt he is the Gunga-Din for the coming anti-John the Baptist precursor sent to smooth the path. Oh well.

Posted by: Sgt Lejaune at September 27, 2009 7:40 PM

EBD, thanks for the Armstrong and Miller link. I needed a change from the CTV comedy show.

Thank goodness Saskatoon is 1800 feet above sea level. My kids have time to get ready for the deluge.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at September 27, 2009 7:43 PM

Ah, but Vitruvius, if you were stand by the ocean for a full year, and you kept looking and looking, and you saw the water rising by one millimetre a year (bear in mind that to see it you'd have to try to avoid being confused by all that back-and-forth tidal sloshing) perhaps you'd be whipped into a state of appropriate panic and you'd realize that those who, say, smash windows at Starbucks, are actually the ones who are making things better, unlike you, who by standing idly by for such a long time only make things worse, both for yourself, in the form of varicose veins, and the CO2 in your exhalations, but also for the next generation, through the bad example you'd be setting.

Try thinking for a change about the billions of people whose houses and cities are built a half an inch above ocean level, and who don't know how to build a six-inch levee, and...and...

I have no time for your complacency.

Posted by: EBD at September 27, 2009 7:46 PM

So lessee here my GPS says I'm about 668 meters above sea level. So in about six hundred sixty seven thousand years I will some ocean front property.

WooHoo, my property value just went up.

You won't tell the city that will you? They'll just raise the property taxes.

Posted by: Joe at September 27, 2009 7:46 PM

One of these days, they're going to stumble across the true cause of these menacing microscopic variations in sea water levels - the aggregated hot flashes of menopausal baby-boom women - and then things are going to get very uncomfortable indeed for any overheated fifty-ish woman who dares to be seen wielding a hand fan. "Mummy, please! You're killing the polar bears!"

Posted by: exetaz at September 27, 2009 7:46 PM

Well, EBD, I might have pointed out that I've been telling people for decades not to build so close to the water-line (other than in the case of boat-servicing facilities of course), so I wan't being completely complacent, but in light of Exetaz's comment, clearly my point would have been simply inadequate ;-)

Posted by: Vitruvius at September 27, 2009 7:56 PM

In the arctic the land is still rising faster than the sea is rising , by a ratio of better than 10 to 1, isostatic rebound.

and all those coral islands above the water is proof that the sealevel has fallen , one doesnt get coral growing above the water. now thats an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: cal2 at September 27, 2009 7:56 PM

Perhaps someone could explain how these small increments can be accurately determined. What with coastline erosion and techtonic plate movements making shoreline measurements is complete folly.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at September 27, 2009 8:09 PM

"... carbon pollution."

Sickening twisting of the truth that BO is so very prone to doing. Is he stupid or willfully lying when he says such things?

Posted by: Gord Tulk at September 27, 2009 8:14 PM

Donning my merman outfit and swim fins 'as we speak'!!

Hailing Noah, NOAH,....NOAAAAGHH!!


Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht-Commander in Chief
Army Group "True North"
1st St. Nicolaas Army

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at September 27, 2009 8:23 PM

the greenweenies are getting desperate when they use a Wiki-graph(Hanno--who isn't a climate scientist). Compliments of WUWT

Posted by: reg dunlop at September 27, 2009 8:28 PM

Obama's statement is naive. The ocean has been rising steadily since the last ice age.

The real question is, has the rate of rising increased in the last few decades or centuries? That's a difficult question to answer due to numerous confounding effects.

Posted by: rabbit at September 27, 2009 8:46 PM

This is madness. Our local paper had a 16 page insert on green living. Thats right a paper insert, think chainsaws, logging trucks, pulp mills, trucks to ship the paper products to the newspapers, gigantic printing presses, trucks to deliver the papers; all of which uses enormous amounts of energy and expels so much so called green house gases, to deliver a message that probably never got read. I know I didn't read it.

Come on folks lets be real here.

Our town council is passing a bylaw to outlaw drive through access to any business. This is going to save the world I guess. In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a bunch of maroons.

mike

Posted by: mike at September 27, 2009 8:47 PM

Gord- GPS could measure it within a millimeter, or so. My question is, who is set up to take these measurements, and what are their qualifications? It's fairly complicated, what with tides, and a constantly moving substance.

There needs to be a geoid model, since GPS measures from the elipsoid. This model could be manipulated, quite easily, by anyone with a "cause". This sort of thing would have to be done by a licensed surveyor, or engineer. The data would have to be published.

When all is said and done, any true professional would include three little words, "margin of error". This exercise is a waste of time.

Posted by: dp at September 27, 2009 8:54 PM

Isostatic rebound? You mean that I won't have oceanfront property in just over a half a million years? Does that mean I'll be getting a break on my property taxes? I just can't find a down side to this AGW thingy.

Posted by: Joe at September 27, 2009 8:59 PM

Mike @ 8:47 PM.......ya....kinda stupid,isn't it?
Here in Edmonchuk,there is a big panic on about maybe closing one public library because of a funding shortage.I wrote a wee epistle to our local leftie rag,telling them that ALL libraries,and schools,etc.for that matter, should be closed,as they use PAPER,which involves your above analysis.I also expressed my concern as to how all this paper usage was contributing to AGW. Funny.They didn't print it!Who woulda thunk it.

Posted by: Justthinkin at September 27, 2009 9:03 PM

There is no net down-side Joe.
Contrawise, it's not happening.

Posted by: Vitruvius at September 27, 2009 9:04 PM

I wonder if plate tectonics,mantal thermal plumes and ridges have anything to do with the need for swimfins soon.
After all LA. and Frisco are getting closer.
The Arctic Ridge has the slowest rate (less than 2.5 cm/yr), and the East Pacific Rise near Easter Island, in the South Pacific about 3,400 km west of Chile, has the fastest rate (more than 15 cm/yr). http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html
Na didn't think so

Posted by: Cal at September 27, 2009 9:05 PM

cal2, it's possible that arctic land elevations are only appearing to rise relative to ocean levels - that what looks like isostatic rebound is in fact polar bears standing on their toes when measurements are being taken. They have long toes, and are known to be devious.

Posted by: exetaz at September 27, 2009 9:38 PM

It's not happening Vit?

Think of the raspberries!

Oh the humanity!

Sob!!!

Posted by: Joe at September 27, 2009 9:39 PM

Chicken or the egg debate: who is more stupid- Obama or the people who voted for him?
Discuss.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at September 27, 2009 9:40 PM

I attribute the 1mm rise in ocean levels to the displacement of cargo ships. Ban all ocean vessels now!
Stop HIOO! (Human Induced Ocean Overflow)

Posted by: ChrisinMB at September 27, 2009 9:50 PM

How are the Green Jobs working out in Europe?
http://depletedcranium.com/people-are-starting-to-get-it/

Posted by: Fred at September 27, 2009 9:55 PM

More windmills on the off-shore drilling rigs oughta fix it, as well as a drain on the ocean floor. Yup

Posted by: TexasLindsay at September 27, 2009 9:57 PM

well. I think that . . . that . . . aaahhhh . . . . aaaaaahhhh . . . . .
aaaahh CHOO !!!!

oh my.

I just raised the sea level 1.536 E 10-25 mm with that sneeze.

what to do, what to do. I know, I will vote Obasealevel and The Wise One will fix all my probs !!!

LOL !!!!

Posted by: curious_george at September 27, 2009 10:08 PM

That's a good point ChrisinMb, but what about the fish,etc. taken out? The guv must start a boat/fish comparison registry as soon as possible/

Posted by: reg dunlop at September 27, 2009 10:23 PM

You just put a fish-catcher over TexasLindsay's ingenious ocean-floor drain, like the ones you use to trap hair and stuff in showers, only way bigger.

Posted by: exetaz at September 27, 2009 10:35 PM

With minor gravity and tidal variations the sea level is the same all over the planet. That is how we determine the land heights ... such as Dever Col. the mile high city. It is a mile above Sea Level.

How can the sea level be rising on one country's coats and rising a different amount on another country's coast. That is huge ignorance.

Another thought here and I welcome any info any of you may have on this.

When the world was formed a few billion (or 6000 years ago for some Christians) there was no water ... the globe was a cooling mass of molten whatever. Eventually it cooled and formed a crust ... you must have heard that term ... the 'earth's crust.'

So where did the water come from?

From what I read it all came from billions of years of comet bombardment. Comets being made of ice and dirt and whatnot. That's another question where did comets come from and how is it they are made of ice?

Nevertheless, the earth is still being bombarded by all kinds of space debris including likely very small amounts of water and dirt and rocks such as meteorites. Over billions of years, this adds to the earth's mass does it not?

If the earth gets a lot bigger, perhaps it's orbit around the sun with change as the earths weight strains the sun's gravitational hold on it. Also as the sun burns off it's mass, it's gravity will decrease adding to this phenomenon.

My point, most of the idiots who are trying to save the planet have probably never even had the thoughts I have put forward here.

I would really welcome opinions from the big brains on this site such as ET and Vitruvius and from anyone who had an opinion of any of this.
Amen

Posted by: Momar at September 27, 2009 10:56 PM

water on earth comes from billions of comets. there is evidence from satellite photos that the earth attracts small comets everyday.

also what the global warming weenies dont say is that the earth looses atmosphere at tonnes per day.

http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=40134

this is all very dependant on where the earth sits in the galactic plane ( or more correctly, where the solar system sits in the galactic plane) or how close to our sister star (Nemesis) we are at the time. a close flyby of nemesis and the oort cloud hails us with dirty snowballs.

Posted by: cal2 at September 27, 2009 11:06 PM

Momar- I don't know where to start, so I won't.

Posted by: dp at September 27, 2009 11:09 PM

OK cal2 but where did the comets get their water? Were comets formed differently than planets and if so how?

Posted by: Joe at September 27, 2009 11:22 PM

dp said "Momar- I don't know where to start, so I won't."

A wise decision. Although it might have been entertaining for the rest of us if you had started. At least you might have solved the the puzzle of where comets made of whatnot come from and their possible contribution to global warming.

Posted by: gord at September 27, 2009 11:29 PM

So if the sea level rises at the maximum rate of 2.4mm per year then in 417 years the sea level will have risen just over 1 meter.... Oh my god run for the hills were all going to die!

Posted by: redneck at September 27, 2009 11:39 PM

But gord through dp and Momar we finally might get an insight into the truth about comets, givers of life and water. All Hail Comet. You can ignore Donder and Blitzen.

Posted by: Joe at September 27, 2009 11:41 PM

How do they know that sea levels are rising? What if it is the continents that are sinking?

Posted by: rmgk at September 28, 2009 12:20 AM

Send Clint Eastwoods answer from 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' when adressing the 'Ugly'; to President BO: 'There are two kinds of people in this world, those with guns and those who dig' (with a shovel).

Posted by: Jema54 at September 28, 2009 1:23 AM

I thought we Americans, the Democrats among us at least, took care of this when we made Obama the Democrat presidential candidate.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

I thought Barack "King Canute" Obama had this under control?

Posted by: tim in vermont at September 28, 2009 7:00 AM

Ian Plimer writes in his book Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science that parts of the continents are still rising from the melting of the ice cap from the last ice age and the removal of this massive weight. Other parts of the land such as south eastern England and the Netherlands are sinking. To compound this the oceans are increasing in weight with the added water and the crust below them are sinking.

Once again the variability and complexity of trying to measure the global sea level is not a simple thing.

When I watch these nature programs where they always refer to climate change as impacting on the animal and plant life yet downplay the fact that humans have for example cut down 80% of the rain forest in Madagascar I am just amazed at the number of so-called scientist have bought into this crap. The climate is always changing and life adapts to it or perishes.

Posted by: Dave at September 28, 2009 7:50 AM

If you need me, I'll be standing idly by out here in the Ottawa Valley.

Posted by: JJM at September 28, 2009 8:29 AM

Here is an oldie but goodie from the BBC on Sea Level

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/467007.stm

Seems like sea captains from the days before computer navigation and satellites, who could still guide a wooden ship to the other side of the world to a small island, didn't know how to properly mark mean sea level. Yeah, that explains it all away, don't it?

Posted by: tim in vermont at September 28, 2009 9:51 AM

How to destroy the Earth

http://qntm.org/?destroy

Posted by: Oz at September 28, 2009 10:41 AM

Gord, dp and everyone else: The IPCC makes its determination of sea levels the same way everyone else does, by using tide gauges. There are a host of problems with this. Tidal and sea levels vary considerably over the years and between regions. Second, tide gauges are on land right at the shoreline. If it's located in a harbour, it is affected by subsidence (a huge distorting effect; all urban development on a seacoast generally sinks over time). Third, tide gauges vary in their age and hence how far back and how accurate their record is.

In the case of the IPCC, they chose to base most of their estimate on the tide gauge in Hong Kong, which greatly distorted the estimates, because Hong Kong has a huge subsidence effect and hence shows a false reading of a large and accelerating sea rise. Use a tide gauge on some rocky island with no urbanization, and you get a very different result.

With respect to the Pacific Islands, most of these were formed by volcanic activity. Once the volcano goes permanently dormant, the island begins to sink again. In the case of Hawaii, all of the Hawaiian Islands, except the Big Island, are subsiding. Second, the measure of island subsidence is sometimes based on measuring soil salinity. Some islands have greatly accelerated their soil salinity by digging up coral reefs to make concrete (Sri Lanka has done this in a huge way.) Absent the coral reef, and the shoreline is much more exposed to harder wave action and penetration of sea water into the soil.

The entire argument over rising sea levels is an appalling example of the selective use, or misuse, of data.

As to the origin of the earth's water, comet bombardment? Don't be silly. The vast majority of the earth's water was formed geologically and vented by volcanic activity. It's where all of the earth's new water comes from today. Much of the emissions from any volcano is steam. Given the mechanics of our solar system, it's an exotically rare event that a comet can enter our solar system, miss the two huge gravity wells of the Sun and Jupiter and hit the Earth. Besides, the amount of water in Oort Cloud comets is limited, consisting as they do also of ethane, methane and hydrogen cyanide.

Posted by: cgh at September 28, 2009 11:03 AM

Yeah cgh has it pretty well nailed.
Volcanic islands fit into 2 categories---high islands and low islands. The high islands are relatively new volcanoes and the low islands are the settled/collapsed remains of older volcanoes.
The very shape of Atolls bears this out---the Atoll is a ring of islands which are the remains of the rim. Truk is an enormous classic example.
The main reason comets are usually icing has to do with their composition.
This solar system is the remnant of the founding accretion disc wherein the heavier components formed the inner "rocky planets" and those beyond the asteroid belt are gas or ice depending upon their distance from the sun.
Our atmosphere (including the oceans) is largely the result of out-gassing of the basic rocky mass. However there is merit to the notion of ancient bombardment by comets---in the early period the Oort cloud logically would be thicker...
Me....I'm still pondering the "Tunguska event" and slowly deducting that it was not a comet hit but rather a natural result of the interaction of the atmosphere with the solar wind that went wild for a moment. Most are unaware that we are literally showered 24/7/365 by a faint precipitation of Carbon14, beryllium10,.....and uranium.
Yeah and the IPCC deliberately cherry picked the readings of ONE tidal gauge in Hong Kong.
Establishing sea level trends is nigh impossible what with plate tectonics, isostatic rebound, subduction....and just plain settling of deltas etc.

Posted by: sasquatch at September 28, 2009 1:14 PM

Wowl

I didn't realize how many astro physisists there were reading this blog.

I would love to see some actual evidence of your 'facts' about where water came from and all your other grand knowledge about the solar system.

Let's start with your credentials ... okay?

Sasquatch your PHD is from ?

CGH you are a graduate of what scientific institute?

And where ever did you two get this indisputable knowledge to make you so certain of what you say?

Posted by: Momar at September 28, 2009 1:57 PM

Yeah well Momar---it's sorta like this....
I'm no astrophysicist but then again I can't play bagpipes either----but I can readily tell when somebody else can't........just by listening.
Those who believe in CO2 AGW are as foolish as the guy standing in the bucket....

Posted by: sasquatch at September 28, 2009 2:56 PM

Saaq,

I wasn't talking about AGW or bagpipes. I was talking about how water appeared on planet earth.

You seemed so sure of your theory that I want to know where this confidence comes from.

I am only going by the 'theory' put forward by the brightest scientific minds work in that area of science. You seem to have something these people are unaware of.

I ask again ... Where did you get your scientific knowledge and training? I do want o believe you, but I need some of that pesky stuff known as evidence.

Posted by: Momar at September 28, 2009 3:22 PM

Speaking of evidence Momar I assume you have incontrovertible proof that comets of yore brought the water to earth. Please provide it along with your credentials in this field. Your audience awaits.

Posted by: Joe at September 28, 2009 3:38 PM

New Orleans and Shanghai are but two cities built on muck that have been sinking for a very long time, surely this must be caused by Glo-Bull Warming too.

Posted by: Bruce at September 28, 2009 3:45 PM

In my opinion, the water on earth
came from hydrogen and oxygen.

Posted by: Vitruvius at September 28, 2009 4:03 PM

So what yer sayin' then Vitruvius is that if you took a large amount of Hydrogen and a large amount of Oxygen and added a hot enough spark you would get a large amount of Water?

You must not be one of "the brightest scientific minds work in that area of science".

Posted by: Joe at September 28, 2009 4:21 PM

What I'm saying, Joe, is what I said: no more, no less.

Posted by: Vitruvius at September 28, 2009 4:45 PM

Seems like Obama is forgeting Scandinavia. I did a calculation for a new nuclear power plant there and we found that we would have to allow for the plant RISING about a meter ABOVE the existing water line over the expected life of the plant.

Turns out this effect is a result of the ending of the last ice age. Without the ice overburden, the crust is bobbing up again out of the semi-fluid mantle beneath.

Too bad for the Dutch because they are sinking as the mantle oozes out from under them.

I think the effect is called "geoisotosity" or somesuch.

Posted by: Whitehall at September 28, 2009 5:00 PM

So the sea near northern China rises at a lesser rate than the sea near southern China. That's an easy one. Somebody done moved the moon 12 feet to the left (probably the russkies).

Ok, wise guys. Now put it back!

Posted by: Brian M. at September 28, 2009 8:21 PM

The bagpipe anology (one of my favourites) obviously was too subtle for momar....
Many factors cause the earth's oceans to bulge or sag----making anything other that large changes in sealevel difficult to quantify----as futile as climate modeling. Identifying an ice-age or interglacial is fairly simple----Identifying changes of mean temperature of single digits are futile.

Posted by: sasquatch at September 28, 2009 8:51 PM

this was a shock for the original panama canal builders. has Al Gore put sea density into his calculations.


http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/puscience/#3

and now a palindrome
amanaplanacanalpanama

Posted by: cal2 at September 28, 2009 10:57 PM

From what I read it all came from billions of years of comet bombardment.

Joe, you ignoramus,

You don't actually read the words on a comment do you?

The above was what I wrote. I did not claim to have any specific knowledge of my own on this subject beyond what I have read from reputable scientific sites. Other people's theory's and research.

I was making suggestions about how things work and we got our water, followed by a request for opinions from people smarter than me. You are certainly not one of them, so how about please shut up unless and until you have something intelligent to say on the subject.

Meanwhile, google 'where did water come from' and read. I know you have trouble reading, but give it a go .... make your pointer follow the words and move your lips while reading. Then try to understand what a string of words is trying to tell you. Several sentences make a paragraph and somewhere in there is a message ... try to find that message.

Posted by: Momar at September 29, 2009 12:52 AM

water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090928.html

now imagine a planet with excess oxygen and higher gravity.

Posted by: cal2 at September 29, 2009 1:07 AM

Momar I know what the message is. I also recognize the mythology behind the message. You, it would seem, either are unaware of the mythology or else you consciously choose to go along with the it. I don't.

Posted by: Joe at September 29, 2009 1:23 AM
Site
Meter