Remember me
▼ Content

Sea Level Rise


Sea Level Rise23-01-2017 12:30
joan123456
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hi, I have a small question which a friend of mine asked, and although I new the answer, I could not explain it. I was hoping you can help me.

As glaciers melt, sea level rises immediately at the location of the glacier. However, the water level on the other side of the world is unaffected at that specific moment. The question is, how much time passes until the water level of the sea on the other side of the world raises too? Yes, this might be considered a "stupid"question, but I said it will raise pretty much the same day as one water atom will move the next water atom in a "chain reaction" that will cause water level to rise on the other side of the world close to the speed of sound. My friend said doesn't believe me, and said that it will move like a wave and it can take up to 3 years for the water level to rise on the other side of the world.

How can I explain this to him using non-physics explanations?
23-01-2017 15:32
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
joan123456 wrote:
one water atom will move the next water atom in a "chain reaction" that will cause water level to rise on the other side of the world close to the speed of sound.


Well, I don't have a high school diploma, so I certainly don't have a physics degree. Common sense would tell me that you better not be in a swimming pool when someone else jumps in and displaces water at the speed of sound.
23-01-2017 18:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tsunamis provide an indication of the rate at which the water surface flattens out after a disturbance. Given that they generally take a few hours to die down, that would be the sort of timescale you'd be looking at. This is much shorter than the timescales associated with glacier melting, so I would think that this "flattening time" is negligible.

Perhaps of more interest is the fact that the sea level close to the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica will initially fall as they melt due to reduced gravitational attraction of the nearby water. The largest sea level rises will be in places far away from either ice sheet.
23-01-2017 19:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5357)
GasGuzzler wrote:
joan123456 wrote:
one water atom will move the next water atom in a "chain reaction" that will cause water level to rise on the other side of the world close to the speed of sound.


Well, I don't have a high school diploma, so I certainly don't have a physics degree. Common sense would tell me that you better not be in a swimming pool when someone else jumps in and displaces water at the speed of sound.


Ooooh, THAT belly flop is gonna hurt!


The Parrot Killer
23-01-2017 20:10
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1129)
joan123456 wrote:
Hi, I have a small question which a friend of mine asked, and although I new the answer, I could not explain it. I was hoping you can help me.

As glaciers melt, sea level rises immediately at the location of the glacier. However, the water level on the other side of the world is unaffected at that specific moment. The question is, how much time passes until the water level of the sea on the other side of the world raises too? Yes, this might be considered a "stupid"question, but I said it will raise pretty much the same day as one water atom will move the next water atom in a "chain reaction" that will cause water level to rise on the other side of the world close to the speed of sound. My friend said doesn't believe me, and said that it will move like a wave and it can take up to 3 years for the water level to rise on the other side of the world.

How can I explain this to him using non-physics explanations?


If there is a tiny amount of ice melt then the effect will take a long time to get anywhere.

For significant amounts then it will be quicker with the eventual equilibrium point being far down the time line if you are measuring to the thousanths of mm.

That said how do you measure sea level to such accuracy or even define it to such an accuracy????

The amounts of ice melt being talked about for Greenland are less than 1mm of sea level rise over the whole world per year.

How long will it take to get all over the world? I don't care!!
02-02-2017 04:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.
02-02-2017 10:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.

Yes, we know all about post-glacial rebound. You obviously don't though. The northern parts of America, Asia and Europe, which were under ice sheets 20,000 years ago (when it was colder than today), are indeed rebounding. However, the southern parts of these continents are sinking, just as the other end of a see-saw does when you take the weight off the other side. This effect is particularly noticeable in the southern USA, for example, where it is adding to the effect of rising seas.

Please do just a little research on the topic if you want to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.
02-02-2017 17:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.

Yes, we know all about post-glacial rebound. You obviously don't though. The northern parts of America, Asia and Europe, which were under ice sheets 20,000 years ago (when it was colder than today), are indeed rebounding. However, the southern parts of these continents are sinking, just as the other end of a see-saw does when you take the weight off the other side. This effect is particularly noticeable in the southern USA, for example, where it is adding to the effect of rising seas.

Please do just a little research on the topic if you want to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.


Tell you what, I'll stop making a fool of myself when you do the same:

"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.WaxmdDIA.dpuf
02-02-2017 17:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.

Yes, we know all about post-glacial rebound. You obviously don't though. The northern parts of America, Asia and Europe, which were under ice sheets 20,000 years ago (when it was colder than today), are indeed rebounding. However, the southern parts of these continents are sinking, just as the other end of a see-saw does when you take the weight off the other side. This effect is particularly noticeable in the southern USA, for example, where it is adding to the effect of rising seas.

Please do just a little research on the topic if you want to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.


Tell you what, I'll stop making a fool of myself when you do the same:

"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.WaxmdDIA.dpuf

What does that have to do with post-glacial rebound?
02-02-2017 18:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.

Yes, we know all about post-glacial rebound. You obviously don't though. The northern parts of America, Asia and Europe, which were under ice sheets 20,000 years ago (when it was colder than today), are indeed rebounding. However, the southern parts of these continents are sinking, just as the other end of a see-saw does when you take the weight off the other side. This effect is particularly noticeable in the southern USA, for example, where it is adding to the effect of rising seas.

Please do just a little research on the topic if you want to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.


Tell you what, I'll stop making a fool of myself when you do the same:

"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.WaxmdDIA.dpuf

What does that have to do with post-glacial rebound?


I'm afraid that you are past the age of having your diapers changed and where the words "Duhhhhhhh" are amusing.
02-02-2017 19:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.

Yes, we know all about post-glacial rebound. You obviously don't though. The northern parts of America, Asia and Europe, which were under ice sheets 20,000 years ago (when it was colder than today), are indeed rebounding. However, the southern parts of these continents are sinking, just as the other end of a see-saw does when you take the weight off the other side. This effect is particularly noticeable in the southern USA, for example, where it is adding to the effect of rising seas.

Please do just a little research on the topic if you want to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.


Tell you what, I'll stop making a fool of myself when you do the same:

"The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). "

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/01/new-papers-confirm-sea-levels-arent-rising-fast-enough-coastal-land-area-growing-not-shrinking/#sthash.WaxmdDIA.dpuf

What does that have to do with post-glacial rebound?


I'm afraid that you are past the age of having your diapers changed and where the words "Duhhhhhhh" are amusing.

A response sadly typical of the science deniers.
02-02-2017 20:18
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
A response sadly typical of the science deniers.


I have spent 40 years in engineering, research and development, working on the first proper heart/lung machine, the first DNA analyzer used firstly to clear the Blood Banking system of HIV and then as a full scale analyzer. I have developed both liquid and gas chromatographs. I have worked on high energy nuclear research and increasing the power of the Berkeley Rad Lab cyclotron. I have worked at both Lawrence Laboratories and Sandia National Laboratories.

I haven't yet read anything about your qualifications. So would you be good enough to give a brief summary of your qualifications to spout such garbage that a first year chem student is rolling in the aisles?
02-02-2017 20:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
A response sadly typical of the science deniers.


I have spent 40 years in engineering, research and development, working on the first proper heart/lung machine, the first DNA analyzer used firstly to clear the Blood Banking system of HIV and then as a full scale analyzer. I have developed both liquid and gas chromatographs. I have worked on high energy nuclear research and increasing the power of the Berkeley Rad Lab cyclotron. I have worked at both Lawrence Laboratories and Sandia National Laboratories.

I haven't yet read anything about your qualifications. So would you be good enough to give a brief summary of your qualifications to spout such garbage that a first year chem student is rolling in the aisles?

I'm not interested in your personal delusions; I'm interested in whatever rational arguments you may bring to this debate.

We were talking about post-glacial rebound. Do you seriously believe that the scientists who measure changes in sea level don't take post-glacial rebound into account in their measurements?
02-02-2017 21:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1129)
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.


The average of tidal guages is that the sea level is rising but when you look at tectonically stable places the numbers show no real change.

I think the re-rebound may be happening with the eventual, even never reached balance point being far away.
02-02-2017 22:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
This page on the CU Sea Level Research Group website gives a useful insight into post-glacial rebound (aka glacial isostatic adjustment) and how it is taken into account when measuring global sea levels:

What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it?
03-02-2017 21:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.


The average of tidal guages is that the sea level is rising but when you look at tectonically stable places the numbers show no real change.

I think the re-rebound may be happening with the eventual, even never reached balance point being far away.


What is happening that the Warmies can't fathom is that post glacial rebound changes the center of mass of the Earth. This means that while sea levels on the whole are rising, they are are receding in areas around the continents as average density is reduced by the rebound. This will not be for long as sea levels continue to rise but my guess is that we are already over the hump of our present warm period and global cooling is presently happening.

The disappearance of the 19 years of no gain was achieved by "correcting" the last 20 years and then claiming 2916 as "the hottest year ever" by ignoring the fact that this "hottest" was by 1/20th the possible errors.
03-02-2017 21:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.


The average of tidal guages is that the sea level is rising but when you look at tectonically stable places the numbers show no real change.

I think the re-rebound may be happening with the eventual, even never reached balance point being far away.


What is happening that the Warmies can't fathom is that post glacial rebound changes the center of mass of the Earth. This means that while sea levels on the whole are rising, they are are receding in areas around the continents as average density is reduced by the rebound. This will not be for long as sea levels continue to rise but my guess is that we are already over the hump of our present warm period and global cooling is presently happening.

That just makes no sense at all. Please link to wherever you are getting your information from, so that we can read it as it was before it was garbled by your addled brain. Or are you just making it up?
03-02-2017 21:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.


The average of tidal guages is that the sea level is rising but when you look at tectonically stable places the numbers show no real change.

I think the re-rebound may be happening with the eventual, even never reached balance point being far away.


What is happening that the Warmies can't fathom is that post glacial rebound changes the center of mass of the Earth. This means that while sea levels on the whole are rising, they are are receding in areas around the continents as average density is reduced by the rebound. This will not be for long as sea levels continue to rise but my guess is that we are already over the hump of our present warm period and global cooling is presently happening.

That just makes no sense at all. Please link to wherever you are getting your information from, so that we can read it as it was before it was garbled by your addled brain. Or are you just making it up?


Let me explain something to you - if YOU don't like my answer PROVE ME WRONG. Don't ask me to hold your hand.

The sea levels in the world are centered around the areas of the greatest mass density and that means that the sea levels grow more near the deep ocean where the weight of the oceans cause the greatest compression of the mantle.

Because this is beyond your comprehension I am not going to hold your hand and explain that when the glaciers melt and you get post glacial rebound that the average density reduces and the center of gravity of the earth changes.

Why don't you just keep repeating "Duhhhhh". At least we can understand you then.
03-02-2017 22:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is this thing called post glacial rebound. So while we have rising sea levels the continents are rising faster than the sea levels are. Rather inappropriately for the scare tactics of the Warmies the land is growing faster than the water levels.


The average of tidal guages is that the sea level is rising but when you look at tectonically stable places the numbers show no real change.

I think the re-rebound may be happening with the eventual, even never reached balance point being far away.


What is happening that the Warmies can't fathom is that post glacial rebound changes the center of mass of the Earth. This means that while sea levels on the whole are rising, they are are receding in areas around the continents as average density is reduced by the rebound. This will not be for long as sea levels continue to rise but my guess is that we are already over the hump of our present warm period and global cooling is presently happening.

That just makes no sense at all. Please link to wherever you are getting your information from, so that we can read it as it was before it was garbled by your addled brain. Or are you just making it up?


Let me explain something to you - if YOU don't like my answer PROVE ME WRONG. Don't ask me to hold your hand.

The sea levels in the world are centered around the areas of the greatest mass density and that means that the sea levels grow more near the deep ocean where the weight of the oceans cause the greatest compression of the mantle.

Because this is beyond your comprehension I am not going to hold your hand and explain that when the glaciers melt and you get post glacial rebound that the average density reduces and the center of gravity of the earth changes.

Why don't you just keep repeating "Duhhhhh". At least we can understand you then.

It's not possible to prove wrong something that is simply nonsensical. I repeat, post a link to a description of whatever phenomenon it is that you're trying to explain. What you've written is just cargo-cult gibberish. Sciencey-sounding words strung together arbitrarily.
06-02-2017 19:18
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
It's not possible to prove wrong something that is simply nonsensical. I repeat, post a link to a description of whatever phenomenon it is that you're trying to explain. What you've written is just cargo-cult gibberish. Sciencey-sounding words strung together arbitrarily.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the one that doesn't think that natural carbon dioxide and that from fossil fuel cannot be told apart from one another by chromatography despite the fact that it has been done for at least 70 years?

While it requires mass spec to obtain detailed numbers the ratios in the atmosphere are so broad that the method being used by the OCO is close enough for Government work.
06-02-2017 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5357)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
It's not possible to prove wrong something that is simply nonsensical. I repeat, post a link to a description of whatever phenomenon it is that you're trying to explain. What you've written is just cargo-cult gibberish. Sciencey-sounding words strung together arbitrarily.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the one that doesn't think that natural carbon dioxide and that from fossil fuel cannot be told apart from one another by chromatography despite the fact that it has been done for at least 70 years?

While it requires mass spec to obtain detailed numbers the ratios in the atmosphere are so broad that the method being used by the OCO is close enough for Government work.


Good luck. You're trying to explain this stuff to people that think the water level in a glass will rise when the ice melts in it.

What these people don't realize is that it is not possible to measure absolute sea level. There is no reference to go by, other than the thing you are trying to measure.

Sea level does vary across the sea, relatively speaking. That variance is caused by high and low pressure areas of the atmosphere above it (the weather). Satellites measure this relative change quite accurately, but they cannot produce an absolute level for the sea.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2017 21:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.
06-02-2017 22:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


The largest part of this oceanic rise is not melting glaciers. Most of those have melted pretty much as much as they are going to. The glaciers above 6-8,000 ft are not going to melt.

This rise in sea level is due almost entirely due to thermal expansion and as the climate cools off with the ending of this present warm period the ocean levels will drop as well. And with the drop in temperature the CO2 will start to subside as well since the warming of the oceans reduces the levels of phytoplankton and the cooler oceans will begin pulling the CO2 back into suspension..
06-02-2017 22:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


The largest part of this oceanic rise is not melting glaciers. Most of those have melted pretty much as much as they are going to. The glaciers above 6-8,000 ft are not going to melt.

This rise in sea level is due almost entirely due to thermal expansion and as the climate cools off with the ending of this present warm period the ocean levels will drop as well. And with the drop in temperature the CO2 will start to subside as well since the warming of the oceans reduces the levels of phytoplankton and the cooler oceans will begin pulling the CO2 back into suspension..

Reference?
06-02-2017 23:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1129)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


The largest part of this oceanic rise is not melting glaciers. Most of those have melted pretty much as much as they are going to. The glaciers above 6-8,000 ft are not going to melt.

This rise in sea level is due almost entirely due to thermal expansion and as the climate cools off with the ending of this present warm period the ocean levels will drop as well. And with the drop in temperature the CO2 will start to subside as well since the warming of the oceans reduces the levels of phytoplankton and the cooler oceans will begin pulling the CO2 back into suspension..


I have looked at the data from day length. It shows a clear movement of mass to the poles.

The sea level rise we see could be due to the drying out of central Asia due to the loss of the Arel sea and the similar drying of Northern China, again due to bad land management of communist nations.

I do not see that thermal expansion can be that much of an issue since the air above the sea has to warm before the ocean's energy budget can alter. I read a paper produced for the IPCC by some mechanical engineers who have fully understood all the dynamics and heating charicteristics of large bodies of water for a long time. Burried at page 3753 or so there was a graph which showed that if the temperature increased by 1c today in 100 years thermal expansion would be 14cm. Given the projections of a 3.4c rise by 2100 (from now) that would be about 20c or 8 inches.

Also the sea bed is not known to be 100% stable. In fact we know it is not stable. Given we are overdue an earthquake storm I cannot see any reason to think that there cannot be a bulging of the ocean floor.

Further, we should not be using the averge of all tidal guages. We should be using only those which are isostatically stable. That is not moving up, or more usually down, thus making the whole average of tidal guages look like the sea level is rising.
07-02-2017 00:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


The largest part of this oceanic rise is not melting glaciers. Most of those have melted pretty much as much as they are going to. The glaciers above 6-8,000 ft are not going to melt.

This rise in sea level is due almost entirely due to thermal expansion and as the climate cools off with the ending of this present warm period the ocean levels will drop as well. And with the drop in temperature the CO2 will start to subside as well since the warming of the oceans reduces the levels of phytoplankton and the cooler oceans will begin pulling the CO2 back into suspension..


I have looked at the data from day length. It shows a clear movement of mass to the poles.

The sea level rise we see could be due to the drying out of central Asia due to the loss of the Arel sea and the similar drying of Northern China, again due to bad land management of communist nations.

I do not see that thermal expansion can be that much of an issue since the air above the sea has to warm before the ocean's energy budget can alter. I read a paper produced for the IPCC by some mechanical engineers who have fully understood all the dynamics and heating charicteristics of large bodies of water for a long time. Burried at page 3753 or so there was a graph which showed that if the temperature increased by 1c today in 100 years thermal expansion would be 14cm. Given the projections of a 3.4c rise by 2100 (from now) that would be about 20c or 8 inches.

Also the sea bed is not known to be 100% stable. In fact we know it is not stable. Given we are overdue an earthquake storm I cannot see any reason to think that there cannot be a bulging of the ocean floor.

Further, we should not be using the averge of all tidal guages. We should be using only those which are isostatically stable. That is not moving up, or more usually down, thus making the whole average of tidal guages look like the sea level is rising.

References?
07-02-2017 08:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5357)
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


Radar altimeters are measuring against the land surface below, which is moving, sinking, rising, tilting, etc. The reference station is on the same land as the tidal stations are on. It references it's altitude to sea level...the thing you are trying to measure.

You can't use data that is referenced against itself. That is not a valid measurement.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2017 19:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1129)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


The largest part of this oceanic rise is not melting glaciers. Most of those have melted pretty much as much as they are going to. The glaciers above 6-8,000 ft are not going to melt.

This rise in sea level is due almost entirely due to thermal expansion and as the climate cools off with the ending of this present warm period the ocean levels will drop as well. And with the drop in temperature the CO2 will start to subside as well since the warming of the oceans reduces the levels of phytoplankton and the cooler oceans will begin pulling the CO2 back into suspension..


I have looked at the data from day length. It shows a clear movement of mass to the poles.

The sea level rise we see could be due to the drying out of central Asia due to the loss of the Arel sea and the similar drying of Northern China, again due to bad land management of communist nations.

I do not see that thermal expansion can be that much of an issue since the air above the sea has to warm before the ocean's energy budget can alter. I read a paper produced for the IPCC by some mechanical engineers who have fully understood all the dynamics and heating charicteristics of large bodies of water for a long time. Burried at page 3753 or so there was a graph which showed that if the temperature increased by 1c today in 100 years thermal expansion would be 14cm. Given the projections of a 3.4c rise by 2100 (from now) that would be about 20c or 8 inches.

Also the sea bed is not known to be 100% stable. In fact we know it is not stable. Given we are overdue an earthquake storm I cannot see any reason to think that there cannot be a bulging of the ocean floor.

Further, we should not be using the averge of all tidal guages. We should be using only those which are isostatically stable. That is not moving up, or more usually down, thus making the whole average of tidal guages look like the sea level is rising.

References?


For which bit, although I am afraid that the paper on sea level rise due to thermal expansion I have lost long ago.

The IPCC's estimats for it is low as well though I think.
08-02-2017 21:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:



See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.


The largest part of this oceanic rise is not melting glaciers. Most of those have melted pretty much as much as they are going to. The glaciers above 6-8,000 ft are not going to melt.

This rise in sea level is due almost entirely due to thermal expansion and as the climate cools off with the ending of this present warm period the ocean levels will drop as well. And with the drop in temperature the CO2 will start to subside as well since the warming of the oceans reduces the levels of phytoplankton and the cooler oceans will begin pulling the CO2 back into suspension..


I have looked at the data from day length. It shows a clear movement of mass to the poles.

The sea level rise we see could be due to the drying out of central Asia due to the loss of the Arel sea and the similar drying of Northern China, again due to bad land management of communist nations.

I do not see that thermal expansion can be that much of an issue since the air above the sea has to warm before the ocean's energy budget can alter. I read a paper produced for the IPCC by some mechanical engineers who have fully understood all the dynamics and heating charicteristics of large bodies of water for a long time. Burried at page 3753 or so there was a graph which showed that if the temperature increased by 1c today in 100 years thermal expansion would be 14cm. Given the projections of a 3.4c rise by 2100 (from now) that would be about 20c or 8 inches.

Also the sea bed is not known to be 100% stable. In fact we know it is not stable. Given we are overdue an earthquake storm I cannot see any reason to think that there cannot be a bulging of the ocean floor.

Further, we should not be using the averge of all tidal guages. We should be using only those which are isostatically stable. That is not moving up, or more usually down, thus making the whole average of tidal guages look like the sea level is rising.

References?


For which bit, although I am afraid that the paper on sea level rise due to thermal expansion I have lost long ago.

The IPCC's estimats for it is low as well though I think.


I would estimate the thermal expansion to be somewhere around 0.04% per degree C. What that would mean in terms of sea level rise I would have to think about for awhile.
08-02-2017 21:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:

See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.

Radar altimeters are measuring against the land surface below, which is moving, sinking, rising, tilting, etc.

No, they're not. Look at the answer to first question in the FAQ:

In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth).

Edited on 08-02-2017 21:55
09-02-2017 01:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5357)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:

See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.

Radar altimeters are measuring against the land surface below, which is moving, sinking, rising, tilting, etc.

No, they're not. Look at the answer to first question in the FAQ:

In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth).


Yes they are. The FAQ only provides a definition, not a reference.


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2017 10:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:

See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.

Radar altimeters are measuring against the land surface below, which is moving, sinking, rising, tilting, etc.

No, they're not. Look at the answer to first question in the FAQ:

In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth).


Yes they are. The FAQ only provides a definition, not a reference.

No, they are not. The FAQ states quite clearly that the measurements are made relative to the centre of the Earth. It's there in black and white. That's what a "geocentric reference frame" means.
09-02-2017 22:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5357)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:

See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.

Radar altimeters are measuring against the land surface below, which is moving, sinking, rising, tilting, etc.

No, they're not. Look at the answer to first question in the FAQ:

In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth).


Yes they are. The FAQ only provides a definition, not a reference.

No, they are not. The FAQ states quite clearly that the measurements are made relative to the centre of the Earth. It's there in black and white. That's what a "geocentric reference frame" means.


I read that part. That is not a reference for the satellite however. It is just a designated point of zero for a scale.


The Parrot Killer
10-02-2017 01:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
It certainly is possible to measure changes in global sea level, and satellites equipped with radar altimeters have been used to do exactly that. This is what they have measured:

See CU Sea Level Research Group - University of Colorado for information on how global mean sea level is defined and how corrections for glacial isostatic adjustment are made.

Radar altimeters are measuring against the land surface below, which is moving, sinking, rising, tilting, etc.

No, they're not. Look at the answer to first question in the FAQ:

In satellite altimetry, the measurements are made in a geocentric reference frame (relative to the center of the Earth).


Yes they are. The FAQ only provides a definition, not a reference.

No, they are not. The FAQ states quite clearly that the measurements are made relative to the centre of the Earth. It's there in black and white. That's what a "geocentric reference frame" means.


I read that part. That is not a reference for the satellite however. It is just a designated point of zero for a scale.

You may have read it, but you don't seem to have absorbed its meaning. The centre of the Earth is the designated point of zero for the scale used by the satellites to measure the sea level. That is the point they use. That's why it says so in the FAQ.




Join the debate Sea Level Rise:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Antarctica ( Amundsen Sea )222-06-2018 17:30
The seasonal increase in water level of the seas and oceans001-05-2018 16:16
As the fog clears, temperatures begin to rise...509-04-2018 21:32
Winter Sea Ice Sets Record525-03-2018 18:27
Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting4320-03-2018 21:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact