Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Answer: the same natural geology activity that made them the coastlines in the first place. Have you ever heard of Venice, Italy or New Orleans, Louisiana? Multiply that by the entire planet. Some ground is sinking while other ground is rising.

The ocean, however, is neither rising nor dropping, because water can't do that.

I hope this helps.

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Too funny! You are telling us how land, water and sediment all move freely within the oceans but you insist on being able to precisely measure a moving target. You're good! I bet if you were building a house you wouldn't even stop for and earthquake. No need! Moving 2x4s are so easy to accurately measure!

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

I'm totally with you on this one! We had a nasty ice storm here a week ago. I have a photo. 3/4 inch of ice over everything. I'm just really confused about where it is now. There's no ice! Where did it go?

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Too funny! You are telling us how land, water and sediment all move freely within the oceans but you insist on being able to precisely measure a moving target. You're good! I bet if you were building a house you wouldn't even stop for and earthquake. No need! Moving 2x4s are so easy to accurately measure!

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

I'm totally with you on this one! We had a nasty ice storm here a week ago. I have a photo. 3/4 inch of ice over everything. I'm just really confused about where it is now. There's no ice! Where did it go?

GasGuzzler, your exceptional understanding of physics, such as how the SB law applies to ALL matter EVERYWHERE, makes it possible to discuss so-called "sea level rise" on a whole different level.

All the water on Earth has MASS. If you add up all that MASS of water on Earth, you get some kind of finite and reproducible number.

As a physics expert, you understand about conservation of mass.

Water mass can't magically appear or disappear.

As a physics expert, you are also well versed in the specific gravity of matter, and how much volume a given mass of water can occupy at any given temperature or pressure.

Now, you don't actually have to be a MATH expert, but it helps.

Addition or subtraction. Subtract the mass of water that used to be in glaciers and add it to the mass of water in the sea.

Now use your physics expertise to calculate, based on the specific gravity of water, temperature, and pressure, how much VOLUME has been added to the sea.

Yes it is a moving target.

But the total volume is finite.

If the volume of water in the sea increases, what does logic suggest would happen to sea level, if it were somehow theoretically possible to measure it?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Too funny! You are telling us how land, water and sediment all move freely within the oceans but you insist on being able to precisely measure a moving target. You're good! I bet if you were building a house you wouldn't even stop for and earthquake. No need! Moving 2x4s are so easy to accurately measure!

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

I'm totally with you on this one! We had a nasty ice storm here a week ago. I have a photo. 3/4 inch of ice over everything. I'm just really confused about where it is now. There's no ice! Where did it go?

GasGuzzler, your exceptional understanding of physics, such as how the SB law applies to ALL matter EVERYWHERE, makes it possible to discuss so-called "sea level rise" on a whole different level.

All the water on Earth has MASS. If you add up all that MASS of water on Earth, you get some kind of finite and reproducible number.

As a physics expert, you understand about conservation of mass.

Water mass can't magically appear or disappear.

As a physics expert, you are also well versed in the specific gravity of matter, and how much volume a given mass of water can occupy at any given temperature or pressure.

Now, you don't actually have to be a MATH expert, but it helps.

Addition or subtraction. Subtract the mass of water that used to be in glaciers and add it to the mass of water in the sea.

Now use your physics expertise to calculate, based on the specific gravity of water, temperature, and pressure, how much VOLUME has been added to the sea.

Yes it is a moving target.

But the total volume is finite.

If the volume of water in the sea increases, what does logic suggest would happen to sea level, if it were somehow theoretically possible to measure it?

Why do you automatically add missing ice to the sea?

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Too funny! You are telling us how land, water and sediment all move freely within the oceans but you insist on being able to precisely measure a moving target. You're good! I bet if you were building a house you wouldn't even stop for and earthquake. No need! Moving 2x4s are so easy to accurately measure!

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

I'm totally with you on this one! We had a nasty ice storm here a week ago. I have a photo. 3/4 inch of ice over everything. I'm just really confused about where it is now. There's no ice! Where did it go?

GasGuzzler, your exceptional understanding of physics, such as how the SB law applies to ALL matter EVERYWHERE, makes it possible to discuss so-called "sea level rise" on a whole different level.

All the water on Earth has MASS. If you add up all that MASS of water on Earth, you get some kind of finite and reproducible number.

As a physics expert, you understand about conservation of mass.

Water mass can't magically appear or disappear.

As a physics expert, you are also well versed in the specific gravity of matter, and how much volume a given mass of water can occupy at any given temperature or pressure.

Now, you don't actually have to be a MATH expert, but it helps.

Addition or subtraction. Subtract the mass of water that used to be in glaciers and add it to the mass of water in the sea.

Now use your physics expertise to calculate, based on the specific gravity of water, temperature, and pressure, how much VOLUME has been added to the sea.

Yes it is a moving target.

But the total volume is finite.

If the volume of water in the sea increases, what does logic suggest would happen to sea level, if it were somehow theoretically possible to measure it?

Why do you automatically add missing ice to the sea?

You could have displayed at least SOME knowledge of physics with your evasion.

You could have invoked the temperature effect on water volume.

Why do we blame melting glaciers for sea level rise when it is just Global Warming causing a bit of expansion of sea water volume?

There are OTHER places the glacier melt might have gone besides the ocean.

The deserts are growing. Maybe that's where it went.

There is certainly a lot more water in the atmosphere than before.

That can be calculated using physics, if the increase in mass of water in the atmosphere is enough to account for the loss of glacier mass.

But the question you evaded was:

What does logic suggest would happen to sea level if it were somehow theoretically possible to measure it?

Im a BM wrote: On one side of the levee, the ocean is rising. On the other side, the land is sinking.

Im a BM wrote: I don't know if the accelerating sea level rise has caught up yet,

Im a BM wrote: Let's have fun with this one. The sea is not rising. The land is just sinking.

Im a BM wrote: And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now.

Im a BM wrote: Where did it go?

Im a BM wrote:Yes the land is sinking,

Im a BM wrote: Mountains are getting sucked right into the ground.

Im a BM wrote:
"The ground is sinking. The ocean is not rising." - IBdaMann

So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Well, as the spreading sea floor gets pushed down under the edge of the continental plate, the magic reverse pressure from underneath pulls down the elevation of the coastline.

Sea floor is heavier than continental plate, it creates a kind of "wake" as it magically sinks down and pulls down the mountains with it.

Its a little more complicated when two continental plates collide, as where India jams up into Asia. That is where the ground is sinking the fastest. The Himalayas will become a gigantic sink hole as the forces that cause the ground to sink and create the optical illusion of sea level rise...

Actually, Jakarta Indonesia, the peatland IS sinking even faster than the sea level is rising. They are going to have to relocate most of the city.

Sarcasm aside, picture the basic physics. Coastline gets pushed up HIGHER when sea floor gets jammed under it. That's how you get mountain ranges like the Sierra Nevada, now half washed away by erosion. Or the much more recently uplifted Coast range on the West Coast.

"The ground is sinking. The ocean is not rising.", is something that only a scientifically illiterate moron would write.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to exclude all evidence from the real world in the name of science.

All the existing evidence shows quite clearly that the ocean has not risen discernibly since prior to 1890. There's also no reason any rational adult should believe that the ocean has ever risen.

Im a BM wrote:There are millions of places where the sea makes contact with the land and leave a high tide mark of some kind.

At least relative to the land surface elevation, high tides are getting higher EVERYWHERE.

You have nothing to support this assertion. Everywhere to which you wish to point, the ground is sinking. Any scientist understands the unmistakable difference between the ocean rising and the ground sinking. You, on the other hand, aren't a scientist so you get a pass. In fact, you even get an invitation to participate in the upcoming Special Olympics in your area.

Im a BM wrote:There is no point trying to convince them to acknowledge that evidence exists.

I have all the evidence, and you have no wiggle room. Just get ready for your Special Olympics competition.

jackjack53 wrote: Your problems are compounded by your requirement to believe that this "sea level rise" is caused by "human activity" which you have been forced to embrace despite not being able to define it.

Nope. All the evidence is conclusive, i.e. no ocean level rise over the last century and beyond.

Im a BM wrote: The US Army Corps of Engineers isn't channeling any huge kickbacks for shoring up the levees and doing the other things that any sane society does when faced with such a problem.

The ground is sinking. The ocean is not rising.

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Too funny! You are telling us how land, water and sediment all move freely within the oceans but you insist on being able to precisely measure a moving target. You're good! I bet if you were building a house you wouldn't even stop for and earthquake. No need! Moving 2x4s are so easy to accurately measure!

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

I'm totally with you on this one! We had a nasty ice storm here a week ago. I have a photo. 3/4 inch of ice over everything. I'm just really confused about where it is now. There's no ice! Where did it go?

GasGuzzler, your exceptional understanding of physics, such as how the SB law applies to ALL matter EVERYWHERE, makes it possible to discuss so-called "sea level rise" on a whole different level.

All the water on Earth has MASS. If you add up all that MASS of water on Earth, you get some kind of finite and reproducible number.

As a physics expert, you understand about conservation of mass.

Water mass can't magically appear or disappear.

As a physics expert, you are also well versed in the specific gravity of matter, and how much volume a given mass of water can occupy at any given temperature or pressure.

Now, you don't actually have to be a MATH expert, but it helps.

Addition or subtraction. Subtract the mass of water that used to be in glaciers and add it to the mass of water in the sea.

Now use your physics expertise to calculate, based on the specific gravity of water, temperature, and pressure, how much VOLUME has been added to the sea.

Yes it is a moving target.

But the total volume is finite.

If the volume of water in the sea increases, what does logic suggest would happen to sea level, if it were somehow theoretically possible to measure it?

Why do you automatically add missing ice to the sea?

You could have displayed at least SOME knowledge of physics with your evasion.

Im a BM wrote:
You could have invoked the temperature effect on water volume.

Im a BM wrote:
Why do we blame melting glaciers for sea level rise when it is just Global Warming causing a bit of expansion of sea water volume?

Im a BM wrote:
There are OTHER places the glacier melt might have gone besides the ocean.

Im a BM wrote:
The deserts are growing. Maybe that's where it went.

Im a BM wrote:
There is certainly a lot more water in the atmosphere than before.

Im a BM wrote:
That can be calculated using physics,

Im a BM wrote:
if the increase in mass of water in the atmosphere is enough to account for the loss of glacier mass.

Im a BM wrote:
But the question you evaded was:

What does logic suggest would happen to sea level if it were somehow theoretically possible to measure it?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Answer: the same natural geology activity that made them the coastlines in the first place. Have you ever heard of Venice, Italy or New Orleans, Louisiana? Multiply that by the entire planet. Some ground is sinking while other ground is rising.

The ocean, however, is neither rising nor dropping, because water can't do that.

I hope this helps.

Im a BM wrote:
Where the Ground REALLY IS Sinking - The Carbon Sequestration Factor

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann correctly notes that in Venice, Italy or New Orleans, the land surface is actually SINKING.

Im a BM wrote:
Many of the leveed "islands" in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta are also sinking, with land surface elevation already meters below sea level.
What 'sea level'??
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
This kind of land subsidence ONLY occurs to cities built of wetland soils that have been drained near the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
Where did the land go?

Im a BM wrote:
Well, when they dug the canals, built the levees, and started continuously pumping out the drainage water, they drained the water out of the uppermost part of the soil.

Im a BM wrote:
No longer waterlogged to impede the entry of oxygen, aerobic microorganisms decomposed the available organic carbon, transforming it into CARBON DIOXIDE.

Im a BM wrote:
Calculate how many tons of organic carbon were lost in order to create so much void space that the land surface elevation drops by meters.

Im a BM wrote:
Exceptions to the general rule of rising land surface elevation due to plate tectonic movement, those places where human activity drained wetlands and provoked land subsidence are a MAJOR SOURCE of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps the good news is that restored wetlands are a net SINK for atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Im a BM wrote:
Problem is, it takes about 50 years, literally, for a wetland to sequester as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as is emitted in just 1 year from a drained wetland.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Im a BM wrote:Water erosion takes soil downhill. The average land surface elevation has erosion constantly knocking down the mountains a little bit.

Im a BM wrote:No land surface on Earth is exempt from erosion. A constant force dragging material back down toward sea level.

Im a BM wrote:But if it weren't being pushed back up even more somehow, erosion would have flattened it all a long time ago. The continents would be dominated by lowland swamps

Im a BM wrote: As they were during the time of the Carboniferous era.

Im a BM wrote:The top of the Grand Canyon walls are pretty high above the river. Well above sea level. Water erosion has clearly cut down through them, exposing many-million-year-old sediments.

But there was never a time when the Colorado River flowed as high above sea level as the walls of the Grand Canyon. The low elevation river was always a low elevation river. It just kept cutting through the new bedrock that kept rising up underneath it.

Im a BM wrote:
Erosion versus uplift and land surface elevation.

Water erosion takes soil downhill. The average land surface elevation has erosion constantly knocking down the mountains a little bit. Somewhere downhill the silt might pile up and make the elevation of that microsite a little higher.

No land surface on Earth is exempt from erosion. A constant force dragging material back down toward sea level.

But if it weren't being pushed back up even more somehow, erosion would have flattened it all a long time ago. The continents would be dominated by lowland swamps. As they were during the time of the Carboniferous era.

Im a BM wrote:
The top of the Grand Canyon walls are pretty high above the river. Well above sea level. Water erosion has clearly cut down through them, exposing many-million-year-old sediments.

Im a BM wrote:
But there was never a time when the Colorado River flowed as high above sea level as the walls of the Grand Canyon. The low elevation river was always a low elevation river. It just kept cutting through the new bedrock that kept rising up underneath it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Answer: the same natural geology activity that made them the coastlines in the first place. Have you ever heard of Venice, Italy or New Orleans, Louisiana? Multiply that by the entire planet. Some ground is sinking while other ground is rising.

The ocean, however, is neither rising nor dropping, because water can't do that.

I hope this helps.

Im a BM wrote:What is the elevation of Sherman Island? land surface elevation ranges from zero to 23 feet below sea level.

Im a BM wrote: How do they know how high the "sea level" is, for reference.

Well, this is where the San Joaquin River meets the sea.

Im a BM wrote: Yes, the ground is DEFINITELY SINKING on Sherman Island.

Im a BM wrote: Oh, and the same people who measured that 23 feet difference have noticed that they have to keep building up the levee a little higher.

Im a BM wrote: A WHOLE bunch of scientists, bureaucrats, and others are in on the conspiracy to pretend that their measurements show rising sea level.

Im a BM wrote: I personally investigated Sherman Island groundwater.

Im a BM wrote:It is true that erosion carries material to the sea that provides bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote: It is also true that submarine groundwater discharge puts FAR more bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions into the sea than any sediment load figures could begin to account for.

Im a BM wrote: Yes, those carbonate ions that make such fine buffers for acud.

Im a BM wrote: That is an example how a pH buffer works.

Im a BM wrote: Water can't do it.

Im a BM wrote: Only an EXTREMELY tiny fraction of water molecules dissociate into hydrogen ions or hydroxide ions, which could buffer added acid or base.

Im a BM wrote: Oh, and as water erosion flows down around the Iron Mountain mine, near Mt. Shasta in northern California, some of the water drains out of the old mine with a pH LESS THAN ZERO.

Im a BM wrote: Water erosion takes soil downhill.

Im a BM wrote: The average land surface elevation has erosion constantly knocking down the mountains a little bit. Somewhere downhill the silt might pile up and make the elevation of that microsite a little higher.

Im a BM wrote: No land surface on Earth is exempt from erosion. A constant force dragging material back down toward sea level.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Answer: the same natural geology activity that made them the coastlines in the first place. Have you ever heard of Venice, Italy or New Orleans, Louisiana? Multiply that by the entire planet. Some ground is sinking while other ground is rising.

The ocean, however, is neither rising nor dropping, because water can't do that.

I hope this helps.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Im a BM wrote:
But after draining the wetland, it takes just ONE YEAR to lose the organic carbon accumulated over 50 years. Lost from the land as solid organic carbon compounds, it goes to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide to contribute to climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
Multiple three inches of peat loss per year over the peatland area of Southeast Asia impacted by human activity, and the total carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere rivals that of all our fossil fuel emissions.

Im a BM wrote:
Improved land management could do more to address climate change than any reductions in fossil fuel consumption might accomplish.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
It is true that erosion carries material to the sea that provides bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions.

Im a BM wrote:
It is also true that submarine groundwater discharge puts FAR more bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions into the sea than any sediment load figures could begin to account for.

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, those carbonate ions that make such fine buffers for acud.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ion, CO3(2-), and bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, can turn a strong acid into a weak acid, to minimize pH change.

Im a BM wrote:
Add a proton, H+, and the pH goes down.

Im a BM wrote:
Then buffer that proton with a carbonate ion or bicarbonate ion

Im a BM wrote:
The pH now goes back up, nearly to where you started before adding acid.

Im a BM wrote:
That is an example how a pH buffer works.

Im a BM wrote:
Water can't do it.

Im a BM wrote:
Only an EXTREMELY tiny fraction of water molecules dissociate into hydrogen ions or hydroxide ions, which could buffer added acid or base.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, and as water erosion flows down around the Iron Mountain mine, near Mt. Shasta in northern California, some of the water drains out of the old mine with a pH LESS THAN ZERO.

Im a BM wrote:
Not a solution mixed up in a lab, but a water sample that can be collected on a field trip, with pH BELOW ZERO.

Im a BM wrote:
I SEEN IT WITH MY OWN LYING EYES!

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
B.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Im a BM wrote:
M

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Im a BM wrote:
.

Climate cannot change. Fossils aren't used as fuel.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...
.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Y

There is no such thing as acud. Carbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
C.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Weakening an acid changes pH.

Im a BM wrote:
A.

Hydrogen is not a proton.

Im a BM wrote:
T

Protons can't be buffered. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
T.

pH is not affected by buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
T.

Changing pH is not limiting pH change. Paradox. Irrational.

Im a BM wrote:
W.

Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
O.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
O.

Not possible.

Im a BM wrote:
N.

Not possible.

Im a BM wrote:
I

Get off your drugs.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

Stop spamming.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Answer: the same natural geology activity that made them the coastlines in the first place. Have you ever heard of Venice, Italy or New Orleans, Louisiana? Multiply that by the entire planet. Some ground is sinking while other ground is rising.

The ocean, however, is neither rising nor dropping, because water can't do that.

I hope this helps.

Im a BM wrote: People figured out how to consistently reference a meaningful baseline for sea level a long time ago.

Im a BM wrote: It's not rocket science.

Im a BM wrote: The sea level in San Francisco Bay has been rising an average of 2 millimeters a year for more than a century now.

Im a BM wrote: But nobody should be allowed to discuss any aspect of Earth science at this website until they provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:Sherman Island, Rio Vista, California
Case study in land subsidence and sea level rise.

Im a BM wrote:Sherman Island is SINKING. SINKING FAST, in fact. Land surface elevation is dropping THREE INCHES A YEAR on Sherman Island.

Millions of years of sediment and peat pile up added enough weight to push it down a little, but mostly is just got buried under a very deep pile.

The BEDROCK beneath Sherman Island is RISING. Not quite as fast as sea level is rising, but the bedrock under northern California is RISING.

Im a BM wrote: Okay, three inches a year of peat decomposing translates to a WHOLE LOT of carbon dioxide release, when multiplied over an area of any significant size.

Im a BM wrote: But after draining the wetland, it takes just ONE YEAR to lose the organic carbon accumulated over 50 years.

Im a BM wrote: Lost from the land as solid organic carbon compounds, it goes to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide to contribute to climate change.

Im a BM wrote: Multiple three inches of peat loss per year over the peatland area of Southeast Asia impacted by human activity,

Im a BM wrote: ... and the total carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere rivals that of all our fossil fuel emissions.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: People figured out how to consistently reference a meaningful baseline for sea level a long time ago.

Is that who did it? I should have guessed. I bet they eyeballed what the sea level would otherwise be without greenhouse effect, accounted for waves and tides, then properly weighted the data to account for known deniers of the thettled thienth, then massaged the data to account for known errors, then balanced the data to account for estimated errors, then cured the data to polish the error estimation, ... and then rounded up for good measure.

I bet getting the waves to stop completely helped a bunch.

Im a BM wrote: It's not rocket science.

People figured out that fudging data has nothing to do with rocket science.

Im a BM wrote: The sea level in San Francisco Bay has been rising an average of 2 millimeters a year for more than a century now.

... and your picture is right there under the word "gullible" in the dictionary.

Who else caught the zero margin of error listed? These omniscients were exactly the right people to query to learn the sea level rise, I'm telling you.

Let's go through this again: Please post the data used to calculate the rising San Francisco Bay water, along with the instrumentation/calibration reports so that readers can run their own regression analysis, and verify the 2mm rise figure along with the zero error margin.

Im a BM wrote: But nobody should be allowed to discuss any aspect of Earth science at this website until they provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

You hold some WACKY positions.

Im a BM wrote:Sherman Island, Rio Vista, California
Case study in land subsidence and sea level rise.

It has nothing to do with the ocean. It's entirely a land issue.

Im a BM wrote:Sherman Island is SINKING. SINKING FAST, in fact. Land surface elevation is dropping THREE INCHES A YEAR on Sherman Island.

Millions of years of sediment and peat pile up added enough weight to push it down a little, but mostly is just got buried under a very deep pile.

The BEDROCK beneath Sherman Island is RISING. Not quite as fast as sea level is rising, but the bedrock under northern California is RISING.

The sea isn't rising insofar as you have shown.

Im a BM wrote: Okay, three inches a year of peat decomposing translates to a WHOLE LOT of carbon dioxide release, when multiplied over an area of any significant size.

This is not significant. You like to ignore cycles, remember. The planet has far more than enough plantlife to greedily absorb whatever paltry CO2 is "released" by this peat patch.

Once again, you have tried to turn a cycle into an accumulation. You don't seem to be able to get anything right on account of your overwhelming gullibility. You simply believe whatever your thoughtmasters order you to regurgitate.

Have you figured out that water evaporates yet?

Im a BM wrote: But after draining the wetland, it takes just ONE YEAR to lose the organic carbon accumulated over 50 years.

I'm sure you know by now that this is meaningless.

Im a BM wrote: Lost from the land as solid organic carbon compounds, it goes to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide to contribute to climate change.

There is no Climate Change that you have shown, or even defined. All the CO2, being heavier than the atmosphere's O2 and N2, falls to the bottom of the atmosphere where all the plants are and is consumed.

Your religion has mindfuqked you. Are you in a padded room right now?

Im a BM wrote: Multiple three inches of peat loss per year over the peatland area of Southeast Asia impacted by human activity,

Great. "Human activity." Let me guess, you'll have your liver ripped out of your body by a pack of wolves before you unambiguously define this term, right?

You're a crackpot.

Im a BM wrote: ... and the total carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere rivals that of all our fossil fuel emissions.

You are raving incoherently, and your credibility with numbers has plunged into the negatives. Plants consume the CO2; it's plant food.

Im a BM wrote:
"You hold some WACKY positions" - IBdaMann

Oh, yeah? Well... YOU hold some WACKY positions.

"I'm sure you know by now that this is meaningless." - IBdaMann

Oh, yeah? Well... YOU are meaningless.

"Your religion has mindfuqked you." - IBdaMann

Oh, yeah? Well... YOUR religion has mindfuqked YOU.

"You're a crackpot" - IbdaMann

Oh, yeah? Well... YOU'RE a crackpot.

"..and your picture is right there under the word "gullible" in the dictionary." IBM

Oh, yeah? Well... YOUR picture is right there under the word "gullible" in the dictionary.

(WAIT! we're allowed to look up definitions in the DICTIONARY???)

"Are you in a padded room right now?" - IBdaMann

NOPE! I am NOT in a padded room right now. But YOU are! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

I JUST WON THE "DEBATE"!!! HOORAY FOR ME!

Im a BM wrote:
More about sinking land and acid sulfate soils.
...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
More about sinking land and acid sulfate soils.
...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
More about sinking land and acid sulfate soils.
...

Stop spamming.

Why are you so afraid of terms that are not chemicals?

You don't have to be afraid.

Science is not a chemical.

You're not afraid of SCIENCE are you?

Chemicals are not science, but you don't have be afraid of the ones that are NOT chemicals.

They are just buzzwords and they CANNOT hurt you.

jackjack53 wrote:
Your problems are compounded by your requirement to believe that this "sea level rise" is caused by "human activity" which you have been forced to embrace despite not being able to define it. You are put in a very difficult position to explain why you believe that human activity is the cause of something that isn't even happening.

jackjack53 wrote:
Your problems are compounded by your requirement to believe that this "sea level rise" is caused by "human activity" which you have been forced to embrace despite not being able to define it. You are put in a very difficult position to explain why you believe that human activity is the cause of something that isn't even happening.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So what is causing the ground to sink along nearly all the world's coastlines?

Answer: the same natural geology activity that made them the coastlines in the first place. Have you ever heard of Venice, Italy or New Orleans, Louisiana? Multiply that by the entire planet. Some ground is sinking while other ground is rising.

The ocean, however, is neither rising nor dropping, because water can't do that.

I hope this helps.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In many places, the shallow continental shelf has a relatively stable contact point with the sea floor, with minimal movement over millenia. Not a lot of earthquakes or volcanic activity on the east coast of North America.

In other places, such as the Pacific Rim, sea floor is being pushed under the continental shelf, or perhaps more accurately, the moving continental shelf is being pushed up on top over the sea floor.

Too funny! You are telling us how land, water and sediment all move freely within the oceans but you insist on being able to precisely measure a moving target. You're good! I bet if you were building a house you wouldn't even stop for and earthquake. No need! Moving 2x4s are so easy to accurately measure!

Im a BM wrote:
And there is a whole lot of glacier ice that we used to have photos of, but it's gone now. Where did it go?

I'm totally with you on this one! We had a nasty ice storm here a week ago. I have a photo. 3/4 inch of ice over everything. I'm just really confused about where it is now. There's no ice! Where did it go?