Sea level rise is no longer a threat, Antarctica and Greenland GAINING ice.

a reply to: reldra

Well i am certainly not for leaving them alone either. Corporations are the ones that cause the big problems that seem almost irreversible, all for profit. Tired of seeing the too big to fail companies get a slap on the wrist for mistakes that could have really horrendous consequences down the line.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: reldra

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.

'

Sea levels have considerably risen since the last ice age maximum 22 thousand years ago as you might expect, but have been fairly static since the last 8 to 7 thousand years to the present, in just saying that, it is a bit like scraping an iceberg since there are so many other factors to take into account, but that's the given thus far.
There are some anomalies with discoveries of 'advanced' cities either overwhelmed by water, or sunken cities thought to be much older than the static period as given, but the evidence is still out on that as far as I know.

All the OP's link says is that parts of Antarctica have been gaining ice (due to increased snowfall) for the last 10 thousand years but that rate is slowing so quickly that it might be reversed in 2 decades.

It says NOTHING about other parts of Antarctica losing ice, it says NOTHING about sea level rise NOT being a threat, nor does it address the fact that sea levels HAVE risen, that ARCTIC ice HAS decreased on levels before unseen, that glaciers are shrinking, etc.

Even the other articles on the NASA site point to the opposite of what the OP is claiming the data in the articles proves.

Talk about clickbait and taking science out of context to spin a narrative, Jesus.

a reply to: Liquesence

Are you trying to interject facts into this?

No the gang of climate change is all a scam to make people money has already determined what is going on here.

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

What is AGW?

It was an acronym for Anthropogenic Global Warming, as per Agenda 21

Now it's an acronym for Al Gore's Weirdos

I hope I have cleared this up for you.

a reply to: reldra

Is it better to argue until everyone agrees with you, or to actually get something accomplished?

In this situation there is an argument that nobody disagrees with. So who cares who is right about the weather? I personally don't care about the weather change I care about cleaning up pollution.

We can also say that someday the ice caps could melt so we should look for solutions now and no one would disagree with that either.

We can debate forever, and by the time you prove yourself right 25% of the world will be underwater and the planet will be a desert. Or we could just focus on the things we agree on and move forward without needing to be right.

Many people seem to be so consumed with being right that we will argue about it until we are all dead without getting anything accomplished.

It's ok to know your right about something and let someone else be wrong. Especially when the real issues can be fixed without ever having this debate.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I apologize, I'll start over.

"The only reason that glacier shrunk is because of liberal hot air about climate change!" Now give me stars.

Sea levels rose because Boehner's tears, which is now reversed because he's no longer speaker. !

Well, facts are a liberal conspiracy anyway, except when they can be used otherwise.

originally posted by: Liquesence
All the OP's link says is that parts of Antarctica have been gaining ice (due to increased snowfall) for the last 10 thousand years but that rate is slowing so quickly that it might be reversed in 2 decades.

It says NOTHING about other parts of Antarctica losing ice, it says NOTHING about sea level rise NOT being a threat, nor does it address the fact that sea levels HAVE risen, that ARCTIC ice HAS decreased on levels before unseen, that glaciers are shrinking, etc.

Even the other articles on the NASA site point to the opposite of what the OP is claiming the data in the articles proves.

Talk about clickbait and taking science out of context to spin a narrative, Jesus.

I bet, here is the proper summary the OP should have used based on the NASA article posted. Enuf Said..


Meanwhile, Permafrost warming in parts of Alaska (with proven field data)

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

They're not finally admitting. They're presenting their data as they've always done. It wasn't like "aw man we finally have to tell them the deal about this sea level thing". What a ridiculous interpretation of data you've presented. It's as if you didn't intend to understand what they were telling you and you went off to your own fantasy world. Of course you never intended to give an honest interpretation of the data. This is ATS!!! Truth and honesty are like dying stars around these parts.

originally posted by: reldra

That study does not mean what you think it means.

The study doesn't even say anything like what the OP claims, at all. That's not to say there isn't tempered good news in there, but the observation/research and the OP are simply not anywhere near being in agreement.

Disclaimer: I'm on neither "side" of the climate change debate. I believe real scientists and researchers should continue to track changes, preferably uninfluenced by "carbon tax profiteer" crowd or the pro-pollution, "nothing we do has any effect on anything" crowd. We should focus on what we're going to do to negate harmful changes, and how we can reduce anthropogenic effects, regardless of what percentage of fault such effects may hold.

a reply to: dogstar23

You aren't doing it right. You aren't supposed to read the study. You're just supposed to agree with the OP.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

I love how the vernacular has been changed to "climate change" instead of global warming. The nature of climate is change, fancy that.

I think there has been a long discussion all over the web and in the halls of academia that suggest the planet fluctuates in cycles and we are just seeing those cycles.

a reply to: infolurker
Story of Stuff is propaganda with an agenda. I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve resources and find new solutions, but th liberal solution is always more disastrous than its worth.

a reply to: WCmutant

I love how the vernacular has been changed to "climate change" instead of global warming.

It hasn't changed. Climate change (and other things) is the result of global warming.
For example:

Sea level rise is a natural consequence of the warming of our planet.

www.nasa.gov...

I think there has been a long discussion all over the web and in the halls of academia that suggest the planet fluctuates in cycles and we are just seeing those cycles.

Trouble is, those cycles show that we should be cooling, not warming.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.

Your source? This one says different:

Holocene Sea Level
geology.uprm.edu...
books.google.com...

www.giss.nasa.gov...

"Over the past few thousand years [since the Holocene], the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year." [minimum 5000 yrs * 0.2 mm/yr = 1000 mm = 1 meter *RISE*]

www.skepticalscience.com...

In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone."

climatism.wordpress.com...

"NOAA tide gauge in the Marshall Islands shows sea level rising at 1.43 mm/year – less than 15cm per century "

What has changed is population and infrastructure growth on the coasts,

Actually, coastlines have been pretty important to humans for quite a while. But yes, populations have grown a great deal in the past 10,000 years so rising sea levels would have a much more far reaching impact now.

Who said they weren't important? Mankind has congregated along coasts for millenia, and has dealt with coastal weather for all that time. And the more people and assets that exist along the coasts, the more targets exist for coastal weather that has battered coasts for millenia. This isn't rocket science, it's basic cause and effect.

a reply to: Phage

well the big thing is no matter how hard we try we can't tame mother nature. We might find things she likes to do on a regular basis, but even then its speculative.

Ice recedes and ice increases. The problem is, the recession is far outstripping the gains made and the melting continues even throughout the winter periods (beneath the ice).

See irrefutable proof: Chasing Ice

So, justifying driving an F-750 pick-up to McDonald's for McSlop burgers to eat while shooting animals with precious "gurnz", fails again, I afraid.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover
Well? Tiss the season for gaining a bit of ice and snow up in those parts of the world.

Climate change happens ya know, it has happened for as long as a climate has existed on this planet some billions of years most likely. And many things effect it to one degree or another, some more so then others, the cynical nature of weather and the climate will go on with or without humans.

I would say pollution of habitats and the striping and destruction of ecosystems and mass business practices which contribute to all that is a bigger problem for humans right now... That is all for now.

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Ice recedes and ice increases. The problem is, the recession is far outstripping the gains made and the melting continues even throughout the winter periods (beneath the ice).

See irrefutable proof: Chasing Ice

So, justifying driving an F-750 pick-up to McDonald's for McSlop burgers to eat while shooting animals with precious "gurnz", fails again, I afraid.

The study is specifically about the Antarctic, not other glaciers. The sea level rise attributed to the NET melt from the Antarctic account for around 10% of the median from IPCC models. This actually presents a serious threat to the validity of current models due to the propagation of errors due to linearizing so many equations.

So we should hope that the satellite being launched that will provide more accurate measurements on this phenomena does not fail (like several others) so that its data can confirm or refute the current findings.

-FBB

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Remember what you said?

Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.

Your first source:
You left out the part about that sea level rise you quoted being localized:

By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, while ongoing adjustments of Earth's lithosphere due to removal of the ice sheets gradually decreased over time. Thus, sea level continued to drop in formerly glaciated regions and rise in areas peripheral to the former ice sheets. At many low-latitude ocean islands and coastal sites distant from the effects of glaciation, sea level stood several meters higher than present during the mid-Holocene and has been falling ever since.

www.giss.nasa.gov...


Your second quote is from Christoper Monkton. Who is neither a scientist or trustworthy.

1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward.

bbickmore.wordpress.com...

Yes, sea levels were rising rapidly 11,400 years ago. In the past thousands, not so much.


Marshall Islands? I have no idea what a tide gauge which has been in operation for 70 years has to do with your claim that sea level has been rising since "the last ice age."

And the more people and assets that exist along the coasts, the more targets exist for coastal weather that has battered coasts for millenia.

And, as sea levels rise due to warming, the effects will be worsened.

This isn't rocket science, it's basic cause and effect.

Yes. Rising global temperatures will result in higher sea levels.



Your first source, again:

Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level.

www.giss.nasa.gov...