Rapidly Melting Glacier Will Raise Sea Levels 'For Decades To Come'

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no need for counter evidence.

Of course not. So says the guy who doesn't understand science in the slightest.

The reason is because the thought of a glacier rapidly melting is being overstated.

Perhaps you should go back and do definition searches for the term rapid.

Perhaps you should go do a definition search for the term "relative", because the adjective "rapid" is a relative term. I mean are you even TRYING to present a counterargument right now or are you just trolling me?

How can you be so sure that if a bunch of glaciers melting at once would make the sea level rise. Perhaps the melted water will just enter into the current water tables of areas stricken by drought. You do not and your global flood theory is more lame that the end times bible stories.

Um... what? Seriously, did you just think this up so you didn't have to admit that the melting glaciers is a bad thing? I mean there is DEFINITE proof that melting glacier is raising the sea-level. Hell I posted in this thread already that the sea levels have been rising drastically each year, but besides that we also have evidence of past glacial melts to go by as well.

Maybe you could just build a pipeline into space and vent the glaciers.

Still waiting for counter-evidence...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No sea levels are not drastically rising due to glacier melt.

That is an exaggeration of the truth.

If there were any serious melting then there are more systems nature has in place to deal with that rather than it all just accumulating in the sea and not interacting with the environment.

Your claims of a slow steady level rise in ocean levels not being natural is the first place you should study in order to prove that it is not ordinary.

Not many are moved by your false claims of rapid melt and your own sources show that it is not rapid at all nor isit tied to mankind in any way other than the fact scienceers began to measure it so they believe that a hundrend yrs. of weather experience can be equal to knowing what happens in the long term.

A couple mm a year rise in levels does not equate to a problem when we have other factors like evaporation and saturation and heating and cooling in other areas. These are all ignored in order to form an incorrect opinion.

The thread should be in predictions and prophecies or skunk works. It is a flawed theory

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No sea levels are not drastically rising due to glacier melt.

That is an exaggeration of the truth.

And you know this how?

If there were any serious melting then there are more systems nature has in place to deal with that rather than it all just accumulating in the sea and not interacting with the environment.

Like what? I'm sure all the scientists in the world are waiting with baited breath to know this as well.

Your claims of a slow steady level rise in ocean levels not being natural is the first place you should study in order to prove that it is not ordinary.

Claims? I posted more than just claims. I actually posted evidence. YOU on the other hand have done nothing of the sort and all you have are "claims".

Not many are moved by your false claims of rapid melt and your own sources show that it is not rapid at all nor isit tied to mankind in any way other than the fact scienceers began to measure it so they believe that a hundrend yrs. of weather experience can be equal to knowing what happens in the long term.

False claims? I haven't seen you prove anything false in this thread. Please stop lying.

A couple mm a year rise in levels does not equate to a problem when we have other factors like evaporation and saturation and heating and cooling in other areas. These are all ignored in order to form an incorrect opinion.

The thread should be in predictions and prophecies or skunk works. It is a flawed theory

*sigh...*

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now you have begun to post in msm style

I always see that brought out when one is unsure of what they are saying. It is an attempt to take away from the message as a whole focus in on individual parts because the original post was too much to handle.

enjoy yourself krazyshot my favorite scienceer

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: jimmyx

That is not from melting glaciers as far as I know it is from shifting currents?

shifting currents??....funny how that is never mentioned in the article, or by the very people that used to live there....
questions....
1...do you know that water increases in volume when heated?
2...do you know that melted glacier water goes into the ocean and is combined with the rest of sea water...it is not seperated?

a reply to: deadeyedick

Well there is no where else to go. You steadfastly refuse to post any links to back your claims up. So now we are arguing in circles and I tire of arguing with a brick wall.

a reply to: jimmyx

No, according to him all that glacier water magically travels to deserts and supplies them with water.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hey Krazysh0t.....deadeyedick is just trying to get under your skin, he doesn't care about the truth, he cares about you getting pissed off, and how you respond to it.....I have noticed that some members love to do this, it would seem to be for their own enjoyment. it's like arguing whether grass is green or the sky is blue...no matter the discussion, they will take the opposite view, regardless of truth, just to get the desired reaction.

a reply to: jimmyx

Yea, it's called trolling and it is SUPPOSED to be against the T&C, though I've yet to see a post removed for it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I live on the coast!!!!! Guess how much the sea has risen since 1985???

NOT ONE DAM 1/4 INCH so go shove that in all their pipes while they are in their UN circle jerk.

Global is a scam and so is any fact that the entire earth is warming more that it does NATURALLY after an ICE AGE lol!!!

Class, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER AN ICE AGE??

They wont tell you the real truth and that is the entire earths oceans are surrounded by ice miles high. They only show you convenient areas that have Volcanoes under it in Iceland.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick

Well there is no where else to go. You steadfastly refuse to post any links to back your claims up. So now we are arguing in circles and I tire of arguing with a brick wall.

You must live in a desert if you think the sea is rising! I can assure you that it is not!

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

First off, you've actually gone out and measured the coast line year to year to say what you said is definitely true? I'm guessing that you haven't. Oh and you can speak for every coast in the world as well?

Why am I not surprised? Just anecdotes and rhetoric to "disprove" the OP. No one cares about a valid and intellectual argument here... Never mind that this glacier is DEFINITELY melting even if you don't believe in Global Warming.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick

Well there is no where else to go. You steadfastly refuse to post any links to back your claims up. So now we are arguing in circles and I tire of arguing with a brick wall.

You must live in a desert if you think the sea is rising! I can assure you that it is not!

You can? How can you do that? Does it involve actually posting real evidence instead of your biased, personal anecdotes?

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge
Spend a year in the Florida Keys and then we can talk.


I have to write your comment off as pure ignorance.

a reply to: jrod

But but he used caps lock and bold! Would anyone yelling on the internet lie to you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.actforlibraries.org...

Greenlands glaciers have been melting since the 1800s. What caused the melting then?

They were cold and growing before that and before than they had melted again.

All of this propaganda that is being posted by the MSM is simply in preparation for the COP21 in Paris in December.

The fourth IPPC report also said that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035

/www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm

The IPCC made an error about the Himalayan glaciers. Section 10.6.2 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) states, “the likelihood of [the Himalayan Glaciers] disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” This statement did not come from peer-reviewed literature, nor did it meet the IPCC standards of evidence.

The error has raised some criticisms - both legitimate and illegitimate - about the the IPCC, the AR4, and climate science in general:

Did the IPCC respond to this error quickly and diligently? The answer here is unfortunately no. According to a review by the InterAcademy Council on the IPCC processes and procedures, the IPCC took more than a month to respond to the Himalayan Glacier error, and even then did not explicitly acknowledge the error or issue a retraction. To make matters worse, it has been documented that the IPCC had responded more quickly to other supposed errors in the report (Leake, 2010; Reuters, 2010). Though the IPCC has been recognized for its scientific contributions, there is certainly room for improvement in terms of communications.

Tired of Control Freaks

Yay! More fear! "Decades to come"? I guess future "decades" will just have to get used to nature. Like Conservatives/Men had to get used to the mentaly ill, "progressives" running our world with stupid scare tactics.

a reply to: murphy22

oh oh folks we have a problem

oceanservice.noaa.gov...

Carefully examine the graph contained in this "fact sheet".

You will notice that when measured by tidal sea level indicators show that the sea level has been rising by about 1.7 mm per year. Now tidal sea level indicators are not always that accurate. As glaciers melt and the wieght comes off the land, the land "rebounds" or lifts up.

Now satellite measurements of sea level (assumingly more accurate) has been rising about 3 mm per year.

The graph uses "micheal's trick" of grafting satelite data onto the end of the tidal sea level indicators, even though these two things are not comparable at all.

Sea levels might have been rising by 3 mm per year all along but we will never know because the tidal sea level indicators are inaccurate.

As a matter of fact, its also possible that the sea might have risen by more than 3 mm all along.

how accurate is this prediction?

The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed
rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of
land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in
land-based water storage, which is relatively poorly known. Model
results suggest no net trend in the storage of water over land
due to climate-driven changes but there are large interannual and
decadal fluctuations. However, for the recent period 1993 to 2003,
the small discrepancy between observed sea level rise and the sum
of known contributions might be due to unquantified humaninduced
processes (e.g., groundwater extraction, impoundment in
reservoirs, wetland drainage and deforestation).

Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at
a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003. Under the IPCC Special
Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B scenario by the mid-
2090s, for instance, global sea level reaches 0.22 to 0.44 m above
1990 levels, and is rising at about 4 mm yr

So in 2007, 23 have the see level rising by 0.22 to 0.44 m above see level (lets say a third of meter or about a foot in 100 years.

But now its 2015, COP21 is looming large and all of a sudden we are at risk of drowning again!

oh um - got any more boogie men in the closet?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This started melting in 2012, here we are, four years later and there hasn't been any rise in the oceans yet. Why is that?

And why do you consider this proof that it's due to "man made" warming?

Erm.

From the International business Times:

Even Fiji has been forced to move its own citizens from low-lying areas. The cost of relocating three villages was about $2 million. But with an estimated 45 other communities likely to need resettling in the next 10 years, the government doesn’t have sufficient funds to continue such making such moves, the South Pacific island nation recently warned.

...The Maldives has constructed an artificial island and created a sovereign wealth fund that could be used to buy land elsewhere.

In contrast, Tuvalu, with a population of a little more than 10,000, has left the decision about whether to migrate to its citizens, with some of them taking advantage of an agreement with New Zealand that allows 75 people to emigrate there every year. ...

...In addition to increasing sea levels, islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans are now faced with a lack of arable land because of the salination of soil. Big cyclones and typhoons have also wreaked havoc in recent years.

...“The big question: Who, then, is responsible for the people and for the small island states that are most severely affected?” asked Kathleen Newland, a co-founder and senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington. “Relocation seems to be the only possibility.”

Now is the time to discuss coordination and plan for what could be the next refugee crisis, said Simati, the Tuvalu permanent representative to the U.N. who has already witnessed small islets disappearing in his native country. He hopes global leaders will commit to an ambitious target in Paris.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

If there were any serious melting then there are more systems nature has in place to deal with that rather than it all just accumulating in the sea and not interacting with the environment.

Like what? I'm sure all the scientists in the world are waiting with baited breath to know this as well.

There actually is one that hasn't been mentioned here yet, and all the scientists of the world that have done their homework in this particular area are already aware of it.

It's a basic consequence of plate tectonics that adding water to the oceans would not simply raise sea level an amount equal to the water added, as if filling up a bowl. All surface crust is floating on a layer of molten rock called the asthenosphere.

Water has weight. More water means that the oceans weigh more. When they weigh more, they push down more on the asthenosphere. Thus, adding more water to the oceans can lead to less of a rise in sea level than expected if one simply did a calculation based on capacity of the oceans and the change in the volume of water.

Adding large volumes of water can even lead to an overall DECREASE in sea level in some areas, as could happen when the water is coming from the continents, and thus the local area ocean is becoming heavier at the same time the nearby parts of the continents are becoming lighter. This is the reason that sea level is decreasing in the bodies of water local to the region of Scandinavia. Following the last ice age, the glaciers melted and the water flowed into the ocean, the land in that region is lighter, the oceans are heavier, and the result is that year to year the local sea level is dropping and the land is rising.

Thus as you must admit, another basic consequence of plate tectonics is that there is no such thing as a single, global sea level. All sea level is local. If you push down in one spot on the skin of an orange, you'll see that the surrounding areas rise. You can not know the historical sea level in one location in the world merely from having the sea level in some other location in the same year in some other far flung part of the world.