ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

I've seen trilobite fossils in the Marble Mountains of the Mojave Desert, too; they prove that the world has changed over hundreds of millions of years. But that has no bearing on the short-term changes we're seeing today, or the question of whether they're caused by mankind's activities.

What would you tell the mother of a sick child? Would you point out people in their eighties and nineties as proof that it's part of a natural cycle for humans to get sick and die, instead of trying to diagnose and treat his illness?

 

From the end of this artical:
"Those estimates became an issue in North Carolina recently when the Legislature proposed using historic figures to calculate future sea levels, rejecting higher rates from a state panel of experts. The USGS study suggests an even higher level than the panel's estimate for 2100.

The North Carolina proposal used data from University of Florida professor Robert Dean, who had found no regional differences in sea level rise. Dean said he can't argue with the results from Sallenger's study showing accelerating sea level rise in the region, but he said it's more likely to be from natural cycles. Sallenger said there is no evidence to support that claim."

The problem with measuring a 4.5 inch rise in sea level since 1990, as stated in the article, as opposed to 2.8 inches elsewhere in the world, is:
How do you DETERMINE a rise in sealevel, of a few inches over 20 years?

An on shore wind piles the water up, a stronger wind piles it higher, an offshore wind, leaves stinking mud flats exposed.
I'm less than amused at unprovable speculations like this article, posing as scientific PROOF AGW is causing higher sealevels.
And even if it DID rise 4.5 inches in 20 years? How does that translate to the "models" prediction of 3 to 4 feet rise in the next 90 years?
Seems to me, if it continued to rise at a stable rate, (who can expect 90 years of stable sea conditions?), then, the rise by 2100, would be around a foot and a half, or 18 to 20 inches.
Silly worrying about "observed" 4.5 inch rise in 20 years. I don't believe it. Neither does Dr Dean of Florida University.

 

Sea Level Trends

Measuring Sea Level

 

Obviously you don't get the concept of "Rate of change".

 

Denial that there MAY be a problem at your own peril... The volume of rubbish, waste in solid, bio-degradable and liquid form will soon see us all buried in s41t - - drowning in undrinkable water - - suffocating in unbreathable air...

It is admirable that we all consider our environment and clean up our act as it is a finite resource and the next nearest possibility is some 30 light years away...

It seems that as a species we do not respect, conserve, or look after what we have... We cannot grow enough food to feed all on this planet now, and yet New Yorkers are adamant that they should continue with their "right" to eat and drink "SUPERsize" junk substitutes laced with toxins, for 'food' - to which I suggest obesity and early death may be the answer to the consequence for this arrogant and selfish behaviour...

 

Hi Ray
so the rate of change is getting higher now
What was the rate of change all those years ago?

 

All completely covered in many previous posts, many from Boston. Bottom line is that the acceleration of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature increase is faster than in any researched prior instance, where many or all accompanied major extinction events.

Many posters pooh-pooh "just a couple of degrees" of global warming - even wen they accept it. But for this to happen within a lifetime is rapid to the point of being scary.

I'm glad I have neither the children nor the number of years left to experience the thirst and starvation that most of the globe will experience probably in the next few decades, but getting to this topic's point - I just hope I've got 20 years of good cruising left.

 

The planet adjusts to over population.
Too many wolves thin the carribou too much?
The wolves begin starving and die off and eases pressure on the carribou.
Desease also is more prevalent in over populations.
Over simplified, but nature does appear to work to maintain balance.

So enjoy your next 20 years cruising Ray.
The earth will adapt and mankind will adapt and nature will balance.

Worry is the interest paid on 'imagined' debt, not yet due.

 

Steady on Yobi --you be believing in evolution next.

 

I DO believe in evolution and adaptation and all the natural processes.
YOU assign beliefs to me that are not MINE. Like ritualistic cannibalism. That is a catholic doctrine and I'm not catholic.
So.
Assuming you KNOW what others believe based on your 'expectations' of their beliefs, is as silly as predicticting sea rise and climate disasters based on minutae in temperature and level rises.
The rises can easily fall within NATURAL cycles.
And humans typically underestimating of others intelligence is also natural.

 

You don't say? who does that then?

You dont start a fight thinking your going to loose

 

Troy,

Sorry but we will have to disagree on some of this.
Emotional appeals to a fantasy issue don't address the issue.
I speak as a person who's child was born with a heart defect and has an artifical valve to live. I understand sick children and the emotion it raises.

That does nothing to talk about natural cycles or natural cycles + human impact.

Just imagine if we were in Texas when the water was halfway up the state. When it started to receed this forum would be discussing the loss of water - the desertification of the world and what did we do.

Your point about millenial changes is well taken. Its just that none of us have enough information to rationally discuss it.

You know the water level in New Orleans has been rising for a long time. Its just that water wells and oil wells have pulled out the support for the land, supposedly it is actually subsidence of the land. How long have people been pumping water out of wells on the East Coast? What is the actual effect of that? Anyone know?

I have nothing scientific to offer. I'll quit.

 

Federal Court Upholds EPA's Global Warming Rules

A federal appeals court on Tuesday [June 26, 2012] upheld the first-ever regulations aimed at reducing the gases blamed for global warming, handing down perhaps the most significant decision on the issue since a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases could be controlled as air pollutants...

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said that the Environmental Protection Agency was "unambiguously correct" in using existing federal law to address global warming, denying two of the challenges to four separate regulations and dismissing the others...

The court on Tuesday seemed to disagree with Romney's assessment [that it was a mistake for the EPA to be involved in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide] when it denied two challenges to the administration's rules, including one arguing that the agency erred in concluding greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. Lawyers for the industry groups and states argued that the EPA should have considered the policy implications of regulating heat-trapping gases along with the science. They also questioned the agency's reliance on a body of scientific evidence that they said included significant uncertainties.....

 

Upchurchmr, the motion of land is accounted for, in part, by using GPS satellites.

 

These dumb discussions cause global warning and the rate of sea level rise to increase exponentially to how many times Frosty changes his pic.