Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[jc456]

Wh

I have to wonder why the deniers bother to post on a public forum, as if they actually had an argument.

Warming Seas Drive Rapid Acceleration of Melting Antarctic Ice

Warren Cornwall needs to read the articles he uses for sourcing..

2-3 mm per decade rise and many areas show less than 1mm giving serious question to the validity of their claims. Given the land subsidence of many islands and regions the level of rise is near zero..

The Antarctic is over 1 million KL^2 larger than just 5 years ago and winter time averages are upwards of 3-4 million KL^2 larger setting records which exceed written record keeping. The paper Cornwell cites even acknowledges that VOLCANIC FLOWS AND WARM WATER from the region are the main cause for melt.. Yet you seem to miss that point as did the alarmist shill for NG...

The only argument you can muster is one on how long it would take you to escape from a wet paper bag.. without directions... You and Mantooth will have great time inside your bag...

Thankfully we can rely on your scientific expertise to interpret the information and put it into context for us, we sure are lucky. I'd be very surprised if some foundation hadn't already offered funding for you to start your own think tank.

You have scientific expertise? Right!

Enough to know that you don't know anything.

Which is worlds more than you

 

[jc456]

By all means, go to this site;

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Note how many more areas are rising than falling. And note that the areas that are falling are exactly those areas in which there is very active subduction.

And Walleyes knows this, and is again lying by misdirection.

Active subduction lowers sea levels now? That's weird. All the papers I've seen say the opposite.

CSZ A Key Factor for Pacific Northwest Sea-Level Rise Yale Climate Connections

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies
etc. etc. etc.

What an absolute liar you are, Walleyes. You claim that you have a Phd in Geology, then you don't seem to understand that those levels are relative to the land. Where the land is rising, due to isostasy from the continental ice melt, or being pushed up from subduction, the sea level relative to land, is falling. Everywhere else it is rising.

That's the best post you've ever made!

 

[Old Rocks]

By all means, go to this site;

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Note how many more areas are rising than falling. And note that the areas that are falling are exactly those areas in which there is very active subduction.

And Walleyes knows this, and is again lying by misdirection.

Active subduction lowers sea levels now? That's weird. All the papers I've seen say the opposite.

CSZ A Key Factor for Pacific Northwest Sea-Level Rise Yale Climate Connections

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies
etc. etc. etc.

What an absolute liar you are, Walleyes. You claim that you have a Phd in Geology, then you don't seem to understand that those levels are relative to the land. Where the land is rising, due to isostasy from the continental ice melt, or being pushed up from subduction, the sea level relative to land, is falling. Everywhere else it is rising.

Show us some papers that claim subduction zones cause sea level decreases there olfraud. I backed up my claim. How about you do the same. You are great at hurling insults like the junkyard dog that you are, but you are remarkably short on facts. Subduction zones cause volcanoes to form INLAND. They don't cause the continental plates to rise.

Isostasy is where the actual continental plates are rising due to the enormous weight of all those continental glaciers melting off 11,000 years ago. THAT is what is occurring. Subduction zones have NOTHING to do with that you fucking moron.

LOL. Of course, Phd Geologist. Be glad to give you a basic primer in subduction geology of the Pacific Northwest;

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies

The history of crustal strain accumulation andrelease above subduction zone faults over hundreds of years is described by the earthquake deformation cycle(Nelson et al., 1996; Satake and Atwater, 2007). During an earthquake (known as the coseismic period), vertical
land motion can change almost instantly by more thana meter (see “Rare Extreme Events” in Chapter 5).
Between earthquakes (known as the interseismic period),rates of vertical land motion can be on the order of mm yr-1 and thus can have a significant impact on the relative sea level. Vertical land motions for the Cascadia Subduction Zone and San Andreas Fault Zone are described below.

SEA-LEVEL VARIABILITY AND CHANGE OFF THE CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON COASTS 71
TABLE 4.3 GIA Predicted Relative Sea-Level Rise for ± 250 Years Relative to the Present Day Using an Ensemble of 16
GIA Models at 21 West Coast Tide Gage Locations
GIA Predicted Relative Sea-Level Rise (mm yr-1)
Location Latitude Longitude Mean Standard Deviation
Cherry Point, WA 48.87 -122.75 -0.16 0.44
Friday Harbor, WA 48.55 -123.00 0.14 0.46
Neah Bay, WA 48.37 -124.62 0.58 0.64
Port Townsend, WA 48.12 -122.75 0.40 0.48
Seattle, WA 47.60 -122.33 0.53 0.44
Toke Point, WA 46.72 -123.97 1.03 0.53
Astoria, OR 46.22 -123.77 1.07 0.43
South Beach, OR 44.63 -124.05 1.00 0.34
Charleston II, OR 43.35 -124.32 0.86 0.32
Port Orford, OR 42.73 -124.50 0.81 0.32
Crescent City, CA 41.75 -124.20 0.67 0.31
N. Spit, Humboldt Bay, CA 40.77 -124.22 0.63 0.32
Point Reyes, CA 38.00 -122.98 0.53 0.30
San Francisco, CA 37.80 -122.47 0.47 0.29
Alameda, CA 37.77 -122.30 0.44 0.29
Monterey, CA 36.60 -121.88 0.48 0.28
Port San Luis, CA 35.17 -120.75 0.45 0.27
Santa Monica, CA 34.02 -118.50 0.34 0.25
Los Angeles, CA 33.72 -118.27 0.36 0.25
La Jolla, CA 32.87 -117.25 0.34 0.25
San Diego, CA 32.72 -117.17 0.35 0.25
NOTE: Relative sea-level change is the change in absolute sea level minus the change in height of the solid earth surface. Relative sea-level rise has a negative
sign compared to uplift of the earth surface due to GIA.

 

[Crick]

That's the best post you've ever made!

You're pleased to see Westwall shown to be a liar?

 

[jc456]

That's the best post you've ever made!

You're pleased to see Westwall shown to be a liar?

Is that what I said? Nope. The fact he did't write a damn thing, priceless and his best post Eva

 

[Crick]

Old Rocks concluded that Westwall was a liar as he claims to be a PhD geologist but seems utterly ignorant or many basic geological points. Then you said that was Old Rocks best post ever. How else should we take that? I imagine it's how Westwall took it.

 

[westwall]

By all means, go to this site;

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Note how many more areas are rising than falling. And note that the areas that are falling are exactly those areas in which there is very active subduction.

And Walleyes knows this, and is again lying by misdirection.

Active subduction lowers sea levels now? That's weird. All the papers I've seen say the opposite.

CSZ A Key Factor for Pacific Northwest Sea-Level Rise Yale Climate Connections

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies
etc. etc. etc.

What an absolute liar you are, Walleyes. You claim that you have a Phd in Geology, then you don't seem to understand that those levels are relative to the land. Where the land is rising, due to isostasy from the continental ice melt, or being pushed up from subduction, the sea level relative to land, is falling. Everywhere else it is rising.

Show us some papers that claim subduction zones cause sea level decreases there olfraud. I backed up my claim. How about you do the same. You are great at hurling insults like the junkyard dog that you are, but you are remarkably short on facts. Subduction zones cause volcanoes to form INLAND. They don't cause the continental plates to rise.

Isostasy is where the actual continental plates are rising due to the enormous weight of all those continental glaciers melting off 11,000 years ago. THAT is what is occurring. Subduction zones have NOTHING to do with that you fucking moron.

LOL. Of course, Phd Geologist. Be glad to give you a basic primer in subduction geology of the Pacific Northwest;

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies

The history of crustal strain accumulation andrelease above subduction zone faults over hundreds of years is described by the earthquake deformation cycle(Nelson et al., 1996; Satake and Atwater, 2007). During an earthquake (known as the coseismic period), vertical
land motion can change almost instantly by more thana meter (see “Rare Extreme Events” in Chapter 5).
Between earthquakes (known as the interseismic period),rates of vertical land motion can be on the order of mm yr-1 and thus can have a significant impact on the relative sea level. Vertical land motions for the Cascadia Subduction Zone and San Andreas Fault Zone are described below.

SEA-LEVEL VARIABILITY AND CHANGE OFF THE CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON COASTS 71
TABLE 4.3 GIA Predicted Relative Sea-Level Rise for ± 250 Years Relative to the Present Day Using an Ensemble of 16
GIA Models at 21 West Coast Tide Gage Locations
GIA Predicted Relative Sea-Level Rise (mm yr-1)
Location Latitude Longitude Mean Standard Deviation
Cherry Point, WA 48.87 -122.75 -0.16 0.44
Friday Harbor, WA 48.55 -123.00 0.14 0.46
Neah Bay, WA 48.37 -124.62 0.58 0.64
Port Townsend, WA 48.12 -122.75 0.40 0.48
Seattle, WA 47.60 -122.33 0.53 0.44
Toke Point, WA 46.72 -123.97 1.03 0.53
Astoria, OR 46.22 -123.77 1.07 0.43
South Beach, OR 44.63 -124.05 1.00 0.34
Charleston II, OR 43.35 -124.32 0.86 0.32
Port Orford, OR 42.73 -124.50 0.81 0.32
Crescent City, CA 41.75 -124.20 0.67 0.31
N. Spit, Humboldt Bay, CA 40.77 -124.22 0.63 0.32
Point Reyes, CA 38.00 -122.98 0.53 0.30
San Francisco, CA 37.80 -122.47 0.47 0.29
Alameda, CA 37.77 -122.30 0.44 0.29
Monterey, CA 36.60 -121.88 0.48 0.28
Port San Luis, CA 35.17 -120.75 0.45 0.27
Santa Monica, CA 34.02 -118.50 0.34 0.25
Los Angeles, CA 33.72 -118.27 0.36 0.25
La Jolla, CA 32.87 -117.25 0.34 0.25
San Diego, CA 32.72 -117.17 0.35 0.25
NOTE: Relative sea-level change is the change in absolute sea level minus the change in height of the solid earth surface. Relative sea-level rise has a negative
sign compared to uplift of the earth surface due to GIA.

\





I know Tanya quite well. Nothing in this paper, nor in the link you provide says that subduction zones cause ocean level reduction. Nothing. Every paper I have ever read states the exact OPPOSITE. As even this one does silly person...

Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California Oregon and Washington Past Present and Future 2012 Division on Earth and Life Studies


See, I made it big so even a blind fool such as yourself can see what YOU posted you twat.

 

[Crick]

But apparently those URL tags are just a skosh beyond you. Did you make up this statement or did it actually come from some grownup you met once?

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks concluded that Westwall was a liar as he claims to be a PhD geologist but seems utterly ignorant or many basic geological points. Then you said that was Old Rocks best post ever. How else should we take that? I imagine it's how Westwall took it.

Olfraud has done nothing but confirm that every paper out there states that subduction zones cause sea levels to rise, not fall. I showed that the areas where sea level is falling is very large, while the so called sea level rise for the majority of the planet is ZERO to 3 mm.

Some day, when you develop a brain you will be able to discern what people are saying. Sadly, you are currently only semi sentient, so are not quite as smart as the squirrel outside my window at the moment.

 

[westwall]

But apparently those URL tags are just a skosh beyond you. Did you make up this statement or did it actually come from some grownup you met once?

WTF are you blabbering about?

 

[Crick]

The wrinkle in the ongoing story of our planet’s warming seas is discussed in a recent report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” The report estimates that a major earthquake triggered beneath the Pacific Ocean, within the CDZ, “would cause some coastal areas to immediately subside and relative sea levels to suddenly rise.” How much? More than three feet higher than what’s already projected for the region.

[urlhttp://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/07/cascadia-subduction-zone-a-key-factor-for-pacific-nw-sea-level-rise/[/URL]

 

[westwall]

The wrinkle in the ongoing story of our planet’s warming seas is discussed in a recent report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” The report estimates that a major earthquake triggered beneath the Pacific Ocean, within the CDZ, “would cause some coastal areas to immediately subside and relative sea levels to suddenly rise.” How much? More than three feet higher than what’s already projected for the region.

[urlhttp://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/07/cascadia-subduction-zone-a-key-factor-for-pacific-nw-sea-level-rise/[/URL]

Proving that you too are a simpleton..... Once again the link says sea level RISE, and nothing about subduction zones causing sea level to drop. Thanks for proving my point yet again.

 

[jc456]

Old Rocks concluded that Westwall was a liar as he claims to be a PhD geologist but seems utterly ignorant or many basic geological points. Then you said that was Old Rocks best post ever. How else should we take that? I imagine it's how Westwall took it.

Sorry I realize it was a post that made sense and completely lost by you!

 

[jc456]

So

The wrinkle in the ongoing story of our planet’s warming seas is discussed in a recent report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.” The report estimates that a major earthquake triggered beneath the Pacific Ocean, within the CDZ, “would cause some coastal areas to immediately subside and relative sea levels to suddenly rise.” How much? More than three feet higher than what’s already projected for the region.

[urlhttp://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/07/cascadia-subduction-zone-a-key-factor-for-pacific-nw-sea-level-rise/[/URL]

a rise due to the earth and not man. Hmmm

 

[Crick]

Let's use our heads Mr jc. Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet. Just about as much rises as falls. Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level. The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level. That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise. As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume. Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific. The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.

 

[Yarddog]

It is already too late to do anything. We have already gone off the cliff. Even if it were not, those who could do something have too much invested in the status quo to do anything. Those who currently deny anything is actually happening will continue to do so until it is undeniable, and then blame those who told them it was happening for not doing something about it. Human behavior is entirely predictable.

There is no status quo. Why you folks won't accept the fact you can;t control nature is beyond me.

Yeah, what if this is just part of the natural cycle. Who is really to say what is normal, obviously there has been much less Ice than there is today during other periods, then the i ce returns.

 

[westwall]

Let's use our heads Mr jc. Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet. Just about as much rises as falls. Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level. The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level. That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise. As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume. Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific. The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.

No, it's not. Isostatic rebound is the Earth returning to it's original level after the overbearing ice sheet has melted. Period. The raising of the Himalayas is due to the collision of the Indian plate into the Asian plate with a small amount of isostatic rebound thrown in.

Isostatic rebound CAN'T be symmetrical around the planet. Just think (I know it's hard for you) of what that statement means. Really, think about it.

And, yet again, you reinforce my statements that subduction zones don't cause sea level decrease which is what olfraud, NOT ME, was claiming.

 

[Old Rocks]

A graphic showing a relative sea level curve

View Original Image at Full Size
Figure 2. Coquille River estuary relative sea level curve. Modified from Figure 6 of Witter et al. (2003).

Image 18540 is a 3886 by 5355 pixel JPEG
Uploaded: Dec13 09

Beneath the surface of coastal lowlands archives of mid- to late-Holocene subduction zone earthquakes

Damn, Walleyes, you are stupid.

 

[westwall]

A graphic showing a relative sea level curve

View Original Image at Full Size
Figure 2. Coquille River estuary relative sea level curve. Modified from Figure 6 of Witter et al. (2003).

Image 18540 is a 3886 by 5355 pixel JPEG
Uploaded: Dec13 09

Beneath the surface of coastal lowlands archives of mid- to late-Holocene subduction zone earthquakes

Damn, Walleyes, you are stupid.

Says the imbecile who's EVERY post confirms what I stated!

 

[Old Rocks]

A graphic showing a relative sea level curve

View Original Image at Full Size
Figure 2. Coquille River estuary relative sea level curve. Modified from Figure 6 of Witter et al.

(2003).

Image 18540 is a 3886 by 5355 pixel JPEG
Uploaded: Dec13 09

Ol' fucking dumb Walleyes sees the interseismic period of sea level fall between the subduction quakes, and calls it sea level rise. At present, in areas of rapid subduction, the sea level is falling relative to the land, until a quake re-adjusts the landscape up, then it begins all over again.