Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[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

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.

No, I showed the areas where seal levels are dropping at very fast rates. You claimed that it was due to subduction zone activity. I said subduction zones don't cause sea level to fall. You have since supported my statement with every link you post you fucking imbecile.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sea level is relitive to land. And the land is rising. Therefore, sea level at those points relitive to land is falling. Same as the sea level near New Orleans is rising very rapidly due to the subsidance of the land there, and the general rise in sea level due to ice melt and warming of the ocean. By this site, one can see that there are far more places where the sea level relative to land is rising than falling;
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

 

[westwall]

Sea level is relitive to land. And the land is rising. Therefore, sea level at those points relitive to land is falling. Same as the sea level near New Orleans is rising very rapidly due to the subsidance of the land there, and the general rise in sea level due to ice melt and warming of the ocean. By this site, one can see that there are far more places where the sea level relative to land is rising than falling;
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

Once again for the imbecile in the room. Subduction zones cause volcanoes to form INLAND from the sea.

Look at the map below. The subduction zone is off to the left of the map image. See the line of volcanoes? That's where they form!


You are spouting horse poo. Learn of what you speak before you make an even bigger fool of yourself you damned halfwit!

 

[jc456]

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.

Well interesting, no I am not familiar with this topic, however, again using logic, I would believe as earth moves out of the water, the water then would have to eventually equalize around the globe. And that equalization around the globe would cause a rise in levels around the globe.

 

[Liminal]

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.

No, I showed the areas where seal levels are dropping at very fast rates. You claimed that it was due to subduction zone activity. I said subduction zones don't cause sea level to fall. You have since supported my statement with every link you post you fucking imbecile.

It doesn't matter what you think you've showed. You can't even begin to put any of it into an actual context, you aren't a scientist.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, I showed the areas where seal levels are dropping at very fast rates. You claimed that it was due to subduction zone activity. I said subduction zones don't cause sea level to fall. You have since supported my statement with every link you post you fucking imbecile.

It doesn't matter what you think you've showed. You can't even begin to put any of it into an actual context, you aren't a scientist.

How did I know you were going to support the AGW hocus-pocus? Because you're a moron!

 

[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

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.

No, I showed the areas where seal levels are dropping at very fast rates. You claimed that it was due to subduction zone activity. I said subduction zones don't cause sea level to fall. You have since supported my statement with every link you post you fucking imbecile.

It doesn't matter what you think you've showed. You can't even begin to put any of it into an actual context, you aren't a scientist.

Actually, I am. But it doesn't matter. You fools are still trying to sacrifice virgins to the volcano Gods.
You're not worth wasting time with.

 

[Crick]

Well interesting, no I am not familiar with this topic, however, again using logic, I would believe as earth moves out of the water, the water then would have to eventually equalize around the globe. And that equalization around the globe would cause a rise in levels around the globe.

What do you mean "as earth moves out of the water?

 

[IanC]

Most of the land surface is either rising (rebound from having glaciers sitting on top) or sinking. If you find the pivot point and search out tide gauge stations in that area, what do you find? From the examples I've seen there is a 1-2 mm/yr SLR. Certainly not the 3+ mm/yr the satellites appear to show, for uncheckable ocean locales.

Which tide gauges are the satellites adjusted to? I don't know, it is not easily accessible info.

 

[jc456]

Well interesting, no I am not familiar with this topic, however, again using logic, I would believe as earth moves out of the water, the water then would have to eventually equalize around the globe. And that equalization around the globe would cause a rise in levels around the globe.

What do you mean "as earth moves out of the water?

As volcanoes erupt and plates move the land mass rises out of the ocean.

 

[Crick]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

 

[Crick]

Most of the land surface is either rising (rebound from having glaciers sitting on top) or sinking. If you find the pivot point and search out tide gauge stations in that area, what do you find? From the examples I've seen there is a 1-2 mm/yr SLR. Certainly not the 3+ mm/yr the satellites appear to show, for uncheckable ocean locales.
Which tide gauges are the satellites adjusted to? I don't know, it is not easily accessible info.

So... you know this topic better and have conducted a better analysis than the CU Sea Level Research Group. That's amazing. You've done a good job of hiding your flame Ian.

 

[Liminal]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

 

[westwall]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

You have no idea how little I care about your clueless opinion.

 

[westwall]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

 

[Liminal]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

 

[jc456]

Who cares

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Who cares?

 

[jc456]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

What evidence?

 

[Liminal]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

What evidence?

How much evidence do I need to smell bullshit?

 

[westwall]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

Then by all means present some for me to destroy. So far all you have done is shoot your mouth off.