The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

[Crick]

So, I see you are completely unfamiliar with actual science.

 

[9aces]

So, I see you are completely unfamiliar with actual science.

Quite familiar with it actually, which is why I know if I'd used the words "likely" in any scientific report I ever turned in the instructor would have handed it back to me with a nice "F" emblazoned in red on it.

My quantitative analysis instructor would have a ball with something written with that much waffling about what their conclusions actually are.

Of course I know why they do this, and so do you. So when they're wrong, they can "adjust" their data to fit what actually happened, and not be called morons because they were so far off.

At least by the lemmings (you and the warmer crowd) who swallow whatever they throw out hook, line and sinker with no care whether it's right or not. Everyone else has no problem calling them a moron.

 

[Old Rocks]

9aces, you really don't know a damned thing about CO2 levels in prior times, and their relationship to temperatures of those times. And you definately have no knowledge of the times of extinctions when the GHGs caused very rapid changes in those temperatures.

Here, learn something;

 

[IanC]

...
Human GHG emissions and deforestation are driving greenhouse warming which is driving climatic conditions

....

crick may sorta be onto something here.

temps vs log2 CO2

r2 of over .5, not bad.

world population vs CO2

r2 over .9, outstanding!


hahahaha, that brings up an inconvenient and un PC aspect of the situation.

on the face of it it would appear that CO2 causes half the warming and other human activities related to population are responsible for the other half (any room for UHI there?).

I dont really think so. spurious correlations abound everywhere you look. but McKittrick's paper that looked for correlations to human developement factors did come up with a lot of positive correlations to mankind's impact.

 

[Crick]

So, I see you are completely unfamiliar with actual science.

Quite familiar with it actually, which is why I know if I'd used the words "likely" in any scientific report I ever turned in the instructor would have handed it back to me with a nice "F" emblazoned in red on it.

This statement tells me you're unfamiliar with the very basics of science.

My quantitative analysis instructor would have a ball with something written with that much waffling about what their conclusions actually are.

Do you believe climate science is quantitative analysis?

Of course I know why they do this, and so do you. So when they're wrong, they can "adjust" their data to fit what actually happened, and not be called morons because they were so far off.

At least by the lemmings (you and the warmer crowd) who swallow whatever they throw out hook, line and sinker with no care whether it's right or not. Everyone else has no problem calling them a moron.

I guess I have no problem putting that label where it belongs.

Moron.

 

[9aces]

9aces, you really don't know a damned thing about CO2 levels in prior times, and their relationship to temperatures of those times. And you definately have no knowledge of the times of extinctions when the GHGs caused very rapid changes in those temperatures.

Here, learn something;

Pretty good. He's got some good data in there, and I found it particularly interesting about his discussion around the "Miocene problem"

We've got good science that shows no correlation between CO2 levels and warming, and we've got good science that shows some correlation. Which one does he use....the one that fits his theory better, despite it's a singular set of data against the whole of the rest.

This is your problem. The people you tout discard "good science" for "good science" that fits the conclusion they've already drawn. Instead of looking at their conclusions and seeing the flaws there.

 

[9aces]

So, I see you are completely unfamiliar with actual science.

Quite familiar with it actually, which is why I know if I'd used the words "likely" in any scientific report I ever turned in the instructor would have handed it back to me with a nice "F" emblazoned in red on it.

This statement tells me you're unfamiliar with the very basics of science.

My quantitative analysis instructor would have a ball with something written with that much waffling about what their conclusions actually are.

Do you believe climate science is quantitative analysis?

Of course I know why they do this, and so do you. So when they're wrong, they can "adjust" their data to fit what actually happened, and not be called morons because they were so far off.

At least by the lemmings (you and the warmer crowd) who swallow whatever they throw out hook, line and sinker with no care whether it's right or not. Everyone else has no problem calling them a moron.

I guess I have no problem putting that label where it belongs.

Moron.

Why is climate science quantitative analysis? You've obviously never had a Pchem or Quant class, probably never heard of Geochemistry. What's used to evaluate the samples used in paleoclimate reconstruction?

I guess this is why you want to ignore anything past 150 years ago, takes work.....moron.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Old Rocks]

9aces, you really don't know a damned thing about CO2 levels in prior times, and their relationship to temperatures of those times. And you definately have no knowledge of the times of extinctions when the GHGs caused very rapid changes in those temperatures.

Here, learn something;

Pretty good. He's got some good data in there, and I found it particularly interesting about his discussion around the "Miocene problem"

We've got good science that shows no correlation between CO2 levels and warming, and we've got good science that shows some correlation. Which one does he use....the one that fits his theory better, despite it's a singular set of data against the whole of the rest.

This is your problem. The people you tout discard "good science" for "good science" that fits the conclusion they've already drawn. Instead of looking at their conclusions and seeing the flaws there.

If you have that science present it.

 

[9aces]

9aces, you really don't know a damned thing about CO2 levels in prior times, and their relationship to temperatures of those times. And you definately have no knowledge of the times of extinctions when the GHGs caused very rapid changes in those temperatures.

Here, learn something;

Pretty good. He's got some good data in there, and I found it particularly interesting about his discussion around the "Miocene problem"

We've got good science that shows no correlation between CO2 levels and warming, and we've got good science that shows some correlation. Which one does he use....the one that fits his theory better, despite it's a singular set of data against the whole of the rest.

This is your problem. The people you tout discard "good science" for "good science" that fits the conclusion they've already drawn. Instead of looking at their conclusions and seeing the flaws there.

If you have that science present it.

Ask the guy whose link you posted. Or didn't you watch it?

 

[Crick]

9Aces, you say "we've got good science that shows no correlation between CO2 levels and warming". I'm curious to hear what that "good science" might be.

How many scientists out there believe there is no such correlation? Cause better than 97% of the world's climate scientists and probably better than 90% of all scientists believe have been found to believe there is a very strong correlation.

 

[Old Rocks]

9aces is just flapping yap without anything at all to back up his flap-yap. Virtually all of the articles concerning global warming in peer reviewed literature states that the globe is warming, and that we are responsible because of the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

9aces is just flapping yap without anything at all to back up his flap-yap. Virtually all of the articles concerning global warming in peer reviewed literature states that the globe is warming, and that we are responsible because of the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere.

so old socks, tell us again how the sun is not heating the planet as much today and we are warming? Again, how does less LWR mean more warmth? Still trying to figure your science. So?

 

[9aces]

9Aces, you say "we've got good science that shows no correlation between CO2 levels and warming". I'm curious to hear what that "good science" might be.

How many scientists out there believe there is no such correlation? Cause better than 97% of the world's climate scientists and probably better than 90% of all scientists believe have been found to believe there is a very strong correlation.

Ask the guy whose link you posted. He's the guy who said it, I just quoted him. Apparently you didn't watch your own video.

 

[9aces]

9aces is just flapping yap without anything at all to back up his flap-yap. Virtually all of the articles concerning global warming in peer reviewed literature states that the globe is warming, and that we are responsible because of the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere.

And yet you can't prove it. You have theories, but theories without any verification, and you don't have anything remotely approaching a repeatable, even semi-reliable model are simply WAG.

 

[RollingThunder]

More dire predictions down the drain. Was it that long ago that AlGore told us major coastal cities would be forced to shut down as the inhabitants fled the rising seas?

Despite the accelerated melting of glaciers and ice sheets, sea levels aren�t rising quite as quickly as scientists anticipated. The reason: Continents are absorbing more of the water before it flows into the seas, according to a new study.

Read the story with links @ Climate Models Botch Another Prediction: Sea Levels Aren't Rising as Predicted; "Thirsty Continents" Which Suck Up More Excess Water Than Imagined are to Blame

You fucking liar! And moron! Coastal cities are indeed threatened by sea level rise (already beginning to happen in Miami and other places), and there are definitely going to be enormous numbers of climate change refugees fleeing the rising seas.....at some point in the future, not right now though, imbecile!.....nor did former VP Gore ever say that would be happening by now.

Your article basically claims that sea levels would be rising even faster than they are except that the continental land masses are absorbing a lot of the excess rainfall.

In reality, that doesn't change the reality of the accuracy of the climate science sea level rise predictions.

As I posted in the OP of a thread I started:

In spite of the anti-science denier cult propaganda, the scientifically established facts are that sea levels are rising faster now than they have in (at least) several thousand years, and the rate at which sea levels are rising is accelerating. The threats this poses to our civilization and agricultural systems are enormous.

Satellite data indicates sea levels rising faster than expected
Scientists analysing satellite data warn that rises in sea level are increasing threats to coastal cities and food security
By Paul Brown
Climate Change News
Last updated on 27/03/2015
Satellite observations show that sea level rise may have been underestimated, and that annual rises are increasing.

A collaborative effort between maritime organisations and space agencies in measuring sea level rise has come to the conclusion that it has been increasing by 3.1 millimetres a year since 1993 – higher than previous estimates.

The evidence is growing from a number of recent studies of the ice caps that sea level rise is accelerating, posing a threat to many of the world’s largest and most wealthy cities − most of which are also important ports.

Many of these in the developing world have little or no protection against rising sea levels. Some in Europe – such as London and Rotterdam − already have flood barriers to protect areas below high tide or storm surge level, but these will need to be replaced and raised in the next 30 years.

Delta areas in Egypt, Vietnam, Bangladesh and China – vital to each of the nation’s food supply – are already losing land to the sea.

Difficult to measure

One of the problems scientists have had in getting accurate worldwide data is that the sea does not rise evenly around the globe.

This, added to the fact that in some places the land is sinking and in other places is rising, makes exact information difficult to measure from tide gauges.

Since 1991, it has been possible to measure the surface of the oceans across the entire globe by using satellite altimetry, whereby the satellite emits a signal towards the ocean’s surface and receives the reflected echo.

The sea level is calculated from the round-trip time between the satellite and the sea surface and the position of the satellite along its trajectory.

While the data from tide gauges provides information about local changes relative to the land, the use of altimeter satellites enables the recording of data on a global basis.

Luciana Fenoglio-Marc, a scientist specialising in physical and satellite geodesy at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, uses these and other satellite geodetic observation data in her research.

She is working with the European Space Agency and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and in close consultation with the German Federal Institute of Hydrology and the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany.

Comment: As sea levels rise, climate threatens Pacific cultures

The increase of around 3.1mm per year since 1993 indicates a marked rise in the average sea level when compared to previously recorded values, which show a sea level rise of between 1mm and 2mm per year in the 20th century.

In its fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a further increase in the global sea level of 30cm to 70cm by the end of the 21st century, based on a scenario involving a medium rate of global warming.

The report predicted that increases will not be even, but will have a greater impact on some regions than on others. The result could be coastal flooding and rising groundwater levels – an outlook that makes it essential to have a reliable data basis for dealing with the dangers this poses.

Protecting coasts from the rising seas will require considerable adaptations, particularly in such low-lying coastal regions as the North Sea coast of Germany and the many low-lying islands in the tropics.

Another aspect of the work with satellites is measuring ocean density to see how much water expansion − because of warming − is leading to sea level rise.

A direct estimation of mass changes in the Mediterranean Sea show expansion to be the cause of an average sea level rise of about 2.1mm per year since 1993.

According to the IPCC, about 35% of the sea level increase between 1993 and 2010 was the result of thermal expansion, and the rest was due to melting ice and increasing run-off from land. But the latest observation shows this may not be true of the Mediterranean.

Too cautious

There is wide debate about whether the IPCC estimates of sea level rise have been too cautious, suggesting that the sea level will rise more than a metre this century – and some have even suggested that the rise could be two metres.

This is mainly because there has been uncertainty about how much of the huge icecap in Greenland, and most of all in Antarctica, would contribute to sea level rise by 2100 – if at all.

Research published since the IPCC estimates were made show that both icecaps will be large net contributors to sea level rise, and possibly much quicker than previously thought.

This lends credibility to the report last week that European coastal cities are not sufficiently prepared for the threats that climate change poses.

The report − titled Underfunded, Unprepared, Underwater? Cities at Risk – is by the E3G non-governmental organisation, and it says governments across the European Union are leaving their major cities exposed to danger from climate change, including floods, heat waves and sea level rise.

Since it takes an average of 30 years from planning to complete construction of a major flood barrier to protect a city, the report warns that the problem needs to be given urgent consideration and funding.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

Related posts:
* Sea levels are rising faster than previous estimates
* Antarctic sea levels rising faster than global average
* Satellite data could drive low-carbon shipping sector
* Sea level rise faster than feared, say scientists

 

[jc456]

More dire predictions down the drain. Was it that long ago that AlGore told us major coastal cities would be forced to shut down as the inhabitants fled the rising seas?

Despite the accelerated melting of glaciers and ice sheets, sea levels aren�t rising quite as quickly as scientists anticipated. The reason: Continents are absorbing more of the water before it flows into the seas, according to a new study.

Read the story with links @ Climate Models Botch Another Prediction: Sea Levels Aren't Rising as Predicted; "Thirsty Continents" Which Suck Up More Excess Water Than Imagined are to Blame

You fucking liar! And moron! Coastal cities are indeed threatened by sea level rise (already beginning to happen in Miami and other places), and there are definitely going to be enormous numbers of climate change refugees fleeing the rising seas.....at some point in the future, not right now though, imbecile!.....nor did former VP Gore ever say that would be happening by now.

Your article basically claims that sea levels would be rising even faster than they are except that the continental land masses are absorbing a lot of the excess rainfall.

In reality, that doesn't change the reality of the accuracy of the climate science sea level rise predictions.

As I posted in the OP of a thread I started:

In spite of the anti-science denier cult propaganda, the scientifically established facts are that sea levels are rising faster now than they have in (at least) several thousand years, and the rate at which sea levels are rising is accelerating. The threats this poses to our civilization and agricultural systems are enormous.

Satellite data indicates sea levels rising faster than expected
Scientists analysing satellite data warn that rises in sea level are increasing threats to coastal cities and food security
By Paul Brown
Climate Change News
Last updated on 27/03/2015
Satellite observations show that sea level rise may have been underestimated, and that annual rises are increasing.

A collaborative effort between maritime organisations and space agencies in measuring sea level rise has come to the conclusion that it has been increasing by 3.1 millimetres a year since 1993 – higher than previous estimates.

The evidence is growing from a number of recent studies of the ice caps that sea level rise is accelerating, posing a threat to many of the world’s largest and most wealthy cities − most of which are also important ports.

Many of these in the developing world have little or no protection against rising sea levels. Some in Europe – such as London and Rotterdam − already have flood barriers to protect areas below high tide or storm surge level, but these will need to be replaced and raised in the next 30 years.

Delta areas in Egypt, Vietnam, Bangladesh and China – vital to each of the nation’s food supply – are already losing land to the sea.

Difficult to measure

One of the problems scientists have had in getting accurate worldwide data is that the sea does not rise evenly around the globe.

This, added to the fact that in some places the land is sinking and in other places is rising, makes exact information difficult to measure from tide gauges.

Since 1991, it has been possible to measure the surface of the oceans across the entire globe by using satellite altimetry, whereby the satellite emits a signal towards the ocean’s surface and receives the reflected echo.

The sea level is calculated from the round-trip time between the satellite and the sea surface and the position of the satellite along its trajectory.

While the data from tide gauges provides information about local changes relative to the land, the use of altimeter satellites enables the recording of data on a global basis.

Luciana Fenoglio-Marc, a scientist specialising in physical and satellite geodesy at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, uses these and other satellite geodetic observation data in her research.

She is working with the European Space Agency and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and in close consultation with the German Federal Institute of Hydrology and the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany.

Comment: As sea levels rise, climate threatens Pacific cultures

The increase of around 3.1mm per year since 1993 indicates a marked rise in the average sea level when compared to previously recorded values, which show a sea level rise of between 1mm and 2mm per year in the 20th century.

In its fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a further increase in the global sea level of 30cm to 70cm by the end of the 21st century, based on a scenario involving a medium rate of global warming.

The report predicted that increases will not be even, but will have a greater impact on some regions than on others. The result could be coastal flooding and rising groundwater levels – an outlook that makes it essential to have a reliable data basis for dealing with the dangers this poses.

Protecting coasts from the rising seas will require considerable adaptations, particularly in such low-lying coastal regions as the North Sea coast of Germany and the many low-lying islands in the tropics.

Another aspect of the work with satellites is measuring ocean density to see how much water expansion − because of warming − is leading to sea level rise.

A direct estimation of mass changes in the Mediterranean Sea show expansion to be the cause of an average sea level rise of about 2.1mm per year since 1993.

According to the IPCC, about 35% of the sea level increase between 1993 and 2010 was the result of thermal expansion, and the rest was due to melting ice and increasing run-off from land. But the latest observation shows this may not be true of the Mediterranean.

Too cautious

There is wide debate about whether the IPCC estimates of sea level rise have been too cautious, suggesting that the sea level will rise more than a metre this century – and some have even suggested that the rise could be two metres.

This is mainly because there has been uncertainty about how much of the huge icecap in Greenland, and most of all in Antarctica, would contribute to sea level rise by 2100 – if at all.

Research published since the IPCC estimates were made show that both icecaps will be large net contributors to sea level rise, and possibly much quicker than previously thought.

This lends credibility to the report last week that European coastal cities are not sufficiently prepared for the threats that climate change poses.

The report − titled Underfunded, Unprepared, Underwater? Cities at Risk – is by the E3G non-governmental organisation, and it says governments across the European Union are leaving their major cities exposed to danger from climate change, including floods, heat waves and sea level rise.

Since it takes an average of 30 years from planning to complete construction of a major flood barrier to protect a city, the report warns that the problem needs to be given urgent consideration and funding.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

Related posts:
* Sea levels are rising faster than previous estimates
* Antarctic sea levels rising faster than global average
* Satellite data could drive low-carbon shipping sector
* Sea level rise faster than feared, say scientists

not here:

 

[RollingThunder]

More dire predictions down the drain. Was it that long ago that AlGore told us major coastal cities would be forced to shut down as the inhabitants fled the rising seas?

Despite the accelerated melting of glaciers and ice sheets, sea levels aren�t rising quite as quickly as scientists anticipated. The reason: Continents are absorbing more of the water before it flows into the seas, according to a new study.

Read the story with links @ Climate Models Botch Another Prediction: Sea Levels Aren't Rising as Predicted; "Thirsty Continents" Which Suck Up More Excess Water Than Imagined are to Blame

You fucking liar! And moron! Coastal cities are indeed threatened by sea level rise (already beginning to happen in Miami and other places), and there are definitely going to be enormous numbers of climate change refugees fleeing the rising seas.....at some point in the future, not right now though, imbecile!.....nor did former VP Gore ever say that would be happening by now.

Your article basically claims that sea levels would be rising even faster than they are except that the continental land masses are absorbing a lot of the excess rainfall.

In reality, that doesn't change the reality of the accuracy of the climate science sea level rise predictions.

As I posted in the OP of a thread I started:

In spite of the anti-science denier cult propaganda, the scientifically established facts are that sea levels are rising faster now than they have in (at least) several thousand years, and the rate at which sea levels are rising is accelerating. The threats this poses to our civilization and agricultural systems are enormous.

Satellite data indicates sea levels rising faster than expected
Scientists analysing satellite data warn that rises in sea level are increasing threats to coastal cities and food security
By Paul Brown
Climate Change News
Last updated on 27/03/2015
Satellite observations show that sea level rise may have been underestimated, and that annual rises are increasing.

A collaborative effort between maritime organisations and space agencies in measuring sea level rise has come to the conclusion that it has been increasing by 3.1 millimetres a year since 1993 – higher than previous estimates.

The evidence is growing from a number of recent studies of the ice caps that sea level rise is accelerating, posing a threat to many of the world’s largest and most wealthy cities − most of which are also important ports.

Many of these in the developing world have little or no protection against rising sea levels. Some in Europe – such as London and Rotterdam − already have flood barriers to protect areas below high tide or storm surge level, but these will need to be replaced and raised in the next 30 years.

Delta areas in Egypt, Vietnam, Bangladesh and China – vital to each of the nation’s food supply – are already losing land to the sea.

Difficult to measure

One of the problems scientists have had in getting accurate worldwide data is that the sea does not rise evenly around the globe.

This, added to the fact that in some places the land is sinking and in other places is rising, makes exact information difficult to measure from tide gauges.

Since 1991, it has been possible to measure the surface of the oceans across the entire globe by using satellite altimetry, whereby the satellite emits a signal towards the ocean’s surface and receives the reflected echo.

The sea level is calculated from the round-trip time between the satellite and the sea surface and the position of the satellite along its trajectory.

While the data from tide gauges provides information about local changes relative to the land, the use of altimeter satellites enables the recording of data on a global basis.

Luciana Fenoglio-Marc, a scientist specialising in physical and satellite geodesy at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, uses these and other satellite geodetic observation data in her research.

She is working with the European Space Agency and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and in close consultation with the German Federal Institute of Hydrology and the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany.

Comment: As sea levels rise, climate threatens Pacific cultures

The increase of around 3.1mm per year since 1993 indicates a marked rise in the average sea level when compared to previously recorded values, which show a sea level rise of between 1mm and 2mm per year in the 20th century.

In its fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a further increase in the global sea level of 30cm to 70cm by the end of the 21st century, based on a scenario involving a medium rate of global warming.

The report predicted that increases will not be even, but will have a greater impact on some regions than on others. The result could be coastal flooding and rising groundwater levels – an outlook that makes it essential to have a reliable data basis for dealing with the dangers this poses.

Protecting coasts from the rising seas will require considerable adaptations, particularly in such low-lying coastal regions as the North Sea coast of Germany and the many low-lying islands in the tropics.

Another aspect of the work with satellites is measuring ocean density to see how much water expansion − because of warming − is leading to sea level rise.

A direct estimation of mass changes in the Mediterranean Sea show expansion to be the cause of an average sea level rise of about 2.1mm per year since 1993.

According to the IPCC, about 35% of the sea level increase between 1993 and 2010 was the result of thermal expansion, and the rest was due to melting ice and increasing run-off from land. But the latest observation shows this may not be true of the Mediterranean.

Too cautious

There is wide debate about whether the IPCC estimates of sea level rise have been too cautious, suggesting that the sea level will rise more than a metre this century – and some have even suggested that the rise could be two metres.

This is mainly because there has been uncertainty about how much of the huge icecap in Greenland, and most of all in Antarctica, would contribute to sea level rise by 2100 – if at all.

Research published since the IPCC estimates were made show that both icecaps will be large net contributors to sea level rise, and possibly much quicker than previously thought.

This lends credibility to the report last week that European coastal cities are not sufficiently prepared for the threats that climate change poses.

The report − titled Underfunded, Unprepared, Underwater? Cities at Risk – is by the E3G non-governmental organisation, and it says governments across the European Union are leaving their major cities exposed to danger from climate change, including floods, heat waves and sea level rise.

Since it takes an average of 30 years from planning to complete construction of a major flood barrier to protect a city, the report warns that the problem needs to be given urgent consideration and funding.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

Related posts:
* Sea levels are rising faster than previous estimates
* Antarctic sea levels rising faster than global average
* Satellite data could drive low-carbon shipping sector
* Sea level rise faster than feared, say scientists

not here:

How about here, moron!

Japanese WWII soldier graves washed away by rising sea levels
AOL News
Jun 8th 2014

 

[jc456]

More dire predictions down the drain. Was it that long ago that AlGore told us major coastal cities would be forced to shut down as the inhabitants fled the rising seas?

Despite the accelerated melting of glaciers and ice sheets, sea levels aren�t rising quite as quickly as scientists anticipated. The reason: Continents are absorbing more of the water before it flows into the seas, according to a new study.

Read the story with links @ Climate Models Botch Another Prediction: Sea Levels Aren't Rising as Predicted; "Thirsty Continents" Which Suck Up More Excess Water Than Imagined are to Blame

You fucking liar! And moron! Coastal cities are indeed threatened by sea level rise (already beginning to happen in Miami and other places), and there are definitely going to be enormous numbers of climate change refugees fleeing the rising seas.....at some point in the future, not right now though, imbecile!.....nor did former VP Gore ever say that would be happening by now.

Your article basically claims that sea levels would be rising even faster than they are except that the continental land masses are absorbing a lot of the excess rainfall.

In reality, that doesn't change the reality of the accuracy of the climate science sea level rise predictions.

As I posted in the OP of a thread I started:

In spite of the anti-science denier cult propaganda, the scientifically established facts are that sea levels are rising faster now than they have in (at least) several thousand years, and the rate at which sea levels are rising is accelerating. The threats this poses to our civilization and agricultural systems are enormous.

Satellite data indicates sea levels rising faster than expected
Scientists analysing satellite data warn that rises in sea level are increasing threats to coastal cities and food security
By Paul Brown
Climate Change News
Last updated on 27/03/2015
Satellite observations show that sea level rise may have been underestimated, and that annual rises are increasing.

A collaborative effort between maritime organisations and space agencies in measuring sea level rise has come to the conclusion that it has been increasing by 3.1 millimetres a year since 1993 – higher than previous estimates.

The evidence is growing from a number of recent studies of the ice caps that sea level rise is accelerating, posing a threat to many of the world’s largest and most wealthy cities − most of which are also important ports.

Many of these in the developing world have little or no protection against rising sea levels. Some in Europe – such as London and Rotterdam − already have flood barriers to protect areas below high tide or storm surge level, but these will need to be replaced and raised in the next 30 years.

Delta areas in Egypt, Vietnam, Bangladesh and China – vital to each of the nation’s food supply – are already losing land to the sea.

Difficult to measure

One of the problems scientists have had in getting accurate worldwide data is that the sea does not rise evenly around the globe.

This, added to the fact that in some places the land is sinking and in other places is rising, makes exact information difficult to measure from tide gauges.

Since 1991, it has been possible to measure the surface of the oceans across the entire globe by using satellite altimetry, whereby the satellite emits a signal towards the ocean’s surface and receives the reflected echo.

The sea level is calculated from the round-trip time between the satellite and the sea surface and the position of the satellite along its trajectory.

While the data from tide gauges provides information about local changes relative to the land, the use of altimeter satellites enables the recording of data on a global basis.

Luciana Fenoglio-Marc, a scientist specialising in physical and satellite geodesy at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany, uses these and other satellite geodetic observation data in her research.

She is working with the European Space Agency and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, and in close consultation with the German Federal Institute of Hydrology and the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany.

Comment: As sea levels rise, climate threatens Pacific cultures

The increase of around 3.1mm per year since 1993 indicates a marked rise in the average sea level when compared to previously recorded values, which show a sea level rise of between 1mm and 2mm per year in the 20th century.

In its fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a further increase in the global sea level of 30cm to 70cm by the end of the 21st century, based on a scenario involving a medium rate of global warming.

The report predicted that increases will not be even, but will have a greater impact on some regions than on others. The result could be coastal flooding and rising groundwater levels – an outlook that makes it essential to have a reliable data basis for dealing with the dangers this poses.

Protecting coasts from the rising seas will require considerable adaptations, particularly in such low-lying coastal regions as the North Sea coast of Germany and the many low-lying islands in the tropics.

Another aspect of the work with satellites is measuring ocean density to see how much water expansion − because of warming − is leading to sea level rise.

A direct estimation of mass changes in the Mediterranean Sea show expansion to be the cause of an average sea level rise of about 2.1mm per year since 1993.

According to the IPCC, about 35% of the sea level increase between 1993 and 2010 was the result of thermal expansion, and the rest was due to melting ice and increasing run-off from land. But the latest observation shows this may not be true of the Mediterranean.

Too cautious

There is wide debate about whether the IPCC estimates of sea level rise have been too cautious, suggesting that the sea level will rise more than a metre this century – and some have even suggested that the rise could be two metres.

This is mainly because there has been uncertainty about how much of the huge icecap in Greenland, and most of all in Antarctica, would contribute to sea level rise by 2100 – if at all.

Research published since the IPCC estimates were made show that both icecaps will be large net contributors to sea level rise, and possibly much quicker than previously thought.

This lends credibility to the report last week that European coastal cities are not sufficiently prepared for the threats that climate change poses.

The report − titled Underfunded, Unprepared, Underwater? Cities at Risk – is by the E3G non-governmental organisation, and it says governments across the European Union are leaving their major cities exposed to danger from climate change, including floods, heat waves and sea level rise.

Since it takes an average of 30 years from planning to complete construction of a major flood barrier to protect a city, the report warns that the problem needs to be given urgent consideration and funding.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network

Related posts:
* Sea levels are rising faster than previous estimates
* Antarctic sea levels rising faster than global average
* Satellite data could drive low-carbon shipping sector
* Sea level rise faster than feared, say scientists

not here:

How about here, moron!

Japanese WWII soldier graves washed away by rising sea levels
AOL News
Jun 8th 2014

 

[Crick]

9aces is just flapping yap without anything at all to back up his flap-yap. Virtually all of the articles concerning global warming in peer reviewed literature states that the globe is warming, and that we are responsible because of the GHGs we are putting into the atmosphere.

And yet you can't prove it. You have theories, but theories without any verification, and you don't have anything remotely approaching a repeatable, even semi-reliable model are simply WAG.

Science is not required - and is not logically able - "to prove it". The scientific method requires the presentation of observations, predictions and experiments which all support the hypothesis. It allows the refutation of hypotheses via falsification. There are thousands of peer-reviewed studies published for several decades now which clearly support AGW and which clearly refute ALL of the alternative hypotheses attempted. No one has falsified AGW despite the funding of hundreds of millions of dollars from the fossil fuel industries for that very purpose.

You lose. AGW is a widely accepted theory which provides an accurate description of the behavior of the Earth's climate.