From Huffingtonpost.com :
WASHINGTON — Sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, according to a study that offers the most detailed look yet at the changes in ocean levels during the last 2,100 years.
The researchers found that since the late 19th century – as the world became industrialized – sea level has risen more than 2 millimeters per year, on average. That’s a bit less than one-tenth of an inch, but it adds up over time.
It will lead to land loss, more flooding and saltwater invading bodies of fresh water, said lead researcher Benjamin Horton whose team examined sediment from North Carolina’s Outer Banks. He directs the Sea Level Research Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania.
The predicted effects he cites aren’t new and are predicted by many climate scientists. But outside experts say the research verifies increasing sea level rise compared to previous centuries.
Kenneth Miller, chairman of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Rutgers University, called the new report significant.
“This is a very important contribution because it firmly establishes that the rise in sea level in the 20th century is unprecedented for the recent geologic past,” said Miller, who was not part of the research team. Miller said he recently advised New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the state needs to plan for a sea level rise of about 3 feet by the end of the century.
Horton said rising temperatures are the reason behind the higher sea level.
To the naysayers, evidence seems to be coming in from all branches of science. It is difficult to prove that all scientific evidence is bogus and the result of manipulating data. At what point to we, as Americans, need to start addressing climate change in general? Can we agree that temperatures are higher? Can we agree that we have a longer growing season? Can we agree that many cities are almost uninhabitable because of smog and other forms of pollutants?
What we do influences America but what other people do influences us also. This really is a global issue. Man is a long way from having dominion over the earth, as evidenced by earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes and other natural disasters. Maybe its time to try to do something about that which we might eventually have some control over rather than going all political over what is patently obvious to many of us.
You do know that the climatologists don’t all agree that this study is valid. Apparently they don’t think that ONE study, from ONE place, ie. one spot on the North Carolina coast is enough to make such a broad statement. Again, the AGW crowd is grasping at single straws, trying to make a straw man.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/newsbytes-not-everybody-believes-to-new-mann-sea-level-study/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/26/further-problems-with-kemp-and-mann/
For one thing, Mann’s been proven to be either a terribly sloppy scientist or a liar.
Here’s just on objection…..
Tidal range. If the tidal range has changed over time, it would enter their calculations as a spurious sea level rise or fall in their results. They acknowledge the possible problem, but they say it can’t happen, based on computer modeling. However, they would have been better advised to look at the data rather than foolishly placing their faith in models built on sand. The tidal range at Oregon Inlet Marina, a mere ten miles from their Sand Point core location, has been increasing at a rate of 3 mm per year, which is faster than the Kemp reconstructed sea level rise in Sand Point. Since we know for a fact that changes in tidal range are happening, their computerized assurance that they can’t happen rings more than a bit hollow. This is particularly true given the large changes in the local underwater geography in the area of Sand Point.
Another:
Disagreement with local trends in sea level rise. The nearest long-term tide station in Wilmington shows no statistically significant change in the mean sea level (MSL) trend since 1937. Kemp et al. say the rise has gone from 2 mm/year to 4.8 mm per year over that period. If so, why has this not shown up in Wilmington (or any other nearby locations)?
I’m familiar with the North Carolina coast. I was the navigator of a Amphibious warfare cargo ship. We had to anchor in shallow water. Those charts had to updated CONSTANTLY. And we definitely had to pay attention to the tidal range. Sometimes we anchored with ONE Fathom of water beneath our keel….. six feet.
“If the tidal range has changed over time, it would enter their calculations as a spurious sea level rise or fall in their results. They acknowledge the possible problem, but they say it can’t happen, based on computer modeling.”
I call BS.
Sea level may be rising. But its not rising that fast.
Here’s a level look at sea level rise history.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/16/a-level-look-at-sea-levels/
Let me put it this way….I’m happy to take any shore front property that they own off of their hands……
Cargo, I am curious why you are so hell bent to prove that there is no such thing as climate change. What’s in it for you?
Of course one study isn’t going to be the defining study that changes all minds. However, this was was seen as significant and based on gathering data from many sources, including satellite images. It all goes in to that body of evidence we call science.
Some studies will be more significant than others. Some will be discarded along the way as it is replaced by newer, more relevant data.
Every time I have these kinds of discussion I think about Galileo and how he was put under house arrest for stating his findings and theories.
“Cargo, I am curious why you are so hell bent to prove that there is no such thing as climate change. What’s in it for you?”
…I would imagine facts.
Science is all about having an idea and proving it. They haven’t yet met that standard but somehow we’re all expected to change our behavior based on the ideas.
Why not wait till something is proven and allow the scientists to defend their work — like they should?
“Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2100 years”
How is that possible? A few years ago Obama said he would stop the rise of the seas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQNkVmdicvA&feature=related
Here is actual video of his awsome power to so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLDy_BYum1o&NR=1
SeaLevelGate Yet Another AGW Global Warming Distortion
* Yes, the oceans are rising; 16,000 years ago the Atlantic was 400 feet lower than today and the outer banks were 50 miles out at the continental shelf. See the enclosed two data graphs that show the ‘big’ changes occurred from 18,000 to 8,000 years ago and the last 100 years have been a linear slow rise and NOT a big acceleration.
Click for blog item and references:
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2011/06/sealevelgate-yet-another-agw-global.html
Question not answered. Cargo, why is it so important to prove that climate change is wrong?
Why is it that when you see an article, you run to that funky website that always says climate change is bogus rather than just saying hummmm….maybe/maybe not?
Marin, that isn’t really how scientific theories are formed.
I have been listening to conservative dismissal of science most of my adult life. Honestly, I mentally place it right next to what some kid told me years ago–and that was that his daddy told him that the moon landing was an NBC hoax.
What the hell, maybe it was. I wasn’t there.
“Question not answered. Cargo, why is it so important to prove that climate change is wrong?”
Hmmmm, apparently you keep missing where I’ve said things like:
“Sea level may be rising. But its not rising that fast.”
“The Earth may be warming.”
I’m not trying to prove that “climate change” is wrong or not happening. I’m merely pointing out that, in the past, the AGW crowd has not proved its case and that they’ve used political power to push an agenda. And in this case, they’ve used data from ONE site, to extrapolate world wide conditions, it mentions the Medieval Warming period, thought Mann has previously argued that that Warming period either a) did not exist b) was localized to Europe.
Mann’s history shows a pattern of deception, political maneuvering, and sloppy science. Why are you so eager to prove a theory that is being discredited more and more, every day?
Should we reduce pollution? Absolutely? Does it affect the earth? Yes it does? However, this does not correlate to Global Warming. CO2 is not pollution.
And I go to that site because it has the facts, figures, scientists, and arguments contradicting the narrative. Its is one of the few sites that puts out the counter argument based on science.
You state that you think about Galileo? But its the AGW skeptics that are the Gallileo’s here. We’re the ones called deniers, and greedy energy whores, and liars. Even when the data is on our side. It is the AGW proponents that are in the halls of power. THEY are the ones that get the press, money, and power.
Also, you’ve asked it before? What’s in it for me? Other than wanting to see accurate science done and public agendas based upon science and not a cult, nothing.
I don’t know who the AWG crowd is. More conservative boogie men?
Mann is one person. I know that conservatives have demonized him. But he is one person out of thousands who has studied climate change. I have not mentioned Mann. I am not trying to prove anything. But…I think we humans who are stewards of the earth have a responsibility to be aware of what a huge percent of scientists have to say. These theories and concerns don’t just exist in a vacuum.
I don’t argue the scientific components because I am not a scientist. What I do, however, is try to keep an open mind. I try to incorporate what I have seen in my travels and the impact that these things have on those said things.
You go to that site because you know you are going to find what you want to see–the antithesis of discovery. You allign yourself with some strange, contrarian notions. What I find disturbing is that you have latched on to ideology rather than presenting yourself as a free thinker. (“We are the ones called deniers…”)
The data is not on your side. What you want to see is on your side and you have closed your mind off to things you don’t want to believe.
Just out of curiosity, what credentials do you have to access whether accurate science is being done? I don’t have any. I have no public agenda and frankly, I really hope climate change isn’t real. I have all sorts of old wives’ tales evidence that tells me otherwise though. Melting glaciers, longer growing seasons, change in planting zones, remembering how warm the under clothing on kids at halloween had to be compared to now…..
I suggest keeping an open mind. I don’t believe I have joined a cult by doing that. Funny about that cult stuff. Its always the other guy, isn’t it?
@Moon-howler
Science is NOT about having a theory and proving it?
Thank you for clearing that up. Here I was believing what my public school educators had taught me.
Can I get my Nobel Prize now?
marin, not really. No, no nobel prize. Let’s take it down to the old science fair level. Its stating a hypothesis and gathering support evidence to draw a conclusion. Sometimes that conclusion ends up being you were wrong.
Its the proving it part that is problematic. You can prove via deductive reasoning. However, science is based in inductive reasoning.
Susan walks past marigolds and sneezes. Susan picked marigolds for her mother and sneezes. Susan worked at Kmart garden center where marigolds were grown. She sneezed. We may assume she is allergic to marigolds based on the evidence. Or…she might be coming down with a cold or be allergic to the mold in the soil.
Look at what it took to come up with the theory of plate techtonics. Remember Wegener’s continental drift theory at the turn of the 20th century? It started with some dude back in the 1500s. Over the next 60 years ‘continental drift’ which more or less implied the continents were floating around the sea, developed into the theory of plate techonics. Point, as we gather more evidence, theories are often refined or even changed.
If we don’t give all our money to Al Gore soon, we will all perish!
Antithesis of discovery?
strange contrarian notions?
ideology instead of a free thinker?
credentials?
Ok….how is it that you completely believe one set of scientists, no matter how their theories are discredited or their theories fail completely in their predictions? TWattsUpWithThat is filled with climate scientists and other physical scientists that DISCOVER new data every day. Their apparent crime is to disagree with the daily narrative.
Why is it that you consider scientific skepticism instead of blind faith, “contrarian notions?”
And why would you consider that I’m part of an ideology because I said, “We are the ones called deniers…”? We AGW skeptics are being called deniers. I’ve closed MY mind to things that I don’t want to believe? I’VE stated that the globe may be warming. I’VE stated that climate change IS happening. What I am skeptical about is the theory presented by Mann, et al, that states that CO2 is driving man made global warming and that its going to be harmful.
I bring up Mann because he is a co-author of this sea level report.
The AGW crowd is a group of scientists that convinced the powers that be that a) man is warming the globe. B) if government takes more control we can fix it c) prevented conflicting science from being peer reviewed, d) is the IPCC at the UN that falsified the original report, used faulty science, and attributed signatures to scientists that actually DID NOT agree with the IPCC report. e) is actually a very small subset of scientists, not all of which are even involved in the physical sciences, much less climatology. f) the other scientists that know that the grant money dries up if they DO NOT jump on the global warming band wagon g) and then, people like Al Gore that is set up to profit from the alarmism that he lies about. His little movie has been proven to be wrong in numerous places and, in fact, in England, if shown in schools, must also come with disclaimers pointing out where he was fundamentally wrong.
As for credentials….what are their credentials? Some of these scientists that sign onto the AGW reports and petitions are social scientists. I have a basic understanding of science, the scientific method, and can follow a report and an argument. I can follow the AGW science and the conflicting reports. I can see when scientists are arguing over the effect of CO2, clouds, sulfur dioxide, water vapor, contrails, and other things that may affect climate. I can follow the report of the scientists that decided to verify the location and viability of the weather stations that are being used to measure the temperatures. Guess what? A huge number of them are not viable. They are now located in bad positions, ie, surrounded by pavement, air condition units, etc. I can follow that only one station was being used to measure the temp in Antarctica….it was a) NORTH of the Antarctic circle b) located next to a tarmac runway. Can we say heat island? One ground station for a CONTINENT?
Believe me, if I thought that the AGW theory was valid, I would be one of the most vocal proponents to fix it through MARKET forces. Because if you get the government to run it, it will be incompetent and corrupt.
I do all this because AGW proponents continue to present the AGW THEORY as proven science and demand that we set public agenda based upon it. They take data and then correlate it to their theory instead of adjusting their theory to fit the facts. The data IS on our side. That’s why the theory is being discredited.
However, one thing IS TRUE. Climate CHANGE is true. The climate is always changing. It may be getting warmer. Scientists are now stating that solar conditions may be setting us up for cooling.
Correlation does not mean causation.
@marinm
Yep, you get a Nobel Prize, good work! Hell, I got 3 of them last week. I think Slow posted this a little while back and it just shows the various ways you can get a Nobel Prize these days, enjoy 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnLqoRtUAVg
First line. Stop. I never said I believed anyone. I said I kept an open mind. Why should I doubt a scientific study that points in the same direction that 100 others point?
It isn’t a matter of believe or not believe. It is a matter of reading and filing it away. I didn’t immediately see the topic and feel some sort of primal urge to prove people with far more impressive credentials than my own, wrong.
Ok, so you never said that you believe anyone. But then you put out the AGW theory as confirmed in the posts? When we question it, on the basis of it being an unproven THEORY, we are the ones that are criticized. WE have an open mind and find that the world MAY BE WARMING. OR COOLING….depending upon the scientists you ask. WE are just skeptical of THIS theory being promoted by the likes of Al Gore.
This theory states that hurricanes would become worse.
Ok…..
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Not so much……
Then OTHER theorists state that global warming will lessen the hurricane activity. So now we have contradictory claims based upon the SAME theory. Their models are conflicting.
So…which is it? If a theory is not reproducible or fails to correctly predict events, its wrong.
The outer banks study shows a correlation between rising temperature and rising sea level.
I don’t see where someone named Mann has anything to do with the study. Isn’t he the guy who was at UVA who Cuccinelli is after who is now at the University of PA? Is this guilt by association because Horton is also at U of PA?
If I had a choice of trusting an unknown person named Horton or the AG of VA, I would trust Horton because I think that the AG is an ideologically driven power-hungry wacko.
I don’t think either of us have the academic background or the credentials to question the new outer banks study. It is like those people who think they are English teachers because they can read.
I would like to learn more. And lets leave words like ‘believe’ and disbelieve out of the conversation.
More to the point, what can we do with information like this? How will rising seas affect man and society?
@Cargo, I did no such thing. I put it up as a recently released study to talk about. Did they do the study? Yes. Is it significant? According to many scientists, yes. Does it prove anything? Was it supposed to or was it just another puzzle piece?
Actually, ‘the likes of Al Gore’ is offensive. He has nothing to do with this study that I am aware of. Frankly, I would rather have Al Gore out sounding the alarm over things that watching Sarah Palin club haddock in the head but that’s just me. Again, its all back to credentials.
News flash: there has always been disagreement within the scientific community. Scientific knowledge is ever changing.
re Cargo said:
Aren’t we really talking about conjecture?
What about Al Gores theroy a few years ago (and perdiction) that our children and grandchildren will never know what snow is due to global warming.
Then in 2009 Al Gores other theroy that we are getting so much snow as a direct result of global warming?
Which is it? Is global warming going to cause snow to be a thing of the past or is global warming causing more snow than normal?
Conjecture? Yes, WE are.
But the AGW side is the one that makes predictions and then, without evidence that their models are accurate, that their science is valid, that they have had their theories actually peer reviewed by anyone other than fellow AGW proponents, they demand that we make major changes to our economy and lifestyle. They state that there is no need for conjecture. Remember, the science is settled. No conjecture needed. They are able to predict to the tenth of a degree what the climate will be 100 years from now.
And the “likes of Al Gore” should not be offensive. Its accurate. HE’s the one that popularized this theory. He’s the one that has made millions on the carbon offset scam. He’s the one that produced a fraudulent movie that is still being used as propaganda to promote AGW.
It is your bias against Cuccinelli that prevents you from having an open mind. If he was FOR government action against global warming, you would fight it. He is suing to find out if VA tax money was used to promote Mann’s scam.
More to the point, what can we do with information like this? How will rising seas affect man and society?
Now THIS is the question we need to ask. We have to find out the actual status of sea level rise. Is it dangerous? Is it helpful? Is the world actually warming? How does that affect us and how do we adapt? Is it cooling,or about to cool, a much more dangerous scenario? Then what do we do?
But, until we actually have a cogent answer, we cannot be restructuring our entire society because of a computer model.
I am not biased against Cuccinelli. I despise him and all he stands for. Is open dislike the same as bias?
@Moon-howler
Nah, I despise Obama and all he stands for, but I have no bias against the guy. Same thing, right?
def:
1. An inclination or preference that influences judgment from being balanced or even-handed. Prejudice is bias in pejorative sense.
I might be biased in favor of folk music or biased against /anglo saxons but intensely dislike Captain John Smith.
Welcome Lars. I checked out your blog, unfortunately, you seem to rely on fox news for your fact checking. the person disputing the formula for sea level change is an attorney. what does he know about the scientific formula for sea level calculations? Also, within the fox news story, they link to the specific data that requires the additional sea level calculation and gives quite an indepth explanation, very interesting and actually disproves the “tomfoolery” regarding why the calculation is done which is based on science,not some attorney’s random thoughts.
years ago, there was an effort to clean up our streams and waterways from years of pollution, all the while, there were doubters that the streams and rivers would ever be polluted by Man (in some places, we dumped raw sewage for 100’s of years into the river). You can see many of the changes, and the improvements in the Chesapeake bay, Potomac and other rivers – while far from being pristine, it is an improvement. So, why all the disbelief that we can pollute our air, and that we can in fact take steps to clean that air? We talk about creating debt for our Grandchildren, but there are those of us that do not want to leave a cleaner environment for the coming generations.
Cheer!!!!! Pat!!!
@Pat.Herve
I hear ya Pat!
Which is exactly why I volunteered (as I think I’ve mentioned on here before) to joint a ‘Green Team’ with my company which employees around 4,200 employees. While on the ‘Green Team’ we worked VERY hard with anything from how to better ventilate our server rooms to running water chillers for the building at night only to how many mile away was the paper mill from our office in DC.
I am happy and proud of the fact that thru our collective efforts of years of work we finally succeeded in getting our main headquarters building in DC to be Leeds certified.
For those of you who don’t know what that is look it up, it’s interesting. At that time our building was on of only a handful (I think it was the 4th) buildings in ALL OF DC to be Leeds certified.
Actually why don’t you lead them to LEEDS. My daughter just opened up the first LEEDS certified store for her company that was built from the ground up. They had remodeled to certification with other buildings prior to this one.
Dan, you should be proud. I would think it would be a hard achievement to obtain.
I hear ya Pat!
Just FYI… You don’t have to buy into Al Gore’s “Global Warming” hoax to scam $$$$ to be a good environmental steward.
I think we all can do a ton of things to be better to the environment without the ‘man’ (isn’t that what you hippies called the government – now their Democrats) telling us how to do it.
If you or anyone doesn’t believe me just shoot me an email (Moon has it) and Ill show you.
You know, I think I resent the hippie remark. I doubt seriously that you really know much about real hippies. Al Gore was pretty far removed from being a hippie. He is a Vietnam vet, didn’t involve himself in campus protests, and enlisted in the Army.
His critics would have us believe that his interest in climate was a get rich quick scheme. Actually he became very interested in climate change when he was an undergrad at Harvard. He had a professor who really sparked his interest.
I know it is all cool to be a conservative who hates Al Gore, but at least learn a little about him. He is a contemporary and I have always had a great deal of respect for him. He is not an old hippie. Far from it.
Dan – first, glad to hear that you were part of positive changes for our environment –
so, is the anti global warming people really anti Al Gore people?
I am with you on the Gov’t telling us how to change – but if it were not for the Gov’t changing our behavior, we would still be burning coal to heat our homes, and cars would be getting 10 mpg. Look at the pollution in China and India where there are no regulations – people will live in squalor and filth, and not do much to clean it up. Money has nothing to do with throwing away trash, and look at some neighborhoods, and see how much trash is waiting to be thrown out.
I am not sure if I even believe in all of the Global Warming stuff, but I do believe that we are polluting our air, and that we should create cleaner methods – even if it cost us$$.