[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Consequences of Mild, Moderate & Severe Plagiarism

Plagiarism: 5 Potential Legal Consequences

When Philadelphia’s Foul-Mouthed Cop-Turned-Mayor Invented White Identity Politics

Trump Wanted to Pardon Assange and Snowden. Blocked by RINOs.

What The Pentagon Is Planning Against Trump Will Make Your Blood Run Cold Once Revealed

How Trump won the Amish vote in Pennsylvania

FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets

Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway: What you need to know

LEAK: First Behind-The-Scenes Photos Of Kamala After Getting DESTROYED By Trump | Guzzling Wine!🍷

Scott Ritter Says: Netanyahu's PAINFUL Stumble Pushes Tel Aviv Into Its WORST NIGHTMARE

These Are Trump's X-Men | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Houthis (Yemen) Breached THAAD. Israel Given a Dud Defense!!

Yuma County Arizona Doubles Its Outstanding Votes Overnight They're Stealing the Race from Kari Lake

Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria

Trump and RFK created websites for the people to voice their opinion on people the government is hiring

Woke Georgia DA Deborah Gonzalez pummeled in re-election bid after refusing Laken Riley murder case

Trump has a choice: Obliterate Palestine or end the war

Rod Blagojevich: Kamala’s Corruption, & the Real Cause of the Democrat Party’s Spiral Into Insanity

Israel's Defense Shattered by Hezbollah's New Iranian Super Missiles | Prof. Mohammad Marandi

Trump Wins Arizona in Clean Sweep of Swing States in US Election

TikTok Harlots Pledge in Droves: No More Pussy For MAGA Fascists!

Colonel Douglas Macgregor:: Honoring Veteran's Day

Low-Wage Nations?

Trump to pull US out of Paris climate agreement NYT

Pixar And Disney Animator Bolhem Bouchiba Sentenced To 25 Years In Prison

Six C-17s, C-130s deploy US military assets to Northeastern Syria

SNL cast members unveil new "hot jacked" Trump character in MAGA-friendly cold open

Here's Why These Geopolitical And Financial Chokepoints Need Your Attention...

Former Army Chief Moshe Ya'alon Calls for Civil Disobedience to Protest Netanyahu Government

The Deep State against Trump


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Warning on rising Med Sea levels
Source: BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7197379.stm
Published: Jan 19, 2008
Author: BBC
Post Date: 2008-01-19 00:25:26 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 1714
Comments: 130

Warning on rising Med Sea levels

Generic boat on Mediterranean Sea

Scientists noted sea temperatures had also risen significantly

The level of the Mediterranean Sea is rising rapidly and could increase by up to half a metre in the next 50 years, scientists in Spain have warned.

A study by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute says levels have been rising since the 1970s with the rate of increase growing in recent years.

It says even a small rise could have serious consequences in coastal areas.

The study noted that the findings were consistent with other investigations into the effects of climate change.

The study, entitled Climate Change in the Spanish Mediterranean, said the sea had risen "between 2.5mm and 10mm (0.1 and 0.4in) per year since the 1990s".

If the trend continued it would have "very serious consequences" in low-lying coastal areas even in the case of a small rise, and "catastrophic consequences" if a half-metre increase occurred, the study warned.

Global climate change

Scientists noted that sea temperatures had also risen significantly by 0.12 to 0.5C since the 1970s.

Sea level rise is a key effect of global climate change. There are two major contributory effects: the melting of ice, and expansion of sea water as the oceans warm.

Last month, a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world's sea levels could rise twice as much this century as UN climate scientists had previously predicted.

The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC predicted a maximum sea level rise of 81cm (32in) this century.

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 75.

#1. To: All, *Global Climate Change* (#0)

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   0:26:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: robin (#1)

Every year billions of tons of earth get washed into the sea, raising sea levels. In 100 million years, mountains become plains. Most people, except for the scientific, believe short term trends will continue.

Global temperature changes for number of reasons and none are man made. One is because the sun has a variable output another is due to the wobble of the earth. The current warm period will reverse in about 20 years and we will start a cooling trend that will make most humans wish it was warmer.

When certain astronomical events occur all at once, there will be another ice age and with our present technology man will be unable to prevent it. If an ice age occurs with man's present level of technology, billions of people will die. Well, they will die anyway; but the the death rate will exceed the birth rate to such an extent that the population of the earth will be billions less. We are advancing toward a Type I civilization. Such a civilization should be able to prevent an ice age.

DWornock  posted on  2008-01-19   1:57:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: DWornock (#3)

Global temperature changes for number of reasons and none are man made.

Most scientists agree that global warming is at least in part man made; and most of those who disagree are paid by Exxon.

We all need to keep an open mind. Most scientists are apolitical, but not all of them. I'm sure you can find politics involved on both sides, in an attempt to control us and lead us astray. Certainly Big Oil has obvious reasons for wanting to confuse the facts on this issue.

www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html
News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

Cold comfort in British Antarctic deep ice core results

Fred Bortz's picture
Submitted by Fred Bortz on Tue, 2006-09-05 08:52.

A BBC News story reports findings from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that the rate of increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is unprecedented, at least over the past 800,000 years.

Studying a deep ice core sample, the scientists have not only been able to measure the greenhouse gas concentrations in ancient atmospheres but also the average temperatures. The result, according to the BBC report, is that carbon dioxide concentration and temperature rise and fall in lockstep.

The report quotes BAS scientist Dr. Eric Wolff, who saw no signs that geological or biological systems have served as CO2 sinks to mitigate the increases.

Wolff told the BBC that the fastest observed increase in CO2 was about 30 parts per million (ppm) in 1000 years, in contrast to present circumstances in which "the last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have any analogue in our records."

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   12:24:39 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: robin, DWornock, Andre (#4)

Studying a deep ice core sample, the scientists have not only been able to measure the greenhouse gas concentrations in ancient atmospheres but also the average temperatures.

Ice cores are not good proxies for past climate and atmosphere concentrations. I have a friend who is writing a paper for publication on this right now in relation to the Younger Dryas.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   18:58:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: farmfriend, wudidiz (#12)

I have a friend who is writing a paper for publication on this right now in relation to the Younger Dryas.

You appear to have a lot of "friends" that attempt to say there is no such thing as global warming. Why are these people your friends?

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true? Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:03:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: FormerLurker, wudidiz, robin, buckeye, DWornock, *Agriculture-Environment* (#15)

Here is a quote from another one of my friends on AGW:

There are several climate forcing solar cycles at play. The "Maunder" cycle, which brought the Medieval Warm period 300-year Little ice Age 1400-1700 is a 1 000 year cycle, and the next LIA is due in 2400- 2700. We are now at the end of a 210 year Vries cycle and a 60 year Gleissberg cycle. In a few years, temperatures will plunge and the Londonders can look forward to ice markets on the Thames for the first time since 1814. The ensuing global famine is less amusing. The warmest years in Uppsala, Sweden were 1789, 1930 and 1999, all 7,7 degrees Celsius. In 1801 it was 6,0 and in 1805 3,7. In the famine year of of 1868, it was 2,5. This kind of sudden drop is typical of a Vries cycle, and today it is once more imminent. AGW and environmentalism will have its place in history alongside the witch processes.

Magnus Hagelstam, Finland

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:10:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: farmfriend, wudidiz, robin, buckeye, DWornock, TwentyTwelve, Original_Intent, christine (#16)

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true? Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:17:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: FormerLurker (#23)

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true?

Global cooling is much more likely to do that. It always has historically.

Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

CO2 is not a pollutant! Man only contributes 3%. CO2 follows temperature. Cause does not follow effect.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:20:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: farmfriend (#26)

CO2 is not a pollutant!

CO2 is a by-product of various man-made emissions. It goes hand in hand with hydrocarbon emissions. But why stop there, what about the coal burning plants that in addition to CO2 dump enormous quanitites of mercury into the lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans, making it close to impossible to find fish that don't contain dangerous levels of mercury.

Oh that's right, mercury is good for you, isn't it...

In any case, CO2 by itself is not a pollutant, but it DOES lead to higher tempertures, so if we add CO2 to an already overtaxed environment, we are playing with fire if we simply ignore it and continue as if there is "nothing to see here".

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:28:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: FormerLurker (#35)

but it DOES lead to higher tempertures,

No, it doesn't. CO2 follows temperature. Temperatures go up, then CO2 goes up. Mostly from evaporating oceans.

Oh that's right, mercury is good for you, isn't it...

I never said that. What I said, for the record, is that Thimerisol in vaccines was not a contributing factor in autism. If it was, autism would have gone down when they removed thimerisol from the vaccines. It didn't.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:33:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: farmfriend (#43)

Mostly from evaporating oceans.

The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:36:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: FormerLurker (#45)

The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.

LOL! Now that is funny. You really don't read the science do you. The ocean is not a minor source, it is the main source. Man only contributes 3%.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:46:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: farmfriend (#50)

You really don't read the science do you.

Do you understand the concept of oceanic CO2 exchange?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:04:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: FormerLurker (#57)

Do you understand the concept of oceanic CO2 exchange?

Better than you apparently.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:07:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: farmfriend (#60)

Don't get cute with me farmfriend, answer the question. Do you understand that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink, and do you understand oceanic CO2 exchange?

I doubt you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing...

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:10:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: FormerLurker (#63)

Don't get cute with me farmfriend, answer the question. Do you understand that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink, and do you understand oceanic CO2 exchange?

I doubt you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing...

I'm not getting cute with you and I'm not spewing anything. I've explained it several times already. You didn't read what I posted the first time, why should I repeat it?

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:15:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: farmfriend (#65)

I've explained it several times already. You didn't read what I posted the first time, why should I repeat it?

You are tying to say that the oceans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other source, whereas the TRUTH of the matter is they REMOVE more CO2 from the atmosphere than any other source.

So regardless of what you claim or imply you've said in the past, your assertion that the oceans are the major cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is either a huge error on your part, or a huge lie.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:22:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: FormerLurker (#66)

You are tying to say that the oceans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other source, whereas the TRUTH of the matter is they REMOVE more CO2 from the atmosphere than any other source.

So regardless of what you claim or imply you've said in the past, your assertion that the oceans are the major cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is either a huge error on your part, or a huge lie.

Did you even read my post #59? You seem to think being a major source and a sink are mutually exclusive. They're not. Ocean outgassing is the largest source of CO2. It is however also a NET sink. For someone who keeps talking about how words have meaning you seem to leave that one word "net" out. It's the most important one.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:26:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: farmfriend (#68)

It is however also a NET sink.

You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions. Can you also admit that it's the world's LARGEST sink?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:32:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: FormerLurker (#71)

You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions.

No I didn't. I have said it on every thread. Repeatedly. Claiming I haven't doesn't make it true.

Can you also admit that it's the world's LARGEST sink?

If that would make you happy, yes they are the largest sink. What does that prove? Nothing! They are still the largest source, man's contribution is only 3%.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:39:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 75.

#77. To: farmfriend (#75)

They are still the largest source, man's contribution is only 3%.

I doubt you have any proof of that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19 20:42:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 75.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]