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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You Know What Happens Next

Cash Jordan: Half-Built Tower Abandoned… as ICE Deports Entire ‘Migrant Workforce’

Heavy rainfall causes flash flooding Tuesday night, some cars stuck in high water on Chicago's West

Biden Doctor PLEADS THE FIFTH, Refuses To Testify To Congress, Biden Pardons ARE VOID

Joe Rogan says FBI director Kash Patel played him for a fool and maga for fools with the Jeff Epstein files

Elon's AI System "Grok" Went Rogue And Has Been SHUT DOWN in an Emergency!

Earthquake Swarms at One of the MOST DANGEROUS Volcanoes in the USA

Ben Shapiro Declares Epstein Case CLOSED: ‘Facts on the Ground Have Changed’

Iran receives 40 Chinese J10-C Fighter Jets

China’s Railgun Is Now Battle-Ready, Thanks to Nuclear Power

Chinese Hypersonic Advancements! Deadly new missile could decimate entire US fleet in 20 minutes

Iran Confirms Massive Chinese HQ 9 B Missile Deal

Why Is Europe Hitting 114°F And Still Rising?

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue

The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia

Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas

What is quantum computing?

12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein

TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads

Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks

Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine

Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations

Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis

Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything'

Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos!

'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe

Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats

Texas Flood

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas


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: 4095
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 # 90.

#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  


#81. To: FormerLurker (#71)

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

#65

Well since that was the original argument, stop saying I was lying and wrong.

In response to the articles ascertains that man is the main source of CO2 I replied that the oceans were. They are. You challenged that claiming they don't produce CO2. I proved that wrong.

Your response to this was to move the goal post. You now start talking about the difference between absorption and out gassing. The oceans are currently a net sink for CO2. I have NEVER said they weren't nor have I challenged your statements that they were. I have not lied anywhere in this exchange, nor made claims I didn't back up. And, unlike you, I didn't change the argument to try and make myself right.

If you can't except that man's contributions to CO2 are only 3%, that's not my problem.

So much for my not saying that or refusing to acknowledge it in previous discussions.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:53:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: farmfriend (#81)

#65

Well since that was the original argument, stop saying I was lying and wrong.

Well, it only took 65 posts for you to admit that at least.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:59:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: FormerLurker (#83)

Well, it only took 65 posts for you to admit that at least.

I was too busy showing you the oceans outgassed. It wasn't until I posted an article that also mentioned the net sink did you capitulate on that and started in on the net part.

You keep calling me a liar but it is you who have lied. I've proved it.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:29:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 90.

        There are no replies to Comment # 90.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 90.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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