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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Nicotine and Fish

Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity

Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It

Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case

California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year

CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case.

Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK

Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study

Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used

Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter

With great power comes no accountability.

Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%.

Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites

Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes !

Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration

Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA

Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium'

Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans - Will U.S. Follow Suit?

Joe Rogan CALLS OUT Israel's Media CONTROL

Communist Billionaire Accused Of Funding Anti-ICE Riots Mysteriously Vanishes

6 Factors That Describe China's Current State

Trump Thteatens to Bomb Moscow and Beijing

Little Bitty

Vertiv Drops After Amazon Unveils In-House Liquid Cooling System, Marking Pivot To Liquid

17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago

Hamas Still Killing IDF Soldiers After 642 Days

Copper underpins every part of the economy. If you want to destroy the U.S. economy this is how you would do it.

Egyptian Pres. Gamal Abdel Nassers Chilling Decades-Old Prediction About Israel-Palstine Conflict.

Debt jumps $366B in one day.


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: 4118
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 # 97.

#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  


#74. 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.

So the ocean is the major sink, it is also a minor source, but obviously as you point out in post #45 here, the major sink.

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   20:34:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: robin (#74)

So the ocean is the major sink, it is also a minor source,

It is not a "minor" source. It is the major source. It is a "net" sink meaning it absorbs more than it outgasses. The distinction is key.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:41:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: farmfriend, robin (#76)

It is not a "minor" source. It is the major source.

Prove it. I want a legitimate source, not a link to Exxon's website.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:44:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: FormerLurker (#79)

Prove it. I want a legitimate source, not a link to Exxon's website.

Sigh, been there done that, but you rejected them last time.

CO2 MEASUREMENTS
Ferdinand gets his CO2 numbers from the Mono Loa site. His reference list is at the bottom of the page.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:17:25 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: farmfriend (#87)

CO2 MEASUREMENTS Ferdinand gets his CO2 numbers from the Mono Loa site. His reference list is at the bottom of the page.

All the data from Mauna Loa is simply CO2 measurements from that one spot, and doesn't represent the planetary levels.

[1] Carbon Dioxide Concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958-1999, CDIAC NDP-001: http://ceos.neonet.nl/metadata/dif/CDIAC_NDP1.xml

BTW, did you notice what Ferdinand wrote at the end of his summary?

Here it is in case you missed it..

This proves beyond doubt that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2, at least over the past near 50 years. But there is even more proof of that...

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:23:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: FormerLurker (#88)

This graphic is at the link I posted earlier:

The Carbon Cycle

The carbon cycle supports life on earth and keeps its climate stable. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element on earth, and makes up 50 percent of the dry weight of living organisms [4]. The global carbon cycle involves the flow of carbon between the major carbon reservoirs: the atmosphere, the oceans, the vegetation and soils of terrestrial ecosystems, and fossil fuels deposits (Fig. 1).

As can be seen, huge amounts of carbon are stored in the oceans (especially the deep oceans), in the fossil fuels reserves, and the soils, compared with what’s in the atmosphere. There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years, which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed. In addition, change in land use also releases the carbon stored in old forests over thousands of years into the atmosphere.

Figure 1. The Carbon Cycle

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   21:33:46 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: All (#92)

There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years, which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed. In addition, change in land use also releases the carbon stored in old forests over thousands of years into the atmosphere.

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   21:49:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 97.

#99. To: robin (#97)

There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years,

And you point? This doesn't make what I said wrong. Your graph supports what I said. The oceans are the largest source of CO2. They are a net sink. Man's contributions are larger than the increase so the increase can be attributed to man rather than natural sources. I have never disputed that or claimed otherwise.

I do however dispute the contention that CO2 increases are causing warming.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19 21:53:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: All (#97)

which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed.

robin  posted on  2008-01-19 21:54:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 97.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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