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: 1722
Comments: 130
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-90) not displayed.
.
.
.
#91. To: FormerLurker (#89)
That graphic isn't from that page. Right click is your friend.
This graphic is at the link I posted earlier: 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
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! So what are you hiding? Post a link to the page containing the graphic that you are using as "proof".
Thanks robin.
I am well aware of Ferdinand's work as there has been an ongoing exchange between him and Richard S. Courtney that is driving me nuts. Yes, Ferdinand is one of the scientists I talk to. What Ferdinand says is that the amount of increase is less than the amount of human emissions. Therefor the increase can be attributed to man. I have never claimed otherwise, nor have I ever said there wasn't an increase in CO2. Even in my post #59 I say as much. He opens with this: To be sure about my scepticism: I like to see and examine the arguments of both sides of the fence, and I make up my own mind, based on these arguments. I am pretty sure that current climate models underestimate the role of the sun in climate variability and overestimate the role of greenhouse gases and aerosols. But I am as sure that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is mainly from the use of fossil fuels. Why "responsible"? I think that it is prudent to reduce the use of fossil fuels, not for the amount of CO2, but for other pollutants. And as it is a finite resource, to reduce the dependency of not-so-stable countries. And it is prudent to spend a lot of money into research of fossil fuel alternatives. That will have a much higher return on investment than ten Kyoto's on middle long term. Kyoto in my opinion is a waste of money wich will cost much without any benefit. Why "skeptic"? As I have some experience with models, be it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are exactly known. To make a climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball... I have read a lot about climate, long before the "global warming" scare started. Especially about the link between solar variability and climate on earth. I have heard about the dangers of "global cooling" of the seventies. And I was upset by the acceptance, without much debate, of the "hockey stick" by MBH (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) in 1998, which made the MWP and the LIA some trivial episodes in the world's history, completely overriding the accepted science of that moment. This was a trigger for me to look deeper into this debate... But I try to keep the debate on scientific grounds... Even Robin's graph shows the oceans as producing more CO2 than man. I don't understand your reluctance to see that.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Because I won't right click for you I'm hiding something? Talk about making assumptions.
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.
I've been up since 10pm yesterday. I'm going to have to bow out for now and get some sleep. Nite!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! So after all of these posts, what was your point in trying to divert attention away from that fact?
People shouldn't have to jump through hoops to find your source. Post a link to the page as a courtesy to the readers here.
Ho Hum. I think I'll change my screen moniker to freezingmyassoffinToledo.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming. There is little pressure on the US power plants to reduce CO2 emissions; so here it's still "Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "the world is flat." However, European power plants faced with reducing their CO2 emissions significantly by 2008 and even more between 2008 and 2012 as required by the Kyoto Protocol, have embarked upon a unique way to reduce the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere (9). The technique known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves siphoning off and burying the CO2 underground. While the CO2 is not "gone," it is contained. For now they have to report it as "released CO2," but The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is working out plans to give industries credit for carbon capturing and storing in the second phase, from 2008-12, of the European carbon trading scheme. It will be interesting to see the effect of keeping the CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Of course, the next step would be to find a way to treat the stored CO2 or find a use for it.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! I NEVER diverted attention away from that. It was never a topic of discussion. Move that goal post one more time! One more time, oceans are the largest source of CO2. That point has never changed. Nothing you have said on this thread or previous threads changes that fact. Man's contribution is 3%. CO2 is not the cause of recent temperature increases, sun activity is.
You do know that the US has reduced carbon emissions more than the EU don't you? I'll have to find the link later. I'm too tired and going to bed.
I'm looking at the net effect, where fossil fuels cause a much higher net increase in CO2 levels, since the oceans have effectively zero or less net increase, where most literature indicates they ABSORB more than they EMIT, at least for now.
Sun activity could well be PART of the reason, but to dismiss CO2 levels is assinine. CO2 levels contribute to the climate and oceanic cycles, and cannot be overlooked. I'll see if I can find some more detailed info on all that sometime..
The level of the Mediterranean Sea has risen by 2.5 millimeters per year this past decade. It could also drop by up to 18 inches or more in the next 50 years, an old man in Nevada recently has said. An earthquake could also occur on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea opening a cavity greater than the size of the Grand Ganyon which would cause such a sea level drop. Yes, I am pulling your chain because I don't recall ever reading anywhere that this earth is a stable planet upon which no changes shall ever happen. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, rogue waves all occur with little warning. The forecasted rise in the Mediterranean Sea is not something that I consider to be frightening in the least. A fifteen foot snowfall would cause more deaths than a slow water level rise.
Seems to me that the type of folks that believe in Global Warming are the same type that think 19 Arabs brought down the WTC with aeroplanes etc. Chemtrails, dude, chemtrails. That's where it's at. Imo, anyway. Now I'll try to get through the rest of the thread and hope I'm not too wrong.
The disinfo is intended to increase the apathy with confusion. That way Exxon and Halliburton may continue their policies and profits with fewer objections. Okay, that's it. This is bullshit. Is it getting warmer? No. It's getting fucking colder.
ROTFLOLAY!
...chemtrails You are missing the point. Who would not care about the earth getting inhabitable. Of course we have the obligation to leave behind a better world. But we can only do that if we have a correct and adequate picture about what is going on. We could identify three problem areas, pollution, energy demand exceeding supply and the effect of greenhouse gasses on climate. It would be very nice if there would have been a single golden solution to all of them: stop emitting greenhouse gasses. But it isn't. The effect of greenhouse gasses is highly overrated, the capability of renewable energy sources are even more overrated and CO2 is not a polluter but a essential fertilizer. Therefore CO2 emission reduction doesn't accomplishing anything else than severely damaging the society. One should fight pollution by attacking the problem itself, the energy depletion with a smart use of economicallt feasible alternatives and climate? As I will demonstrate we have no clue about happened with climate in the past as we are good in misinterpreting about anything that fits our agenda. Just go here or here to see what I mean. So without that clue there is no change to do anything right.
I think that FF intended to indicate that it is not science using of models to claim predictions to be true. Scientific methods include testing ideas and hypotheses with prognoses and then wait to see if those were accurate. Use of models to predict some much temperature rise per decade if we do not curb CO2 emission, is not science.
There are growing indications of global climate change, due to increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere that could be due to burning fossil fuels. These global climate changes could cause a rising sea level, obliterating entire islands. The arctic ice shelves are melting, the Northwest Passage is open and polar bears are drowning and losing weight from lack of food. Perhaps you don't care because you are not a polar bear and do not live on an island. And because before these changes impact you, you will be dead and you don't care about anyone else. Fine, there is no need for you to learn about global climate change. For the rest of us, if there is a way to balance things and not disturb the earth more than necessary, we would like to find a way.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! These global climate changes could cause a rising sea level, obliterating entire islands. The arctic ice shelves are melting, the Northwest Passage is open and polar bears are drowning and losing weight from lack of food. Perhaps you don't care because you are not a polar bear and do not live on an island. And because before these changes impact you, you will be dead and you don't care about anyone else. Fine, there is no need for you to learn about global climate change. For the rest of us, if there is a way to balance things and not disturb the earth more than necessary, we would like to find a way. Of course I care. Trust me, if anyone cares, I care. I just don't believe what 'they' are saying. I have good reason to disbelieve. Ask yourself this: Why are the same people that are up in arms about 'global climate change' not saying a word about CHEMTRAILS?
chemtrails...
I'm not sure that's true. Quite a bit has been posted on 4um about it. There is even a ping list for Chemtrails. I've been open to the reports about Chemtrails.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! No, I didn't mean people like us, I meant the people that are putting out the 'global climate change' information. You know, I don't know much about it at all, but I just have a strong feeling that the whole global warming thing is a hoax, that's all.
Sorry, it's more than just a feeling. There is lots to back up what I'm saying. Like, why would Al Gore do that movie? Why did it have so many mistakes? Why didn't he contest the election? Consider the sources of the information about global warming... If the mainstream media says it's so, then good chance it isn't.
Big Oil would love for you to continue in this state of mind.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised! I have to go out. Then I'm gonna have to start looking into this, eh? Thanks to you... ;^)
Every year before it snows the leaves turn brown and fall off the trees. Therefore, according to your logic the leaves turning brown and falling off the trees causes it to snow. Over time the temperture of our atmosphers tracks the levels of CO2. It is offset by several hundred years. That is mostly because during warmer periods the oceans become warmer and release CO2 and cooler oceans absorb CO2. Man by burning oil may be increasing the CO2 level of the earth and that may be related to polution. However, it has almost no effect on the temperture of the earth's atmosphere. Around 4.5 billion years ago, some scientists think CO2 may have made up as much as 80% of Earth's atmosphere. That is 2,000 times as much CO2 as is in the atmosphers at present and the earth was fine. At one part per 3,000 there is to little CO2 to have any significant effect on the earth's temperture. Water vapor, not CO2 is earth's greenhouse gas. Free Oxygen was almost non-existent in earth's early atmosphere, and indeed poisonous to most of the anaerobic life forms that existed. Human life as we know it today would have been impossible in such a CO2-rich atmosphere. Most of this carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere later in Earth's history when sea-dwelling life, the earliest algae, evolved the process of photosynthesis. In photosynthesis, plants use light energy from the Sun to turn carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. Eventually, algae - and more highly evolved organisms, like plankton, plants, and trees - died and locked up most of this carbon in the forms of carbonate minerals, oil shale, coal, and petroleum in Earth's crust. What was left in the atmosphere is the oxygen we breathe today. Algae and other plants thrive on CO2 and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more plants grow and the faster they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That tends to limit the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You are well aware that I've posted on the CHEMTRAIL subject many times. How often have those who insist there "is nothing to see here" concerning global warming posted on CHEMTRAILS?
You can't always assume that what they say is a lie. Their GOALS might be different than what might be the best course of action, but the facts of the matter might not be that far off base.
No. It's getting fucking colder. An individual day might be colder than the same day the year before, but that is not the same as GLOBAL temperature change, where the polar regions are getting warmer, and the weather patterns are changing. The sun HAS become hotter apparently, as other planets in the solar system are ALSO getting warmer. HOWEVER, we should not ADD to the problem and would be wise not to ignore it, thinking it's just some "conspiracy theory"..
Those that claim 19 Arabs brought down the WTC are ALSO saying there is no such thing as global warming. Check on ElPee, many of the shillsters there agree with your view that it isn't happening.
Have you ever studied meteorology. Computer models are EXACTLY how weather forecasts are made, so go tell the National Weather Service that they don't know what they're doing and that they aren't using science to forecast the weather. Mathematical predictions concerning the weather can ONLY be made using a model of some type. Computers simply make possible elaborate models that would take centuries to solve otherwise. Take nuclear warheads for example. Crays are used (or at least have been used in the past) to model various characteristics of weather patterns in the atmosphere in order to provide pinpoint accuracy as the warheads reenter the atmosphere. It's called rocket science, and is certainly not make-believe.
BTW, I'm not finding that graphic on the page you linked. Do you have a link to the webpage that actually includes the graphic you posted?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#92. To: FormerLurker (#88)
The Carbon Cycle
The Revolution will not be televised!
#93. To: farmfriend (#91)
That graphic isn't from that page.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#94. To: robin (#92)
This graphic is at the link I posted earlier:
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#95. To: FormerLurker (#88)
BTW, did you notice what Ferdinand wrote at the end of his summary?
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...
In climate sceptics circles, there is rather much confusion about historical/present CO2 measurements. This is in part based on the fact that rather accurate direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere show much higher values in certain periods of time (especially around 1942), than the around 280 ppmv which is measured in Antarctic ice cores. 280 ppmv is assumed to be the pre-industrial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the scientific community. This is quite important, as if there were (much) higher levels of CO2 in the recent past, that may indicate that current CO2 levels are not from the use of fossil fuels, but a natural fluctuation and hence its influence on temperature is subject to (huge) natural fluctuations too and the current warmer climate is not caused by the use of fossil fuels.
He has this on his opening page: As a responsible climate skeptic, I have given a lot of comments in different discussion groups like sci.environment and UK weatherworld, and on the blogs of RealClimate and Climateaudit.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#96. To: robin, FormerLurker (#92)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#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.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#98. To: FormerLurker (#93)
So what are you hiding? Post a link to the page containing the graphic that you are using as "proof".
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#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,
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#100. To: All (#99)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#101. To: All (#97)
which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#102. To: farmfriend (#99)
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.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#103. To: farmfriend (#98)
Because I won't right click for you I'm hiding something? Talk about making assumptions.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#104. To: robin (#0)
#105. To: All (#101)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#106. To: FormerLurker (#102)
So after all of these posts, what was your point in trying to divert attention away from that fact?
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#107. To: robin (#105)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#108. To: farmfriend (#96)
Even Robin's graph shows the oceans as producing more CO2 than man. I don't understand your reluctance to see that.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#109. To: farmfriend (#106)
CO2 is not the cause of recent temperature increases, sun activity is.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#110. To: robin (#0)
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.
#111. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, robin, farmfriend, buckeye, Dwornock, christine, all (#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? 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?
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover 
#112. To: robin, FormerLurker, all (#41)
I wonder how many people will simply dismiss that info with "oh well, it doesn't affect me"?
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#113. To: FormerLurker (#42)
I'm just waiting for a ROTFLOL from you in order to be sure..
#114. To: robin, buckeye, FormerLurker, farmfriend, all (#49)
The majority of scientists believe something new is going on, and they are concerned
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#115. To: FormerLurker, *Global Climate Change* (#15)
Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths
#116. To: FormerLurker (#78)
Science is the study of nature, and the pursuit of determining the laws that natural events follow. It is totally within the realm of science to model a system in order to understand it, contrary to your blatently false claim that "computer models are not science".
#117. To: wudidiz (#112)
The Revolution will not be televised!
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson
#118. To: robin (#117)
There are growing indications of global climate change, due to increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere that could be due to burning fossil fuels.
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#119. To: All (#118)
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#120. To: wudidiz (#118)
Why are the same people that are up in arms about 'global climate change' not saying a word about CHEMTRAILS?
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#121. To: robin (#120)
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#122. To: robin (#121)
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#123. To: wudidiz (#122)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson
#124. To: robin (#123)
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover
#125. To: robin (#86)
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."
#126. To: wudidiz (#118)
Why are the same people that are up in arms about 'global climate change' not saying a word about CHEMTRAILS?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#127. To: wudidiz (#122)
If the mainstream media says it's so, then good chance it isn't.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#128. To: wudidiz (#112)
Is it getting warmer?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#129. To: wudidiz (#111)
Seems to me that the type of folks that believe in Global Warming are the same type that think 19 Arabs brought down the WTC with aeroplanes etc.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#130. To: andre (#116)
Use of models to predict some much temperature rise per decade if we do not curb CO2 emission, is not science.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest