About rising sea levels 16

[hokie66]

A shipbuilder give a reason for the few millimetres of rise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPNhTVicEe4

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I'm not going to comment on the video as I don't know much about this guy, his biases, his qualifications or such.

However, I have heard a lot about fear of "rising sea levels", but I don't recall seeing any articles that genuinely studied the issue and evaluated real numbers. It might just be that the rise is tough to quantify given the large tidal differences and such.

That's a real contrast to some of the other things I've read about related to climate change (melting glaciers, changes in PH of oceans and the effect it's having on coral reefs, sea ice measurements and such). These other areas seem to have much more comprehensive articles. Ones that the naysayers have looked at as well.

Am I totally off base here? Or, is there better information out there on sea levels that I'm not seeing?

 

[IRstuff]

Hard to take seriously "a thermometer in one and and a beer in the other" and of course no math.

So we run some math, 2.6 inches of rise average since 1993 --> 1437 cu mi of extra water volume. Assuming it's ocean reclamation, that would be 760 sq mi of 10 ft land fill for each of 1000 cities. Given that's bigger than almost all cities, the assertion is nonsensical, as would be expected from given his thermometer and beer comment.



TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Or, is there better information out there on sea levels that I'm not seeing?

There's plenty of info, if you live in a place directly and currently affected by higher sea level... start with long established tide gauges, especially in seaport cities where accurate tide elevations have been important for decades:

In the USA, the real-time effects are monitored by NOAA: Southeast Coastal Flooding QuickLook.

City of Charleston has an ongoing program about what is being done to address it locally: Charleston Flooding & Sea Level Rise Strategy.
In addition, the US Army Corps of Engineers are in the early planning stages of barriers ($1 billion+) around the city: Charleston Peninsular Study

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[rb1957]

there's also plenty of data saying no change or change due to subsidence.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[TugboatEng]

Everybody wants to blame these things on man so they can profit from it.

If reclamation is the cause, the math should be easy. Big projects should all have estimated volumes. But I think we give man too much credit.

However, it does get me thinking, what about land subsidence? A little bit of erosion everywhere could really add up.

 

US Army Corps of Engineers and 'flood control' is a long, destructive tale of woe.

[Anyway, if rising sea level puts (the appropriately named) Mar-a-Lago under water it is a compensation.]

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Thank you Slide Rule!!

 

[IRstuff]

Everybody wants to blame these things on man so they can profit from it.

That's nonsense, as usual; even if it were natural, there's profit to made. So long as there's an effect, there's mitigation that can be achieved, which would be subject to supply and demand.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

In the last ice age, some 20000 years ago, the sea level was about 400 ft lower than now. But there were also times in the planet's history when there was no ice at the poles, and fossil evidence of extensive inundation is found many miles from the current seafront. Perhaps man can do make a difference, perhaps not.

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise

 

[IRstuff]

But there were also times in the planet's history when there was no ice at the poles, and fossil evidence of extensive inundation is found many miles from the current seafront.

Irrespective of the cause, the issue is that modern humans DIDN"T live during those other times, and there weren't billions of people dependent on how crops are grown and where they can be grown.

If indeed, many miles of seacoast are inundated in the future, that wipes out the habitats of millions of people, affecting not only where they can find new places to live, but also destroying trillions of dollars of property values.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[GregLocock]

Sea levels are complicated. The USA, for example, is sinking in Texas, but rising in Washington. That's partly plate tectonics, and partly the Mississippi. Many cities around the world are sinking because of groundwater extraction, drainage of marshland, and installation of concrete and asphalt, which increases runoff. Also many ports and water channels get dredged, which increases runoff velocities.

Alongside all that are changes in the water cycle, and expansion of the seas due to temperature, and of course melting land based ice.

And then we get to the mendicant islands of Polynesia, who are claiming that sea levels are rising, yet at the same time, not mentioning that their land area is INCREASING, because coral grows. Building large concrete runways for tourism is not exactly an unmixed message.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

And then we get to the mendicant islands of Polynesia, who are claiming that sea levels are rising, yet at the same time, not mentioning that their land area is INCREASING, because coral grows.

'mendicant islands of Polynesia'?
You mean some of the islands that France and USA used for A-bomb and H-bomb practice?
If you cannot recognize how offensive that comment is then I cannot help you.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

I just learned a new word. Thanks for highlighting it, IM.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

If you cannot recognize how offensive that comment is then I cannot help you.

What is it you think he meant by the term "mendicant islands"? My interpretation is that he meant "poor", "economically disadvantaged", or "economically struggling".

I'm always amazed at how many people are so quick to assume the worst possible motives for any slip of the tongue or a poor choice of words. So many people who are willing to be offended on behalf of other groups with which they usually have no association.

 

Nobody ever employs 'mendicant' carelessly.

And the idea of 'coral growth' as a mitigation to rising sea levels simply beggars belief.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

I agree that mendicant has a negative connotation. The definition includes "beggar". With that said, if a region is begging for money to mitigate the effects of sea level rise while gaining land area at the same time, I believe mendicant is suitable. Even if you feel the region has been wronged in the past one does not also need to accept their bad behavior.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

And the idea of 'coral growth' as a mitigation to rising sea levels simply beggars belief.

I'm not sure exactly what Greg meant about the coral.

However, the bigger point was his suggestion that these smaller islands are INCREASING in size, not decreasing. If true, I would suggest that this is probably more likely due to man made phenomena.... Like building wharfs, piers, man made beaches. Anything that extends their area out into the ocean a bit. Improvements they see as necessary to attract tourists or boats or planes or such.

Michael Crichton wrote a fiction book about global warming. I found it a very entertaining read when it came out. Today I would probably disagree with a lot of what he said (specifically about global warming). But, I remember it as being pretty entertaining.

I mention that book, because one of the big arguments was about some small island nations (Vanutu?) that were all upset at the rest of the world, because they were going to be eliminated by rising sea levels due to Global Warming. The problem (per this fiction book) was that no one could demonstrate legitimate sea level rise over the last how ever many years.

I remember a lot being written about "projected sea level rise" some 20 or 30 years ago. But, as I said in my earlier post, I hadn't see much in the MSM about it lately. I'd like to go back and compare the projections from 20 and 30 years ago to what we've actually seen during that time.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Nobody ever employs 'mendicant' carelessly.

So sure are you? Hear you nothing that I say?

There are lots of words that I read in books, but never look up the definition for. Mendicant is one of them. My impression on what it meant (poor, economically disadvantaged) was "mostly" accurate, but it didn't have a negative connotation. Even when I looked it up after Greg used it, I still didn't think of it as an inherently negative connotation.... though I acknowledge it leans to "beggar" rather than "poor".

So, even if the term does mean "beggar" I won't inherently judge Greg as someone who is INTENTIONALLY disparaging those nations by using that word.

But, that's me. I try not to hate on people. Even those that disagree with me. In fact, I find that they're often very interesting people from whom I can learn a lot when I'm willing to listen the what they are trying to say.

 

This is too bizarre to follow any longer. 'Dog with a bone' comes to mind.

I have better things to do back in the realosphere.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."