Salt Water Rising

Higher sea levels, like global warming is just a myth perpetuated by the media in an attempt to control the public with fear.

KIngoftown: how can you say higher sea levels is a myth? WHy do you even bother going on sites like this and trying to spread your conspiracy theories? Here's a hint, stop living in your mother's basement and get your @$$ off the copmuter playing World of Warcraft day in and day out and actually realize whats happening in the world we live in. Hopefully if not Local and State governments, the whitehouse will step in and recognize the importance of coastal habitat protection.

Maybe the media should scare people. Scare them to carpool, shut off lights, TVs, and computers when not in use. Oh, scare the to recycle. It's terrifying to think where the world will be in 50 years with people like kingoftown in it.

FYI, global warming is a theory. A theory is an unproven idea. Prove to me that global warming is happening and I will believe it. There is too much evidence contrary to this theory for me. Oh, and also, I have never played World of Warcraft.

"FYI, global warming is a theory. A theory is an unproven idea. Prove to me that global warming is happening and I will believe it. There is too much evidence contrary to this theory for me."

So, you would sooner believe the oil and gas companies' loopy conspiracy theory than the scientific theory which is supported by nearly all scientific authorities? Huh...

I have no problem with being "green". I drive a Honda and my wife drives a Toyota. Approximately 75% of my household's waste is recycled. My problem is with people who use the government and mass media to force there opinions on others. People like Al Gore who, in the face of statistics that disprove their theories still blab on about global warming. Our congress should not waste their time trying pass legislation that only costs money without producing results. The commodities traders who forced up the price of fuel did more for the ecosystem than government requirements. The idea that "global warming" is man made and can be undone by man just goes to show our arrogance. The earth changes regardless of what we do. If global temperatures are going to rise, then we will be powerless to stop it. If any one thinks that man can control what happens to the earth, then let them stand on a beach and tell a hurricane to turn around and please go away.

Another tidbit. Not all scientist believe in global warming. There are plenty of scientist who, I am sure would be offended to be grouped in with that lot. And as for industry support, who do you think supports the scientist who do agree with global warming. Certainly not the poor, sick, and afflicted. "Eco awareness", is in itself a multi-billion dollar industry.

How exactly does one measure the rise of the ocean? and consider the following problems:
- Available technology 100 years ago
- Ocean rise vs land fall (ex Venice, New Orleans...)
- Tides and waves
- Accuracy from one year to the next

As for the article's statement, "...greater efforts must be taken to protect [sensitive areas]." Can't we decide this? We are smart people. How about you give us the evidence and, if its obvious, we will come to the same conclusion.

From my perspective, the reduction in clean water aquifers isn't so much an ocean level rising problem but a lack of rainfall up the system. New Jersey is an example where this is a problem.

As always, more science, less popular.

Actually, if you want to put a few more electrolites in your spicket, the best thing to do is keep it running. While good rains upland do tend to keep the aquafer moving to the ocean, when those rains stop, the aquafer either dries up or stagnates. Pump the fresh water out of a stagnate aquafer and you are essentually pumping the salt water from the ocean back inland to you.

As for kingoftown, who cares if it is conspiracy or not? The truth of the matter is that resource conservation (reduce, reuse, recycle, and renewable) makes good economic sense regaurdless of your views on Al Gore's personal crusade to convince the planet to kill us all. While conservation does reduce short term economic growth fueled by a comsumable society, perserving resources creates long term security towards retarding the inevitable economic colapse of any financial system.

"As for kingoftown, who cares if it is conspiracy or not? The truth of the matter is that resource conservation (reduce, reuse, recycle, and renewable) makes good economic sense regaurdless of your views on Al Gore's personal crusade to convince the planet to kill us all."

Perhaps both sides have a point and we would do well if we didn't consider the other sides perspective entirely invalid. Neither side wants to live on Venus and neither side wants to be subjected to abject poverty. This leaves us with a debate on how best to use our resources. Unfortunately, there is a lot of garbage out there. And, for those who haven't read his book (I have), Al Gore is full of it (aplogies for the personal attack, but I am of the mind to consider him a dishonest man).

We need to be critical of those who would have us live in fear. We are smart and capable people and we need to be cautious of being led to quick solutions to a complex problem.

I would just like to point something out here:
All those glaciers in the ocean happen to be made of water, and when water freezes it expands and becomes less dense (which is how erosion works). When ice melts it shrinks and becomes more dense. Ice floats because it is less dense than water. Therefore when all the ice in the glaciers melts, it will shrink to the extent that it will occupy the same space as all the ice that was already below water in the glacier.

To sum it up, if all the glaciers in the ocean melted, it would not increase the water level due to the fact that the ice in the glaciers is already displacing its own weight in the ocean. The water level would only increase if the ice and snow on land melted, as it is not displacing any weight in the ocean, and that would be nowhere near the predicted rise of 8 to 34 inches by the year 2100.

Now I am not saying that global warming is a lie, I am just saying that humans aren't the cause of it. All the carbon dioxide we humans have put into the atmosphere since we came into existence would be equivalent to a few volcanic eruptions at most. What angers me here, is that while Al Gore is trying to scare us into buying carbon credits to save the environment (does anyone, besides the people who sell them, even know what the money gained from selling the credits is really being used for), he isn't even pointing out the real problems in the environment. Like the fact that as more carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere it WILL be absorbed into the ocean, creating carbonic acid, which WILL increase the overall acidity of the ocean. The threat of rising sea levels is minuscule compared to this, and even then, the threat of this is minuscule compared to all the other **** we dump into the oceans.

And from what I've heard, the polar bear population has actually increased five-fold since the 1960's, with maybe a slight decrease in the last decade, which is what Al Gore focused on in that movie of his.

AMAZING!!!

This is what we end up with sub-par science education in our schools. A whole lot of people with religiously strong opinions on scientific matters without the basic scientific foundation to justify their convictions.

It still amazes me. The rest of the world has been trying to figure out how to deal with global warming and study the countless unknown effects it is having. We are still just now having this debate here in the USA.

Instead of having such a strong and unfounded opinion about scientific matters, you would do yourself (and this country) great service by researching and trying to understand the concepts, theories and more importantly evidence on Global Warming.

YES: Sea levels are slowly rizing. Already, islands in the pacific are submerged. There are thousands more evidences, as subtle as they are deeply profound. Please leave this discussion and go educate yourself. PLEASE!

YES: Melting glaciers pose a geat risk. YES: they will contribute to rizing sea levels and not all glaciers are in the ocean. A lot of them are on land mass. When they melt, all that water is ehaded for the ocean.

ALSO: Ice may float, yes, but it it moreso due to the fact that salt water is denser than fresh water. You think???

ALSO: It's not so much that the melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rize as much as the mass dilution of salt water with fresh mater will have profound consequesnces on the ocean habitat in ways we do not fully understand. Will fishing gravely affected??? More dire is that the absence of ice caps will throw a wrench in global oceanic currents which will lead to erratic and un known atmospheric climate. There is solid science behind this.

kingoftown:
You haven't got the slightest clue about this subject. I am baffled as to how you manage to have an opinion about something you obviously have not researched for yourself.

YES: Global Warming is a THEORY which by definition is:
"the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"

This Theory is continuously supported more and more by hard scientific facts and observations on a global scale.

Gloabal warming was maybe a Hypothesis say 30 years ago, but not anymore. Hypothesis + Scientific observations = Proven Theory.

Please... Educate youselves. This debate on Global Warming is getting real OLD!

PS: FOX news, RNC, Oil industry, Rush Limbaugh, and O'Rielly Factor are not good sources for scientific education. You get my drift.

Thank you.

"All the carbon dioxide we humans have put into the atmosphere since we came into existence would be equivalent to a few volcanic eruptions at most."

According to the USGS, Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea alone emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!

With so much of the world's population living in coastal areas, it is important to consider adverse human impact and find sensible ways to mitigate it. Unfortunately the IPCC's prediction of sea level rise in the next century--conjured from dubious computer models--doesn't help because they are not much better than guesses. Is it 8 inches or 34 inches? Why so much variability? Why so much variability in observations of sea level rise in the past century? Was it really 4 inches or 10 inches? Or do you use 4 to 10 inches because it rose more in some areas than others? (Regional ocean level variability is clearly observed.)

Anyone who takes the time to see how these figures were derived will be impressed by how inaccurate the observations are, though (happily) methods have improved much in the past 20 years. But, let's take 10 inches as the maximum observed rise in the last 100 years. If the IPCC predicts that oceans will rise as little as 8 inches in the next 100 years, doesn't that mean that ocean levels will go down?

I know you'll all spot the faulty statement at the end: "doesn't that mean that ocean levels will go down?"

What I meant was, doesn't that mean that ocean level rise might SLOW down. And perhaps reverse. Without human intervention.

The point is, not only are the predictions inaccurate, even the conclusions drawn from decades of measurements are also relatively inaccurate. It's the nature of statistical analysis of a large and inconsistently measured data set. However, it is still vitally important to note local human impact on our coastlines and find, as I said, sensible ways to mitigate the problems we inadvertently create.

There are thousands of scientists that dispute humans are the cause of global warming. The earth goes through its cycles every few hundred or thousand years. We have had ice ages several times, and we have had forests where deserts are now. Just for the record, 2008 has been the coldest year for several decades. Check it out.

Just a curiosity question: Rivers flow INTO the oceans. If global warming causes the water to go inland, they should then be called something else to avoid confusion.

On a personal note, for many years I have said the earth would be a great place to live if it weren't for all the people on it.

Questions for thought:

- Why are there so many words like "can" and "could" in the article? Does that mean the conclusions "could" go the other way?
-When will the media recognize any of the thousands of scientists who reject manmade global warming that want to be heard?
- When will AGW skeptics be treated fairly instead of insulted or called names by the believers? Are the believers afraid to have an honest scientific debate?
-When will Al Gore get rid of his private jet, his SUVs and sell his huge mansion and live like the rest of us if he believes in AGW? When will the media get off his lap and ask him tough questions about his beliefs?

Have you ever noticed that the people who believe in GW always have to use insults, hate and fear to get their point across, And the people who don't believe in GW use scientific facts?

You know its interesting, on a whim I just read several pro-global warming items, and I noticed two things they all have in common. No Statistics and vague predictions. How can anyone claim that all of these dreadful things are going to, or are happening if there is no proof. I have been hearing about rising temperatures, rising oceans, melting glaciers, and catastrophic weather for 20 years, so when does all of this actually happen. It is always 10 to 20 years away. 20 years ago when global warming was first thought up there were multitude predictions. You never hear about these predictions now because none of them have come true. If just one global warming scientist had been right, the it would have been all over the pace. It just goes to show the ignorance and arrogance of these people when they have to give 10 to 20 year estimates every 10 to 20 years because they were wrong. Just a few facts here. CO2 output has never been succesfully linked to global temperatures, in fact several times recently the temperature has dropped while CO2 rose. Where I live, we had snow in June, a mild summer, and just went through a prolonged cold spell. Good thing the temperature is rising, oh wait, that would be falling.

For the GW advocates... Change is inevitable, nothing you do will stop that change. For the Anti-GW advocates... Change is inevitable, nothing you say will keep things the same. The Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, and EARTH is dynamic! I suppose I shall inherit the Earth... pity for the rest of you.

Mythrz - you don't come across as very meek. I don't think you will inherit the earth.

when i was really young, i remember the winters being cold all the time. Now there are 50 degree days almost every week. I live in Philadelphia and have all my life. The winters just arent the same. You dont get the cold winter months anymore. Instead its mild half the time outside and it just doesnt ever snow anymore. For a minute lets all just throw all the science and media out the window and go outside (if you live in a place that gets cold weather in the winter time). It rains more than it snows in the winter time. That never used to happen. It is definitely warmer outside. During the summer there are more heatwaves and 100 degree + days. I dont care what the media or scientists have to say about their facts whether they believe in GW or dont. Its definitely a hell of a lot warmer outside anymore

Its a shame folks like Bryanallo have already made up their mind that AGW is real. I don't blame him or folks like him since the mainstream has mostly if not all the time report the pro AGW side of the issue. It takes effort to find opposing view points. I provide here a link www.icecap.us.
This website has summaries of information from too many sources to list here. Place this link into your favorites and check it out once in a while as it is updated with several new articles every day. At the same time, however, continue to watch the main stream media's reporting and decide for yourself which is more reliable.
Also,

A growing number of scientists and engineers are attempting to rescue science from those who have hijacked it for political gain. We can't allow science as an intitution to lose its integrity.

Bryanallo,
I'm sorry to inform you that global warming caused by human beings on the scale that the media loves to portray has NOT been proven as fact. Nobody will know the true effects that we as humans have had on the environment for years to come, well after you and I pass away.

For you to come and accuse people who have an opinion that differs from yours as uneducated about the issue or science in general is rather arrogant and frankly laughable. What gives you that right? Would you tell a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming that he is uneducated in the issue and must conform to your and other scientist's beliefs? Just because some people have a different opinion than you doesn't inherently make either opinion right or wrong.

"YES: Global Warming is a THEORY which by definition is:
"the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"...Gloabal warming was maybe a Hypothesis say 30 years ago, but not anymore. Hypothesis + Scientific observations = Proven Theory."

I think you're getting the terms theory and scientific theory mixed up. The two are not the same. A theory may be "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another," as the dictionary says, but a scientific theory is much more. A scientific theory is generally accepted by scientific community as a whole and is proven beyond a reasonable doubt by scientific evidence that is reproducible.

The theory of plate tectonics is a scientific theory.
The theory of natural selection is a scientific theory.

The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory.
The theory of global warming is not a scientific theory.

It's much easier to argue about the latter.

PS. Rize is not a word.

For oceans to rise, the globe has to get warmer. Since 1998 the globe seems to be cooling. The best info I have lately is that 2008 in the USA was 1.4 degrees F cooler than in 2007 says the NCIC. This all but wipes out the alleged global warming due to man in the 20th century. Certainly the globe warmed during that period, but now it is cooling again and man had nothing to do with either trend.

Global Warming - not that big of a deal?

Salinity: The math part - salt water: much, fresh water: little. The rest - the oceans have been getting slowly saltier for some time now. Very few processess remove salt from the ocean (most of them man-made), but there are many processess that send our good friend NaCl back to where it came from (except for that coming from salt mines). If the ice all melts, yes the sea will be somewhat less salty. Wildlife, however, is very resistant to changes in salinity. Most fresh water fish do better in a 3% salt solution and almost all can tolerate idefinately even a 10% solution (in aquarium speak 10% is often called a "bath" for treating some illnesses). It seems to me that given the gradual rate of ice melting (ie decades to centuries, not days), that all but the most fragile sea beasties will do just fine.

Ocean currents: Yes, tied to saltiness, but moreso tied to temperature. You might slow it down for awhile with a fresh water influx, but once things get mixed up, the poles will still always be colder than the equater, especially in winter. It's not like these currents are like you create during bubble time in the tub. There are tons of water moving in these currents that won't stop without tremendous force. More math - Water: a lot, with Mass: also a lot = Force: a lot, too.

Real Estate: Okay, melty melty does mean higher oceans, and this is "bad news." Unless you have some ocean front property in Arizona you have been trying to sell for decades! Two types of people live near the ocean: poor people and rich people. Poor people don't have much to loose. They pull up stakes and move inland, while their means of survival (usually fish) follow them. Rich people are rich and can just deal with the loss. Most poor counties won't even notice. Coastal areas will just gradually move inland. It is not like poverty stricken shanties are built to last for generations on perfectly surveyed land plots. When one is destroyed, the next one just gets built a little farther inland. Yes, Daytona beach might go under, along with LA, San Fran, New York, and and and where is the downside to this? If you really want to know what would be good for the planet, washing some super-cities along the coast off the map would be a good start. Go Earth, wipe um' out! Al Gore is behind you 100%!

Summary (with more math): The simple fact is this: what is good for humanity is not good for the planet. Humanity will always do its best to expand to the limit of natural resources (like every other critter on this planet). The Earth has a limited amount of resource. So, math - Growth: increasing + Resources: limited = bad. Resources don't just stop, however, they decrease yields slowly over time. So, even a worse case scenerio just dooms humanity to a slightly more difficult struggle in the future. Death rates increase with the limiting of resources until a rough balance is met. Yes, climbing as a species is more fun (from a mortality count), but balancing out is the natural way. Life was never supposed to be easy, by the way.

Oh yeah, increase your Darwinianism, and learn to swim.

Wow, the ignorance in some of these comments is truly astounding and leaves me practically speechless.

kingoftown - I hesitate to type this, but I'm curious how have you formed your opinions on the GW subject? Your assertions are rife with inaccuracies.

First, GW only a theory...hmmm, so is gravity, do you also dispute that? Perhaps, unlike us mere mortals, you are able to levitate and don't need a step-stool to change your light bulbs.

Second, you pointed your finger at several GW proponents for not including citations or facts, but you sir, are equally, if not more guilty of that infraction.

The IPCC (read: not the mainstream media) have affirmed climate change is real. That panel consists of 620 scientists from 40 coutries. Additionally, their consesus judgment is that this warming is due to human activity with a 66-90% confidence factor.

See link for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Alxman2021 - I certainly appreciate your tone and tenor, but you are also misinformed. Evolution is a scientific theory. And has been observed and documented in numerous species such as bacteria and insects. Just because you have not seen it observed in some limited subset of species (e.g. humans) doesn't negate its validity.

Smorgasbord - 2008 wasn't the coolest year in decades, it was the coolest since 2001, which was still warmer than previous decades. See: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html

Also, 1000s of scientist disagree with GW...really, can you name them all? You're probably right, in this great big wide world there probably are that many. But I submit that for every one you find denying it, there are 10 that support it. In fact, an article in Science magazine in 2004 reviewed nearly 1000 scholastic papers submitted for peer review to the scientific community on climate change between 1993 and 2003. None (as in not one, zero, zip) disagreed with the consensus view that a causal link between man and climate change exists. The author of the article wouldn’t emphatically state that none existed, but given the sample size of her data, she concluded they must be “vanishingly small”.

Timinbrunswich - icecap has links to pro-business warming skeptics, they are hardly unbiased. See links below if you're genuinally open minded.

http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/unreliability-at-icecapus.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP

Djschnei,
I believe what you are talking about (or what I have in my mind) is natural selection, which has been observed in bacteria and insects. Also, there are cases of speciation where two isolated groups of the same species follow natural selection and one changes so much that it can be classified as a new species. I don't know if you've ever been to the Florida Keys, but Key Deer are a good example that I've experienced first hand.

I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution, because personally I do; but for those naysayers there is really no way to execute a scientific experiment to test the theory. How much variation is necessary before you can say that a species has "evolved"? At what point has a species gone through so called "evolution" and not simply various stages of natural selection and random mutation? I believe that is the main argument people have with evolution: it just doesn't seem to have been proven scientifically. Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read too much about it. I just know that there is substantial grey area.

PS. Thank you for the intelligent discussion.