Sea Levels Rising at Fastest Rate in 2000 Years

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The science behind a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal is complicated, but the evidence is more precise than it has ever been: Sea levels are now rising at a faster rate than they were at any time in the past 2,000 years. For much of the two millenia measured in the study, sea levels were either stabilized or rising at .25 millimeters per year. But right around the end of the 19th century, sea levels started rising at a comparatively drastic 2.1 millimeters per year, and the trend has continued today.

The study marks a huge advancement in the science of measuring sea level changes because for the first time, scientists have recorded a precise and continuous record of sea level changes dating back over two millenia. This record, which the study based on salt marsh microfossil records from North Carolina's coast, shows that sea level changes for the past millenium have correspended to global temperatures. When the world started warming up, sea levels rose. When it cooled, they stabilized.

I talked with Ben Horton, one of the study's authors and an environmental scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, to put some of the science behind these findings into layman's terms:

Mother Jones: What did you discover in this study?

Ben Horton: Over 2000 years, sea-level rise had four stages. During the first stage from 0 A.D. to the 10th century, sea level was stable. From the 10th century to the 14th century, sea level rose less than 1 millimeter per year. Then, during the third state, from the 14th to latter part of 19th century, sea level was stable. But the 20th century shows that sea level is rising far faster than it did in any of the previous years.

MJ: So what does this mean?

BH: [For example,] the findings show that in the Medieval period, when global temperatures rose, sea level rose too. Then, in the Little Ice Age, sea level was stable. We have four stages that show an incredibly close relationship between sea level rise and global temperature.

MJ: A chart related to your study compares the proxy reconstructions it used to sea-level observations and models of sea-level estimates. What exactly are proxy reconstructions, and why did your study use them?

BH: A proxy is the application of a biological, archeological, or any indicator of environmental variables. [For our proxy,] we used salt marsh records, focusing on the microfossils in them. If you want to look into the past of sea levels, you have to use proxies because reliable tide gauges based on observation only go back a hundred years or so.Different ways to measure sea level over time.

MJ: Why are the study's findings such a big deal?

BH: We’ve produced an important body of data. Future predictions of sea level rise models can now be turned on their heads and compared to this data about what happened in the past. If they don't align, then there’s something wrong with your model that you can investigate… maybe there’s a problem with your data set.

In the next three to five years, there will be a huge advancement in understanding of past sea levels, which will hopefully lead to a huge improvement in the precision of reconstructions for the 21st century. If we can improve our understanding of sea level in the past, then our understanding of the future will be more clear.

MJ: Based on these findings, what do you think will happen to sea levels in the future?

BH: We know in the future that temperatures are predicted to rise, so it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know sea levels are going to go up.

MJ: And if sea levels continue to rise, how will it impact our world?

BH: If sea level rises, it has implications to coastlines, [such as] flooding and saltwater intrustion into freshwater. The more sea level rises, the greater the problems society and also natural ecosystems will face.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/06/new-study-sea-level-rise-global-warming

[lostinblue 1,989]

Changing Tides: Research Center Under Fire for 'Adjusted' Sea-Level Data

climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued -- or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

Related Links

NASA to Measure Saltiness of Sea -- From Space

Dutch Point Out New Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report

Scientists Retract Paper on Rising Sea Levels Due to Errors

What Alarming Sea Level Rise? Observational Data Reveals No Change, Scientist Says

Despite Rising Seas, Pacific Islands Are Growing

"We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger... water volume is expanding," he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

"There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/#ixzz1Q6fDDii5

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/#ixzz1Q6ew7Jy1

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/#ixzz1Q6fDDii5

Faux to the rescue!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mass extinction threat "significant" in oceans

(CBS News) The threats of over-fishing and to the world's fragile coral reefs have long been well documented, but now a panel of scientists say the threats to marine life are far worse than previously imagined.

The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) convened a self-described "first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind" recently, and they have released a report claiming "multiple ocean stresses threaten globally significant marine extinction."

Dr. Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, said in a press release: "The findings are shocking. As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean the implications became far worse than we had individually realized."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.c...l#ixzz1Q6vgpQUp

Edited June 23, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Zero Sum 305]

his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

Not that this is a political thread, other than perhaps FNC's likely scientific illiteracy in catching the quoted above, with likely FNC fans also missing out on the implication quoted above.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mass extinction threat "significant" in oceans

(CBS News) The threats of over-fishing and to the world's fragile coral reefs have long been well documented, but now a panel of scientists say the threats to marine life are far worse than previously imagined.

The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) convened a self-described "first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind" recently, and they have released a report claiming "multiple ocean stresses threaten globally significant marine extinction."

Dr. Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, said in a press release: "The findings are shocking. As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean the implications became far worse than we had individually realized."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.c...l#ixzz1Q6vgpQUp

Overfishing is a real problem, and one nation in particular is to blame. They are a bigger threat to world security than Al Qaeda.

Not that this is a political thread, other than perhaps FNC's likely scientific illiteracy in catching the quoted above, with likely FNC fans also missing out on the implication quoted above.

Fudge factors are not scientific evidence.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Zero Sum 305]

Overfishing is a real problem, and one nation in particular is to blame. They are a bigger threat to world security than Al Qaeda.

Fudge factors are not scientific evidence.

If that's what you want to call it, that would be why it confuses you.

Or maybe its just you playing dumb.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That is worse than we thought! We need more study.

[dalegg 143]

All I know is that if it rises 13 meters I have beach front property and that should substantially increase my equity.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

All I know is that if it rises 13 meters I have beach front property and that should substantially increase my equity.

At the current rate, with the fudge factors included in the study, that should happen in a mere two millennia.

[SuperDuper! 230]

All I know is that if it rises 13 meters I have beach front property and that should substantially increase my equity.

Only to be dragged back down by shadow inventory of homes....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At the current rate, with the fudge factors included in the study, that should happen in a mere two millennia.

I know. I came to the same conclusion - need about 15m to get beachfront property. You guys all better start driving some Hummers!

[dalegg 143]

At the current rate, with the fudge factors included in the study, that should happen in a mere two millennia.

Maybe if we would all invest in coal we can speed that up.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I can't wait until it rises enough so that I have ocean front property. I'll sell and make a killing.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I know. I came to the same conclusion - need about 15m to get beachfront property. You guys all better start driving some Hummers!

bd wants us all to get hummers!