Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?

Page 2 of 3  
Per snipped-for-privacy@aol.com:

Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone.
Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean.
U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years. It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long way from a few feet.

Yes, I'd like to see that cite too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:43:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

even a small increase in sea level can cause great grief for communities along the ocean. its called storm surge and rising sea levels dont help.
just look at new york and new jersey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:23:10 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

I look at NJ every day. Looking at it right now. Nothing much new here, so far. We had serious hurricanes here in the past. The first half of the last century was a period of increased and more severe hurricanes. Last half, 1960s on, was more subdued, until Sandy. I've been saying for decades that a big one was inevitable. Anyone with a lick of sense knew it. We've had a huge influx of city folks move to the shore here in the last two decades. People who have no concept of a hurricane, how destructive they can be. They want to live on the water, so now they learned. It's hard to tell me that the 6" rise in sea level over the last 100 years was a dominant or significant cause of what happened in NJ/NYC. Then you have headlines like "most destructive hurricane ever. Costliest hurricane ever." You think maybe the fact that there is 10X the housing and commercial development here that there was in 1940 has anything to do with that? Big, destructive storms have happened before. They will happen again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 07:42:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

No offense but Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it hit. It was just a marginal CAT 1 but most reports had it as a tropical storm at landfall. Perhaps the coastal communities will rebuild with a stricter building code in the future and the next one will not be so devastating. Two issues were apparent right away. Buildings were not at the FEMA elevation and there seemed to be no regard for uplift loads. I know when I was building in Maryland, all of the emphasis was on down force. Nothing was ever strapped down to prevent things from going up. They didn't even require nuts on the J bolts set in concrete support structures.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is not shocking that barrier islands are in danger, they are always in danger. It was only in the last 50 years or so that people started ignoring that fact. That may not have been seen as true up north where hurricanes like Sandy are once in a century events but it was well known down south Beach buildings used to just be shacks that were expected to blow away in a big storm and the whole concept of getting cheap government backed insurance was not even considered.
The fact that some 3d world places are built in dangerous places does not surprise me at all. Sea level rise is far from the most likely danger to most of the people in danger
A lot is made about things the Pentagon "plans" on but they have to have a plan for lots of things, most that are very unlikely to happen. When you listen to the scientists who are not talking about very unlikely circumstances, these sea rise projections ARE out 100 years or more. We have plenty of things to worry about that are on far shorter time scales. A world at war over water shortages is far more likely than a rising ocean washing away coastal New Jersey. In most cases, this is simply because we "made deserts bloom" with massive, ill conceived 20th century water projects and mother nature is striking back. We are seeing a lot of that in Florida too because "draining the swamp" was seen as a great idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/3/2015 2:24 PM, bob_villa wrote:

I do reheat leftover blueberry pancakes in it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Pretty sure he has a hot water heater, too...........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not really relevant, because it models only sea ice. You need to consider everything:
-- Most of the Arctic ice cap is sea ice, floating on the surface of the ocean. Melting this ice won't change sea level significantly, because it's displacing an equal mass of ocean water. (There will be a slight increase because fresh water is less dense than salt water.)
-- Most of the Antarctic ice cap, and part of the Arctic ice cap (Greenland) is on land. Melting this will cause sea level to rise, because it isn't displacing any ocean water now, and most of it will wind up in the ocean. (Not all of it, because there's a substantial basin in the Antarctic interior that will become a large freshwater lake if enough of the southern ice melts.)
-- Part of the Antarctic ice cap is resting on the continental shelf, *below* the surface of the ocean. Melting this will cause sea level to *drop* because it's displacing an equal *volume* of ocean water, not an equal mass.
So what happens to sea level if the polar ice caps begin to melt depends heavily on how much of which ice cap liquifies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/2/2015 9:30 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

R1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rebel1 wrote: ...

here's a few more:
as the mass of the water held in ice at the south pole decreases we get two additional effects, one is that the overall ocean level increases for the northern hemisphere increases not only from the amount of new water added to the oceans but the rebound from the water currently attracted to the gravity effect from that much mass. the other effect is that as the cold water warms up we also get an added boost in volume.
one thing i don't see anyone mention very often is the amount of water that is being pumped from the ground, used in sewage/water supply systems and then dumped into the oceans. if we can reverse the trend and impound more of this water in reservoirs and ground water that can help slow down the rate of ocean level increases.
where there are huge areas of inland seas below sea level we could pipe sea water into them to help moderate temperatures and evaporate more water into the air to increase rainfalls/snowpacks downwind. this would mean some plans for harvesting the salt from such seas to keep them from getting too salty, but last i knew there is a good market for sea salt... we do really need a good plan to address the Salton Sea mess anyways...
as it goes, where one of my relatives is at he's lost 1ft of sea level and has only another foot and a half before that is gone. another 20-30 years and it is likely where he is at will be close to under water.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/2/2015 11:23 PM, Rebel1 wrote:

Is that left wing thinking?
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right wing thinking"
What is good left wing thinking then?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/3/2015 9:47 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:

Groupthink. Collective wisdom, as dictated by the left party leaders. No room for facts or independant thinking.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, the comment is a bit out of line isn't it. We can only speculate why Rebel1 thought he knew better than all the worlds scientists.
But then, Rebel1 claimed "there are good analytical minds here". (Yes, I laughed so hard, I almost choked.)
Maybe it's not so out of line to guess he was referencing those mass poster nut jobs that live in my kill file.
The idea that scientists are scammers making things up for profit does seem to come from one political party.
But only Rebel1 can explain why he suddenly thought he was smarter than a bunch of people that actually studied the subject.
I wonder if he actually performed his "tall glass" experiment. I bet it was a tall jelly glass and a sharpie. We all know calibrated beakers, are for pinko scientists.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[snip]

Most of these folks see some headline written by a clueless reporter (often from both sides of the debate) and elaborate on that, rather than actually digging into the science itself.
There are several contributors to planetary mean sea level (MSL).
- Meltwater from land-based glacial ice - Fossil water runoff - Isostatic rebound - Wind
The first, meltwater from land-based glacial ice encompasses the high altitude glaciers (e.g. in the himalayas, upper Rockies, Peru, mt. Shasta, etc), the greenland icecap and the antarctic icecap.
The second, fossil water runoff is from pumping geologic water from underground for irrigation and other human uses. This adds water to the hydrologic cycle which raises sea level (in fact, this alone is responsible for something like 40% of the sea level rise in the 20th century).
The third, isostatic rebound, appears to lower sea level at certain measuring stations as the land continues to recover from the weight of a mile of ice 10kya. A counterpoint of this is areas like southern La., where the land is sinking due to silting at the mouth of the mighty muddy.
The largest two regions of land-based ice are the greenland icecap and the antarctica icecap. In both cases, the amount of time required to melt 100% of the ice is measured in thousands of years (note that the air temperature in antarctica is below freezing for 10 months of the year). Since the land ice in antarctica is surrounded by sea ice (which can melt more rapidly as the temperature of the water it is floating on changes with time, natural cycles and other forcings), a concern is that if all the sea ice melts, it will open the way for the land-based glaciers to flow more rapidly towards the sea and calve bergs, which will inevitably cause higher sea levels.
As for Wind, certain coastal areas measure higher sea levels than others due to the wind pushing water towards the coast (leaving aside any tidal effects).
All this makes it difficult to measure MSL accurately using surface based measurements. Modern measurements use satellite altimetry, which generally requires some amount of correction due to orbital decay characteristics and instrumental differences beween generations of measurement satellites.
Current global sea ice area:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Current global sea ice anomoly (i.e. difference from average since 1979)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
Global, Arctic and Antarctic ice area:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Note that the planet currently has _more_ sea ice than the average since 1979 (when satellite measurements began). Note also two years ago, when there was 2 million km2 less.
As others have pointed out, the melting of the sea ice has effectively no effect on MSL; however it does alter the albedo of the pole(s) which may reduce the amount of insolation reflected back to space, leading to additional warming of the surface water.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In

oxymoron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 08:47:39 -0500, Mark Storkamp

I'll let you know if there ever is any.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2015-04-03 9:47 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:

All partisanship is, by definition, NOT thinking at all.
Left or right, if you are following a dogma, you are not thinking.
This is why Col. Edmond Burke is more intelligent than politicians.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we, and also hotter water also takes up more room. Its not just the ice. I'm probably wasting my time replying to this, but it is an interesting subject, nonetheless. The current situation is that the ice is also stuck in a place and when it melts is is free to flow to other places, and as although ice takes up more room than water due to its crystalline form, the fact that much of it is not actually in the sea has to be borne in mind here. A glassier is a frozen river flowing to the sea after all, and if it thaws that water will get to the sea faster.
Of course evaporation has a part to play in the opposite direction, but as sea levels are rising, I think the trend has to be for this to continue to places in the world where land is low lying. End of waffle. Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Col. Edmund Burke" <neach69/ snipped-for-privacy@jramy.org> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.