All but two chicks starved to death, out of many thousands. Dwindling
fish stocks? Another disastrous consequence of global warming?
No, too much ice! http://tinyurl.com/ybkfkjfb
So much for shrinking ice sheets down there. But that was something of
a fabrication anyway, apparently. http://tinyurl.com/lzoa7ey
Forgive me asking a stupid question, but: Suppose lots of ice is falling
off the Antarctic shelf because of global warming. Where does that go?
It's not going to melt immediate, is it? So, maybe that creates large
I don't know anything about all this. But I am just pointing out that
formation of large ice sheets doesn't mean that there's no global warming.
Into the sea where it floats off and eventually melts.
Icebergs is what they are then called, even if the lump of ice is
bigger than Belgium. Note that such ice falling into the sea does not
alter the sea level, because that part of the ice shelf off which it
fell or cracked off is already floating.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
On 14/10/2017 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think the idea was less ice on the land, due to global warming, leads
to a rise in sea levels.
NASA shows a rise of 85mm in the last 20-odd years, and around 250mm
over the last 150 years, or so. That's not significant if you live
half-way up a mountain, but more worrying if you live only a few feet
above sea level.
Something has caused that sea level rise, and I assume it's generally
accepted to be global warming. What's less generally accepted is the
cause of the global warming.
I remember there used to be a lot of news coverage about coastal erosion
darf sarf, and it was always suggested that it was due to rising sea
levels. But I had a girlfriend at the time who was studying geology,
and she reckoned the erosion was to be expected because since the ice
under which Scotland had been so deeply buried had melted, the south
really was sinking, to sort of balance it all out.
The South East *is* sinking, I don't know at what rate. It may be that
the whole land mass is tilting due to the Scottish ice having gone.
That is, Scotland is rising while SE sinks. Scandy is also rising for
the same reason.
However: we are in an interglacial, so expect the ice back sometime in
the next 5 - 50k years.
The erosion on the coast of East Anglia is not helped by the fact that
the coast there is made of mud (silt deposited back when the mouth of
the Rhine was much further north.
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison." Churchill: "If
you were my wife, I'd drink it."
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:32:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
Sea levels have been yo-yoing up and down for millennia. During ice
ages, vast amounts of ice are locked up and sea levels are low. There
was a time, around Neolithic times, when the English Channel was a
broad valley, with a big river flowing westward and draining a large
part of western Europe. Then the ice sheets melted and it flooded to a
depth of about 300ft, as it is now.
In Cornwall, several wave-cut platforms have been identified, at 1000,
430, ~60 and ~20ft, corresponding to stand-stills in the relative
sea/land levels over the last couple of million years or so. Most of
Cornwall, apart from the high moors, is at the 430ft platform, meaning
the sea level was at one time some 430ft higher than it is now.
But since Roman times, the Isles of Scilly have been sinking (or the
sea rising) and quite quickly, with flooded man-made stone field walls
running down out into the sea. At one time they were a single island,
not the collection of islands as there is now.
But I'm never quite sure how geologists distinguish sea level rise
from sinking land, as both can occur simultaneously.
Hmm...a couple of days ago I looked at the NASA site referred to by
Watts and as well as the satellite data it had a second graph showing
the data from tidal gauge records from something like 1880 up to 1995,
in the space underneath the MISSIONS heading,
http://tinyurl.com/yaxv53dh . I thought it was a pity they didn't
combine the two graphs to show the acceleration in the last couple of
decades, if such there be. I don't know why they didn't, or indeed why
they've just now decided to remove the tide gauge graph. Perhaps it
was prompted by Watts' interest. One can't help being suspicious of
these sorts of actions, especially as there are so many accusations of
tampering with the raw data when it comes to AGW.
The graph on the Wiki site http://tinyurl.com/ycckvsfp from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level does combine the two sets of
data, and doesn't appear to show any significant change in gradient
between tide gauges and satellite measurements, although it's not as
up-to-date as the NASA data.
But I don't think Watts is justified in getting too excited about the
fact that the sea level doesn't appear to have changed in the last
eighteen months - it's to short a time period to make any firm
conclusion, especially when one sees the 'noise' on the previous data;
it even dipped around 2011.
There is interesting discussion below Watts' article.
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.