As Alaska Glaciers Melt, It’s Land That’s Rising
Surfer
<Start extract>
The geology is complex, but it boils down to this: Relieved of
billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a
cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch. The land
is ascending so fast that the rising seas � a ubiquitous byproduct of
global warming � cannot keep pace. As a result, the relative sea level
is falling, at a rate �among the highest ever recorded,� according to
a 2007 report by a panel of experts convened by Mayor Bruce Botelho of
Juneau.
<snip>
Relative to the sea, land here has risen as much as 10 feet in little
more than 200 years, according to the 2007 report. As global warming
accelerates, the land will continue to rise, perhaps three more feet
by 2100, scientists say.
<End extract>
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by Surfer <n...@spam.net>:
Sure, continental "rebound" of once-glaciated land is a
well-known phenomenon; IIRC northern North America and
northern Eurasia are *still* rising measurably, 10ky after
the end of the Wurm glaciation. And the rising land in the
arctic regions will cause the sea level in *non*-Arctic
regions to rise even more (albeit minimally, due to the
relatively small glaciated areas involved) due to
displacement. Your point?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Surfer
wrote:
Well, the article attributed noticeable rising to current melting of
glaciers.
<Start extract>
"Greenland and a few other places have experienced similar effects
from widespread glacial melting that began more than 200 years ago,
geologists say. But, they say, the effects are more noticeable in and
near Juneau, where most glaciers are retreating 30 feet a year or
more"
<End extract>
I interpreted that as alternative evidence for global warming.
As questions have been raised about the reliablity of surface
temperature measurements, I think thats interesting.
Bob Casanova
Sure; that's the "rebound" effect I mentioned.
><End extract>
>
>I interpreted that as alternative evidence for global warming.
There's plenty of evidence for global warming.
Unfortunately, the only *direct* evidence that part of it is
anthropogenic is the known behaviors of greenhouse gases,
which the idiots on the "There ain't no such thing!" side
refuse to consider relevant. And the idiots on the "It's
*ALL* anthropogenic!" side are just as fanatical. We know,
from SST (Sea-Surface Temperature) data, melting glaciers
and a long-term reduction in Arctic ice (and other things
such as precipitation patterns) that global warming is a
fact. We *don't* know what percentage is anthropogenic.
>As questions have been raised about the reliablity of surface
>temperature measurements, I think thats interesting.
SST measurements are reliable (land measurements probably
less so). Glacier volume measurements are reliable. Arctic
ice measurements are reliable. All show a long-term warming
trend. Unfortunately, short-term data (a decade or less) is
incorrectly cited by the first class of fanatics mentioned
above as "evidence" that global warming is a myth.
Last Post
• Do not expect any land rising north of the
Arctic circle. Expect the next 50 years to rebuild
any ice losses from the past 200 and more. The
pressure on the tectonic plates will push more
magma into the tropical waters whieh will bring
on more snow which will not melt in the summer
because the sun's penetration of the cloud cover
will be next to nil and the land of the midnight sun
becomes the land with no sun.
• Also do not look for sea levels rising - there may be
a bit of lowering but not a lot before 2200
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Last Post
> <End extract>
>
> I interpreted that as alternative evidence for global warming.
• Since global warming is NOT happening what
else can you blame.
Your AGW alarmist buds are no help now.
harry k
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent summary of the 'idiot' types. I have tried explaining that
before but never had it put so clearly.
Harry K
Morton Davis
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:5v5vj5ttrqkmobvav...@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html
>
>
Global warming is a proven lie.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
<turnk...@hotmail.com>:
>Excellent summary of the 'idiot' types. I have tried explaining that
>before but never had it put so clearly.
Thanks. The correspondence to
"ultraliberal/archconservative" and "religious
fanatic/immoral atheist" (and other false dichotomies) isn't
unexpected; people, especially poorly educated people, tend
toward fanaticism.
harry k
If unsupported baseless asertions mean anything I guess that settles
it.
Harry K
Bob Casanova
>On Jan 4, 2:18�pm, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
Yeah, I ignored his crap when he posted it. There's enough
data available (Google or Ask search on "sea surface
temperature" and "historical data") to show beyond any
reasonable doubt that global average temperatures have been
increasing fairly rapidly over the past century and a half,
but I guess it's not enough to get past unreasonable (and
unreasoning) doubt. The fanatics seem to think the
"greenhouse effect" was invented just to support the
"unproven claim" that the Earth is warming, and that
anthropogenic greenhouse gases are at least partly
responsible.
BradGuth
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:49:19 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
But you are not employed or otherwise benefited by Big Energy, so your
form of truth doesn't count.
~ BG
Last Post
that would prove that anthropogenic global
warming is real and functioning.
harry k
Well Mr. Last Brain Cell, why don't you point out where I said
anythign about there _being_ AGW.
I guess reading comprehension isn't among your strong points.
Harry K
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by harry k
Recall my comments about fanatics; each end of the curve
sees *only* the assertions of the other end. Rationality and
an ability to read data objectively aren't among their
strengths.