Sea-level rise quickening along U.S. East Coast
Harry Hope
From The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/29/09:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/80251807.html?viewAll=y
Sea-level rise quickening along East Coast
By Sandy Bauers
Inquirer Staff Writer
Looking deep into the geologic past, researchers at the University of
Pennsylvania have learned that along the Atlantic Coast, including New
Jersey, sea level rose three times faster during the 20th century than
it did during the previous 4,000 years.
At one location in North Carolina, they fixed the date of the rapid
acceleration to between 1879 and 1915, after the Industrial Revolution
had taken deep hold, lending credence to the connection between the
rising temperatures that occurred then and rising sea levels.
"If that happened in the past, it gives you strong confidence that the
predictions of increased sea-level rise in the 21st century are true,"
said lead researcher Benjamin P. Horton, a professor in Penn's
sea-level research laboratory.
Scientists predict sea levels will rise as a result of global warming,
"but by how much, when, and where it will have the most effect is
unclear," Horton said.
"Lots of people are looking at the future," he said.
"The problem is, they've been looking at the future without having the
information to understand the past."
Horton also can't predict the rise in particular Jersey Shore towns.
Still, he and others said the studies suggested a strong acceleration
in overall sea-level rise along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, including in
New Jersey and Delaware.
Levels there are rising not only because of higher water - due to
melting polar ice and expansion of a warmer ocean - but because the
land is sinking.
In two papers published recently in the journal Geology, the
researchers and collaborators teased out details of the complex
relationship between the land and sea on the East Coast, mapping an
epic geologic history that could help scientists predict what might
happen under various climate-change scenarios.
They examined a century's worth of tide-gauge data and scrutinized
marsh muck thousands of years old.
Thomas M. Cronin, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in
Reston, Va., called their work "critical for establishing baseline
sea-level information."
Their research also suggests that the Greenland ice sheet may have
begun melting before scientists think it did, a possibility that
Rutgers University's Kenneth G. Miller termed "new and pretty darn
interesting."
What makes studying sea level so difficult is the fact that sea level
isn't really level at all, like some big bathtub.
It varies from place to place due to a variety of factors, including
the "gravity" of Greenland and polar ice masses, which attract water
much like planets in space influence one another.
Hard-boiled egg
So while a research paper published in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences this month estimated that sea level could rise as
much as six feet above 1990 levels by 2100, it would be much more than
that in some places, much less in others.
And solid land isn't really the immobile hunk most people imagine.
Along the coast of New Jersey, it's sinking.
Here's why:
Horton likens the earth to a hard-boiled egg.
The firm exterior where we live is like the shell.
The interior, like the egg, is malleable.
About 20,000 years ago, much of North America was covered by ice, some
of it 2.5 miles thick.
Its massive weight caused the earth underneath to compress.
South of the ice - in this region, roughly at the top of what is now
New Jersey - the earth squished up in a formation called the
"forebulge."
After the ice melted, places such as Newfoundland began rising again.
New Jersey and parts south began sinking.
The rate in New Jersey is about one inch every 10 years, faster than
anywhere along the coast from Maine to South Carolina and double the
rate in Boston or Charleston, S.C., Horton says.
"The important thing to realize," Horton said, "is that sea level is
going up due to two factors."
Not just because the ocean is rising, but also because the land is
subsiding.
In the first of the two studies, Horton, postdoctoral scientist Andrew
C. Kemp, and others looked at sea levels in North Carolina dating back
to 1500.
They took core samples from two marshes - one at Cedar Island near
Beaufort, the other near the lost colony of Roanoke, where North
America was first colonized.
Just half a century ago, it would have been impossible to accurately
date the layers of sediment.
But that changed with the discovery of carbon dating in the 1950s,
Kemp said.
The researchers also used lead concentrations from auto emissions,
cesium spikes from nuclear detonations, and pollen changes from when
early Europeans replaced the natural vegetation with crops - all
detectable in the sediment.
Horton and Kemp's work used a relatively new method of mapping sea
levels within core samples by looking at the proliferation of two
microscopic organisms that live on the marsh - diatoms, which are
algae, and foraminifera, single-celled organisms that, under
magnification, resemble snail shells.
Both of them respond to even minor salinity changes or to being
submerged under water for too long, so they are natural recorders of
past sea levels.
Using those creatures, the researchers found that sea level rose at a
consistent rate of half an inch per 10 years - the "background" rate
due to the land sinking.
But then, between 1879 and 1915, it began an abrupt increase that
eventually reached 11/2 inches per 10 years, triple the former rate.
This they attributed to the water rising from melting glaciers and ice
caps, plus the fact that the ocean expands when it gets warmer.
When that first study came out, climate-change skeptics responded
within a matter of hours, Horton said.
A former television meteorologist posted on his Web site graphs of
sea-level rise mapped from University of Colorado data, showing a
slowing of the rise.
He said it disproved Horton.
Other skeptics commented.
Believers jabbed back.
Insults were lobbed.
Horton was aghast at the response.
He said - and the University of Colorado confirmed - that to
understand what's happening requires looking at long stretches of
geologic time, as he did, not the comparative blip of a decade, as the
skeptic did.
'Two take-homes'
A month later, in the second paper, Horton and Penn postdoc Simon E.
Engelhart, along with others, looked further back in time, to 4,000
years ago. They also expanded their coastal view from Maine to South
Carolina.
They were able to substantiate the results of the first study on this
bigger canvas.
And Engelhart, who crunched the numbers, "was able to produce the
first accurate estimates" of rates of sinking along the coast, Horton
said.
Scientists were aware of the basics, "but nobody ever pulled the
numbers," said West Chester University geomorphologist Daria Nikitina,
who was not involved with their studies but is looking at sea-level
rise along the Jersey shore of Delaware Bay.
"They compiled all the data, everything that was ever collected,
reported, and published for the whole Atlantic Coast, then very, very
carefully looked at every single data point."
"There are two take-homes here," added Kenneth Miller, a Rutgers
University researcher who reviewed the studies.
"There's been an acceleration of sea-level rise from pre-Industrial
Revolution rates.. . . And we're throwing on one to two millimeters a
year in New Jersey due to sinking."
The Penn group's conclusions were all the stronger because they were
based on observational data, not models, Miller said.
By factoring in the data from tide gauges and the land subsidence,
they also were able to show that the portion of sea-level rise from
the oceans also was different along different stretches of the
coastline.
The rise was lowest in Maine, highest in South Carolina.
___________________________________________________________
Harry
Catoni
Sorry, leftist opinionated rag. Hasn't once endorsed a Republican
Presidential candidate since Gerald Ford in '76.
I wonder when Harry Hope will ever lean away
from opinionated articles and blogs and post credible evidence that
proves
their claims.
1-20-2013
> From The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/29/09:
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/80251807.html?viewAll=y
>
> Sea-level rise quickening along East Coast
Maybe man-made global warming/climate change has something against the
East Coast????
Odd that the West Coast is unaffected ;^D ROTGDFLMMFAO!!!!!
> By factoring in the data from tide gauges and the land subsidence,
> they also were able to show that the portion of sea-level rise from
> the oceans also was different along different stretches of the
> coastline.
>
> The rise was lowest in Maine, highest in South Carolina.
LOL!!!!! And then they wonder why no one believes in man-made global
warming/climate change.
Hold on a sec....is this an article from The Onion or something?!?!??! :^D
Killing, Inc.
It's so much nicer now that the rest of the world's recently
enlightened know what we have known for at least a decade, that UN and
Algore Inc. environmental policy is just a front for world political
domination. It was really getting tiresome constantly pointing out the
obvious to the stupidest of people.
Hopefully, the investigations will lead to plenty of indictments and
lawsuits to get our money back and throw these frauds and wanna-be
tyrants in prison forever.
leona...@gmail.com
> Harry Hope wrote:
> > From The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/29/09:
> >http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/80251807.html?viewAll=y
>
> > Sea-level rise quickening along East Coast
>
> Maybe man-made global warming/climate change has something against the
> East Coast????
>
> Odd that the West Coast is unaffected ;^D ROTGDFLMMFAO!!!!!
• Not 'odd' at all, just not happening
> > By factoring in the data from tide gauges and the land subsidence,
> > they also were able to show that the portion of sea-level rise from
> > the oceans also was different along different stretches of the
> > coastline.
• Nonsense! Sea levels remain the same around the
Seven Seas. Yes, there are local variations, mostly
caused by strong winds, and they only last for a few
days
Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.
> Hold on a sec....is this an article from The Onion or something?!?!??! :^D
Forget everything you ever learned! Yes Virginia, the laws of physics
no longer apply. Oceans can rise in just one part of the world...
I mean it's not like water in the ocean is a fluid, which naturally
seeks a level or anything. :)
/sarcasm
Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
> Sea-level rise quickening along U.S. East Coast
Oh no, according to those fuckwits who are in denial of the fact that
AGW is a hoax / scam, ships will now have to go up hill when they
visit the U.S. East Coast. Hahahhahah fuck ewe commies are funny.
MG
richp
If AGW is a hoax who started it
Möbius Pretzel
> The rise was lowest in Maine, highest in South Carolina.
Better check the *west* coast. Odds are it dropped.
:~)
Michael Gordge
> If AGW is a hoax who started it
Not "who" but *what* -- The POC ideology which treats man as the means
to an end and not as the end in himself.
The exact same ideology that started the god hoax, the greater good
hoax and the you are your brother's keeper hoax.
MG
Catoni
The Club of Rome and their friends...
What's the matter ? You stoned on drugs or something ? ? ?
Unum
> Harry Hope wrote:
>> From The Philadelphia Inquirer, 12/29/09:
>> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/80251807.html?viewAll=y
>>
>> Sea-level rise quickening along East Coast
>
> Maybe man-made global warming/climate change has something against the
> East Coast????
>
> Odd that the West Coast is unaffected ;^D ROTGDFLMMFAO!!!!!
The east coast is what they studied, so that's what they reported on. Got
some problem with it?
>> By factoring in the data from tide gauges and the land subsidence,
>> they also were able to show that the portion of sea-level rise from
>> the oceans also was different along different stretches of the
>> coastline.
>>
>> The rise was lowest in Maine, highest in South Carolina.
>
> LOL!!!!! And then they wonder why no one believes in man-made global
> warming/climate change.
Didn't read the article did you. And yet you have an opinion!
They explained that apparent sea level can change due to varying rates
of land subsidence at different places along the coast. You would want
them to take that into account right?
jane
OK, so what is your point?
Look at Juno Alaska [1], Vaasa/Vasa, Finland[2], Stockholm Sweden,
Barentsburg Norwan[4],
Poine-Au-Pere Canada[5], Goteborg Sweden[6], Sitka Alaska[7] or
Seldovia Alaska[8], you will see that the sea level is FALLING.
SO, let us now presume that you are right and that the GW is AGW.
What are you doing about it? Have you stopped driving? Have you
turned off your heat and AC?
You are just an AGW hypocrite.
Jane.
Footnotes:
1.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?
stnid=9452210
2.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=060-051
3.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=050-141
4.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=025-001
5.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=970-061
6.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=050-032
7.http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?
stnid=9451600
8. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9455500
John Q Public
Considering the oceans are all connected he needs evidence that they
rose everywhere,
Africa, Asia, West Coast....
Or maybe tectonic plates could have moved causing small ups and downs
in the surface crust!
Hairy Dope never truly gives anything other than dem talkin points!
leona...@gmail.com
>
> They explained that apparent sea level can change due to varying rates
> of land subsidence at different places along the coast. You would want
> them to take that into account right?
• ROTFLMAO
Land subsidence has zero affect on sea levels
— —
| 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
T. Keating
wrote:
Hey dumbo, the denisty of seawater changes with temperature..
*us*
rise is a fiction or exaggeration. That�s completely the wrong reaction. It is well
established that globally seas are rising"
leona...@gmail.com
> "No doubt the global warming deniers will seize on this story as evidence that sea level
> rise is a fiction or exaggeration. That’s completely the wrong reaction. It is well
> established that globally seas are rising"
>
• The Nazi fool actually posts something that is
actually 'on topic'but wrong as usual.
• The evidence he presented here that sea level rise
is fiction and/or exaggeration or both.
Ouroboros Rex
The University of Pennsylvania? lol
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
It's rising globally, has been for decades.
Ouroboros Rex
*us*
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... wrong as usual.
Of course you are: you have no data.
"No doubt the global warming deniers will seize on this story as evidence that sea level
rise is a fiction or exaggeration. That�s completely the wrong reaction. It is well
established that globally seas are rising"
Notice how even the most desperate fascist shill, the climate denier, can't dispute it.
jane
wrote:
I don't deny global warming. I believe that global warming is real
and has been happening since the Little Ice Age. There are time lines
that put the start of global warming at 1600 (wikipedia has the
charts). Look at empirical evidence: England had winter festivals on
the frozen river Thames; No more. The painting of George Washington
crossing the Delaware shows Ice Flows in the Delaware River; No more.
I could go on, but there is no need.
The real question isn't if GW is real, but, "Is AGW real?". What
caused the greatest increase of warming; the period between the Little
Ice Age and 1940, the period when virtually no one owned a car, no one
traveled more than a few miles, and almost everyone lived within
walking distance of work ?
Even if AGW is real, why does it matter? Even the converts haven't
given up their automobiles, their heat and AC. The converts aren't
even car pooling, let along given up their 4 wheeled global warming
devices. SOooo, If the converts haven't given up their global warming
ways, how do they expect the nonbelievers to give up theirs?
None of this really matters.
Jane.
*us*
>The real question isn't if GW is real, but, "Is AGW real?".
Not really: your belief that human activities would somehow
not affect climate isn't based on evidence or reasoning.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Dec 30, 11:31 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > • The Nazi fool actually posts something that is
> > actually 'on topic'but wrong as usual.
>
> > • The evidence he presented here that sea level rise
> > is fiction and/or exaggeration or both.
>
> I don't deny global warming.
• You should, because 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
> I believe that global warming is real
> and has been happening since the Little Ice Age. There are time lines
> that put the start of global warming at 1600 (wikipedia has the
> charts). Look at empirical evidence: England had winter festivals on
> the frozen river Thames; No more. The painting of George Washington
> crossing the Delaware shows Ice Flows in the Delaware River; No more.
> I could go on, but there is no need.
• ROTFLMAO - The empirical evidence shows
that there has been five thousand 100,000 year
cycles with a 10 to 12 thousand year 'interglacial
period'. Do you h ave any argument with that?
The last glacial period ended 13,000 years ago
and the interglacial period has been counting
down since 1,000 BCE
> The real question isn't if GW is real, but, "Is AGW real?". What
> caused the greatest increase of warming; the period between the Little
> Ice Age and 1940, the period when virtually no one owned a car, no one
> traveled more than a few miles, and almost everyone lived within
> walking distance of work ?
• There have been warm periods and cold periods
in the past 3000 years but now we are in the last
crunch in the count down to reglaciation.
>
> Even if AGW is real, why does it matter? Even the converts haven't
> given up their automobiles, their heat and AC. The converts aren't
> even car pooling, let along given up their 4 wheeled global warming
> devices. SOooo, If the converts haven't given up their global warming
> ways, how do they expect the nonbelievers to give up theirs?
• AHAAH — Of course the converts haven't given
up their automobiles, their heat and AC. Why ??
Because they know that this a political scam. It is
all about power and money.
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:48:44 -0500, * US * wrote:
> >On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:21:19 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>The real question isn't if GW is real, but, "Is AGW real?".
>
> >Not really: your belief that human activities would somehow
> >not affect climate isn't based on evidence or reasoning.
>
> basis in fact whatsoever.
• Does Shawn * US * Smith believe that he can
stop the rain from falling or the wind from
blowing?
Can he call down thunder and lightning or stop a
tornado?
Of course not! So why does he think that man can
in any way influence our climate?
jane
Who cares?
Do You care? Have you given up your 4 wheeled global warming device?
Have you turned off your heat and AC? Have you moved withing walking
distance of your work, or changed jobs to one that is close enough to
walk? Have you cut off Electricity to your home?
Jane.
*us*
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... this a political scam ...
You're lying for international exploiters and polluters, no less, denier.
You have no data.
*us*
That's why you have no data at all.
*us*
>The real question isn't if GW is real, but, "Is AGW real?".
Not really: your belief that human activities would somehow
not affect climate isn't based on evidence or reasoning.
That's why you have no data at all.
You'd be embarrassed if you weren't so totally clueless.