View Full Version : Climate Scientists SayThey Have Solved Riddle of Rising Sea.....

05-20-2012, 08:13 PM
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/JTje1BQgBGUogmKxfENUMg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9Mzg0O2NyPTE7Y3c9NTEyO2R4PTA7ZH k9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0xNDM7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/photo_1337534901831-1-0.jpg

Massive extraction of groundwater can resolve a puzzle over a rise in sea levels in past decades, scientists in Japan said on Sunday.

But the big question is how much of this can be pinned to global warming.

In its landmark 2007 report, the UN's Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ascribed 1.1mm (0.04 inches) per year to thermal expansion of the oceans -- water expands when it is heated -- and to meltwater from glaciers, icecaps and the Greenland and Antarctica icecaps.
That left 0.7mm (0.03 inches) per year unaccounted for, a mystery that left many scientists wondering if the data were correct or if there were some source that had eluded everyone.

In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, a team led by Yadu Pokhrel of the University of Tokyo say the answer lies in water that is extracted from underground aquifers, rivers and lakes for human development but is never replenished.
The water eventually makes it to the ocean through rivers and evaporation in the soil, they note.

In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC said the oceans would rise by between 18 and 59 centimetres (seven to 23 inches) by the century's end.....snip~

AFP – 7 hrs ago<<<<<

5 years later and they are now considering this is the missing data for all the discrepancies with Sea levels Rising. Which none of this counts what is melted off from the Artic glacial areas.

05-21-2012, 09:16 AM
That seems like an awful lot of run off but I guess that does explain it. We know for sure the earth has gotten warmer, but not if it's a manmade effect or not. The icecaps have demonstrably melted as a result. So now we have two problems to deal with.

05-21-2012, 09:39 AM
Exactly as they didnt include what would be the rise just with the glaciers melting. Which was not included in this report either. Which another factor that needs to be considered is, Rain.

05-21-2012, 11:30 AM
I don't believe the global warming theory. I think it's a political agenda sustained by the desire for grant money and PC peer pressure.

11-10-2012, 11:40 PM
Link Between Climate Change, National Security...
New Report Highlights Link Between Climate Change, National Security
November 09, 2012 WASHINGTON — Report says climate change can present security threats similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks

The U.S. National Research Council released a report Friday on the link between global climate change and national security. The scientific study details how global warming is putting new social and political stresses on societies around the world and how the United States and other counties can anticipate and respond to these climate-driven security risks. The report by the congressionally-chartered research group begins with an assertion that global warming is real, and that the mainstream scientific community believes that heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are being added to the atmosphere faster today than they were before the rise of human societies.

And it says the consequences of climate change -- including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe floods, droughts, forest fires, and insect infestations -- present security threats similar to and in many cases greater than those posed by terrorist attacks. John Steinbruner, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, says the U.S. intelligence community in particular needs to make climate change-related security threats a greater priority. “We are not as prepared as we need to be, I think [is] the better statement. It’s not that they are completely ill-prepared. It is not as if they are not monitoring in some sense, but it is not as organized or as developed as it needs to be,” he said.

Steinbruner says extreme weather events, for example, need to be anticipated where they can be and assessed in terms of their potential to destabilize countries and regions around the world. And he believes that a better understanding of how floods and droughts can trigger migration and civil conflict in parts of Africa and South Asia -- regions with weak governments and high levels of poverty -- will help developed countries better plan to prevent or respond to humanitarian disasters. The study urges greater international cooperation in gathering information on climate trends. Steinbruner notes that Pakistan and India currently refuse to share data on precipitation rates with the United States, information that could predict floods and droughts in South Asia. “There needs to be, if you will, a global diplomatic and scientific discussion saying, ‘Look, we need to set rules. We need to set processes where all of us are monitoring according to the same standards.' We all get the same benefit from it,” he said.

And Steinbruner says the U.S. military needs to anticipate new climate change-related threats -- for example, how the decreasing level of ice in the Arctic Ocean could lead to international competition or conflict over access to natural resources there. Alexander Ochs, the Climate and Energy Director at the non-profit Worldwatch Institute, says the report is an important reminder to world leaders of the complex problems posed by climate change: “So any investment we can make today in reducing emissions will make the problem smaller and it will pay out multi-fold in terms of the costs we have to pick up in the future,” Ochs said. The report, however, does not deal with how nations should go about reducing carbon emissions in the future. It focuses on the present and how the U.S. and the world can better manage potentially disruptive climate events.


11-11-2012, 07:06 AM
Another reason to cut defense spending. These people just want a bigger peace of the budget.

11-12-2012, 08:06 AM
I don't believe the global warming theory. I think it's a political agenda sustained by the desire for grant money and PC peer pressure.

Is that your serious theory?

Is there Data to back that theory?

11-12-2012, 08:14 AM
Is that your serious theory?

Is there Data to back that theory?

Oh sure. More and more scientists are coming out against the "consensus." The issue is just hyper-politicized. I am in the middle and accept Dr. Robert Zubrin's research. That man has a slight effect on warming, but that other pollution issues are much much more pressing. Within a 100 years there will be no need for fossil fuels and that issue will disappear. Unless the Luddite warmists win out.

11-08-2017, 10:50 AM
Dat's why Granny don't go to Hawaii - she don't want rising seas or cannibals to get her...
Island Nations Fear 'Apocalyptic' Storms Will Overwhelm Them
November 07, 2017 — Unless emissions can be drastically and quickly curbed, efforts by small island nations to adapt to climate change may be in vain, a leader of a group of small island nations said Tuesday.

Hurricanes that hit the Caribbean this year were like nothing seen before, with Hurricane Irma so strong it was picked up by seismic machines that detect earthquake tremors, officials said. National plans to curb planet-warming emissions, drawn up ahead of the Paris Agreement, currently add up to a projected temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100 — well above the 1 degree Celsius rise already seen. That may bring climate impacts that are impossible for small island nations to deal with, their leaders warned Tuesday at the U.N. climate talks in Bonn.

Sanjogeeta Kiran, right, with her sister Sulva Kiran, second left, and her children Shivendera, left, and Raajeen, sit amid the debris of their home in RakiRaki, Fiji, Feb. 24, 2016, after Cyclone Winston ripped through the island nation.

If ambition to curb climate remains modest, "have we created a situation for small island developing states where resilience may not necessarily be ... achievable?" asked Janine Felson, Belize ambassador to the United Nations and vice chair of the Alliance of Small Island States. This year, Hurricane Maria destroyed broad swaths of homes and infrastructure on the Caribbean island of Dominica and stripped its trees bare. Barbuda island was left temporarily uninhabitable when Irma whipped through the region. "In the Caribbean we're used to hurricanes, but ... for the first time we've seen storms turbocharge and supersize in a matter of hours," she said, speaking on the sidelines of the climate talks.

A traditionally dressed Fijian warrior with a weapon poses for a picture in front of a Fijian double-hulled sailing canoe during the COP23 U.N. Climate Change Conference 2017, hosted by Fiji but held in Bonn, at World Conference Center Bonn, Germany

The storms' impact was "quite apocalyptic," and magnified the acute vulnerability of small island states, Felson said. Even so, countries — who are now clear on the risks — can take steps to protect themselves by building structures better able to weather storms, and ensuring policies take into account the rapidly changing climate, she said. "If we do not know the extent of our vulnerability, then we will not change," Felson said.

Bouncing back (https://www.voanews.com/a/island-nations-fear-apocalyptic-storms-will-overwhelm-them/4105878.html)

11-08-2017, 10:53 AM
That seems like an awful lot of run off but I guess that does explain it. We know for sure the earth has gotten warmer, but not if it's a manmade effect or not. The icecaps have demonstrably melted as a result. So now we have two problems to deal with.

California uses something close to 40B gallons of water per day with Texas and New York placing and showing IIRC.

11-08-2017, 11:48 AM
The history books on all major extinction events claim there is evidence of sea levels rising and then a dramatic reduction in sea levels occurred where the extinction of the major fauna and massive deaths of life happened at lower sea levels. The rising sea levels is a major concern for scientists because according to past events this event marks the beginning of what will happen next.

We were not around during those previous mass extinction events so what makes us think that we can do anything to stop this process. Throwing money at the problem will not stop this cycle so I find it disgusting when they suggest that they want more funding and to make us all pay for it.

If all living entities combined with their daily consumption of energy can be proven to prevent or slow down this cycle then massive reduction in population is the only solution to this problem. Coming up with alternate methods in reducing energy to reduce the effects of global warming will not work with a growing population as the population itself demands more energy consumption.

No one wants to address that population growth is the main problem for the many destructive activities done to our planet and no politician would dare to restrict its growth. Perhaps scientists should focus on the importance of not allowing Humans to expand to rain forest areas which produce a lot of our oxygen but this won't happen because greed from corporations is preventing it from being saved.

Personal responsibility is lacking in our species so if scientists actually believe that our impact on the environment will stop global warming with actual proof is likely never going to be materialize. We cannot stop all of the other environmental destruction we are doing because people in power with money do not want any restrictions.

This topic of global warming is not what should be funded as there is no way it can be corrected. Funded for issues where it stops destruction of locations on the globe that are necessary is what should be supportive of all Humans on this planet.