Skip to comments.Global warming doubles rate of ocean rise
Posted on 12/31/2005 6:28:17 PM PST by Coleus
Global warming doubles rate of ocean rise Rutgers-led team shows rising ocean levels tied to human-induced climate change Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit, say scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and collaborating institutions. While the speed at which the ocean is rising almost two millimeters per year today compared to one millimeter annually for the past several thousand years may not be fodder for the next disaster movie, it affirms scientific concerns of accelerated global warming.
In an article published in the Nov. 25 issue of the journal Science, Rutgers professor of geological sciences Kenneth G. Miller reports on a new record of sea level change during the past 100 million years based on drilling studies along the New Jersey coast. The findings establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago.
In contrast, sea-level measurements since 1850 from tidal gauges and more recently from satellite images, when corrected for land settling along the shoreline, reveal the current two-millimeter annual rise. "Without reliable information on how sea levels had changed before we had our new measures, we couldn't be sure the current rate wasn't happening all along," said Miller. "Now, with solid historical data, we know it is definitely a recent phenomenon.
"The main thing that's changed since the 19th century and the beginning of modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," he added. "Our record therefore provides a new and reliable baseline to use in addressing global warming."
The new sea level record spanning 100 million years of geologic time is the first comprehensive one scientists have produced since a commercial research endeavor in 1987, which, according to Miller, was not fully documented and verifiable.
The findings by Miller's team argue against some widely held tenets of geological science. Miller claims, for example, that ocean heights 100 million years ago and earlier were 150 to 200 meters lower than scientists had previously thought. Changes at these levels can only be caused by the Earth's crust shifting on the ocean floor. Miller's findings, therefore, imply less ocean-crust production than scientists had widely assumed.
During the Late Cretaceous period (the most recent age of dinosaurs), frequent sea-level fluctuations of tens of meters suggest that the Earth was not always ice-free as previously assumed. Ice-volume changes are the only way that sea levels could change at these rates and levels, Miller claims. This suggests small- to medium-sized but short-lived ice sheets in the Antarctic region, and casts doubt whether any of the Earth's warmer eras were fully ice-free.
Miller's team took five 500-meter-deep core samples of sediments onshore along New Jersey's coastline from Cape May to Sandy Hook. The scientists examined the sediment type, fossils, and variations in isotopes, or different forms of the same elements, at different levels in the cores they extracted. Miller also correlated these measurements with others from throughout the world to substantiate the global nature of their record.
### The Rutgers study included participants from the New Jersey Geological Survey, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Western Michigan University, the University of Oregon and Queens College in Flushing, N.Y. The National Science Foundation provided major funding for the study.
How do we know that the land isn't just sinking?????
There can be only one possible solution to this terrible delima we face: international socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx! </sarcasm>
As you apparently know, the planet is not a rigid shape. The land pushes up in areas and sinks in others.
I just finished reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"...there is no global warming...period.
Just more water for me to bass fish!
Global Warming? Bring it on!!
It's a good read and once more he backs up his work with documented proof. He also pokes fun at Hollywood.
Right - so when an island or something seems to be flooding it could just mean it's sinking .... I've learned that there's the same amount of water since creation (evolutionary or whatever) on earth but in different forms. Sometimes there's more of one kind (liquid) than other (gas or solid) ....
How much time do we have left in Fairbanks? 450 feet above sea level.
I think it is all the newly fatter people swimming in the ocean making it all rise.
So this idiot is claiming steam power started global warming in 1860.
One underwater volcano can out out more steam in an hour than all the trains in the world put out until Diesels took over.
Cool. I live in Baltimore. At this rate, in 2000 years, I'll have ocean front property.
If only Al Gore was here, he would know what to do..
16 posts and I am the first to say it????
IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!
NOW, WE'RE DOOOOMED!!!!!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMEEEEED!
The biggest change since the 19th century, which they manage to totally ignore is, the increaed population of earth with it's increase in CO² emissions form mammals breathing! Also the bullsh-t is getting a lot deeper too also. Book em, Barney.
Yep - and ask those people in Europe now ... super cold ...
I agree. At least no human caused global warming. Mars has a "global warming" problem too. I guess there are too many SUVs on Mars.
I'll be long gone when my house is beach front property...
"During the Late Cretaceous period (the most recent age of dinosaurs)"
Thanks for reminding us how "accurate" scientific theory was re those too. LOL.
Its all Rovian Mothership Delta's doing. Only 2 million more years and the Blue Coastal Cities will be wiped off the face of the map. Mwau-hahahha.
Meanwhile, Mars is warming without human help.
Yup, Global Socialism. Our only hope is to buy emmission credits from the UN...
Global warming is truly happening but man hasn't had a significant role in causing it.
The sea level has risen more than 120 meters since the peak of the last ice age, about 18,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Glaciers were up to a mile thick in North Dakota and up to 8,000 feet thick near Hudson Bay during the last ice age . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.
Human induced global warming is now proven scientific fact?
Has that ever stopped them before?
This is bogus. There are no standard measurement records from "several thousand years" ago. There is no way to demonstrate this. BALONEY!
"The findings establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago."
Two hundred years?
The researchers seem to have overlooked the obvious...if their findings are correct, then global warming began around the time that Congress first convened.
Thus, when the product or service is later found to fail, injure users, or any similar factual establishment that your consumer's faith was misplaced, it is not merely rhetorical to ask: Does that failure justify the listener's future doubt when the talking head is repeating yet another assurance of a fact relating to public policy, political integrity or the purported truthfulness of one person, himself (herself) or another? And, with regard to the future faith of the listener when still another product or service is hawked by the host, what level of trust is reasonable for the listener to have for that product specifically and all representations, assurances and interpretive conclusions as a universal matter?
As funding dries up they will only become more shrill.
Liberalism is ruining science!
There is no way you can get a 1mm annual resolution from core samples. Can't be done. What I assume they did was take the total data and extrapolate to an average per year. An interesting exercise but the varability of any 200 years in 5,000 years could account for the "rise" now. The next 200 year could have no rise. Point is, insufficient data to make a conclusion that Global Warming is the cause.
So for the past several thousand years the sea could be rising an average of 1.48 mm and now it is 1.51 mm. Based on the evidence given in the article that could be a true statement even though the actual difference is .03 mm.
Global ocean levels are rising twice as fast today as they were 150 years ago, and human-induced warming appears to be the culprit.
Are they saying non-human produced global warming would have no effect on ocean levels?
IIRC: I read somewhere that global warming would cause the Greenland Ice Sheet to lose mass while the Antarctic Ice Sheet might actually gain mass. Where is this extra water coming from?
Of course, the fluctuating temperatures of the Sun have nothing to do with it.
I think it's amazing that so many scientist, looking at a teeny speck of time through what amounts to a flickering penlight, think they know everything and can make pronouncements that we're supposed to accept as holy truth.
If this farticle is true, why the hell are we going to spend 240 billion bucks rebuilding New Orleans? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Michael Crichton is as a reliable source of info on science as Michael Moore is on politics.
ie he isnt
If I spend 20 minutes detailing how ''A'' is innocent and how we know the prosecuting attorney is driven by some specific sinister motive or, one category of everyday society (like the press) is engaged in a conspiracy, and then seemlessly move into a two minute assurance that product ''B'' will grow hair on Terry Bradshaw, when we know the latter to be untrue, how do we rationalize the fervent belief in the assurances about the first things while rejecting the Bradshaw promise?
This issue wouldn't exist except for the unambiguous guarantee these purveyors of the truth offer to the public. They purport to know the unadulterrated facts and implore you and me to believe and act on the strength of what they tell us. As astounding as it sounds, we've all heard callers tell these gurus that they've stopped watching tv news and don't read the newspaper, except those hawked on the air, and get the ''news and the truth'' from the talking head. To a not insignificant degree some people who actually have a vote really do get their news in that manner.
Scream! What have devolved to?