MINERAL RECORD: Carbonate deposits on cave formations, like these stalactites in Vallgornera Cave, record sea levels stretching back millennia.
Image: © Bogdan P. Onac]
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Mallorca, Spain's largest island, is not just a desirable place for a Mediterranean vacation; it's also a treasure trove of the geologic record. That's because of coastal caves that precisely record in stone formations sea level thanks to the island's long-term geologic stability; it has been relatively unaffected by tectonics or glacial uplift or subsidence. Plus, these caves have a series of formations, known as speleothems, like stalagmites, scattered at various levels, both above and below present-day sea level, thereby offering a record in the carbonate crust left on them by the lapping waters of sea level over time.
So a team of geologists set out to identify sea level changes over the course of the past 135,000 years by collecting rock samples from six formations at various levels in five different caves. The researchers found that sea levels were roughly 1 meter higher than present 81,000 years ago when the world was thought to be experiencing an ice age that should have locked up water in glacial ice, thereby lowering sea level as much as 30 meters.
More disturbingly, the record suggests that sea level can rise or fall as fast as two meters a century—nearly 12 times as fast as sea level rise in the past 100 years and indicating the potential for a meter of sea-level rise within one human lifetime. "This has major implications for future concerns with sea-level change," says geoscientist Jeffrey Dorale of the University of Iowa, lead author of the new research published in the February 12 issue of Science. "Our study indicates rapid rates of ice melting and ice formation. The mechanisms underlying these dramatic changes need further consideration as we look to a future of impending climate changes."
By measuring the decay of radioactive uranium and thorium present in the encrusted speleothems, the geologists dated the layers. Because water levels in the cave precisely track sea level today—and Mallorca is generally geologically stable—this record provides a more precise measure of historic sea level than the records left in coral reefs or ancient shorelines, which had been used in the past to estimate primordial sea levels. In fact, the speleothem record backs findings from Caribbean islands as well as the U.S. east and west coasts that sea level was at least as high 81,000 years ago, and probably higher.
By tracking sea-level change over the entire period, the geologists were able to rule out shifting land levels as the cause of this finding. That's because sea level in the caves remained stable over the last 3,000 years, even as the Mediterranean basin as a whole has sunk by roughly 60 centimeters—and the record matches sea levels found in samples elsewhere in the world for other periods.
It remains unclear what might have caused the sea-level rise, although it is coincident with an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Northern Hemisphere due to slight variations in Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. "Maybe unstable ice was involved in some of the rapid rise," Dorale speculates. "But we don't even know for sure what the ice configuration was at this time."
Yet, the record in rock also suggests that sea level can change aside from these orbital cycles, notes geologist Bogdan Onac of the University of South Florida, who collaborated in the research—and that Milankovitch cycles cannot entirely explain ice growth or melt over the last 100,000 years. As it stands, the rock record points clearly to higher sea levels. "There are other lines of evidence that come from corals and marine terraces pointing toward a high sea-level stand," Onac says. "It must have been a dramatic melting event. What exactly caused it is hard to tackle with just this set of data."
Glaciologist Richard Alley of The Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the research, calls the findings "solid" and "careful," and notes that this research confirms that ice-sheet changes can happen quickly. "It points to rather rapid shrinkage and growth of ice," he says, while cautioning that further research will be needed to confirm this finding. "The growth rates are surprising, but not impossible."
One thing is clear, however, the finding points up how complex Earth's climate is. "Greenhouse gases are clearly important to climate," Dorale says, "but just as clearly they are not the only major factor at work."
See what we're tweeting about
49 Comments
Add CommentIf our oceans rise 1 meter in the next 30 years it would be hailed as validation that the human caused global warming is real, the same way humans caused the oceans to rise 81,000 years ago. Oh wait, that is not possible. Maybe all of these things that are now being attributed to human activities with such certainty are being caused by something less sinister.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not global warming anyway, it's global climate change. And it (rather simply states): Areas climates will change from their norm, the wetter places will get drier and the drier places will get wetter. And right now: the places that usually get snow, like Central New York, are not getting as much snow while the places that usually don't, such as South Carolina or Lousiana, are getting far more than they're used to. If any of this is wrong, and you can prove, feel free to. I'm of a science mind and open to suggestions. It's how science works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething more for the natural climate change deniers to think about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the article above, they that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy tracking sea-level change over the entire period, the geologists were able to rule out shifting land levels as the cause of this finding. That's because sea level in the caves remained stable over the last 3,000 years, even as the Mediterranean basin as a whole has sunk by roughly 60 centimetersand the record matches sea levels found in samples elsewhere in the world for other periods.
Maorca is part of the Mediterranian basin. How could the sea level in the caves remain constant on the caves if the basin settled 60 cm in the last 3,000 years? It seems a contradiction. There should be some clarification.
As an analytical chemist, I'd like to know the variability of their measurements and, therefore, the capability od the anaytical measurement in years.
Can they measure the trelative importance of the different causes of water level change and compare those to CO2?
Dom Amato
Oh my gosh, while people holler and scream if you come up with a piece of interesting stats that don't agree with them ... they claim YOU are narrow minded. Ah ha ha ha.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the article. It feels good to be able to listen to both sides of the problem so that we can eventually come up with a logical explanation. Some of us :)
If you publish stats that differ from what they are wanting they holler :) Wouldn't you think they would appreciate all the sources available?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of us are looking for truth and some just want you to bow to their chosen agenda. Someone needs to get to our kids while they are still in college and teach them how to do unbiased research.
Thanks for the article. Very interesting. It is great collecting all sides and not forcing everything to fit into the little box in my mind.
Why the climate is changing is almost irrelevant, the fact that it is changing if irrefutable. The real issue that will need to be addressed in the near future (50 to 100 years from now) will be what are we going to do with all the people around the globe that rising ocean levels are going to displace? How are we going to replace the cultivated land that will be under water? How will we deal with the incredible asset loss? Who cares what the cause it, the Sun, humans, volcanoes, does it really matter? No one can deny the fact that the ice caps are melting, the ocean levels are rising it really is time we started to think about what to do next. The blame game is not going to get us anywhere!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy the climate is changing is almost irrelevant, the fact that it is changing is irrefutable. The real issue that will need to be addressed in the near future (10 to 50 years** from now) will be what are we going to do with all the people around the globe that rising ocean levels are going to displace? How are we going to replace the cultivated land that will be under water? How will we deal with the incredible asset loss? Who cares what the cause it, the Sun, humans, volcanoes, does it really matter? No one can deny the fact that the ice caps are melting, the ocean levels are rising it really is time we started to think about what to do next. The blame game is not going to get us anywhere!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this**I decided it will have to be dealt with sooner.
New York, London, Shanghai, Athens, Hong Kong, Sydney, Amsterdam, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, Alexandria, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Istanbul. Only some of the many well known and densely populated areas that will be severely affected by even a small rise in ocean levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt this point, it doesn't matter what will cause the ice melt or if it has happened thousands of times in the past. What does matter is that some of the world's biggest and most densely populated urban centres will be directly affected, with some facing complete submersion even with minimal rise in sea levels. This is the main imperative for acting, and this cannot be doubted.
Let's see. Scientists have been telling us that our present 1 mm or so per year rise in sea level is rapid by geologic standards and humans must be causing this "rapid" rise. Now these caves are telling us levels have previously risen 2 meters in a century. Just further evidence that what these climate scientists really offer the world is mere conjecture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Soccerdad, how idiotic to quibble over a qualifier. The current expected mean sea level rise for the century is 480mm or .48 m or 1/4 of what is seen in the caves. That hardly suggests that .48mm is not "rapid", it only suggest that there have been times where the change has been more rapid. The top speed of an F1 race car is 400km/h. That's fast. The land speed record is 1,228 km/h. Is the F1 not fast anymore? It seems faster than my car's 140 km/h. You deniers will desperately grasp onto anything you think may support your claims while dismissing the validated science. It only goes to show your desperation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you mean CFCs, and the fact that they destroy ozone is undeniable, I thought we had that much figured out in the 1980s. On that note, why are you even bringing it up? Has the disappearance of CFCs from the appliances they used to be used in really affected you that badly? This reminds me of what my Dad told me the automakers said when they were first required to put in catalytic converters: "Oh, it will drive up the price too much, people won't buy any, the sky will fall, blah blah blah", and yet it turns out that catalytic converters didn't drive up prices or anything negative like that. Where are people getting the idea that being ecologically responsible will somehow make them impoverished? What evidence do they have that "going green" causes someone to go bankrupt?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoing back to the topic in the article, this shows that sea levels can rise much faster than anyone thought, and until we get some idea of what caused that sea level rise, we can't be sure that there isn't some sort of critical tipping point we are unaware of that we may trigger. Of course, it would be inappropriate to go around suggesting such a thing at the moment, since we don't have any evidence that we may trip this tipping point, as it might have just been an asteroid hitting an ice cap as someone else suggested. But it should be more heavily looked into, just in case.
"So, for example, those people in the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six
tide gauges, and they choose the record of
one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea
level. Every geologist knows that that is a
subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment;
it is the only record which you shouldn’t
use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland
would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous."
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Now listen here, for starters if you were to read the data on Global Warming you would find that the climate problems we are facing today are exactly what you would expect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeasons are going to become more violent as our Earth heats up, as it is changing our jet streams. This is why we have snow in the south, just another thing that points to Global Warming.
As we progress further into the we will have some serious sea level changes, but not only that. There is a good chance this warming effect can destablize the entire nothern hemisphere. The warm water that conveys the warm climate to most of the modern world will stop conveying. This can cause the Earth to cool, causing ice to rebuild.
On the converse side of things you can see that since our warming is man made, the warming may not stop at all. Causing our planet to warm to a point where no ice will exist at all. This of course will cause extremely violent weather in every season, can drown ever costal city in the world.
Now i don't know about you guys, but i would NOT like to see either of these things happen. No matter which road we take if we do nothing we will end up in a very differnt world. Lots of us may not make it to see this future, and neither will your children. So when you think about these things, use logic and reason and not ideology. God can save your soul, but not your life; so think before you open your mouth.
Lets push our Government to do something, together we can leave an Earth to our children that we can be proud of. Let the WWII generation NOT be the greatest generation our nation! Lets US show them how smart and innovative we can be, let us make them PROUD!
Very accurate aerial photos were taken of Midway island in World War Two (actually, it is two islands) and when compared to moderns satellite imagery the islands still look exactly the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGranted, an alleged few cms of ocean rise won't change most coastlines very much. Where water is missing, however, seems to be in the lower stratosphere. This really changes any model based on greenhouse gas theory because water vapor is the kind of greenhouse gases--no contest at all.
The water is missing. Also we have the Antarctic ozone hole which is mysteriously refusing to go away despite a marked decline in those nasty CFC's in the atmosphere, and then we have a really mysterious South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly where the Earth's magnetic field is failing and the net effect is another big ozone hole which allows the Earth to be pelted with high energy space radiation/particles.
I wonder if all these phenomena could be related? Lots of scientists studying each piece of the elephant independently, but nobody seems to be trying to imagine the big picture.
king for kind in previous posting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnough with the war of words. Is global warming real and can we prevent it? Maybe. Is it a global conspiracy? Who are you, Tom Clancy? Look at the issue from a human viewpoint. Do we need clean energy? Do we want a clean environment? We can have both and as the species with the "big brain" (that's open to debate), why can't we engineers come up with a solution that's cost effective, yet productive? I don't hug trees, but I like trees. We can find a solution to he benefit of humanity without falling into a finger pointing, he said, she said argument that's ignorant and childish. Let's make our DNA proud and get to work on a solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe certain survivability factors are that the world population has reached unsustainable levels, and that any climatic instability diminishes our ability to harvest nutrients. I only hope some efforts are made to humanely reduce world population before it is inhumanely reduced by the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, reducing population is the most certain method of generally reducing humanity’s indeterminable impact on the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrobert - That is correct - good observations. The challenge is to affect significant change quickly, averting disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe greatest challenge is to humanely affect change most quickly in regions which already have the greatest overpopulation, lowest food production and lowest education.
"A UN panel of climate experts has admitted to overstating how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, news agency Reuters reported at the weekend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stated earlier this month, the 2007 IPCC report wrongly states 55% of the country is below sea level.
In fact, just 26% of the country is below sea level..."
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/un_climate_panel_admits_dutch.php
The dynamic model a site www.mammoths.narod.ru - about ten years ago has proved law of change of a level of Ocean in limits about 1000 meters, the Static model will not solve these problems never
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"They took PCBs out of spray cans because they were causing a hole in the ozone, yet the PCB molocule is heavier then air, so how can it reach the ozone?" - Honestman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPCB's were never in spray cans. CFC's were.
CFC's are heavier than air. This is a bulk property of the material in gaseous form.
But what is the density of a molecule of CFC in it's molecular form when it has dissolved into the ambient air?
What is the density of a molecule of salt when it is dissolved in ocean water. Isn't salt rocklike? If you drop a block of salt into a container of water won't it sink to the bottom? It's denser... Isn't it?
So if you believe that CFC's are heavier than air and should remain at ground level, aren't do you also believe that all of the salt in the ocean should have sunk to the bottom?
Why hasn't it?
Why is ocean water salty?
Maybe it's all a U.N. sponsored conspiracy to steal your precious CFC's as was claimed 30 years ago by millions of ozone depletion denialists.
"If our oceans rise 1 meter in the next 30 years it would be hailed as validation that the human caused global warming is real, the same way humans caused the oceans to rise 81,000 years ago." - shvegas
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImplicit in your comment is the assumption that if something changed in the past then only the same factors can make it change in the present or future.
Isn't that assumption nothing more than stupidity?
The greatest challenge is to humanely affect change most quickly in regions which already have the greatest overpopulation, lowest food production and lowest education." - JTdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn that front I read today that Utah conservatives are considering dropping grade 12 education in order to reduce government spending and make more room for future tax cuts.
"In fact, just 26% of the country is below sea level..." - CNunneley
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat remark can be found in volume 2 of the last IPCC report from the section done by working group 3. It is a point of reference and not a finding of the working group.
It is an error. But I don't expect to find perfection in a multi-volume text that is more than 1000 pages long.
Why do you?
"Very accurate aerial photos were taken of Midway island in World War Two (actually, it is two islands) and when compared to moderns satellite imagery the islands still look exactly the same. " - Mike Cook
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe typical slope of a coastline is something like 100 to 1. I don't know what it is for Midway but lets assume it was the same.
Since 1950, the ocean has risen about 11 cm, which would represent a retraction of about 1 meter in the coastline of that island.
What was the accuracy of the photography? And what is the statistical variance in the size of it's shoreline over the period in question. What was the tidal level at the time of the two photographs, and were the waves of equal height at both times?
Can you answer those questions for us Mike.
"Scientists have been telling us that our present 1 mm or so per year rise in sea level is rapid by geologic standards and humans must be causing this "rapid" rise." - Soccerdad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is correct. Did you foolishly jump to the conclusion that they were saying that the observed warming of the earth is a result of the rapid rise of the ocean, or that the observed rapid rise of the ocean was proof that man was warming the atmosphere?
I was under the impression that the ocean could only rise if you changed it's shape, put more water into it by melting land locked ice, and/or if it expanded by heating.
Now we know the ocean isn't changing shape very fast, so the only two alternatives imply warming.
Do you have a different take on the matter SoccerDad?
Maybe the water is coming from moon beams? Or maybe water is expanding faster than the rest of the universe for some reason. Could that reason be Moon Beams?
Tinfoil... We need more Tinfoil...
Vendicar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishere is a experiment for you. Try dropping an ice cube into a glass of water. Does the level rise or fall? Now imagine what would happen if a proportion of the atmospheric H2O were cooled causing it to change state to liquid(rain) and then due to reduced ocean temperatures either remain in liquid form or turn to ice instead of returning to the atmosphere. Either way the oceans rise.
Mick
I'm still waiting to see how anyone can measure a 1 to 2 millimeter per year rise in sea level. In the 40 years that I have been visiting the Pacific Northwest, I have not observed a sea level rise -- or to be more precise, I observe a 12 foot change in sea level twice a day and an extra centimeter on top of that is not boing to be noticeable. So who is the genius that can measure a millimeter in a 12 foot daily change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMidway: I have been there, spent a week or two. Incredible place. It is also very dynamic; you will NEVER notice a centimeter difference in sea level. It is surrounded by a reef that will grow and rise with the sea. It produces coral sand that fills that lagoon. Small waves are constantly adjusting the shoreline, but trees and vegetation anchor the shoreline.
If there is a place to monitor the sea level, it will be the pilings of the harbor. They are vertical and have been there for 60 years or more. Big waves never reach the islands, they break on the reef. Thus, it ought to be possible to average out the small waves. Out on the open sea tides are almost non-existent; I observed no tide at Midway but it must be present in a small way. 60 millimeters of sea level rise (just over 2 inches) in the past 60 years might indeed exist and in another thousand years we might have to add some height to the pier.
"Now we know the ocean isn't changing shape very fast, so the only two alternatives imply warming." Vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's silly and incorrect at the same time!
For Bboy705, some answers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why the climate is changing is almost irrelevant"
Wrong. It is extremely relevant. If the change is the result of natural processes, then trying to CHANGE it is stupid; instead we accomodate to the change -- ADAPT. That is the Darwinian way!
"the fact that it is changing is irrefutable. "
Your definition of "Irrefutable" probably needs updating. Many people are refuting it. That the climate changes every year is well known by anyone older than ten perhaps, but imputing human cause is the refutable part.
"The real issue that will need to be addressed"
Many real issues need to be addressed, and a lot sooner than 10 to 50 years.
"what are we going to do with all the people around the globe that rising ocean levels are going to displace?"
WE aren't going to do anything. YOU can do whatever you like. Home of the FREE, land of the brave, that sort of thing. My ancestors "adapted" to the Little Ice Age by coming to America from Norway, which at the time was a really horrible place to try to be a farmer. Minnesota, which at times is still horrible, was incredibly wonderful in comparison.
"How are we going to replace the cultivated land that will be under water?"
We aren't. You can do the Netherlands thing and not let it be under water, or you can cultivate land that right now is not cultivated. In a thousand years when the sea level has flooded the southern California desert, the moisture intrusions will water huge areas of land that right now cannot be cultivated. By then we will also have mastered solar power and will be distilling freshwater. Furthermore, with no more fossil fuel, we WILL have arrived at our new sustainable population level (probably violently).
"How will we deal with the incredible asset loss?"
People deal with asset losses in a variety of ways. I cannot predict how you will deal with it. As for me, I will do what I suspect most humans do, MOVE their asse(t)s.
"Who cares what the cause it, the Sun, humans, volcanoes, does it really matter?"
Obama, the IPCC, Scientific American, Nature, etc. They care a lot.
"No one can deny the fact that the ice caps are melting, the ocean levels are rising it really is time we started to think about what to do next."
Well, I'm going to eat breakfast, that's what I'm going to do next.
Bboy705:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No one can deny the fact that the ice caps are melting"
-------------------------
Actually, I hear that all the time from some stubborn denialists, that must "cherry-pick" the data and start with the minimum Arctic sea ice extent in 2007. They have no need to begin in 1979 when accurate satellite imaging was begun, which tells us we've seen a rapid decline of 11.6% per decade or a 34% decline in the past 30 years,.
No, these stubborn denialists will use the 2007 minimum as a starting point, in order to predict a "growing" Arctic sea ice extent over the past 2 years and predict another year in 2010 of "growth," despite the overall mean winter thickness of the Arctic sea ice in 1980 of 3.64 m compared to a 1.89 m mean thickness in 2008 -- an astonishing decrease of 1.75 m in overall thickness.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
Soccerdad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientists have been telling us that our present 1 mm or so per year rise in sea level is rapid by geologic standards..."
--------------------
Actually, sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003), so presently it is three times what you wrongly stated.
It is ludicrous for you to also state that present sea level rise is "rapid by geologic standards," since we know that geologists have stated that during the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, sea level was 120 meters lower, and clearly-defined accelerated phases of sea level rise have occured since. Between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), sea level increased by some 16 to 24 meters. Another surge, "meltwater pulse 1B", 11,500-11,000 years ago, sea level may have jumped by 28 meters according to Fairbanks.
By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased, but not before meltwater pulses 1A through 1C, occuring over about 11,000 years, had increased sea level by over 100 meters. That's close to 1 cm per year for an entire 11,000 years, with many more years much higher than that in the entire period.
So, methinks your "rapid geologic standards of 1 mm/year" is very false on both accounts -- first that it is closer to 3 mm/year presently, and that the 1 cm/year average over 11,000 years is much more rapid than it is presently!
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
robert schmidt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You deniers will desperately grasp onto anything you think may support your claims while dismissing the validated science. It only goes to show your desperation."
----------------------------
Yep....if it wasn't for their "cherry-picking" of data or just desperately grasping onto thoroughly debunked contrarian talking points, they wouldn't have anything. Their desperation is getting more delusional by the day!
mggordon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That the climate changes every year is well known by anyone older than ten perhaps"
----------------
Sorry, but that's exactly the false premise the denialists have been using this winter with each snowfall or cold spell.
Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.
Therefore, "long periods of time" certainly does not mean from one year to the next, so your statement is false.
"Now we know the ocean isn't changing shape very fast, so the only two alternatives imply warming." Vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That's silly and incorrect at the same time! " - CNunneley
I see, so on your home planet of Conservadopia the oceans are changing shape rapidly.
Tell us more. I like Science Fiction.
"Wrong. It is extremely relevant. If the change is the result of natural processes, then trying to CHANGE it is stupid" - mggordon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see, so if we are to follow your logic, we can only conclude that if the cause of death is natural - say the Bubonic plague or old age or being eaten by a lion - then trying to CHANGE it is stupid.
I think the operative word here is "stupid", although it's being applied at an entirely wrong point in the argument.
"Now we know the ocean isn't changing shape very fast, so the only two alternatives imply warming." Vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That's silly and incorrect at the same time! " - CNunneley
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I see, so on your home planet of Conservadopia the oceans are changing shape rapidly." Vendicar9
Incorrect. Again. My comment wasn't about the oceans/shapes. Instead, my reply was about your claim that there were only 2 alternatives, both of which involved warming.
And that's wrong. There are more potential alternatives, and the alternatives do not all involve warming.
That you thought that my comment was about the shape of oceans instead of about warming alternatives reflects poorly on your demeanor.
Anyone can be pissy and tedious on-line, after all, if they so choose...but that will never advance the debate.
Is that your goal, to never advance the debate? To silence anyone who points out a flaw? To prevent Science from being self-correcting?
Topical reference: This article is an example of what I appreciate. Let the earth speak and tell us its story. Computer models are okay but it is all hypothetical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor Lakota:
"Therefore, "long periods of time" certainly does not mean from one year to the next, so your statement is false. "
Seattle had a wet climate when I was younger and many jokes existed about it. Then it went through a rather remarkable period, ten years or so, of sunny days happening more than once a week and the jokes seemed out of place. Now it seems to be back to being wet. That is climate change and it is easily observed on a multi-year scale.
For Vendicar: "I see, so if we are to follow your logic, we can only conclude that if the cause of death is natural - say the Bubonic plague or
old age or being eaten by a lion - then trying to CHANGE it is stupid."
We may be able to conclude many things; what I hope a reader concludes is trying to change HUMAN CAUSED lions is stupid. If you are mistaken about the cause, then mitigation will fail, and the attempt may leave you exposed to a more serious problem, such as ignoring an asteroid that could wipe out all life instantly. I think the ancient phrase "swallowing camels but straining at gnats" is appropriate in this context.
Changing nature is hard, adapting to it is what we have been born and bred to. It is the essence of Darwinism.
By the way, I feel like screaming every time a warmist says of a skeptic, "But he's not a climatologist!" Neither is the director of the IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri or Al Gore.
When we discover the cause of lions, we can then deal with them in an appropriate way. So long as conflicting opinions exist as to the cause of lions, I'll worry about something else.
"Incorrect. Again. My comment wasn't about the oceans/shapes. Instead, my reply was about your claim that there were only 2 alternatives, both of which involved warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that's wrong. There are more potential alternatives, and the alternatives do not all involve warming." - CNunneley
Sure, if you want to include Magical Moon Beams, Rain Gods, the spontaneous appearance of matter out of thin air, or other Tinfoil CapTrap, then there are lots of other potential reasons to the rise in ocean levels.
But if you want people to take them seriously you have to go back to Planet Conservadopia from whence you came.
"We may be able to conclude many things; what I hope a reader concludes is trying to change HUMAN CAUSED lions is stupid. " - mggordon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we already do. In the form of the various prohibitions of owning dangerous and exotic pets. It is a simple matter to prevent the number of lions bred in captivity.
Further you seem to have switched your claim from arguing that it is stupid to try to pervent naturally caused change to your new position that it is stupid to try to prevent anthropogenic change.
Are you even capable of holding a consistant thought in your head for more than a single post?
Perhaps your lack of ability explains why Climate Change Denailists can never manage to provide any factual backup for their Quackfart rantings. They simply aren't capable of remembering what the point they were trying to make, so simply utter another QuackFart talking point whenever someone asks them for substantiation.
mggordon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"That the climate changes every year is well known by anyone older than ten perhaps"
----------------
Lakota2012:
"Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.
Therefore, "long periods of time" certainly does not mean from one year to the next, so your statement is false.
-------------------------
mggordon:
Seattle had a wet climate when I was younger and many jokes existed about it. Then it went through a rather remarkable period, ten years or so, of sunny days happening more than once a week and the jokes seemed out of place. Now it seems to be back to being wet. That is climate change and it is easily observed on a multi-year scale."
--------------------------
Methinks you protest too much, and are letting emotion get the better of you, after looking at Seattle's precipitation totals from 1948 to the present: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?waseat
From the totals, I see Seattle has a mean average rainfall of 38" per year, with a maximum in 1950 of 55", but also a minimum in 1948 of 22" -- two years apart, but 2 & 1/2 times the rainfall in 1950 after a very dry year in 1948. Did those in Seattle start building arks in 1950 to save themselves?
Personally, I still think you're confusing weather with CLIMATE, since there's always anomalies like El Nino this year, and your original statement "that the climate changes every year," has now been proven false twice!
mggordon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Changing nature is hard, adapting to it is what we have been born and bred to."
-------------------
You not only seem confused about Seattle's climate vs. weather, but how can reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by replacing finite fossil fuels with renewable energy and 4th generation nuclear energy, be confused with changing nature?
Seems to me the smart thing to do is change our habits of where we get our energy, which not only reduces GHG emissions, but at the same time, since 50% of our energy is from dirty coal, we'd be reducing the nasty pollution of sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides and particulates that would also save tens of thousands of premature deaths as well.
Why in the world would you ever 'think' anyone would want to try to change nature?
You seem rather dogmatic when it comes to hypothesizing and more than a little skimpy on actual facts...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDynamic model site www.mammoths. - time in the past divides by the stages I - IV ; DM - allowed to define the temporal parameters of the stages II - IV ( more objectively ), for example - time of the III stage makes near ( - 600 thousand years ), time of the IV stage ( b1 –b11 ) ~ 5-6 thousand years, ( b11 - с ) ~ 4 -5 thousands of years ; in the article of '' Sea Caves . Ocean Levels ‘
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby D. Biello - accordingly in this article the consequences of changes are examined which took a place in near the past on the area of the graph ( b11 - c ) - these changes are plucked-up from the general context of events in the past, this article abstractly establishes an event in the caves of Mallorca no more ; farther brief review of comments on this article from position of DM : this model allows to determine time in the past concretely example - on all of continents there is a mark of tenfold increase of level of Ocean to
max marks ( ~ 15m ), on Ukraine a coastline on the area of the graph ( b - b1 ) rose in a top on stream of the river Dnepr to Zaporozhia in a point ( b1 ), area of glaciers of planet ( in the period of Z ) near ( 16 million km2 ), annual sinking ( ~ 50 mm )
allowed to define time ( b1 –b11 ) near ( 5 – 6 thousands of years ), on the area of the graph
( b11 - c ) the level of Ocean was stabilized - on this time grounded this anomaly DM ; in the period of Zp’ is an area of glaciers above ( 100 million km2 ) accordingly events on the area of the graph ( a1 - a ) was happened for time ( ~ 50 - 60 thousand years ), to according to ( 10 cycles ) the III stage happened after half- million years ;
thus DM was grounded by conformity to the law of changes accordingly of the stages,
level of Ocean in what limits and why changed only in times of the III stage, why mountain ranges arose up in final phase of the II stage et cetera ; on this time obviously, that chronology of events of the past on a planet it is possible to make only taking into account possibilities of both models of globe
All over the world there are cave systems near coasts which have been periodically above or below actual sea-level. Think of the central american flooded caves or the widespread recrystallised stalagmite formations now well above sea level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis field has received very little study due to the very delicate isotopic sampling required. The whole question is wide open for important work and caves such as those in Devon have experienced a very long history of sea-level changes over millions of years.
; Short announcement on this topic - Sea Caves Re . - it should be noted interest to the events taking a place in the past on continents to the readers of American Scientific - the Dynamic model broadly speaking allowed to give an answer : what events took a place, why took a place, on what continents, more concrete time in the past accordingly the stages of I -iv ; theme of Dynamic Globe model - relates to the wide spectrum sciences so - mike cook - an interesting aspect marked - '' Lets of scientists studying each piece of the elephant independently, but nobody seems to be trying to imagine big picture’’ .for analogies with military science - the theater of battle actions can take a place on different continents, here a lot of the field generals participate simultaneously, however accessible general strategy of battle operations is only to a few generals in the General staff ; circumstance that on the planet of absent the single Co-ordinating center does not allow in Science to the present tense to have objective chronology of events of the past, a conclusion follows from here - without the clear picture of events of the past on a planet, future of civilization of period of Z without the Co-ordinating center, also as armies without the General staff - indefinitely
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if they are doing this research on California's channel islands? They have tons of sea caves out there. However, these islands are effected by tectonic uplift, but we are talking a very long period for major uplift. But it is short in geologic time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cccarto.com/santacruz/
https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~shlemonc/trips/santacruz_10/default.htm