Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global warming doubles rate of ocean rise
Eurek Alert ^ | 11.24.05 | Carl Blesch

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Technical; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: capemay; globalwarming; sandyhook
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: middie

Read it again, that's exactly how it was when I was younger.

I have no idea how old you are or how good your memory is but it was a far superior system. Lawyers weren't allowed to protect idiots from their own actions.

Consumer protection flat stinks.


61 posted on 01/01/2006 1:07:50 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: middie
You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of back when Clinton was taking sexual gratuities from a certain intern of his, and how he said that his personal life had NOTHING to do with this professional life!

These things which we discuss are about indicators of character! One's character should be reasonably unchanging no matter what the situation! Of course, people make slip ups now and then. We're not perfect people, but the normal and "right" response is to give a heartfelt and humble appology, fix what we can, and get on with it.

But former CINCs pursue their employees for sexual gratification, and say that the action can rightfully be divided from what's "important". In the same manner, conservative talkshow hosts hawk everything from matresses to hearing aids and SWEAR it to be true, except with politics where they are EXPERTS and expect us to absorb every word as the ultimate truth. The same goes for scientists who expect me to believe that they have any sane or accurate method of determining what the state of the earth was 100 million years ago, and think that we can't see their overt agenda.

Like I was saying before....it's a big issue of conflict of interest in all three cases....the the perverted CINC, the talkshow host hawker, and the scientist.
62 posted on 01/01/2006 1:57:42 PM PST by hiredhand (My kitty disappeared. NOT the rifle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
I am 73 and often involved in cases where an industry has cheated consumers out of minimal amounts of money across a universe of many thousands of persons for many years. There's a difference between protecting people from the consequences of their inattention or even stupidity and catching a player in the marketplace when it is engaged in secret cheating by lying, misrepresentations and false assurances in acquiring small amounts that, in total, enhance the company's bottom line by many, many millions of dollars. There's no difference between sticking a gun in the face of a convenience store clerk and stealing $200 from the Cash register and a major corporation stealing $4 each month from a million people for several years before being found out.

In each example, there is a theft, a crime and a taking from the unimpeded economy an amount of money to a specific entity who is not entitled to it. In fact, the gun toting robber is at least honest in what he is representing as to his action; he knows he's a thief and lets the rest of the world know the same.

Contrariwise, the corporate officers scheming to steal these consumers' millions to enhance their bottom line are sneak thieves, liars while pretending to be righteous and upright citizens and providers of jobs that add to the community and our commercial health; when, in fact, they're not.

A single day's exposure to the litany of evil acts engaged in by those commercial ventures who believe it's their privilege to steal from consumers and lie about it would illustrate to any doubting person the value of consumer protection from these scoundrels.

Of course, if one believes that it's OK for thieving enterprises to steal from an unknowing public, then, so be it. I cannot control nor can I explain irrationality.

63 posted on 01/01/2006 3:48:03 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: middie

Anyone stupid enoudgh to get had deserves it!


64 posted on 01/01/2006 3:50:54 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

Articulate and cogently said.


65 posted on 01/01/2006 3:56:26 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Congratulations!


66 posted on 01/01/2006 3:57:28 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Your inane observations aside, every single claim in the book is backed up with peer-reviewed data.

By scientists.

You make no sense.

67 posted on 01/01/2006 4:07:45 PM PST by denydenydeny ("As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist"--Sheikh Omar Brooks, quoted in the London Times 8/7/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: middie
Thanks. :-) Now you will chuckle at this. I checked your about page and this came to mind.

As a family we've become friends with people over near the coast in our state (NC). They're dear people and have become like family to us. My kids call them Grandma and Grandpa, and these people have MORE adopted grandkids that I can count!

Bill was active duty in the USN for 36 years. He was up for Admiral when he retired. His is an amazing story. He told me that he joined as an E-1 who couldn't read. He credits his wife with teaching him to read. Over the next 36 years, he achieved several bachelors degrees and two masters, in addition to USN sponsored education. He told me the most difficult time in his entire career was when he was "promoted" from Chief Master Petty Officer to Ensign! :-)

Anyway...before we knew them better, my family and I were at their house and his "award board" was in the living room. We're an Air Force family and I spent 13 years active duty as a non-commissioned guy in communications (basically). My wife looked at his board and her eyes got BIG and she started to say something when Bill walked into the room and I could tell she would have said something if he hadn't been there. He started explaining all the medals and ribbons, and said that his cumulative efforts of 36 years were all stuck to that board.

I couldn't figure out what was wrong with my wife. My wife is a neuroscience BSN/RN and was the staff nurse at the medical aid station where we were stationed for most of the 1990s, so she had a pretty good knowlege of rank/grade structure and such.

When we were finally on our way down the road, she said, "Bill must gotten into BIG trouble to have spent 36 years in the Navy and ONLY retire as a Captain!". They live way, WAY off the main road on nearly 100 acres and we were about half way down their half mile driveway when she said this. I came to a stop and looked at her sniggering. She couldn't figure out WHAT my problem was. I said, "Sweetie, Bill was an O-6, pending promotion to O-7 when he retired!". I could see her eyes darting back and forth as she mentally associated O-6 to "something" in terms of collar brass.

I could tell she was counting...."O-1, O-2, O-3...". All of the sudden she put her hand to her mouth and said, "OH MY GOSH. He retired as a Bird Colonel!"

I laughed, and she laughed. :-) It was even funnier later on when we told Bill! He got a big hoot out of it!

He did tell me though that sometimes he has to call a local USMC base, and that he always mentions that he is a "USN Captain", and not a measly "USMC Captain". He says people are more "helpful" this when they have this knowlege. :-)
68 posted on 01/01/2006 5:00:44 PM PST by hiredhand (My kitty disappeared. NOT the rifle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
Like his bogus claim that climate prediction is inaccurate to 300%-400%?

You know the IPCC assessment backs itself up with peer reviewed literature too, so should I believe that as well?

Everything I need to know about Crichton's (lack of) authority on science I learnt from his lecture: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

Some of the worst logical arguments I have ever read. The problem I have with crichton is that he seems to have some anti-science streak. I read his book Prey. Okay it's reasonable science fiction although gets a bit proposterous in the end - more fiction than science. My gripe was that he didn't realise it was total fiction and instead was trying to make "a serious point", as if his fiction was some kind of eye opener that we should know about. All his books that I know are about scientists getting out of control with dark agendas and how we should fear what they are up to. It's like when hollywood stars think their dumb movies make some serious real world point. They don't.

69 posted on 01/01/2006 5:33:39 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: styky
I have great difficulty believing any of this especially when the same climatologists can't tell me correctly what the weather will be like this week.

Climatologists are not meteorologists. Weather events are caused by variability in the ongoing flow of Earth's atmosphere, so weather models are based on fluid dynamics calculations. Climatology uses General Circulation Models (GCMs), which are based on energy and material fluxes between the upper and lower atmosphere, the surface, and the oceans.

So you have to learn to blame the right people!

70 posted on 01/03/2006 10:36:34 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 75thOVI; AndrewC; Avoiding_Sulla; BenLurkin; Berosus; CGVet58; chilepepper; ckilmer; demlosers; ...
an old topic, 2005. I was going to post it under a different title (NSF source), luckily Google turned up this one. There was no "greenhouse world" condition. And if the ocean levels fell, and the ice sheets were "ephemeral", they would still have to have been massive, and formed so quickly there isn't a uniformitarian explanation.
Ice Sheets Caused Massive Sea Level
Change During Late Cretaceous
(Period was previously
thought to be ice-free)

National Science Foundation
February 27, 2004
Last Updated: December 8, 2004
Led by Kenneth Miller of Rutgers University, the scientists examined cores from Ocean Drilling Program Leg 174AX, an onshore extension of an offshore expedition. They found indications that sea level changes were large (more than 25 meters) and rapid (occurring on scales ranging from thousands to less than a million years) during the Late Cretaceous greenhouse world (99- 65 million years ago)... Analyses indicate minimal tectonic effects on the New Jersey Coastal Plain at this time, the scientists say. The other explanation for such large, rapid changes is the waxing and waning of large continental ice sheets, they maintain. What is perplexing, however, is that such large and rapid sea-level changes occurred during an interval thought to be ice free... The scientists propose that the ice sheets were restricted in area to Antarctica and were ephemeral. The ice sheets would not have reached the Antarctic coast, explaining the relative warmth in Antarctica, but still could significantly alter global sea level.

· Catastrophism ping list · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark ·

71 posted on 11/02/2006 5:56:34 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The findings establish a steady millimeter-per-year rise from 5,000 years ago until about 200 years ago.

I smell pure unadulterated BS with this claim, given the marked periods of warming and cooling that happened during that time period.

72 posted on 11/02/2006 5:58:24 AM PST by dirtboy (John Kerry - the world's only re-usable political suicide bomber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
almost two millimeters per year today compared to one millimeter annually for the past several thousand years

To put this in perspective if true, there are 25.4 millimeters to one inch. Roughly, it would take, at 2 mm a year, 12 years to rise one foot. I find it hard to believe that the ocean has been rising for past several thousand years at least 1 mm per year. In 2000 years at 1 mm per year, that would amount to an 80 foot rise. Am I missing something here?

73 posted on 11/02/2006 6:09:27 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

Sorry, but no, Dr. Crichton is quite a bit higher in stature than Mikey Moore. He actually had the education and does the research.

Read up on him a bit perhaps.


74 posted on 11/02/2006 6:43:37 AM PST by ejonesie22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: kabar
To put this in perspective if true, there are 25.4 millimeters to one inch. Roughly, it would take, at 2 mm a year, 12 years to rise one foot.

Actually about 12 years to rise one inch. 2 mm/year x 12years = 24mm....just shy of an inch.

75 posted on 11/02/2006 6:51:04 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Stand corrected.


76 posted on 11/02/2006 7:26:56 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I have "read up on him"

btw that post of mine was 11 months old. Confused me a little as I couldn't remember posting it


77 posted on 11/02/2006 11:34:56 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

"...What is perplexing, however, is that such large and rapid sea-level changes occurred during an interval thought to be ice free..."

I would be more than 'perplexed' !




78 posted on 11/02/2006 1:30:10 PM PST by Fred Nerks ("Illegitimi non carborundum",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

GREENLAND: Of its 840,000 square miles of surface, over 700,000 are covered with an immense mountain of ice that leaves free only the coastal fringes. The thickness of the ice is measured by listening to the echo that comes from the bedrock when a detonation is set off on top of the ice. It is found to be over six thousand feet thick.

"For a long time it was the belief of many that a large region in the interior of Greenland was free of ice, and was perhaps inhabited. It was in part to solve this problem that Baron (N.A.E.) Nordenskjold set out on his expedition of 1883."

He ascended from the icecap from Disco Bay (latitude 69) and went eastward for eighteen days across the ice field. "Rivers were flowing in channels upon the surface like those cut on land...only that the pure blue of the ice-walls was, by comparison, infinitely more beautiful. These rivers were not, however, perfectly continuous. After flowing for a distance in the channels on the surface, they, one and all, plunged with deafening roar into some yawning crevasse, to find their way to the sea through subglacial channels. Numerous lakes with shores of ice were also encountered."

"On bending down the ear to the ice," wrote the explorer, "we could hear on every side a peculiar subterranean hum, proceeding from rivers flowing within the ice; and occasionally a loud single report like that of a cannon gave notice of the formation of a new glacier-cleft...In the afternoon we saw at some distance from us a well-defined pillar of mist which, when we approached it, appeared to arise from a bottomless abyss, into which a mighty glacier-river fell. The vast roaring water-mass had bored for itself a vertical hole, probably down to the rock, certainly more than 2,000 feet beneath, on which the glacier rested."

The Ice Age survived in Greenland. This arctic island reveals how vast continental areas looked in the past. However, it does not explain how ice could have covered British Guiana or Madagascar in the tropics. And what is no less surprising, the northern part of Greenland, according to the concerted opinion of glaciologists, was never glaciated...

from Earth In Upheaval.
Immanuel Velikovsky.


79 posted on 11/02/2006 2:14:00 PM PST by Fred Nerks ("Illegitimi non carborundum",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

There has been no significant rise in sea level in 150 years; however, it's not too strange if there had been, because the Little Ice Age ended about 1850. :')


80 posted on 11/02/2006 10:35:21 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Dhimmicrati delenda est! https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson