Upcoming tides preview of rising sea levels?

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Jonathan Stumpf, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. I had something witty to say but decided against it, Nevermind.
  2. There are tons of sites with predicted tides. I was trying to find a site showing what the actual tides ended up being - are there any?
  3. Should we be good stewards of the earth, you bet. Should we look for ways to create sustainability for 20 billion people on the planet. You bet. Should we find better ways to ensure our industries don't pollute the water the soil and the air, you bet.

    But don't use the Global Warming er. Climate Change as the reason why we need to hammer business and pass a foolish Cap and Tax law.


    ps. I was paranoid until they got me, now I am all better...
  4. Cap and trade I believe is the description, not Cap and Tax, eh? Whatever you want to call it it may not be a perfect solution but it's a start and I give the Obama admin. credit for doing something concrete rather than sit on their ass waiting for yet another (imperfect) study.

    As fishermen we're pretty good at visualizing things we can't see. Consider visualizing what 5.23 tons of Carbon Dioxide looks like. That's how much the car/truck average annual emission is, per vehicle, in the US. No perfect solution will ever be found if we don't start somewhere. As we all know, just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

  5. The old " Steelhead Fly Fisherman Analogy" :)
  6. Opps......

    Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
    Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

    Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown.

    Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

    The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

    At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

    Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

    Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

    Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

    "Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."

    Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

    The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

    In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

    "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

    In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".

  7. Using scientific observations, I can safely predict that mean sea levels will be raising between -1.5 meters to +1.5 meters or more during the next 20 years. During that time, Seattle can expect a total of 18,840 mm of rain.

    We really need to do something about it... like catch fish.
  8. I agree with Jim - do what you can control - go fish! I'm just glad I ordered those custom Simms waders that are 1/2" higher.
  9. Great thought actually !......................How many people realize that there was at one time NO trees in the sound at all. This place was covered in ice !!!! The hood canal was cut by receding glaciers from the north in Canada ! So if it were not for Warming trends on the planet we would have no puget sound to protect because we would not even be living here in the first place !!! We would have no fish, no lakes, no rivers, no deer in the woods because the woods did not exist , NOTHING ! So for the alarmists out there and the sheep that follow them....................you better have you fun now, because you are going to look like a fool in the future !! :rofl: When will some people learn we have NO CONTROL over mother earth. Just don't shit in your backyard and we will be fine. :thumb:
  10. If you all are so sure global warming is a non issue why do you spend all this time ranting about it. I supose you're not gay either.
  11. If you are going to try and insult someone you should at least get your spelling right. [​IMG]

    Meanwhile this just came to light yesterday.......

  12. For all you skeptics about global warming. I suggest watching the documentary with Leonardo DiCaprio called The 11th Hour. (2007) Then you can decide to quack more nonsense. You can watch it "instantly" on NETFLIX.

    "Actor Leonardo DiCaprio's documentary on the global environmental crisis paints a portrait of a planet at risk while also offering some exciting and radical solutions for making life on earth sustainable. Tapping the brains of leading scientists and thinkers -- including Stephen Hawking and Mikhail Gorbachev -- the film ultimately delivers a hopeful message: Our planet may be in crisis, but that doesn't mean it's too late change."
  13. I clearly remember seeing a graphical representation of this data (somewhere), and it does indeed appear that we are currently spiking on the higher end of the planet's recent historical temp range.
    The vast geologic time-span involved makes it a bit hard to predict anything meaningful in the near term, as far as shorter term trends go. Will the Earth's temps keep rising for another 100, 400, or 1,000, or??? years before the "trend" reverses? Who the heck knows? People who try to predict these things are just trying to sell their books, hoping for a best seller so they can retire early and go fishing mid-week.

    One of my own ridiculously absurd theories on the subject (I have a few, based on pure conjecture) is just as hairbrained as the Gaia Hypothesis, and that our Mother Earth is currently suffering a skin disease, and we are the pathogens. Mother Earth is developing a fever, to raise her temp enough to kill the pathogens off, and then she will get back to 98.6 when the pathogens (we humans) are exfoliated.

    Another is purely mechanical, with no religious cult overtones. The Earth is a self-regulating system. According to the charts, its about time for something to kick in and slow the warming trend, and then reverse it. Factor out the El Ninos, La Ninas, the PDO, and all the other cycles that often act as countercycles and look at the larger trend. Spiking to warmer!
    So if the current warming trend continues so that more polar ice melts in the Arctic, and strangely, the ice pack simultaneously builds in the Antarctic, and the net effect is strangely causing the sea level to rise, then the result may be that the pressure exerted on the earths crust will change in various locations (more weight over the sea floor, less weight over the N Pole, etc...). this might play havoc on certain fault lines and cause earthquakes and start up volcanic activity, lots of volcanic activity, with the result of a "nuclear winter" scenario developing, cooling the planet back down or even sending us into an "ice age."

    Awwwww, heck! I forgot to factor in the switching of the Earth's magnetic field. Dang! Never mind!

    WTF!!!! Your guess is as good as mine! However, I'm trying to stay cool!

    Blow up your TV and never pollute the air around you with radio talk show tripe.

  14. I think the public has tired of being told by disingenuous, wealthy, hypocritical movie stars that the world is going to come to an end if they don't stop driving automobiles and heating their homes during winter. The movie talks about deforestation, however, according to the Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace , what we need to do is use more wood, for a few reasons, one, when the forest grows back, it is shown that young forests that outperform old growth in carbon sequestration, two, the wood table built one hundred years ago, still has the carbon locked up in it, and 3, since the forests are renewable they are a better building material than concrete, steel or glass, all 3 of which create more CO2 than using wood.

    According to Reid Bryson, the 87-year-old considered to be the father of scientific climatology, has once again spoken out strongly against anthropogenic global warming theories being regularly disseminated by alarmists in the media and the scientific community.
    In an interview published by Wisconsin’s Capital Times, Bryson spoke about the money involved in this "religion," and when asked about soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" marvelously responded (emphasis added throughout):
    "Don't make me throw up...It is not science. It is not true."

    I pick these guys to listen to over movie stars and politicians.

    Quack Quack Quack
  15. JW- you didn't actually respond to anything Larry wrote about in his last post.
  16. I was rebutting a couple of items in the movie he was referring to.
  17. Jim,
    "I think the public has tired of being told by disingenuous, wealthy, hypocritical movie stars..."

    And the public isn't tired of following the same old-world order and it's neoclassical approaches to new world problems? I sure as hell am! Jim, Ted, BlkTail, have a look at the link below. If this isn't a clear correlation between Co2 in the atmosphere and earth temperatures, what is? Before you say "coincidence" or "false science" remember that only minor changes are needed to cause dramatic effects. You'd better be damn sure that your point of view is correct because if its not, and we continue on the path we're on, there will be hell to pay.


Share This Page