Sentences with phrase «mean sea level just»

Episodes like volcanic eruptions can create variability: the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 decreased global mean sea level just before the Topex / Poseidon satellite launch, for example.

Not exact matches

Improving projections for how much ocean levels may change in the future and what that means for coastal communities has vexed researchers studying sea level rise for years, but a new international study that incorporates extreme events may have just given researchers and coastal planners what they need.

There is so much ice there, just one glacier like the Totten glacier can raise global mean sea level by over one meter.

The top sits in just 5 meters and the rest drops away to around 30 meters meaning all levels of diver can experience parts of this wreck, which is festooned with healthy corals, sea fans and great barrel sponges

Mount Cook or Aoraki (translated from the native Maori language meaning «cloud piercer») stands just over 12,300 feet (3754 meters) above sea level.

This has meant that the style and layout and overall running of these small 10 person resorts are all inline perfectly with the Balinese culture creating the perfect traditional approach to luxury accommodation in this wonderful area.Ubud is located in the center of Bali at just over 600 meters above sea level where you can enjoy amazing views of Bali including rice paddies, river valleys and tropical woodland all at cooler temperatures and away from the conventional tourist areas of the south.

If global warmning means rising sea level I just do not understand why the sea level hasn't changed the last 30 years when I have own my summer house.

SLR study... The study, by US scientists, has calculated the rate of global mean sea level rise is not just going up at a steady rate of 3 mm a year, but has been increasing by an additional 0.08 mm a year, every year since 1993.

But — just because the data don't follow a parabola, doesn't mean that sea level hasn't accelerated.

Just because the amount of sea - level rise predicted in the new study is «not a Hollywood cataclysm, it doesn't mean it's not important,» said study leader Tad Pfeffer of the University of Colorado in Boulder.

I am a little puzzled at the trend, but that just means the sea level rise data as commonly presented doesn't paint a complete or accurate picture.

This means that the CO2 levels often associated with a 2 ˚C rise — 450ppm — may just be the tipping point for the total loss of all ice sheets on the planet and a huge sea - level rise.

Just because sea levels have been higher and temperatures warmer in the past, or that they have both risen as quickly as they are rising now, does not mean that inevitably they should be higher and warmer now.

But even if the ocean was just very cold but not frozen that still means the air was close to freezing at sea level and wouldn't be able to hold much water vapor due to low temperature.

Melting polar ice, rising sea levels, floods, droughts and hurricanes are all in there — even though these are largely contradicted not just by the actual evidence, but even by the much more cautious contents of the vast technical reports they were meant to be «synthesising».

That does not mean the sea level is not rising, just that the land is rising faster.

Church, who is writing the chapter on sea level rise for the IPCC's 2013 update, told Australia's biannual climate science conference just earlier this week that sea levels are rising at the upper end of projections by the IPCC - meaning a rise of 60 - 80 cm by 2100.»

I think that when the remote sensing method broadly agrees with the in situ instruments that it lends some confidence to both methods, especially since mean sea level is responsive to more than just the amount of water in the oceans at any given time.

I've got 18 feet, most of it is at or just above sea level (mean high tide) that's all I've got, and we've been into beach erosion now for almost 10 years, whereas things have been fairly static previously since the 30's.

But one modeling study put the threshold level for the eventual near - complete loss of Greenland's ice sheet at a local warming of just 2.7 C — which, due to Arctic amplification, means a global warming of only 1.2 C. Total melting of Greenland — luckily, something that would likely take centuries — would raise sea levels by 7 meters, submerging Miami and most of Manhattan, as well as large chunks of London, Shanghai, Bangkok and Mumbai.

There are of course huge vested interests in the status quo — anyone who relies on anything from any infrastructure within a meter of mean sea level (this is almost everyone if you work it out), and yet you think that someone investing in solar energy, maybe just because they'd like to see it succeed means that nothing they say can be trusted?

For instance: I was looking at what the AMSU instruments (http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps) at sea - level are showing and their equivalent temperature has always hovered about 294.75 K ± 0.25 K for global average, not 288 as Trenberth assumes as the mean global average temperature of the surface, so, just change it and see the effect.