The question I hope the appropriate scientific community is addressing is
why is sea level rising 50 % faster than the modeling projected?
Not exact matches
On the way down I
was shown the lines in the rock where Noah's flood rose to, which explained
why there
were sea fossils in the rock at these high
levels so far from the
sea.
Most tour groups start in Cusco, which
is why people become ill since they go from
sea level to 3400m within hours.
Scientists need to better understand
why and how fast the ice shelves
are disintegrating so that they can better estimate future
sea -
level rise.
The researchers assume that the destruction of the early iron - magnesium rich continental crust
was crucial for the formation of the silicon - rich continents and that it
was the reason
why these continents could rise above
sea level to a larger extent.
Instead of Australia dumping millions of tonnes of sludge onto their Great Barrier Reef so they can export more coal to
be burned (8 February, p 7),
why don't they send it to an island country that needs it because of rising
sea levels caused by climate change, such as Tuvalu in Polynesia?
Scientists aim to find out
why an Alaska glacier
is ignoring all climate signals as it advances to the
sea — and what that means for
sea levels around the world.
It
's important for climate scientists to understand
why sea levels, which have
been steadily rising, might periodically fall, or rise at faster rates, said Fasullo.
So understanding
why you would have this brief hiatus in
sea -
level rise
is really key to our understanding of the climate system and
being able to monitor the system,» he said.
«Every few months we check in on
sea level and try to get some idea as to what
's happening and
why.
The reasons
why the projected
sea -
level rise at Copenhagen
is more severe than at Oslo
are complicated, but
are primarily related to the effects that we have discussed: Differing rates of crustal rebound and local gravitational changes at the two cities.
«Climate Change,
Sea Level, and Western Drought: Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference Learn
why the American West could
be in trouble with surface air temperatures rising faster than elsewhere in the coterminous United States.
Keep in mind though that I
'm an avid hiker and mountain biker in the summer, and I live at high elevation (7500 feet above
sea level), so I get a good deal of daily sun, which
is why my
levels jumped from 35 - 52 ng / ml after a couple months of daily summer sun.
Climate change and the subsequent rising
sea levels are the culprit, but the film focuses on the devastating effect it
is having and will have on the Kiribati citizens rather than the science behind
why it
's happening.
The Golden Gate, at
sea level, produces rivers of fog, but fog comes through the Russian River Valley — which
is why Santa Rosa
was foggy Thursday morning — over the low spot in the hills near Muir Woods, over Twin Peaks in San Francisco, over the hills near Daly City and down the hills near San Francisco's Bayview district.
With an elevation about one mile above
sea level, see first - hand
why Denver
is nicknamed the Mile High City.
That
is why, as stated in the paper, the
sea level reconstruction appears to suggest that temperatures during AD 500-1000
were not as warm as indicated in the M08 reconstruction (about 0.2 C or so cooler on average).
So
why is it that overall during El Nino events global average
sea level goes up and during La Nina event
sea level goes down?
«Climate Change,
Sea Level, and Western Drought: Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference Learn
why the American West could
be in trouble with surface air temperatures rising faster than elsewhere in the coterminous United States.
It
is commonly believed that global warming (global heating) can not
be stopped, so
why not begin laying the ground work down that would help to endure a world with elevated
sea levels and no ice caps?
Why is that we see a reccord high
sea ice
level in the Antarktic area when global temperature
is rising.
Why b
is then negative for the fit to the overall observed
sea -
level rise remains a bit of an enigma, though — in our paper we interpret this as a time lag, and I still think this
is the likely answer.
Why would the DERIVATIVE of the
sea level be similar to the temperature anomaly when (at least according to the IPCC report, the
sea level rise
is largely due to the thermal expansion of the oceans (1.6 + -0.5 mm / yr).
Why hasn't anyone projected what
sea levels would
be like if the polar ice caps
were completely melted away?
[Aug. 9, 8:04 p.m. Updated Joe Romm has predictably assailed my view of Arctic
sea ice trends and their implications, straying into discussions of melting permafrost (which
is an entirely different issue laden with its own questions — one
being why the last big retreat of permafrost, in the Holocene's warmest stretch, didn't have a greenhouse - gas impact) and my refusal to proclaim a magically safe
level of carbon dioxide (which I discuss here).
I'll also
be writing more on
why sea levels do not rise uniformly (and may
be falling in a few places) even as there
is high confidence in rising
seas in a warming world.
pg xiii This Policymakers Summary aims to bring out those elements of the main report which have the greatest relevance to policy formulation, in answering the following questions • What factors determine global climate 7 • What
are the greenhouse gases, and how and
why are they increasing 9 • Which gases
are the most important 9 • How much do we expect the climate to change 9 • How much confidence do we have in our predictions 9 • Will the climate of the future
be very different 9 • Have human activities already begun to change global climate 9 How much will
sea level rise 9 • What will
be the effects on ecosystems 9 • What should
be done to reduce uncertainties, and how long will this take 9 This report
is intended to respond to the practical needs of the policymaker.
Why are there at all different reconstructions of the global
sea level history?
Why sea level rise
is expected to
be nonlinear?
So
why say «rising
sea level depends on melting at very specific locations of which by far the most important
is Antarctica».
However, here
is simplistic argument
why sea level rise
is linear, at best.
If satellites show that Greenland ice melt has accelerated so much the last few years,
why do satellites also show that
sea level is going down since 2005?
henning, # 143 (in which you refer to my post # 141), I
'm not sure
why you think that simply avoiding a 70m
sea level rise would
be something to celebrate.
Joe Romm has predictably assailed my rejection of his «death spiral» depiction of Arctic
sea ice trends, straying into discussions of melting permafrost (which
is an entirely different issue laden with its own questions — one
being why the last big retreat of permafrost, in the Holocene's warmest stretch, didn't have a greenhouse - gas impact) and my refusal to proclaim a magically safe
level of carbon dioxide (which I discuss here).
Why should warming during the current Holocene Interglacial
be significantly different / less than during the previous Eemian Interglacial (MIS5e), when
sea levels were, per the IPCC's own comments, above modern
levels or for that matter above the purported mid-Holocene highstand?
If there
's any doubt
why continued melting
is interesting: it means
sea level will keep rising even with aggressive mitigation 8 ^ .
It seems from what I read currently, some
are suggesting there
was an overall rise in humidity and that
is why sea level didn't rise.
The more useful question to have asked
is why was Sandy's storm surge double that of recent hurricanes, hurricanes that
were far more intense but with similar
sea levels?
Linear trends
are appropriate for the time period after 1990 where the data
are described well by a linear trend plus interannual noise (that
's why we show a linear trend for the satellite
sea level in our paper), but they don't capture the longer - term climate evolution very well, e.g. the nearly flat temperatures up to 1980.
That
's why I suggest you, or others here, go to his site and ask those questions about calving and Greenland
's net loss rate that already contributes a significant fraction of
sea -
level rise.
Sally B also wrote a great paper that showed
why the
sea level in the vicinity of the Maldives,
is anomalous.
We know what
's happening (
sea levels are rising as the Earth warms, for example), and we have a good idea
why it
's happening (despite deniers» claims), but we don't know the long - term effects.
I mean if we have all this
sea -
level rise, then
why aren't these islands all submerged?
Billions
are being spent on all sorts of peripheral work or
sea levels, Arctic
sea ice extent, etc. as well as model studies on CAGW, so
why is no one working on the basics?
That
's why, in the past, Northern Hemisphere temperatures naturally rose at rates of 2 degrees C per decade and
sea levels rose 5 meters per century while CO2 stayed constant.
A recent paper by Rovere et al. (2016) provides a helpful overview of the definitions of
sea level,
why it varies and how it
is measured.
Why is there a question that we
are causing
sea levels to rise?
Why was the rate of
sea level rise higher during the 1900 - 1950 period (~ 2 mm / yr, Holgate, 2007; Jevrejeva et al., 2008) than it has
been during the 1958 - 2014 period (1.42 mm / yr, Frederiske et al., 2018) given the anthropogenic CO2 emissions rates during the 1958 - 2014 period?
In other words,
why aren't
sea levels rising fast enough?
That
's why I used the expression «represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment» (temperature increase by 2100 of up to 6.4 C, increased droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, extreme high
sea level plus secondary effects, such as crop failures, spread of vector diseases, loss of drinking water from melting glaciers, etc. all as listed in IPCC AR4).