Flood Sea levels along north-east coast of the US have risen FOUR INCHES in just two years

NC Susan

Deceased
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-America-rose-FOUR-INCHES-just-two-years.html

Sea levels along north-east coast of the US have risen FOUR INCHES in just two years - as experts warn communities to prepare for 'extreme' events
Waters north of New York rose by record levels between 2009 and 2010
Levels were up by five inches over the same period at Portland, Maine
Researchers are calling the rise an 'unprecedented' one in 850-year event
They warn that coastal areas need to prepare for 'extreme' sea-level rises
By JULIAN ROBINSON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 04:18 EST, 26 February 2015


Sea levels along the north-east coast of America rose almost four inches (10.16 cm) in just two years, a report has revealed.
The record increase north of New York City between 2009 and 2010 is being described by experts as an ‘unprecedented’ one in 850-year event.
And in Portland, Maine, sea levels rose by five inches (12.7 cm) over the same two year period, researchers found.
Sea levels along the north-east coast of America rose almost four inches in just two years, a report has revealed.
Pictured is Plum Island, located north-east of New York City

Sea levels along the north-east coast of America rose almost four inches in just two years, a report has revealed. Pictured is Plum Island, located north-east of New York City
The report, published in the journal Nature Communications, warned that coastal areas would need to prepare for ‘extreme’ sea-level events.
Experts at the University of Arizona and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration studied data from tidal records along the east coast of both the US and Canada.

In this handout photo,taken in 2011, provided by Jonathan Gero, scientists witness and measured carbon dioxide trapping heat in the sky above, confirming human-caused global warming, using the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer seen here, located in Barrow, Alaska. Scientists witnessed carbon dioxide trapping heat in the atmosphere above the United States, chronicling human-made climate change in action live in the wild. A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators. It confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide. (AP Photo/Jonathan Gero, University of Wisconsin)



Professor Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona told the BBC: ‘The extreme sea level rise event during 2009-10 along the northeast coast of North America is unprecedented during the past century.
‘When coastal storms occur, extreme sea levels can lead to elevated storm surge.
The record increase north of New York City (pictured) between 2009 and 2010 is being described by experts as an ‘unprecedented’ one in 850-year event

The record increase north of New York City (pictured) between 2009 and 2010 is being described by experts as an ‘unprecedented’ one in 850-year event
‘In addition to long-term and gradual sea level rise, coastal communities will need to prepare for short and extreme sea level rise events.’
The researcher told the Washington Post that the sea level had dropped following the spike but that it was still 'much higher' than when the spike started in 2009. He added that global warming 'definitely contributed to this event.'
The website points to the unusually high tides that were widely reported in 2009 and 2010 from North Carolina’s Cape Hatteras to Canada.
Coastal communities will need to prepare for short and extreme sea level rise events
The study’s authors wrote that in terms of beach erosion, the 2009-2010 sea rise was ‘almost as significant as some of the hurricane events’. The quickest jump in sea levels took place between April 2009 and March 2010, it says.
One of the researchers, Paul Goddard, added: 'The sea level rise of 2009-2010 sticks out like a sore thumb for the Northeast.'
Researchers believe it was caused by a 30 per cent slowdown in a key ocean current system called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), as well as changes in atmospheric pressure at sea level, the Huffington Post reported.
The study used information gathered from a series of tide gauges along the east coast with the four inch rise taken from the average of 14 gauges between Canada and New York.

WILL THE ARCTIC BE ICE-FREE IN 40 YEARS?
The Arctic could be completely free of ice in just 40 years as a result of global warming, one of the world's leading climate change experts has warned.
This would cause sea levels to rise to nearly unmanageable levels.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Oleg Anisimov said there is evidence that temperatures are rising four times faster in the frozen region than the rest of the planet.
This means that there will only be open water in the polar region by the 2050s, with nothing more than a few floating icebergs at the North Pole, according to the Russian academic.
Professor Anisimov, from the State Hydrological Institute in St Petersburg, gave his stark warning during a lecture in the Sakha Republic - the coldest part of Russia.
He forecasts that the region will see temperature rises of up to 7°C within a century.
‘For several reasons, the Arctic climate change is more intense and faster than in other regions. There is a reduction in snow and ice cover, which has a protective function,’ he said.
‘On average over the last year, the minimum area of sea ice has decreased from 5.4 to 5.3 million square kilometres [two million square miles]. Over the past 10 years, the reduction of sea ice in the Arctic was by 13.7 per cent.
As well as rising sea waters, such climate change could threaten delicate ecosystems and marine life.
According to environmentalists, as the snow and ice melts, the ability of the Arctic region to reflect heat back into space is reduced and the rate of global warming is accelerated once more.
This could spark increasing numbers of forest fires and unpredictable storms and, at worst, bring a halt to the Gulf Stream which warms Europe.
Sea levels rose four inches from New York to Newfoundland (red dots) in 2009 and 2010. Gauges from New York south to Cape Hatteras (pink dots) showed a smaller spike for the same time period. No sea level spike was recorded on the gauges (white dots) south of Cape Hatteras

Sea levels rose four inches from New York to Newfoundland (red dots) in 2009 and 2010. Gauges from New York south to Cape Hatteras (pink dots) showed a smaller spike for the same time period. No sea level spike was recorded on the gauges (white dots) south of Cape Hatteras
Data gathered further south found that the rise in sea-levels were more in keeping with average figures.
The University of Reading's Dr Dan Hodson, told the BBC that the data showed the importance of analysing links between ocean currents and surges in sea levels.
He said: 'Sea level change is a complex phenomenon, especially on the regional scale, where changes to the global ocean circulation can play a major role.
'The east coast of North America is quite close to an area of active, fast ocean currents, and so is quite sensitive to changing ocean circulation.'
The findings come a month after researchers at Harvard University found that the world's sea levels had risen faster than expected in the last 20 years as a result of global warming and other factors.
 

Straycat

Veteran Member
It's all one body of water - if it's actually risen that much along the northeast US, seems like it would have to have risen along the rest of the Atlantic coasts too. Sounds more like the ground is sinking in places to me.
 

raven

TB Fanatic
You have heard that if the earth stopped spinning, all the water on the planet would migrate to the poles, right? Which means that the centrifugal action of the earths rotation acts to distribute water over the earth. The current difference between the average sea level as observed along the equator and the distance to the earth's center of mass from the sea level at the poles is about 21.4 kilometers (km). Understanding this, you would realize that any slight change in the rotation of the earth will change
sea level.
Here is a nice article on it. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin.html
OK, so you got it? You understand? So tell me what happened a little over 2 years ago?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html
The March 11, magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan may have shortened the length of each Earth day and shifted its axis. But don't worry—you won't notice the difference.
. . . .
In comparison, following last year's magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile, Gross estimated the Chile quake should have shortened the length of day by about 1.26 microseconds and shifted Earth's figure axis by about 8 centimeters (3 inches). A similar calculation performed after the 2004 magnitude 9.1 Sumatran earthquake revealed it should have shortened the length of day by 6.8 microseconds and shifted Earth's figure axis by about 7 centimeters, or 2.76 inches.

If I was going to make a hypothesis, I would lean in the direction of a change in the axis and rotation of the earth that alters the distribution of mass - something llike a big ass earthquake that no one else wants to consider
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
You have heard that if the earth stopped spinning, all the water on the planet would migrate to the poles, right? Which means that the centrifugal action of the earths rotation acts to distribute water over the earth. The current difference between the average sea level as observed along the equator and the distance to the earth's center of mass from the sea level at the poles is about 21.4 kilometers (km). Understanding this, you would realize that any slight change in the rotation of the earth will change
sea level.
Here is a nice article on it. http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0610/nospin.html
OK, so you got it? You understand? So tell me what happened a little over 2 years ago?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/japanquake/earth20110314.html
The March 11, magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Japan may have shortened the length of each Earth day and shifted its axis. But don't worry—you won't notice the difference.
. . . .
In comparison, following last year's magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile, Gross estimated the Chile quake should have shortened the length of day by about 1.26 microseconds and shifted Earth's figure axis by about 8 centimeters (3 inches). A similar calculation performed after the 2004 magnitude 9.1 Sumatran earthquake revealed it should have shortened the length of day by 6.8 microseconds and shifted Earth's figure axis by about 7 centimeters, or 2.76 inches.

If I was going to make a hypothesis, I would lean in the direction of a change in the axis and rotation of the earth that alters the distribution of mass - something llike a big ass earthquake that no one else wants to consider

Actually I've been saying this all along, but the static from the deniers is mighty loud.
 

raven

TB Fanatic
Actually I've been saying this all along, but the static from the deniers is mighty loud.

Yes, I know. But the NASA article says it pretty clearly, the length of a day was made shorter and the axis shifted.
I have no doubt that some of the odd weather we have seen is from this small change - can't prove it - but there it is
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Yes, I know. But the NASA article says it pretty clearly, the length of a day was made shorter and the axis shifted.
I have no doubt that some of the odd weather we have seen is from this small change - can't prove it - but there it is

It is, the axis shifted but the jet streams are having a harder time making the shift.
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
first i've heard of this and my daughter works on the coast here in Maine (AND she's fed a steady diet of "global warming" constantly from her associates/school colleagues).

"IF" the coast were actually being flooded, i would more likely guess that the coast is in fact sinking, as there have been several reports that much of the under sea topography of the Pacific Ocean bottom changed dramatically after the Fukushima Earthquake in 2011.

as far as "global warming" being a fact, or that man-made carbon dioxide is the chief candidate for such a phenomenon, i, and thousands of climate scientists are calling BS.

let's start with this:



Temperatures were warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years
By bob On May 25, 2010 · 3 Comments
Facebook Twitter

25 May 10 – The revamped cap-and-trade (control-and-tax) bill that Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) are trying to foist on the American public is predicated on a flat-out lie.

The control-and-tax proponents would have you believe that our planet has been enduring unprecedented global warming (now coyly referred to as “climate change”), but the facts do not bear that out. Facts. Oh, those damnable facts.

Look at this chart.
Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg

You’ll see that today’s benign climate is not even close to being the warmest on record.

Not even close.

Temperatures have been warmer than today for almost all of the past 10,000 years.

In fact, if the chart went further back, you’d see that temperatures have been warmer than today for most of geologic history.

I sat just ten feet from Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University as he presented this chart, along with several of his own, at the Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago last week.

“Natural global warming much more intense than modern warming has occurred many times in the geologic past without CO2 change,” said Easterbrook.

The changes occurred rapidly, without any help from humans

“Fifteen thousand years ago, temperatures rose 10 to 20 degrees in just one century,” said Easterbrook.

About 12,800 years ago we plunged into the Younger Dryas, said Easterbrook. When we came out of the Younger Dryas, temperatures again shot upward, rising 15 degrees in just 40 years. Then, from about 10,000 years ago to 3,000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than today.

Forget human influence, said Easterbrook. Cooling and warming are both natural.

“Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes much more intense than recent warming/cooling occurred during the late Pleistocene, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2,” said Easterbrook.

“Twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat,” Easterbrook warned.

So let me ask you this.

Do we really want to pass a control-and-tax bill; do we really want to destroy our economy, based on the lie of “unprecedented global warming”?
Easterbrook-Projected-Cooling.jpg

http://iceagenow.info/2010/05/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/

here's a collection of articles claiming that the sea levels are falling or otherwise not rising:
http://iceagenow.info/category/sea-levels-are-falling-not-rising/

there are tons of articles about the possibility/probability of an imminent ice age already upon us, as the global government attempts to con us all into believing otherwise, so they can tax us into submission/poverty, and reap the wealth (we earned) we would otherwise spend on our own needs.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
How is that posable over a four year time span and its not happening around the rest of the world as their all connected and water will seek its own level.
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
the graph showing the peak in that article (i couldn't copy it to this reply)
shows it as a brief peak in 2009- 2010, ie: a brief event that didn't last. and it also show a significant drop in elevation since then. as usual, another MSM mis-leading or mis-representing facts to it's audience.
 

JF&P

Deceased
the graph showing the peak in that article (i couldn't copy it to this reply)
shows it as a brief peak in 2009- 2010, ie: a brief event that didn't last. and it also show a significant drop in elevation since then. as usual, another MSM mis-leading or mis-representing facts to it's audience.

Thanks for pointing this out!!!!
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
How is that posable over a four year time span and its not happening around the rest of the world as their all connected and water will seek its own level.

The only way it would have been possible is if the land mass itself in that area sank a little.
 

ncmissouri

Veteran Member
And given the high number of active volcanoes and earthquakes, it makes sense the area might have sunk a little.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
the graph showing the peak in that article (i couldn't copy it to this reply)
shows it as a brief peak in 2009- 2010, ie: a brief event that didn't last. and it also show a significant drop in elevation since then. as usual, another MSM mis-leading or mis-representing facts to it's audience.

So someone took the measurements at high tide instead of low tide and decided it was global climate change... Do americans look as stupid overseas as I see us looking at about now?
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
So someone took the measurements at high tide instead of low tide and decided it was global climate change... Do americans look as stupid overseas as I see us looking at about now?

not necessarily.
i would think that the graph was the result of a multitude of measurements over a long period and averaged. however, there are numerous things that might have accounted for a relatively brief peak (and dips) as shown on that graph, among other things that it could be, a temporary increase in arctic sea melt flowing southerly between Greenland and Canada, interfering with (and backing up) the Gulf Stream on its way to Europe, temporary increased summer ice melt from the Greenland icecap as was reported a year or two ago, most likely from solar warming of volcanic ash (or other pollution) that might have dusted the icecap, causing a conversion of solar rays to thermal energy, rather than merely reflecting them back to the sky like the normal pure icecap would do.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
not necessarily.
i would think that the graph was the result of a multitude of measurements over a long period and averaged. however, there are numerous things that might have accounted for a relatively brief peak (and dips) as shown on that graph, among other things that it could be, a temporary increase in arctic sea melt flowing southerly between Greenland and Canada, interfering with (and backing up) the Gulf Stream on its way to Europe, temporary increased summer ice melt from the Greenland icecap as was reported a year or two ago, most likely from solar warming of volcanic ash (or other pollution) that might have dusted the icecap, causing a conversion of solar rays to thermal energy, rather than merely reflecting them back to the sky like the normal pure icecap would do.

Or my favorite one and only because this happened in the last year or so, when the moon is at it's closest with some other planetary activity that escapes me at the moment that caused the abnormally "high" high and low tides that lasted a short period of time, I'm thinking it was a couple of months, but the really "high" high of that event was something like hours. IIRC there was a sharp increase in quake activity during the same period of time.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
The only way it would have been possible is if the land mass itself in that area sank a little.


Thats a possibility and there is also a Island nation they are also using to make the claim of global warming because of polar ice caps melting, but whats really happening is the Island is on a tectonic plate thats slipping under another plate or tectonic subduction, their Island is sinking under the sea and not flooding from rising seas.
 
Top