I think I'm a "sea-level-rise" skeptic!

[DaveinOlyWA]

let me tell you about a guy I know and the story he related to me. He was born in 1967and raised in Forks WA. As a kid he fondly remembered playing on the beach near his Grandfather's home. Today storms, erosion and higher water has completely destroyed that beach. During this time, the water has believed to have risen SIX inches.

How could such a small thing as something SIX inches more, destroy so much? Many people are under the mistaken conclusion that the water has to rise several feet before any real damage happens... Believing that is a HUGE mistake

Likely caused by many other things besides an increase in average sea level.

The difference between high and low tide (only six hours apart) at La Push can be as much as 12 ft.

the tides have always been there and storms have always occurred but some coastlines are barely hanging on. Unlike Southern CA, Forks does not have the luxury of having its sand replaced. currents are too strong for that option anyways. but it only takes slightly more water to do a lot of damage. tsunamis are an extreme example but the principal is the same.
It is very much a balance of nature and that balance has been tampered with.

 

[AndyH]

let me tell you about a guy I know and the story he related to me. He was born in 1967and raised in Forks WA. As a kid he fondly remembered playing on the beach near his Grandfather's home. Today storms, erosion and higher water has completely destroyed that beach. During this time, the water has believed to have risen SIX inches.

How could such a small thing as something SIX inches more, destroy so much? Many people are under the mistaken conclusion that the water has to rise several feet before any real damage happens... Believing that is a HUGE mistake

Likely caused by many other things besides an increase in average sea level.

The difference between high and low tide (only six hours apart) at La Push can be as much as 12 ft.

Dave's got my vote, 'weatherman'. Sea level is rising due to both ice melt and expansion due to warming. It's a factor in storms and surges, tides, and erosion. You're right on one thing, though - it's not the 'average' sea level change that's doing the damage - it's the actual sea level change where to water meets the land - and some of that is higher (and some lower) than 'average'. The sand doesn't care what anyone 'believes' - it's responding to the reality of the change.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udNMqRmqV8[/youtube]

 

[Weatherman]

The sand doesn't care what anyone 'believes' - it's responding to the reality of the change.

The Washington coast is one of the most dynamic natural environments in the continental U.S. I'd be much more surprised if it stayed the same over 47 years than if it was different.

 

[AndyH]

The sand doesn't care what anyone 'believes' - it's responding to the reality of the change.

The Washington coast is one of the most dynamic natural environments in the continental U.S. I'd be much more surprised if it stayed the same over 47 years than if it was different.

Of course things change naturally - nobody is saying otherwise. But it's also very clear to those looking at this world that the natural evolution is having some artificial 'help'. I guess you didn't watch the talk by the real weatherman, hmm?

 

[donald]

Don't forget that the earth's crust drops and rises too, such as due to post-glacial isostatic rebound. I might suggest this is more significant at the moment, by oom, over the micron rises of sea level from glacial melt itself.

 

[donald]

http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture11/weathering_co2.htm
Science and observation > propaganda.
You should listen to Wet on this topic...

I've been trying to find something authoritative on what the atmospheric CO2 equilibrium would be if geological weathering was the only mechanism to counteract volcanic emissions into the atmosphere (with a view to understanding if the contribution of biota is only 20% on average to date, or if higher then by how much). Any links you may have would be gratefully studied.

The thing is, over the long-run, if volcanic emissions allow for a balancing of the vapour pressure of CO2 in magma and the atmosphere, does it enter the atmosphere at a rate greater or lesser than weathering processes sink it?

I can't really see how weathering can sink CO2 quicker than volcanic emissions, because the weathering-volcanic mechanisms should surely cause a balance of CO2 between atmosphere and rocks else the rocks would already be 'carbonated' and not be weathered by such processes?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Reminded me of this little gem:
http://youtu.be/xf4pUZPaz5k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[donald]

Biota didn't bring down the level of CO2, rock weathering did. The key reaction is:

Silicate rocks + CO2 => carbonates + SiO2

Where did THAT come from!!! :shock:

It comes from one of the natural processes of this planet.
http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture11/weathering_co2.htm

Science and observation > propaganda.

You should listen to Wet on this topic...

OK, I have found a few sources.

Answer is;
Total current* sink of CO2 by geological weathering = 0.3 billion tonnes. (*will increase with increasing CO2) [1,2,3]
Total emission by volcanic sources = 0.3 billion tonnes [4]

I find nothing whatsoever surprising that the two numbers are equal. That makes perfect sense if you consider the long term equilibrium. If this is so, with volcanic emissions balancing weathering processes, there is no net process that alters CO2 other than biological means. The volcanic-weathering cycle must reach an equilibrium of CO2 as a balance between the atmosphere and crust.

(It seems logically inevitable to me, and the longer term still is that whatever additional CO2 is added to the atmosphere will be sunk into rocks, by the weathering processes discussed, but a new equilibrium isn't going to be reached until 1,000's of years after we've stopped adding artificially from burning of fossil fuels.)

Now, there is approximately 100 billion tonnes of CO2 being sunk by biota a year [5], nearly 3 oom over weathering processes. There is no way that geological processes are going to dominate a system where they have a <1% contribution to the source/sink flow.

That means, right now, human sources and biomass sinks dominate the contributions to atmospheric CO2 composition, with volcanic and weathering processes being insignificant.

[1] http://phys.org/news/2012-03-weathering-impacts-climate.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583612001466" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n5/full/nclimate1419.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432#sthash.b7D0MsA5.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[5] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/281/5374/237" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

Biota didn't bring down the level of CO2, rock weathering did. The key reaction is:

Silicate rocks + CO2 => carbonates + SiO2

Total current* sink of CO2 by geological weathering = 0.3 billion tonnes. (*will increase with increasing CO2) [1,2,3]

Notice that this is a temperature and water dependent reaction as well. So if we release enough CO2 to warm the planet by 10C, the reaction rate will double due to temperature, and increase due to more precipitation at higher temperatures. Problem solved: in many thousands of years.

http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/PersonalPage/Pdf/J._Geophys._Res.86_81.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, there is approximately 100 billion tonnes of CO2 being sunk by biota a year [5], nearly 3 oom over weathering processes. There is no way that geological processes are going to dominate a system where they have a <1% contribution to the source/sink flow.

Notice as well that the storage time in biota often isn't long. Tree grows, drops leaves which decay in a few years at most. Branches last longer, the trunk longer still. This isn't a "sink" over geologic time, other than through the creation of fossil fuels and other hydrocarbons stored in rocks.

That means, right now, human sources and biomass sinks dominate the contributions to atmospheric CO2 composition, with volcanic and weathering processes being insignificant.

Exactly. Human sources from long term geologic stores, long term sinks are insignificant relative to human source, and biomass isn't a long term sink, other than the creation of fossil carbon which is also insignificant relative to human sources.

Which is why the Keeling curve is rising, with minor variations due to biology.

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[donald]

I think we might be agreeing... :? :?:

I guess the question at hand, then, is that at what point in history did biological sinking of CO2 take over from geological? Seems clear to me that by the time CO2 was at 2000ppm (evolution of land animals) it was surely biological because, AFAIK, there was far more biomass on the planet that there is now (there were no ice caps, so there was a larger temperate area). But I think CO2-bio-sinking must've been tipping the balance of CO2 way before that, because we're only talking about enough difference to have a biasing effect on the net flows of CO2 in and out of the earth.

Correct me if I am wrong but in the carboniferous period, by 300 million yrs ago, O2 levels were up to 35% or so, so it seems to me clearly a biological effect at that point in time, and this was from the start of that period of biomass 'explosion' from 4000ppm CO2. I can't see there's a doubt biological sinking was not dominant starting at least with the carboniferous (and, yes, long term 'storage' being in the form of fossil fuels). I might also add that, again AFAIK, the temperature during much of the carboniferous was stable until CO2 levels reached similar levels to today, and only when it had dropped that far did the global temperature drop several degrees.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The sand doesn't care what anyone 'believes' - it's responding to the reality of the change.

The Washington coast is one of the most dynamic natural environments in the continental U.S. I'd be much more surprised if it stayed the same over 47 years than if it was different.

I have to say I find it peculiar that you persist in this argument. you ignore actual scientific data with anecdotal statements.

My Tsunami statement I am guessing meant nothing to you. So let me ask you; why is something that is only 14 inches higher (estimated height of Japan Tsunami in deep water) do so much damage?

your implication that tides, storms, and general erosion caused the changes on the coast is true... roughly 5% true and that is a seat of the pants guess. what you don't see is the changes that 6 inches has caused. because Andy is right. when the water hits the coast, its no longer 6 inches, its 15 feet and add that to the force of 12 feet of rising tide and we see 25 ton rocks moved for the first time in 300,000 years.

I see beach houses condemned because they are threatened by storm surges, not tides. now are these storm surges so strong they can cross a half mile of coastline? no... not without help.

 

[Weatherman]

Just keeping things in perspective. The natural environment changes; it always has. Some environments change a lot faster than others; they always have. If someone decided to build a structure on a sandy beach or a rocky bluff overlooking the ocean and expected it to last, they are being naiive.

And yes, I did ignore the comment about tsunamis. Tsunamis are the result of sudden, rapid, vertical displacement of the sea floor. Their location, frequency and magnitude have nothing to do with how warm the ocean or atmosphere is.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

And yes, I did ignore the comment about tsunamis. Tsunamis are the result of sudden, rapid, vertical displacement of the sea floor. Their location, frequency and magnitude have nothing to do with how warm the ocean or atmosphere is.

again, your statement is right but...

it is really an example of how a small deep ocean level rise can and will play havoc when that volume of water hits the coast at 20 feet deep

 

[Weatherman]

The reason why the tsunami wave is only a few feet high in mid ocean is that it has a huge volume of water to spread out in. As the wave nears the coast and the sea bed rises to meet the shoreline, the wave crest has to rise. Ultimately, all the kinetic energy that was generated from the undersea earthquake is released as the wave breaks on the shoreline.

You can't compare the expansion of water across an entire ocean to a huge wave traveling at 500 mph. Sea level rise is pretty uniform. Tsunami waves are, definitely, not.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

You can't compare the expansion of water across an entire ocean to a huge wave traveling at 500 mph. Sea level rise is pretty uniform. Tsunami waves are, definitely, not.

ok so a 6 inch rise of the sea in the middle of the deep dark ocean will make no effect on rising tides in 6 feet of water? or is it that that tide will only rise 6 inches as well? is that your premise?

ok, I can't help but wonder how much force it takes to push 12-15 verical feet of water up onto the beach?

 

[Weatherman]

ok so a 6 inch rise of the sea in the middle of the deep dark ocean will make no effect on rising tides in 6 feet of water? or is it that that tide will only rise 6 inches as well? is that your premise?

Considering the sea level rise took place over the better part of 100 years, that's exactly it. We are talking very, very slow and gradual here. It's not a sudden, six inch rise, like might be produced by an undersea earthquake. The sea level rise takes place so slowly it has time to spread out. Six inch mean sea level rise means high tides are six inches higher and low tides are six inches higher (some places around the world may see higher or lower increases in sea level due to a variety of factors, but the variation is in inches, not in feet).

ok, I can't help but wonder how much force it takes to push 12-15 verical feet of water up onto the beach?

A considerable amount of force. A long fetch of 75+ mph winds pointed in the right direction for many hours might do it. Pretty common occurrence along the Washington coast in late fall and winter.

 

[Weatherman]

This might be of interest for those in Washington State.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9443090" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, mean sea level is, actually, falling. Why, because the land is rising.


To be fair, the trend at Astoria, Oregon is flat.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9439040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


But, even at Crescent City, CA, the trend is down.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9419750" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

In your quest to deny, 'weatherman', you're missing a number of points. A storm-surge is higher when sea level is higher. Hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones are stronger when the sea is warmer. The planet isn't a sphere, it's in constant motion, and the oceans...slosh. When few of those align, one gets a good storm. When all of of those factors align, the planet gets Hainan and the Philippines gets smashed.

Had you watched the talk by the Navy's former chief oceanographer (and a real weatherman), you'd have caught two really important podium-kicking moments. The first is that since the world's climate scientists don't yet have a good way to model ice loss, they only include sea level rise from thermal expansion and maybe a fudge factor (their job is to quantify and attach a certainty range). When the Navy looks at sea level rise, they look at worst case and extremes (not averages) because like the citizens of Miami (and unlike politicians in N Carolina) they work in the real world and have to survive and operate come hell or high water.

While it's nice that sea level has risen relatively slowly the past 100 years, it's clear that the rate of rise is increasing. That means that the next 100 years will NOT look like the last century.

Miami Beach:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8779750

Texas; South Padre Island
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8779750

Mass; Woods Hole
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8447930

CA; San Diego
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410170

HI; Hilo
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1617760

Random sampling - none reflect a sea level descent.

 

[Weatherman]

There was a claim made that beaches along the Washington coast had eroded away due to sea level rise. And yet, the tide data clearly shows that mean sea level along the Washington coast has stayed flat or fallen over the last fifty to seventy-five years.

Therefore, the explanation for the beach erosion must be one of numerous other possibilities.


The entire discussion just illustrates the danger of taking a global mean phenomenon and applying it to a specific event at a specific place.

 

[donald]

Just to throw in a thought - the 'problem' with coastal erosion is nothing to do with the climate or the weather, it is to do with capitalism.

In fact, the whole issue of climate change is one generated by capitalism rather than the laws of physics.

In times gone by, if it got too cold, humans would migrate to somewhere warmer. Land turning into desert, move on to a milder place. That we are now a population of a planet that puts a sense of 'owning property/land' ahead of trying to accommodate newcomers as if they have equal rights to 'sitting tenants' is the issue.

Should someone who has lost their property to the sea through coastal erosion be allowed to come and build a new house in your back lawn, or on the edge of your town, or in your land-locked state, and if not why not?

We have very significant coastal erosion here in UK on the south eastern coastlines, especially in the last few years. Basically, we're losing land at several metres annually, and it is being washed over on the North Sea to Netherlands ... where they are gaining land! I don't know if we could claim that land gained by the Dutch is actually British 'property', but it shows how the problem is the immobility of populations arising from a sense of 'private ownership' of the planet.

(Don't ask me what the solution is, I'm just flagging up the issue.)