Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (929828)	4/10/2016 10:32:48 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576739

But it has been far from steady. Which is actually what I said about the thousands to low ten thousands of years range. Winds and currents can cause sea level changes but that is purely a local effect. Not a global one And much of the land going under the water is a local effect not a global one. India, to pick one country, would have to build many equivalents of that to solve their problems. Over a period of centuries, probably. You seem to think the time period of merit is measured in centuries. It isn't. Yes it is. We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr- 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr- 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993–2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr- 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr- 1 since 1970. Regional linear trends for 14 ocean basins since 1970 show the fastest sea level rise for the Antarctica (4.1 ± 0.8 mm·yr- 1) and Arctic (3.6 ± 0.3 mm·yr- 1). Choice of GIA correction is critical in the trends for the local and regional sea levels, introducing up to 8 mm·yr- 1 uncertainties for individual tide gauge records, up to 2 mm·yr- 1 for regional curves and up to 0.3–0.6 mm·yr- 1 in global sea level reconstruction. We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr- 2 in global sea level (1807–2009). In comparison the steric component of sea level shows an acceleration of 0.006 mm·yr- 2 and mass loss of glaciers accelerates at 0.003 mm·yr- 2 over 200 year long time series. sciencedirect.com And, as the older development falls to the ocean, it means they are moving the city. I supposed you could consider it that, but if so in a slower and much less expensive way than building elsewhere and packing up everything portable and making one big move. So yeah, sea level change isn't an existential threat. If you ignore what has happened in the past and what is happening now. If you assume things will stay the same as they have been in the very recent past, ignore all of the evidence that it won't and assume that, if anything, the changes that have happened over the past couple of decades will reverse. And it isn't an existential threat if you assume Al Gore's, and other people's extreme and poorly supported projections were mild.