Sea level rate of change

"Its beyond amazing"@51. I think this is an important point to respond to even if poster has gone away.

Many physical processes present lots of high-frequency noise, beneath which there may (or may not) be a secular trend. Human senses and brain processing are very responsive to the high-frequency stuff. This seems to be an evolutionary imperative and is in no way an insult. It is 'who we are' and appeals here will always resonate. Referring to things that cannot possibly be known.

However, human creativity has created other ways to explore data, unrestricted by our built-in hardware and software. Analog electrical circuitry for one, and with vast new computer capacity, statistics are rapidly expanding. I mean, like dang.

So much so that it probably should be forgiven for humans relying on intuition to view advanced numerical analysis as "unbelievable".

 

As if on cue 'Wired' sings the song of maths:

Why Math Is the Best Way to Make Sense of the World | WIRED

Did not quite address 'math does what humans are ill-suited to personally detect', but wontcha feel bad for not reading it?

 

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

I read abstract but not yet emailed author for full text. Abstract projects SLR 70 cm by 2100. This does not include any quickening of ice melt that might occur.

 

Full text there in the link, also:

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/02/06/1717312115.full.pdf

When taken with a rate of sea-level rise of 2.9 ± 0.4 mm/y (epoch 2005.0), the extrapolation of the quadratic gives 654 ± 119 mm of sea-level rise by 2100 relative to 2005, which is similar to the processed-based model projections of sea level for representative concentration pathways 8.5 in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (24). Stated alternatively, the observed acceleration will more than double the amount of sea-level rise by 2100 compared with the current rate of sea-level rise continuing unchanged. This projection of future sea-level rise is based only on the satellite- observed changes over the last 25 y, assuming that sea level changes similarly in the future. If sea level begins changing more rapidly, for example due to rapid changes in ice sheet dynamics, then this simple extrapolation will likely represent a conservative lower bound on future sea-level change. In contrast, few po- tential processes exist to suggest that this estimate is too high. ​

 

That worked, thanks.

 

Since there is such a wide ranging divide about the ocean rise and it's peculiarities
I'll add some more fuel to the fire and see if we can make it rise even quicker lol
I'll offer another key to the future of the human animals with these links below.
Coupled with the discourse concerning sea level rise in ten years or so we should all be in the same page.
if not Oh Well !!!!!
World Population Clock: 7.6 Billion People (2018) - Worldometers
Population Clock
+
Pop Clock
World Population Clock
World Population Clock Live - Population of the World Today - The World Counts
there are others and all the ones above and that I've seen use this model
World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations
there are other models that reach as high a 8+ billion as of last year.

I hope someone finds this stuff useful either now or sometime in the future.

 

I think that where population growth happens is i\more important than overall totals. UN covers that.

 

We are all entitiled to our opinions.
I hope I've demonstrated my point on conflicting opinions and the maths behind them.

 

Mo Brooks said:

Rep. Mo Brooks suggests rocks falling into oceans causing seas to rise

Which I first just thought was funny or silly or something in that direction. But then I thought "How does global riverine sediment export actually compare?"

River sediment discharge to the oceans; present-day controls and global budgets
says 16, and
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2005GB002453
says 19, both as gigatons/year, I use the latter because it's 'Mo',

Now sediments are tiny rocks, so a density of 2.5 is reasonable. In comes 3.3 mm/y of SLR, and global ocean area, and Ka-ching!

Sediments entering oceans can account for 6.4 thousandths of current SLR. 0.0064 of it. Now we both know. Tell Mr. Brooks and he'll know too.

This does not account for cliffs falling into the sea. No idea where to get that global picture. But I am perfectly willing to guess it is smaller than river-borne erosion. Perhaps combined, they are 1% of current SLR.

 

I remember you saying that.

I wanted to sting the thing with "Not all brooks become mighty rivers" but that might take away from message. Quantitative comparison.

 

These tend to have a high acute, but temporary sea level rise.

 

temporary? They come back out?

 

he knows, it's just that he's being paid not to admit it.

 

Fallen cliffs could be 'ground down' to smaller sizes and cast back up as beach sand I guess.

Recently I read that globally, some beaches are eroding away and others experiencing deposition. Overall they were about in balance. I did not keep that source.

 

Don't forget the volcanic island building and tectonic uplift of mountain ranges. Over the very long term, these and other build-up and tear-down processes ought to be roughly in balance. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that they are balanced on the shorter term of human time scales.

 

I was referring to the very sudden and dramatic sea level rise a cliff falling into the ocean can cause.