World Tides - Am I Correct in my Assumption?

Hey Ron,

I thought the great lakes were controlled by the locks on the St. Lawrence.

I know the Cal Sag/Chicago, Des Plains, Illinois Mississippi and Tenn Tom are controlled by locks so I don't see a change happening in them unless the upper pools overflow the lock and dam systems into the lower pools.

A quick Google search showed that most river-ways off the great lakes are controlled.

My best guess is that as long as the network of locks and dams are not compromised, there should be no change inland.

I guess another question would be...are the locks and dams designed to hold another two feet of water continuously...if not, that might change the level of the glakes in a short period of time for a long period of time.

Think of LA when the levees failed...

A more fundamental question (to you) is "what 2ft?"

Two feet as to the OP's posed question, i.e., "30' tidal change in the Bay of Fundy might become a 32' tide".

Fundamental enough answer?

Fundamental indeed (which was my point). Even if sea level rise were to affect tidal range (in the Bay of Fundy or anywhere else in the oceans), why should that have any effect on water levels in the Great Lakes? Lake Erie, for example, is over 170m above msl.

You're answering the wrong question (or rather asking another, unrelated, question).

I was going on the OP's original question:

"Will the tidal change affect water levels in the Great Lakes and in the rivers?"

However misguided the original question, my answer was to the effect of heightened water levels in the Great Lakes. I honestly don't think that the lakes would be affected by such a minute sea level rise given their altitude in relation, being hundreds of feet above sea level, and the fact that they are unaffected by ocean tides in general.

Interestingly, the largest tides observed in the lakes are approximately two inches according to published information, but that is lost in weather related conditions and seasonal variations.

I was trying to point out that the Great Lakes are so far (vertically) isolated from the oceans that any change in oceanic tides (height or range) will have no significant effect on them. Has there been some suggestion that melting icecaps could have an effect on the level of water in the Great Lakes? If so, I missed that one.

Going to the second part of the question (from the OP), viz: "... and in the rivers?", please see my #23. Any river connected to the oceans will be affected, depending on the change in sea level and the height above sea level of the rivers.

I don't follow your logic. When the oceans rise, the mouth of your river will march inland, however, the level of that river will not change.

Not all rivers are as you know them. Ours IS tidal, classed as estuarine.

The relative height of that estuary is ocean tide driven, hence the name. (bay, delta, sound etc.) The OP asked about height of inland rivers. (The Great lakes are over 100' ASL)

To quote the OP: "Will the tidal change affect water levels in the Great Lakes and in the rivers?" - I see no mention of inland.

If sea level rises are as extreme as those suggested by the US Geological Survey (in the event of all the icecaps etc. melting), then many present-day "inland rivers" will no longer be inland anyway (as previously suggested, see maps, #23).

The Great Lakes are inland, I believe.

Wordplay.

The Great Lakes, Yes. But when he said " and the rivers?" i took it to be more general.

But i get your point.

Jim

If you lived in a house beside a tidal river, and the sea level (and therefore the river level) rose by 10m (reaching your upstairs bedroom windows), would you sit watching TV downstairs denying that the water level in the river had been affected?

I gotcha...thanks

I saw a pretty cool show about the Great Lakes a few months ago. I think it was either on History or Discovery channel. They discovered that the ground under the Great Lakes is rising due to the massive weight of the ice from the last ice age being gone.....................the ground is springing back. Not only that, but at some point Niagra Falls is going to erode it's way back to lake Ontario, creating a big drain, and when that happens, all kinds of wild stuff will happen.

First, I must clarify, the Niagara River flows west to east so that Lake Erie dumps into Lake Ontario. As the Niagara escarpment erodes it will be towards lake Erie not Ontario. There already has been a lot of interesting things happen to with the Great Lakes System and including the St. Lawrence River. The St. Lawrence flows north and dumps into the Atlantic at the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The northerly flow did cause a major ice jamb and sudden release of the water held back creating the Younger Dryas, a period of global cold about 11000 years BP.

The ground from the former Lake Iroqouis is still rebounding and aptly called a glacier rebound. In fact all of Canada is growing higher. Were still young, what can I say? Wolfe Island is part of the Thousand Islands and exist in large part to the rebound. FYI

Estimates of fresh water contribution from complete glacial melt without considering the rebound would be about 235 feet to the present ocean levels. I may get my feet wet where I live. I should say when all ice must melt it is primary the Greenland and Antarctic total ice caps that would have to melt. Plus all the glaciers and small islands that have permanent ice. Lots of fodder for the disaster scenarios but I won't panic till December 2012. I think that's the Mayan calender doomsday date, unless I am counting wrong. Just don't tell the guys that make beer, we may need some before hand. So Ronseto the small tidal difference might have to be added to the 235 feet after December.

I thought I would include this image on glacial rebound in NA. Kinda like the current state of affairs of the economies of both countries.

Question: If the land is rebounding, does that mean there is also a rebound under the oceans due to the growing continental shelves? If yes, are the projections of rise in the oceans under-estimated (accepting the USGS data) or do the numbers also reflect that sort of underwater rebound? Using up the ocean volume by land rise leaves less space for water to occupy, thus an added rise in water levels. Again 5mm/year rise caused by glacial rebound is not a reason to panic.

Does the weight of added ocean volume cause some equal sink in the ocean floor?

I heard too that most of the land in the northen hemisphere at least is bouncing back from the last ice age.

... but it's a very slow bounce

Slow, but happening.

Just to throw another wrench in this conversation. Since it's been shown that the land mass is slowly bouncing back from the last ice age, I wonder what effect that's having on the sea levels, and if it's being taken into account?

Wouldn't a rising land mass cause sea levels to rise accordingly?

"Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less...".

Think sea levels would fall - the seabed (for the large majority of the ocean) was not buried under ice, so has no reason to rebound.

Correct. But do we have a line of delineation as to where the land masses are rising?

If we don't, it could create a false impression that the oceans are either rising or falling. In other words, if we don't have an exact measurement of how much the land is rising and where, we will be incapable of producing an accurate measurement of ocean levels.

True enough.

(Green rising, maroon settling).

More here.

Here's my problem:

I'm assuming that the ice melt from the last ice age had an effect on ocean levels........................no humans involved.

In the case of the Great Lakes water level receding, the first assumption was that humans were sucking too much water from the lakes, causing them to drop.

I'm glad that real scientists were able to figure out what was happening before Al Gore got there and told everyone that we were destroying America's lakes.

The emotional aspect of climate science, (ego, guilt, and fear), are becoming akin to original sin in Christian doctrine. I have no problem with religion, but we can't let these things pervade science..................ever.

I also doubt that we have any clue as to total under sea volcanic activity and resulting magma flows, which would also impact sea levels.

I hate to bring bad news, but scroll down to the UK map......

"Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less..."

Yeah.

The Himalayan non-ice melt did a wonderful job of illustrating the reliability of the computer models that the IPCC and others are using to predict our demise and steal money.

Nothing says that the climate change would be evenly distributed, in fact, the opposite is most likely.

We don't need any model to know that when we release solar energy accumulated and stored underground for millions of years (burn fossil fuel) and deforest the land, there will be some effect. Any intelligent being will accept that. The question is how much is caused by human and should we try to stop CO2 release or should we invest our energy at protecting the environment from direct pollution?

The point that many of us are trying to make (including Kramarat) is that the models used by those loud mouth scientists don't seem to match the present observations and seem to be biased on the dramatic side for some un-scientific reasons

The large emphasis on CO2 has diverted almost all the financial resources leaving the programs to reduce pesticide usage and environment destruction without much funding. In my not so humble opinion, this is the real calamity.

To be fair..............in most cases, it's not the scientists that are the loud mouths. The vast majority of them are just doing what scientists do. Through the IPCC, their work is being taken apart, shuffled and distributed to fulfill a political agenda...............................many of them are realizing it and getting out before their reputations are completely ruined.

I'm not a climate scientist, therefore, I don't have a model, nor do I make predictions. The only thing I ask, is that all of the science is presented, including the science that flies in the face of the computer models and the doomsday scenarios.

I wouldn't feel any differently if archaeologists were found to be throwing away certain dinosaur bones to prove that another species dominated a certain area.

Kramarat,

I appreciate this comment of yours, and agree fully with it. I recently read a book that did a long discussion of the science and debate on global warming. It appears to me that the principal US scientist on the topic, at least the one most often named, would greatly prefer to be left to do the science. His papers state the limits of assumptions and models, as well as possible scenarios and approaches that are counter to those of the "limit CO₂ crowd". (Incidentally, he disagreed as much with some of Gore's worries as he did with Bush's sweeping it under the rug.) I agree that we are on the wrong side of the saw while cutting that limb if we ignore these assumptions or the possible probable systemic errors in the data we feed into the computer models. The computer-based models are limited by many factors, such as ignoring real-world influences because they are not recognized, or using historical temperature data from different areas collected using different protocols.

--JMM

I'm with you. I could never understand how the Arctic ice melting would increase sea levels. The Antactic on the other hand is a different kettle of fish ( or Kril ). I have an area of 14 mil sq Km for the Antactic and 112 mil sq Km for the oceans 1:8. A local celebrity has recently travelled to the Antactic and proclaimed " The ice cover here is an average of 3 Km thick." Ergo 3000/8 equals a rise in sea levels of 375m if all the ice were to melt.

I have not yet been able ( time wise ) to verify any of these figures. For a start the area of the Antactic vs Australia: 14 mil sqKm vs 10 mil sqKm. My globe indicates that the Antactic is smaller than Australia. By the by Canada also appears smaller but gazeteers all say Canada is larger. I suspect the accepted gazeteer areas were once worked out on a Mercators projection and the error has been perpetuated.

The local celebrity may have got the wrong end of the stick and 'average depth of ice' may be a lot less ( he might have been given the figure as an 'up to depth'.

The snow that falls to make the ice cap comes from the ocean in the first place and although on the face of it this may not significant it may actually be significant, if, for example the 'snow' were to fall as rain on hitherto parched areas such as the Sahara or central Australia and simply be mopped up like a sponge. Then plants would grow and suck up more.

If you can direct me to a site that has satellite determined areas of countries i would be most gratefull.

Jim

Did you see the table of estimated ice volumes and projected rise figures in my link (in #7)?

I did miss it. They have a much more conservative estimate and dare i say, probably more accurate. Still means trouble for the Pacific islanders .

Thanks for the link.

Jim

I live about 75km from the sea, at about 45m above msl (according to Google Earth). If the entire East Antarctic ice sheet went, I'd be 20m under!

South East England, present:

... with 20m rise:

... and 60m rise:

Nice illustrations. I found these (http://westocean.hubpages.com/hub/Flood-Maps - sorry, link no longer available) illustrations with a 100 meter rise. I am not sure why the chose 100 meters except to amplify the results for whatever reasons. But I also found this for global results and you can play with the levels to see different effects.

For the great lakes, I live at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River (@ Lake Ontario) and the mean level is 245 feet (about 75 meters). If the projected rise is 70 meters if all the ice melted (glaciers, polar caps) and entered the ocean, I would be still OK. But the results are based on the mean ocean levels (between high and low tides). That means a 10 meter tide would allow the water to rise to the level of Lake Ontario at 70 meters and based on an average tide above mean of 5 meters. As I said before, I may get my feet wet or at the very least salt water would intrude into the Lake Ontario basin.

One other factor not taken into account is the slowing or stopping of the main ocean conveyor belt returning tropical water that moved north from the tropics. If the gulf Stream that now moderates Europe's climate stopped, Europe would cool considerably. It is the fresh water melt from all ice not just land ice that would contribute to the slowing of the conveyor. The conveyor works because the gulf stream flows north, gets very cold and dense, and then sinks to the bottom of the ocean. The high density of the salt water and the cold water sinking is what drives the return conveyor belt. However, if fresh water melt is allowed to displace the salt water from the gulf stream, the conveyor belt returning the gulf stream could slow or stop. So, IMO, we should be concerned about all ice melt not just the ice cap melt. The melted ice berg is cold and fresh. Changing the density of the engine of the conveyor belt is dangerous. The conveyor belt has stopped in the past and created what we now know as the Younger Dryas. More information can be found here.

I read somewhere (Wikipedia, with approx. 60 identified sources) that the while it is true that much of North Pole ice is in fact floating, the average extent of the ice sheet has decreased by about 4.2 % per decade since 1970. The associated ice sheets that are in fact on terra firma (those in the region include Greenland, Russia and Canada) and have also decreased in coverage by about the same amount, which will lead to widespread increases in ocean levels, and decreases in local salinity levels.

This (floating displacement) is not true of the South Pole, which has experienced an even larger reduction in average ice sheet coverage over the last 4 decades. This runoff is also a primary component of the sea level increase concern, and it seems curious as to why you would fail to mention it.

Warmer temps raise sea levels when ice sheets melt. It seems that one of us is intentionally misleading people (some would say lying.) In general scientific forums, like CR4 is supposed to be, citing sources is required.

Finally, Himalayan Glacier melt rates appear to have slowed. They are still melting, and those in Europe and Alaska appear to be accelerating. How is that a repudiation of global climate change due to elevated greenhouse gas levels. Maybe it's not going to happen as quickly as some thought, maybe it will be quicker.

While not as quick to respond to the loss of ice...the rebound produced by the loss of mass in antarctica will have a direct effect on the sea levels as well.

I suppose this would also depend on if you are a Pangaea subduction/spreading advocate...or a Pangaea Earth Expansion advocate...

hmm...

Bingo...nice job...it seems that most of the alarmist "scientists" tend to gloss over even the basics of the physical relationships between sea levels and floating ice.

I argued this with my Mom...I am from the town of Westport, WA where she still lives. The town is on a peninsula and was mostly built on dredge spoils near the turn of the century. She thinks the town is going to get inundated when the polar cap(s) melt(s). I asked her if she had even noticed any variation in the tidal means...has the town measured this? If they had, (and DNR does) they would see that there is nothing indicating cause for alarm for even the enormous amount of ice melt around the world.

Polar bears directly affected, yes...but not sea levels...yet.

Bit off-topic regarding your OP, but have you seen this article from the US Geological Survey?

If sea level rises go to the extremes suggested, then many rivers will be affected - the Thames, for example, will destroy London. I don't know how far above present-day mean sea level the Great Lakes are, but you should be able to work it all out from a survey map.

Only a 10 meter rise? The altitude where I live is about 350 meters. So, no chance for oceanfront property then, I guess.

To answer the question directly, no, the Moon does that.

No. Sea level increase will only show in the tidal parts of rivers. Which will move up the river an amount, depending on the height of increase.

If the Greenland ice cap were to melt, sea level would rise 7 metres - 23 - 24 ft. Most cities are on seaboards, big trouble.

Tides may become slightly more pronounced, due to there being 'more ocean, less land' but this effect is expected to be minimal - I doubt that it could be measured.

Kramarat - are you saying there are no limits to growth, that no amount of CO2 could have any bad effect? What about when the seas are so acid coral & fish die? Do you say no problem, we just go to KFC? What about when we all have to wear oxygen masks - and walk everywhere, because there is not enough O2 to run our cars? No problem? Where do YOU draw the line?

Kramarat it appears that you are concerned only with the fraud occurring on one side of the argument - are you aware of systemic fraud (one major case recently exposed) supporting the 'CO2 for breakfast' crowd?

I just like to argue. I've reached the conclusion that human beings, (as a species), are fu**ed. We will either do ourselves in, or some planetary cataclysmic event will. My primary concern at this point is for me, and my offspring, to live in relative freedom until that day comes. Governments do not solve problems.................they create them. Then they raise our taxes to fix them.........................all the while, stripping us of our freedom and making themselves bigger.....................creating bigger problems that require more of OUR money to fix. And so it goes..............

I would not get too worried about the future increases in tidal height. You may want to look at the following web sites. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/solar-driven-temperature-decline-predicted-for-norway-by-a-norwegian/ The sun is going into a cooling trend and will continue in that trend for about another 23 years. After that I will probably be dead so I won't be able to keep up with the news.

Global warming has two effects. One on people who get their science from CNN and the second on people who have studied geology, like me.

The glacier that formed Yosemite Valley was 4,600 feet thick and melted completely away before there were any humans on the face of the earth. During the great ice age there was a 15,000 foot thick sheet of ice covering North America. it was all gone before any people were here on earth. Rethink Rethink Rethink.

Hey wait a minute......first, some clarification please.....the last Ice Age that covered much of the Northern Hemisphere, and that includes North America, ended approximately 10,000 years ago (plus or minus).....homo sapiens were definitely on this blue ball back then......many of the Native American tribes were well established throughout North America before then.

Heck, we even had Wholly Mammoths and a whole host of now extinct critters on this planet back then too.

The statements regarding the Great Lakes: As far as I know, other than the flow restrictions at the Lake Superior Outlet Control Structure and Soo Locks in the St. Mary's River located at Sault Ste. Marie MI, as well as the structures along the Detroit River in the greater Chicago IL area, each of the Great Lakes flow FREELY into the the next one, west to east......from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and finally into Lake Ontario. There are no other locks and dams of significance restricting water flow between them.

The only restriction of any water flow (and that is minimal) from Lake Ontario occurs along a portion of the St. Lawrence River near Massena NY and Cornwall ON where there are the Robert Moses-Robert H. Saunders Generating Station (dam). Also, there are the Iroquois and Long Sault dams located some 11 miles upstream of the aforementioned dam.....there are 11 locks located along the river between the eastern outlet of Lake Ontario and Montreal, Quebec. The Robert Moses portion of the dam is operated by the New York State Power Authority (NYSPA), and includes 16 turbine-generators to produce about 900,000 kW of electrical power. The U.S. portion of this project is the St. Lawrence-Franklin D. Roosevelt Power Project under jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); on the Canadian side of the river is the Robert H. Saunders Generating Station. Also, the absolutely huge Eisenhower Lock is located at this dam as well. The Seaway was built by Canada and the US back in the 1950's as a part of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority (now the St. Lawrence Management Corp.). Back up of the St. Lawrence River would stop at those structures in the event of the Atlantic Ocean level increases and did not overtop the dam (for whatever reason!).

No way in hell could any ocean level increase have any significance on Lake Erie and it's western sisters due to the steep hydraulic gradient of the Niagara River and Niagara Falls (and the escarpment, which is 93 meters in height). There is the Welland Canal and it's 8 locks running through southern Ontario between the eastern end of Lake Erie and the western end of Lake Ontario (near Fort Niagara), as well as the Robert Moses Power Generating dam (operated by the NYSPA), and it's Canadian counterpart located oppositehand, all located downstream of Niagara Falls.

I know these features very well because I was born and raised for some time in Buffalo NY + I one of my Duty Stations was where I served with the USACE in their Buffalo District Offices at 1776 Niagara St. Buffalo for 3 years.

Just thought you guys ought to know some relevant factoids....

Here is a really good link to the truth about global cooling and heating. You can't argue with rocks, they would not listen to your side. But if you study rocks they reveal a lot of information.

Link... http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html There are numerous links withing this article. If you had a ruler one mile long representing the time that the earth has been in existence, humans would only occupy the last 3/8". We are so insignificant in the big picture that it is shameful for us to think we are the cause celeb of global anything. The carbon foot print of all the dinosaurs was probably greater than all that humans do. "Dinosaur flatulence anyone"

Whenever someone looks at the big picture, the oscillations in global climate become very evident. Even if one were to look at climate in smaller divisions we would notice the effects of volcanic activity, sun spot activity, or the Maunder Minimum. Complicating these shorter versions would be to combine the effects of all three events at once. The little ice age during the late 17th and early 18th century is likely a culmination of all three effects. If I read the global warming climatologists correctly, I think they are saying that recent global warming from all causes will create some discomfort for humans over the next couple of centuries. If something else were to be added to the picture of warming, then we may warm quicker than we should or as predicted. The side affects can be debated and so far the climatologists are all theory. The experiment hasn't happened to prove or disprove their models. The experiments of all theoretical science are the real test of any theory. Many theories have been shot down after the fact. I think the climatologists are the theoretical scientists presenting information on what they currently know. A good scientist will always modify according to new data. I still remain skeptical of much of the modelling, but could be convinced one way or the other. Adding some bogus data as has happened, only hurts the scientist. As does sensational headlines of extreme dire results.

I do note that with regard to climate oscillations in the longer term (or short term), I would be more concerned with affects of an ice age or even a mini ice age.

I've often thought along the same lines... Whose to say the we weren't headed for another ice age, and that man came into the industrial revolution right when he needed to. But that being said, I think it's time we change our ways. Burning fossil fuels is surely polluting our planet, and not our reserves are not going to last forever.

I agree. Rather than banning light bulbs, we should be looking at ways to completely change the way we live. Not mandated, but in a cool way. Like living underground, piping in sunshine, skylights to see blue sky, LED displays on the walls displaying real time outdoor scenery for windows. We've got enough oil and natural gas to last us for a thousand years and not destroy the planet using them. It's our wasteful consumption that's going to be our undoing. The technology is already here to enable us to start using the earth itself for shelter. We should get going with it.

There's another Ice Age coming, to be sure. Regardless of who's doing what on the surface. Just as surly as there will be other mega volcanos and earthquakes. And warming trends, no matter what we do to try to mitigate these things they are going to happen.

Mankind just doesn't have the ability to alter the course of geologic events in store for the earth.

This baby's comin'................................might even happen in our lifetimes.

We won't be worrying about CO2. Humans have had the luxury of enjoying a relative calm in the history of the planet. It's a violent history...................one that doesn't care whether humans are here or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVUx1JtT-5I

Whose is a possessive pronoun showing ownership Who's is what you meant.

Burning fossil fuels for all the years we have been burning them is not even equal to the amount of CO2 put out by two or three eruptions of major volcanoes. Look up information on the volcano Krakatoa and you will see that humans are so insignificant that we really don't matter much.

Here is one good reference.. http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02169/Untitled-2.htm

There is nothing stupid about being uniformed. Even people with genius I.Q.s can listen to the wrong teachers.

Good thing theirs always room for another genious around here.

Hears the proper way to post your link to nowhere. I typed it in exactly as you wrote it, and hears what came up.

http://www.thinkquest.org/404.html

_{Nothing personal, just being a smarta$$.}

The is a lot stupid about being uniformed, especially if you believe you are informed. I believe you are an excellent example. Thanks for sharing that pearl.

"Burning fossil fuels for all the years we have been burning them is not even equal to the amount of CO2 put out by two or three eruptions of major volcanoes."

Complete and utter BS ly untrue. These lies have been perpetrated by the likes of the Heartland Mob. Any coincidence they are from Chicago?

Subject: Re: Fwd: CO2 debt blown (lit) in 4 days!

I asked NOAA for comment -

Please visit http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ - & look at their graphs. Who is telling porkies?

Stuart,

Over a year ago someone sent me some paragraphs from Plimer's book, in which Plimer dismisses the Mauna Loa CO2 record. The excerpts demonstrated that Ian Plimer is a fraud. If he had bothered to go to our CO2 trends web site he could have downloaded the data to prove for himself that his statements were plain wrong. CO2 from volcanism has been estimated a number of times, and the global total from all volcanoes, vents, geysers, etc. is of the order of 0.2 billion ton C (Gton C) per year, which compares to ~8.5 GtonC/yr for the burning of fossil fuels. We have seen no evidence in our atmospheric data of GHG emissions from Eyjafjallajokull or Pinatubo.

Best regards, NOAA.

The main influence on tides is the moon. The sun and all other astrological bodies also influence tides but to simplify the maths I will ignore these.

If sea level rises by 2" the surface will be closer to the moon so it will create higher tides. But the moon on average is 238855miles from the earth or 238855 x 1760 x 36 inches from the earth. The increase will be 2/15133852800 of the tidal range. So with a tidal range of 30" the increase would be 0.000000003965 inches. (rounded to 12 decimal places)

But this increase would be masked by the fact that the moon is spiralling away from the earth by about 1½ inches per year. So each year the same tidal range would decrease by 0.000000002974 inches.

Given that the distance shown to the moon is only an average, and we have ignored the sun and all other bodies, and that the earth bulges in places as a result of tectonic movements, you might experience a little difficulty in measuring the change.

I think if I were concerned about anything when it comes to ice caps melting or vice-versa, that it would be the effect on earth's wobble in space.

Hi JH

What you are saying is that a burst bag of soybeans in China will not influence the share price of milk-powder in Brazil, just to put it a bit differently.

I think the information gathering, governing body's are prone to faulty interpretation of data in as much as they are prophesying and not predicting.

To state that climate is manipulated by human activity is as correct as one can get. Even us only being a trace element of the whole cycle of life, we do contribute.

Unless us humans don't get dumbed down so much that we need instructions/orders to start swimming when the water hits the top part of the lower lip, we will survive and deserve to do so.

In any other case, Darwin's 'Theory' will move faster than any change of Earth, Water, Fire and Air. You get the drift, there is that white elephant.

There are more acute matters threatening our existence than truck loads of rice being dumped to keep the stock price were some misguided individuals want it.

Just to get back to earth, I have been flying around this planet dozens of times and the enormity of seeing it from high up there is overwhelming, each time and witnessed by many.

That organism down there will chew us up and spit us out in no time at all, whatever we do or don't do. Interpreting data is boring! Being conscious about why things are degenerating in a wasteful way and not do something about it is unintelligent.

Who cares?

Ky.

Wow! A lot of interesting information going around; more than I can absorb due to the amount of science involved. Aside from knowing that "water seeks it's own level", I'am at a loss. Thanks for the contribution of knowledge to my pea brain. At my age, I'am really not too concerned about rising sea levels. I was just curious. I'll stick to things I know something about, like nuts and bolts and the like.

Hi ronseto

There is another thing that might have been mentioned in the past and maybe someone has some data on it:

How much does the silt running into the oceans contribute to the rise of water levels. I mean if you added a bucket of sand a day to a swimming pool you would run out of a diving area very quickly.

BTW, they stay the filler and don't evaporate and cycle like water does. Unless pushed up 250 million years from now they will stay the filler. Who's counting. All very relative stuff I think.

The flying over her comes to mind again. A flea who owned a dog, delusional .

Have a nice weekend, Ky.

I went looking for information on how much land could be lost with rising sea level. It turns out to be difficult to estimate because the large area relief maps use 5M contours. This leads to the use of interpolation based on the assumption of a smooth slope between contours; the results were could be significantly off if the terrain has a convex or concave cross section.

epa climate change effects downloads maps.pdf

Don't you mean 5 feet, not 5M?

AS to the original question: lake to ocean: ne nada, as nothing there.

To melting the nordic floating cap: ne nada. Following warm expansion, some inches.

Historical cycles were occurring without any human intervention. And keep on doing.

The Milankovitch Cycles (simple orbital mechanics) can result in a 7% (max10%) variation of sunlight. When the main furnace in your life varies, your comfort varies too. 7% of 300deg absolute is 21degC (43degF), a brutal change from warm to cold.

I do not care, how many positive or negative feedbacks are involved, it still is brutal. Your egocentric involvement is hubris and/or ignorance, big time. Get the basic facts right before prognosticating.

Predicting the future, without knowing the past? No, Nyet, ne nada, etc. not possible.

Other than that, you are a fine fellow.

Other things being equal, a 2' rise in sea level would result in a 2' rise in high tide level (same net tidal range, not necessarily an increase).

However, it all depends on the topography where the new high tide will reach. If constricted and/or steep, the rise will intensify; if wide open and/or nearly flat, the rise will be less.

I don't agree with the statement that rising sea levels would result in a greater tidal RANGE... Tides are driven by gravitational forces and their RANGE would be basically unchanged, though the high tides would be higher, the low tides would be correspondingly higher too...

Answering the OP will it have an effect? Yes. How big an effect? An effect so small as to be immeasurable. (See my earlier post)

But the debate has moved on to sea level rise, and how scientists, politicians, the media and the general public respond to the topic.

Scientists do not get paid (or get research funding) for saying "I don't know".

Politicians who genuinely say, "I do not have a solution to this problem so I am sitting on the fence", don't get voted in. Maybe if we did vote these people in we would have less complaint about dishonest politicians.

The media has an agenda driven by the sale of advertising, so if a controversial headline will generate more income, then that is what we get.

The general public is confused. We complain that we are not being told all the facts. We probably are being told all the facts that are understood at present, but not in context.

The main concern, and what generates headlines and the most heated debate is 'avalanche effect'. Sea ice reflects most of the suns heat, some ice melts, more heat is absorbed, ice melts at a faster rate, and sea levels rise. To counter this there are other scientists who say that as the ice melts the salinity changes, this interrupts the 'conveyor effect', warm tropical water is not moved to the arctic regions, we are plunged into another ice age, snow and ice are deposited onto the landmass, and the sea levels fall.

I have picked only two out of maybe thirty possible climate drivers. Climatology is in its infancy as a science, but we recognise that it is too big a subject to be studied as a whole. So some people concentrate on the effect melting ice while others concentrate on the effect salinity, or ozone holes, or El Nino. When one of these teams reports some findings, the media generates doomsday headlines, politicians gauge public reaction and slide off the fence to the side with the most voters. Then the next team reports its findings and its all change.

Most of the engineers here understand about positive feedback leading to a runaway scenario. Those of us who have ever tried to implement a process with thirty PID loops recognise the commissioning is a nightmare. But we can achieve it because we understand that all the PID loops are interlinked. When we change one, the parameters of all the others are modified. That is what is not being said about the different climate change reports. That is what is confusing the public.

It seems that when any debate comes up about almost anything, a "study" or "more research" gets commissioned -- by whom?

The hazard of more than a few inhabitants on the planet (especially in the information/communication age) is that acting to solve problems that can't be agreed upon (definition or solution) becomes almost impossible. And, strangely enough, the fact that we consider ourselves more intelligent (aka, scientific) than our predecessors produces a built-in procrastination because we don't want to act out of "ignorance." We might have egg on our collective face as a species.

Now, this isn't always (or necessarily) bad. But we do have observations of changes (weather, ice caps, glaciers, etc) that make a lot of us uncomfortable with procrastination. Coupled with this wanting to "get it right," is the other side of that coin -- Who's right or wrong? And who gets the blame if things turn bad? Finger pointing evolved very early in our development.

To me, the bottom line is: What sane person would build a house in any way carelessly? And that includes a lot of factors that we all could list. Who wants to do unnecessary maintenance? Especially, if lives are lost due to carelessness. The planet is our "house."

And there is the rub. How do we know what parts of the house may be or become a danger to our living in it? Inspection is observation. Currently, we have no past record of our species being able to impact the climate the way we may be potentially doing. So on what basis can we compare the current situation to the past? We may be able to find equivalent CO2 levels in geological records that correspond with today's levels and draw some conclusions. But we may not know the exact cause of reaching those levels and therefore, if the rate and/or duration was different in any way, the mechanism affecting an "outcome" may be different. Prediction likely goes out the window then. Certain physiological criteria can be tolerated in a very healthy body, yet be lethal in a weaker one.

Right or wrong? Models? Common sense would indicate conservative or "worst-case" design from an engineering standpoint. We don't have hard parameters to base the design on, but if we note that one component in our design (using electronics as an analogy) is getting unusually hot, do we let it burn out before investigating a possible mis-wire in the design? And would we just replace it without investigating the cause only to have it burn out again?

Another consideration is the effect of mass-applied change. The profit margin of some companies is quite small, yet when accumulated due to mass sales still becomes a large amount of money. We are investing in our planet's future in what seem to be small ways, individually, but truly become substantial when applied across the board.

Tidal effect would be an additional stress on an already bad situation if rising sea levels become a disaster.

I fear that our method or process for finding the cause and a solution is intractable.

There's been enough coverage on the tidal discussion, but there seems to be a fixation that the land masses themselves don't rise and fall.

There are areas in Australia currently 500 feet (well they were when surveyed in 1860) ASL where opals are mined now. Thus that area was under significant depth of sea water at some time.

I am constantly frustrated about the perception that a global CO2 policy, or any other response will suddenly cease the progress of these events (whether caused by human process or not) and following this, the absolute disregard for social plans to ADAPT to the changing environment as and when it happens.

Building on a sand bar at the ocean front, removing the stabilising vegetation (to improve the view) and then expecting local government to intervene to protect the private property when storm events remove the sand from under the house.

Whether the changes happen in one year, one century or one milennia, we need to recognise that we might be some influence on this great plannet, but there are also other forces at work that we ignore at our peril.

I remember a scene from a movie (fictional) of a place named "Hydrazil" that was sinking beneath the waves, with the whole population steadily climbing to the top of the highest peak, with a ship only a few yards away offering to take them to safety.

I can't believe no one has provided this answer yet....

.

The dominant effect of an increase in sea levels will cause a decrease in the measured water levels of inland rivers and lakes.

.

Most geographic levels are measured in relation to mean sea level. An increase in MSL will cause a decrease in the height above MSL measured for inland rivers and lakes.

Ronseto,

I have read the blog up to date. One post (I forget whose) addressed a critical part of your original question--the effect on local tidal levels. In the same way that we cannot be sure of the extent to which the mean sea level will change in the next 10, 25, 50, 100, etc. years, we cannot reliably say what effect this will have on local tidal levels. The dramatic levels in the Bay of Fundy (which I have seen as a teenager) are dependent almost entirely on the specific shape of the bay. If we raise the average water level this will change the effective shape of the bay and change the tidal levels that would occur there. The resulting levels may be the same, more, or less. The only way to find the real effect would be to build a scale hydraulic model of the bay and the waters outside of it, and then subject it to the rises and falls of the ocean outside the bay. Then raise the ocean level by the desired amount and see what happens. This has been done in a totally different geographic area for at least 50 years (the San Francisco Bay and river delta model in Marin County, which occupies about 3 airplane hangars of floor area) and has been used to study effects of water diversion, tides, and many other factors.

I therefore would disagree with your postulated answer--the 2x32/30 or 2.13' or become a 32' tide suggestions are almost certainly wrong. The effects of local geology need to be looked at instead of a simple change in mean sea level and any ratio's falsely derived from it.

Interesting topic. --John M.