Is the Earth Shrinking, or is the Sea Rising, Both or Neither?

Well what about the Moon moving away from the Earth, wouldn't that affect the tidal pulling force reducing the effect of gravity on water levels....

....the Moon is slowly moving away from Earth, and this will gradually decrease the strength of tidal forces on Earth as the distance between the two celestial bodies increases; meaning tides will become smaller over time due to the reduced gravitational pull from a farther Moon. "...

...but what about the cosmic dust entering Earth's atmosphere, won't that contribute to the Size of the Earth...

....millions of tons of cosmic dust fall to Earth annually....The change in Earth's size due to cosmic dust is so small that it is practically impossible to measure with current technology. ...

Really? I find that hard to believe.....

What about all the mining on Earth, wouldn't that be shrinking the planet...

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Earth-losing-weight-or-mass-with-giant-mining-going-around-For-example-we-mine-tonnes-of-coal-and-burn-it-into-gas-without-transforming-it-into-other-physical-forms-as-we-do-with-gold-nickel-etc

What about Saharan dust, this must add some level of land every year....

..." The biggest pulses of dust come from February to October when the dust embarks on its Atlantic crossing. The north-easterly Harmattan wind picks up, on average, 182 million tons of dust each year and carries it past the western edge of the Sahara.

This volume is the equivalent of 689,290 dump trucks filled with dust. The dust then travels 2,500 km across the Atlantic Ocean, though some drops to the surface or is flushed from the sky by rain.

Near the eastern coast of South America, 132 million tons remain in the air, and 27.7 million tons – enough to fill 104,908 dump trucks – fall to the surface over the Amazon basin.

It is in the Amazon Basin that the Saharan dust serves one of its most important functions. Saharan dust is rich in phosphorus, a crucial nutrient for plant growth. Amazon soils lose as much as 90% of its phosphorus from rainfall, as rivers wash it out to sea regularly.

Decomposing leaves and plants help recycle some of the phosphorus already in the Amazon, but dust provides a key outside source of the nutrient.

Without this continuous source of phosphorus input from the Sahara the biodiversity of the Amazon can experience adverse effects. However, Sahara dust does not stop there.

About 43 million tons of dust travel farther to settle out over the Caribbean Sea which greatly affects the air that we breathe.

The iron that gives Saharan dust its rich red colour feeds the phytoplankton in the Caribbean and along the coast of the southeastern United States, which is important for oxygen produced by phytoplankton in the world’s oceans.

Phytoplankton photosynthesis is responsible for production of half of the world’s oxygen and uptake of half of the carbon dioxide on the planet."....

https://www.planning.gov.tt/content/untold-story-saharan-dust

Higher ground to lower ground, soil migration...

....The average elevation of the Sahara Desert is around 500 meters (1,640 feet) above sea level, with most of the desert being a low-lying plateau, while the highest point, Mount Koussi in Chad, reaches 3,415 meters (11,204 feet).....

What about Saharan dust, this must add some level of land every year....

not really, that sand is being taken for other land for the most part, that’s a wash, and the rest is on the sea bottom.

Really cuz just a few months ago...

...."ORLANDO, Fla. - Saharan Dust varies in intensity each year. This year, the Atlantic basin has experienced several large and dense waves.

This next approaching dust wave will help lower afternoon high temperatures early next week as less sunlight reaches the ground. Depending on the number of showers within the dust, you might notice a dirty residue on cars, mailboxes, and other surfaces after the rain early next week."...

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/timeline-large-saharan-dust-wave-impact-florida-weather

Not sayin' it's a lot, just that it seems to be more than cosmic dust, maybe a few mm's...

In any case, I'm saying that the migration of soils from higher ground to lower ground must be taken into consideration....I mean if the ground is rising at the same rate as the sea level is increasing, then I don't see a problem...

Talk about unanticipated consequences! With this sort of convoluted atmospheric actions going on. we may never be able to accurately predict the weather more than a few days in advance.

Don't be concerned too much, they get it wrong daily and if it doesn't match the model, the real data is massaged to fit the models, not the converse as it should be.

interesting, I wonder how they measure something like that when the earth is still going through a post-glacier rebound.

On a derivative of post glacier rebound, is that taken into consideration of the laser ranged measured distance to the moons reflector that was left there from the Apollo missions.

Yes, the laser-ranging measurements of the moon's distance are used to study post-glacial rebound:

..."Areas that are not experiencing post-glacial rebound are primarily regions that were not significantly covered by ice sheets during the last glacial period, meaning most of the tropical and subtropical regions, as well as large parts of the southern hemisphere, including most of South America, Africa, and Australia; essentially, anywhere far away from the former ice sheet locations in North America, Europe, and parts of Asia. "...

..."Due to this ongoing ‘relaxation’ of the Earth, when we try to measure how quickly sea-level is changing, the answer we get depends not only on how much meltwater is being added to the ocean, but also whether the land we are standing on to measure sea-level change is rising or falling (Figure 3). The rate of rebound or subsidence has to be added to or subtracted from the raw observations made by, for example, tide gauges (see the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level website for more information).

.

But the rebound of the Earth is not the only complicating factor when we try to measure how much sea level is rising. When meltwater is added to the oceans, sea level doesn’t rise by the same amount everywhere; in some places it rises by more than the average amount, and in others it rises by less. The reason for this variation is gravity."....

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/sea-level-rise-2/recovering-from-an-ice-age/#:~:text=The%20land%20beneath%20the%20former,North%20America%20(Figure%202).

..."Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches."...

Both. The core is solidifying and the ice is melting.

Yes.

Next nonsequitur, please.

Higher greenhouse gas concentrations in the stratosphere also accelerate ozone recovery....so there's another plus...

...and another...

..."Plants around the world absorb 37 billion more metric tons of carbon than was previously thought, a new study has demonstrated.

It means every tree planted to try and prevent the worst of climate change goes 31% farther than earlier models on Earth carbon systems have calculated, and it’s believed the research will help contribute to more accurate predictions in the future as the climate changes."...

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/climate-models-need-an-upgrade-plants-absorb-31-more-carbon-than-previously-thought/

..." Plants also form the backbone of natural ecosystems, and they absorb about 30 percent of all the carbon dioxide emitted by humans each year.

Rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere drive an increase in plant photosynthesis—an effect known as the carbon fertilization effect. New research has found that between 1982 and 2020, global plant photosynthesis grew 12 percent, tracking CO2 levels in the atmosphere as they rose 17 percent.

Increased photosynthesis results in more growth in some plants. Scientists have found that in response to elevated CO2 levels, above-ground plant growth increased an average of 21 percent, while below-ground growth increased 28 percent. As a result, some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans are expected to benefit from increased CO2 with an increase in yields from 12 to 14 percent."....

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

I had to look more into this because I hear that. trees sequestration co2 and release oxygen during the day but at night it’s just the opposite at night. I had to dig in to it more, found this, but this was AI generated… (this can be dangerous….) it was just a segment of the AI response. I included a link for a more detail what I hope is a more reputable source.

“ trees primarily sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) during the day through photosynthesis, and release a portion of it back into the atmosphere at night through a process called respiration, meaning they do absorb more CO2 during the day than they release at night, making them a net carbon sink; however, they still release some CO2 even during daylight hours”

It’$ too bad when politician$ got involved selling carbon credit$ to deal with this. And get crucified when it’s challenged.

How ever, I found this link, from University College London

Yes, I asked for a nonsequitur and you gave us several.

I'm happy to read about the improvement in ozone recovery. However, I'm skeptical of the article's conclusion in the final paragraph on the causal relation between stratospheric carbon levels and ozone recovery. Two paragraphs earlier, they admitted uncertainty in linking climate change to changes in stratospheric weather conditions.

It is also good to know that plants absorb more carbon than previously predicted. A one-third increase in any uncertain model mechanism is what I would expect in a simulation anyway. So I'm uncertain how much of an effect this higher number will produce. I'm disappointed the article didn't mention anything about the hazards of wildfires or the obvious fact of fire returning carbon to the atmosphere.

Lastly, I appreciate the point of presenting these nonsequiturs highlights that climate analysis is very complicated. Many different interlocking mechanisms are working at the same time on our planet.

in 2021 alone, wildfires emitted around 1.76 billion tonnes of carbon globally,

...emitting around 5.3bn tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2022 ....

https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-scientists-tackle-the-challenges-of-estimating-wildfire-co2-emissions/

...Globally, the total amount of carbon in vegetation, soil, and detritus is roughly 2,200 gigatons (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), and it is estimated that the amount of carbon sequestered annually by terrestrial ecosystems is approximately 2.6 gigatons....

...."The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet, says Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits around 100 billion metric tons of carbon through this natural cycle every year, Rothman says.

That's equivalent to over 350 billion tons of CO2. (Scientists often measure the carbon cycle in terms of the weight of carbon atoms, not whole molecules of carbon dioxide, because the carbon has the same weight no matter what form it takes as it moves between plants, ocean, atmosphere, and other parts of the natural world.)

This natural movement of carbon dwarfs humanity’s contribution: it amounts to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels."....

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb#:~:text=Altogether%20the%20planet%20absorbs%20and,billion%20tons%20of%20CO2.

...According to recent data, burning fossil fuels produces approximately 36.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year globally, with this figure continuing to rise. ...

...Worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels total about 34 billion tonnes (Gt) per year.Sep 3, 2024...

....Electricity and Heat Production (34% of 2019 global greenhouse gas emissions): The burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is the largest single source of global greenhouse gas emissions.Sep 10, 2024....

...China, the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, produces 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually. That dwarfs U.S. emissions, currently about 5.9 billion tons annually.Jul 19, 2023....

...Coal is a cheap and abundant resource, and carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal use is responsible for about 40 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel use.....

Coal consumption....

Does it matter for the stupidity of the ruling class is increasing while the common sense level of them is shrinking.

Not that I will worry for the scientific department has ruled we live in a coastal area and at 480m above MSL and 75Km inland, all I can say is keep rising!