Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

That is not sea level change, that is silting.

The same way that the Tigris and Euphrates used to be 2 separate rivers that flowed into the Persian Gulf. The oldest descriptions and maps show exactly that, but now they form the Shatt al-Arab which flows into the Persian Gulf.

Most Ancient Seaports have been lost, due to either sea level rise, or silting. The Romans were fighting constant battles against silting, which closed most of their ports until Herod the Great had the port of Caesarea Maritima designed, with a unique harbor that resisted silting because of it's shape.

Also many ancient seaports had the exact same thing happen as happened to San Francisco. Purposeful filling in of water front land, for human use. The Battery in New York is another example, a huge amount of land added to the city with dirt pulled out of the foundation of the original WTC.

 

Ephasus is 5km from the coast and the harbour silted up because of the river not a drop in sea level...Ephasus was built in in a river valley the river meandering over time as rivers do, the river moved Ehasus went out of business...

 

there wouldn't have been villages to wipe away in paleolithic europe, europeans of that time were hunter gatherers, permanent settlements wouldn't have happened until the neolithic which came after the glaciers had retreated at the end of the ice age...

 

Errrr, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were not in paleolithic or neolithic times. Both happened within the last 1,000 years.

 

this is a false argument, you're claiming that those who support the climate change theory do not believe there are other cause for climate change, I have yet to meet anyone on this forum who claims that only AGW can cause CC...

there are a number potential and real causes for climate change this has never been questioned, and AGW is just one more...all other causes have been ruled out and the only one left to explain this CC is AGW...

 

you claimed villages and entire regions were wiped out, that would indicate ice sheets not glaciers, the ice sheets were long gone by the time of Neolithic and permanent settlements...

 

true, what the norm is subjective...from societies POV norm is what allows us to continue in the manner that allows us to proceed as usual...

 

The eastern seaboard will get washed over, as soon as another hurricane gets past the neutral ENSO jet, to form up, with a Canadian front.

Storm surges will be accentuated, by failing trade currents, between Cape Hatteras and Boston.

Also, when the Cumbre Vieja volcano calves a piece of La Palma, the east will eat a Megatsunami:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbre_Vieja

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami

http://www.rense.com/general13/tidal.htm

------------------

The L.A. basin will likely flood, as a result of such a tsunami, generated, when the south-eastern section of Hawaii, known as the Hilina Slump calves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilina_Slump

-------------------

Otherwise, sea level rise and climate change will continue, to exact a gradual toll, as New Orleans, Miami, New York City, Sacramento, and other cities begin to read the writing, on the wall . . .

Don't give up the ship! You may need it, to sail, to safety.

 

Due to rotational effects, sea level, on eastern coasts is dramatically higher, than on western coasts, particularly nearer the equator.

Sorry if you missed how SLR will affect Cali, but this will happen, as perennial ice fails, greenhouse gasses proliferate, and all climate masses warm, to some not yet seen equilibrium, whereupon surface temps will shoot.

 

Shucks, I guess seismic effects vary. Sometimes there's a thing, called an UPLIFT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_uplift

Seems to me Africa is shoving, toward Turkey and everybody, isn't it.

 

Not rotational, as much as tidal. Think of the oceans as several bowls, one inside the other. As you tilt it from side to side, some sloshes our, while some pours back in. And restrictions can slow this effect down, as the tides will reverse before it will empty or fill again.

The Mediterranean Sea on average is lower then the rest of the oceans, and is more brackish and saline because the Straight of Gibraltar restricts free water movement. It also looses more water to evaporation then it gets from it's freshwater sources.

This is also why you get tidal bores in some areas of the world. But there is no significant differences between the two, certainly not enough to require locks to move ships from one ocean to the other.

Sea Level Rise, Sea Level Fall, to me it is largely meaningless because I expect it to rise and fall. At one time in the recent future (as far as the planet is concerned), you could walk to Catalina Island. And you could walk to England from Europe. Sea Level Rise is what put the water into those straits in the first place, and it is going to continue.

And eventually it will reverse again, and the land will return so you can once again walk from Florida to Cuba. I simply fail to see all the hysteria over that.

 

Actually, this is silting in this instance.

But if it was further North, I would have also mentioned Glacial Rebound.



The interesting part of this photo is that it does not show water levels lowering, but the ground rising. This is part of Wisconsin that was under a 10 mile ice sheet, and was compressed. And ever since the ice retreated this land has been rising back up. And this effect is happening all across North America, Europe and Asia that once had ice sheets. Part of this loss of pressure is believed to be part of the cause of the earthquakes along the New Madrid fault system.

And it is going to continue for a long time. I read that estimates are it takes around a million years for the surface to stabilize again after a significant glaciation period (which has not happened since the ice sheets reform before it can finish).

 

Tides are a function, of:

1. lunar gravity and relative orbits
2. solar gravity and relative orbits
3. other stuff

The sea levels are more different, AT THE EQUATOR, due to rotational forces, eh? That ain't plain tide.

The Med is an eastern body of water. It will tend to be lower. It is middle earth water. Heard of why it's called MEDITERRENEAN?

The sea level will rise because perennial ice, including glacial ice and permafrost is melting. There's more water around.

You won't be walking, where erosion has been busy, and humans polluted, including to emit lots of GHGs.

If you are unreasonably hysterical, have your female organs removed. It's called a HYSTERECTOMY.

See why Reddit booted deniers?

 

Oh my, this is sad.

The Earth rotates, the entire planet, at the same speed (and no, I do not want to touch on the concept that the poles are spinning faster or slower relative to the rest of the planet - I am trying to keep this simple for you).

Now this is the same as centrifugal force. The same that keeps water in a pail when you spin it over your head, or in theory can provide gravity to space stations in orbit.

Now if what you say is true, then the force would not be equal. Because if it is this rotational force causing the differences (not that there is much), then why would it be more in some and less in others?

Why... that is illogical, it does not make sense!

Well, it is illogical, that is why the majority influence is something else. And that is tidal action. The moon goes from East to West, pulling the water with it.

When it hits Panama it has a lot of mass built up, which can go no further because it hits an isthmus, so the effective sea level is higher. But only in that small area.

And on the West Side of Panama, it has crossed land, and only picks up water on the cost and then through gravitational forces pulls it West across the Pacific.

Tides on the West side of a large body of water (like an ocean) will always be higher then on the East side. But on average, it is all one level, sea level.

Now, do you have something else you want to try and sell me? Because I still ain't buying it, and I would love to see that effect explained by rotational forces.

 

Dude. It's a plain fact that the relative velocity of the equator is greater, than is the rotation-related velocity, at the poles, discounting relative velocity, to non-Earth objects. I guess you kept it too simple and confused yourself, since you like to spin on stuff.

I can see you avoided HS physics, or at least you'd try to rant, about CENTREPITAL FORCE. Perhaps you may have read some Dick and Jane in Space chapters, which describe how the Earth is not a perfectly rounded sphere.

If you held onto flat-Earth rants, for a long time, I guess they affected your creed, so you don't get climate change or sea level media, at all.

Tell you what. I'm not selling. If you aren't shopping, have your mom pick up a HS diploma, if Sears still has an outlet, near you.

 

I thought so . . .

 

You have explained how there may be a difference between the poles and the equator. OK, fine, centrifugal force forces the equator to bulge, nobody questions that.

Where you fail is trying to explain in any way how that would result in differences at the equator itself, which you are trying to claim. Which is actually counter to your argument in the first place. And the fact that you can't even understand that I find absolutely hilarious.

That is why the science fail. You are so wrapped up in attacking me and trying to insult me that you are completely missing the gaping holes in your logic. And I am finding it completely fascinating. But please continue, how does rotational forces cause differing sea levels along the equator?

 

the earth is not a sphere, the earth's mass is not consistent so mass attracts more mass so areas with the most mass will attract the most water...so sea level is not the same everywhere, and "level" varies apparently as much as 90 meters

 

So, 1/2 inch in a three generations. I think the human race can adapt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

 

you use wiki I'll go with a real expert oceanographer Detlef Stammer- Director of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg, "In the Indian Ocean, the sea level is about 100 meters (330 feet) below the average, while the waters around Iceland are 60 meters above the average."

http://www.spiegel.de/international...uld-rise-in-south-fall-in-north-a-732303.html

 

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/

The gorilla Stouffer refers to — an effect so large that it overwhelms the others — is something called the geoid. It’s an imaginary surface that maps


the strength of Earth’s gravitational field, and it’s as bumpy as the surface of the actual planet. Orbiting satellites don’t move around the Earth in perfect circles, or even perfect ellipses; their height changes when they go over the extra gravity exerted by a mountain range, and changes again when they orbit over a valley.

And because water is a liquid, the surface of the sea is also warped to follow the contours of the geoid. The extra gravitational attraction of an undersea mountain range pulls water toward it, creating a literal, permanent bump on the surface of the sea, while the deficit of gravity near an undersea valley creates a depression in the water up above.

The same sort of thing happens when there’s an excess of mass on land that lies near the ocean. A coastal mountain range pulls the water in its direction, raising sea level nearby. So do the massive icecaps that smother Greenland and Antarctica. Indeed, Antarctica’s polar ice sheet is so massive that it is three miles thick in places and covers an area one-and-one-half times the size of the United States, including Alaska.

 

Gravity is different, at different locations, on the geoid, more due, to rotational velocity and accompanying CENTREPITAL FORCE, not dweebie "centrifugal" force, eh? Relative gravity, from different masses, on the geoid does exist. But this isn't more significant, than the whirl.

I know the confused call it "centrifugal" force, since who hasn't heard, of centrifuges? So much fail . . .

Look it up ... it's in Wikipedia, et al ...

 

Does it really matter which part or parts of the US succumb to sea level rise over a few centuries?