Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
when scientists and commentators talk about rising sea levels, are the diminishing areas of remaining land factored in - that is, is the greater area of sea taken into account?
rising sea levels question
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
TruXta
tired
Not a scientist, but I can't imagine what else than land you'd measure sea levels against.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you'd hope so anyway
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No, that's exactly what I meantUnless every inch of coastline everywhere dropped vertically into the ocean like the Cliffs of Moher, a rising sea level must reduce the surface area of the dry stuff, on account of slopes. That's logical, right?
I may well have misunderstood the question.
Everything I've read suggests yes. It seems to be a measure of something akin to depth rather than volume.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
I've definitely seen maps with different projected increments of sea level rise - the one I saw recently had blue where Somerset, eastern Norfolk, Essex, London, Lincolnshire and a sizable streak of Gloucestershire used to be.
Is that what you mean?
2hats
Dust.
Sea level is a linear measurement, not an areal one. Mean sea level follows the equipotential contour lines of the Earth’s geoid, which accounts for the influences of the planet’s gravity and rotation (alone).
The bulk of the change in sea level is due to thermal expansion of water, with a somewhat lesser contribution from meltwaters. Over the century up to the 1980’s this rise has averaged just under 2mm per year. In the last 25 years that rise appears to have nudged up to almost 3mm per year on average.
Obviously the area of sea/land is partly connected topographically to sea level, but in a complicated, non-linear manner. Sea level alone is a more useful direct measurement of what is going on as there is a complex combination of on-going erosion and and accretion events, both natural and man-made, changing the total land/water surface area. Indeed, over the last 30 years, satellite studies indicate that some 58000 sq km of land has actually been gained. Loss of land (thus far) due to static sea level rise alone isn’t as large as you might think.
(Blue=water area gained, Green=land area gained, over the period 1985-2015).
The bulk of the change in sea level is due to thermal expansion of water, with a somewhat lesser contribution from meltwaters. Over the century up to the 1980’s this rise has averaged just under 2mm per year. In the last 25 years that rise appears to have nudged up to almost 3mm per year on average.
Obviously the area of sea/land is partly connected topographically to sea level, but in a complicated, non-linear manner. Sea level alone is a more useful direct measurement of what is going on as there is a complex combination of on-going erosion and and accretion events, both natural and man-made, changing the total land/water surface area. Indeed, over the last 30 years, satellite studies indicate that some 58000 sq km of land has actually been gained. Loss of land (thus far) due to static sea level rise alone isn’t as large as you might think.
(Blue=water area gained, Green=land area gained, over the period 1985-2015).
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yes
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yossarian
⏭️
I was surprised to find out that the shortage has gotten so bad that "sand bandits" are wiping out entire islands - apparently the stuff in deserts is no good because it's too fine and rounded for use in construction..
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You should let your name be put forward for poster of the yearSea level is a linear measurement, not an areal one. Mean sea level follows the equipotential contour lines of the Earth’s geoid, which accounts for the influences of the planet’s gravity and rotation (alone).
The bulk of the change in sea level is due to thermal expansion of water, with a somewhat lesser contribution from meltwaters. Over the century up to the 1980’s this rise has averaged just under 2mm per year. In the last 25 years that rise appears to have nudged up to almost 3mm per year on average.
Obviously the area of sea/land is partly connected topographically to sea level, but in a complicated, non-linear manner. Sea level alone is a more useful direct measurement of what is going on as there is a complex combination of on-going erosion and and accretion events, both natural and man-made, changing the total land/water surface area. Indeed, over the last 30 years, satellite studies indicate that some 58000 sq km of land has actually been gained. Loss of land (thus far) due to static sea level rise alone isn’t as large as you might think.
(Blue=water area gained, Green=land area gained, over the period 1985-2015).
Similar threads
