4 ms·

You need to read the report more closely. First, it describes only the Dutch sea level rise, not the global sea level. Second, the most important reason that th

You need to read the report more closely. First, it describes only the Dutch sea level rise, not the global sea level. Second, the most important reason that the sea level rise is that "the Netherlands is located in one of the least affected areas [of sea level rise] in the world. 9cm/century [of sea level rise] has not influenced the Netherlands, but has been observed around the equator" [1, from the summary] [1] The report is here (in Dutch) https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-zeespiegelmonitor-2018-.pdf https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-zeespiegelmo...

raarts 7y ago
Yes, I've had that comment more often. My standard answer is that if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere. The sea level rise itself may differ per location, but logic dictates that an acceleration should be visible everywhere. Note that sea level rise differs across the globe for many reasons, land sinking being one of them. For example, sea levels are dropping in Sweden, because the land is rising.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  > if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere. If you mean "accelerating upwards" then it is completely wrong. Sea level gets lower near large icebergs (e.g. the arctic). As the ice from the pole melts, the gravitational pull of the ice mass decreases and water is displaced to areas further from the pole. As for your Sweden comment, I don't see how it is relevant. Please explain
  - raarts 7y ago
    I said 'sea level rise', not 'sea level'. Sweden was just an example of a place where sea level is dropping.
    - itcrowd 7y ago
      Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying, please correct me where I misinterpret what you mean. On a global scale, the sea-level is rising [1] and the sea-level increase is itself increasing (i.e. accelerating). This can also be seen in [1]. That does NOT mean that the change is uniform over the globe. You can check your locale here [2] (and confirm that Sweden's sea level is getting lower, the Netherlands slightly rising). Globally, sea level rise IS accelerating [3]. Coming back to your claim that "if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere". Please explain why there could not be some (the Netherlands? hypothetical?) place where the the sea level rise does not increase even if more water is added to the system? This IS possible but the water must go somewhere else, i.e. the acceleration will be stronger in other regions (for example, Manilla). [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ [2] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html [3] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-se...
      - raarts 7y ago
        You are confusing 'sea level rise increasing' with 'sea level rise increase acceleration'. Of course when a lot of water enters the ocean sea level rises everywhere. The amount to which it rises may not be the same everywhere, for example due to gravity differences. But as far as the 'acceleration of sea level rise' is concerned, that has to be visible everywhere. An example. Suppose due to melting ice sea level rises 1 mm at the Dutch coast. Let's entertain the possibility that in Australia this results in 1,1 mm. Let's say this happens every year. Eventually this correlation will break, but for the sake of argument let's assume it doesn't. Now, when ice starts melting faster and faster, the sea level rise at the Dutch coast grows to 1.5 mm each year. This is sea level rise accelerating. Now, it is very unlikely that the rise in Australia stays at 1.1 mm each year and will not accelerate. That is why I say that if sea level rise is accelerating, it should show up every where. Hence if the rise isn't accelerating on the Dutch coast, it isn't accelerating anywhere. Sea level rise isn't the same everywhere, but acceleration of that yearly rise should show up everywhere in some form.

raarts 7y ago

Yes, I've had that comment more often. My standard answer is that if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere. The sea level rise itself may differ per location, but logic dictates that an acceleration should be visible everywhere. Note that sea level rise differs across the globe for many reasons, land sinking being one of them. For example, sea levels are dropping in Sweden, because the land is rising.

itcrowd 7y ago
> if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere. If you mean "accelerating upwards" then it is completely wrong. Sea level gets lower near large icebergs (e.g. the arctic). As the ice from the pole melts, the gravitational pull of the ice mass decreases and water is displaced to areas further from the pole. As for your Sweden comment, I don't see how it is relevant. Please explain
- raarts 7y ago
  I said 'sea level rise', not 'sea level'. Sweden was just an example of a place where sea level is dropping.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying, please correct me where I misinterpret what you mean. On a global scale, the sea-level is rising [1] and the sea-level increase is itself increasing (i.e. accelerating). This can also be seen in [1]. That does NOT mean that the change is uniform over the globe. You can check your locale here [2] (and confirm that Sweden's sea level is getting lower, the Netherlands slightly rising). Globally, sea level rise IS accelerating [3]. Coming back to your claim that "if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere". Please explain why there could not be some (the Netherlands? hypothetical?) place where the the sea level rise does not increase even if more water is added to the system? This IS possible but the water must go somewhere else, i.e. the acceleration will be stronger in other regions (for example, Manilla). [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ [2] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html [3] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-se...
    - raarts 7y ago
      You are confusing 'sea level rise increasing' with 'sea level rise increase acceleration'. Of course when a lot of water enters the ocean sea level rises everywhere. The amount to which it rises may not be the same everywhere, for example due to gravity differences. But as far as the 'acceleration of sea level rise' is concerned, that has to be visible everywhere. An example. Suppose due to melting ice sea level rises 1 mm at the Dutch coast. Let's entertain the possibility that in Australia this results in 1,1 mm. Let's say this happens every year. Eventually this correlation will break, but for the sake of argument let's assume it doesn't. Now, when ice starts melting faster and faster, the sea level rise at the Dutch coast grows to 1.5 mm each year. This is sea level rise accelerating. Now, it is very unlikely that the rise in Australia stays at 1.1 mm each year and will not accelerate. That is why I say that if sea level rise is accelerating, it should show up every where. Hence if the rise isn't accelerating on the Dutch coast, it isn't accelerating anywhere. Sea level rise isn't the same everywhere, but acceleration of that yearly rise should show up everywhere in some form.