Guest post by Andi Cockroft
Firstly, let me declare that I am not a current student of Geology or Geophysics. I studied Mathematics, Computer Science and Geology at University way back in the 60’s and I have focused my entire working life in IT. To this day, I still run a small IT company in New Zealand.
I follow the workings of the climate models with interest, since much of my University life was spent on Numerical Analysis and Stochastical Processing – the pre-cursors to today’s modelling. Although back then, Computer power was measured in kilo-flops, and the first mainframe I worked on was 20K. A 1Mb mainframe was but a pipe-dream – our biggest was 128K.
On the other hand, my groundings in Geology were at a time when my Professor was still agnostic about plate tectonics (although my tutor was an avid proponent thankfully). It was a time when magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic was known but not totally understood. It was also a time when isostacy (although an old theory) was finding new support.
So, I offer this post not as any particular expert in the field, but rather to stimulate discussion from those far more familiarity with the concepts than I – please feel free to correct my impressions and limited understanding of the various topics
All I am proposing here are some of the fundamental questions that bother me regarding Isostacy, melting or re-freezing ice-caps and the effect on global mean sea-level (GMSL).
Firstly, just what is GMSL? I don’t believe it can ever be measured against one specific location on the globe – for just about everywhere on this planet is in motion to some degree or other – north/south, east-west, up/down – although our impression is of a stable terra-firma, geologically speaking it isn’t – it is more like the skin of a rice-pudding floating on the more fluid layers below.
If you ever played with your rice-pudding as a child, let the skin form and then pressed on it with your spoon? Press on one place and the skin will rise in another. So the Earth responds to increasing or decreasing pressures (or mass) on its crust.
The earth’s crust (or lithosphere) “floats” on the more fluid asthenosphere. The thickness and relative buoyancy of that part of the lithosphere will determine just how high or low it will “float”. When the buoyancy is in balance, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. There are many places that still today are not in isostatic equilibrium.
In terms of mountain building, where for instance the Indian plate is hurtling northwards into the Eurasian plate giving rise to the Himalaya Mountains – the gravity measurements tell us that just like an iceberg, there is just as much if not more “Everest” below the crust as there is above it – the buoyancy of that extra material below is needed to support the weight of the Mountain Range above.
Imagine ice floating in a bath – add more weight on top and the ice will sink such that the Archimedes principle of displacement is yet again in equilibrium. Indeed, add too much weight and the whole iceberg will sink regardless – but that’s a diversion (think 2Km thick glacier!)
So back to the question – what is GMSL? To my way of understanding, it can only be measured against a theoretical spot, and must in this age of satellite and gps be measured relative to a reference datum and/or the calculated centre of the earth. Since the earth is not a true sphere – it is I believe referred to as an “oblate spheroid” – the averaging out of these measurements must be translated back into local datum to be able to measure against tide-gauges etc.
Then again, I have always maintained that Sea-Level is a local phenomenon – for many reasons.
Tides, temperature, winds, air-pressure as well as such phenomena such as ENSO etc
But given that statements implying GMSL was 300’ lower than today during the last ice-age, I ask the question – “but what was the real or relative sea-level back then in say New York State?” – in places under Kilometres of ice apparently. Certainly what is now the Great Lakes was inundated by huge ice flows.
That sheer weight of ice would have had the effect of pushing the underlying land-mass downward, to some extent counteracting the drop in GMSL – in fact (just in my imagination) – I believe that these areas would have been significantly below GMSL even with its 300’ decline.
Sorry I do not have the knowledge to do the calculation, but I hope here that group-science can answer the question.
There have been statements that New York was about 150 – 200 Kilometres inland during the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago – but would it have been? Wouldn’t Isostacy have taken the land-mass down with it?
One of the problems faced by modern day measurements of GMSL, is that Isostacy is still at work.
Remove the massive ice-flows from ice-age North America, and the continental land mass does not rebound instantly – it rebounds (uplifts) slowly – it is still rebounding today. As things equal themselves out over Geologic time, the land masses continue to rise, and as a counter, the ocean basins are actually falling. In other words, the oceans themselves gain a greater capacity to store water.
This expansion needs some accounting for, and this Global Isostacy Adjustment (GIA) is estimated at about the equivalent of 0.3 mm per year in GMSL, this at least partially offsets the predicted 3mm per year expansion of the oceans due to warming (that seems to have paused just now). Indeed, if thermal expansion of the oceans has paused, GIA will continue unabated and actually serve to lower observed GMSL.
All of this is a very roundabout way of me arguing that Sea Level is a local phenomenon, and calculating a GMSL whilst academically interesting serves no actual use. Certainly not in terms of Government and Policy decision-making.
In England, long before Liverpool was ever heard of, the River Dee provided the main shipping for the North West. First Chester (used by the Romans), then further out to Burton and Neston and ultimately Parkgate were the main points of embarkation for Ireland. Visit Parkgate today, and the sea is many hundreds of metres away with a huge salt marsh in between.
In New Zealand, where I have lived this past quarter-century, there are many places where erosion is eating into the coast and houses are inexorably marching towards oblivion. In others, accretion of up to 1 metre per year is extending the land-mass ever seaward.
Yet Local Government in these areas is focused almost entirely on projected changes to GMSL rather than what is physically happening.
The local authority here is planning on Climate Change bringing inundation despite all the evidence that the sea is retreating !!!
However, I digress. Looking further at Geologic Changes, and back to Isostacy for a moment, where two tectonic plates collide, one usually will ride over whilst the other suffers subduction. This is where we will find seismically active areas (sadly Christchurch here and many more such as Japan, China etc). We will also likely find mountain-building – as mentioned earlier, the Indian plate is still moving northward (150mm or 6” pa), and the Himalayas are still rising (5mm or 0.2” pa) – in geological terms still very active.
At the same time, the subduction zone may well create significant volcanic activity – New Zealand has its fair share.
But just about anywhere plates collide will see some degree of uplift. Again using New Zealand as an example, the main mountain range in the South Island is the Southern Alps. Current measurements show an uplift rate of about 7mm per year.
How this translates into vertical movement at either east or west coast I have been unable to determine, but it has to be happening, and ongoing.
In Wellington, the biggest recorded earthquake was a magnitude 8.2 in 1855. This uplifted the east of the City between 2 and 3 metres. Today’s airport is built on this uplifted land, and the current business district sits on reclaimed marshland exposed at that time.
Wandering along Wellington’s Lambton Quay (where boats used to dock), reveals brass plaques set into the pavement showing the shoreline in 1840 – the current Quay is about 300 metres away.
Given the magnitude of that earthquake, I suspect Wellington’s rate of uplift over larger time-intervals will be outpacing GMSL, but I could be wrong. By thesis, Cole (2010) identifies a shift in vertical position around 1944 – this following two large earthquakes in the preceding years.
There is nothing to suggest that Wellington’s upward thrust (to the east of the Wellington Fault) has ceased, so the next “big one” will likely see further uplift and hence a relative drop in Sea Level.
Local effects of Plate collisions, Isostacy rebound (eg Great lakes) etc., all serve to modify the impact of GMSL .
If we are to believe recent reports, some of the small Island Nations such as the Maldives may in fact be growing rather than being swamped under an ever-rising tide. Explain that one – I understand coral growth may be at work here but I’ve not seen anything truly convincing yet.
In other places, we are seeing true inundation but usually accompanied by more rational explanation such as pumping ground water.
So is the observed increase in GMSL of 3mm pa actually causing any significantly observable effects?
I remember the Thames Barrier being built to protect London from inundation, but that was to protect against a storm surge – where a massive low pressure system in the North Sea causes a correspondingly massive increase in local Sea Level. This is of the order of metres, not 300mm per century.
And one final question. As Cole (2010) discovered, atmospheric pressure has been falling over time.
Ill-equipped as I am to perform the calculations, is this drop in barometric pressure yet one more factor affecting the calculation for GMSL?
As I said at the start, I do not have the skills necessary to answer these and many other questions posed above – just taking a leaf out of “justthefacts” methods – and asking from you the pundits to engage and answer via group-science. Be kind for I am not as used to this medium as Anthony and other major players.
Andi,
The upper surfaces of Middle Holocene marine beaches (around 6000 years old) in the Greymouth area on the West Coast of the South Island of NZ are 10 to 12 m above modern sea level. So the relatively recent coastal uplift rate is around 1 to 2 mm/yr. I suspect the uplift is episodic (associated with earthquakes). The same age of marine beach at Hokitika is at a max of about 6 to 8 m above sea level. There are ancient raised beaches at Point Elizabeth near Greymouth that are present on wave cut marine platforms up to 180 m above modern sea level. Uplift has clearly been happening for a long time, potentially more than 100,000 years.
The coastal uplift rate is highly variable around the South Island. For instance long term uplift rates are relatively rapid in North Canterbury, but very slow around Banks Peninsula (despite the recent Christchurch earthquakes).
In terms of the determination of long-term coastal uplift rates in New Zealand reliable information is scarce. This is because the ages of most of the indicators of ancient sea level are rather poorly constrained in most areas. There is literature on the subject but you will need to get into the relevant Research Journals and GNS reports to find it.
Dear Andi,
I have followed the Mörner vs. other scientists exchange. Unfortunately, it has been more repeated statements of opinions rather than a debate.
Mörner maintains that the sea level hasn’t changed lately more than the last 100 years, while the other side maintains that it’s raising at an accelerated rate.
The difference seems to be about the “adjustments” to the satellite measurements. The adjustments seem to have been introduced a few years ago and with them the acceleration in the sea level rise appeared. I have not seen a simple comparison between the old sea gauge based average sea level change and the modern satellite based one presented on the same chart, someone who have localized anything like that?
I have not read more than the summaries of the scientific reports; the reports themselves are hidden behind paywalls. If one has an interest in reading literally hundreds of reports annually, it becomes too expensive, at least for me, to purchase them all. Typical price is $ 39.95. (Where did they learn pricing? At Wall Mart spring sales?) Hence, I try to keep informed by WUWT, CA, RC, research home pages, and so on – and with the occasional exchange of emails with scientists that care to answer my questions. (You spotted my Oxford comma?)
Dr Gary Mitchum is a leading expert on the subject of sea level measurements. My short exchange of emails with him:
“ Dear Dr Mitchum,
I read on your website “The method of producing the tide gauge estimates of altimeter drift that we report here is described in detail by Mitchum (2000) and will not be discussed in full here.” and this is the reason that I email you.
I have a question about altimeter drift in satellites for sea level change measurement.
How comes that one use the sea level gauges to adjust the altimeters? Why not fix points on land in areas that are regarded as the most stable? The altitude of the satellite will then be determined by the fix points, and the sea level will be determined by the satellite. As long as the same altimeter is used, the physical drift in space as well as the instrument drift will be automatically be adjusted for. After all, it’s the change in sea level that so many people are interested in today.
I feel certain this “solution” must have been considered by the scientists so I hope that you can help me with an answer and/or references.
Best regards,
Knut Witberg”
Dr Mitchum kindly replied:
“In fact, the tracking stations that determine the height of the satellite are on land. This determines what we call the orbit height. But the basic measurement of the altimeter is the time delay for the radar pulse from the satellite to the sea surface, and changing that to a range (i.e., the height above the sea surface) requires estimating the index of refraction along the entire atmospheric path. There are a number of measurements that must be made to do this, and all are possibly subject to drift or offset errors. Also, the orbit from the tracking stations (and now GPS as well) is relative some defined reference frame, which has possible drift and offset errors as well.
So we need an independent set of measurements to monitor the stability of the altimeter measurements. That’s what the tide gauges are used for.
Note carefully that we do not adjust the altimeter to agree with the tide gauges. We only look for unexplained drifts or offsets, and if any are found the various components of the altimetric system are all checked for possible errors. The tide gauge data are purposely kept independent.
The method you propose would work if there were no errors in the reference frame used in defining the height of the satellite, and if we knew the index of refraction perfectly. Unfortunately, that is not the case, but on the positive side, a substantial body of work has shown that the tide gauge stability check can detect drifts at the level of a fraction of a millimeter per year and offsets of less than a few millimeters. Also, the errors associated with these stability checks are carefully propagated through to (most) estimates of sea level change.
Best regards, Gary Mitchum”
Dr Mitchums article on the subject can be found here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/improved-calibration-satellite-altimetric-heights-using-tide-gauge-sea-levels-adjustment-lan
Roger Carr says:
March 3, 2012 at 8:39 pm
davidmhoffer says: “WE’RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF AIR IF WE DON’T DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE SKY FROM FALLING!”>
Wrong, David. All that missing air is being held under pressure in the inner tubes of vehicles and such bladders.>>>
Nonsense. I did the calcs. If everyone on earth emptied their bladders at the same time, it would raise sea level by a fraction of a mm and air pressure change would be zero.
Oh wait… you meant tires?
Lawrie:
As you note, the decrease in pressure raises the sea only locally; it’s sucking water in from elsewhere. If the the pressure drop is everywhere, there is no elsewhere. No no go.
kbray;
warming air is only less dense (lighter) locally; it doesn’t decrease the total mass of the atmosphere, just pushes it around a bit. Not relevant. Also no go.
Muller (?) disputes the rise altogether; much of the calibration of the world’s gauges and satellites is (incredibly) based on a Hong Kong benchmark, in a known rapid subsidence zone near the overbuilt harbour.
The are deep deposition layers of incompetence and chicanery in the world’s data bases, in direct proportion to their relevance to policy (= gov’t-directed money flows).
Thanks Andi, and one and all commenters. It is a pleasure to listen in on a discussion of physical science where confession to a degree of ignorance is not a confession of weakness, but a profession of curriosity. I live less than 2 meters above sealevel and less than 20 meters from it’s edge. Sounds precarious, but so far so good. I have heard many factors mentioned in the discussion including the very interesting information coming from the Grace satelite. I would like to contribute two points of interest. The first is that gravity works three-demensionally: it tends to pull the earth into a masswise perfect sphere. The second is that rock density plays a big role: rock density is highly dependent on silica content: rocks with high silica content have a density close to 2.5 gm/cm3. Rocks with low silica content have a density close to 4.0 gm/cm3. That is a huge difference, and the tendency for crustal rock to differentiate into high-silica and low silica rock minerals is well-known and reasonably well understood. The continents of earth are composed primarily of high silica rocks and the ocean floors of earth are composed primarily of low silica rocks. Even if there was no water on the earth, it is probable that continents would have formed and floated above the low-lying ocean basins. The difference in density between continental crust and oceanic crust is greater than the difference between water and air! It would seem that earth’s oceans are merely the cisterns into which earth’s water collects. One can only marvel at the concatenation of circumstances under which the earth formed. On Venus and Mars, different dynamics have predominated.
Seriously, let’s put the pressure change back into perspective. Instead of plotting on a scale from 1007.0 to 1009.0, let’s do the exact same plot but with a scale of 0 to 2000. Right after it, plot the global temperature on a scale from 0 Kelvin to 500 Kelvin.
Then take a look at two almost perfectly flat lines and ask what the fuss is about.
This business of putting things under a microscope in order to declare a macroscopic trend is akin to a third rate 60’s era sci fi flick featuring ants as monsters. Hey, zoom out, their just freakin’ ants!
We cannot even measure atmospheric pressure to tenths of a mb anymore than we can measure temperature to hundredths of a degree, let alone “average” the values across the globe and arrive at number with error bars that aren’t off the scale of what we’re supposedly measuring.
Dave Wendt;
the 1mbar : 1 cm ratio requires some justification. If that’s global, where is the water being moved to/from? Or is that a compressibility factor? I know water, especially saline, is slightly compressible, but that much?
I wonder if there’s a biological angle. Buildup of biomass necessarily means withdrawing material from the atmosphere, in the form of CO2 and water vapour, plus (indirectly) some nitrogen. Over geo-time, it’s hardly negligible (see coal beds and limestone deposits, e.g.)
Sounds bass-ackwards to me; if air is cooling, compressing, and settling it’s pulling air from somewhere else, reducing that area’s pressure. Pressure is a result of vertical mass, not temperature per se.
You really need to talk to Prof Nils Axil Morner, the world authority on sea levels but here is a bit to get on with.
The planet is not a sphere, as you stated, in fact oblate sphereoid does not even cover it. The surface is very irregular and the surface of body drawn with surface gravity readings the same is the mean surface of ocean level. The ocean mean levels do not conform to a body of constant radius but to this gravitic body. For instance the Indian Ocean surface is some 140 meters below that of the mean Pacific or Atlantic. This mean surface level is daily changed by wind, atmospheric pressure, currents solar and lunar gravity and probably other inputs like evapouration, river input of frest water, salinity etc.
Conplicated? you bet.
Isostacy is another input and complication. Yes there are land level changes due to isostatic readjustment after the last ice age which are still ongoing, which will still cause minor earthquakes, and sea level rises in one place (sinking land), say SE England, are counteracted by sea level falls in another (rising land), Scotland in this case though not equally all over Scotland with the east coast rising less than the west coast.
Prof, Morner has all this tied up but even his studies go unreported. His study of the Maldives, for the Maldives Government, concluded that they were experiencing sea level falls. Not what the Maldivian government wanted to hear so they refused to release the report to the public but had an underwater cabinet meeting to reinforce their demands for compensation (money) for climate change sea level rises. Your suspicion that corals grow to keep pace with sea level rises are correct as they aim to grow within their part of the surface waters with sufficient light. Corals love sea level rises but sea level falls will kill corals.
This is by no means the whole story but I hope it helps and thanks for the post.
Pluck thinks that without water there would still be continents. Probably not because water is vital for the low temperature, differential melting in subduction zones that produce the high silica, and lighter, rocks, that form the continents.
Response to John Marshall: Yes, water plays a very interesting role in the formation of minerals, and not only in subduction zones. The effects of water are fascinating, both flowing and stagnant, and when present in trace quantities or in excess. My point was that the density of crustal rock varies significantly. The continental rock tends to be light and bouyant and ancient. It rides atop heavy, fresh oceanic rock from which it is chemically distinct. You make a very good point, that water as component of minerals. Two thoughts along these lines: first, how much water is needed for water to have a significant effect; second, how deep does the water need to be to have significant effects as the critical point where water can no longer boil is roughly two kilometers.
“So back to the question – what is GMSL? To my way of understanding, it can only be measured against a theoretical spot, and must in this age of satellite and gps be measured relative to a reference datum and/or the calculated centre of the earth. Since the earth is not a true sphere – it is I believe referred to as an “oblate spheroid” – the averaging out of these measurements must be translated back into local datum to be able to measure against tide-gauges etc.”
This raises the question of precision. All measuring points, whether ‘fixed’ on the Earth’s surface or on a satellite, are in motion. So if the centre of the earth is the reference datum point can it be pinpointed to an exact location allowing measurements to a precision of a few mm? In addition satellites are moving through a gravitational field that is not consistent while experiencing the full heat of the sun, followed by the complete absence of the same, every 40mins, and when in the sun only one half of the satellite will get the suns heat.
Recently, experiments at Cern indicated that the speed of light had been broken. This now looks to have been a problem with the equipment used to measure. The way in which the scientific community considered this assault on a central pillar of modern science was refreshing and at odds with the way any reasonable quizzing of CAGW is handled. So the speed of light still cannot be exceeded. As we all know how GPS works, wouldn’t a satellites speed close to a large body that has an inconsistent gravitational field mean that precision becomes very relative?
crosspatch says:March 3, 2012 at 11:26 pm
If that air then cools and settles where there doesn’t happen to be a barometer, the corresponding increase in pressure somewhere else gets missed. The areas that are most likely to have a the most barometers are also the areas most likely to have UHI impact. So I guess it is also possible to have ULPI (urban low pressure islands).
So now Anthony has to gin up another volunteer army to go out and evaluate barometer siting. Gas up the car, Evan.
As far as the 300′ of sea level rise/fall, the density of the asthenosphere is 3 to 4 times that of the ice piling up on the continents, so the ice won’t push the continent down nearly as much as its thickness. The plasticity of the asthenosphere will affect the rate at which the continents sink. Is 100,000 years enough to push them as far as they will go, or do the glaciers start melting before they’ve bottomed out? The continental shelves generally have a shallow slope, so it doesn’t take a lot of fall to move the shoreline quite a ways out.
The glacial isostatic adjustment is totally bogus with regard to sea level. Any “rise” that isn’t really a rise but a deepening of the ocean is absolutely useless. Well, other than to keep from admitting that Baraq Obama was right when he said of his election that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow… ” Bangladesh isn’t going to drown because the ocean got deeper.
The barometric correction is another knob to twiddle to make things work out the way they want. Over the entire surface of the oceans, the barometric pressure differences should average out to zero, and the satellites do cover pretty much the whole thing. And how much of the ocean surface has barometer readings available?
No global warming, no sea level rise, no tax increase. Desperate measures must be taken to counter this desperate situation.
davidmhoffer; I’m showing my age. We don’t do tubes in tyres (tires) anymore, do we…
Extremely interesting. I don’t usually think about geology, so this is mostly new to me.
Should we be considering Urban Weight Islands as well as Urban Heat Islands? Over the last 50 years, vast quantities of iron, concrete and other heavy stuff have been extracted from inland areas and transferred to fast-growing cities, nearly all of which are on coasts.
Brian H says:
March 4, 2012 at 2:16 am
“Muller (?) disputes the rise altogether; much of the calibration of the world’s gauges and satellites is (incredibly) based on a Hong Kong benchmark, in a known rapid subsidence zone near the overbuilt harbour. ”
Do you mean Mörner?
THE GREAT SEA-LEVEL HUMBUG
There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!
by Nils-Axel Mörner
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
Layman thinking.
I do not think a GLOBAL decline in pressure will do anything at all to the sea level. Local differences in air pressure just moves the surface water. However, a temperature change do have impact on the volume, thus changing the level.
Great post and I think your “just the facts” approach will be productive. The drop in atmospheric pressure is more than interesting. If a shift in atmospheric CO2 of about .000001% a year warrants urgent global action, then surely the apparent loss of the whole atmosphere at the rate of .001% a year means we need to light our hair on fire immediately. I’m only half joking here. Where’s the outrage? More importantly, how do we make money off it?
Returning to the main topic, I hope we can get some useful perspective on what sea level “means” for policy and politics. All politics is local and unfortunately I fear that the climate change-mongers will buy votes from the places where the sea level is falling as well as those where it’s rising. Because it needs “study” and “infrastructure preparation.”. And the mayor’s cousin needs a contract to build a sea wall…
On the assumption that isostacy changes are gradual and consistent, local tide gauges should at least tell us whether long term sea level trends are changing?
LazyTeenager says:
March 3, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Well that doesn’t make any sense. Firstly, your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. Secondly, if the satellites are using an earth reference to achieve mm accuracy how do you know if the earth reference is stationary (elevation wise)?
Bill Illis says:
March 3, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Bill, this implies sub-mm measurement accuracy. I would expect it would take a decade or so just to see a signal so how can we be sure flat to declining sea level in just a few short years?
Pluck says:
March 4, 2012 at 2:17 am
Pluck, have you noticed that nothing bad ever comes from the Grace satellite over the U.S.?
As interesting as the reults from Grace, in North America they place a mascon (mass concentration) in Mexico and in the Washington State, Oregon area. However, the GOCE satellite fails to confirm these features.
Roger Carr says:
March 4, 2012 at 3:54 am
davidmhoffer; I’m showing my age. We don’t do tubes in tyres (tires) anymore, do we…>>>
Well no we don’t, but we do fill them with compressed air. This off sets the aforementioned vacuum leaks in the engines. My guess is that this is where flat tires come from, vacuum leaks in engines that empty the tire.
Swiffer should jump on this bandwagon…. no more vacuum cleaners, bad for the atmospheric pressure….
Andi,
Thanks for a most interesting article.
If I may make one suggestion, I think you should stress more strongly that Global Mean Sea Level is like the Global Mean Temperatures. It is a human construct, an invented number, and has no physical existence. It cannot be measured anywhere, but is rather derived from combinations of other numbers of varying quality and precision.
The effect of it supposedly increasing on any real physical location on earth is unknown.
Even local sea level is a complex subject. e.g. the UK Mean Sea Level at Ordnance Datum Newlyn, was set by taking a tide gauge reading every 15 minutes and averaging. From 1915, to 1921. (the years, not the clock times 🙂
As such, it is perfect as a proxy for ‘Climate Change’, ‘Global Warming’ or any other hobgoblin of the day.
EternalOptimist says:
March 4, 2012 at 1:02 am
@Lazy teenager
when water warms, it expands. are you sure about that ?
when ice melts it flows into the sea. are you sure about that ?
I smell a straw troll.