Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 Next
Comments 56201 to 56250:
-
yocta at 09:00 AM on 25 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Fantastic post! Really great to see a short succinct summary with the points expanded on. This is great fodder to fight away the armies of the night. -
Paul Magnus at 06:41 AM on 25 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
indeed, but how fast is the height of the dome falling? Greenland Ice Melt, Measured By NASA Satellites, Reaches Unprecedented Level http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/greenland-ice-melt-nasa_n_1698129.html -
Martin Vermeer at 05:53 AM on 25 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Ah, that explains. I find on Wikipedia for the mean ice thickness of Antarctica "at least 1.6 km" and area 14M km^2, while the total ocean surface is 360M km^2. That gives 62 m for the sea-level effect. It's actually over 1.6 km thick; other sources give 2 km. (But OTOH the rock surface on which it lies is up to 2.5 km below sea level in West Antarctica.) And then, of course, ice contracts when melting. That gives us 0.9*2000*14/360 = 70 meters, which is the value most often found in the literature. -
prokaroytes at 03:59 AM on 25 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Re the 100-180 figure: That statement according to David Noone is a simple calculation. Area of the Antarctic divided by the surface area of the earth. And the mean depth of the ice sheet 2km on average, or 4km on top. -
Alexandre at 00:06 AM on 25 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Thank you Tom! You commented briefly about this weeks ago, and I'm glad you put all the effort and work to release this post with more depth. I'll definetely save it as a reference. -
ajki at 23:29 PM on 24 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
@1: Some browser plugins exist for different browsers to assist input into a html textbox. For an example see Text Formatting Toolbar [mozilla.org] for Firefox (no recommendation intended). There will be a learning curve using such tools. Not all html tags supported by those tools are usable within all textboxes or on SkS. The site owner could integrate a WYSIWIG-Editor into the codebase of this server (CKEditor clones, TinyMCE or the like). This would lead to some additional server load and questionable benefit for most users. -
chriskoz at 23:26 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Tom @7, Then it would make sense to break "fossil fuel arrow" into 2 arrows: 1) "C components of fossil fuels burning", which would form an isosceles triangle 30ppm x 30ppm 2) "H components of fossil fuels burning", which would be vertical arrow as it does not produce CO2 It would be clearer for me and would also indicate the difference between CO2 emmissions from burning pure coal vs. carobhydrates. Regardeless my comment herein, I join my predecessors in praising the value of this article: this is the best summary of arguments why humans are controling CO2. The AGW linking piece (CO2 rise=>warming) was best explained by Richard Alley in AGU 2009. -
robert test at 21:45 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Tom, you nailed it -- in content, style, and method. Agree with Dikran Marsupial "definitive" describes your piece perfectly. I'd like to see a follow-up definitive posting using the same methodology to nail down atmospheric CO2 as the cause of current warming. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:07 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Super post Tom, this is the definitive SkS article on this issue! -
Tristan at 19:17 PM on 24 July 2012New research special - satellite measurement papers 2010-2011
Ari, you're the bomb. -
Tom Curtis at 19:16 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
chriskoz @6, oil products and methane also contain large quantities of hydrogen. The equation for methane is: CH4 + 2 x O2 => CO2 + 2 x H2O Other hydrocarbons are very similar. Estimates of total O2 consumption depend on estimates of total fuel use divided among the three main form of fuels - coal, oil, and methane. -
chriskoz at 18:37 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
I don't understand how the amount of O decline has been quantified in 6). In particular "fossil fuel burning" arrow covers 30ppm on CO2 axis but more than 40ppm on O axis. That sounds incorrect, because according to the obvious reaction: C + O2 -> CO2 O2 & CO2 are matched molecule for molecule, so deltas in O2 & CO2 should be the same. Am I missing something here? -
prokaroytes at 17:56 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Alright i emailed him. -
prokaroytes at 17:53 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Re Martin, i believe that Noone, mistaken feet for meters here. -
Martin Vermeer at 17:48 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
chriskoz #23:They assumed CO2 reaches 550, 750 and 1000ppm (3 scenarios) and stays constant after that for almost 3000y until 5000AD. That's very pessimistic/unlikely ...
Yep. And this is a paper by Richard Alley and colleagues... not good. Chris Machens #21, those are lecture notes. You may want to take it up with the lecturer (seriously): David C. Noone The statement "In unlikely case that all of Antarctica melts, 100-180 meters of sea level rise!" on the last slide is just plain wrong, as you know by now. -
prokaroytes at 17:41 PM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
I updated the image, after considering the feedback from this discussion. However i still display the flood map with 100 meter SLR. Because it still seems not so far fetched. Based on maximum SLR of 80 m (USGS, 2003). The wikipedia is stating a TE of 5-10 m during the PETM. So because i have not a better image, the more precise "90 m" ( with today's measurement) is not so far fetched from 100 m SLR given in the flood map i use. There seem to be some updates to ice sheet melt contribution to SLR ie. the wiki cites Greenland ice to rise 7.2 SLR, where the USGS numbers only use 6.4 - and maybe thermal expansion is higher then 10 m too. However if somebody can point me to a better graphic for showing the ice free planet, i would be happy to use that. -
jyyh at 17:34 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
MarkR: [[so many 'skeptics' argue it's natural is absolutely incredible to me!]] Well, I'm pretty much of the same opinion, since I know no one who has extracted the steel and chrome and oil needed to plastics from the ground, and who has built, f.e. a car from these, literally from scratch. Some people might argue learning is natural for humans, and that the products made with the skills acquired from learning are thus also natural, but I'm more old fashioned with my definitions and append these things to culture, since the support structure to build something from scratch (i.e. from the elements that have not been modified by other humans), is likely to involve some sort of culture. To take an example, f.e. I couldn't build even a wooden bow naturally, for I do not have the skills to weave a strong string from the wool that I could get from lambs by some stone tools I can make (I've not done any refining of metals though I know the principle (that I couldn't have found out by myself (the lake/swamp ore process)). But all of the above depends on the various uses of 'natural' that are not connected to the scientific evidence presented here, but are likely more of a subject of philosophy and semantics... Moderators please delete this if this is too out of line and OT. -
MarkR at 17:04 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
For me, it's the mass balance argument that seals it. There is physically no way that the rise isn't being caused by humans. Anyone who sees the mass balance emasurements and then accepts claims that it's a natural rise really needs their skepticism checking. The mass balance shows that for the rise to be natural, one or both of these things must be happening: 1) maths is wrong and bigger numbers are actually smaller than smaller numbers or 2) chemistry is wrong and molecules of carbon dioxide magically disappear in the atmosphere. That's the sort of hypothesis that's needed for a natural rise in CO2 to be logically consistent. The fact that so many 'skeptics' argue it's natural is absolutely incredible to me! -
chuckbot at 15:20 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
well done! It's things like this that sealed the case for AGW in my mind - you've presented 10 solid lines of evidence linking fossil fuel emissions to rising atmospheric CO2. One might imagine that a handful of those evidences are critically flawed, but that still leaves multiple independent justifications intact. To doubt the conclusion, you'd have to explain, not just why ALL the pieces of evidence are flawed, but how the flaws coincidentally line up in favor of the same conclusion. This would take considerably more work than the average fake skeptic is willing to invest. And when you move beyond "Emissions => CO2 Rise" to other core tenants of AGW, you see similar lists of solid, independent evidences (NOAA's graphics on signs of a warming world and human fingerprints on warming come to mind). I really don't see how someone can look at this and not, at least provisionally, accept the obvious conclusions. This is a question I run into surprisingly often. Thanks for putting the answers all in one place. -
jyyh at 14:51 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
(flame) so the ratio of 6/10 vs 1/10 makes AGW only 6 times more likely than GW if one prefers to look only the positive evidence. F.e. who has measured all the ratios of C isotopes from submarine ridges? And there might be ultra-sulfuric low-activity shield volcanoes near upwelling regions making the ocean more acidic. Has the sun produced more 13/14C(4+) that has hit the Earth in recent years? Is the sun transitioning to the alpha2 process (or what ever it was that involved Carbon fusion) and going to He burning??? OMG, we're all gonna die!!!(/flame) (no explanation for the rising [CO3(2-)] though.) Thanks, I guess this list of evidence is pretty extensive, and might be worth a quicklink. Does anybody come up more examples of the evidence of the source of the extra carbon in the atmosphere/ocean? For my part, after 5) had been solved 1999abouts I've seen nothing to doubt the Anthropogenic part of the GW, though I accept the deforestation is a part (and it's mostly anthropogenic too.) -
DaneelOlivaw at 14:19 PM on 24 July 2012Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
Nice. I love all the other "hockey stick" graphs :) -
Daniel Bailey at 08:56 AM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
dr2chase, I believe the image you show is Greenland without ice, after isostatic rebound equilibria changes are fully achieved. A more revealing image depicting the bowl-shaped morphology, including the deep ice-advecting drainage channels of Zachariae and Petermann, is shown thusly:
[Source]
-
dr2chase at 08:31 AM on 24 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
chriskoz @7 -- The Greenland ice cap is not saddle shaped, but the land underneath it is.
What happens when ice melts in the middle; does it run to the bottom and collect there? Does it get part way down and re-freeze? It's hard to imagine the ice above melting fast enough (takes a LOT of heat) to create a saddle in the ice, but there is a saddle underneath. -
Martin Vermeer at 03:37 AM on 24 July 2012Esper Millennial Cooling in Context
Lambda 3.0, With "Figure S6" I assume you mean Figure S9, right? I'm not a treeringologist, but know a little about stats. You have to look carefully what is being plotted. The year number at the horizontal axis is the end year of an interval, of which the start year is 138 BC. Over this interval, a linear regression is performed. The core point is that the length of the regression period is very short at the left (538 years) and very long at the right (2138 years), and the data regressed is very "wiggly". Of course the trend variations due to the wiggling will then be considerably greater at the left end of the graph than at the right end. As we see. We also see that wood density gives different results then ring width. Due to the way this plot was made, also that difference has an effect on the plotted trends that grows going to the left (I suspect the tree-ring score differences themselves aren't any greater for the earlier times). About Figure 10, you have to look again at what is being plotted: 15-year moving-window correlations. So the "dip" at 1912 (I think) shows the correlations over the period 1905-1920. If you look at the upper part of the plot, you see that in this window, there happens to be only little variation in instrumental ("real") temperatures (black); these are almost constant over the window period. So, there is no temperature signal to cause corresponding variations in the proxy record, and no hope to extract good correlation values. The values we see (lower graph, colored curves) are more or less in the noise. The instrumental records for different stations show much better correlations among themselves (grey curves), because, well, purpose-built weather stations are more fit for purpose and less "noisy" than proxies-of-opportunity ;-) -
Alexandre at 00:23 AM on 24 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
By the way, Beth Gardiner's article linked on this post is so good it deserved a post of its own! -
Composer99 at 00:14 AM on 24 July 2012Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
RonManley: From previous discussions on this site (and examining all the graphs posted in this thread) it is my understanding that the principal driver of fluctuations in sea level rise (but not the trend) is ENSO; with the many La Niña years recently causing an appreciable dip in sea level rise. This seems to correlate with ENSO being a driver of fluctuations in surface temperatures, again without really affecting the trend in that metric, either. That would seem to account for the fluctuations you have remarked upon. -
anchr at 23:56 PM on 23 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
Re geoengineering: yes. Once the realities of global warming is obvious, even for those who don't even want to look for it, geoengineering is likely to be the next line of defense. Partly as an argument for continued inaction, like KBow point out, but also partly because there will be a lot of money in this, that that will attract the same companies that makes a lot of money from oil extraction today. Although inaction on GW has made a lot of damage, getting geoenineering wrong might totally overshadow any damage we've seen so far. Besides, in that context they might be as opportunistically optimistic about the climate models as they are critically dismissive of them today. Thus, I think it is very important for this site to counter 'bad geoengineering'. -
KBow at 23:28 PM on 23 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
The potential for geo-engineering is likely the next big argument to further delay action in favor of fossil fuel burning. Understanding the hurdles and risks will be important in developing opinion in whether we should delay action because we have a "cure" or if we should take an ounce of prevention. I would like this information explained to see if it would be reasonable to add this as part of the long-term solution. -
Bernard J. at 23:03 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
John Mason's comment at #20 cuts to the chase. The real problem of sea level rise does not involve big numbers. A rise of more than a few metres will place indecribable pressure on future generations, already labouring under the stresses of a heated planet with a seriously degraded biosphere and dwindling energy, soil, water and other resources. These few metres of sea level rise are already set in train with the current rate of human-caused global warming and its concurrent SLR change, and given a little more time than the arbitrary time limit of 2100. It's these simple, little numbers that will have huge consequences. And most human action these days continues as if these future consequences are still only hypothetical. -
Daniel Bailey at 21:48 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Chris Machens, you disappoint me. The source you link to, despite hosted on a university website, is a slide presentation nearly devoid of source attribution. As such, it is little more than opinion. Which is cheap these days. You stake your reputation on essentially hearsay. -
Alexandre at 21:36 PM on 23 July 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
About geoengineering: I resist to admit the need of that kind of half solution, but yes, SkS should discuss those possibilities as well. It would even help people know their limitations, and it would help putting the low-carbon alternatives in better perspective as well. -
chriskoz at 21:29 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Martin@18, Thanks for correcting my typo. Chris@21, You should know by now that the claim of "potential SLR of 180m" in that presentation is unsubstantiated rubbish. I have also noticed another problem: in their simulation of GIS melt on slide 17. They assumed CO2 reaches 550, 750 and 1000ppm (3 scenarios) and stays constant after that for almost 3000y until 5000AD. That's very pessimistic/unlikely because, according to Archer 2009, figure 1 therein, pulse 1000GtC in the atmosphere cannot stay constant for so long, because its tail is reduced to 350-450Gt in just 1ky timescale after ocean invasion and neutralization by CaCO3. So their scenarios assume humans to keep burning coal (or some other CO2 release, e.g. from permafrost) into 5000AD to keep up with ocean CO2 uptake. That assumption cannot be substantiated. CBDunkerson@22, Thanks for puting it together. Now the numbers make sense to me. -
CBDunkerson at 20:45 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
chriskoz wrote: "This article incorrectly puts a figure of SLR 9 m in 500a during MWP1A, whereas the quote from www.nature.com reads "14–18 metres over 350 years" which is substantially different figure." The article stated: "The melted ice flowed into the oceans leading to rapid sea level rises of 9 m in 500 years during the Meltwater pulse 1a event 14,600 years ago..." AND: "The meltwater pulse produced by the saddle-collapse can explain more than half of the sea level jump observed around 14,600 years ago." 9 * 2 = 18 No 'substantial difference'. -
prokaroytes at 20:05 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Here is a paper from Colorado University with the same 100 meter flood map http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC1060/Members/Lectures/26_SeaLevelRise.pdf The author claims it is unlikely but if all ice melts it could be up to 180 meter? -
John Mason at 19:47 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Danial @#14 has it about right. We need not wave big numbers about here. 2m would be pretty serious; 10m would be catastrophic, regardless of whether it occurred within 100 or 500 years. It takes a lot - an awful lot - of time and expense to relocate a coastal city - and there are an awful lot of 'em! -
Martin Vermeer at 19:40 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
This is the thread to link to when Tony Watts again claims that the "alarmist" side doesn't call out their own... -
Martin Vermeer at 19:38 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
chriskoz #16:The PETM studies calculated the temp rise of deep ocean as 8K from O18 ratio. The corresponding thermal SLR was 5m, which is about 1.1% vol.
Surely you mean 0.11%? -
prokaroytes at 19:09 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Chriskoz, the USGS 2003 numbers assume a maximum SLR (without thermal expansion) of 80 meters. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ And as i said above, i have no interest in discussing if there will be 80, 90 or 100 meters SLR equivalent. he impact from massive SLR will be felt globally differently, depending on the planets gravitational field and mass movements. Therefore will an ice free state have SLR of above 100 meters. -
chriskoz at 18:35 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Chris Machens @13,...i have yet to see any hard data about thermal expansion. Current SLR is attributed for the most part to 70-75% thermal expansion i see no reason why this should change considerable
You can calculate termal expansion from this data and the average ocean depth of 4000m. The PETM studies calculated the temp rise of deep ocean as 8K from O18 ratio. The corresponding thermal SLR was 5m, which is about 1.1% vol. Your number of 30m indicates thermal volume expansion of close to 1%, which is equiv to 45K temp rise in the link I provided above. Not strictly the boiling point yet so physically possible but pointless to even consider as whole life (except some bacteria) would be dead long beforehand. So before claiming "I see no reason why this [thermal expansion component of SLR] should change considerable", check you basic maths. -
barry1487 at 16:53 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Thanks, Daniel. Still, the article doesn't reflect the uncertainty in the abstract. The link seems to be busted - maybe a wrong backslash in there? Here 'tis if anyone else is having my problem. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8626.htmlModerator Response: [JH] The embedded link in the introduction to the OP has been fixed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. -
Daniel Bailey at 16:10 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Chris, on what basis do you: 1. Maintain there will be less ocean upwelling? Do you think the upper surface layer exists in a vacuum, disjointed from the layers below? We know that the deeper layers are warming, thus we know both upwelling and downwelling still exists between the ocean layers. Please furnish a credible mechanism under which this might occur. 2. Assert that current SLR attribution to thermal expansion will not change? Indeed, current understanding is that it is indeed changing, with the component due to melt already increasing. With many meters of ice-melt/mass loss already in the pipeline (century+ timescale). 3. The 100-meter assertion was yours, thus it is yours to defend. If you screwed up your maths, then admit it. What we (you and I, not the rest of SkS) have in common: 1. The GIS and the WAIS are screwed. Indeed, in a future sense their melt has already happened (when one views time a certain way), based on today's CO2 levels and the forcings/feedbacks derived from it. 2. Yes, 20 meters SLR is catastrophic, and may/will happen (given time). The point you miss is that 2 meters SLR is catastrophic, and will likely happen to the world's seaport cities ere the centuries end. All SLR which happens after that, and which will continue for centuries, is moot. 3. Yes, we are changing things many times faster than any comp in the paleo record. And also faster than mankind as a species can wake up to and internalize. And thus, mitigation is likely already out as a viable option. Which leaves suffering and adaptation. The former on a global scale; the latter, on a much smaller scale (for those that still live). -
prokaroytes at 15:25 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
I think that you and others missing a lot of the future environmental setup. This begins with less ocean upwelling - hence less cooling of the upper surface layer. Rohling and Hansen say 70 meters SLR from melt water alone and i have yet to see any hard data about thermal expansion. Current SLR is attributed for the most part to 70-75% thermal expansion i see no reason why this should change considerable. And with modest "natural" climate changes as discussed in this article here, we have already a realm of SLR within a few centuries. It makes a lot of sense to assume that anthropogenic driven SLR will advance much faster, as we know it does, from our observations. Maybe it is not 100 meters but even 20 meters will be catastrophic. I really have no intention to argue about a few meters and that is why i wrote below that image that it is not accurate. The point is that things will be faster than in the past of earth history and any modelling is helpful in our learning and understanding of this threat. So if we know that within 350 years a SLR of 18 meters can happen, than we can assume that the magnitude with faster Co2 addition to the system, will have an effect on the timescale. We are today 10.000 faster than the natural process. And we have data from coral reef proxies which show rapid SLR within a few decades. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:10 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
And again, addition of water/ice sufficient to raise global sea levels by even 70 meters would have the effect of dampening much of the thermal expansion you anticipate as most of the mass added will be near the freezing point of water. That level of ice mass added to the world's oceans would occupy nearly 100% of the world's SLR over that period. And if you were to ask Eelco Rohling if your timetable of SLR had any merit he'd also be incredulous. And (how I hate this repetitiousness) I have indeed re-read your post. All previous criticisms still stand. Despite that fact that I am still the SkS author most likely to be in your circle, you are not convincing. -
prokaroytes at 15:02 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Again. The point is to show what the impact of an ice free state looks like. Also i suggest you re-read the post since it got updated. For a further discussion on the topic i invite you and others to comment on that post, since it is off topic here. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:53 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Again, Chris, even a 70-meter SLR implies the entirety of the GIS, WAIS and the EAIS will have to melt/make its way to the sea in some fashion by 2100-2200 for your graphic in your blog post to have any semblance of accuracy. Show me some comp in the paleo record whereby 70 meters SLR was achieved in a world already at an interglacial peak and then you will have my attention. As an FYI, I touched on SLR impacts around the world in this SkS post: http://www.skepticalscience.com/mapping_sea_level_rise.html -
prokaroytes at 14:35 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Also the liquid is not distributed equally. Which suggest that some part will be considerable above that figure and other less so. The point with the image of sea level rise is to show us the future. Because with current emissions, we will get there. -
prokaroytes at 14:32 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
To quote from my post: The paleoclimate record also shows that 560 ppm would be enough to melt all the ice in the Arctic, and later the Antarctic. Rohling said that once the Antarctic melts, sea levels would rise by 60 to 70 meters. “If governments keep going the way they are going,” Hansen added, “the planet will reach an ice-free state.” Now it would be interesting to know exactly what the maximum possible thermal expansion could be on top of the melted water. -
chriskoz at 14:24 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
This article incorrectly puts a figure of SLR 9 m in 500a during MWP1A, whereas the quote from www.nature.com reads "14–18 metres over 350 years" which is substantially different figure. This article does not explain Heinrich events (5 of them between 45ka - 15ka) each attributed to the melt pulse of 5m/100a. Other than that, the results are good news: Greenland dome does not have "saddle shape", so future warming can spare us the MWP1A and 8.2K-like events. -
angusmac at 14:10 PM on 23 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Dikran Marsupial @32 I am not quibbling about the diagram. My version of the AR4 Figure TS.26 is much clearer than the SkS Figure 2 from RC. Incidentally, @24, have you had any success digging out your data for Figure 2?Moderator Response:[DB] Cease with your dissembling. Figure 2 (taken from this RC post) are for global model runs. The IPCC figure you cite a portion of is for NH only. You compare apples and porcupines.
Continuance of this posting behaviour of dissembling will result in an immediate cessation of posting rights.
-
chriskoz at 14:08 PM on 23 July 2012Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
Chris Machens, The maximum SL in the top warmth of Eocene (~40Ma) was 70m above present. I find your claim that it could rise 30m further above that is less likely than runaway greenhouse effect, during which the water would boil at the surface while the bottom part would remain cold. So the total volume of ocean would not have a chance of thermal expansion to reach your figure before it starts to evaporate.
Prev 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 Next
