Recent Comments

Prev  1118  1119  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  Next

Comments 56251 to 56300:

56251. Martin Vermeer at 19:40 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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...
56252. Martin Vermeer at 19:38 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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%?
56253. prokaroytes at 19:09 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56254. chriskoz at 18:35 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56255. barry1487 at 16:53 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.html
       Moderator Response: [JH] The embedded link in the introduction to the OP has been fixed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
56256. Daniel Bailey at 16:10 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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).
56257. prokaroytes at 15:25 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56258. Daniel Bailey at 15:10 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56259. prokaroytes at 15:02 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56260. Daniel Bailey at 14:53 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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
56261. prokaroytes at 14:35 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56262. prokaroytes at 14:32 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56263. chriskoz at 14:24 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56264. angusmac at 14:10 PM on 23 July 2012
       Christy 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.

56265. chriskoz at 14:08 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger 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.
56266. Daniel Bailey at 14:07 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
       Barry, note that this SkS blog post is a reprint.
56267. barry1487 at 13:56 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
       I think this article would be improved by including caveats. The scientific conclusions may be strong, but not definite. Uncomfortable with absolute language here.
56268. Bernard J. at 13:46 PM on 23 July 2012
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       I'm certain he has an explanation. They always do.

       Don't they just? And the operative word is "an". The explanation doesn't need to be the correct one, because the intent here is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Purely and simply. Richard Pearson's target audience is the unsure, non scientifically-educated swinging voters who form a large proportion of his and his colleagues' voting constituency. Sadly, most of them are not as cooly logical as Philippe, and frustratingly there never seems to be a simple way of getting across perceptive points such as his. Pearson doesn't need to be right; he just needs to be convincing.
56269. chriskoz at 13:42 PM on 23 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #29
       I'm annoyed by the vulgarity of the crude text-box to enter the comments. It's inconvenient to type those "a" "i" "blockquote" "img" tags, needless to say I never remember the syntax and i.e. often produce bad links. Preview button + hyperlink help is not enough. Is there any WYSIWYG editor that would do it for me? If not possible to link WYSIWYG editor to this Comment box, can anyone recommend a simple & easy external editor for that?
56270. Bernard J. at 13:37 PM on 23 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       

       I also echo John Hartz @15 in that WUWT commenters are the radical fringe, not at all representative of the general public.

       Dana and John. I certainly acknowledge that Watts' commenting fan-base is over-sampling from the extreme end of the anti-science pool. My concern is that they have a disproportionate influence in policy, and this was increased recently as a result of an off-the-cuff straw-poll a colleague conducted of non science-specialised students. Around a third believed that there was a serious scientific debate about the evidence for climate change, and of those a majority thought that the science had been done incorrectly or was compromised by personal interest on the part of scientists. Most of the students referred to "the internet" as a source for their doubts of the science. Whether this is more representative of such students generally still has us scratching our heads... Amongst my non-tertiary educated friends and relatives there is a strong propensity to believe that there is no smoke without fire in tabloid stirring of the idea of a debate about the science of climate change. It's classic fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I'm sure that they're not as extreme in their beliefs as the Watts crowd, but the issue is whether they let the fundamental notion of the 'unreliability' of the science influence their decisions when voting and 'consuming'. The overall glacial pace of government action around the world would seem to reflect this. In the Australian context I guess that one test of the general public's ability to balance the realities of climate science against the tabloid 'uncertainties' will occur at the next federal election. One counter to the FUD campaigns of the blog science-denial industry is the presence of initiatives such as the Vision Prize, and I certainly hope that they are able to separate the denial noise from the surveying of the signal of scientifically-qualified opinion.
56271. Daniel Bailey at 12:12 PM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
       Chris Machens, I am considered one of the more "alarmist" among the SkS ranks, yet your claim on your blog of 100 meter SLR over the next 100-200 years is quite frankly incredulous. For one thing, not enough ice exists to cover that gap due to melt nor do 1-2 centuries give enough time for full thermal equilibria of the ocean depths to be reached to get the full thermal expansion effects. I'm happy to entertain many possibilities, no matter how wild, but in the end it comes down to physics and evidence. As the esteemed Martin Vermeer suggests on your blog, perhaps you should check your maths. As it stands, your comment is not very on-topic for the OP of this thread.
56272. Paul Magnus at 07:46 AM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
       Anyone monitoring the height of the Greenland dome?
56273. prokaroytes at 06:25 AM on 23 July 2012
       Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered
       Possible Sea Level Rise of 1-3 meters (or more) within the next 50 years Based on the current rate humans put Co2 into the atmosphere, which is 10,000 times faster than the natural processes. For that matter and potential singular positive feedbacks the rate of Sea Level Rise (SLR) can be assumed to rise with a similar rate. And for that matter there is no equivalent in the earth recorded history. The main SLR rise is likely not to come from melted water, rather then thermal expansion, which is attributed to be 70-75% of current observed SLR.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
56274. RonManley at 06:17 AM on 23 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Rob Painting # 20. I don't say that the sea level rises all by itself. What the data do show that is the rate of sea level rise fluctuates in a quasi-cyclic way. You can download the Excel file I used here and check it yourself.
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed link.
56275. John Mason at 03:47 AM on 23 July 2012
       Joe Romm's Congressional Testimony
       Good on Joe. It is high time we ditched the euphemisms and stopped pussyfooting about. We hung along for too long with the Banking industry - bowing to calls for deregulation etc - and look exactly where that has gotten us too. If that's not a wake-up call to us ordinary folk, what will it take? It's a brilliant world out there - under tremendous strain - but it is still managing, just about. Let's do everything in our power, however small that may be, to further the simple cause of wanting a brilliant world for our children and grandchildren and not a toxic, polluted mess where the last 'consumers' wander about looking for the last bargains. We can do this, folks - if we speak with one voice (and not a World Socialist Government voice, before anyone starts) - just the voice of the people, who love their gardens, the wildlife around them, getting their hands dirty with the soil of the land and who hate all the form-filling, box-ticking nonsense that is the facade of dealing with the biggest issue of our lives when pretence is the order of the day. I would rather see children knowing 100 plant-names and recognising 50 different butterflies by the age of ten - as I did many years ago - than knowing 400 brand-names by the age of five. That's just one aspect, but I hope people will see where I'm coming from! Rant over!
56276. Tristan at 03:13 AM on 23 July 2012
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       I'm certain he has an explanation. They always do.
56277. Philippe Chantreau at 02:31 AM on 23 July 2012
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       Tristan, if he is as bright as you suggest, then I'm sure he must have an explanation as to why there is so much more downwelling IR radiation reaching the surface than what the Sun emits. That is an easy, reliable, confirmed over and over, direct, real world observation, in total contradiction with the little experiment you link above. So allow me to be a little skeptical. Where does all that IR come from?
56278. Tristan at 21:15 PM on 22 July 2012
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       Following from my earlier comment about our state MP who advocates against the science of climate change, here he is demonstrating that he's not just a politician but a brilliant scientist.
56279. Rob Painting at 19:41 PM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Ron - The notion that the sea level simply rises all by its lonesome, as part of some mysterious natural quasi-cycle, is ridiculous. And yes, you are right climate models certainly don't allow for this physically impossible scenario.
56280. shoyemore at 18:40 PM on 22 July 2012
       The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
       Found the Matthew Kahn video The Free Market as a Solution to Climate Change Kahn sees the insurance industry as a key "sender of a price signal" about housing. Governments should not help communities at risk because they will only attract more inhabitants to those areas. These ideas are refreshing. But one wonders, if inaction continues, how feasible is the "free market" if tens of thousands, if not millions, are simultaneously affected?
56281. Alan E at 18:29 PM on 22 July 2012
       2012 SkS Weekly Digest #28
       @ curiousd I have supported Carbon Community Foundation (http://carboncommunity.org.au) and know the two principles - Andrew Flint and Chris Trafford. CCF's mission is to replace kerosene lamps with solar lamps in villages that are off-grid. We're talking 300 million households so there's a lot to do. CO2 emissions are the tip of the iceberg - buying kero drains the household budget and burning it causes all manner of really bad health problems. And having cheap light at night aids home businesses and kids education. CCF are pretty young and have partnered with Barefoot Power (http://www.barefootpower.com/) and others who can bring the products and distribution channels.
56282. RonManley at 18:18 PM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       I should have posted a graph earlier to minimise the confusion. I calculated the rate of sea level rise based on the data of Church et al merged with the Jason-Topex data for recent years. The data start in 1870 so for every year from 1890 onward I calculated the rate of change of sea level in the preceding 20 years (very easy in Excel using LINEST). This plot shows that: 1. There is an underlying increase in the rate of rise. It works out at about 1mm per year increase every 70 years. 2. The rate of increase in sea levels is quasi-cyclical. Thus, depending on the phase of the cycle it is possible both to have an underlying acceleration and short term (c 30 years) drop in the rate of rise. Despite the implications I am not a climate change denier. I believe that the acceleration in the rate of increase is almost certainly due to global warming alone. I am also in favour of the decision relating to the citizens of Virginia being based on science. However since the rate of sea level rise is quasi-cyclical and since as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) none of the model projections include this then the four year pause to get better science may be to their advantage.
56283. Neven at 16:32 PM on 22 July 2012
       The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
       Like I said, it isn't working: Deadly mudslides sweep through Austria. More from the local media. Apparently we are witnessing a one-in-30-years storm here in Styria, except of course that the last one wasn't 30 years ago...
56284. Rob Painting at 13:54 PM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Ron Manley - "Rob Painting #2. Your graph actually suggests the rate has been more or less constant from 2001 to 2009 at about 1 mm/year" Ron, I'm sure if one confines oneself to looking at any short interval you can find a short-term trend that affirms a preconceived notion. We call that cherry-picking. On the other hand understanding the physical mechanisms driving these trends is far more useful. For example, if a reasonably-sized El Nino develops this Southern Hemisphere summer I fully expect that sea level will rise abruptly - as the continental land masses, and particularly the tropical basins, dry out. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the loss of ice from Greenland & Antarctica is accelerating - this will manifest itself in greater sea level rise. The solar dimming of the Southern Hemisphere in the "noughties" has shielded the oceans from greater warming, but can much longer can that last? We've already seen that the slowdown in ocean heat content between 2004-2008 has been replaced by greater warming:
56285. Tristan at 13:37 PM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Hmm. I wonder if my childmind misinterpreted 2200 as 2022. Possible.
56286. Rob Painting at 13:28 PM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Tristan @ 14 - never heard that one before, probably because it is nonsense. Certainly the paleodata indicate rates of sea level rise of well over a metre occurred in previous warm intervals (interglacials), but there's no evidence to support rates greater than that. They may have occurred, but the evidence is lacking.
56287. Albatross at 12:50 PM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Tom @13, Good points. Steve Chase is also wrong about what he claims is stated in the video about global sea level rise. The video starts of with reference being made to a press release from the Niels Bohr Institute, the heading for that press release is: "Studies agree on a 1 meter rise in [global] sea levels" Nowhere do they state 1.8 m as the best estimate for the increase in global sea level by 2100. Admiral Titley does note in the video that sea levels could rise between 0.9 m and 1.8 m by 2100 (~3-6 ft), and that range is entirely consistent with the GRL paper referenced below. So we have some "skeptics" here cherry picking values to misinform and to fit their narrative. That Niels Bohr press release in turn refers to a paper just published in GRL by Jevrejeva et al. (2012) who conclude that: "With six IPCC radiative forcing scenarios we estimate sea level rise of 0.6–1.6 m, with confidence limits of 0.59 m and 1.8 m." So as new information becomes available the best estimates of increases in sea level are being revised upwards. Now 2100 is rather arbitrary, because sea levels will continue to rise well beyond 2100 because of global warming.
56288. Tristan at 11:52 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       When I was around 9 (1991) we were shown a video at school about global warming. My takeaway from that video was that the ice sheets could collapse as early as 2022 and this would result in a 60m sea level rise. Some of the kids in the class were crying. Does anyone here have an idea on what that video might have been or where it came from? Thanks in advance.
56289. Tom Curtis at 10:10 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Steve Case @11, first I'll note that the sea level rise projected in that graph is approximately equal to the expected rise from thermal expansion alone assuming the IPCC A2 scenario (270 mm). However, if we linearly extend the rate at which ice sheets are loosing mass, we can expect a further 360 mm of sea level rise on top of that (and ignoring glaciers). That represents a sea level rise of 630 mm above 1980-1999 levels by 2100. That represents an increase of at least 50% above the approx 400 mm increase your projection shows over the same period. The CSIRO estimate that not more than 30% of the sea level rise since the 1950s has come from polar ice sheets. Based on that, and using your projection, the sea level rise contribution from other sources can be expected to be 280 mm from 1990, leading to a combined expected increase of 640 mm. That estimate is not based on models, it is simple extrapolation of known data. That illustrates, in part, the folly of simple projection. Using two different projections methods, we arrive at inconsistent results which diverge by over 50%. It also shows how foolish it is to think you can assess future sea level rise without examining potential future changes in temperature, not to mention such wild cards as the potential instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
56290. Albatross at 09:16 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Steve @11, Can I please remind you about the topic of this post. You seem to be trying your best to obfuscate. I will also note that I cited Church and White (2008), not their 2006 paper. Regardless, nowhere in their paper do Church and White simply extrapolate the best fit line over the observed record as you appear to have done in your figure @11. Doing so is a no-no from both statistical and physical stand points. Readers might be interested to note what Church and White (2008) have to say about recent rates of sea level rise when referring to the figure below (their Fig. 6): Caption: "Projected sea-level rise for the 21st century. The projected range of global-averaged sea-level rise from the IPCC (2001) assessment report for the period 1990–2100 is shown by the lines and shading (the dark shading is the model average envelope for all SRES greenhouse gas scenarios, the light shading is the envelope for all models and all SRES scenarios, and the outer lines include an allowance for an additional land-ice uncertainty). The updated AR4 IPCC projections (90% confidence limits) made in 2007 are shown by the bars plotted at 2095, the magenta bar is the range of model projections and the red bar is the extended range to allow for the potential but poorly quantified additional contribution from a dynamic response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to global warming. Note that the IPCC AR4 states that ‘‘larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea-level rise.’’ The inset shows the 2001 projection compared with the observed rate estimated from tide gauges (blue) and satellite altimeters (orange) (based on Church et al. 2001; Meehl et al. 2007; Rahmstorf et al. 2007)" "The concern that the sea-level projections may be biassed low has been reinforced by a comparison of observed and projected sea-level rise from 1990 to the present. For this period, the observed sea level has been rising more rapidly than the central range of the IPCC (2001, 2007) model projections and is at the very upper end of the IPCC TAR projections (Fig. 6; Rahmstorf et al. 2007), indicating that one or more of the model contribu- tions to sea-level rise may be underestimated." [My highlighting] In my opinion, those who wish or choose to believe, that uncertainty is skewed towards the lower end of outcomes, are being incredibly naive.
56291. Steve Case at 07:42 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       #6 RonManley said, "If a rise of 1 metre is to be attained by 2001 [sic] then the change in rate will be such that changes observed in the past pale into insignificance." The video actually predicted six feet or about 1.8 meters of sea level rise by 2100. #9 Albatross put up a graphic of the Church and White data. That data is available on the Church and White Data Page as Church and White (2006) If you graph it out and extend the Y axis to include the 1.8 meter prediction and extrapolate the time line out to 2100 as the video said, it looks like this: It's merely a question of whether Sea Level rise will accelerate enough to make that prediction come true.
56292. Albatross at 05:05 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Ron @8, Please make up your mind, @1 you said [my bolding] " Whilst the data do show an underlying acceleration in the rate of sea level rise it is less that the models project. " But now @8 you claim that "over a 20, 10 or 5 year period the rate of rise is lessening." Please stop playing word/rhetorical games. The Senate in Virginia wishes to deny all the science (both empirical and theoretical) that indicates that, in the long-term, the rate of sea-level rise will continue to accelerate. Does it not trouble you in the least that they are a) of this opinion/belief, and b) the lengths they went to to try and enforce their denial on others?
56293. Neven at 04:52 AM on 22 July 2012
       The Mid-Wales floods of June 2012: a taste of things to come?
       I regard sea-level rise as a slower threat I wasn't referring to SLR, but to the storms that the Atlantic gives birth to. That's why I hide behind the Alps (not that it's working).
56294. Albatross at 04:45 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Some "skeptics" posting here are focussing on very short periods again to try and obfuscate, whilst also not supporting their assertions with hard numbers or data. Church et al. (2008) demonstrate nicely how the long-term trend is not linear but accelerating. [Source] It is this reality that some in Virginia wish to deny, and that is the subject of this post "Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise".
56295. RonManley at 03:19 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Dana1981 #7. To avoid confusion, I am not saying that sea levels are falling, it is clear that they are continuing to rise. What I am saying, and what the data quoted in my previous posts support, is that over a 20, 10 or 5 year period the rate of rise is lessening.
56296. dana1981 at 02:46 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Ron @6 - my point is that "appears to be on a downward trend" is clearly not supported by the data.
56297. RonManley at 02:30 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       Rob Painting #2. Your graph actually suggests the rate has been more or less constant from 2001 to 2009 at about 1 mm/year. Since the era of satellite data the 5-year rate of rise peaked at 4.5 mm/year in May 2003. The current 5-year rate of rise up April 2012 is 2.3 mm/year. So, overall the rate of rise is falling. Dana #4. You suggested that changes in the 20-year rate of sea level rise were ‘short-term noise’ and then show a straight line fit. My point was the rate has fluctuated over periods of several decades and currently appears to be on a downward trend. I’m not sure showing the long-term trend is appropriate as the crux of this posting is to argue that the long-term trend is not a good indicator for the future. If a rise of 1 metre is to be attained by 2001 then the change in rate will be such that changes observed in the past pale into insignificance.
56298. dana1981 at 02:09 AM on 22 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       As now noted at the end of the post, the 'no consensus' rebuttal has been updated to include the Vision Prize results.
56299. dana1981 at 01:34 AM on 22 July 2012
       Vision Prize Results
       Bernard J @13 - to be fair, the Vision Prize isn't limited to climate scientists, but also includes individuals "with relevant scientific or technical credentials," for example. That's how I was able to participate, as an environmental scientist with a physics background. I suspect Watts might qualify with his meteorology background, though as I recall he doesn't have a degree in the subject? I also echo John Hartz @15 in that WUWT commenters are the radical fringe, not at all representative of the general public.
56300. Composer99 at 01:28 AM on 22 July 2012
       Yes, Virginia, There is Sea Level Rise
       The best fit for the current trends in Greenland and Antarctica land ice (as per papers such as Velicogna 2009 which is linked to here) is an accelerating decline. If memory serves, the range of sea level rise considered most likely is between 0.75 and 1.9 metres by 2100, starting from the levels in 1990 (per Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009). Even the 'best case' scenario is bad.

Prev  1118  1119  1120  1121  1122  1123  1124  1125  1126  1127  1128  1129  1130  1131  1132  1133  Next