Sea levels to rise a metre this century, German experts warn

Oct 29, 2008 Full story: Earth Times 31

Sea levels around the world will rise one metre this century, according to German scientists who warn that global warming is happening much faster than hitherto predicted.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#1 Oct 29, 2008
More from this article:

The two experts said the IPCC report had been based on data up to 2005 only, but since then ice loss in the Arctic had doubled or tripled. Schnellhuber charged that 20 per cent of the loss of the ice sheet on Greenland could be directly linked to the added carbon dioxide emissions from new Chinese coal-fired power stations.

The new prognostications of higher sea levels, according to Schellnhuber, are based on studies of melting Himalaya glaciers and the shrinking Greenland ice cap.

He blamed the rapidly diminishing size of the Greenland ice cap on soot particles from Chinese coal-fired power plants.

"That is truly a global effect," he said. Soot settles on the ice, preventing the ice from reflecting as much sunlight back into space. The result is that the ice absorbs sunlight rays, raising the temperature of the ice and causing it to melt.

"Air pollution plays a massive role in the accelerating pace of climate change, he said.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2 Oct 29, 2008
They didn't mention the method they arrived at the figure or anything else other than ice melting and even then they qualified it with the phrase, "even then there are many variables which could thwart the goals." Which tells me that they are leaving themselves a out in case that it does not happen.
Fun Facts

AOL

#3 Oct 29, 2008
Arctic as of yesterday

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/c...

Arctic Oct 28, 2007

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIV...

20% ice loss? Where?

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#4 Oct 30, 2008
Everyone from the U.S. Coast Guard to the BBC and Russian and Danish oil interests looking to stake out their share of the newly available seafloor see the change. Only a few deniers in the U.S. don’t want to see the ice melting…or will they personally benefit from warming and don’t care what happens to other?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#5 Oct 31, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
Everyone from the U.S. Coast Guard to the BBC and Russian and Danish oil interests looking to stake out their share of the newly available seafloor see the change. Only a few deniers in the U.S. don’t want to see the ice melting…or will they personally benefit from warming and don’t care what happens to other?
I am more interested at the method they arrived at the one metre figure and how accurate thier predictions are.
Mr Giblets

UK

#6 Oct 31, 2008
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I am more interested at the method they arrived at the one metre figure and how accurate thier predictions are.
the same way these dweebs come to all the other predictions, like 2 meters, 3 meters, half a meter, 20 meters - pure fantasy.

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#7 Nov 1, 2008
What tina is interested in, is pretending that there is no problem. She isn’t trained in the scientific methods to understand how the predictions are made. If she were (and really interested in an answer to her question) she would write to Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and ask him or do a little research and come up with a copy of the work his prediction is based on. The article this post is based on is a brief summery of new predictions based on new research.

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#8 Nov 1, 2008
Giblets didn’t read the article. Here let me help:

“Hamburg, Germany - Sea levels around the world will rise one metre this century, according to German scientists who warn that global warming is happening much faster than hitherto predicted. Citing UN date on climate change, two senior German scientists say that previous predictions were far too cautious and optimistic.

“Earlier estimates predicted a rise of 18 to 59 centimetres in sea levels this century. But that estimate is woefully understated, according to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who heads the Potsdam Institute for Research on Global Warming Effects, and Jochem Marotzke, a leading meteorologist.

“'We now have to expect that the sea level will rise by a metre this century,' said Schellnhuber in Berlin.

“He said it is 'just barely possible' that world governments will be able to limit the rise in average global temperatures to just 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, if they all strictly adhere to severe limits in carbon dioxide emissions.”

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#9 Nov 1, 2008
Here is the rest of it:

“Those restrictions call for halving greenhouse emissions by 2050 and eliminating CO2 emissions entirely by the end of the century. But the German researchers said the resulting limited increase in temperature is predicated on strict adherence to those restrictions without exception, and even then there are many variables which could thwart the goals.

“Schnellnhuber, who is official adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate-change issues, said the new findings employed data unavailable to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its most recent global warming report.

“The two experts said the IPCC report had been based on data up to 2005 only, but since then ice loss in the Arctic had doubled or tripled. Schnellhuber charged that 20 per cent of the loss of the ice sheet on Greenland could be directly linked to the added carbon dioxide emissions from new Chinese coal-fired power stations.

“The new prognostications of higher sea levels, according to Schellnhuber, are based on studies of melting Himalaya glaciers and the shrinking Greenland ice cap.

“He blamed the rapidly diminishing size of the Greenland ice cap on soot particles from Chinese coal-fired power plants.

“'That is truly a global effect,' he said. Soot settles on the ice, preventing the ice from reflecting as much sunlight back into space. The result is that the ice absorbs sunlight rays, raising the temperature of the ice and causing it to melt.

“'Air pollution plays a massive role in the accelerating pace of climate change', he said.”
KaptinKaos

Ipswich, UK

#10 Nov 1, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
What tina is interested in, is pretending that there is no problem. She isn’t trained in the scientific methods to understand how the predictions are made. If she were (and really interested in an answer to her question) she would write to Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and ask him or do a little research and come up with a copy of the work his prediction is based on. The article this post is based on is a brief summery of new predictions based on new research.
I think that following the hockey stick fiasco nicely exposed by McKitrick and McIntyre Tina has every right to question or be skeptical of any predictions of sea-level rise or climate. I really resent the attitude of global warmers that anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent or well informed.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#11 Nov 1, 2008
KaptinKaos wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that following the hockey stick fiasco nicely exposed by McKitrick and McIntyre Tina has every right to question or be skeptical of any predictions of sea-level rise or climate. I really resent the attitude of global warmers that anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent or well informed.
Almost all warmies are left wingers for a good reason. Lefties naturally feel cheated, threatened and treated unfairly by the myth of a dominant right wing power. Since environmentalism itself is about human impact on nature, it's therefore easy to blame affluence for all of our perceived problems. The joke is that our air is cleaner than when a river caught fire in Ohio back in the smoggy 60's and 70's.
Modern day environmentalism is leading us all down the wrong road and I pray that some day we can all come together so we can protect instead rescue our planet. As it stands now we are saving our planet with mass fear and silly panic from a crisis that clearly does not exist.
God help us.
KaptinKaos

Ipswich, UK

#12 Nov 1, 2008
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost all warmies are left wingers for a good reason. Lefties naturally feel cheated, threatened and treated unfairly by the myth of a dominant right wing power. Since environmentalism itself is about human impact on nature, it's therefore easy to blame affluence for all of our perceived problems. The joke is that our air is cleaner than when a river caught fire in Ohio back in the smoggy 60's and 70's.
Modern day environmentalism is leading us all down the wrong road and I pray that some day we can all come together so we can protect instead rescue our planet. As it stands now we are saving our planet with mass fear and silly panic from a crisis that clearly does not exist.
God help us.
I couldn't agree more
Fun Facts

AOL

#13 Nov 1, 2008
Here's a report from Alaska.

http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555...

Here's a look at Alaska as of yesterday

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/c...

Here's Alaska Oct 31, 2007

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/ARCHIV...
Fun Facts

AOL

#14 Nov 1, 2008
KaptinKaos

Ipswich, UK

#15 Nov 1, 2008
It is important to point out that evidence of ice melting is NOT evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are to blame.

No one is disputing that the Earth has warmed over the past century. Is it our fault? I don't think so. My opinion is that solar activity better explains our observations than carbon dioxide does.

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#16 Nov 1, 2008
KaptinKaos wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that following the hockey stick fiasco nicely exposed by McKitrick and McIntyre Tina has every right to question or be skeptical of any predictions of sea-level rise or climate. I really resent the attitude of global warmers that anyone who disagrees with them is less intelligent or well informed.
Many who insist on denying the reality of the situation don’t do it out of ignorance or stupidity. The do it out of willful self-interest. I don’t know which category you or tina are in.

Your claim that “the hockey stick was somehow “exposed” to be a “fiasco” is false though. The critics of it have nitpicked and found fault with details of the research. Things like that are part of publishing science. The basic findings have never been proven wrong.

“It's winter again.”

Since: May 07

Anywhere I hang my hat.

#18 Nov 1, 2008
KaptinKaos wrote:
It is important to point out that evidence of ice melting is NOT evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are to blame.
No one is disputing that the Earth has warmed over the past century. Is it our fault? I don't think so. My opinion is that solar activity better explains our observations than carbon dioxide does.
There is no evidence to show that the hundred and fifty year warming has any correlation to the sun. That is just more denier posturing.
Randy

Fort Worth, TX

#19 Nov 1, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
<quoted text>
Many who insist on denying the reality of the situation don’t do it out of ignorance or stupidity. The do it out of willful self-interest. I don’t know which category you or tina are in.
Your claim that “the hockey stick was somehow “exposed” to be a “fiasco” is false though. The critics of it have nitpicked and found fault with details of the research. Things like that are part of publishing science. The basic findings have never been proven wrong.
Right..

Cyclical global warming from last 400,000 years.
Take your pick of Vostok Survey graphs.

http://images.google.com/images...

And HOW much do you think we should spend to combat this problem?
Randy

Fort Worth, TX

#20 Nov 1, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
<quoted text>
Many who insist on denying the reality of the situation don’t do it out of ignorance or stupidity. The do it out of willful self-interest. I don’t know which category you or tina are in.
Your claim that “the hockey stick was somehow “exposed” to be a “fiasco” is false though. The critics of it have nitpicked and found fault with details of the research. Things like that are part of publishing science. The basic findings have never been proven wrong.
So how much do you propose we spend to solve a problem that has been politicized and cannot be proven wrong or right with certainty?
KaptinKaos

Ripon, UK

#21 Nov 2, 2008
another-peace-nic wrote:
<quoted text>
Many who insist on denying the reality of the situation don’t do it out of ignorance or stupidity. The do it out of willful self-interest. I don’t know which category you or tina are in.
Your claim that “the hockey stick was somehow “exposed” to be a “fiasco” is false though. The critics of it have nitpicked and found fault with details of the research. Things like that are part of publishing science. The basic findings have never been proven wrong.
in 2003 Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitric exposed a multitude of significant and embarrassing errors in Michael Mann’s work. Such errors included using obsolete data that had since been revised by the original researchers, poor calibration of proxy data, filling tables with identical numbers for different proxies, allocating measurements to wrong years and so on. One fine example is Mann’s use of temperature measurements for central England going back to only 1730 when records go back to 1659. This had the effect of hiding the LIA, showing that the author’s selection of data was biased. This ‘cherry picking’ of data to support one’s intended conclusions and dismissing inconvenient data as being ‘inappropriate’ is a widespread occurrence amongst climate scientists. They even corrected the mistakes and produced a new graph.

The corrected version shows that the 15th century was warmer than the 20th, that natural variability in climate can be both sizeable and abrupt, and that the 20th century increase in temperature was not unprecedented. Consequently, our carbon dioxide emissions may not be as important in climate change as global warming advocates would tell us.

1. S. McIntyre and R. McKitric, 2003.“Corrections to the Mann et al.(1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 751-771.

2. E. J. Wegman, D. W. Scott and Y. H. Said, 2005. Congressional Report. www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegm...

pretty damning I think, but please show me your evidence to the contrary. If I'm wrong prove it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Potsdam, Germany Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Get to know about forthcoming Forums for 2015 Dec '14 ICD 1
Germany marks fall of Berlin Wall Nov '14 Herrm 1
Rabbis ordained in Poland in Jewish life growth Sep '14 Balsa Jovovic 28
Rabbis ordained in Poland in Jewish life growth Sep '14 HalKW 2
Chile is facing yet another massive earthquake (Aug '14) Aug '14 Anonymous 8
1914-2014: 100 Years Of The German-Armenian Soc... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Mary Joe 4
Germany expects to attract 8-10 percent more In... (Apr '14) Apr '14 post 1
More from around the web

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:21 pm PST