Sea level rise: It's worse than we th...

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

There are 3768 comments on the New Scientist story from Jul 2, 2009, titled Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought. In it, New Scientist reports that:

FOR a few minutes David Holland forgets about his work and screams like a kid on a roller coaster.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2509 Jan 26, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
I think it's better for the trolls posts to stay visible, don't you?
I agree with you. Even when toxic topix AGW deniers post racist &/or threatening writings, they should remain. If people wanted to bring a class action suit against individual writers AND AGAINST TOPIX, it would be much easier to bring suit against perpetrators.
As it is, topix deletes prosecutable posts, trying to cover crimes, AND also will not ban perps.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2510 Jan 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
What's REALLY noticeable is that you didn't answer Wallop10's question about the satellites. Are those gravimetric & laser satellites "cooking the books"? Do those satellites "believe" they have to "cook the books"?(LOL)
I just pick off the pattern and apply the duck test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Here's a clue: when it comes to journalism, if it bleeds it leads. If a scientific study says "things aren't as bad as we feared" (they do happen) will that get headlines, sell papers & get web clicks? Journalism has a natural bias to exaggerate things; that's why you should go to the original scientific paper if you can
Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
is the original source, and here's
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/...
their data page
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
or at least to a reputable general science media organization like Scientific American
"Scientific American"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That organization went over to the dark side at least 20 years ago
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Sea level rise is difficult to measure because of all the variables.
Tide gauges are relatively simple devices
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The satellites showing melting ice are way more reliable.
Reliable doing what reporting melted ice or sea level?
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The fact that the rise is real, though, means that statistically, certainties will rise, so corrections will indeed be upward most of the time.
It's the rate, not the absolute value that's being adjusted. They told us in 2004 that the rate was 2.8 mm/yr today's data says that the rate in 2004 was 3.5 mm/yr.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
That's NOT cooking the books.
What it is is changing history. Johnny got a "D" in Chemistry 101 but ten years later his transcript says he got an "A".
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Your post on Watts' site should be answered with "And?"
That's for the reader to do. I just reported the facts. I regret using the term bumped up, I should have just said increased.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2511 Jan 27, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
I just pick off the pattern and apply the duck test.
No, you just jump to baseless conclusions based on profound ignorance, political prejudice and a conspiracy nut mentality.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2512 Jan 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you just jump to baseless conclusions based on profound ignorance, political prejudice and a conspiracy nut mentality.
Yes, his "thesis" is if there were corrections made that increased sea level changes, then ALL global warming theory is incorrect.

You have to close you eyes to the vast amount of other evidence out there.

Typical of today's right wing ideologues.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2513 Jan 27, 2013
NASA does a good job recapping all the evidnece Steve Case is happy to ignore.

Evidence: Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

• Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2514 Jan 27, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>

As it is, topix deletes prosecutable posts, trying to cover crimes, AND also will not ban perps.
Yes, that is apparent.

Makes me less likely to want to buy from their advertisors.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2515 Jan 27, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
I just pick off the pattern and apply the duck test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
<quoted text>
Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
is the original source, and here's
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/...
their data page
<quoted text>
"Scientific American"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That organization went over to the dark side at least 20 years ago
<quoted text>
Tide gauges are relatively simple devices
<quoted text>
Reliable doing what reporting melted ice or sea level?
<quoted text>
It's the rate, not the absolute value that's being adjusted. They told us in 2004 that the rate was 2.8 mm/yr today's data says that the rate in 2004 was 3.5 mm/yr.
<quoted text>
What it is is changing history. Johnny got a "D" in Chemistry 101 but ten years later his transcript says he got an "A".
<quoted text>
That's for the reader to do. I just reported the facts. I regret using the term bumped up, I should have just said increased.
"Scientific American went over to the dark side 20 years ago."
Translation: they tell the scientific truth & you simply canNOT handle that. It violates your initial assumption: AGW must be wrong.

The Duck test? I already explained to you why the corrections are always upward. It's because the real rises are accelerating. It's a statistical artifact. Yes, you attempt to interpret the data: WRONGLY.

The U of Colorado does clearly show sea levels rising, doesn't it?

The gravimetric satellites don't lie. Ice is being lost very quickly on Greenland, at an accelerating rate; loss is slower in Antarctica, but still real.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2516 Jan 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
NASA does a good job recapping all the evidnece Steve Case is happy to ignore.
I will respond to the sea level rise evidence:
Wallop10 wrote:
• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.
Comes to 1.7 mm/yr
Wallop10 wrote:
The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century
Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group says it's 3.2 mm/yr except that I show where they've bumped it up 0.8 mm/yr since 2004. Who knows what they did in the way of adjustment from 1992 - 2003? Anyway 3.2 mm/yr minus the adjustments comes to 2.4 mm/yr which isn't double the 1.7 mm/yr in your point above.

Besides, the rate in the early part of the 20th century was nearly what is for the last 30 years.

Other than that, on this thread I don't care to respond to the rest of your cut & paste artistry.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2517 Jan 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Makes me less likely to want to buy from their advertisers.
When the advertisers temporarily block my access to AGW forums & turn up their audio(which toxic topix allows), when I haven't elected to view their ads, I automatically ignore them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2518 Jan 27, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
I will respond to the sea level rise evidence:
<quoted text>
Comes to 1.7 mm/yr
<quoted text>
Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group says it's 3.2 mm/yr except that I show where they've bumped it up 0.8 mm/yr since 2004. Who knows what they did in the way of adjustment from 1992 - 2003? Anyway 3.2 mm/yr minus the adjustments comes to 2.4 mm/yr which isn't double the 1.7 mm/yr in your point above.
Besides, the rate in the early part of the 20th century was nearly what is for the last 30 years.
Other than that, on this thread I don't care to respond to the rest of your cut & paste artistry.


It's rather obvious that when you look at the raw data, the rate you find depends on the size of your window. Are you using 1 year windows? 10 year windows? 5 year windows? Those three approaches will give you 3 different results. Do you know what they're using?

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2519 Jan 27, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It's rather obvious that when you look at the raw data, the rate you find depends on the size of your window. Are you using 1 year windows? 10 year windows? 5 year windows? Those three approaches will give you 3 different results. Do you know what they're using?
Colorado U's Sea Level Research Group reports the trend in MM/yr for the entire satellite era starting in 1993.The data is here:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/...
You're right, different windows give different results. For example, the last five years yields a slope of 3.01 mm/yr. and the last ten delievers up 2.5 mm/yr. and this past year it's a whopping 11.2 mm/yr.

The first ten years according to this latest data delivers 3.5 mm/yr but at the time I'm sure they reported a much lower number. The earliest time series I've seen is this one
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215105250/htt...
which shows 2.8 mm/yr which is close to the ten year mark.

Numbers numbers numbers, changes changes changes. Makes me wonder what's going on, how 'bout you?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2520 Jan 28, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"phud fetid feces face fiend" doesn't need head protection since he is biologically related to dirtling.......'earthling has no brain'.
"phud fetid feces face fiend",'large lying language', dirtling, & 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' are all slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs. In addition, "phud fetid feces face fiend",'large lying language', & 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' are alleged & proud threateners.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2521 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
Numbers numbers numbers, changes changes changes. Makes me wonder what's going on, how 'bout you?
No, because I understand it's a data set that is from a short period, has high error margins, and is of a variable that has a large natural variability over the period of measurement.

These things are called "science". You need to understand "science" to realise what is happening here.

You don't.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2522 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Colorado U's Sea Level Research Group reports the trend in MM/yr for the entire satellite era starting in 1993.The data is here:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/...
You're right, different windows give different results. For example, the last five years yields a slope of 3.01 mm/yr. and the last ten delievers up 2.5 mm/yr. and this past year it's a whopping 11.2 mm/yr.
The first ten years according to this latest data delivers 3.5 mm/yr but at the time I'm sure they reported a much lower number. The earliest time series I've seen is this one
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215105250/htt...
which shows 2.8 mm/yr which is close to the ten year mark.
Numbers numbers numbers, changes changes changes. Makes me wonder what's going on, how 'bout you?
Yes, we all know the joke about lies, damn lies & statistics. But I don't think there's anything nefarious going on, just difficulties in analyzing a very complex system.

Unfortunately, we have no choice but to do the best we can when analyzing the statistics. There's a lot of "noise" in most of the signals, but you can still see trends.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2523 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
...I don't think there's anything nefarious going on...
You mean you don't even wonder about it? Sometime between 2004 & 2011 it got bumped up 0.4 mm/yr and then 0.1 in 2012 and another 0.1 this past year and of course the 0.3 GIA adjustment. That's nearly a third of the total value they're reporting. It's also about that much more than what the tide gauges say.

How 'bout the ARGO data that Dr. Josh Willis changed the sign on about four years ago? You can read about that one here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_ (oceanography)
Then there are all the temperature adjustments that have been made forever upwards? They even posted a graph
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research...
that demonstrates the one sided nature of the changes.

Claims on droughts, hurricanes, polar bears, glaciers ... every single issue surrounding this whole thing are inflated, exaggerated, cherry picked, or outright lied about in one way or another. And I get the impression that you sit still for it.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2524 Jan 28, 2013
TOPIX doesn't translate the The link to the Josh Willis & ARGO wikipedia article but you can google:

"Josh Willis ARGO" and it will come right up.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2525 Jan 28, 2013
Commonly know as scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2526 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you don't even wonder about it? Sometime between 2004 & 2011 it got bumped up 0.4 mm/yr and then 0.1 in 2012 and another 0.1 this past year and of course the 0.3 GIA adjustment. That's nearly a third of the total value they're reporting. It's also about that much more than what the tide gauges say.
How 'bout the ARGO data that Dr. Josh Willis changed the sign on about four years ago? You can read about that one here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_ (oceanography)
Then there are all the temperature adjustments that have been made forever upwards? They even posted a graph
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research...
that demonstrates the one sided nature of the changes.
Claims on droughts, hurricanes, polar bears, glaciers ... every single issue surrounding this whole thing are inflated, exaggerated, cherry picked, or outright lied about in one way or another. And I get the impression that you sit still for it.
Actually, the data were NOT only adjusted upward. Older temps were adjusted downward, newer temps upward. Willis also wasn't "trying to fit the data to the model" at all. The worst you can accuse him of is trying to make the data fit other data. He was comparing ARGO with CERES & other data. It makes sense if you read this:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Oce...

Yes, I'd trust NASA before trusting "the Andrews," Watts & Gelman.

The data on melting glaciers are NOT cherry picked. The vast majority of them worldwide are melting. Wallop10 has posted about this recently on one of these thread (can't recall which).

You could certainly complain about the polar bear data, but that's because not all areas have been studied well enough yet. Just seeing ANY polar-grizzly hybrids, though, would be very worrying IYAM, & they have been seen.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2527 Jan 28, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Actually, the data were NOT only adjusted upward. Older temps were adjusted downward, newer temps upward. Willis also wasn't "trying to fit the data to the model" at all. The worst you can accuse him of is trying to make the data fit other data. He was comparing ARGO with CERES & other data. It makes sense if you read this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Oce...
Understand this, all of the adjustments that these guys make can be backed up with good and true facts to back them up. They wouldn’t do it if they couldn't back their actions up. What you are failing to see is what isn't there. And what isn't there is all the corrections that go the other way that were never made.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Yes, I'd trust NASA before trusting "the Andrews," Watts & Gelman.
What you are trusting them to be is thorough honest and unbiased. It's that last one that you should be concerned about.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The data on melting glaciers are NOT cherry picked. The vast majority of them worldwide are melting. Wallop10 has posted about this recently on one of these thread (can't recall which).
That's right, it's IS warmer and the glaciers ARE receding. But is the water supply diminished? I say it isn't.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You could certainly complain about the polar bear data, but that's because not all areas have been studied well enough yet.
These bears are OK but the ones we haven't studied aren't. You know what? If all those other bear populations were dying off like you guys claim, I'd be hearing about it and I'm not.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Just seeing ANY polar-grizzly hybrids, though, would be very worrying IYAM, & they have been seen.
Uh your point is exactly what?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2528 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are failing to see is what isn't there. And what isn't there is all the corrections that go the other way that were never made.
Where is your proof for that?
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are trusting them to be is thorough honest and unbiased.
You are trusting them to be throughly DISHONEST and biased...

and without any evidence...
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, it's IS warmer and the glaciers ARE receding. But is the water supply diminished? I say it isn't.
Guess I'm more worried about its warmer, the glaciers are receding...
Why aren't you worried about that???

Also the acquifers are in decline, and I'm worried about that, but that isn't due to global warming...

I don't focus on polar bear populations ... too early for that...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 1 hr UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 136
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 5,081
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 2 hr Into The Night 2,391
News Hundreds Of Scientists Urge Trump To Pull Out O... 6 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 156
News Prof at The Nation: CO2 'A Far More Deadly Gas'... Tue okimar 3
News Arctic climate warming higher and faster than e... Tue Truth Is Victim 1
When only synthetic food is available ... Apr 22 tina anne 2
More from around the web