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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2529 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.
HUH?? Did you read my post? Did you check the link (which admittedly isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing)?

I just said THEY ADJUSTED EARLIER TEMPS DOWN, OK? So their adjustments were NOT all in the same direction.

Look, these guys are human, & the climate is obviously complex. No one is denying that. They're capable of mistakes, & not all their adjustments will be correct ones.

It's just that there's no nefarious, deliberate attempt at deception like you seem to imply, or at least suspect. They're barely smart enough to tell the truth, let alone smart enough to lie.

When they see anything that doesn't make sense, of COURSE they ask other researchers, look at other sets of data. Evidently, looking at CERES data was one of the reasons that made Josh Willis think his cooling numbers were wrong. CERES didn't show cooling.

It turns out that his previous warming numbers were too high, & more recent cooling numbers were too low. It's just not that much of a surprise.

I repeat - there is NO conspiracy, NO deliberate attempt to distort or "make the data fit" theory. It's just scientists trying to do their best to figure out a complex system, & seeing very, very troubling things in their data.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2530 Jan 28, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
That's right, it's [sic] IS warmer and the glaciers ARE receding. But is the water supply diminished? I say it isn't.

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.

Uh your point is exactly what?
Well, if you agree that glaciers are melting, those areas that depend on glacier melt for their water supplies (which admittedly isn't a huge number) will eventually also see shortages. There aren't too many ways around that.

Of course, melting ice ends up in the ocean eventually, & will inevitably contribute to sea level rise. This is not avoidable.

Note that lots of areas, because of increased temps, are in drought. It's somewhat controversial, but droughts will be more common, more severe & longer in duration during this century. We have less reserve.

Also, earlier springs & later winters have meant depletion of snow pack & water shortages during summers. Surely you'll admit fire seasons have been severe in the western US recently.

We may not be seeing widespread, severe water shortages YET, but we will.

I'm glad you "haven't heard about" declining polar bear numbers. Hmmm. If we see polar-grizzly hybrids, though, that tells us that (1) polar bear (or maybe grizzly) numbers are declining, & it's harder for them to find mates; &/or (2) polar bears are moving south, or maybe grizzlies north.

Either of these things is a clear sign of AGW/CC, & they're AT LEAST as reliable as "hearing about" deaths of bears.

That's my point.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2531 Jan 29, 2013
More scientific science fiction.Well most but not all.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2534 Jan 29, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Where is your proof for that?
This graph
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research...
that you should be familiar with by now shows 60 years of continuous adjustment upwards. What are the odds for that? You mean in all those years since 1939 all the readings were low? It's unbelievable.
Wallop10 wrote:
You are trusting them to be throughly DISHONEST and biased...
and without any evidence...
It's mostly bias. If the ARGO floats initially came up with a warmer than expected value, I doubt that Dr. Josh Willis wouldn't have even blinked. We would have been treated to a warmer than previously thought head line instead of the one we saw which he later corrected because he didn't like it. Do I have proof of that? Of course not.
Wallop10 wrote:
Guess I'm more worried about its warmer
Warmer is great in my book. As the IPCC tells us warmer Arctic, warmer nights and warmer winters, and we here on the west shore of Lake Michigan are enjoying a nice warm winter. January 29th and it's raining.

What's not to like about warmer weather. You guy preach that it will be a catastrophic disaster. I that's a lot of exaggeration.
Wallop10 wrote:
... the glaciers are receding Why aren't you worried about that???
Advancing glaciers would be the real problem for a variety of reasons.
Wallop10 wrote:
Also the acquifers are in decline, and I'm worried about that, but that isn't due to global warming
They only get replenished by rainfall, and in a warmer world there will be more rain.
Wallop10 wrote:
I don't focus on polar bear populations ... too early for that...
The bears will be fine.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2535 Jan 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I just said THEY ADJUSTED EARLIER TEMPS DOWN, OK? So their adjustments were NOT all in the same direction.
Adjusting the earlier temps down and the later temps up exaggerates the rate of temperature change. Did I really have to explain that to you?
SpaceBlues

United States

#2536 Jan 29, 2013
All Steve wants is no research into the rising seas. Obviously he's not Dutch.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2537 Jan 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
"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.
Years ago I subscribed to "Scientific American" but I dropped the subscription because they were taken over by left wing politics.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The Duck test? I already explained to you why the corrections are always upward. It's because the real rises are accelerating.
Sea Level? No the rate of sea level rise is NOT accelerating. The satellite data since 1993 shows a negative rate of acceleration. For practical purposes it's a straight line but there's no way you can claim it's accelerating.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's a statistical artifact. Yes, you attempt to interpret the data: WRONGLY.
Here's the data
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/...
Show me.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The U of Colorado does clearly show sea levels rising, doesn't it?
Yes it does, and I just showed you the link to the data. You do know the difference between rate and acceleration of the rate don't you? You need to show me that the rate is accelerating.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The gravimetric satellites don't lie.
The people and there's only a few of them have a bias.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Ice is being lost very quickly on Greenland, at an accelerating rate; loss is slower in Antarctica, but still real.
And that's why they think the rate of sea level rise should accelerate except that it hasn't and they haven't a clue as to why it hasn't. Here's that pdf file again
"Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?"
R. Steven Nerem (University of Colorado)
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/docum...
Bottom line in all of this is that it really isn't happening the way you guys want it to.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2538 Jan 29, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Well, if you agree that glaciers are melting,
They've been receding for a long time.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
those areas that depend on glacier melt for their water supplies (which admittedly isn't a huge number) will eventually also see shortages. There aren't too many ways around that.
The water that flows in rivers that come out of the mountains depends on the rain and snow that falls. Whether or not there's a glacier present has nearly nothing to do with it.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Of course, melting ice ends up in the ocean eventually, & will inevitably contribute to sea level rise. This is not avoidable.
As I said above, glaciers have been receding for a long time. You should also know that sea level has been rising for a long time. Are those two facts related? Is the Pope Catholic?
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Note that lots of areas, because of increased temps, are in drought.
That is total B.S. The IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more rain here's the link
For a future warmer climate ... Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's somewhat controversial, but droughts will be more common, more severe & longer in duration during this century. We have less reserve.
It's more than controversial, it's B.S. Here's a link to NOAA's Climate at a Glancehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov /oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3 .html
See if you can support your claim with NOAA's empirical data.
Here's a graph for the USA48 since 1950 that shows precipitation increasing
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Jan291...
good luck.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Also, earlier springs & later winters have meant depletion of snow pack & water shortages during summers. Surely you'll admit fire seasons have been severe in the western US recently.
Surely you will admit that we have always had fires.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
We may not be seeing widespread, severe water shortages YET, but we will.
Yes because of population growth and demand, but not because of lack of rainfall, see my graph above.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
I'm glad you "haven't heard about" declining polar bear numbers.
That's because I don't pay attention to Dr. Andrew Derocher.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Hmmm. If we see polar-grizzly hybrids, though, that tells us that (1) polar bear (or maybe grizzly) numbers are declining, & it's harder for them to find mates; &/or (2) polar bears are moving south, or maybe grizzlies north.
Either of these things is a clear sign of AGW/CC, & they're AT LEAST as reliable as "hearing about" deaths of bears.
That's my point.
They're finding more because they are looking for them. You generally find what you're looking for, especially if you have an ax to grind.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2539 Jan 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
All Steve wants is no research into the rising seas. Obviously he's not Dutch.
Here's the data link to the tide gauge station closest to Amsterdam
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annua...
You can load it into Excel yourself to determine that sea level rise is 1.62 mm/yr far short of the 3.2 mm/yr that the guys on your side of the coin report.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2540 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the data link to the tide gauge station closest to Amsterdam
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annua...
You can load it into Excel yourself to determine that sea level rise is 1.62 mm/yr far short of the 3.2 mm/yr that the guys on your side of the coin report.
Thanks, Steve, for your offer of a meaningless task to me.

Here's my offer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21229387 #

Have fun with your own numbers.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2541 Jan 29, 2013
More scientific science fiction from the spaced out spacedoutblues.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2542 Jan 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks, Steve, for your offer of a meaningless task to me.
Here's my offer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21229387 #
Have fun with your own numbers.
Learning how to do your own investigation of the data with Excel or paper and pencil if that's your forte is not meaningless.

Interesting article on the Body Mass Index. Thanks for posting.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2543 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Years ago I subscribed to "Scientific American" but I dropped the subscription because they were taken over by left wing politics.
<quoted text>
Sea Level? No the rate of sea level rise is NOT accelerating. The satellite data since 1993 shows a negative rate of acceleration. For practical purposes it's a straight line but there's no way you can claim it's accelerating.
<quoted text>
Here's the data
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel1/...
Show me.
<quoted text>
Yes it does, and I just showed you the link to the data. You do know the difference between rate and acceleration of the rate don't you? You need to show me that the rate is accelerating.
<quoted text>
The people and there's only a few of them have a bias.
<quoted text>
And that's why they think the rate of sea level rise should accelerate except that it hasn't and they haven't a clue as to why it hasn't. Here's that pdf file again
<quoted text>
Bottom line in all of this is that it really isn't happening the way you guys want it to.
OK, if you don't like Scientific American, why not try another reputable general science magazine like Discover or New Scientist? Even Science News? There are legit media out there. Or do you just think ALL media are overrun with leftists?

If so, that's a sign of YOUR bias.

The sea level rise is decelerating? HUH? I'm pretty sure you're the one who posted this before:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Coulda fooled me. There was a little downturn in 2011, but since then it's been rising faster than ever.

Still, as we discussed, it depends on the time window you use. It's pretty hard to argue over longer time periods that rise is accelerating or decelerating IYAM. We'll see what happens in the future. Perhaps we can agree that it's roughly linear, at least for now.

Clearly, the El Niño in 1997-98 & La Niña in 2011 affected things. Perhaps we should try to adjust for those too.

I don't "want it to happen" any particular way. I do FEAR it'll happen, but fear isn't the same as want.

Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere lasts for centuries. It continues to cause warming. It'll be very energy-intensive to actively remove it. Why not just try to emit a BIT less of it now?

In the Eemian,~124 Kya, temps were 1-2º C higher than our pre-industrial temps, but sea level was 5-6 meters higher. If we stopped emitting CO2 today, stabilizing it at ~400 PPM, we may have already guaranteed that much rise.

In the Pliocene,~3 Mya, temps were 2-3º C higher but sea level was ~25 meters higher. The most reliable models today suggest more like ~4º C rise by 2100.

We may have "only" ~1 meter of sea level rise by 2100, but a lot more than that could be "programmed in" over the next few centuries. If we had virtually unlimited energy, we might be able to extract the CO2, but it'd be a lot easier to avoid emitting it in the 1st place.

I'm also concerned about the Arctic methane that's being released, which is increasing.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2544 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
As I said above, glaciers have been receding for a long time.
A lie.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalGl...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2545 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Learning how to do your own investigation of the data with Excel...
Excel is useless because it can only show you the raw data. You need to understand the science behind the corrections made to the raw data, which you don't.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2546 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, the adjustments were made for good reasons, laid out in the scientific literature. Without the adjustments, the data would be in error.

Please show us a necessary adjustment in the other direction that wasn't made, and tell us why it is necessary.

Otherwise all you have is lies and slander.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2547 Jan 29, 2013
Yes they were adjusted to support more scientific science fiction. Real science something you don't know.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2548 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
that you should be familiar with by now shows 60 years of continuous adjustment upwards.
There are good reasons for those adjustments, but they are just for the US.

Any adjustments made have been shown to have very little effect on the global picture- the world is warming, rapidly.

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2549 Jan 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
They've been receding for a long time.
<quoted text>
The water that flows in rivers that come out of the mountains depends on the rain and snow that falls. Whether or not there's a glacier present has nearly nothing to do with it.
<quoted text>
As I said above, glaciers have been receding for a long time. You should also know that sea level has been rising for a long time. Are those two facts related? Is the Pope Catholic?
<quoted text>
That is total B.S. The IPCC tells us that in a warmer world there will be more rain here's the link
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
It's more than controversial, it's B.S. Here's a link to NOAA's Climate at a Glancehttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov /oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3 .html
See if you can support your claim with NOAA's empirical data.
Here's a graph for the USA48 since 1950 that shows precipitation increasing
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/tmp/graph-Jan291...
good luck.
<quoted text>
Surely you will admit that we have always had fires.
<quoted text>
Yes because of population growth and demand, but not because of lack of rainfall, see my graph above.
<quoted text>
That's because I don't pay attention to Dr. Andrew Derocher.
<quoted text>
They're finding more because they are looking for them. You generally find what you're looking for, especially if you have an ax to grind.
No, the glaciers have NOT been melting for a long time. The peak of our current interglacial was APPROX ~7000 years ago. By Milankovitch cycles alone, we "should" be slowly slipping back into another ice age. The Little Ice Age "should" never have ended. We stopped the slide by emitting CO2, but we've overshot - by a LOT.

Sea level has NOT been rising for a long time. It's been roughly stable since ~7 Kya, perhaps falling between ~200 BC & ~1800 AD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacia...

There will be more rain on the COASTS. The central continents, on average, will see more drought. Droughts are very difficult & complex to predict, but here's a review article by Dai:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-d...

Obviously we've always had fires; the question is whether they're increasing. ALL objective observers admit that spring is coming earlier & winter later in the US. It would indeed be very odd if fires DIDN'T increase, because the logical inference is that they will, given only the change in timing of seasons.

That doesn't even mention the heat, which causes more evaporation & drying of soil & fuel for fires. Higher temps encourage evaporation by simple physics, after all.

Your NOAA link is to precipitation nationwide. I wouldn't try to argue that that would decrease, just that it might change in distribution.

The people with the ax to grind are the deniers. The money in AGW/CC denial, or at least delay in mitigating action, is almost unimaginable.

8 of the 12 largest companies in the world by revenue are oil companies, 2 are auto manufacturers, one is a utiligy & the other is WalMart. The ALL have profound economic interest in AGW/CC denial.

Carefully written laws might turn the car makers, utility & WalMart more neutral, but that still leaves the oil companies, the richest industry in the world. This is not even a question.

Perhaps they're paying you. If so, perhaps it's enough to offset the future scorn of your grandchildren & greatgrandchildren.

Or not.
WhiteDevil KingOfTrolls

Sanford, FL

#2550 Jan 29, 2013
Is there a solution to this problem?

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 39 min Mothra 63,405
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 10
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 3 hr Rshermr 2,236
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr Reality 11,061
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 8 hr Rshermr 36,584
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 15 hr GlobalGuessingGame 150
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 22 hr silly rabbit 8,023
More from around the web