Global warming: Sea level rising faster than expected

Sea level rise is one of the most obvious signs of global warming, but climate scientists have been trying to figure out why the oceans are expanding faster than most models predict.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

"The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century"

They keep misreading the IPCC report. It stated SPECIFICALLY that the 'projections' were ONLY of thermal expansion and mountain glacier loss. It EXCLUDED runoff from ice sheets, so no wonder the real rise is higher than "expected".

[PHD]

They are scientist and that’s what they do. Some answers are fact some fiction. With every problem solved by scientist they discover twenty five more problems. When they examine the new twenty five problems they find the first to be incorrect. Ask Einstein.

[SpaceBlues]

PHD wrote:

They are scientist and that’s what they do. Some answers are fact some fiction. With every problem solved by scientist they discover twenty five more problems. When they examine the new twenty five problems they find the first to be incorrect. Ask Einstein.

What you forget is that scientists have their range of expertise. This is why the IPCC is needed to bring together a big picture. That's all.

Wait for the next report.

[Steve Case]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

"The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100.

And that was probably an inflated estimate. The current rate which as I've pointed out many times isn't accelerating, gets us to a little less than 0.25 meters by 2100.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century

Really! The current rate measured by satellite is 2.8 mm/yr do the math and you get that 0.25 meter I mentioned above.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

They keep misreading the IPCC report. It stated SPECIFICALLY that the 'projections' were ONLY of thermal expansion and mountain glacier loss. It EXCLUDED runoff from ice sheets, so no wonder the real rise is higher than "expected".

The real rise so far is LESS than expected. Here's that link where Dr. Steve Nerem of Colorado University's Sea Level Research Groups wonders why the rate of sea level rise isn't accelerating:

Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/docum...

Cut it any way you want, it just isn't happening the way you guys want it to.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>What you forget is that scientists have their range of expertise. This is why the IPCC is needed to bring together a big picture. That's all.
Wait for the next report.

Yes they do have a range indeed.The next report will be in two day's. Watch for the new spin.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
And that was probably an inflated estimate.

Unsupported bullscat.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
The current rate which as I've pointed out many times isn't accelerating, gets us to a little less than 0.25 meters by 2100.

If it stayed the same, sure. But there is NO evidence that it will continue exactly as now. In fact, past history AND the estimates of 'feedbacks' show that it is pretty much certain to accelerate as the positive feedbacks increase the ice melt and flow from ice sheets. Looking at those specifically, it has already started and has a 'doubling time' of five to ten years. Projecting THIS into the future could allow five meters of sea level rise. And past warming events support at LEAST one to two meters of rise. THOSE are the science. YOUR's is the bs.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Really! The current rate measured by satellite is 2.8 mm/yr do the math and you get that 0.25 meter I mentioned above.

Math and logic lead to invalid conclusions unless you have REASON as well. And reason shows that with warmer temperatures and positive feedback from a warmer arctic as well as warmer waters around Antactica, we can expect a steady increase in the mass loss of ice sheets.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
The real rise so far is LESS than expected. Here's that link where Dr. Steve Nerem of Colorado University's Sea Level Research Groups wonders why the rate of sea level rise isn't accelerating:
<quoted text>
Cut it any way you want, it just isn't happening the way you guys want it to.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
The real rise so far is LESS than expected. Here's that link where Dr. Steve Nerem of Colorado University's Sea Level Research Groups wonders why the rate of sea level rise isn't accelerating:

The accuracy of sea level estimates is not yet good enough to detect the amount added from ice sheets. But you CAN show the increase and acceleration by looking at the ice sheet mass loss itself. You continue to 'play with numbers' instead of dealing with science.

[Steve Case]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Unsupported bullscat.

Take a look at the empirical record.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

If it stayed the same, sure. But there is NO evidence that it will continue exactly as now.

That's right, and over the last 20 years there's been some deceleration. Not much, but deceleration nevertheless.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

In fact, past history AND the estimates of 'feedbacks' show that it is pretty much certain to accelerate as the positive feedbacks increase the ice melt and flow from ice sheets.

Not in the last 20 years.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Looking at those specifically, it has already started and has a 'doubling time' of five to ten years.

To use a term you're familiar with, Bullscat!.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Projecting THIS into the future could allow five meters of sea level rise.

As I've pointed out before, sea level would have to rise at a rate of 1 millimeter per DAY in order to follow that scenario.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

And past warming events support at LEAST one to two meters of rise.

When there was lots of ice to melt in the temperate latitudes. Those conditions don't exist today.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

THOSE are the science. YOUR's is the bs.

No, yours is pure conjecture based on something other than observations of current conditions and the empirical record.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Math and logic lead to invalid conclusions unless you have REASON as well.

The reasons your side puts out are pure conjecture.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

And reason shows that with warmer temperatures and positive feedback from a warmer arctic as well as warmer waters around Antactica, we can expect a steady increase in the mass loss of ice sheets.

And sea level IS going up, it just isn't going up like you guys want it to.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

The accuracy of sea level estimates is not yet good enough to detect the amount added from ice sheets.

Didn't stop Dr. James Hansen from claiming that 5 meters by 2100 is possible.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

But you CAN show the increase and acceleration by looking at the ice sheet mass loss itself.

Hasn't shown up in the ocean so far. When is it going to happen? Why hasn't it happened? Dr. Steve Nerem in that link I provided tried to come up with some reasons. I think he falls short. You guys have drawn a fictitious treasure map including an "X" marks the spot and have been furiously digging and you can't understand why the treasure isn't there.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

You continue to 'play with numbers' instead of dealing with science.

The numbers I play with are the empirical record from the real world. You play with conjectures based on wishful thinking.

[SpaceBlues]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Yes they do have a range indeed.The next report will be in two day's. Watch for the new spin.

Is it out?

[SpaceBlues]

To make sure residents don't lose their homes, Norfolk has already taken a number of steps. It spends millions each year to improve drainage. It has also raised the level of some roads and found money to elevate the foundations of some houses.

But the centerpiece of Norfolk's survival strategy is a comprehensive plan put together by a Dutch company to keep water out of some of the city's most vulnerable neighborhoods. The plan includes more sea walls, floodgates, pumping stations and earthen berms.

The price tag: about $1 billion, roughly the size of the city's entire annual budget. That means it can't be done without help from state and federal government, Fraim says. "We simply are not able to hold back the sea by ourselves."

http://www.gpb.org/news/2012/11/06/norfolk-va...

[Adrian Godsafe MSc]

Interesting panel.

The last bit of the commentary actually even began finally to mention the 4 climate modes which were a taboo subject since the regime of George HW Bush.

For the record the 4 climate modes actually refer to the long term vegetation patterns and also distribution of the ice caps that characterise variouys geological periods.

George HW Bush attempted to remove all reference to them because the time taken to produce a certain vegetation pattern, means that only 3 climate modes could possibly fit in the timescale of creationism.

Have a nice day: Ag

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Is it out?

Yes Big Bird gets to live.

[SpaceBlues]

Go Big Bird GO. Sing a song of survival.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Go Big Bird GO. Sing a song of survival.

Don't forget about Elmo. Not so for crow the Mitt is doing a make ready for dinner tonight.

[SpaceBlues]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Don't forget about Elmo. Not so for crow the Mitt is doing a make ready for dinner tonight.

Hear hear ..

Then there was Romney’s fete — for which reporters were charged $1,000 a seat. The very location set the candidate and his well-heeled supporters apart from the masses: The gleaming convention center, built with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, is on a peninsula in the Boston harbor that was turned into an election-night fortress, with helicopters overhead, metal barricades and authorities searching vehicles. Only a few gawkers crossed the bridge from downtown to stand outside.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-m...

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Hear hear ..
Then there was Romney’s fete — for which reporters were charged $1,000 a seat. The very location set the candidate and his well-heeled supporters apart from the masses: The gleaming convention center, built with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, is on a peninsula in the Boston harbor that was turned into an election-night fortress, with helicopters overhead, metal barricades and authorities searching vehicles. Only a few gawkers crossed the bridge from downtown to stand outside.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-m...

They didn't have enough crow to go around. Maybe that former Alaskan Gov.was hunting Big Bird from that helicopter.

[SpaceBlues]

How does sea level rise in New York Harbor compare to other parts of the U.S.? What about the global average?

Sea level isn’t rising evenly throughout the world. On average, global sea level has risen about eight inches since 1880. So, the New York rate of sea level rise of nearly one foot is higher than the global average rate. In the U.S., rates of change vary. For example, Grand Isle, Louisiana near New Orleans has seen sea level increase by 23 inches since 1947 whereas Seattle, Washington, has only seen about six inches over that same period. Local factors such as land subsidence are primarily responsible for the differences.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2012...