Sea level to rise even with aggressiv...

Sea level to rise even with aggressive geo-engineering and greenhouse gas control, study finds

There are 125 comments on the Science Daily story from Aug 24, 2010, titled Sea level to rise even with aggressive geo-engineering and greenhouse gas control, study finds. In it, Science Daily reports that:

"Rising sea levels caused by global warming are likely to affect around 150 million people living in low-lying coastal areas, including some of the world's largest cities," explained Dr Svetlana Jevrejeva of the National Oceanography Centre.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Science Daily.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
LessHypeMoreFact

Hamilton, Canada

#1 Aug 24, 2010
i.e. too late now. But maybe some chance of slowing the rise if we act NOW.

Of course, that would take some degree of 'foresight' and that is somewhat ignored in these right wing (don't look and maybe it will go away) times.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#2 Aug 24, 2010
Put another way: after defaulting on our gambling debts to Mother Earth, she'll let us off by breaking our thumbs. But now we want to go back to the table and play again, even though she says she'll kill us if we cross her this time.
neighbour

Okotoks, Canada

#3 Aug 24, 2010
Northie wrote:
Put another way: after defaulting on our gambling debts to Mother Earth, she'll let us off by breaking our thumbs. But now we want to go back to the table and play again, even though she says she'll kill us if we cross her this time.
I think your last sentence is correct. Geoengineering could turn mankind's worst disaster into mankind's extinction.
The most obvious problem with the sulphur idea is that once we start doing it, we have to keep doing it until CO2 levels subside. Which isn't likely.
If we inject sulphur for decades, while CO2 continues to rise, then when we suddenly stop for whatever reason, the climatic changes would be so sudden that plants wouldn't have time to adapt. Our decendants could die off in a hydrogen sulphide extinction.

It's a real danger, that something like this will be tried out of desperation when climate change hits panic levels.

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die.
LessHypeMoreFact

Hamilton, Canada

#4 Aug 25, 2010
neighbour wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your last sentence is correct. Geoengineering could turn mankind's worst disaster into mankind's extinction.
The most obvious problem with the sulphur idea is that once we start doing it, we have to keep doing it until CO2 levels subside.
There have been studies on the 'aerosol cooling' idea and it tends to mess up climate just as much as AGW alone, just differently.

I think that the old adage that comes to mind is "if it hurts when you do this, stop doing this"..

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#5 Aug 25, 2010
Geoengineering schemes are lunacy.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#6 Aug 25, 2010
neighbour wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your last sentence is correct. Geoengineering could turn mankind's worst disaster into mankind's extinction.
The most obvious problem with the sulphur idea is that once we start doing it, we have to keep doing it until CO2 levels subside. Which isn't likely.
If we inject sulphur for decades, while CO2 continues to rise, then when we suddenly stop for whatever reason, the climatic changes would be so sudden that plants wouldn't have time to adapt. Our decendants could die off in a hydrogen sulphide extinction.
It's a real danger, that something like this will be tried out of desperation when climate change hits panic levels.
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die.
Could be. However, I have no doubt that our descendants will engage in some geo-engineering, no matter what we say. If it's simply a matter of sucking carbon out of the air and sequestering it, maybe that's not a problem. Where it really gets crazy is with ideas such as spewing SO2 into the air, which would require a nearly endless sulfur source as well as a permanent means to neutralize the acidity of the resulting rains; in other words, a Rube Goldberg contraption with several interacting parts, the failure of any of which could mean global catastrophe.

In that case, the law of unintended consequences would eventually rule. "There was an old lady who swallowed a fly" is an apt analogy.
LessHypeMoreFact

Hamilton, Canada

#7 Aug 25, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Where it really gets crazy is with ideas such as spewing SO2 into the air, which would require a nearly endless sulfur source as well as a permanent means to neutralize the acidity of the resulting rains;
You also have to deal with the emerging 'acid rain' from nitrates.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#8 Aug 26, 2010
Sea level will rise approximately 11 to 12 inches between now and the year 2100, you all have my word for it, just wait and see for yourselves.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#9 Aug 26, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Sea level will rise approximately 11 to 12 inches between now and the year 2100, you all have my word for it, just wait and see for yourselves.
On NOAA's Tides and Currents web site you will find this page:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL...

It lists the linear mean sea level (MSL) trends and 95% confidence intervals in mm/yr for 159 tide gages around the world.

After a short bit of analysis it's very easy to come up with an average of .61 mm/yr and a median value of 1.025 mm/yr from that list. Multiply that times 100 years in a century and you get 2.5 to maybe 4 inches by 2100. I have no reason to believe that sea level is currently rising at 3mm/yr as your 11 to 12 inch estimate indicates.

I believe the 3mm/yr claim is based on satellite measurements not tide gages. The satellite data is manipulated and brought to us by the same sorts of folks who run the Climate Research Unit (CRU) gave us the "Hockey Stick" and claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt away by 2035.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#10 Aug 26, 2010
I should add that I have much more faith in data produced by 159 harbormasters around the world and their technicians than I have in a small clique of "Scientists" with an obvious agenda.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#11 Aug 26, 2010
Steve Case wrote:
On NOAA's Tides and Currents web site you will find this page:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL...
It lists the linear mean sea level (MSL) trends and 95% confidence intervals in mm/yr for 159 tide gages around the world.
After a short bit of analysis it's very easy to come up with an average of .61 mm/yr and a median value of 1.025 mm/yr from that list. Multiply that times 100 years in a century and you get 2.5 to maybe 4 inches by 2100. I have no reason to believe that sea level is currently rising at 3mm/yr as your 11 to 12 inch estimate indicates.
I believe the 3mm/yr claim is based on satellite measurements not tide gages. The satellite data is manipulated and brought to us by the same sorts of folks who run the Climate Research Unit (CRU) gave us the "Hockey Stick" and claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were going to melt away by 2035.
I'm sorry you missed the, "just wait and see for yourselves" joke, Steve.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#13 Aug 26, 2010
Get this nutty scientific quote from the EPA, they include sinking and rising land in sea level rise figures?!?!?:
* Sea level has been rising 0.08-0.12 inches per year (2.0-3.0 mm per year) along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
* The rate of sea level rise varies from about 0.36 inches per year (10 mm per year) along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (because land is rising). See Figure 1 for sea level trends in selected cities.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/rece...
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#14 Aug 26, 2010
Steve Case wrote:
I should add that I have much more faith in data produced by 159 harbormasters around the world and their technicians than I have in a small clique of "Scientists" with an obvious agenda.
You might enjoy this guy's article, he rounds it off with an amusing quote,“That kind of analysis, I think, can only come at the dangerous intersection of Excel and PowerPoint. It can’t happen in reality.”
Aubrey McClendon (CEO of Chesapeake Energy)
-
“Oh say can you see”… 20th Century Sea Level Changes, When Viewed in a Geological Perspective?"
By David Middleton
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/o...
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#15 Aug 26, 2010
Some facts about sea level rise from Simon Holgate at the Proudman Oceanographic Lab:
"On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century"
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (&#8722;1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#16 Aug 26, 2010
Steve Case wrote:
I should add that I have much more faith in data produced by 159 harbormasters around the world and their technicians than I have in a small clique of "Scientists" with an obvious agenda.
You're the one with the obvious agenda. I can only hope the rest of us will listen to the experts.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16732-s...
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#17 Aug 26, 2010
Northie wrote:
You're the one with the obvious agenda.
And you haven't chosen an agenda??
Northie wrote:
I can only hope the rest of us will listen to the experts.
Some of us listen to or read what all the experts have to say, without cherry picking those who support our own personal agenda.
-
Get some scepticism, you know it makes sense and apart from that, it makes one feel a little less gloomy and despondent about the unknown future.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#18 Aug 26, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>And you haven't chosen an agenda??<quoted text>Some of us listen to or read what all the experts have to say, without cherry picking those who support our own personal agenda.
-
Get some scepticism, you know it makes sense and apart from that, it makes one feel a little less gloomy and despondent about the unknown future.
My only "agenda" is to listen to the experts, and to encourage others to do the same.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#19 Aug 26, 2010
Northie wrote:
My only "agenda" is to listen to the experts, and to encourage others to do the same.
That's exactly what I said, you listen to experts on one side and accept their opinions without question.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#20 Aug 26, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>That's exactly what I said, you listen to experts on one side and accept their opinions without question.
On one side of what? There are nearly no credible experts, and certainly no expert reviewing bodies, that dispute human climate cooking. All that's left of your "side" consists of a few conservative gadflies buzzing around online, parroting what coal and oil companies tell them to believe.

Given the growing evidence that we face catastrophic risks, only ignorant fools continue to ignore expert opinion at this point. Unfortunately, ignorant fools are never in short supply.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#21 Aug 26, 2010
Northie wrote:
On one side of what?
Try, in support of an ideal, is that better?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
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.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Scientists Beg for Climate Action (Dec '07) 2 hr Patriot 1,864
Lost in the sea Sep '16 clement 1
News The world's clouds are in different places than... Jul '16 Too Easy 14
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) Jul '16 litesong 3,768
News With La Nina around the corner, dry weather in ... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Kev 1
News new Scientists find minivan-sized sponge, world... (May '16) May '16 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... (Apr '16) Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
More from around the web