Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Jul 2, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: New Scientist

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

Comments
2,501 - 2,520 of 3,119 Comments Last updated Jun 23, 2014

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2608
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

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.

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.

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.Their 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.

The evidence for rapid climate change is:

• 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.

• 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. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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. 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.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
litesong

Camano Island, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2609
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
deal with it.
Since oil & energy companies caused it & now pay lots of money to deny it, we'll make them 'deal with it' first.

They will fire brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver to start their 'deal with it' policy.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2610
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Since oil & energy companies caused it & now pay lots of money to deny it, we'll make them 'deal with it' first.
They will fire brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver to start their 'deal with it' policy.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not 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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2611
Feb 12, 2013
 
Because of the human-caused climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2613
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
Because of the human-caused climate change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...
There you have it folks the spaced out spacedoutblues got its crystal ball out and made another prediction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2614
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you have it folks the spaced out spacedoutblues got its crystal ball out and made another prediction.
Actually, AGW/CC theory has made ~17-20 correct predictions, depending on how you count them. So yes, science DOES allow predictions about the future, & AGW/CC theory has made them correctly.

You may not want to look, but for those who do, this is a nice summary:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable....
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2615
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, AGW/CC theory has made ~17-20 correct predictions, depending on how you count them. So yes, science DOES allow predictions about the future, & AGW/CC theory has made them correctly.
You may not want to look, but for those who do, this is a nice summary:
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable....
17-20 correct "predictions" out of how many? It’s like throwing stuff on the wall and counting how many stick and calling it a prediction. I would argue that scientific science fiction allows predictions not science. Thanks for the link.
sun

Kelso, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2617
Feb 13, 2013
 
about 10 million spieces today,99.9% of all spieces that have lived on earth gone.are odds are not good no matter how you think about what man is doing to the earth,get over it i like driving my gas hog jeep ,love cuttig my trees down an making fire wood,just in case we get a direct cme hit,lites out,wouldn't have to think about globewarming then or money the globelwarming crowd wants to suck out of us.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2618
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>17-20 correct "predictions" out of how many? It’s like throwing stuff on the wall and counting how many stick and calling it a prediction. I would argue that scientific science fiction allows predictions not science. Thanks for the link.
If you think there are incorrect predictions (in peer reviewed scientific journals, not what some reporter SAYS a scientist said), post them. In fact, since the IPCC made its corrections for aerosols in 1995, their mid-range predictions have been very close to what we've seen in measured temperatures. OTOH, doubters like Lindzen have been WAY off.

In fact, the "incorrect" predictions have been taken out of context by lies & distortions. The LIAR Michael Crichton, who was a very good writer of fiction, wasn't so good with analysis.

In the 1980s, James Hansen offered 3 possible scenarios for future temps: low, medium & high. The LIAD Crichton threw out the low & medium temps & called the high range Hansen's "prediction."

What happened in reality was close to Hansen's mid range projections, but Crichton managed to say his "predictions" didn't come true.

Similarly, a reporter SAID Hansen said in ~1990 that the West Side Highway would be awash in 20 or 40 years (the interval was in some dispute). That didn't happen after 20 years, unless you count Sandy, during which much of southern Manhattan experienced flooding.

What this reporter left out was that Hansen also said "ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED." When CO2 levels have doubled, you'd better believe the West Side Highway, & most of the rest of NYC, will be flooded. With doubled CO2, temps will eventually be ~3-4.5º C higher, & sea level will eventually be at least 25 meters higher. Bye bye NYC.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2619
Feb 13, 2013
 
Errata:

Obviously I meant the "LIAR" Michael Crichton in the 3rd paragraph.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2620
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sun wrote:
about 10 million spieces today,99.9% of all spieces that have lived on earth gone.are odds are not good no matter how you think about what man is doing to the earth,get over it i like driving my gas hog jeep ,love cuttig my trees down an making fire wood,just in case we get a direct cme hit,lites out,wouldn't have to think about globewarming then or money the globelwarming crowd wants to suck out of us.
It's very nice you're preparing for a CME.

However, nobody is advocating anything but a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax. That would remove ZERO money from the people & add ZERO to the cost of government. The only thing is does is take money from high carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.

You can think of it like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, collected either during production or sale. 100% of that tax money is then returned, presumably monthly, equally to every citizen or legal resident (& a half share for children) in the country.

It would stimulate entrepreneurs to develop ways to harness renewable energy. The true cost of burning fossil fuels would FINALLY be part of its price.

For the 1st time EVER, we'd have a truly free market for energy, unburdened from the horrendously distorting government policy of the lack of a carbon tax. No need for the government to choose a Solyndra over another renewable energy company because they'd finally be competing on a level playing field.

The idea that emitting carbon into the atmosphere is "free" is a psychotic delusion shared by far too many people & their governments. It is NOT free. We are incurring a debt, potentially of almost incalculable size (orders of magnitude larger than our national debt), that will have to be paid by our progeny.

The fossil fuels companies of course want to perpetuate this psychosis. They're pursuing their financial interests. It's just that those interests will kill horrendously large numbers of our children, & potentially cost us staggering amounts of money.
sun

Kelso, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2621
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It's very nice you're preparing for a CME.
However, nobody is advocating anything but a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax. That would remove ZERO money from the people & add ZERO to the cost of government. The only thing is does is take money from high carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.
You can think of it like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, collected either during production or sale. 100% of that tax money is then returned, presumably monthly, equally to every citizen or legal resident (& a half share for children) in the country.
It would stimulate entrepreneurs to develop ways to harness renewable energy. The true cost of burning fossil fuels would FINALLY be part of its price.
For the 1st time EVER, we'd have a truly free market for energy, unburdened from the horrendously distorting government policy of the lack of a carbon tax. No need for the government to choose a Solyndra over another renewable energy company because they'd finally be competing on a level playing field.
The idea that emitting carbon into the atmosphere is "free" is a psychotic delusion shared by far too many people & their governments. It is NOT free. We are incurring a debt, potentially of almost incalculable size (orders of magnitude larger than our national debt), that will have to be paid by our progeny.
The fossil fuels companies of course want to perpetuate this psychosis. They're pursuing their financial interests. It's just that those interests will kill horrendously large numbers of our children, & potentially cost us staggering amounts of money.
just an oldman that worked his ass of for 45 years ,can;t spell an a low teck.guy in high teck world,made it to 4 grade im real sorry i just dont get what your talking about .but you sound like a smart guy hope your right.i just know where all the wood comes from for houses for people to live in and all ass wipe comes from an it take a lot trees an oil to do them things but i cant say your wrong because it sounds real good i don't think i can real read what everbody talks about on these place,i think you guys are all nice people but you talk real bad to each other,but that the way it is in high tec.world i think .hope ya figure it out lol
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2622
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

sun wrote:
.....i think you guys are all nice people but you talk real bad to each other,
There are members posting here that are members of related organizations. Being Native Tribe members, my wife & I have been been racially smeared & threatened with gun death, torture, & rape. Others, also, have been threatened. A good percentage of toxic topix AGW deniers are racists, whether they belong to the kkk(always small letters), threaten or not.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2623
Feb 13, 2013
 
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
There are members posting here that are members of related organizations. Being Native Tribe members, my wife & I have been been racially smeared & threatened with gun death, torture, & rape. Others, also, have been threatened. A good percentage of toxic topix AGW deniers are racists, whether they belong to the kkk(always small letters), threaten or not.
Some of the foulest racism I've ever seen is right here on topix. The worst ones evidently figure they can hide behind their computers. Luckily they're a small minority & they tend to get creamed by the rest of us. I'll skip the links.

Also, some AGW/CC deniers here are in fact paid shills, supported by oil money directly or indirectly. Sometimes you can tell pretty easily, but lots of times they're subtle.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2624
Feb 14, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think there are incorrect predictions (in peer reviewed scientific journals, not what some reporter SAYS a scientist said), post them. In fact, since the IPCC made its corrections for aerosols in 1995, their mid-range predictions have been very close to what we've seen in measured temperatures. OTOH, doubters like Lindzen have been WAY off.
In fact, the "incorrect" predictions have been taken out of context by lies & distortions. The LIAR Michael Crichton, who was a very good writer of fiction, wasn't so good with analysis.
In the 1980s, James Hansen offered 3 possible scenarios for future temps: low, medium & high. The LIAD Crichton threw out the low & medium temps & called the high range Hansen's "prediction."
What happened in reality was close to Hansen's mid range projections, but Crichton managed to say his "predictions" didn't come true.
Similarly, a reporter SAID Hansen said in ~1990 that the West Side Highway would be awash in 20 or 40 years (the interval was in some dispute). That didn't happen after 20 years, unless you count Sandy, during which much of southern Manhattan experienced flooding.
What this reporter left out was that Hansen also said "ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED." When CO2 levels have doubled, you'd better believe the West Side Highway, & most of the rest of NYC, will be flooded. With doubled CO2, temps will eventually be ~3-4.5º C higher, & sea level will eventually be at least 25 meters higher. Bye bye NYC.
You answered the question. They use predictions, projections, opinion,Assuming and so on. There is equal argument on both sides of the fence. Therefore, what you are saying if posted on the internet it must be true.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2625
Feb 14, 2013
 
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You answered the question. They use predictions, projections, opinion,Assuming and so on. There is equal argument on both sides of the fence. Therefore, what you are saying if posted on the internet it must be true.
A theory is true if it makes predictions that turn out to be correct. The confirmations of AGW/CC have proven that although there are imperfections, it's clearly a very good approximation of what is going on in the real world.

You appear to repeatedly imply that scientists are just monkey-with-a-dartboarding it with their predictions, making random guesses. They're not. Over time they've proven to be more & more correct.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2626
Feb 14, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Errata:
Obviously I meant the "LIAR" Michael Crichton in the 3rd paragraph.
He is too ignorant to be a liar. He probably believes his own propaganda. And he is arrogant enough to comment on this he is nearly totally ignorant of.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2627
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
A theory is true if it makes predictions that turn out to be correct. The confirmations of AGW/CC have proven that although there are imperfections, it's clearly a very good approximation of what is going on in the real world.
You appear to repeatedly imply that scientists are just monkey-with-a-dartboarding it with their predictions, making random guesses. They're not. Over time they've proven to be more & more correct.
Never said monkey with dart boarding. I said wall. As you have said, they are more and more correct which implies that when they make corrections to their errors they discover more errors to their corrections. If they were correct with their corrections, all issues solved.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2628
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text> Never said monkey with dart boarding. I said wall. As you have said, they are more and more correct which implies that when they make corrections to their errors they discover more errors to their corrections. If they were correct with their corrections, all issues solved.
Yes, & over time, those projections get closer & closer to the truth. That's what's been happening for the past 117 years, when AGW/CC was 1st proposed, scientists have been getting better & better at understanding the system.

That's not to say that scientists don't make mistakes; of course they do, they're human. But the process of science works over time to progressively reduce error. At the point, the outline of AGW/CC theory is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2629
Feb 14, 2013
 
Erratum:

In the 1st paragraph, I meant "...years, SINCE AGW/CC was 1st proposed..."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••