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

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

There are 3753 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

Snohomish, WA

#2927 Aug 27, 2013
[QUOTE who="steve's case of the itch"]Groupthink is probably a better term for it.[/QUOTE]

A better term is re-pubic-lick-un think tank, without science or mathematics.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#2928 Aug 27, 2013
Mr. Case,
My first impression is that this appears extremely incriminating.
Those who know how to reason could even view it as evidence.

Nice detective work,
-koolaid
SpaceBlues

United States

#2929 Aug 27, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Mr. Case,
My first impression is that this appears extremely incriminating.
Those who know how to reason could even view it as evidence.
Nice detective work,
-koolaid
You are drinking again.

P.S. You forgot who you are.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#2930 Aug 27, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
Somehow someone somewhere at some time for some reason changed the data.
Well, that certainly narrows it down!

And that's the essence of your conspiracy theory.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2932 Aug 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that certainly narrows it down!
And that's the essence of your conspiracy theory.
The data was in fact changed. That is was changed isn't a theory. Of those five little questions, Who? What? Where? When? and Why? the fact that the data has been changed is the What? How 'bout if you work on the other four.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2934 Aug 29, 2013
BBC ... One of the biggest canyons in the world has been found beneath the ice sheet that smothers most of Greenland.

The canyon - which is 800km long and up to 800m deep - was carved out by a great river more than four million years ago, before the ice arrived.

The British Antarctic Survey said it was remarkable to find so huge a geographical feature previously unseen.

The hidden valley is longer than the Grand Canyon in Arizona. It snakes its way from the centre of Greenland up to the northern coastline and before the ice sheet was formed it would have contained a river gushing into the Arctic Ocean. Now it is packed with ice.

The ice sheet, up to 3km (2 miles) thick, is now so heavy that it makes the island sag in the middle (central Greenland was previously about 500m above sea level, now it is 200m below sea level).

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2935 Aug 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
BBC ... One of the biggest canyons in the world has been found beneath the ice sheet that smothers most of Greenland.
The canyon - which is 800km long and up to 800m deep - was carved out by a great river more than four million years ago, before the ice arrived.
Interesting
SpaceBlues wrote:
The British Antarctic Survey said it was remarkable to find so huge a geographical feature previously unseen.
Antarctic Survey? Well maybe they did but Greenland isn't in the Antarctic.
SpaceBlues wrote:
The hidden valley is longer than the Grand Canyon in Arizona. It snakes its way from the centre of Greenland up to the northern coastline and before the ice sheet was formed it would have contained a river gushing into the Arctic Ocean. Now it is packed with ice.
More interesting stuff
SpaceBlues wrote:
The ice sheet, up to 3km (2 miles) thick, is now so heavy that it makes the island sag in the middle (central Greenland was previously about 500m above sea level, now it is 200m below sea level).
Just so you know, all that grounded Greenland ic e that's below sea level will contribute negatively to sea level if it ever melts, not to mention the rebound of central Greenland.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2936 Aug 29, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting
<quoted text>
Antarctic Survey? Well maybe they did but Greenland isn't in the Antarctic.
<quoted text>
More interesting stuff
<quoted text>
Just so you know, all that grounded Greenland ic e that's below sea level will contribute negatively to sea level if it ever melts, not to mention the rebound of central Greenland.
Did a bell ring?

Yeah, we know where Greenland is. We'll await the papers.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2937 Aug 29, 2013
Here's one in print:

Subglacial topography plays an important role in modulating the distribution and flow of basal water. Where topography predates ice sheet inception, it can also reveal insights into former tectonic and geomorphological processes. Although such associations are known in Antarctica, little consideration has been given to them in Greenland, partly because much of the ice sheet bed is thought to be relatively flat and smooth. Here, we present evidence from ice-penetrating radar data for a 750-km-long subglacial canyon in northern Greenland that is likely to have influenced basal water flow from the ice sheet interior to the margin. We suggest that the mega-canyon predates ice sheet inception and will have influenced basal hydrology in Greenland over past glacial cycles.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/99...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#2938 Aug 29, 2013
Meet Professor Jonathan Bamber. This guy/his team might thus get a Nobel prize:

Jonathan Bamber is a professor in physical geography. He graduated from Bristol University with a degree in Physics in 1983 and went on to complete a Ph.D at the Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, in glaciology and remote sensing. He then spent eight years in the Department of Space and Climate Physics, University College London before returning to Bristol in 1996. His main areas of interest are in applications of remote sensing data in the polar regions. More specifically, he has been working on the use of remote sensing data to elucidate the morphology and dynamics of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. More recently he has begun work on cryosphere-climate interactions and feedbacks through a combined modelling and observational approach.

He is also involved in remote sensing research in the department and has interests in the use of remote sensing data for a variety of other applications such as the generation of digital elevation models and in oceanography.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/geography/people/jon...
litesong

Snohomish, WA

#2939 Aug 31, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
Antarctic Survey? Well maybe they did but Greenland isn't in the Antarctic.
Yes, & research that begins in one place never spills over & goes somewhere else. Thank you for your scientific analysis.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2940 Sep 1, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, & research that begins in one place never spills over & goes somewhere else. Thank you for your scientific analysis.
You are very welcome.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2941 Sep 1, 2013
Sea level rise and fall, the seas are fluid. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Don't hate CO2.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#2942 Sep 1, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
The data was in fact changed. That is was changed isn't a theory. Of those five little questions, Who? What? Where? When? and Why? the fact that the data has been changed is the What? How 'bout if you work on the other four.
Oh, Steve, you're next to hopeless.

Let's put it in terms you might understand. Say you own a widget store. A shipment of widgets comes in, for which you paid $.98 each wholesale. Some employee puts the widgets out on the sales floor with pricetags of $.98 each. You soon discover the mistake and order your pimply teenage helper to add the markup and change the price to $1.98. Now the correction is going to improve your bottom line.

You made the claim. Your mission is to tell us who did it. And the sixth question is how; you left that very important one out. You already know what, when, and where. You claim the why is criminal behavior.

My claim for the why is called "updating".

Why do you make the claim and then think that you have no responsibility to back it up?

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#2943 Sep 1, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Did a bell ring?
Yeah, we know where Greenland is. We'll await the papers.
Remaining Climate Blame Believer;
Science hasn't agreed it will happen, only could happen so what gives you fear mongers the right to say it WILL happen? Science has NEVER said but you can?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#2944 Sep 1, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Remaining Climate Blame Believer;
In your dreams.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2945 Sep 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, Steve, you're next to hopeless.
Let's put it in terms you might understand. Say you own a widget store. A shipment of widgets comes in, for which you paid $.98 each wholesale. Some employee puts the widgets out on the sales floor with pricetags of $.98 each. You soon discover the mistake and order your pimply teenage helper to add the markup and change the price to $1.98. Now the correction is going to improve your bottom line.
You made the claim. Your mission is to tell us who did it. And the sixth question is how; you left that very important one out. You already know what, when, and where. You claim the why is criminal behavior.
My claim for the why is called "updating".
Why do you make the claim and then think that you have no responsibility to back it up?
Some analogies are better than others. Yours isn't very good. Sea level via Satellite altimetry has been adjusted mostly one way by a factor of 35:1. Say whatevewr you want, that's the way it shakes out.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2946 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Sea level rise and fall, the seas are fluid. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Don't hate CO2.
Whitewash!

Previous work has shown that the diminishing ice cover in the East Siberian sea is allowing the waters to warm and the methane to leach out. Scientists have found plumes of the gas up to a kilometre in diameter rising from these waters.

In this study, the researchers have attempted to put an economic price on the climate damage that these emissions of methane could cause. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, even though it lasts less than a decade in the atmosphere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Using an economic model very similar to the one used by Lord Stern in his 2006 review of the economics of climate change, the researchers examined the impact of the release of 50-gigatonnes of methane over a decade.

They worked out that this would increase climate impacts such as flooding, sea level rise, damage to agriculture and human health to the tune of $60 trillion.

"That's an economic time bomb that at this stage has not been recognised on the world stage," said Prof Gail Whiteman at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, and one of the authors.

"We think it's incredibly important for world leaders to really discuss what are the implications of this methane release and what could we indeed do about it to hopefully prevent the whole burst from happening."

The researchers say their study is in marked contrast to other, more upbeat assessments of the economic benefits of warming in the Arctic region.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2947 Sep 2, 2013
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Some analogies are better than others. Yours isn't very good. Sea level via Satellite altimetry has been adjusted mostly one way by a factor of 35:1. Say whatevewr you want, that's the way it shakes out.
Perhaps this will help, Steve.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-...

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#2948 Sep 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps this will help, Steve.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-...
And if you read it through, you will find that it says:

"Finally, on no account, altimetric
errors can explain the slowing down
MSL evolution at the end of the period."

I expect they were talking about the last year or two, not the last ten years.

And I didn't see an explanation why the original 1993-2004 time series came out to 2.6 mm/yr and that same series today comes out to 3.5 mm/yr.

But the give away are these statements:

"In the second part, we check
if this reduced rate of rise
is real or results from anomalies
of the Jason-1 altimeter system."

"To check the robustness of the
estimated smaller rate of sea
level rise over the past few
years, we next investigate
whether it could be related to
drifts or jumps in the Jason-1
altimetry system."

The reduced and smaller rates are thuroughly investigated, but bumps up as occurred in 1997 or 2008 are not.

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.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News With La Nina around the corner, dry weather in ... Jun 7 Kev 1
News new Scientists find minivan-sized sponge, world... May 31 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
News El Nino, La Nina patterns may be keys to predic... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Sewage in the CRD: Scientists question need for... Mar '16 crazy 1
interesting course Mar '16 Hanalei 1
News Did A Slow Gulf Stream Make the East Coast Bliz... Jan '16 litesong 1
More from around the web