Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Jul 2, 2009 Full story: New Scientist 3,210

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

Full Story

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1015 Jan 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have, and you are wrong.
Did you or did you just searched for a website that happens to agree with you. Because if you did then you can also share your numbers to prove it. Otherwise all anyone can assumed is you went to wikipedia or skepticalscience.com

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1016 Jan 22, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Good grief! Both posters #1007 and #1008 are WRONG.
1 mm = 0.001 m
P.S. I bet they won't understand they are wrong.
How was I wrong when I claimed that he must of misplaced a decimal point. I never said by how much.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1017 Jan 22, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why the actual estimate is 7m rather than my ballpark 8.5m.
Now I know you got shore line gradient wrong. In fact I know know you have it backwards or doubled.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1018 Jan 22, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I know you got shore line gradient wrong. In fact I know know you have it backwards or doubled.
Even if the ice had to cover 100% of the Earth's surface, it would still raise sea level by 5m (and that includes the ice/water volume factor).

So no, it's still you who's got it wrong.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1019 Jan 22, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the ice had to cover 100% of the Earth's surface, it would still raise sea level by 5m (and that includes the ice/water volume factor).
So no, it's still you who's got it wrong.
But ice has never cover 100% of the earth. Not even at the worse of the worse ice age there were areas of the earth that were ice free. And I have time to run a few rough numbers and you managed to almost triple the shore line gradient. Since that is a major factor in predicting sea level rise it means the rest of your prediction is wrong.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1020 Jan 22, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
But ice has never cover 100% of the earth.
We're not talking about ice.

We're talking about sea level rise if all the ice on the Greenland shelf melted.

You said it wouldn't be significant.

I showed that estimates of 7m were reasonable.

You made two objections that I showed were worthless.

Now you seem to be trying to change the subject.

Which is what you usually do when shown to be in error, so no surprise there really.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1021 Jan 22, 2012
tina anne wrote:
And I have time to run a few rough numbers and you managed to almost triple the shore line gradient. Since that is a major factor in predicting sea level rise it means the rest of your prediction is wrong.
No, because I showed that even if the water has to cover the entire planet, there's still enough to raise sea level by 5m.

I'd give up now if I were you.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1022 Jan 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh no, how dare Anthony be opposed to alarmism.
Opposition to science, that is.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1023 Jan 22, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you or did you just searched for a website that happens to agree with you. Because if you did then you can also share your numbers to prove it. Otherwise all anyone can assumed is you went to wikipedia or skepticalscience.com
<snicker> I'll show mine when you show yours!
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1024 Jan 22, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because I showed that even if the water has to cover the entire planet, there's still enough to raise sea level by 5m.
I'd give up now if I were you.
She never gives in, just bluster without facts.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1025 Jan 22, 2012
Even if you assume 10% of land surface is swallowed up by sea level rise (which is certainly an overestimate), you still get a rise of over 6m (including ice/water volume factor).

http://serc.carleton.edu/images/quantskills/m...

Any way you look at it, you're wrong.

There's enough water in the ice on the Greenland ice shelf to raise sea level many metres if it melts.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#1026 Jan 22, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I know you got shore line gradient wrong. In fact I know know you have it backwards or doubled.
Sorry tina but you have demonstrated time after time a complete lack of mathematical understanding. Or science for that matter.

To refine the argument.

Volume of greenland ice sheet (2.85x10^15m^3)*.9167 (density of ice)= 2.6126x10^15m^3

Global area:
5.10072x10^14 m^2
1.48940x10^14 m^2 land (29.2 %)
3.61132x10^14 m^2 water (70.8 %)

Loss of land to flooding based on elevations.

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal /Climate%20Articles/Risk%20of% 20rising%20sea%20level%20EOS.p df

rise Inudiated area
----------
1m 1.05499x10^9 m^2
2m 1.31297x10^9 m^2
3m 1.53858x10^9 m^2
4m 1.77524x10^9 m^2
5m 2.00437x10^9 m^2
6m 2.19330x10^9 m^2
7m ~2.4 x10^9 m^2?

now 2.4x10^9 m^m =.000024x10^14 m^2 so use .00003x10^14 m^2 to be conservative.

Min ( present day) area of ocean = 3.61132x10^14m^2
Max (add .00003x10^14 m^2) area of ocean = 3.61135x10^14m^2

For min, we spread 2.6126x10^15m^3 over 3.61132x10^14m^2 and derive a thickness (sea level increase) of
7.2344 meters ( documented as about 7.2 meters assuming negligeable increase in area)

For max, we spread 2.6126x10^15m^3 over 3.61135x10^14m^2 and derive a thickness (sea level increase) of
7.2344 meters (under maximum estimated land area inudiated and assuming it all floods from first mm of rise).

Ergo, the flooding is NOT affected significantly by flooding of land (it does affect the digits below 7.2344 but the uncertainty of the volume estimate (given any variable amount of air trapped in the ice sheet) exceeds this.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1027 Jan 22, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry tina but you have demonstrated time after time a complete lack of mathematical understanding. Or science for that matter.
To refine the argument.
Volume of greenland ice sheet (2.85x10^15m^3)*.9167 (density of ice)= 2.6126x10^15m^3
Global area:
5.10072x10^14 m^2
1.48940x10^14 m^2 land (29.2 %)
3.61132x10^14 m^2 water (70.8 %)
Loss of land to flooding based on elevations.
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal /Climate%20Articles/Risk%20of% 20rising%20sea%20level%20EOS.p df
rise Inudiated area
----------
1m 1.05499x10^9 m^2
2m 1.31297x10^9 m^2
3m 1.53858x10^9 m^2
4m 1.77524x10^9 m^2
5m 2.00437x10^9 m^2
6m 2.19330x10^9 m^2
7m ~2.4 x10^9 m^2?
now 2.4x10^9 m^m =.000024x10^14 m^2 so use .00003x10^14 m^2 to be conservative.
Min ( present day) area of ocean = 3.61132x10^14m^2
Max (add .00003x10^14 m^2) area of ocean = 3.61135x10^14m^2
For min, we spread 2.6126x10^15m^3 over 3.61132x10^14m^2 and derive a thickness (sea level increase) of
7.2344 meters ( documented as about 7.2 meters assuming negligeable increase in area)
For max, we spread 2.6126x10^15m^3 over 3.61135x10^14m^2 and derive a thickness (sea level increase) of
7.2344 meters (under maximum estimated land area inudiated and assuming it all floods from first mm of rise).
Ergo, the flooding is NOT affected significantly by flooding of land (it does affect the digits below 7.2344 but the uncertainty of the volume estimate (given any variable amount of air trapped in the ice sheet) exceeds this.
Now present your figures, Missy tina. If you are not afraid....
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1028 Jan 22, 2012
Cold Spots
1
Prudhoe Bay
-43 C
2
Norman Wells
-37 C
3
Ulaanbaatar
-34 C
4
Bathurst Inlet
-34 C
5
Chita
-33 C

Hot Spots
1
Exmouth
39 C
2
Parana
37 C
3
Durazno
36 C
4
Gaya
36 C
5
Bossembele
36 C

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1029 Jan 23, 2012
FuGyou wrote:
We're not talking about ice.
Really?
FuGyou wrote:
Even if the ice had to cover 100% of the Earth's surface
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1030 Jan 23, 2012
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
rise Inudiated area
----------
Inudiated?
How about knuckling down and explaining your theory of CO2 as a thermal pollutant, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
That CO2 cannot be a 'pollutant'? Wrong. Anything CAN and IS a pollutant in a specific context. In this case, as a greenhouse gas causing 'thermal pollution' of the planet.
-
The point is really that the whole claim of 'CO2 is vital to life' and 'CO2 is plant food' promoted by Earthling is not so much that it is technically wrong, but that it is IRRELEVANT to the issue of CO2 as a 'thermal pollutant'. Agreed?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1031 Jan 23, 2012
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
assuming negligeable increase
How many more times must you be told, it's negligible, you carrot, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1032 Jan 23, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not talking about ice.
We're talking about sea level rise if all the ice on the Greenland shelf melted.
You said it wouldn't be significant.
I showed that estimates of 7m were reasonable.
You made two objections that I showed were worthless.
Now you seem to be trying to change the subject.
Which is what you usually do when shown to be in error, so no surprise there really.
No you claimed that rises of 7m were reasonable with calculations that left out an important element. And the only person who claims that my objections are worthless are those like yourself who need them to be worthless. Otherwise you just might have to face the fact that the rise is more like 7mm. And who is going to be willing to change thier entire lifestyle to stop a change that small.

The fact is that Greenland Ice sheet water content isn't large enough to cause the rise your predicting. Or even anything noticable at all. Other alarmist finally had to come up with thermal expansion when they realized the math was just not working out. Of course they had to give that up when someone started doing the math and discovered that to cause the entire ocean to heat up as much as they needed that life on land would of been long dead.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1033 Jan 23, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
<snicker> I'll show mine when you show yours!
Since I showed mine over a year ago it is now time to see if you had any?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#1034 Jan 23, 2012
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry tina but you have demonstrated time after time a complete lack of mathematical understanding. Or science for that matter.
To refine the argument.
Volume of greenland ice sheet (2.85x10^15m^3)*.9167 (density of ice)= 2.6126x10^15m^3
Global area:
5.10072x10^14 m^2
1.48940x10^14 m^2 land (29.2 %)
3.61132x10^14 m^2 water (70.8 %)
Loss of land to flooding based on elevations.
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal /Climate%20Articles/Risk%20of% 20rising%20sea%20level%20EOS.p df
rise Inudiated area
----------
1m 1.05499x10^9 m^2
2m 1.31297x10^9 m^2
3m 1.53858x10^9 m^2
4m 1.77524x10^9 m^2
5m 2.00437x10^9 m^2
6m 2.19330x10^9 m^2
7m ~2.4 x10^9 m^2?
now 2.4x10^9 m^m =.000024x10^14 m^2 so use .00003x10^14 m^2 to be conservative.
Min ( present day) area of ocean = 3.61132x10^14m^2
Max (add .00003x10^14 m^2) area of ocean = 3.61135x10^14m^2
For min, we spread 2.6126x10^15m^3 over 3.61132x10^14m^2 and derive a thickness (sea level increase) of
7.2344 meters ( documented as about 7.2 meters assuming negligeable increase in area)
For max, we spread 2.6126x10^15m^3 over 3.61135x10^14m^2 and derive a thickness (sea level increase) of
7.2344 meters (under maximum estimated land area inudiated and assuming it all floods from first mm of rise).
Ergo, the flooding is NOT affected significantly by flooding of land (it does affect the digits below 7.2344 but the uncertainty of the volume estimate (given any variable amount of air trapped in the ice sheet) exceeds this.
First you missed the fact that the volume of ice is more than the volume of water. So when it melts is will only occupy 92% of the volume that the ice did. Second you and the University of Hawaii left out shore line gradient. That changes the amounts needed have a raise the levels to a geometric.

The following is the output from a model I wrote a year ago to show the actual rise. Notice that it is based on a shore line gradient of 15 degrees. Which was the most accurate figure I could find.

Sea Level rise in mm based on geometric with a shore line gradient of 15 degrees

Decade Geometric Decade Ice Decade
2010-2020 0.300000000 3.00000000 0.3300000000 3.300000000
2020-2030 0.090000000 0.90000000 0.0990000000 0.990000000
2030-2040 0.027000000 0.27000000 0.0297000000 0.297000000
2040-2050 0.008100000 0.08100000 0.0089100000 0.089100000
2050-2060 0.002430000 0.02430000 0.0026730000 0.026730000
2060-2070 0.000729000 0.00729000 0.0008019000 0.008019000
2070-2080 0.000218700 0.00218700 0.0002405700 0.002405700
2080-2090 0.000065610 0.00065610 0.0000721710 0.000721710
2090-2100 0.000019683 0.00019683 0.0000216513 0.000216513
Total 4.28562993 4.714192923

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.

World News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
No Muslim can think of profaning holy Prophet (... (Jan '11) 3 min Punjabiat ki Dhulai 53,632
House in uproar after PM hires his own son 4 min tongangodz 17
Putin says 'foreign legion' in Ukraine, NATO sa... 4 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 8
Ukraine's Crisis Is a War Now 6 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 14
Leaders mark Auschwitz liberation 70 years on w... 8 min Mr Slovak 42
Kiev used barrier squads to prevent troops from... 10 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 8
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 15 min danetoo 403,241
More from around the web