Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: New estimate of sea level rise is less than 2 metres by 2100

  1. #1 New estimate of sea level rise is less than 2 metres by 2100 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    and probably closer to 1 metre. The rate of rise is not the same as the rate of melting, because the outflow from glaciers acts as a bottleneck.

    This still doesn't seem like particularly good news for places like New Orleans and Bangladesh.

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/c3cb8...1ffc3e96a.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    has anyone noticed how many of the steel plants are situated close to the sea + near sea level
    i wonder how a 1 metre rise in sea level will affect them - if one thing, it should reduce carbon emission


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'm disappointed. I was counting on all Antartica going to generate a 305' rise in level so that my grandchildren can inherit a nice beach front property in the Highlands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I was curious as to who the scientists are who predicted a 20 foot rise by the end of this century. I've checked what Al Gore (not a scientist, but at least listens to scientists) actually wrote and said in "An Inconvenient Truth". (transcript of the film here http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/...th-transcript/)

    I want to focus on West Antarctica, because it illustrates two factors about land-based ice and sea-based ice. Itís a little of both. Itís propped on tops of islands, but the ocean comes up underneath it. So if the ocean gets warmer, it has an impact on it. If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet. Theyíve measured disturbing changes on the underside of this ice sheet. Itís considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that is roughly the same size. Greenland
    So what Gore describes is an "if - then" scenario, not a prediction, and I don't see any mention of "by the end of the century". Just thought I'd point that out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Anarctic sea ice at record high: 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    When did any predictions regarding sea levels ever come true? Back in 1985 it was predicted that the State of Florida would be underwater by now. Florida's beach-front real estate is still intact. Assuming there is an increase in temperature, I would think the water cycle would maintain its equilibrium: when ice melts, water evaporates--maintaining current sea levels.

    I also note that when the ice in my ice water melts, the glass does not overflow. Yet so much media focus seems to be on sea ice and the alleged danger of flooding if said ice was allowed to melt. The focus also seems to be on the North Pole. What about the South Pole? At least the SP was given a little press this time. Anarctic sea ice is at a record high:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/...tic-sea-i.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Anarctic sea ice at record high: 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I also note that when the ice in my ice water melts, the glass does not overflow. Yet so much media focus seems to be on sea ice and the alleged danger of flooding if said ice was allowed to melt.
    now you're being fascetious - surely everyone is aware of the vast difference in albedo between ice-covered ocean and ice-free ocean
    more heat gets captured which can then make more of greenland's icecap melt
    and this type of ice melting DOES increase sea levels
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Anarctic sea ice at record high: 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    I also note that when the ice in my ice water melts, the glass does not overflow. Yet so much media focus seems to be on sea ice and the alleged danger of flooding if said ice was allowed to melt.
    now you're being fascetious - surely everyone is aware of the vast difference in albedo between ice-covered ocean and ice-free ocean
    more heat gets captured which can then make more of greenland's icecap melt
    and this type of ice melting DOES increase sea levels

    But the Earth's surface area is mostly liguid water, not ice, so a temperature increase would raise humidity levels on a far greater scale. Ocean levels could drop. Here is an experiment you might try: fill a tub with water, put some dirt and ice in it that would approximate the surface area of the earth. Place the tub in the hot sun. Watch what happens. The ice melts, but the evaporation of water which makes up around 70 percent of the surface area will easily offset the ice melt.

    On a global scale, the additional vapor will no doubt create cloud cover (up to 70% albedo). Those additional clouds will prevent the sunlight from reaching earth, cooling the planet. The vapor will condense, water will freeze and we're right back where we started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The scaling of your experiment is so vastly wrong that it wholly invalidates it. Close off the top of the bath with its faux Earth in order to more accurately simulate the volume of atmosphere able to absorb water vapour and you will find a completely different result.

    The Earth is practically a closed system from the standpoint of mass exchange. Your experimental set up is decidedly not. This highlights rather well the dangers of trying to conduct science by analogy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    When did any predictions regarding sea levels ever come true?
    The IPCC 2001 report, using data up to 1990, correctly predicted sea level rise between 1993 and 2006, although the actual annual average rise of 3.3mm was at the upper limit of their predictions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Anarctic sea ice at record high: 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Yet so much media focus seems to be on sea ice and the alleged danger of flooding if said ice was allowed to melt. The focus also seems to be on the North Pole. What about the South Pole? At least the SP was given a little press this time. Anarctic sea ice is at a record high:

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/...tic-sea-i.html
    What focus? Perhaps in the local rags--no serious person suggest melting sea ice will raise sea levels.


    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    so a temperature increase would raise humidity levels on a far greater scale. Ocean levels could drop.
    Two inches is about the highest precipitable water, (total condensed water vapor from a column of air), observed in the atmosphere--and that's in very saturated tropical air masses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Back in 1985 it was predicted that the State of Florida would be underwater by now.
    Do you have a reference for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    When did any predictions regarding sea levels ever come true?
    The IPCC 2001 report, using data up to 1990, correctly predicted sea level rise between 1993 and 2006, although the actual annual average rise of 3.3mm was at the upper limit of their predictions.
    What was the margin of error? If the 3.3 mm is within the margin of error, then the prediction is meaningless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Back in 1985 it was predicted that the State of Florida would be underwater by now.
    Do you have a reference for this?
    I wish I did. A lot of wacky predictions have been made. Back in the 1980's I was a very fervent and strident supporter of the global warming movement. I quit driving my car and have been riding my bike ever since. Doing my part to cut back on fossel fuel consumption. Now I just do it for the exercise.

    I first became disenchanted when I went to a rally years ago. I was the only one who DID NOT drive his car! The second blow was we had a record-cold winter in the northeast that same year. Then Carl Sagan made a prediction when Kuwait's oil wells were set fire back in 1990. According to his computer model, a nuclear winter would destroy the earth's environment. This prediction was made on a popular news show called "Night Line." Well, no nuclear winter. The Florida prediction was made on a PBS program. I think it was "NOVA." Nothing there to write home about either.

    Perhaps you remember Y2K? Y2K was supposed to end civilization. People were building bomb shelters and stocking up on canned goods and buying Y2K kits, ad nausea! This has nothing to do with climate change, but Y2K does demonstrate how idiotic and irresponsible the media is!

    With all the hysteria about global warming and flooding, I am still the only guy I know who does NOT drive a car! Even if all the gloom-and-doom predictions come true, what are you gonna do about it? Take up walking or cycling? Even if you do, you will most likely be doing a solo act. We are doomed as a species because members of Greenpeace DRIVE THEIR CARS and they ain't gonna STOP! China and India are developing and they ain't gonna stop!

    I have been watching this stuff for 30 years and not one single doom-and-gloom prediction has come to pass. If you really want to impress your friends, predict that whatever is predicted WON'T happen. The butterfly effect definitely applies to predictions. It is like choosing a number between 1 to 100. Whatever number is selected, there is a 99% chance it is wrong. Always bet against the crowd and you will be right 99% of the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The scaling of your experiment is so vastly wrong that it wholly invalidates it. Close off the top of the bath with its faux Earth in order to more accurately simulate the volume of atmosphere able to absorb water vapour and you will find a completely different result.

    The Earth is practically a closed system from the standpoint of mass exchange. Your experimental set up is decidedly not. This highlights rather well the dangers of trying to conduct science by analogy.
    What are the results of your experiment? Fact: there is far more liquid-water surface area than ice. More of the sun's energy acts upon the oceans than ice or land. Whether a system is opened or closed, relative humidity increases when temperatures increase. If this is not the case, then the whole greenhouse theory is a bust. You need that extra water vapor to help along that runaway global warming. Can't have it both ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Anarctic sea ice at record high: 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    What focus? Perhaps in the local rags--no serious person suggest melting sea ice will raise sea levels.
    OK, you win. No serious person would suggest that melting sea ice will raise sea levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Two inches is about the highest precipitable water, (total condensed water vapor from a column of air), observed in the atmosphere--and that's in very saturated tropical air masses.
    Higher temperature = higher relative humidity = lowering of sea levels, since oceans (not ice) take up the most solar energy due to their proportionately large surface area. Additionally, when ice melts, it contracts, it does not expand, so score another point for the dropping or maintenance of sea levels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Higher temperature = higher relative humidity = lowering of sea levels, since oceans (not ice) take up the most solar energy due to their proportionately large surface area. Additionally, when ice melts, it contracts, it does not expand, so score another point for the dropping or maintenance of sea levels.
    If i understand Lynx_Fox correctly, he is saying that the maximum amount of water the atmosphere could hold would raise the oceans by about 2 inches. And Antarctica/Greenland/Iceland/etc. has vast ice sheets and glaciers that are either mostly or entirely above the water level.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If i understand Lynx_Fox correctly, he is saying that the maximum amount of water the atmosphere could hold would raise the oceans by about 2 inches..
    How so? If the water is in the atmosphere and not the ocean, why would the oceans rise by 2 inches?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    And Antarctica/Greenland/Iceland/etc. has vast ice sheets and glaciers that are either mostly or entirely above the water level
    Yeah, that has been the new party line since the sea-ice scare was debunked. Greenland was warmer back when the vikings discovered it, hence the reason they named it Greenland instead of Frozenwasteland. Greenland was also 2 degrees warmer a half century ago. Where was the flood?

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8285
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If i understand Lynx_Fox correctly, he is saying that the maximum amount of water the atmosphere could hold would raise the oceans by about 2 inches..
    How so? If the water is in the atmosphere and not the ocean, why would the oceans rise by 2 inches?

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    And Antarctica/Greenland/Iceland/etc. has vast ice sheets and glaciers that are either mostly or entirely above the water level
    Yeah, that has been the new party line since the sea-ice scare was debunked. Greenland was warmer back when the vikings discovered it, hence the reason they named it Greenland instead of Frozenwasteland. Greenland was also 2 degrees warmer a half century ago. Where was the flood?

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8285
    Yeah, I did state that rather backwards. What I meant to say, was that what I gathered from his post was that if the atmosphere was maximally saturated and it then rained, that thje oceans would rise by 2 inches. Or conversely, that if the air was free of water and evaporation took place until saturation occured, that the ocewans would drop by 2 inches.

    Just for the record, I do not subscribe to any "party line". I just read the data and make my own inferences as best I can.

    Look, it is not really a difficult thing to envisage. If the "party line" ever really was that we have to worry about sea ice in terms of rising water levels, then I (and the other posters here) would have laughed just as hard as you have. On the other hand, we know how much water is locked up in ice above sea level. We know how much water is needed to rise ocean levels by a certain amount. It is not a difficult thing to calculate waht would happen if all that ice melted. The issue is primarily how fast if at all the ice wsould melt.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Just to make the 2 inches really clear, that's at nearly 100% humidity, tropical temperature. Water just stops evaporating. Then even if you boil the sea, you get as much falling mist.

    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Greenland was also 2 degrees warmer a half century ago. Where was the flood?
    Here's a dangerous analogy: Your freezer is very slowly thawing because the door gasket is gone. That's Earth coming out of last ice age (it still is apparently). Now Eric the Red swings the door open for a minute, and of course warm air rushes in and ice melts more rapidly. Miniature trees spout up in this warm air environment. You shut the door and trees die right away. Ice is still melting but less quickly now, maybe it even stopped for a bit while you pressed the door shut. Then Henry Ford opens the door again but not so wide as Eric did. He leaves it open.

    At which stage do you expect to find the deepest puddle - when the air was warmest, or at the end of our story?


    ***


    I'm curious to know what effect this rise will have on deltas, and silt fallout. I think the flow at deltas will slow a bit, as channel volume expands, so less silt will make it to the ocean. Is it enough to keep the deltas above sea level.

    EDIT: No, I'm confused. Can somebody explain this?

    I'm recalling how we couldn't do (Nile) delta agriculture until the last big melt petered off, because oceans rose faster than silt deposition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    What are the results of your experiment? Fact: there is far more liquid-water surface area than ice. More of the sun's energy acts upon the oceans than ice or land. Whether a system is opened or closed, relative humidity increases when temperatures increase.
    You are entirely missing the point. Your experiment allows water saturated air to be carried away from the bath and replaced by comparatively dry air. The world is a closed system and as such we quickly reach saturation level. That was a logical conclusion of a thought experiment. Lynx_Fox confirmed it with hard numbers.
    I think you should re-examine the significance of these statements:

    A.I first became disenchanted when I went to a rally years ago. I was the only one who DID NOT drive his car!
    B.The second blow was we had a record-cold winter in the northeast that same year.
    C.Then Carl Sagan made a prediction when Kuwait's oil wells were set fire back in 1990. According to his computer model, a nuclear winter would destroy the earth's environment.
    D.This has nothing to do with climate change, but Y2K does demonstrate how idiotic and irresponsible the media is!

    You used the above to illustrate why you no longer believe in global warming.
    A.The actions of supporters of a theory have no bearing on the validity of the theory.
    B.You clearly have no understanding of natural climatic variability, though you make a great show of prattling on about margins of error.
    C. You are also unfamiliar, it seems, with the fallacy of Argument from Authority. Sagan may have been a top notch astronomer and brilliant science populariser, but he was no climatologist.
    D. And the irresponsibility of the media has nothing to do with the reality of global warming.

    If you have based your views on such flimsy foundations, supplemented by badly flawed thought experiments it is not surprising you have reached the wrong conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    What are the results of your experiment? Fact: there is far more liquid-water surface area than ice. More of the sun's energy acts upon the oceans than ice or land. Whether a system is opened or closed, relative humidity increases when temperatures increase.
    You are entirely missing the point. Your experiment allows water saturated air to be carried away from the bath and replaced by comparatively dry air. The world is a closed system and as such we quickly reach saturation level. That was a logical conclusion of a thought experiment. Lynx_Fox confirmed it with hard numbers. Abandon this silly 'experiment' now.

    Further, I think you should re-examine the significance of these statements:

    A.I first became disenchanted when I went to a rally years ago. I was the only one who DID NOT drive his car!
    B.The second blow was we had a record-cold winter in the northeast that same year.
    C.Then Carl Sagan made a prediction when Kuwait's oil wells were set fire back in 1990. According to his computer model, a nuclear winter would destroy the earth's environment.
    D.This has nothing to do with climate change, but Y2K does demonstrate how idiotic and irresponsible the media is!

    You used the above to illustrate why you no longer believe in global warming.
    A.The actions of supporters of a theory have no bearing on the validity of the theory.
    B.You clearly have no understanding of natural climatic variability, though you make a great show of prattling on about margins of error.
    C. You are also unfamiliar, it seems, with the fallacy of Argument from Authority. Sagan may have been a top notch astronomer and brilliant science populariser, but he was no climatologist.
    D. And the irresponsibility of the media has nothing to do with the reality of global warming.

    If you have based your views on such flimsy foundations, supplemented by badly flawed thought experiments it is not surprising you have reached the wrong conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Back in 1985 it was predicted that the State of Florida would be underwater by now.
    Do you have a reference for this?
    I wish I did. A lot of wacky predictions have been made. Back in the 1980's I was a very fervent and strident supporter of the global warming movement. I quit driving my car and have been riding my bike ever since. Doing my part to cut back on fossel fuel consumption. Now I just do it for the exercise.

    I first became disenchanted when I went to a rally years ago. I was the only one who DID NOT drive his car! The second blow was we had a record-cold winter in the northeast that same year. Then Carl Sagan made a prediction when Kuwait's oil wells were set fire back in 1990. According to his computer model, a nuclear winter would destroy the earth's environment. This prediction was made on a popular news show called "Night Line." Well, no nuclear winter. The Florida prediction was made on a PBS program. I think it was "NOVA." Nothing there to write home about either.

    Perhaps you remember Y2K? Y2K was supposed to end civilization. People were building bomb shelters and stocking up on canned goods and buying Y2K kits, ad nausea! This has nothing to do with climate change, but Y2K does demonstrate how idiotic and irresponsible the media is!

    With all the hysteria about global warming and flooding, I am still the only guy I know who does NOT drive a car! Even if all the gloom-and-doom predictions come true, what are you gonna do about it? Take up walking or cycling? Even if you do, you will most likely be doing a solo act. We are doomed as a species because members of Greenpeace DRIVE THEIR CARS and they ain't gonna STOP! China and India are developing and they ain't gonna stop!

    I have been watching this stuff for 30 years and not one single doom-and-gloom prediction has come to pass. If you really want to impress your friends, predict that whatever is predicted WON'T happen. The butterfly effect definitely applies to predictions. It is like choosing a number between 1 to 100. Whatever number is selected, there is a 99% chance it is wrong. Always bet against the crowd and you will be right 99% of the time.
    In other words, no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •