Thread: Are sea levels rising?

One of the predictions of GW is that the polar ice caps will melt and cause sea levels to rise. Have they been rising?

Yes.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL024826.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p364381652174757/
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...1080/714044523
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/...Print_Ch05.pdf

More accurate to say the total volume of ocean water is increasing. This is because ongoing tectonics and especially crust rebound from the recent de-glaciation causes some coasts to rise or sink independent of "global sea level".

Originally Posted by gib65

One of the predictions of GW is that the polar ice caps will melt and cause sea levels to rise. Have they been rising?

Yes, but your question should ask how much of the rise is likely due to polar ice melting and is the range of uncertainty in the estimates? I have not seen good answers to these questions.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by gib65

One of the predictions of GW is that the polar ice caps will melt and cause sea levels to rise. Have they been rising?

Yes, but your question should ask ... the range of uncertainty in the estimates? I have not seen good answers to these questions.

The uncertainty of past sea level rise is in EVERY published paper on the subject. Below is the composite image of several papers from CSIRO(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Marine and Atmospheric Research, which is Australia's climate research group.(see below) They show the error bars and the reference papers available if you want to explore further.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by gib65

One of the predictions of GW is that the polar ice caps will melt and cause sea levels to rise. Have they been rising?

Yes, but your question should ask ... the range of uncertainty in the estimates? I have not seen good answers to these questions.

The uncertainty of past sea level rise is in EVERY published paper on the subject. Below is the composite image of several papers from CSIRO(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Marine and Atmospheric Research, which is Australia's climate research group.(see below) They show the error bars and the reference papers available if you want to explore further.

Lynx_fox. Why did you change my question and then answer the changed question instead? Why not answer the original question which is what amount of sea level rise is due solely to ice melt and what is the uncertainty of those estimates?

Considering how small the error is relative to the measurement scale shown on the y-axis, the answer to your question, Cypress, is "barely any."

Originally Posted by inow

Considering how small the error is relative to the measurement scale shown on the y-axis, the answer to your question, Cypress, is "barely any."

We all accept the change in sea leval as real withing certain error limits. three things are on the table for causing the change. Ice melt over land, thermal expansion, and techtonic plate movements. All three of these either raise or lower the sea level. What was graphed was the result of the three combined. The question should be, how much does each affect the sea level by it self. My opinion, no more than half is by melting, and I would suggest less than that. I just haven't had the resources or time to quantify it.

Probably they are. But the more prevalent question in society today is, are humans causing it? To that, I say no.

Originally Posted by thePenDragon

the more prevalent question in society today is, are humans causing it? To that, I say no.

Do you also think gravity is a giant conspiracy, or are you willing to accept that as valid? What about your computer. There's a lot of complex stuff going on there. Is it magic making it work, or do scientists actually have a clue about what they're talking about?

Just how high would liquid water levels of the oceans be if the earth temperature was raised by 300 degrees celcius?

And while there, could a hypotethical rise in air humidity by lets say 10% in the atmosphere offset some of the rise in water levels?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Just how high would liquid water levels of the oceans be if the earth temperature was raised by 300 degrees celcius?

They wouldn’t rise. The oceans would boil off until the increased atmospheric pressure due to the increased mass of water vapor in the atmosphere equaled the saturation pressure of 300C water, which would be somewhere around 120 atmospheres. So sea levels would drop dramatically and we would all have been pressure cooked. Unless it all outgassed to space.

Originally Posted by thePenDragon

Probably they are. But the more prevalent question in society today is, are humans causing it? To that, I say no.

This being a science forum, it would be interesting if you could explain the process that led you to that conclusion, rather than just state a belief unsupported.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by thePenDragon

Probably they are. But the more prevalent question in society today is, are humans causing it? To that, I say no.

This being a science forum, it would be interesting if you could explain the process that led you to that conclusion, rather than just state a belief unsupported.

I agree, an explanation would strengthen your argument :P. ^_^

If temperatures increased by 300 degrees Celsius, would the water vapour just accumulate in the atmosphere?

Originally Posted by Samuel P

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by thePenDragon

Probably they are. But the more prevalent question in society today is, are humans causing it? To that, I say no.

This being a science forum, it would be interesting if you could explain the process that led you to that conclusion, rather than just state a belief unsupported.

I agree, an explanation would strengthen your argument :P. ^_^

If temperatures increased by 300 degrees Celsius, would the water vapour just accumulate in the atmosphere?

I suggested two scenarios. I'm not sure that either is correct. The mass of seawater is several orders of magnitude larger than the mass of the atmosphere. If atmospheric pressure remained unchanged all the water would boil off, but with that additional water in the atmosphere wouldn't the height of the atmosphere increase and the surface pressure also increase tremendously? Then an equilibrium would be reached at saturation.

Anyone?

Anyone?

That would bring the earth temperatures very close to those of Venus and very close to the melting point of lead. Venus has no water anymore due to this heat, so I'd imagine neither would the earth.

Regarding Venus:

With sufficiently high temperatures, the water vapor could rise high enough in the atmosphere for the water molecules to be broken up by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. The freed hydrogen could then escape from the atmosphere, leaving the oxygen only in the form of carbon and sulfur oxides.

The upper atmosphere of Venus is more heavily bombarded by the solar wind since it has no magnetic field to redirect some of the solar wind particles. This would hasten the breakup of the water molecules if the above model is correct.

(Hyperphysics website)

Earth's magnetic field might produce a different result though.

Originally Posted by inow

Considering how small the error is relative to the measurement scale shown on the y-axis, the answer to your question, Cypress, is "barely any."

neither one of you have answered how much the sea has risen due to ice melt. Both only addressed the total measured change in sea level by any cause.

I suspect it is because we don't know how much net ice has melted. Using WC's formulas it seems that the net ice melt is almost zero.

Indeed, I seem to have misread your question. My apologies. I thought you were asking how much of the ice melt being claimed was merely the result of error in our measurements, to which I responded, "barely any."

Your other question has already been addressed by the links I shared in my first response, which is why it has gone unaddressed the second and third time you asked it. In essence, I don't like repeating myself, and you have a tendency to make people repeat themselves.

I've answered this question, by gib, elsewhere, will repeat here, since I'd like to respond to a couple others posters...gib, as I answered before, oceans content under the term fill (several comments made) COULD be responsible for the 6-8 inches rise, estimates of sea level...

You may have heard about global warming. It seems that in the last 100 years the earth's temperature has increased about half a degree Celsius. This may not sound like much, but even half a degree can have an effect on our planet. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years (see How do they measure sea level?).

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affecter*d.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm


A little light showing, at the end of the tunnel;

Probably they are. But the more prevalent question in society today is, are humans causing it? To that, I say no.

thePennDragon;
I welcome you to this forum and do hope you'll continue to post here. It's a delight for this old guy, to see a younger and articulate person, realistically looking at a controversial issue.

Then we still have some 20th Century logic...

Do you also think gravity is a giant conspiracy, or are you willing to accept that as valid? What about your computer. There's a lot of complex stuff going on there. Is it magic making it work, or do scientists actually have a clue about what they're talking about?

inow; Should we relive all science, has DECLARED indisputable over the past, say 100 years, now declared, well maybe not....Best I can tell, nothing has been settled on 'Man Caused' anything, with this year especially a very obvious question mark being raised, nature and weather pattern, expressed...

Just how high would liquid water levels of the oceans be if the earth temperature was raised by 300 degrees celcius?

That's about 500 degree F and getting there would cause a problem or two...

And while there, could a hypotethical rise in air humidity by lets say 10% in the atmosphere offset some of the rise in water levels?

It's another issue, but I DO think moisture content of the atmosphere plays a direct roll, under natural cause, for environmental conditions. I know weather stations, measuring temperatures at various location, also measure barometric pressures and humidity, but I've never seen these figures shown. Come to think of it, many of those stations are near highways, I hope CO2 content is not being measured, which I have seen figures on...

This being a science forum, it would be interesting if you could explain the process that led you to that conclusion, rather than just state a belief unsupported.

Bun; My goodness and on the ninth post, verify or "cease and desist"!!! I do believe the comment "prevalent question in society today" pretty well said it all....and the poster stayed on topic. How bout that....

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by inow

Considering how small the error is relative to the measurement scale shown on the y-axis, the answer to your question, Cypress, is "barely any."

neither one of you have answered how much the sea has risen due to ice melt. Both only addressed the total measured change in sea level by any cause.

I suspect it is because we don't know how much net ice has melted. Using WC's formulas it seems that the net ice melt is almost zero.

I won't even claim to say it's zero, but I do believe ice melting is zero to 1/4 of the rise in level. I have seen numbers before for the average sea temperature change, but I don't know how well they are to be trusted. then on top of that, I forget what they were.

I think that's what bugs me so much, is all the claims with no good data to make the claim.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can quantify the math problem at hand. I doubt we have enough data points. Even with the CIA satellites redirected to take pictures of the ice, they don't measure the depth, or change in depth. Just get really nice pictures. We have no way to know what the depth was 30 years ago, to compare to accurate depths if we have them today. A decade is the most that we might have for reliable data, and tha's too short a period.

Originally Posted by inow

Indeed, I seem to have misread your question. My apologies. I thought you were asking how much of the ice melt being claimed was merely the result of error in our measurements, to which I responded, "barely any."

Your other question has already been addressed by the links I shared in my first response, which is why it has gone unaddressed the second and third time you asked it. In essence, I don't like repeating myself, and you have a tendency to make people repeat themselves.

I was unaware that providing a link with no explanation constitutes an answer, much less being repetitive.

Only one of your links provided an answer and it is from 1993 to date 1.2 mm/yr +/- 0.7 mm so the uncertainty is greater than 50% of the estimate. Wow.

Uh huh. Whatever, cypress.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638







http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroo.../200606-1.html

Sea level isn't, well, level. Nor is the rate by which sea level has been rising over the past few decades, but the trend is clearly up. Global sea level has risen an average of three millimeters (0.1 inch) per year since 1993. Rising seas have the potential to affect billions of people around the globe, not just those living near coastlines.

<...>

Researchers say that about half of the rise in global sea level since 1993 is due to thermal expansion of the ocean and about half to melting ice. As Earth warms, these proportions are likely to change with dramatic results.

"More heat is coming into Earth's atmosphere than is going out," says Dr. Lee-Lueng Fu, project scientist for the Jason mission. "Over the past 40 years, the ocean has absorbed 84 percent of this excess heat--enough heat to warm the entire atmosphere by 27 degrees Celsius (49 degrees Fahrenheit)." The ocean has been able to absorb this heat by mixing warm surface water with much colder water from its depths, he explains. "The question is how long can it continue to do this."

Add more heat to the oceans, already Earth's largest storehouse of solar radiation, not only does global sea level rise due to thermal expansion but circulation patterns could change and affect the ocean's ability to store more heat in the future.

Excess heat that doesn't go into the ocean has to go somewhere. If it's melting ice, the effect on sea level will be immense. Melting, not warming, has the biggest potential to raise sea level. "If you warm up the ocean, it will rise perhaps half a meter (1.6 feet)," says JPL researcher Dr. Eric Rignot. "If you melt land ice, you could raise sea level by 70 meters (230 feet). The real concern over the long term is the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. With thermal expansion, the coastlines erode; with the ice sheets melting completely, you are talking about cities and states under water."

Perhaps but your source assigns 1.2mm/yr +/- 0.7 mm to Ice melt since 1993.

Do you have a more accurate number for contribution due to ice melt?

Originally Posted by cypress

Perhaps but your source assigns 1.2mm/yr +/- 0.7 mm to Ice melt since 1993.

Do you have a more accurate number for contribution due to ice melt?

Let's assume the 1.2mm is accurate for a moment. For 1993 to 2005, the chart shows a 36 mm rise. That is 3 mm per year. Removing 1.2 mm/yr for glacier and ice melting leaves 1.8 mm/year as thermal expansion. At -0.7, or 0.5 mm/yr, that means thermat expansion is 2.5 mm/year. At +0.5, or 1.9 mm/yr, thermal expansion is 1.1 mm/yr. Just subtract -0.1 if you want to use the other chart's numbers.

Anyway, these charts center thermal expansin as about 60% of the sea level rise, and melting as about 40%.

Oh, come on. :P Anyone who asks a question about global warming or rising sea levels right now isn't asking for purely intellectual benefits. They're opening up a debate on an issue that is highly controversial. In my opinion, global warming has moved out of the sphere of demonstrable science. It's a highly politicized and debatable issue.

Science is not (should not be) debatable. It strictly weighs evidence to find the truth. Yet when people talk about global warming, they say "believe" or "disbelieve." You don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in gravity; there's no evidence to say it doesn't exist. But there is evidence to disprove global warming. In this political atmosphere, those who ask these questions probably are aware of the opposition.

So I assumed the question had rhetorical weight, and arguing for or against it would be an airing of debatable beliefs, not a weighing of scientific evidence. I don't argue against the fact that sea levels are rising, but if it was meant to be a challenge for non-believers, I'm prepared to argue in that sphere.

Originally Posted by thePenDragon

Oh, come on. :P Anyone who asks a question about global warming or rising sea levels right now isn't asking for purely intellectual benefits. They're opening up a debate on an issue that is highly controversial. In my opinion, global warming has moved out of the sphere of demonstrable science. It's a highly politicized and debatable issue.

Science is not (should not be) debatable. It strictly weighs evidence to find the truth. Yet when people talk about global warming, they say "believe" or "disbelieve." You don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in gravity; there's no evidence to say it doesn't exist. But there is evidence to disprove global warming. In this political atmosphere, those who ask these questions probably are aware of the opposition.

So I assumed the question had rhetorical weight, and arguing for or against it would be an airing of debatable beliefs, not a weighing of scientific evidence. I don't argue against the fact that sea levels are rising, but if it was meant to be a challenge for non-believers, I'm prepared to argue in that sphere.

I agree. Observation of temperature and CO2 content is what the alarmists go by. This is not scientific enough for me because it cannot be properly proven. However, thermal transfers are known sciences, and we can measure that the sun varies. One of my major positions is that this natural warming has a known energy content, and cannot be used to assume man-made warming. This also decreases any credible claims of antropogenic warming by a substantial amount.

That said... The IPCC is a political body. If you have read the AR4, you will find they only use "direct solar variations" rather than "total." they turn around, and I believe, place that added heat into the gasses columns.

-edit-

Rather than "direct solar variations," I should have said "direct solar forcing," or "direct solar radiative forcing."

No arguments there, Wild Cobra. I completely agree.

Originally Posted by thePenDragon

Oh, come on. :P Anyone who asks a question about global warming or rising sea levels right now isn't asking for purely intellectual benefits. They're opening up a debate on an issue that is highly controversial. In my opinion, global warming has moved out of the sphere of demonstrable science. It's a highly politicized and debatable issue.

Completely agree that this and other aspects of scientific inquiry have been extended to ideology.

Science is not (should not be) debatable. It strictly weighs evidence to find the truth.

Here we part company. There are two aspects of scientific inquiry. One is the fact of science which is what I believe you are referring. The other is the interpretation or meaning of science which is completely appropriate to debate even when there is no or only limited ideological implications. Debate and challenge improves on the science. It forces researchers to be more certain of the facts and implications. It improves science and keeps it honest.

Yet when people talk about global warming, they say "believe" or "disbelieve." You don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in gravity; there's no evidence to say it doesn't exist. But there is evidence to disprove global warming. In this political atmosphere, those who ask these questions probably are aware of the opposition.

Right. I don't debate the fact of gravity but I might debate the meaning or even cause of gravity. I don't debate that certain temperature compilations show particular trends but I do debate why the trends are the way they are. In addition, as you say AGW goes way beyond the why and into the political and philosophical implications. I, of course, stand guilty of your accusation. This forum even uses the description "Scientific discussion and debate". I am very aware of the opposition.

So I assumed the question had rhetorical weight, and arguing for or against it would be an airing of debatable beliefs, not a weighing of scientific evidence. I don't argue against the fact that sea levels are rising, but if it was meant to be a challenge for non-believers, I'm prepared to argue in that sphere.

Agreed. I stand with you, prepared to debate the implications of rising level and even the cause.

What a nice echo chamber we have here. A bunch of ill-informed bobble heads. How nice is that?


Btw, pendragon... your understanding of science is rather flawed if you think it is not a venue for debate, or if you think it's about absolute truths. Seriously, questioning claims and changing outlooks based on new information is at the heart of the scientific method and process, but hey... don't let me stop you and the idiot twins from spouting self-affirming absurdities regarding your rejection of established facts.

Next, you'll be arguing that smoking cigarettes doesn't lead to a higher incidence of cancer.

Originally Posted by inow

What a nice echo chamber we have here. A bunch of ill-informed bobble heads. How nice is that?.

Inow, there are worse ad hominems but "bobble heads," and "twin idiots" crosses over the line of civil discourse.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Inow, there are worse ad hominems but "bobble heads," and "twin idiots" crosses over the line of civil discourse.

I don't think he was aiming for 'civil'. Since global warming deniers arguably represent a much greater threat to my grandchildren than Bin Laden and a sub-continent of Islamic extremists, I'm not sure they deserve 'civil'. :?

Yeah, doesn't Lynx_Fox proclaim to be a Meteorologist/Naturalist & Soldier?

Like the giant panda eats, shoots, and leaves.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Inow, there are worse ad hominems but "bobble heads," and "twin idiots" crosses over the line of civil discourse.

I don't think he was aiming for 'civil'. Since global warming deniers arguably represent a much greater threat to my grandchildren than Bin Laden and a sub-continent of Islamic extremists, I'm not sure they deserve 'civil'. :?

While I agree with your sentiments (as does the Pentagon, that bastion of liberal thought, in two studies now), the forum follows rules, the most obvious of which is that members will engage in "Scientific Discussion and Debate." The tools of Scientific discussions and debates are observations, and their intepretation and comparisons to hypothesis etc, not rhetorical food fights that attack individuals--There are plenty of other forums for people to engage in such antics.
--
Now we get back to discussions about melting ice effects on sea-level rise.

I'm not entirely sure that an accurate observation such as the one I made can be classed as equivalent to an ad hom, but I most certainly appreciate the point you are making and apologize that sometimes my exasperation with this topic overrules my internal censor.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I don't think he was aiming for 'civil'. Since global warming deniers arguably represent a much greater threat to my grandchildren than Bin Laden and a sub-continent of Islamic extremists, I'm not sure they deserve 'civil'. :?

(Trolling post removed)
Moderator

The key word, Wild Cobra, was arguably - which is what this discussion is meant to be about: the reasoned and reasonable exchange of arguments.

Observation of temperature and CO2 content is what the alarmists go by.

Let us set aside the term alarmist, yes - unless you wish to maintain the emotional content of these discussions. Since the entire issue is about temperature and CO2 content surely it is reasonable to consider these, or have I totally missed your point?

The key word, Wild Cobra, was arguably - which is what this discussion is meant to be about: the reasoned and reasonable exchange of arguments.

Ophie; WC responded to your key word, the post being deleted by an anonymous (but obvious) moderator. He said, "I could say the same about alarmists. I have no problem with reasonable solutions to reduce our carbon footprint, but "cap and trade" and like solutions will be so economically harmful, it's rediculous", a direct quote.

Comments, such as 'If we don't cut our CO2 emission level' then stick in your choice of amounts and a time limit, then this or that, will happen. Those are unsubstantiated alarmist comments, meant to scare or intimidate people into accepting a a premise, for reasons often for other than achieving that particular goal. In the US the accepted reason from the 1970's was Independence from OPEC oil.

WC and for that matter Cypress, surely others have been mentioning the hundreds of variables that are as likely to affect weather patterns as how much CO2 is in the atmosphere during any given time and I've been trying to emphasis the actual required CO2, needed to supply the oxygen and food needed for human survival, related to the number of humans, a real correlation.

As Cobra said, I agree, probably every so called denialist would agree, that reducing or limiting these emissions "carbon footprint" with "reasonable solutions" can be achieved, without doing harm to the already stressed, worlds economic structure. "Cap and Trade" or actions now authorized the Environmental Protection Agency, in the US, could and will be used IMO, to control human activity in this country, to levels not thought of even 30 years ago.

Now to pick on your personal concern; On page two, this thread, I introduced a reference to sea levels, which implies temperature changes for a significant Antarctica Ice Melts, would be highly unlikely, average temperatures are just too cold. Even so, water Ocean levels are and will continue to change, probably higher and again for a variety of reason, new land mass from under water and land volcano activity, run off from rivers around the world, plate tectonics, the most likely culprits. I won't bother you with where all ocean levels were thought to be around North America, but this one is in your area....8000 years ago.

Erosion on the floor of the English Channel is revealing the remains of a busy Stone Age settlement, from a time when Europe and Britain were still linked by land, a team of archaeologists says.

The site, just off the Isle of Wight, dates back 8,000 years, not long before melting glaciers filled in the Channel and likely drove the settlement's last occupants north to higher ground.

"This is the only site of its kind in the United Kingdom," said Garry Momber, director of the Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology, which led the recent excavations. "It is important because this is the period when modern people were blossoming, just coming out of the end of the Ice Age, living more like we do today in the valleys and lowlands."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20215343/

A serious question; With out listing all the potential political, astronomical, biological or other possible events that WILL happen at some point in time, do you honestly believe the South Pole melting, is near the top of a list your grandkids or theirs, will be concerned with? Unless Yellowstone does blow, a meteor does impact the earth or we do have a nuclear war, I'll bet mine and your grandkids, will be discussing, just how foolish their grandfolks were, concerned with such trivial matters....

By the way, it's nice to see you back, I hope from an enjoyable vacation...

Originally Posted by gib65

One of the predictions of GW is that the polar ice caps will melt and cause sea levels to rise. Have they been rising?

No they have not been rising *obviosuly*.

Have you noticed your local holiday resort disappearing?

Nope me either!!

The land based ice is not melting, Antartica has not melted infact the sea ice around antartica is growing. With that you would expect sea levels falling and indeed they are!!

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...is-falling.php

Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite has determined that over the last ten years, sea level in the Arctic ocean has been falling at an average rate of around 2mm/year. This is very new and very interesting news, though it is preliminary and not published in any peer reviewed journals yet.

Of course the reason it is not published officially is because the scientists in charge don't want it published because they only publish stuff which 'proves' global warming', all the othe stuff is binned or supressed apparently.

Also I would add thateven if the IPCC rise in seal level happens the seal level will still
be about the same as it was in 1300, it is currently 20 cm lower, so if the medievel folks coped so will we, they didnt even have the internet and sill managed!!

Smokey, bear in mind that meanwhile local coastlines rise and sink independently of global ocean volume, by tectonic movement and by weight of ice-age ice sheet, or lack thereof. The northern hemisphere generally is in a state of rebound since the (geologically recent) deglaciation. For example Finland's popping up like a previously submerged air mattress, in slow-motion.

So while you could say Arctic sea level falls 2mm per year it is more accurate to say Arctic landmass rises 2mm per year.

Sea level rise is not a problem, as I said we are at level a good bit lower than it has been in the past. A bit of warming would be idea.

Yes you said that sea levels in the Arctic are falling. I agreed much of the northern hemisphere will observe this apparent drop in water level. This does not mean the global ocean volume is decreasing, it certainly doesn't mean that Florida will rise up relative to sea level.

Look at it this way: if you have a raft loaded down with ice, and you melt the ice, what happens to the raft waterline?

Anyway if you're a Yank too bad for you. :P Where I am in Canada most land is rising faster than ocean rise can overtake it.

This article addresses two of the themes expressed recently in this thread. First off that the catastrophic predictions of massive rises in sea level due to wholesale melting of polar (land based) ice are predicated on a forecast trend that has already been falsified. It was based on a polar temperature prediction that would have polar sea ice continue a steep decline to the point that the pole would be ice free in 2013. However, the article notes that instead in just 3 years, arctic ice has recovered by 26% based on summer coverage and a look at current conditions indicates 60-70% recovery from minimum january coverage.

Secondly it addresses the reality that despite the confident pronouncements from the AGW advocates in the science community and here at this site (inow declares that those of us who are skeptical of AGW claims are ill-informed, and ophiolite blames his sides inability to produce clear and compelling evidence on the skeptics who he proceeds to vilify) the evidence stubbornly refuses to cooperate and now it is becoming more clear that the earth is entering a rather predictable cooling period. furthermore it seems to confirm the contention by us skeptics that increases in CO2 from a baseline of 150-200 ppm to nearly 400 ppm has a modest impact, is only a contributor to warming cycles and is not the driver to global warming. Instead natural drivers influence climate while CO2 is a follow-on effect. This article places the contribution to warming by CO2 between 10 and 50%, notes that far stronger effects have already begun to drive temperature the other direction and this cooling trend will likely persist for several decades based on repeating patterns of historical natural oscillations in sun, ocean and atmosphere.

That's another debate Cypress. Meanwhile I doubt that you deny post-glacial rebound, or the (anthropic) diking of river deltas (also the Low Countries). Bangladesh is a large area! So how must these alone affect global sea level?

Originally Posted by cypress

, the article notes that instead in just 3 years, arctic ice has recovered by 26% based on summer coverage and

Yet one more example of misinterpreting the interanual variability as some kind of climate trend, (this is tiresome) to put an entire misleading spin on things.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by cypress

, the article notes that instead in just 3 years, arctic ice has recovered by 26% based on summer coverage and

Yet one more example of misinterpreting the interanual variability as some kind of climate trend, (this is tiresome) to put an entire misleading spin on things.

It is completely accurate for what it says. And there is no misinterpretation either. Neither I nor the article nor the scientist's interviewed made any error. It is true that the catastrophic predictions are predicated on the forecast that polar temperatures would continue to rise and that polar ice would be absent by 2013. The chart you linked (from the site I provided) has the average summer decline at 11% per decade but the 2013 prediction requires a decline of over 100% per decade. The current decline is now at 3.5% per decade by the way. The article properly points out that because ice has recovered by 26% in summer and now 60% in winter it is very very very unlikely that the 2013 mark will occur because the physics behind polar warming rule it out. It goes on to say that observed data strongly points to a shift in ocean oscillations that historically and consistently result in global temperature declines lasting decades.

Linx-Fox, there is no misrepresentation here at all. There is only an error in your interpretation and your unwillingness to see weaknesses in your presumptions.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by cypress

, the article notes that instead in just 3 years, arctic ice has recovered by 26% based on summer coverage and

Yet one more example of misinterpreting the interanual variability as some kind of climate trend, (this is tiresome) to put an entire misleading spin on things.

It is completely accurate for what it says. And there is no misinterpretation either. Neither I nor the article nor the scientist's interviewed made any error. It is true that the catastrophic predictions are predicated on the forecast that polar temperatures would continue to rise and that polar ice would be absent by 2013.

Who made that prediction, specifically what group of scientist, or in what peer-review journal was it published? And why the two articles mix apples (when ice might disappear from the North Pole summer) to oranges (arctic ocean sea ice)? And why deliberately just mention two years to suggest is had anything to do with climate without mentioning year to year variations were quite large and there were at two other records sharp rises in the past 30 years yet the average was still falling?

It was either deliberately misleading or woefully ignorant.

It was either deliberately misleading or woefully ignorant.

Or both.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Who made that prediction, specifically what group of scientist, or in what peer-review journal was it published? And why the two articles mix apples (when ice might disappear from the North Pole summer) to oranges (arctic ocean sea ice)? And why deliberately just mention two years to suggest is had anything to do with climate without mentioning year to year variations were quite large and there were at two other records sharp rises in the past 30 years yet the average was still falling?

It was either deliberately misleading or woefully ignorant.

Clearly it was deliberately misleading or woefully ignorant to make a prediction that by 2013 polar ice would be gone. Such is often the case coming from the AGW alarmists.

I linked the article, but I have very little interest in finding out who made such a poor prediction. I do note that it is typical of the kinds of predictions contained in the IPCC's AR4 published last year and quite clearly intended to scare the politicians and public into action at Copenhagen.

The purpose, as I stated of mentioning the sharp increase in polar ice extent now occurring is that the increase makes it nearly impossible that the polar region will be ice free in 2013. 2009 to 2013 is four years not 30 so use of a three year trend is completely consistent with the time range in question. Clearly those who made the 2013 prediction are not the only AWG advocates who seem woefully ignorant.

I note that you skated past the second point which was this:

Secondly it addresses the reality that despite the confident pronouncements from the AGW advocates in the science community and here at this site (inow declares that those of us who are skeptical of AGW claims are ill-informed, and ophiolite blames his sides inability to produce clear and compelling evidence on the skeptics who he proceeds to vilify) the evidence stubbornly refuses to cooperate and now it is becoming more clear that the earth is entering a rather predictable cooling period. furthermore it seems to confirm the contention by us skeptics that increases in CO2 from a baseline of 150-200 ppm to nearly 400 ppm has a modest impact, is only a contributor to warming cycles and is not the driver to global warming. Instead natural drivers influence climate while CO2 is a follow-on effect. This article places the contribution to warming by CO2 between 10 and 50%, notes that far stronger effects have already begun to drive temperature the other direction and this cooling trend will likely persist for several decades based on repeating patterns of historical natural oscillations in sun, ocean and atmosphere.

As the article points out, these are UN scientists making this claim. The claim is based on repeatable observation and consistent historical patterns, and if it repeats again as these scientists believe it will, then sea levels will decline and ice coverage will continue to recover.

An AGW skeptic told me that my lucky numbers for February 12th are: 19 0 2 39.

Are the sea levels rising??????????
Well theres a simple 3 word answer for that!!!
YES THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So kakarot, would you like to give us some evidence for this sea level rise? Can you offer references to peer reviewed research?
How much rise has there been in the last fifty years? Is the rate of rise accelerating or decelerating? What is causing the rise, specifically?

Well... in fairness... Those issues were addressed already in the very first response to this thread, and also in several subsequent responses.

Ophiolite wrote:
So kakarot, would you like to give us some evidence for this sea level rise? Can you offer references to peer reviewed research?
How much rise has there been in the last fifty years? Is the rate of rise accelerating or decelerating? What is causing the rise, specifically?



Okay, heres the evidence.
(from wikipedia)

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due significantly to global warming, which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century. Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important, and are more difficult to predict and quantify. Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of this century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Models of glacial flow give a theoretical maximum value for sea level rise in the current century of 2 metres (and a "more plausible" one of 0.8 metres), based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow.

And global warming is causing sea level rise.
Thats what was shown in the documentary Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.

Some more evidence coming up!


And some evidence from India too...
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.or...sea-level-rise

US sea level rise in the science daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210111156.htm
and lots more of evidence !

Excellent. So you do know how to use google.

Originally Posted by inow

Well... in fairness...

In fairness karkarot has been posting lightweight tenuous comments that appear only designed to increase his post count. I chose to challenge that in four or five different threads. So far this appears to be the only one where he has demonstrated any ability to offer meaningful information.

For the record I have no doubt that sea levels are rising, but if I were posting an affirmative of such I would include the type of information that had to be prodded out of karkarot, or refer back to a specific post.

I'd forgotten about his necromancing issues and thread bumps which lack any worth. I appreciate the clarification you offered, and completely agree with your point now that I have been reminded of the context.

Ophiolite wrote:
Excellent. So you do know how to use google.
inow wrote:
Well... in fairness...
In fairness karkarot has been posting lightweight tenuous comments that appear only designed to increase his post count. I chose to challenge that in four or five different threads. So far this appears to be the only one where he has demonstrated any ability to offer meaningful information.
For the record I have no doubt that sea levels are rising, but if I were posting an affirmative of such I would include the type of information that had to be prodded out of karkarot, or refer back to a specific post.





Actually I dont intend to write 'lightweight tenuous comments' . Since I am new to this forum stuff I felt this is how things are to be and thats what is there in my posts.
And I do know how to use google too. But what are forums for?
And I dont think I re-read those other posts where you 'challenged' me. Sorry for that.
Anyway thanks for your info. I, hence forth shall correct my self.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992) and Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century.

You really have to ask yourself... Why do we keep letting people lie about such simple facts?

Originally Posted by inow

You really have to ask yourself... Why do we keep letting people lie about such simple facts?

Who's lying about what?

I don't recall someone here saying the sea levels aren't rising. Just a dispute of the cause.

Can we try to be more accurate in our statements please?

It's called a rhetorical question, WC. I was hardly making an assertion requiring accuracy or references.