Sea levels are rising twice as fast as had been thought

[RandomGuy]

SCIENCE and politics are inextricably linked. At a scientific conference on climate change held this week in Copenhagen, four environmental experts announced that sea levels appear to be rising almost twice as rapidly as had been forecast by the United Nations just two years ago. The warning is aimed at politicians who will meet in the same city in December to discuss the same subject and, perhaps, to thrash out an international agreement to counter it.

The reason for the rapid change in the predicted rise in sea levels is a rapid increase in the information available. In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change convened by the UN made its prediction that sea levels would rise by between 18cm and 59cm by 2100, a lack of knowledge about how the polar ice caps were behaving was behind much of the uncertainty. Since then they have been closely monitored, and the results are disturbing. Both the Greenland and the Antarctic caps have been melting at an accelerating rate. It is this melting ice that is raising sea levels much faster than had been expected. Indeed, scientists now reckon that sea levels will rise by between 50cm and 100cm by 2100, unless action is taken to curb climate change.

Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado, Boulder, leads one study of the Greenland ice sheet. He told the conference that this sheet is melting not only because it is warmer but also because water seeping through its crevices is breaking it up. This effect had been neglected in the earlier report.

The impact of the melting ice has been measured by John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research. He told the conference that satellite and ground-based systems showed that sea levels have been rising more rapidly since 1993 than they were earlier in the 20th century. He is concerned that more climate change could cause a further acceleration in this rate.

Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has examined data stretching over 125 years that link increases in sea temperatures to rises in sea levels. He told the conference that, based on past experience, “I expect that sea-level rise will accelerate as the planet gets hotter.” He was supported in this view by the fourth expert, Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine, who called for the world’s leaders to slash the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Advance negotiations on the UN Climate Change Conference are due to begin in Bonn in just over a fortnight’s time. The scientists hope that their startling warnings will change the outcome of that pre-meeting meeting. With much still to argue over, they hope that a clear scientific lead will both help to narrow the room for disagreement and also galvanise the desire to get a treaty agreed.


----------------------------------------------

Cue another pointless CO2 debate in 3, 2, 1...

[Bartleby]

Cue another pointless CO2 debate in 3, 2, 1...

Paging Wild Cobra

[DarrinS]

I guess you better move to higher ground.

[clambake]

maybe it's the ground thats sinking.

[coyotes_geek]

Let's fix the economy first. One armageddon at a time.

[DarrinS]

I think those guys are too modest. If they would say sea levels would rise by 20 feet, they might win a Nobel Prize.


Sincerely,

Algore

[101A]

Texas used to be part of the Ocean.

Must have been a bunch of SUV's eons ago, huh?

[LnGrrrR]

I guess you better move to higher ground.

I'm moving from Mississippi to Hawaii...

Ah well, at least it's not New Orleans... lol

[LockBeard]

Fucking Dinos and their range rovers.

[Jacob1983]

It's time to buy a boat.

[DarrinS]

I'm moving from Mississippi to Hawaii...

Ah well, at least it's not New Orleans... lol



Damn, that's a serious upgrade.

[CubanMustGo]

damn, that's a serious upgrade.

+1

[Creepn]

Just build a big ass AC fan and blow it in the direction of the ice caps. Keep that sucka frozen.

[Yonivore]

four environmental experts announced that sea levels appear to be rising almost twice as rapidly as had been forecast by the United Nations just two years ago.

The warning is aimed at politicians who will meet in the same city in December to discuss the same subject and, perhaps, to thrash out an international agreement to counter it.

The reason for the rapid change in the predicted rise in sea levels is a rapid increase in the information available...
Okay, I skimmed the rest so, if they said where and how much sea levels were actually rising twice as fast, I didn't see it.

All I see is that they've rejiggered their models to make it appear sea levels will rise twice as fast as their earlier models predicted so they could scare the money out of a bunch of politicians in December.

Did I miss something?

[TDMVPDPOY]

its fkn easy

why let all that water to waste expecially in the artic and north pole, fkn alot of countries are short on water....tunnel that shit now

[nkdlunch]

don't worry, I'll open my faucet 24hrs a day

[Wild Cobra]

When the sea water warms up, it expands. That's what the majority of the rise is over the last decade or so. Don't worry. The oceans are done warming for a bit. Solar activity is still lower than it has been.

Funny. When you read anything from the IPCC, they don't mention thermal expansion. At least not that I recall.

Please notice, they say "since 1993." I wonder what the complete data looks like. We haven't been warming for several years now, but there are long term lags involved.

[Wild Cobra]

Back to thermal expansion. The oceans have a volume of about 1.3 billion cubic km with a surface area of about 261 million sq km. That means the average depth is 4.98 km. Thermal expansion is approximately 0.0125% per Celsius. A one degree change in average ocean temperature would change the level by about 625 mm. That's about 2 feet! Of course, not the entire ocean depths have increased in temperature. This is just to put thermal expansion into perspective.

Don't blame it on the ice.

The 0.0125% is approximate based on 1 gm/cm at 4C and 0.998 gm/cm at 20C. I didn't find the exact value in a quick search. No need to nit pick the number. It is very close. The exact value would be appreciated however.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, I skimmed the rest so, if they said where and how much sea levels were actually rising twice as fast, I didn't see it.

All I see is that they've rejiggered their models to make it appear sea levels will rise twice as fast as their earlier models predicted so they could scare the money out of a bunch of politicians in December.

Did I miss something?


The reason for the rapid change in the predicted rise in sea levels is a rapid increase in the information available. In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change convened by the UN made its prediction that sea levels would rise by between 18cm and 59cm by 2100, a lack of knowledge about how the polar ice caps were behaving was behind much of the uncertainty. Since then they have been closely monitored, and the results are disturbing. Both the Greenland and the Antarctic caps have been melting at an accelerating rate.

God forbid you should ever fully read something that might challenge a pre-existing belief.

That would be a sign of the apocolypse.

[RandomGuy]

Back to thermal expansion. The oceans have a volume of about 1.3 billion cubic km with a surface area of about 261 million sq km. That means the average depth is 4.98 km. Thermal expansion is approximately 0.0125% per Celsius. A one degree change in average ocean temperature would change the level by about 625 mm. That's about 2 feet! Of course, not the entire ocean depths have increased in temperature. This is just to put thermal expansion into perspective.

Don't blame it on the ice.

The 0.0125% is approximate based on 1 gm/cm at 4C and 0.998 gm/cm at 20C. I didn't find the exact value in a quick search. No need to nit pick the number. It is very close. The exact value would be appreciated however.

Wrong.

[Yonivore]

God forbid you should ever fully read something that might challenge a pre-existing belief.

That would be a sign of the apocolypse.
That still doesn't answer the question of WHERE and HOW MUCH sea levels have risen.

So, tell me, where -- on this planet -- have sea levels risen due to this predicted melting?

[RandomGuy]

I don't read enough of this to really have the answer to that off the top of my head.

To my understanding though, most of the predicted rises in sea levels before 2100 haven't happened yet.

If, in 20 years, what they predicted to happen though, is roughly what happens, you will still probably deny it as alarmist, I would imagine. That said, my motivation to try and present information to someone who would probably dismiss anything that I give him that might contradict his pre-existing ideas is not all that great.

Respectfully:

I would guess that the information is available, if you were to honestly look for it.

[Yonivore]

I don't read enough of this to really have the answer to that off the top of my head.

To my understanding though, most of the predicted rises in sea levels before 2100 haven't happened yet.

If, in 20 years, what they predicted to happen though, is roughly what happens, you will still probably deny it as alarmist, I would imagine. That said, my motivation to try and present information to someone who would probably dismiss anything that I give him that might contradict his pre-existing ideas is not all that great.
And, if it doesn't happen you will all be fools. And, considering all seas are connected; a rise anywhere due to this phenomenon would cause rises everywhere.


Respectfully:

I would guess that the information is available, if you were to honestly look for it.
I think your guess is wrong. To my knowledge (and I've looked for reliable sources) there have been no recorded rises in sea level on this planet that can't be attributed to either changes in local geography, topography, and environment; or the daily tides.

[RandomGuy]

And, if it doesn't happen you will all be fools. And, considering all seas are connected; a rise anywhere due to this phenomenon would cause rises everywhere.

I think your guess is wrong. To my knowledge (and I've looked for reliable sources) there have been no recorded rises in sea level on this planet that can't be attributed to either changes in local geography, topography, and environment; or the daily tides.

If it doesn't happen, then the "us" alarmists will indeed be foolish.

If it does happen, would you admit you were wrong?

If it does happen, how would you explain it? What would you do to fix/allevaite the problem?

[RandomGuy]

I think your guess is wrong. To my knowledge (and I've looked for reliable sources) there have been no recorded rises in sea level on this planet that can't be attributed to either changes in local geography, topography, and environment; or the daily tides.

What would you call a "reliable" source?

If, as I would suspect, you only read/believe things that reinforce your existing beliefs, and think anybody who doesn't agree with you is lying for some reason, then how I am to know that your evaluation of reliability can be trusted?

Confirmation bias, by its very nature, does not allow for accurate assessments.

I am really not trying to be insulting here, merely point out to you my own problems with your statements on things like this.

[DarrinS]

Maybe it was all the Woolly Mammoth farts.

Seriously, aren't we still warming from the little ice age?


NOTE: The vertical axis in this graph is in METERS. All this change took place before fossil fuel burning.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

[Extra Stout]

If the Darwinist religion of all you liberals were correct, shouldn't we be growing gills to deal with the sea level rise? This proves global warming is just a Marxist lie.

[DarrinS]

Can anyone tell me what the optimal temperature of the Earth is supposed to be? I lost my owner's manual.

[Extra Stout]

One of the keys to robust process operation is not to manipulate inputs too quickly. For example, the process may run just fine at a wide range of concentrations for a particular reactant; however, if this concentration is changed abruptly rather than gradually, this can result in significant upsets in the reaction which could even lead to a shutdown.

[clambake]

One of the keys to robust process operation is not to manipulate inputs too quickly. For example, the process may run just fine at a wide range of concentrations for a particular reactant; however, if this concentration is changed abruptly rather than gradually, this can result in significant upsets in the reaction which could even lead to a shutdown.

so, a trickle would be prudent as opposed to an overload?

[Yonivore]

What would you call a "reliable" source?

If, as I would suspect, you only read/believe things that reinforce your existing beliefs, and think anybody who doesn't agree with you is lying for some reason, then how I am to know that your evaluation of reliability can be trusted?

Confirmation bias, by its very nature, does not allow for accurate assessments.

I am really not trying to be insulting here, merely point out to you my own problems with your statements on things like this.
Produce a report that says sea levels have risen in a particular geographic location due to global warming and let's discuss, shall we?

Not some predictive model report but, real observations.

[101A]

If it doesn't happen, then the "us" alarmists will indeed be foolish.

True that.


If it does happen, would you admit you were wrong?

It depends; will anyone to that point have proven that a trace gas is the culprit THIS time for something that has happened pretty much continually throughout history?


If it does happen, how would you explain it?

That big, bright, Nuclear ORB in the sky would be my starting point.


What would you do to fix/allevaite the problem?

Move further inland.

[ChumpDumper]

Produce a report that says sea levels have risen in a particular geographic location due to global warming and let's discuss, shall we?

Not some predictive model report but, real observations.More proof you don't read anything.
The impact of the melting ice has been measured by John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research. He told the conference that satellite and ground-based systems showed that sea levels have been rising more rapidly since 1993 than they were earlier in the 20th century.You're an idiot.

You seriously think that folks never thought to measure the sea levels?


"Measurements around the world show that sea level has risen almost 20 centimeters since 1880," explains Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who will give the plenary speech on sea level rise at the congress. These data also reveal that the rate of sea level rise is closely linked to temperature: sea level rises faster the warmer it gets. "If sea level keeps rising at a constant pace, we will end up in the middle of that 18-59 cm IPCC range by 2100," says Rahmstorf. "But based on past experience I expect that sea level rise will accelerate as the planet gets hotter."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/uoc-rsl031009.php

Now what did you want to debate again?

[Extra Stout]

More proof you don't read anything.You're an idiot.

You seriously think that folks never thought to measure the sea levels?



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/uoc-rsl031009.php

Now what did you want to debate again?
Ah, but you never PROVED it was due to global warming! HA! I WIN!!

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

Damn, that's a serious upgrade.

Yeah. I got pretty lucky. I was trying to get stationed somewhere in Europe, but I'll definitely take Hawaii.

[LnGrrrR]

More proof you don't read anything.You're an idiot.

You seriously think that folks never thought to measure the sea levels?



http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/uoc-rsl031009.php

Now what did you want to debate again?

Chump, why even post this info? They'll just turn it into the game of, "Sure, sea levels are rising, but it doesn't mean it's because of CO2; the earth is on a warming cycle".

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, why even post this info?It's just too easy to show what an idiot Yoni is.

[DarrinS]

Chump, why even post this info? They'll just turn it into the game of, "Sure, sea levels are rising, but it doesn't mean it's because of CO2; the earth is on a warming cycle".


Why do you think rising sea levels are because of CO2? Be specific.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do you think rising sea levels are because of CO2? Be specific.

To be honest, I haven't done enough research to determine strongly whether it's manmade or natural warming. However, I do recognize how often people who are on the 'global warming doesn't exist or it isn't a problem' side move the goalposts.

Even if it IS natural warming, if the pattern maintains, it will have numerous wide-reaching effects, on agriculture, infrastructure, and various other aspects. Which is not ideal, to say the least.

[RandomGuy]

Produce a report that says sea levels have risen in a particular geographic location due to global warming and let's discuss, shall we?

Not some predictive model report but, real observations.

If I produced a paper, you wouldn't believe it, because it would challenge your pre-existing beliefs, why should I bother looking? You would automatically assign it, no matter how credible or good the science was, as "unreliable".

You and all of the critics are very rightly questioning the CO2 causality of observed warming trends, and of those observed warming trends causing sea levels to rise.

Proving causality is indeed the burden of those who claim that CO2 and other GHG are 1) causing warming and 2) causing ice to melt and raising sea levels.

We have observed a lot of ice melts. That has been an observed fact, as the report in the OP will attest.

WC would say it is soot, and that has the effect of increasing surface temperatures by increasing the amount of energy absorbed, and there is some evidence to support this to what I understand.

One thing that is also not in question is that CO2 levels are rising at a rate faster than at ANY time in history, as far as we can tell. In absolute terms they are not entirely out of the norm, but one can claim that the rate of increase in CO2 concentration is beyond anything the earth has ever seen.

Since the people who are alleging that the temperature increases are very likely due to this increase in concentration, it seems to me that the best way to test whether the increases really are due to CO2 is to simply wait.

The sun really doesn't vary that much in the total amount of energy imparted to the earth, and sunlight trends are easy to track.

We are also getting sensor nets and new measuring capability coming on line on a yearly basis.

The data going forward will be better and better and more comprehensive each year.

Ultimately, we will be able to better understand how the CO2 increases are affecting changes in our climate.

Time will out, one way or another.

Do me a favor.

Assume, just for the sake of argument, you are wrong.

When/how will you/we know? Assuming of course our knowledge base on the issue continues to get better every year.

[DarrinS]

Even if it IS natural warming, if the pattern maintains, it will have numerous wide-reaching effects, on agriculture, infrastructure, and various other aspects. Which is not ideal, to say the least.


There would also be wide-reaching effects if the Earth becomes colder.

[LnGrrrR]

There would also be wide-reaching effects if the Earth becomes colder.

Agreed. If the Earth were getting colder for some reason, I'd be highly concerned as well. Anything that would greatly affect current agrarian areas would stress me.

[RandomGuy]

To be honest, I haven't done enough research to determine strongly whether it's manmade or natural warming. However, I do recognize how often people who are on the 'global warming doesn't exist or it isn't a problem' side move the goalposts.

Even if it IS natural warming, if the pattern maintains, it will have numerous wide-reaching effects, on agriculture, infrastructure, and various other aspects. Which is not ideal, to say the least.

The biggest weakness in their position is that one of the key arguments they invariably make about a course of action based on the existing science is that changing to a low CO2 economy would entail massive economic disruptions.

Ask any of them to prove THAT, and you are met with, "well this paper from 12 years ago says it would cost $300bn or something".

I might not be an expert on global climate, but economics and money I understand very well. I read that paper, and it seemed to have some SERIOUS flaws. From what I have been able to gather, that paper is the sum total of support for the "if we go to a low CO2 economy, we will all be poor" claim.

There is actually a good argument to be made that going now to a low CO2 economy would be better for us in the long run. Not only are they at least probably wrong about the exact economic effects, there is a good possibility that the reality is completely the opposite of what they claim.

The science could go either way ultimately. By the time we really know for sure, we might just be in the worse-case scenario predicted by the "alarmists".

We can't change whether or not CO2 will f*** up the climate. We can change how we react to the possibility.

If you want to avoid the worst of the known risks, i.e. total global disasters from massive climate disruptions, we should act to mitigate that risk first, especially given that the ultimate costs are quite possibly nil to us in the long run.

Cost.

to.

Benefit.

[LnGrrrR]

The science could go either way ultimately. By the time we really know for sure, we might just be in the worse-case scenario predicted by the "alarmists".


What really cracks me up about this is twofold.

1) Conservatives, who are so quick to lay out the worst case scenario of a terrorist attack unless billions are spent trying to defend it, are quick to decry liberals who portend doom over global warming as quacks and loonies.

2) Reducing our dependence on oil would also increase national security, as we would have less necessary ties to rather unscrupulous countries. You'd think it'd be something that conservatives and liberals alike could agree on.

[RandomGuy]

2) Reducing our dependence on oil would also increase national security, as we would have less necessary ties to rather unscrupulous countries. You'd think it'd be something that conservatives and liberals alike could agree on.

One would think so, until you watch Republican rallying cries of "drill baby drill".

Conservatives, who are supposedly free market advocates, don't seem to understand it.

Long story short: the more you drill domestically, the more you are STILL dependent on foreign oil producers, if not more so than when you began. Counter-intuitive on its face, but that is how the free market works. (yes, I can and have explained this at length)

As much as many decry "knee-jerk" irrational environmentalism, many of those same people are just as guilty as "knee-jerk" irrational anti-environmentalism.

[DarrinS]

The biggest weakness in their position is that one of the key arguments they invariably make about a course of action based on the existing science is that changing to a low CO2 economy would entail massive economic disruptions.




So, do you think cap and trade is a good policy, given our current economic situation?

[RandomGuy]

If it does happen, how would you explain it?



That big, bright, Nuclear ORB in the sky would be my starting point.


What if the data showed a slowdown in solar radiation, and temperatures still went up along with CO2 concentrations?

Would such an explanation still be a good one?

[DarrinS]

What really cracks me up about this is twofold.

1) Conservatives, who are so quick to lay out the worst case scenario of a terrorist attack unless billions are spent trying to defend it, are quick to decry liberals who portend doom over global warming as quacks and loonies.




Terrorists attacks HAVE ALREADY occurred. Environmental catastrophes have not.




2) Reducing our dependence on oil would also increase national security, as we would have less necessary ties to rather unscrupulous countries. You'd think it'd be something that conservatives and liberals alike could agree on.

I agree with that, only I think it will be a very long process to wean us off of fossil fuel.

[LnGrrrR]

Terrorists attacks HAVE ALREADY occurred. Environmental catastrophes have not.

Right... and thousands of Americans die in car accidents. Does that mean we should spend billions developing crash proof cars?

The odds of dying or being injured in a terrorist accident are miniscule. But it can garner alot of money/attention because it's sensational.

I think the overall point is the same, that sensational tactics are used on both sides (TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO KILL YOU! GLOBAL WARMING WILL DESTROY ALL OF US!) to the same effect. Both can be justified to some extent, but neither side will recognize that the other is using the same type of argument.


I agree with that, only I think it will be a very long process to wean us off of fossil fuel.

Agreed. But it will be better in the long run.

[DarrinS]

Right... and thousands of Americans die in car accidents. Does that mean we should spend billions developing crash proof cars?


Actually, millions of dollars have been spent to make cars safer. It is still the number one cause of death of teenagers.





The odds of dying or being injured in a terrorist accident are miniscule. But it can garner alot of money/attention because it's sensational.

I think the overall point is the same, that sensational tactics are used on both sides (TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO KILL YOU! GLOBAL WARMING WILL DESTROY ALL OF US!) to the same effect. Both can be justified to some extent, but neither side will recognize that the other is using the same type of argument.




Actually, I'm more concerned about what's going on along the Texas-Mexico border than I am about Islamic terrorists.


By the way, had temperatures continued to climb past 1998, I would be a lot more convinced that global warming was a serious problem. But, over the last 10 years, the global temperature anomaly has been pretty stable.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually, millions of dollars have been spent to make cars safer. It is still the number one cause of death of teenagers.

Yes, but it rarely gets the sort of sensationalist coverage like terrorism/global warming tends to attract. I gues smy point is that terrorist prevention receives more than its fair share of coin as opposed to the actual incidents that have occurred.

It's mainly because terrorism/global security are 'all-or-nothing' type of categories. If you reduce car crashes 5% in a year, you can brag, even if there's still thousands of car crashes that year. However, one terrorist attack is enough for many people to justify extreme amounts of spending.


Actually, I'm more concerned about what's going on along the Texas-Mexico border than I am about Islamic terrorists.

I'm for a more open border honestly. I think if we were to allow more unskilled workers, we'd have less trying to cross illegally, and the people we let in legally we would at least get taxes from.

The biggest problem right now is finding enough people to perform security clearances on people; most applications are backed up as hell.

[101A]

If it does happen, how would you explain it?



What if the data showed a slowdown in solar radiation, and temperatures still went up along with CO2 concentrations?



A graph showing causality between Human CO2 emissions and temperature - cause and effect that was obvious? You'd have my attention.

[Yonivore]

If I produced a paper, you wouldn't believe it, because it would challenge your pre-existing beliefs, why should I bother looking? You would automatically assign it, no matter how credible or good the science was, as "unreliable".
Try me. I've yet to see a serious scientific paper that makes those claims.


Do me a favor.

Assume, just for the sake of argument, you are wrong.

When/how will you/we know? Assuming of course our knowledge base on the issue continues to get better every year.
I doubt we will since the most dire consequences being predicted happen after you and I are dead. They've (alarmists) learned not to predict consequences that might take place when we're still around to call them the fools they are.

But, take it from a person who lived through the global cooling hysteria (frozen tundra in Florida, I believe was the prediction) and the global population hysteria (we'll all be starving by the year 2000) and the Y2K silliness (planes falling from the sky) of the previous century.

This too shall pass and be shown to be as idiotic as the other three scenarios. No one has yet to convince me that man has any appreciable ability to affect (long term) global climate.

[LnGrrrR]

But, take it from a person who lived through the global cooling hysteria (frozen tundra in Florida, I believe was the prediction) and the global population hysteria (we'll all be starving by the year 2000) and the Y2K silliness (planes falling from the sky) of the previous century.


Ha! Y2K. I bought plane tickets for that day... they were really cheap. Great bargain. :)

If someone wants to worry about technological hazards, they should worry about how easy it is to perform cyber attacks/denial.