Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

---

Quote:

---

The relatively small glaciers that drape the planet's mountains will play an important role in future sea level rise, according to a new study that estimated glaciers' collective size.

Researchers calculated the ice thickness for 171,000 glaciers worldwide, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which hold the bulk of Earth's frozen water. Through a combination of direct satellite observations and modeling, they determined the total volume of ice tied up in the glaciers is nearly 41,000 cubic miles (170,000 cubic kilometers), plus or minus 5,000 cubic miles (21,000 cubic km).

If all the glaciers were to melt, global sea levels would rise almost 17 inches (43 centimeters), the scientists found.

Improved estimate

The study, published in the Oct. 11 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, is an improvement on previous estimates of the global ice volume because it uses a physical approach, said lead study author Matthias Huss, a glaciologist at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.

The glacier count comes from the recently released Randolph Glacier Inventory and global topography from NASA satellite data.

"To date, the volume of glaciers was only estimated using very simple empirical equations with high uncertainties," Huss told OurAmazingPlanet in an email interview. "Our new method not only provides an estimate of the ice volume, but allows calculating local ice thickness on a fine grid for each of the 200,000 glaciers worldwide," he said. [Image Gallery: Glaciers Before and After]

---

Thank you Boutons. 17" I can accept as being realistic in a total melt down.

196 feet?

That number is total hyperbole bullshit even if fuzzy monkey shit believes it.

Would the floating antarctic ice sheet add more? Yeah. some but since 7/8 of it is already displacing water it certainly wouldn't be that much taking into consideration the 10% shrinkage from ice to water of ALL the ice while only 1/8th of the existing ice would be adding to the water level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Thank you Boutons. 17" I can accept as being realistic in a total melt down.

---

Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise

Key points

• An accurately dated, near-continuous, history of sea level variations for the last 150,000 years has been compiled.

• Comparison with ice core data reveals that major global ice volume loss, as implied by sea level rise, has followed relatively quickly after polar warming. The Greenland ice sheet responding virtually straight away (0-100 years lag time), and a 400-700 lag for the Antarctic ice sheet.

• These response times are much faster than was previously commonly suspected, and implies that once sufficient polar warming is underway, future ice sheetcollapse may be unavoidable.

• During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past...evel-Rise.html

From Boos article:

The last few million years of Earth's climate has been dominated by the ice age cycles. These consisted of long cool periods (glacials) where giant icesheets have grown on the continental land masses at, and near, the poles. With the water evaporated off the oceans being locked up as ice on land, this ice sheet build-up substantially lowered global sea level. During the shorter, warmer, intervals (interglacials) the ice sheets have disintegrated, and with their glacial meltwater draining back into the oceans, sea level has risen. From the coldest part of the last ice age (roughly 20,000 years ago) to present, global sea level has risen an astounding 120 metres.

Although all the details are not well understood, the driving force behind these glacial/interglacial cycles are slow variations in Earth's orbit as it circles the sun, which slightly decreased/increased the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface

OK
So the earth gets colder and warmer. Since we weren't around for millions of years they couldn't blame it on us.

Now that humans are here it's all our fault. Got it.

BTW, San Antonio gets a lot of it's electricity from burning dirty coal.

Any of you whiny bitches turned off your AC's this summer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

About 7/8 of the floating Antarctic ice sheet is already under water. Thus, it has already displaced 7/8 of it's volume of water. You are counting it twice.

---

They term it grounded ice and it's not like the concepts of buoyancy and displacement are lost on scientists such as they are with you. They don't count the glacial mass under sea level nor the icebergs, dimwit.

It's a cool paper about the topology of the 2 sheets. The melt conversion they use is 360 gigatons of ice for 1 mm of sea level rise. I'm enjoying your fumbling though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

They term it grounded ice and it's not like the concepts of buoyancy and displacement are lost on scientists such as they are with you. They don't count the glacial mass under sea level nor the icebergs, dimwit.

It's a cool paper about the topology of the 2 sheets. The melt conversion they use is 360 gigatons of ice for 1 mm of sea level rise. I'm enjoying your fumbling though.

---

So did you turn your AC off this summer?

BTW, I did skim the paper but didn't see where they said they specifically excluded the ice sheet ice that was already underwater from their volume calculation. Can you copy and paste your proof since it's your claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Look again. The equation allowed that every square inch of land in the world was buried in ice. That includes your permafrost.

---

OK, misread. Considering parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are over 15,000 feet thick and parts of Greenland's close to 10,000 feet, I'm not sure the OP figure is too far off. I mean, the volume of each has been measured. I suppose we could argue what is above or below water already, but you could do a quick and dirt plug of the volumes into a different equation.

CC wants ABSOLUTE PROOF DOWN TO EVERY DE FUCKING TAIL, else fuck all y'all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

So did you turn your AC off this summer?

BTW, I did skim the paper but didn't see where they said they specifically excluded the ice sheet ice that was already underwater from their volume calculation. Can you copy and paste your proof since it's your claim?

---

Not going to give you intellectual charity. Quite frankly I think you are an idiot for doubting something that basic in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Not going to give you intellectual charity. Quite frankly I think you are an idiot for doubting something that basic in the first place.

---

:lmao

Snarky bitch retreats with tail between his legs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In latin it's called reductio ad absurdum.

---

:lol needing to point out that you know latin words to act smart
:lol platform of bluster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

OK, misread. Considering parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are over 15,000 feet thick and parts of Greenland's close to 10,000 feet, I'm not sure the OP figure is too far off. I mean, the volume of each has been measured. I suppose we could argue what is above or below water already, but you could do a quick and dirt plug of the volumes into a different equation.

---

I saw where someone had calculated that every human being on the planet could fit in NYC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

Snarky bitch retreats with tail between his legs.

---

yeah that is what it is. . . . read the study or don't. I don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not opposed to people doing "something about it", or even companies migrating to systems with reduced emissions (which would imply it's not hurting their bottom line). That's silly, who wouldn't want that?

Now, forcing companies to ration their emissions is where I see the problem, as it would have a pretty massive economic impact. That's what the carbon tax/carbon marketplace models are.
For certain industries, like energy, it goes at the core of their business. That translates to loss of competitiveness, increased prices, lost jobs, lost economic output.

And it's debatable it would actually tackle the problem. I mean, China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic competitiveness.

Now, if you want to buy a Leaf instead of a gas guzzler, more power to you.

---

The idea of the Fixed price/floating price on carbon is to push companies away from fossil fuels and towards using renewable energy. It will cost, but hasn't done a lot of damage to countries which have put a price on carbon in the past 20-30 years and their renewable energy industries have taken off in this time. China have made strong commitments to cut their carbon intensity by around 65% by 2030.

[asks question before finishing reading]

nevermind. will finish reading first....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not opposed to people doing "something about it", or even companies migrating to systems with reduced emissions (which would imply it's not hurting their bottom line). That's silly, who wouldn't want that?

Now, forcing companies to ration their emissions is where I see the problem, as it would have a pretty massive economic impact. That's what the carbon tax/carbon marketplace models are.
For certain industries, like energy, it goes at the core of their business. That translates to loss of competitiveness, increased prices, lost jobs, lost economic output.

And it's debatable it would actually tackle the problem. I mean, China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic competitiveness.

Now, if you want to buy a Leaf instead of a gas guzzler, more power to you.

---

Changing to renewables will end up costing a lot less in the long run than the what the prodigious propaganda of the fossil fuel industry suggests.

The people who make a lot of money from such things have a LOT of very vested interest in exaggerating the impact of switching energy sources.

The important thing to remember for everybody else is that switching energy sources is simply a substitution of goods, i.e. one for another.

Renewables have had a tiny, tiny, fraction of the funds pumped into R & D and infrastructure that fossil fuels have, once that ratio changes, and the downward costs of renewables continues, that will change.

The damage done by fossil fuel extraction and usage will look like a pretty shitty price to pay when the prices reach parity, as they are about to do, even with coal getting cheaper due to falling demand.

Simple economics. Don't believe the doom and gloom economic catastrophe schtick, it is far overblown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

OK, misread. Considering parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are over 15,000 feet thick and parts of Greenland's close to 10,000 feet, I'm not sure the OP figure is too far off. I mean, the volume of each has been measured. I suppose we could argue what is above or below water already, but you could do a quick and dirt plug of the volumes into a different equation.

---

One thing that one has to bear in mind is how much Greenland will pop up like a slow motion cork after all that weight shifts off of it, which is also part of the calculation, if memory serves. Complex stuff.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/2...pt-when-it-is/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/2...pt-when-it-is/

---

Nice 'there is uncertainty so do nothing' and ignoring the thesis of the 538 piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Nice 'there is uncertainty so do nothing' and ignoring the thesis of the 538 piece.

---

That's what you took away from reading that? Seems like you didn't read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

That's what you took away from reading that? Seems like you didn't read it.

---

The 538 piece addresses peer review extensively and it certainly describes the problem of corporate interference.

Quote:

---

Some studies get published with no peer review at all, as so-called “predatory publishers” flood the scientific literature with journals that are essentially fake, publishing any author who pays. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado at Denver, has compiled a list of more than 100 so-called “predatory” journal publishers. These journals often have legit-sounding names like the International Journal of Advanced Chemical Research and create opportunities for crackpots to give their unscientific views a veneer of legitimacy. (The fake “get me off your fucking mailing list” and “Simpsons” papers were published in such journals.)

---

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-isnt-broken/

Now what role do you think the oil lobby plays in the dynamic in climate science? The 538 piece never mentions weather or climate once. Most of the abuse they talk about is in the chemical and pharmacology industries interference. It also does a very good job showing how the peer review system corrects these issues. Again ignored. The thesis is that it works. WUWT waved its hands at the problem.

As has already been mentioned, your oilco overlords have several watchdog groups that scour the published climate science looking for a reason to discredit. Their work is some of the most heavily scrutinized in the history of science.

I actually imagine that would be your dream job.

Fuzzy still stuck on the 538 intro, which was pretty much only cited for it's title "Science isn't broken". Derp.

Quote:

---

Dr. Nerem’s science does support 3 inches of sea level rise since 1992.

Now for the broken science…

Quote:

---

In 2013, a United Nations panel predicted sea levels would rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meters) by the end of the century. The new research shows that sea level rise most likely will be at the high end of that range, said University of Colorado geophysicist Steve Nerem.

Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago and “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” Nerem said

---

Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 mm per year since the Jason/Topex missions started flying.

The IPCC says that sea level will rise by 300 to 900 mm by the end of this century. Dr. Nerem says that his work indicates that the sea level rise will be at the high end of that range. Since we are 15 years into this century with about 45 mm of sea level rise “in the bank,” sea level would have to rise by 855 mm over the next 85 years to hit the high end. That is 10 mm per year. This caused sea level to rise by ~10 mm/yr for about 10,000 years…

All of the sea level rise since 1700 AD is circled at the right hand side of the graph.

The only way sea level rise could approach the high end of the IPCC range is if it exponentially accelerates…

The rate from 2081-2100 would have to average 20 mm per year, twice that of the Holocene Transgression. This is only possible in bad science fiction movies.

Broken science, part deux…

Quote:

---

Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago…

---

They are rising faster than they were 50 years ago. However, they are rising at the same rate that they were 80, 70 and 60 years ago…

There is nothing abnormal about sea level rising by 3 inches over a 23-yr period. Nor is a 3 mm/yr sea level rise over a multi-decade period unusual. There is simply no anomaly requiring an explanation. The claim that the 3 inches if sea level rise from 1992-2015 is inline with 3 feet of sea level rise in the 21st century is patently false and demonstrably disprovable. The accurate statement that sea level is rising faster now than it was 50 years ago is cherry-picking of the highest order. Warning that “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” is the scientific equivalent of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater because you constructed a model which predicts that the projection system will burst into flames if it malfunctions at some point in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Fuzzy still stuck on the 538 intro, which was pretty much only cited for it's title "Science isn't broken". Derp.

---

Bullshit he used it to take a shot at peer review. He then goes on to complain how the press releases are done and ignores the actual science.

Quote:

---

there are a lot of problems with the peer-review process and a population explosion of journals which will readily publish abject bullschist

---

It then links to something Gore's think tank produced.

It's the typical playbook. You buy it too. Stupid people believe stupid things.

You ignored my point about oilco interference in this particular industry and the meat of the 538 piece almost completely. What one should take from the 538 piece is much like pharmaceutical and chemical companies doctoring results like Silver talks about, oil co lobby plays the same role here.

One benefit of this watchdog group is that there is heavy oversight on the process. Between the oil companies, university groups like PSU and BEST, national organizations and trade groups like NSF and NASA, and the humongous international community including IPCC and all the national academies, you have a level oversight never seen before.

As for the remainder of his piece. The way he took all those running average conflated numbers and then tacking on those two data points from a set to make it appear flat in this graph was shit you would do:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...ng?w=720&h=523

Just skip over a few thousand years and voila its the same tack on yet another data set. SEE!! DERPS!!!

You have avoided discussing this graph all from one set:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/defa...?itok=_d4rwbb-

I'd be interested for your take on that. It was held for months in review and then published a couple months ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/2...pt-when-it-is/

---

Was wondering when you would post a link to wattsup. You were a bit overdue.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/033..._large.png?886

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...ng?w=720&h=523

Just skip over a few thousand years and voila its the same tack on yet another data set. SEE!! DERPS!!!

---

That has to be the most seriously retarded graph I have ever seen. Wow.

"here look at this 300 year period, it shows nothing compared this 8000 year period!"

What the fuck? That is what passes for reasoning here? Seriously? (picks jaw off floor)