Remember me
▼ Content

Sea Level Rise - Not a Worry.

Sea Level Rise - Not a Worry.16-12-2012 18:24
Tim the plumber
The "consensus" or at least the IPCC says that the worst case scenario for sea level rise is 59cm by 2100 but that was assuming a 6.4 degree temperature rise. The later revisions have brought this temperature ise down by half, at worst. So the sea level rise might be at worst about the mid 30's cm rise.

Last centuary the sea rose by 18cm.

So this centuary it looks like it might be twice as bad.

So expect twice as many cities to disapear below the waves as last centuary. Unless of course we build some sea defences or what ever.
17-12-2012 23:24
Hej Tim

I do not agree with you - please read Sea Level
19-12-2012 14:05
Tim the plumber
kfl wrote:
Hej Tim

I do not agree with you - please read Sea Level

How about you actually bother to explain your point and then refer to some other website for more detail. Otherwise I am not bothering to look at it.
20-12-2012 00:17
Tim the plumber wrote:
kfl wrote:
Hej Tim

I do not agree with you - please read Sea Level

How about you actually bother to explain your point and then refer to some other website for more detail. Otherwise I am not bothering to look at it.

Hi Tim

The science behind sea level rise is clarified.

The predictions are made with a big saftymargin.

This indicates that at big problem might occur for some areas.

Please look into IPCC's predictions and in

Sea Level wikipedia
20-12-2012 21:30
Tim the plumber
So what you (and they) are saying is that the IPCC@s 4th report was drivel with no ability to add up the amount of ice vunerable to melting by simply taking the perminent ice line now and adjusting for a temperature increase and then working out how much ice was thus vunerable.

And you want me to believe that there are other bodies which are much better at this than the IPCC.

And despite the fact that it's fairly obvious just from looking at a map that there just isn't much land ice meltable by a moderate temperature rise we are all doomed by the small sea level rise predicted by some doom mongers which will be impossible to cope with despite the fact that sea defences for anywhere valuable are easy and cheap. That's cheap compaired to the cost of trafic lights for the protected land.

Ummm... no I'm not scared. Even if it's 2m, which it is not, it's just not a significant threat.

Abandoning our wonderful wealth producing industry is a major worry though.
08-01-2013 16:46
The statement that twice as many cities may disappear beneath the waves this century as last, could easily come true - especially since no cities disappeared last century (twice zero is still zero). That said, the IPCC values do include a safety net, and are somewhat on the high side. According to the Jason satellite data, the current rate of increase has been 2.3 mm/year. This is roughly equivalent to the 20th average. The IPCC used the slightly larger increase observed during the 1990s (when global temperatures were still rising), and assumed that rate would continue.
Many factors will contribute to the total rise this century; glacial melt (alpine glaciers have regained some of their losses, Greenland has exhibited larger melt, Antarctica is still neutral), dams and aquifer pumping (quite variable), and changes in water temperature and ocean currents (this can vary the amount of precipitation removed from the oceans and dumped on the land). If the current rate were to continue, it would amount to 20-25 cm by 2100 - not exactly an insurmountable value for shoreline concerns.
09-01-2013 22:54
Tim the plumber
^ Yeah exactly.

A sea level rise less than knee high.
06-03-2014 01:13
Is no one paying attention...The IPCC is a bunch of mealy mouth political num nuts.
There are at least 15 to 20 items not considered by the IPCC report, some because they did not exist when the report was developed and some out of outright stupidity. Like the Arctic ice loss & heat absorption in the Arctic..add 25% to radiative forcing equivalents.
Take a look at the Sat. photos of the TG and PIG Glaciers in Antarctica..
in particular look at the historical loss of ice since the early 70s.
You'll find Sat. pic's that show 7/8 of these glaciers are gone.
Seven Ice shelves are gone or almost gone.
The Larson A&B ice shelves broke up & melted in 36 days....that's a wow
For the last 15yrs 85to90% of all radiative forcing heat/energy...whatever, is being absorbed by the worlds oceans.
Last year 97% of Greenland show moderate to extreme ice melt.
El nino is coming.....
It's not air temperatures that's gonna raise sea levels .. it water.
Right now .. today, the Pine Island Glacier is loosing 70billion oz per day.
When the TG&PIG goes the WAIS will go in less than three years.
That event will put DC&NY and 1/3 of Flordia under water.

It's coming and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do to stop it.
06-03-2014 11:40
Tim the plumber
^ 70 Billion ounces!!

Hey when the number you want to be big is tiny just change the units till it sound big!!

How big is it in cubic kilometers per year? How big is the total glacier? What does that mean when you divide it by the surface area of the world's oceans?

The answer is a figure so tiny you will be utterly unable to measure it.

Do you have something that the IPCC has not seen?
06-03-2014 16:15
I normally post of scientific forums, I avoid forums where the denier camp is well entrenched because I will not try to present the facts with folks who have a different agenda.

I posted here because folks here were trying to understand sea level rise and not arguing about whether or not it is going to happen.

Within my post I listed the single most important factor the IPCC left out.
That was the loss of arctic ice. So, not only do you NOT have millions of sq miles reflecting sun light(energy) back into space you have millions of sq. miles collecting solar radiation..add 25% to the equation. There are at least 15 other items the IPCC left out of their report, if you expect me to compile a list/w references(scientific reviewed papers), you must do your part. Look at the damn satellite pic's. Look at the historical loss of ice shelves in Antarctica. The reasoning is, it does not matter so far as sea level goes if we loose the arctic ice, or the ice shelves or the glacier tongues that spread out into the Antarctica Oceans....because they sit on the water, they displace water where they sit, so it does not matter as far as Sea level goes if they melt. If you want another number so far as ice loss in volume instead of pints, the number in the IPCC report which is fairly accurate, and is listed in cubic miles, and is for the whole of Antarctica.
Measurements exhibited by the Grace Sat. show the Ice loss from Western side of Antarctica are profound, the Eastern side shows some ice loss, which is very disturbing, but not so much as the western side.
John Mercer a brilliant Glaciologist predicted the how and why of this in 1968, we should have listened to him.
The Thwaits(tg) and Pine Island Glacier(pig) sit west of the WAIS (western antarctic ice sheet) this ice sheet sits BELOW sea level.
These Glaciers provide a buttressing effect, holding the wais back from sliding into the Amundsen Sea(penetrating radar provides us with the information that the wais sits on a slope going downwards to the Amundsen Sea). They also protect the wais from the on-slot of westerly gales that will eventually spread warm water under the wais. When that happens the wais will break up, melt and/or slide into the ocean. Raising sea levels 12 to 15 ft along the east&west coast of n. America.

Take a look at whats happening...2013, extreme droughts in the western and eastern northern hemisphere. Changing rainfall patterns
think ( Colorado ). Abnormal cold weather anomalies...think eastern sea board usa. War in Syria..agw, Arab spring..agw and list goes on.

This mornings headlines in the local paper here in NJ along the coast...A Sea Level Rise Of 31 inches By 2050....their wrong by 9 to 12 ft.

When the tg&pig glaciers go, it will open a rift 145 klong, exposing the underside of the wais to warm water.

El-Nino is Coming.

Last....There are engineering solutions that will protect the wais for at least another 20-30 years. But who is going to spend to 10 to 20 billion dollars to build these defenses. Certainly not the fossil fuel industry, nor the governments or anyone .. everyone who has that kind of money is simply to greedy.

My apologizes to the heart breaks for them...they will never know the life we have had...the full of grace and light will never fill their hearts as they struggle for their next meal of filthy left overs.
06-03-2014 17:19
While I do not have time to do any of this findings justice; nevertheless, I will say that to whatever RCP scenario that your value system allows you to accept as realistic, you need to add the following factors that were left out of AR5 (and AVOID) projections:

(a) Sherwood et al (2014) and Fasullo & Trenberth (2012) show that the most likely value for ECS is about 4.5 degrees C instead of the assumed mean value of 3 degrees C; therefore, you should multiply the old projections by a factor of about 1.5, due to the low amount of cloud cover near the equator.
(b) Pistone et al. (2014) shows that the decrease in Arctic albedo (including land snow, sea ice and black carbon effects) beyond that previously assumed results in additional radiative forcing equal to ¼ of the CO₂ in the atmosphere.
(c) Schuur & Abbott (2011) shows that the permafrost emits about 2% of its carbon emissions as methane instead of as CO₂ (as assumed by AVOID), and as over a one hundred year period, methane has a global warming potential at least 35 times that of CO₂, this means at least a 70% error in the carbon emissions from the permafrost degradation. See also Monday et al. (2014) and Isaksen et al. (2011).
(d) Cowtan & Way (2013); England et al. (2014); Santer et al (2014); and Rosenfeld (2014); all provide solid evidence that the current mean global temperature has been masked by such causes as: limited data; the negative phase of the PDO cycle; volcanoes, and aerosols, respectively. Furthermore, once corrections are applied to the GCM projections to account for these masking mechanisms, one will find that the ECS is actually higher than previously assumed, which supports my points (a), (b) and (c).
(e) Hansen et al. (2013) and Previdi (2013) show that the inclusion of slow-response feedback mechanisms can cause Earth Systems Sensitivity to be as high as 6 degrees C (while work such as Pistone et al. (2014) shows that the "slow response" feedback mechanisms are occurring very quickly).

I do not have time to comment on the other excellent references cited below, but I would also like to say many negative feedback mechanisms are shrinking quickly (such as the absorption of CO₂ by plankton, etc.), so that it is not only positive feedback mechanisms that we need to be realistic about.

[1] Cai, W., Borlace, S., Lengaigne, M., Rensch, P.V., Collins, M., Vecchi, G., Timmermann, A., Santoso, A., McPhaden, M., Lixin Wu, Matthew H. England, Guojian Wang, Eric Guilyardi & Fei-Fei Jin, (2014), "Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2100.
[2] Cowtan, K. & Way, R.G., (2013), "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, DOI: 10.1002/qj.2297.
[3] England, M.H., McGregor, S., Spence, P., Meehl, G.A., Timmermann, A., Cai, W., Gupta, A.S., Michael J. McPhaden, M.J., Purich A. & Santoso, A., (2014), "Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2106.
[4] Fasullo, J.T. and Trenberth, K.E., (2012), "A Less Cloudy Future: The Role of Subtropical Subsidence in Climate Sensitivity", Science, vol. 338, pp. 792-794, 2012.
[5] Frederick, J.M., and Buffett, B.A., (2014), "Taliks in relict submarine permafrost and methane hydrate deposits: Pathways for gas escape under present and future conditions", Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, DOI: 10.1002/2013JF002987.
[6] Hansen, J., Kharecha, P. and Sato, M., (2013), "Climate forcing growth rates: Doubling down on our Faustian bargain", Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 011006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006.
[7] Hansen, J., Sato, M., Russell, G. and Kharecha, P., (2013), "Climate sensitivity, sea level, and atmospheric carbon dioxide", Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 371, 20120294, doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0294.
[8] Hosking, J. Scott; Orr, Andrew; Marshall, Gareth J.; Turner, John; Phillips, Tony, (2013), "The influence of the Amundsen–Bellingshausen Seas low on the climate of West Antarctica and its representation in coupled climate model simulations", Journal of Climate, 26 (17). 6633-6648. 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00813.1
[9] Isaksen, I. S. A., Gauss M., Myhre, G., Walter Anthony, K. M. and Ruppel, C., (2011), "Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions", Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 25, GB2002, doi:10.1029/2010GB003845.
[10] Ludescher, J., Gozolchiani, A., Bogachev, M.I., Bunde, A., Havlin, S., and Schellnhuber, H.J., (2014), "Very early warning of next El Niño", PNAS, 111 (6) 2064-2066, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323058111.
[11] Marks, A. A. and King, M. D.: "The effect of snow/sea ice type on the response of albedo and light penetration depth (e-folding depth) to increasing black carbon", The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 1023-1056, doi:10.5194/tcd-8-1023-2014, 2014.
[12] Meehl, G.A., Hu, A., Arblaster, J.M., Fasullo, J., Trenberth, K.E., (2013), "Externally Forced and Internally Generated Decadal Climate Variability Associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation", J. Climate, 26, 7298–7310. doi:
[13] Mondav, R., Woodcroft, B.J., Kim, E.-H. McCalley, C.K., Hodgkins, S.B., Crill, P.M., Chanton, J., Hurst, G.B., VerBerkmoes, N.C., Saleska, S.R., Hugenholtz, P., Rich, V.I., & Tyson, G.W. (2014), "Discovery of a novel methanogen prevalent in thawing permafrost", Nature Communications, 5,3212doi:10.1038/ncomms4212.
[14] National Research Council (NRC), (2013), Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
[15] Nisbet, E.G., Dlugokencky, E.J. and Philippe Bousquet, P.B., (2014), "Atmospheric Science: Methane on the Rise—Again", Science 31 January 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6170 pp. 493-495, DOI: 10.1126/science.1247828.
[16] Rosenfeld, D., Sherwood, S., Woodand, R. and Donner, L., (2014), "Climate Effects of Aerosol-Cloud Interactions", Science 24 January 2014: Vol. 343 no. 6169 pp. 379-380. DOI: 10.1126/science.1247490.
[17] Pistone, K., Eisenman, I. and Ramanathan, V., (2014), "Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1318201111.
[18] Pithan, F. & Mauritsen, T., (2014), "Arctic amplification dominated by temperature feedbacks in contemporary climate models", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2071.
[19] Power, S., Delage, F., Chung, C., Kociuba, G. and Keay, K., (2013), "Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Nino and related precipitation variability", Nature, 502, 541-545, doi:10.1038/nature12580.
[20] Previdi, M., Liepert, B.G., Peteet, D., Hansen, J., Beerling, D.J., Broccoli, A.J., Frolking, S., Galloway, J.N., Heimann, M., Le Quéré, C., Levitus, S. and Ramaswamy, V., (2013), "Climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene". Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 139, 1121-1131, doi:10.1002/qj.2165...ASLR....Bligh
07-03-2014 10:56
Tim the plumber
The change of albedo is taken into account in the IPCC's models I believe.

You have a figure of 25%. Of what? The change in absorption of sunlight and heat for open sea to ice is several factors. However, the Arctic sea ic has made a come back and as you say it does not matter for the change in sea level.

I have seen lots of evidence that Antarctica is in fact gaining ice. The idea of lots of it sitting on downward slopes is correct, but those slopes are of the order of losing 300m over 200Km. The Antarctic peninsular is different but does not have much ice on it.

At the point where you started rambling on about Syria and the Arab Spring you made me aware that you are mad. Your opinions are based on a "we're all doomed wish" not science.
07-03-2014 17:46
Stick to plumbing Tim....Enjoy your day
14-03-2014 00:04
Was working for Oceaneering as a diver on oil rigs years ago when miraculously BP brought up an arrowhead in pipe string from the North Sea. Quick ROV works showed signs of occupation although excavation was not required (Thatcher, eighties, etc.). So sea levels have change incredibly in the past much more than the Berhing Sea Land Bridge or anything like that. So is what appears to be happening caused by man or nature? I wish I knew a conclusive answer. Happy to hear opinions on both sides though.
Edited on 14-03-2014 00:11
05-05-2014 06:33
If you check out tide gauges (many go back 150yrs) you will find that even calibrated by isostatic rebound, the rise is on the order of 1.8mm per year, not the mythical 3.2mm from satellite readings (which are calibrated from selected tide gauges) and actually sea level rise has slowed from 2004.
27-08-2016 01:03
Personally, I feel this may be one of the most serious effects of global warming. Many people are located near the oceans, and if sea levels begin to rise it will not take much before it poses a threat.

Join the debate Sea Level Rise - Not a Worry.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide506-05-2019 18:35
2019 Arctic sea ice wintertime extent is seventh lowest005-05-2019 13:50
O2C predicted to rise in the future?1622-04-2019 22:19
Global warming emissions hit record level in 2018, IEA reports027-03-2019 17:49
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?








Don't know

Thanks for supporting
Copyright © 2009-2019 | About | Contact