Remember me
▼ Content

Sea Level Rise - Not a Worry.


Sea Level Rise - Not a Worry.16-12-2012 18:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
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
kfl
☆☆☆☆☆
(34)
Hej Tim

I do not agree with you - please read Sea Level
19-12-2012 14:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
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
kfl
☆☆☆☆☆
(34)
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
★★★★☆
(1285)
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
Daniel
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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
★★★★☆
(1285)
^ Yeah exactly.

A sea level rise less than knee high.
06-03-2014 01:13
bligh8
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
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
★★★★☆
(1285)
^ 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
bligh8
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
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 children...my 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
bligh8
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227465.
[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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
[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
★★★★☆
(1285)
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
bligh8
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Stick to plumbing Tim....Enjoy your day
14-03-2014 00:04
Curufinwe
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
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
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
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
StephenS20
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
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.
14-06-2019 18:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
This deserves to be dug up from the past and revisited periodically.

Tim the plumber wrote: 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.

We assumed at the time that if Global Warming was just a WACKY religion based on hatred and intolerance that we wouldn't perceive any "temperature rise" or any "sea level rise."

Guess what we aren't perceiving.

Would you care to guess what the logical conclusion is?

Tim the plumber wrote: Last centuary the sea rose by 18cm.
So this centuary it looks like it might be twice as bad.

This hasn't been happening ... unless you have been imagining it.

Tim the plumber wrote: 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.

No sea defenses. No cities disappearing. Nothing's happening apparently.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2019 18:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
StephenS20 wrote: 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.

If nothing perceivable is the most serious effect, can I take it that there isn't anything about Global Warming that should be of any concern to anyone?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2019 19:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
bligh8 wrote: I normally post of scientific forums,

I'm guessing you post in science-denier fora.

bligh8 wrote: 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.e. you are a completely intolerant intellectual coward who cannot tolerate differing views and who cannot complete in a forum of ideas.

bligh8 wrote: 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.

There is no argument. It's just not happening. You apparently "see things" that aren't real and tend towards fora of other insane people who share your self-imposed delusions.

bligh8 wrote: Within my post I listed the single most important factor the IPCC left out. That was the loss of arctic ice.

The Arctic is gaining ice mass.

bligh8 wrote: 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..

I take it you don't understand that the Greenland Ice Sheet is very thick, miles thick in some places ... and that if some ice melts, there is more ice beneath it ... and the ice that might have melted will quickly refreeze ... because that's what liquid water does on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Am I the first person to mention this to you?

bligh8 wrote: Look at the damn satellite pic's.

Hello. Ice is measured in volume. Satellite pics show the surface area, not the volume. I see that you weren't cut out for this "critical reasoning" thing.

bligh8 wrote: Look at the historical loss of ice shelves in Antarctica.

Ice shelves are floating. They break off. That's how it works. This is not some new process brought about by Marx publishing his Manifesto.

bligh8 wrote: 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.

Pray tell how you declare this figure to be accurate. Did you measure it yourself?

bligh8 wrote: 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.

All this because of your misconception that satellites somehow show ice volume instead of showing only area?

bligh8 wrote: 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.

So the ocean will choose to rise along the coast of North America? Something doesn't sit right with me about this but I can't quite put my finger on it.

bligh8 wrote: 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.

Wow! Climate really *is* punishing us for our carbon sins. She *could* increase the precipitation where there are droughts and decrease precipitation where there are floods, but apparently Climate is one vindictive bitch who insists on kicking people when they're down, decreasing precipitation where it will cause droughts and increasing precipitation where it will cause floods.

Thanks for making that perfectly clear.

bligh8 wrote: 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.

We'll keep this prediction of yours handy for further commentary as appropriate.

bligh8 wrote: 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.

It's always so refreshing listening to Marxist losers accuse the successful of horrible things just to make themselves feel virtuous.

bligh8 wrote: My apologizes to the children...my heart breaks for them...they will never know the life we have had.

Yes. They are likely to become productive members of society who don't try to blame the successful for their own shortcomings.

bligh8 wrote: ..the full of grace and light will never fill their hearts as they struggle for their next meal of filthy left overs.

You don't need to project your own problems onto the next generation. They'll do just fine by ignoring your Marxist ravings.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-06-2019 19:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Tim the plumber wrote:
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.


Twice zero is still zero.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 19:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
kfl wrote:
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.

There is no science behind sea level rise. There is no theory of science concerning sea level and any direction it might take. It is not possible to measure the global sea level of Earth nor the total amount of ice on Earth. This is not scientific problem, it is one of mathematics.

* measuring sea level requires a reference point. There is no valid reference point.
* measuring the amount of ice on earth requires the ability to measure depth of ice rapidly. We cannot do so. By the time this kind of measurement even gets started, the amount of ice has changed.
kfl wrote:
The predictions are made with a big saftymargin.

Statistical math is not capable of prediction. It can only summarize past or present data. You first have to have the raw data. There isn't any.
kfl wrote:
This indicates that at big problem might occur for some areas.

Now the usual doom and gloom prophecies of the Church of Global Warming.
kfl wrote:
Please look into IPCC's predictions and in

The IPCC cannot predict anything. Their 'predictions' are nothing more than propaganda.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 19:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Daniel wrote:
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.


Currents are not affected by snow and ice runoff.

Currents are caused by uneven heating of the Earth, which also causes the prevailing winds that drives the direction and path of currents.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 19:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Tim the plumber wrote:
^ Yeah exactly.

A sea level rise less than knee high.


How would we know? We can't measure sea level to anything like this accuracy.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 19:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
bligh8 wrote:
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.


Pictures also lie, especially when manipulated for political or religions purposes.

Florida used to be underwater all the time. It's underwater only part of the time now.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Spend most of your time in kiddie pools, eh? This isn't the kiddie pool here.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

What sea level rise? How are you measuring it?
bligh8 wrote:
Within my post I listed the single most important factor the IPCC left out.

I don't give a dead rat about the IPCC. It's manufactured data.
bligh8 wrote:
That was the loss of arctic ice.

Melting the entire Arctic doesn't change sea level.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

What equation? Please show your work.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Science isn't papers. It does not use consensus, and therefore does not use peer reviews. No one votes on any theory of science. Papers are not data. Do not use them as such.
bligh8 wrote:
Look at the damn satellite pic's.

Okay. According to the Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO, a maximum winter ice extent occurred in Antarctica in 2014 that was the highest ever recorded. Last year's winter ice extent was larger than the one for 2018.
bligh8 wrote:
Look at the historical loss of ice shelves in Antarctica.

Where? The Snow and Ice Data Center disagrees with you. Further, ice shelves are floating. Melting them doesn't change sea level.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

That's right.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Pints is volume. It does not replace volume. Cubic miles is volume. It is simply a different unit than pints. It is not possible to measure the volume of ice in Antarctica.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

No, it shows that it varies from year to year.
bligh8 wrote:
John Mercer a brilliant Glaciologist predicted the how and why of this in 1968, we should have listened to him.

Not possible to predict.
bligh8 wrote:
The Thwaits(tg) and Pine Island Glacier(pig) sit west of the WAIS (western antarctic ice sheet) this ice sheet sits BELOW sea level.

WRONG. The only place below sea level in Antarctica is a region within the Vestfold Hills, somewhat north of Sorsdal glacier. That glacier does not originate from below sea level either.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Nope. The region below Vestfold Hills is often free of ice anyway, and is protected by hills, not ice.
bligh8 wrote:
Take a look at whats happening...2013, extreme droughts in the western and eastern northern hemisphere. Changing rainfall patterns

This is called 'weather'. This is normal.
bligh8 wrote:
think ( Colorado ). Abnormal cold weather anomalies..

The often do. Nothing new here. They ARE in and near the Rocky mountains, after all.
bligh8 wrote:
think eastern sea board usa.

What about it? It's still there, in case you haven't noticed.
bligh8 wrote:
War in Syria..agw,
Arab spring..agw and list goes on.

These wars were religious in nature. Islam has nothing to do with 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Newspapers are not data. You cannot predict the future.
bligh8 wrote:
When the tg&pig glaciers go, it will open a rift 145 klong, exposing the underside of the wais to warm water.

Where is all this additional energy coming from?
bligh8 wrote:
El-Nino is Coming.

El Nino comes and goes on a fairly regular basis. It is not warmer sea water. It is a very slight variation of equatorial currents and the equatorial counter current. The same thing takes place in the Atlantic ocean, BTW.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Where is all this additional energy coming from?
bligh8 wrote:
My apologizes to the children...my 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.

Ah, the old "it's for the children" argument. How lame.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 22:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Climate isn't 'sensitive'. It simply is. ECS is a buzzword...meaningless.
bligh8 wrote:
(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.

Decreased albedo also means higher emissivity. This more efficiently COOLS the radiating surface, not warm it. The Arctic is no exception. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
bligh8 wrote:
(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).

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. The warming effect of CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. is ZERO. You are ignoring several theories of science, including the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create additional energy out of nothing.
bligh8 wrote:
(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).

The PDO does not change the temperature of the ocean. It is simply a minor shift in equatorial currents that vary from year to year. There is no feedback mechanism. You can't use 'global warming' to justify 'global warming'. You must first DEFINE 'global warming'.
bligh8 wrote:
(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).
Climate isn't 'sensitive'. It is simply climate. There is no such thing as a global climate.
bligh8 wrote:
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.

Your 'excellent' resources are nothing more than naming High Priests of the Church of Global Warming. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 22:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
bligh8 wrote:
Stick to plumbing Tim....Enjoy your day


Just write him off, eh? You DO realize that he's trying to develop a more efficient wind power machine, don't you?


The Parrot Killer
14-06-2019 22:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
Kano wrote:
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.


Neither tide gauges nor satellites are capable of measuring a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. Land moves, you see. Further, land is measured by distance above sea level, the thing you say you are measuring!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-06-2019 22:32
14-06-2019 22:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
StephenS20 wrote:
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.


Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure a global sea level.

Preconcluding disaster to justify avoiding disaster is just paranoia.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2019 05:38
Yusup05
☆☆☆☆☆
(26)
The mechanism of the formation of floods.

The waters of the lakes, seas and oceans of the northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise, and the waters of the southern hemisphere rotate clockwise, forming cyclonic gyres.
The main cause of rotation of gyres are local winds, flowing into the seas and oceans of the river and the deflecting force of Coriolis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre

And the higher the speed of the winds, the higher the rotational speed of the gyres and, as a result, the higher the centrifugal force of the gyres, due to which the water level of the seas and oceans rises.
And the lower the rotational speed of the gyres, the lower the level of water, seas and oceans.
https://youtu.be/ihM1I5r_MUg
The speed of currents along the perimeter of the seas and oceans is not the same everywhere and depends on the depth of the coast.
In the shallow part of the seas and oceans, the flow moves fast, and in the deep water part of the seas and oceans, the flow moves slowly ..

Seasonal increase in the water level is observed not along the entire coast of the seas and oceans, but only on those coasts where a high angular velocity of currents and, as a result, a high centrifugal force of water. (Centrifugal force F = mv2 / r).
On straight coasts where currents do not have an angular velocity, the water level does not rise.

The waters of the Gulf of Finland rotate counterclockwise, forming a cycle in the form of an ellipse.
And when seasonal storm winds spin the cycle up to 5 km / h, the centrifugal force of the cycle increases, so that on the east coast of the Gulf of Finland the water level rises to 30 cm.
A similar pattern of seasonal increase in water levels is observed in all lakes, seas and oceans.

The average depth of the Gulf of Finland is about 50 meters, on the east coast is about 5 meters, in the west of the bay it is about 100 meters, for this reason the linear and angular velocity of the currents on the east coast of the Gulf of Finland are much higher current velocity).
Flooding in St. Petersburg.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Saint_Petersburg

In the Gulf of Finland, the seasonal increase in the water level has two peaks: in August – September and in December – January and in time they coincide with the season of storm winds.
The speed of the current in the Gulf of Finland reaches from 2 to 17 km / hour, and the maximum speed of the current on Earth reaches 30 km / hour, the wind speed is more than 100 km / hour.
http://goo.gl/eYVTo6
http://tapemark.narod.ru/more/09.html

The waters of the North Sea rotate counterclockwise, forming a huge circulation.
And when seasonal storm winds spin the circulation (up to 20 km / h on the southern coast), the centrifugal rotation force rises, making the level on the southern coast of the North Sea up to 5 meters.
(Storm surge 2.5 meters, centrifugal surge 2.5 meters).
North Sea Flood 1953.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:North_Sea_Currents.svg

The waters of the Caspian Sea rotate counterclockwise, forming a circulation in the form of an ellipse.
And when the flood river Volga spins the cycle, the centrifugal force of the cycle increases, so that on the northern coast of the Caspian Sea the water level rises to 1 meter.

The average depth of the Caspian Sea is about 200 meters, on the north coast about 5 meters, on the south coast - about 500m.
Due to this, in the north of the Caspian the speed of the current increases from 1 to 10 km / h.
In the Caspian Sea, the peak of the seasonal water level increase is observed in June-August and coincides in time with the flood of the Volga River.
During a drought over the Volga River basin, the level of the Caspian Sea does not rise.
http://tapemark.narod.ru/more/06.png
https://bigenc.ru/geography/text/2050560

In the Bay of Bengal in the season of monsoon winds, the speed of the cycle increases to 10 km / h, so that the seasonal increase in water levels reaches 1.2 meters.
Bay of Bengal flood 1970.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Bhola_cyclone

Seasonal increase in the level of the Black Sea (up to 40 cm) is most pronounced in the southeastern part of the sea, where in summer the angular velocity of the currents reaches its maximum value.
http://tapemark.narod.ru/more/07.html

The assumption that the cause of the seasonal rise in the water level may be the pressure of the atmosphere, the flow of the rivers, the temperature difference and the salinity of the waters do not hold water, these factors may raise the water level by a few cm, but no more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cycle_of_sea_level_height
https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/sea-level-change/
http://www.okeanavt.ru/tainiokeana/1066mifosrednemurovne.html
The presented theory can be easily verified by relating the velocity of the currents to the level of the seas and oceans.
(Based on a map of depths and currents, seas and oceans).
Real-time sea current speed
http://portal.esimo.ru/portal https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov
http://fermi.jhuapl.edu/sat_ocean.html

If during the flood in St. Petersburg, to direct the flow of the Neva River against the flow of waters of the Gulf of Finland, by building canals and floodgates, you can significantly reduce the increase in water levels on the east coast of the Gulf of Finland.
16-06-2019 06:04
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(810)
How can winds outdoors, effect the direction water rotates when you flush the toilet?

Thing about floodgates, canals, flood plains, is that they need to be maintained, every year. Lot of places put it off, until they see signs that they aren't working so well, which is usually during a stronger than usual storm. Had they kept up on the annual maintenance, they wouldn't have had the severe flooding problem. Here in Florida, we know we get a lot of rain at times, hurricanes are always possible, so the maintenance gets done, no putting it off, until after.
16-06-2019 09:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How can winds outdoors, effect the direction water rotates when you flush the toilet?

Toilets flush the same direction in both north and south hemispheres.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Thing about floodgates, canals, flood plains, is that they need to be maintained, every year. Lot of places put it off, until they see signs that they aren't working so well, which is usually during a stronger than usual storm. Had they kept up on the annual maintenance, they wouldn't have had the severe flooding problem.

Quite true. Also, oddly enough, these devices can actually CAUSE a flooding problem, by inserting some of theses devices upstream from existing ones.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Here in Florida, we know we get a lot of rain at times, hurricanes are always possible, so the maintenance gets done, no putting it off, until after.

Florida doesn't really use such devices. Floods in Florida just generally don't go anywhere for awhile. There really isn't much of any place to drain to in Florida. About all you can do is let it soak back into the ground.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2019 17:50
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(810)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How can winds outdoors, effect the direction water rotates when you flush the toilet?

Toilets flush the same direction in both north and south hemispheres.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Thing about floodgates, canals, flood plains, is that they need to be maintained, every year. Lot of places put it off, until they see signs that they aren't working so well, which is usually during a stronger than usual storm. Had they kept up on the annual maintenance, they wouldn't have had the severe flooding problem.

Quite true. Also, oddly enough, these devices can actually CAUSE a flooding problem, by inserting some of theses devices upstream from existing ones.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Here in Florida, we know we get a lot of rain at times, hurricanes are always possible, so the maintenance gets done, no putting it off, until after.

Florida doesn't really use such devices. Floods in Florida just generally don't go anywhere for awhile. There really isn't much of any place to drain to in Florida. About all you can do is let it soak back into the ground.


Yes, we do make use of those devices. Storm water is usually directed into the lakes, or canals linked to the lakes, which eventually make it out to sea. Floodgates regulate water levels in the lakes. Works out pretty good most of the time, and most places are able to keep their canals, ditches, and storm drains cleared of overgrowth and debris. Much of the dry land isn't too many feet above the water level anyway, doesn't take long to saturate the sandy soil. We do get some flooding, during long periods of daily heavy rain, and they bring in pumps to help some. There are places with permanently installed pumps, which don't help much, when the power goes out during extreme weather. Systems fail occasionally, but we don't often get major flooding, like some of the places have had up north of here, past couple of years. We get a lot rain every year, and are basically flat, low elevation, so know it's important to deal with storm water. The northern states, only have to deal with heavy storm water occasionally, sometimes go years without a major problem. They can afford to gamble on how much maintenance they want to pay for. You don't always win, when you play such games, but fortunately, there is federal money there, to cover the losses.
16-06-2019 18:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8172)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How can winds outdoors, effect the direction water rotates when you flush the toilet?

Toilets flush the same direction in both north and south hemispheres.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Thing about floodgates, canals, flood plains, is that they need to be maintained, every year. Lot of places put it off, until they see signs that they aren't working so well, which is usually during a stronger than usual storm. Had they kept up on the annual maintenance, they wouldn't have had the severe flooding problem.

Quite true. Also, oddly enough, these devices can actually CAUSE a flooding problem, by inserting some of theses devices upstream from existing ones.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Here in Florida, we know we get a lot of rain at times, hurricanes are always possible, so the maintenance gets done, no putting it off, until after.

Florida doesn't really use such devices. Floods in Florida just generally don't go anywhere for awhile. There really isn't much of any place to drain to in Florida. About all you can do is let it soak back into the ground.


Yes, we do make use of those devices.

Sort of.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Storm water is usually directed into the lakes, or canals linked to the lakes, which eventually make it out to sea.

Sort of.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Floodgates regulate water levels in the lakes.

Not really. Most lakes are sinkholes. You have to pump them out.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Works out pretty good most of the time, and most places are able to keep their canals, ditches, and storm drains cleared of overgrowth and debris.

Florida is pretty decent at that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Much of the dry land isn't too many feet above the water level anyway, doesn't take long to saturate the sandy soil.

Which is my point. Fortunately, because it IS sandy soil and limestone, the water does soak into the soil pretty good (given time).
HarveyH55 wrote:
We do get some flooding, during long periods of daily heavy rain, and they bring in pumps to help some. There are places with permanently installed pumps, which don't help much, when the power goes out during extreme weather.

They pretty much have to. There really isn't very many places for water to naturally drain, other than the lakes that are already there.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Systems fail occasionally, but we don't often get major flooding, like some of the places have had up north of here, past couple of years.

While Florida does get it's conveyor belt of rain and major dumps in hurricanes, the north regularly gets torrential rains too.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We get a lot rain every year, and are basically flat, low elevation, so know it's important to deal with storm water.

Especially in Florida. Like I said, there is not a lot of natural drainage in Florida. Most of it just sinks in over time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The northern states, only have to deal with heavy storm water occasionally, sometimes go years without a major problem.

Nope. Northern States get heavy storms every year. They have better eleation to work with than Florida though in most cases.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They can afford to gamble on how much maintenance they want to pay for.

Everyone gambles on that, including Florida!
HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't always win, when you play such games, but fortunately, there is federal money there, to cover the losses.

To a point.


The Parrot Killer




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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Rising sea levels2410-06-2019 18:22
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
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact