So the sea level will rise “24.2 cm [10.08 inches]” by 2300. Just imagine if we had extrapolated the problems that people faced in 1700 by three centuries, assuming no major progress in our ability to mitigate them. It shouldn’t be as frightening as it sounds.
The article in Reuters only discusses the thermal expansion component of sea level rise, which is smaller than that from melting glaciers and icecaps.
The original scientific paper in Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1584.html) has the following numbers for total sea level rise: 75-80 cm by 2100 and 1.5 m by 2300 if we keep warming below 1.5°C from now (not likely in view of the failed Copenhagen and Rio meetings). A 2°C scenario has sea level 2.7 m up by 2300. The way we’re conducting business makes 3-4°C warming much more likely.
This is just another example of the effect of a polorized society. Our politicans can’t agree on anything and the world meetings about climate change cannot agree to any real constructive chages. And these are all supposed to be very intelligent people…Maby,”We the People,”need to clean this whole thing up by removing any guilty of being the south bound end of a north bound horse. Our society has too many greedy people at the top who have made money their God and forgotten about basic humanitarian principles.
Well, my guess is – the coastal dwellers just might have to move some time in the future – perhaps inland. “Science” has told us don’t eat eggs-no wait eat eggs, don’t eat red meat-no it’s okay to eat red meat, don’t eat apples-no wait it’s okay to eat apples, don’t eat fish, it’s okay to eat fish, the world is 5.5M years old-no wait it’s 3.7M years old, no wait it’s 2.1M years old, no wait it’s 6000 years old. The dirt over this yonder hill is 4M years old, and the dirt right next door is 1.2M years old, and the sea is rising and the temps are falling-no wait, next week reverse that!
Amused to see people willfully ignoring the best advice available based upon their biases. But you can bet hard-nosed insurers won’t ignore it when setting premiums.
try an experiment… i think this is just foolish to think the water will rise… if you take an ice cube and put in a glass, mark the glass and see if that mark goes up after that cube melts… you might find that it does not because the ice displaced the water that it had made… so why do we think that the ice caps will do the same thing? who is fooling who?
wudchuck – I went on a rant, yesterday, as seen above, but science for the most part has become nothing more than speculation and opinion, opinion, opinion, based on faulty logic and unsound research.
At least your experiment would have some basis in fact. You have taken the route of many scientists in the past that empirical evidence must be obtained before an expression of an outcome can be put forth into the public arena.
Okay, someone is going to take wudchuck to task on whether his experiment was in a controlled environment, or… etc., etc. However, wudchuck at least put forth the effort to try and observe an outcome rather than just spout off another opinion.
If you can take a very learned 30 minutes on sea level then I suggest 30 minutes listening to Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard discusses some of the counter-intuitive details of sea level metrics. If Greenland melts, the sea level around Scotland will drop, as an example. And if you don’t take the time then your credentials as a serious commentator may need reconsideration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RhdY-ZezK7w
John – Here is my rub. I will give you just one example of my experience with science, statistics, and opinions, rather than empirical evidence.
Both of my parents died in medical facilities. As such, no autopsy was required because they each had an attending physician overseeing their care. They died at the ages of 87 and 89. Because they had smoked cigarettes in the past, the physician listed the cause of death as lung cancer.
Now, if we had real discernment in the sciences there would be a mandatory autopsy to determine the real cause of death. Or, just a thought on my part, how about they died of old age which would eliminate my parents statistics needed to pad the smoking/lung cancer crusade.
When science is based on faulty logic, or contrived stats it puts the whole of the field in a very skeptical light.
That is as may be. But climate science is not based upon faulty logic. On what basis do you make your comparison? Your parents’ doctors? Eh? Because your doctors did something you disagree with you dump on NASA, NOAA, etc? That’s not logical.
The principles of global warming are trivially simple, high school stuff. The shoe is on the other foot. By what possible stretch of the imagination can one imagine that dumping 30 Gigatonnes of a known green house gas into the atmosphere cannot have an effect?
so the population has grown over time and time again, what makes you think that it’s not just the gases produced by the industries, but what about those naturally? afterall, many animals, i think most, produce methane gas… what’s to say that did not help contribute? we talk about numbers, but if i remember, 1 + 1 = 2, so no matter how trivial, everything works together. we as a society needs to stop thinking about putting profit ahead of mankind and put into perspective of saving the earth as a whole. it does not matter what country you are from. some of those gas problems could be related to all those wars that were fought, the bombs that were exploded, the tanks and trucks that used fuel and oil. we seem to compound things, but forget that 1 + 1 = 2, not just the 50 + 50 = 100. numbers can always be looked at in a variety of ways, why we do we constantly ask – is that glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full?
So my buddy Newton said “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” and I will take his word for it as he never seemed like a faulty logic kind of fellow.
So the sea level will rise “24.2 cm [10.08 inches]” by 2300. Just imagine if we had extrapolated the problems that people faced in 1700 by three centuries, assuming no major progress in our ability to mitigate them. It shouldn’t be as frightening as it sounds.
The article in Reuters only discusses the thermal expansion component of sea level rise, which is smaller than that from melting glaciers and icecaps.
The original scientific paper in Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1584.html) has the following numbers for total sea level rise: 75-80 cm by 2100 and 1.5 m by 2300 if we keep warming below 1.5°C from now (not likely in view of the failed Copenhagen and Rio meetings). A 2°C scenario has sea level 2.7 m up by 2300. The way we’re conducting business makes 3-4°C warming much more likely.
This is just another example of the effect of a polorized society. Our politicans can’t agree on anything and the world meetings about climate change cannot agree to any real constructive chages. And these are all supposed to be very intelligent people…Maby,”We the People,”need to clean this whole thing up by removing any guilty of being the south bound end of a north bound horse. Our society has too many greedy people at the top who have made money their God and forgotten about basic humanitarian principles.
Well, my guess is – the coastal dwellers just might have to move some time in the future – perhaps inland. “Science” has told us don’t eat eggs-no wait eat eggs, don’t eat red meat-no it’s okay to eat red meat, don’t eat apples-no wait it’s okay to eat apples, don’t eat fish, it’s okay to eat fish, the world is 5.5M years old-no wait it’s 3.7M years old, no wait it’s 2.1M years old, no wait it’s 6000 years old. The dirt over this yonder hill is 4M years old, and the dirt right next door is 1.2M years old, and the sea is rising and the temps are falling-no wait, next week reverse that!
Hey it’s a Reuters article. They’re right about one thing-Mankind can’t change it because Mankind DIDN’T CAUSE IT!!!!! It’s mean Mother Nature.
Mankind is perfectly capable of fouling its own nest.
Amused to see people willfully ignoring the best advice available based upon their biases. But you can bet hard-nosed insurers won’t ignore it when setting premiums.
try an experiment… i think this is just foolish to think the water will rise… if you take an ice cube and put in a glass, mark the glass and see if that mark goes up after that cube melts… you might find that it does not because the ice displaced the water that it had made… so why do we think that the ice caps will do the same thing? who is fooling who?
wudchuck – I went on a rant, yesterday, as seen above, but science for the most part has become nothing more than speculation and opinion, opinion, opinion, based on faulty logic and unsound research.
At least your experiment would have some basis in fact. You have taken the route of many scientists in the past that empirical evidence must be obtained before an expression of an outcome can be put forth into the public arena.
Okay, someone is going to take wudchuck to task on whether his experiment was in a controlled environment, or… etc., etc. However, wudchuck at least put forth the effort to try and observe an outcome rather than just spout off another opinion.
“so why do we think that the ice caps will do the same thing?”
Because most of the ice caps are on land.
If you can take a very learned 30 minutes on sea level then I suggest 30 minutes listening to Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard discusses some of the counter-intuitive details of sea level metrics. If Greenland melts, the sea level around Scotland will drop, as an example. And if you don’t take the time then your credentials as a serious commentator may need reconsideration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RhdY-ZezK7w
John – Here is my rub. I will give you just one example of my experience with science, statistics, and opinions, rather than empirical evidence.
Both of my parents died in medical facilities. As such, no autopsy was required because they each had an attending physician overseeing their care. They died at the ages of 87 and 89. Because they had smoked cigarettes in the past, the physician listed the cause of death as lung cancer.
Now, if we had real discernment in the sciences there would be a mandatory autopsy to determine the real cause of death. Or, just a thought on my part, how about they died of old age which would eliminate my parents statistics needed to pad the smoking/lung cancer crusade.
When science is based on faulty logic, or contrived stats it puts the whole of the field in a very skeptical light.
That is as may be. But climate science is not based upon faulty logic. On what basis do you make your comparison? Your parents’ doctors? Eh? Because your doctors did something you disagree with you dump on NASA, NOAA, etc? That’s not logical.
The principles of global warming are trivially simple, high school stuff. The shoe is on the other foot. By what possible stretch of the imagination can one imagine that dumping 30 Gigatonnes of a known green house gas into the atmosphere cannot have an effect?
Now, go view that video I posted.
Like anyone can even know that.
so the population has grown over time and time again, what makes you think that it’s not just the gases produced by the industries, but what about those naturally? afterall, many animals, i think most, produce methane gas… what’s to say that did not help contribute? we talk about numbers, but if i remember, 1 + 1 = 2, so no matter how trivial, everything works together. we as a society needs to stop thinking about putting profit ahead of mankind and put into perspective of saving the earth as a whole. it does not matter what country you are from. some of those gas problems could be related to all those wars that were fought, the bombs that were exploded, the tanks and trucks that used fuel and oil. we seem to compound things, but forget that 1 + 1 = 2, not just the 50 + 50 = 100. numbers can always be looked at in a variety of ways, why we do we constantly ask – is that glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full?
So my buddy Newton said “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” and I will take his word for it as he never seemed like a faulty logic kind of fellow.