3+ meters of sea level by 2100 possible

[Slash]

I pointed out your fundamental error of assuming one spot in Antarctica represented the whole planet. And you have no response, so you ignore it and repeat your fallacy.

If CO2 is a "Driver" why does temperature collapse immediately after CO2 spikes 125,000 years ago?

Of course CO2 isn't going to show up as the kick-off event all the time. Other things in history that aren't happening today such as axial tilts can cause those temperature spikes. I am not sure if you know this, but we didn't have dinosaurs running coal plants back then.

A. Thanks for showing that we've increased CO2 concentration (currently over 400PPM) by about 50% over known history in the past 50-100 years.

B. Thanks for confirming 3-5 degree changes there timed in with extinction events again and again through history (we are a third of the way there and climbing quickly).

C. And yes. Not every temperature spike was created by greenhouse gas emissions. Some by tilts in the Earths rotation. But thanks for showing that no matter the initial cause of a temperature spike, once the oceans start rising and CO2 starts spiking, it causes the temperatures to spike hard and fast. You can easily see CO2 is like gasoline. It may not start the fire on it's own, but the more of it you have when a fire starts, the bigger that fire becomes.

Great post there. Thanks for helping.

 

[Slash]

If CO2 is a "Driver" why does temperature collapse immediately after CO2 spikes 125,000 years ago?

And Frank, lastly thanks for confirming that you believe in those ice samples. I mean the deniers of ocean levels rising base their beliefs that those samples are not in any way true temperature wise, because they correspond to ocean level rising of up to 6 meters at times per degree of temperature rise.

You may not have intentionally done that but if you are going to pick and choose what science you want to believe and what you don't, you just picked the one that says you believe the ocean levels rising is WELL within what history predicts.

 

[SSDD]

If CO2 is a "Driver" why does temperature collapse immediately after CO2 spikes 125,000 years ago?

And Frank, lastly thanks for confirming that you believe in those ice samples. I mean the deniers of ocean levels rising base their beliefs that those samples are not in any way true temperature wise, because they correspond to ocean level rising of up to 6 meters at times per degree of temperature rise.

You may not have intentionally done that but if you are going to pick and choose what science you want to believe and what you don't, you just picked the one that says you believe the ocean levels rising is WELL within what history predicts.

Talk about picking and choosing...the claim is that global temperatures have risen 1.2 degrees in the past 150 years...and yet, sea level has barely increased an inch....you just pointed out that sea level has responded by as much as 6 meters per degree of temperature rise...clearly something is off....sometimes sea level increases by 6 meters per degree...and sometimes by barely an inch? What sort of correlation is that? Increased sea level due to CO2 sounds more like an unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claim...

But just to be fair, how about you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...my bet is that no such data will be forthcoming because no such data exists.

 

[Slash]

Talk about picking and choosing...the claim is that global temperatures have risen 1.2 degrees in the past 150 years...and yet, sea level has barely increased an inch....you just pointed out that sea level has responded by as much as 6 meters per degree of temperature rise...clearly something is off....sometimes sea level increases by 6 meters per degree...and sometimes by barely an inch? What sort of correlation is that? Increased sea level due to CO2 sounds more like an unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claim...

But just to be fair, how about you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...my bet is that no such data will be forthcoming because no such data exists.

CAN rise when certain temperatures AS MUCH AS. You were the one using that data, not me. But have fun trying to turn it now. That's your question for you. Or you can deny the validity of your own data. Your choice. I'll let you make that move. But that's where you get yourself stuck time and again. You end up using mutually exclusive data. So you need to grab the sharpie and say "well don't listen to the rest of the data, or use this data for anything else, but if you look at it in this one scenario it can say X".

Or you can denounce geology as a science I guess. But geology shows with your data there where sea levels rose to on those temperature spikes. Shows sea levels where they are now at past times at this temperature. Shows them 6 foot higher in past times at about 1 degC higher. If you want to debunk yourself, go for it.


And it's a theory, not a hypothesis, see how you try and dismiss things and throw things off that just aren't true. When you need to lie to support your argument it loses all validity. I've already shown plenty of data. Just because you deny it, doesn't mean that the data isn't there. Just because you deny computer science isn't real doesn't mean your computer doesn't exist anymore.

 

[SSDD]

Talk about picking and choosing...the claim is that global temperatures have risen 1.2 degrees in the past 150 years...and yet, sea level has barely increased an inch....you just pointed out that sea level has responded by as much as 6 meters per degree of temperature rise...clearly something is off....sometimes sea level increases by 6 meters per degree...and sometimes by barely an inch? What sort of correlation is that? Increased sea level due to CO2 sounds more like an unsubstantiated pseudoscientific claim...

But just to be fair, how about you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...my bet is that no such data will be forthcoming because no such data exists.

CAN rise when certain temperatures AS MUCH AS. You were the one using that data, not me. But have fun trying to turn it now. That's your question for you. Or you can deny the validity of your own data. Your choice. I'll let you make that move. But that's where you get yourself stuck time and again. You end up using mutually exclusive data. So you need to grab the sharpie and say "well don't listen to the rest of the data, or use this data for anything else, but if you look at it in this one scenario it can say X".

Or you can denounce geology as a science I guess. But geology shows with your data there where sea levels rose to on those temperature spikes. Shows sea levels where they are now at past times at this temperature. Shows them 6 foot higher in past times at about 1 degC higher. If you want to debunk yourself, go for it.


And it's a theory, not a hypothesis, see how you try and dismiss things and throw things off that just aren't true. When you need to lie to support your argument it loses all validity. I've already shown plenty of data. Just because you deny it, doesn't mean that the data isn't there. Just because you deny computer science isn't real doesn't mean your computer doesn't exist anymore.

You are talking about a difference of nearly 6 meters of difference under the same temperature conditions. If you were a thinking person, and clearly you aren't, you would consider the possibility that the 1 degree temperature change was not the primary driver there but perhaps a result of something heretofore unknown or unconsidered.

Don't worry though rocks...no one expects for you to actually think about anything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global sea levels could rise by more than three metres – over half a metre more than previously thought – this century alone, according to a new study co-authored by a University of Southampton scientist.

An international team including Sybren Drijfhout, Professor in Physical Oceanography and Climate Physics, looked at what might happen if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated.

Using new projections of Antarctic mass loss and a revised statistical method, they concluded that a worst-case scenario of a 2.5 to three-metre sea level rise was possible by 2100.

Professor Drijfhout said: "It might be an unlikely scenario, but we can't exclude the possibility of global sea levels rising by more than three metres by the year 2100.

"Unabated global warming will lead to sea-level rise of many metres – possibly more than ten metres – within a few centuries, seriously threatening many cities all over the world that are built in low-lying river deltas. This will also seriously affect the coastline of the UK."

The research – published this month in Environmental Research Letters – is consistent with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) recent adjustment of its possible future high-end sea-level rise from two to 2.5 metres.

However, the new study integrated different model estimates with a new statistical method, whereas the NOAA estimate relied on expert judgment.

Recent observation and modelling studies have shown the future melt of Antarctica might happen dramatically faster than previously thought.

Sea levels could rise by more than three metres, shows new study

Seems we started with maybe a 10 inch rise, and now we are looking at possibly over 10 feet of sea level rise. Guess we will find out, as the dingleberries are going to prevent anything being done to alleviate the rise in GHGs.

Problem here is you write "could" and the right see "will".

Could, Might and the far left screams the sky is falling.. damn fools.. fear-mongering to the max..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I pointed out your fundamental error of assuming one spot in Antarctica represented the whole planet. And you have no response, so you ignore it and repeat your fallacy.

If CO2 is a "Driver" why does temperature collapse immediately after CO2 spikes 125,000 years ago?

Of course CO2 isn't going to show up as the kick-off event all the time. Other things in history that aren't happening today such as axial tilts can cause those temperature spikes. I am not sure if you know this, but we didn't have dinosaurs running coal plants back then.

A. Thanks for showing that we've increased CO2 concentration (currently over 400PPM) by about 50% over known history in the past 50-100 years.

B. Thanks for confirming 3-5 degree changes there timed in with extinction events again and again through history (we are a third of the way there and climbing quickly).

C. And yes. Not every temperature spike was created by greenhouse gas emissions. Some by tilts in the Earths rotation. But thanks for showing that no matter the initial cause of a temperature spike, once the oceans start rising and CO2 starts spiking, it causes the temperatures to spike hard and fast. You can easily see CO2 is like gasoline. It may not start the fire on it's own, but the more of it you have when a fire starts, the bigger that fire becomes.

Great post there. Thanks for helping.

LOL

You are not a thinking person..

Your own statements show that your belief's are UNFOUNDED and without merit, yet you persist..

Your ignorance is stunning..

(Quoting Think Progress talking points is the sign of total dupe ignorance)