IPCC Sea Level Rise Estimates

[SSDD]

Now whose the one showing smaller and smaller bits of time? Besides which, your plot is dated. Here's the latest and a link you can use when you actually want to see the latest.

2014 rel4 Global Mean Sea Level Time Series seasonal signals removed CU Sea Level Research Group

Yours...it doesn't show any time...it only shows computer model projections...mine is of actual measurement and goes to the present...models aren't real and therefore don't really show anything real. That's part of your problem..you are unable to separate reality from model output...

So I guess it's you that can't read a plot.

Sorry crick ham...your chart still shows a decreasing sea level rise...not increasing as would be the case if the oceans were warming up as you claim.

 

[Crick]

You'e never had calculus, have you. You don't seem to know the difference between change and rate of change and the rate of change of the rate of change (displacement, velocity and acceleration).

The Earth is still warming - the rate of energy accumulation has not slowed in the least. More of that heat is going into the oceans than was once the case. The change that increased ocean warming seems to be the same change that slowed surface warming.

 

[IanC]

Nice job of endpoint selection and scaling, Ian.

Here's the original. Doesn't look so crazy, does it. And this goes to a full meter.

Figure 13.3 | (a) Paleo sea level data for the last 3000 years from Northern and Southern Hemisphere sites. The effects of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) have been removed
from these records. Light green = Iceland (Gehrels et al., 2006), purple = Nova Scotia (Gehrels et al., 2005), bright blue = Connecticut (Donnelly et al., 2004), blue = Nova Scotia
(Gehrels et al., 2005), red = United Kingdom (Gehrels et al., 2011), green = North Carolina (Kemp et al., 2011), brown = New Zealand (Gehrels et al., 2008), grey = mid-Pacific
Ocean (Woodroffe et al., 2012). (b) Paleo sea level data from salt marshes since 1700 from Northern and Southern Hemisphere sites compared to sea level reconstruction from
tide gauges (blue time series with uncertainty) (Jevrejeva et al., 2008). The effects of GIA have been removed from these records by subtracting the long-term trend (Gehrels and
Woodworth, 2013). Ordinate axis on the left corresponds to the paleo sea level data. Ordinate axis on the right corresponds to tide gauge data. Green and light green = North
Carolina (Kemp et al., 2011), orange = Iceland (Gehrels et al., 2006), purple = New Zealand (Gehrels et al., 2008), dark green = Tasmania (Gehrels et al., 2012), brown = Nova
Scotia (Gehrels et al., 2005). (c) Yearly average global mean sea level (GMSL) reconstructed from tide gauges by three different approaches. Orange from Church and White (2011),
blue from Jevrejeva et al. (2008), green from Ray and Douglas (2011) (see Section 3.7). (d) Altimetry data sets from five groups (University of Colorado (CU), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC), Archiving, Validation and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic (AVISO), Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)) with mean of the five shown as bright blue line (see Section 3.7). (e) Comparison of the paleo data from salt marshes (purple
symbols, from (b)), with tide gauge and altimetry data sets (same line colours as in (c) and (d)). All paleo data were shifted by mean of 1700–1850 derived from the Sand Point,
North Carolina data. The Jevrejeva et al. (2008) tide gauge data were shifted by their mean for 1700–1850; other two tide gauge data sets were shifted by the same amount. The
altimeter time series has been shifted vertically upwards so that their mean value over the 1993–2007 period aligns with the mean value of the average of all three tide gauge
time series over the same period.

a paleo reconstruction with instrumental data adjusted to the proxies, then modelled SLR grafted on to the end.

why do you guys like to use RCP8.5 model predictions to predict doom, but use RCP2.6 model predictions when comparing to reality?

btw, even the outside range of the highest prediction is still less than one metre.

I think I will stay with my graph from the AR5 draft that shows the predictions from previous reports.

ps. SSDD- if you make a mistake it is easier to admit it and move on, rather than continue. obviously 1700-2100 is a longer time frame than 1900-2100. crick's graph is somewhat misleading because it mixes in a little bit of everything but in this case it was useful to have wide lines and large error ranges so that the huge abrupt uptick is not so noticeable, as it was in the previous graph.

dammit, the quote function cut off the important part again.

(e) Comparison of the paleo data from salt marshes (purple
symbols, from (b)), with tide gauge and altimetry data sets (same line colours as in (c) and (d)). All paleo data were shifted by mean of 1700–1850 derived from the Sand Point,
North Carolina data. The Jevrejeva et al. (2008) tide gauge data were shifted by their mean for 1700–1850; other two tide gauge data sets were shifted by the same amount. The
altimeter time series has been shifted vertically upwards so that their mean value over the 1993–2007 period aligns with the mean value of the average of all three tide gauge
time series over the same period.

 

[Crick]

The upper range of the worst case scenario predicts 1.25 meters by 2100. Are you objecting to their use of curves when your source used straight lines? Which do you think better resembles the results of the actual processes taking place? The trend since 1700 certainly hasn't been linear and there's damn few processes involved that are either. And an objection to aligning modern with historical tide gauge data (not sure I'd call 1700 "paleo" nor a tidal gauge a proxy (cause it's NOT)) is tending, as far as I'm concerned, to intentionally excessive pickiness. Have you some reason for that Ian?

If you break all the quoted stuff into a series of quote blocks rather than their default nested behavior, all will show.

 

[Crick]

Care to explain where your source gets 1.4 mm/year rise when CU gets 3.2?

 

[Crick]

Wait, let me guess. 1.4 is the total trend since 1900. 3.2 is the CURRENT rate. Kinda shows an acceleration, wouldn't you say.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that the ocean has a ravenous appetite for manmade global warming

 

[Crick]

Since the turn of the century, that seems to be true.

 

[IanC]

The upper range of the worst case scenario predicts 1.25 meters by 2100. Are you objecting to their use of curves when your source used straight lines? Which do you think better resembles the results of the actual processes taking place? The trend since 1700 certainly hasn't been linear and there's damn few processes involved that are either. And an objection to aligning modern with historical tide gauge data (not sure I'd call 1700 "paleo" nor a tidal gauge a proxy (cause it's NOT)) is tending, as far as I'm concerned, to intentionally excessive pickiness. Have you some reason for that Ian?

If you break all the quoted stuff into a series of quote blocks rather than their default nested behavior, all will show.

Im sorry, I keep on thinking we are supposed to be having a reasonable discussion. I went to the IPPC report to check the provenance of your graph. I quoted the caption. if you dont like the use of paleo, take it up with them. the arbitrary zero point at 1700 is misleading. we are talking SLR in the 21st century. 1.25-0.3 is less than one metre, even at the extreme highest range. while it is nice that they listed the other adjustments, I am not sure why Sand Point North Carolina is the reference here but at least they stated it. the IPCC graph is unnecessarily chunky, with poor detail in the portion we are interested in.

I am not sure where your '1.4' figure is coming from. are you talking about 1.6 mm/yr listed on the graph? tidal gauges typically have a range that averages out to less than 2mm/yr. only satellite data from mid ocean jumped it up to 3mm/yr. funny that.... it jumped from 2 to 3 at the exact moment that we started measuring by satellite, what are the odds of that? and the GIA adjustment? why dont you run that backwards for 3 or 5 centuries and see if the results still make sense.

 

[Old Rocks]

USGS Release Sea Level Rise Accelerating in U.S. Atlantic Coast 6 24 2012 1 00 00 PM

Rates of sea level rise are increasing three-to-four times faster along portions of the U.S. Atlantic Coast than globally, according to a new U.S. Geological Survey report published in Nature Climate Change.

Since about 1990, sea-level rise in the 600-mile stretch of coastal zone from Cape Hatteras, N.C. to north of Boston, Mass. -- coined a "hotspot" by scientists -- has increased 2 - 3.7 millimeters per year; the global increase over the same period was 0.6 – 1.0 millimeter per year.

Based on data and analyses included in the report, if global temperatures continue to rise, rates of sea level rise in this area are expected to continue increasing.

The report shows that the sea-level rise hotspot is consistent with the slowing of Atlantic Ocean circulation. Models show this change in circulation may be tied to changes in water temperature, salinity and density in the subpolar north Atlantic.

"Many people mistakenly think that the rate of sea level rise is the same everywhere as glaciers and ice caps melt, increasing the volume of ocean water, but other effects can be as large or larger than the so-called 'eustatic' rise," said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. "As demonstrated in this study, regional oceanographic contributions must be taken into account in planning for what happens to coastal property."

Though global sea level has been projected to rise roughly two-to-three feet or more by the end of the 21st century, it will not climb at the same rate at every location. Differences in land movements, strength of ocean currents, water temperatures, and salinity can cause regional and local highs and lows in sea level.

Which coast has the most infrastructure?

 

[Old Rocks]

National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability To Sea-Level Rise This project, within theUSGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program's National Assessment, seeks to objectively determine the relative risks due to future sea-level rise for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Through

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

the use of a coastal vulnerability index, or CVI, the relative risk that physical changes will occur as sea-level rises is quantified based on the following criteria: tidal range, wave height, coastal slope, shoreline change, geomorphology, and historical rate of relative sea-level rise. This approach combines a coastal system's susceptibility to change with its natural ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and yields a relative measure of the system's natural vulnerability to the effects of sea-level rise. The USGS is now involved with the National Park Service applying the CVI to coastal park units. Right here on the home front.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Old Rocks]

Sea-level Rise Hazards and Decision Support Sea-Level Rise

Sea-Level Rise
Sea-level rise (SLR) is a major climate change impact that will have a wide range of effects on coastal environments (Douglas and others., 2001; IPCC, 2007; FitzGerald and others, 2008). During the 21st century, the rate of SLR is projected to be several times higher than that measured over the past century (Meehl and others, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2007; figure SL1). Recent projections suggest that sea level may be ~0.6 to 1.5 m higher than present by 2100 (Rahmstorf, 2007; Horton and others, 2008; Jevrejeva and others, 2010), and ~2 m higher only under extreme warming scenarios (Pfeffer and others, 2008; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009; Grinsted and others, 2010). There will also be substantial global and regional variations in relative sea-level change – both positive and negative – due to a range of geophysical, gravitational, and oceanographic processes (Peltier, 1994; Bamber and others, 2009; Hu and others, 2009; Milne and others, 2009; Mitrovica and others, 2009; Yin and others, 2009).

United States Geological Survey. Up to 1.5 m, a low estimate of 0.6 m. If we get no unpleasant surprises. The opening of the Northwest and Northeast passages was originally predicted for 2100 in the '60's by some 'alarmists'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since the turn of the century, that seems to be true.

You have to be completely gullible to believe there's an "Average" ocean temperature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sea-level Rise Hazards and Decision Support Sea-Level Rise

Sea-Level Rise
Sea-level rise (SLR) is a major climate change impact that will have a wide range of effects on coastal environments (Douglas and others., 2001; IPCC, 2007; FitzGerald and others, 2008). During the 21st century, the rate of SLR is projected to be several times higher than that measured over the past century (Meehl and others, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2007; figure SL1). Recent projections suggest that sea level may be ~0.6 to 1.5 m higher than present by 2100 (Rahmstorf, 2007; Horton and others, 2008; Jevrejeva and others, 2010), and ~2 m higher only under extreme warming scenarios (Pfeffer and others, 2008; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009; Grinsted and others, 2010). There will also be substantial global and regional variations in relative sea-level change – both positive and negative – due to a range of geophysical, gravitational, and oceanographic processes (Peltier, 1994; Bamber and others, 2009; Hu and others, 2009; Milne and others, 2009; Mitrovica and others, 2009; Yin and others, 2009).

United States Geological Survey. Up to 1.5 m, a low estimate of 0.6 m. If we get no unpleasant surprises. The opening of the Northwest and Northeast passages was originally predicted for 2100 in the '60's by some 'alarmists'.

...back on planet Earth, the last Cat 5 hurricane to make landfall in the USA was Andrew back in the 90's and there's been no hurricanes making landfall since Katrina.

Another

Failed

AGW

Prediction

 

[mamooth]

Poor Frank, so incredibly ignorant of all the actual science.

He does, however, make a good cult mouthpiece. His assigned job is to create mindless noise, to attempt to drown out all actual discussion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Poor Frank, so incredibly ignorant of all the actual science.

He does, however, make a good cult mouthpiece. His assigned job is to create mindless noise, to attempt to drown out all actual discussion.

Remember how after Katrina your death worshiping Cult told us we were going to get more and stronger hurricanes making landfall in the USA?

It's funny how right after the 2 decade pause is announced your Cult is now telling us, "er, not so fast DENIER!!!!! the Ocean ate our global warming"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Poor Frank, so incredibly ignorant of all the actual science.

He does, however, make a good cult mouthpiece. His assigned job is to create mindless noise, to attempt to drown out all actual discussion.

^ Real science

^AGWCult "Science"

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Could rejection of the facts about global warming possibly have something to do with it's only fucking not-white people?

Sea level in Solomon Islands predicted to rise over 8mm in the coming century Climate Change

I'm sure those trees have always been submerged by sea water. Trees love sea water afterall.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could rejection of the facts about global warming possibly have something to do with it's only fucking not-white people?

Sea level in Solomon Islands predicted to rise over 8mm in the coming century Climate Change

I'm sure those trees have always been submerged by sea water. Trees love sea water afterall.

8 mm About ONE FUCKING INCH! gawd you alarmists are so dam gullible.. And if you note the bulge at the base of the trees is normal for water bound trees. thus they have been that way for 30-50 years depending on land subsidence.. Something you all forgot to include.. Tropical Islands and all. Their volcanic origins make them prone to sloughing and compression.

But nooooooo ignore facts and blame it on fictitious gullible warming..

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Could rejection of the facts about global warming possibly have something to do with it's only fucking not-white people?

Sea level in Solomon Islands predicted to rise over 8mm in the coming century Climate Change

I'm sure those trees have always been submerged by sea water. Trees love sea water afterall.

8 mm About ONE FUCKING INCH! gawd you alarmists are so dam gullible.. And if you note the bulge at the base of the trees is normal for water bound trees. thus they have been that way for 30-50 years depending on land subsidence.. Something you all forgot to include.. Tropical Islands and all. Their volcanic origins make them prone to sloughing and compression.

But nooooooo ignore facts and blame it on fictitious gullible warming..

Notice you don't deny the racist element.