Isaac Asimov on climate change, 1989, 1977

[Quantum Windbag]

Sea level is currently expected to rise by around 2 meters (200 cm) over this century, and as is laid out in the document I linked and the published papers it references, this rate is accelerating.

Bullshit. The date you posted puts the lie to that claim. The only people who say that are the lying idiots like Al Gore. You cannot find a single credible scientists that say anything like that.

I have treated you with respect and simply offered mainstream scientific information and links to try and help you improve your understandings of the science. If you wish now to insult and personally attack me because your own understandings do not agree with the science, then that is your choice, but I am not trying to portray you in any fashion.

Stupidity does not deserve respect, it deserves contempt. I learned that from Isaac Asimov himself, so take your attempt to make me feel guilty, fold it so it has multiple, sharp, corners, and stuff it up your ass with a twist. If you want someone to pamper you I suggest you run back to mommy.

please indicate and support anything I have claimed or asserted that is not supported by mainstream published science and accepted mainstream scientific understandings.

The very fact that you are ignoring the actual science and trying to argue that the sea level rising 200 fucking feet is alarmist and idiotic. Do you really think that we, as a race, are so stupid that we cannot figure out a way to deal with this?

I lived through the 1970s and the massive pollution scare we had back then. Acid raid was going to destroy our forests, we were going to have to filter all of our water, and we would all need gas masks to walk outside our house. Guess what? None of that happened, and the ecology recovered a lot faster than anyone predicted.

People like you stopped scaring me after that. Go find some 4 year old that does not know anything about history if you want to scare someone. You and Old Rocks should enjoy each other's company, you both prefer alarmists to scientists, and are both delusional enough to think that you are quoting scientists.

goodbye.

 

[Old Rocks]

Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 « Climate Progress

Two major new studies, in Nature and Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise (SLR) by 2100. This post discusses the Science study, “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” (subs req’d), which concludes:

On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.

… these values give a context and starting point for refinements in SLR forecasts on the basis of clearly defined assumptions and offer a more plausible range of estimates than those neglecting the dominant ice dynamics term.

Scientific analysis is finally catching up to scientific observation. In 2001, the IPCC projected that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. The IPCC made the same basic projection again in 2007. Yet both ice sheets already are. As Penn State climatologist Richard Alley said in March 2006, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking “100 years ahead of schedule.”

Richard Alley was a key speaker at the AGU conferance in 2009.

A23A

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stunning new sea level rise research, Part 1: “Most likely” 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 « Climate Progress

Two major new studies, in Nature and Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise (SLR) by 2100. This post discusses the Science study, “Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise” (subs req’d), which concludes:

On the basis of calculations presented here, we suggest that an improved estimate of the range of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.

… these values give a context and starting point for refinements in SLR forecasts on the basis of clearly defined assumptions and offer a more plausible range of estimates than those neglecting the dominant ice dynamics term.

Scientific analysis is finally catching up to scientific observation. In 2001, the IPCC projected that neither Greenland nor Antarctica would lose significant mass by 2100. The IPCC made the same basic projection again in 2007. Yet both ice sheets already are. As Penn State climatologist Richard Alley said in March 2006, the ice sheets appear to be shrinking “100 years ahead of schedule.”

Richard Alley was a key speaker at the AGU conferance in 2009.

A23A

You can whine about the problem, or be part of the solution.

Netherlands: Below Sea Level? No Problem - US News and World Report

I intend not to be remembered as a whiner.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, you lost the debate, now you propose costly beyond contemplation solutions. There is no way that we can dike the whole Gulf Coast.

What we should be doing is a crash program to cut our CO2 emissions. But, thanks to ostrichs like you, that is not going to happen.

 

[westwall]

The Copenhagen Diagnosis - http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

pg -38 Global SeaLevel

At 100 centimeters a century, which is far above even the rate the most ridiculous predictions show, we will have 6000 years to deal with the problem before it rises 200 feet. Believe it or not, we will fix it before that happens.

Sea level is currently expected to rise by around 2 meters (200 cm) over this century, and as is laid out in the document I linked and the published papers it references, this rate is accelerating.

You really should do some basic math before you try to make me look stupid and uninformed.

I have treated you with respect and simply offered mainstream scientific information and links to try and help you improve your understandings of the science. If you wish now to insult and personally attack me because your own understandings do not agree with the science, then that is your choice, but I am not trying to portray you in any fashion.

That is why mainstream scientist think that type of thinking is alarmist, because idiots like you are incapable of thinking far enough ahead to see how stupid it really is.

please indicate and support anything I have claimed or asserted that is not supported by mainstream published science and accepted mainstream scientific understandings.

There is nothing mainstream about your postings olfraud. They are all biased reports from biased reporters. Here is a peer reviewed article for your consideration. It refutes what you say. Don't be fooled by the address it is a reprint of a Geophysical Research Letter Volume 34, L01602.

http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Figure 4 of that report shows a steady rise in sea level. The satellite data, much more accurate than the tidal stations, indicates that the rate of rise is accelerating. The melting of the ice caps and alpine glaciers is an observed fact, on the ground and from satellite data.

http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf


A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L01602, 4 PP., 2006
doi:10.1029/2005GL024826

A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise

A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise
John A. Church

CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Neil J. White

CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr−2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.

 

[Old Rocks]

Accelerated Sea-Level Rise from West Antarctica

Published Online 23 September 2004
Science 8 October 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5694 pp. 255-258
DOI: 10.1126/science.1099650
Report
Accelerated Sea-Level Rise from West Antarctica
R. Thomas1,2,*, E. Rignot2,3, G. Casassa2, P. Kanagaratnam4, C. Acuña2, T. Akins4, H. Brecher5, E. Frederick1, P. Gogineni4, W. Krabill6, S. Manizade1, H. Ramamoorthy4, A. Rivera2,7, R. Russell1, J. Sonntag1, R. Swift1, J. Yungel1 and J. Zwally6
+ Author Affiliations

1 EG&G Inc., NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Building N-159, Wallops Island, VA 23337, USA.
2 Centro de Estudios Científicos (CECS), Avenida Arturo Prat 514, Casilla 1469, Valdivia, Chile.
3 Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
4 Radar Systems and Remote Sensing Laboratory, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.
5 Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
6 Code 972, NASA-GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
7 Departamento de Geografía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 3387, Santiago, Chile.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Recent aircraft and satellite laser altimeter surveys of the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica show that local glaciers are discharging about 250 cubic kilometers of ice per year to the ocean, almost 60% more than is accumulated within their catchment basins. This discharge is sufficient to raise sea level by more than 0.2 millimeters per year. Glacier thinning rates near the coast during 2002–2003 are much larger than those observed during the 1990s. Most of these glaciers flow into floating ice shelves over bedrock up to hundreds of meters deeper than previous estimates, providing exit routes for ice from further inland if ice-sheet collapse is under way.

 

[Old Rocks]

AMS Journals Online - An Anomalous Recent Acceleration of Global Sea Level Rise

An Anomalous Recent Acceleration of Global Sea Level Rise

M. A. Merrifield and S. T. Merrifield
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii

G. T. Mitchum
University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida







Abstract

Tide gauge data are used to estimate trends in global sea level for the period from 1955 to 2007. Linear trends over 15-yr segments are computed for each tide gauge record, averaged over latitude bands, and combined to form an area-weighted global mean trend. The uncertainty of the global trend is specified as a sampling error plus a random vertical land motion component, but land motion corrections do not change the results. The average global sea level trend for the time segments centered on 1962–90 is 1.5 ± 0.5 mm yr−1 (standard error), in agreement with previous estimates of late twentieth-century sea level rise. After 1990, the global trend increases to the most recent rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm yr−1, matching estimates obtained from satellite altimetry. The acceleration is distinct from decadal variations in global sea level that have been reported in previous studies. Increased rates in the tropical and southern oceans primarily account for the acceleration. The timing of the global acceleration corresponds to similar sea level trend changes associated with upper ocean heat content and ice melt.

 

[westwall]

I see you're trying to bury my post under your voluminous horsecrap as usual. Does that actually work for you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In other words, you lost the debate, now you propose costly beyond contemplation solutions. There is no way that we can dike the whole Gulf Coast.

What we should be doing is a crash program to cut our CO2 emissions. But, thanks to ostrichs like you, that is not going to happen.

Costly beyond contemplation? How the fuck do you figure that? Twenty seven percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, and most of their population lives in that area. It was not costly beyond comprehension for them, they just built the dikes and survived.

What is costly beyond comprehension is eliminating the CO2 in our atmosphere, and forcing countries that are too poor to have a viable infrastructure to fore go economic and industrial development because a bunch of idiots want to to keep the power, and wealth, they have. The goal of the AGW alarmists is not to protect the Earth, or even the human race, it is to keep the wealth they have accumulated in their own hands.

I find it amazing that people who claim to rely on science refuse to admit that the facts are do not support Al Gore. You are worse than the people who deny the evidence, you distort it for the political and economic gain of people who want to kill off billions in their attempt to preserve thier own lifestyles of extravagance.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see you're trying to bury my post under your voluminous horsecrap as usual. Does that actually work for you?

In other words, real articles from peer reviewed journals. And referances from the article that you posted.

Walleyes, you either post articles that do not state what you say they do, or articles from the equivelant of the National Enquirer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Q, it ain't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about not putting any more into it. When it gets to the point that we have to remove CO2, we will already have lost, big time.

And it is not about Al Gore.

 

[westwall]

I see you're trying to bury my post under your voluminous horsecrap as usual. Does that actually work for you?

In other words, real articles from peer reviewed journals. And referances from the article that you posted.

Walleyes, you either post articles that do not state what you say they do, or articles from the equivelant of the National Enquirer.

No, just more outdated horse manure that you invariably go to when you are trying to bury a post that refutes whatever BS you happen to be spouting at the time.

 

[westwall]

Q, it ain't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about not putting any more into it. When it gets to the point that we have to remove CO2, we will already have lost, big time.

And it is not about Al Gore.

How exactly are you going to prevent CO2 from getting into the atmosphere when man only contributes less than 5% of the total amount?

 

[Trakar]

Sea level is currently expected to rise by around 2 meters (200 cm) over this century, and as is laid out in the document I linked and the published papers it references, this rate is accelerating.

Bullshit. The date you posted puts the lie to that claim. The only people who say that are the lying idiots like Al Gore. You cannot find a single credible scientists that say anything like that.

If name calling and cursing are your idea of intelligent rational discourse then there is little reason to continue to attempt mature, reasoned discussion with you, ...your choice.

Projections of future sea level becoming more dire
Projections of future sea level becoming more dire

...The observed acceleration in the decline of polar ice sheet mass provides all the more reason to take the new results from Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2) seriously. Their work provides a significant update of previous work (8) and uses the relationship between observed past temperature and global sea level to project a sea-level rise of 0.75–1.90 m for the period 1990–2100. Empirically, this relationship is nonlinear and reflects the evolution of a sea-level rise currently dominated by the warming of the oceans to one dominated by the melting of polar ice sheets. Interestingly, the range of sea-level rise by 2100 projected by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2) coincides remarkably well with a completely independent assessment of glaciological constraints published last year (0.8–2.0 m; ref. 3)...

How will sea level respond to changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100?
How will sea level respond to changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100?

Using an inverse statistical model we examine potential response in sea level to the changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100. With six IPCC radiative forcing scenarios we estimate sea level rise of 0.6–1.6 m, with confidence limits of 0.59 m and 1.8 m. Projected impacts of solar and volcanic radiative forcings account only for, at maximum, 5% of total sea level rise, with anthropogenic greenhouse gasses being the dominant forcing. As alternatives to the IPCC projections, even the most intense century of volcanic forcing from the past 1000 years would result in 10–15 cm potential reduction of sea level rise. Stratospheric injections of SO2 equivalent to a Pinatubo eruption every 4 years would effectively just delay sea level rise by 12–20 years. A 21st century with the lowest level of solar irradiance over the last 9300 years results in negligible difference to sea level rise...

A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf

A semi-empirical relation is presented that connects global sea-level rise to global mean surface temperature. It is proposed that, for time scales relevant to anthropogenic warming, the rate of sea-level rise is roughly proportional to the magnitude of warming above the temperatures of the pre–Industrial Age. This holds to good approximation for temperature and sea-level changes during the 20th century, with a proportionality constant of 3.4 millimeters/year per °C. When applied to future warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 to 1.4 meters above the 1990 level...

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise
Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise

...We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits...

Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first century - Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a

...Based on our analysis, a pragmatic estimate of sea-level rise by 2100, for a temperature rise of 4°C or more over the same time frame, is between 0.5 m and 2 m—the probability of rises at the high end is judged to be very low, but of unquantifiable probability. However, if realized, an indicative analysis shows that the impact potential is severe, with the real risk of the forced displacement of up to 187 million people over the century (up to 2.4% of global population)...

Many more available upon request.

I have treated you with respect and simply offered mainstream scientific information and links to try and help you improve your understandings of the science. If you wish now to insult and personally attack me because your own understandings do not agree with the science, then that is your choice, but I am not trying to portray you in any fashion.

Stupidity does not deserve respect, it deserves contempt. I learned that from Isaac Asimov himself, so take your attempt to make me feel guilty, fold it so it has multiple, sharp, corners, and stuff it up your ass with a twist. If you want someone to pamper you I suggest you run back to mommy.

This is the most intellectually sound and scientifically supported argument against AGW that you can manage?

please indicate and support anything I have claimed or asserted that is not supported by mainstream published science and accepted mainstream scientific understandings.

The very fact that you are ignoring the actual science and trying to argue that the sea level rising 200 fucking feet is alarmist and idiotic. Do you really think that we, as a race, are so stupid that we cannot figure out a way to deal with this?

I lived through the '50s, '60s, '70s, etc., and you've left out several issues including lead contamination, asbestos, sulfur emissions, CFCs, Nuclear annihilation, etc., and of course we are smart enough to realize and deal with the problem,...well, many of us are.

I lived through the 1970s and the massive pollution scare we had back then. Acid raid was going to destroy our forests, we were going to have to filter all of our water, and we would all need gas masks to walk outside our house. Guess what? None of that happened, and the ecology recovered a lot faster than anyone predicted.

That is because we actually were allowed to act on the science and information without a concerted internal political opposition to action.

People like you stopped scaring me after that. Go find some 4 year old that does not know anything about history if you want to scare someone. You and Old Rocks should enjoy each other's company, you both prefer alarmists to scientists, and are both delusional enough to think that you are quoting scientists.

goodbye.

The choice is always yours, when you wish to discuss mainstream science I will be happy to enjoin that discussion. If you cannot or will not consider information, evaluations and evidences that disagree with your personal beliefs then I can understand your reasons for declining such a course of action.

 

[Trakar]

You can whine about the problem, or be part of the solution.


I intend not to be remembered as a whiner.

Acknowledging a problem and its causation are the first steps to taking actions to address that problem.

 

[westwall]

You can whine about the problem, or be part of the solution.


I intend not to be remembered as a whiner.

Acknowledging a problem and its causation are the first steps to taking actions to address that problem.

Causation has not been proven. The Vostock Ice Cores clearly show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins and CO2 levels increase. Clearly CO2 follows temps, it does not drive it. Furthermore olfraud posted (oh wait that's you!) a wonderful study that showed two major temperature swings from hot to cold over a 1000 year period...all while the CO2 was at an elevated level showing once again and quite convincingly that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature.

 

[warriorautotech]

Q, it ain't about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it is about not putting any more into it. When it gets to the point that we have to remove CO2, we will already have lost, big time.

And it is not about Al Gore.

How exactly are you going to prevent CO2 from getting into the atmosphere when man only contributes less than 5% of the total amount?

less than 3% according to trakars link in another post
http://redirectingat.com/?id=1629X6...ard.com/environment/157078-gw-is-a-lie-4.html

 

[Trakar]

There is nothing mainstream about your postings olfraud. They are all biased reports from biased reporters. Here is a peer reviewed article for your consideration. It refutes what you say. Don't be fooled by the address it is a reprint of a Geophysical Research Letter Volume 34, L01602.

http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf

I've linked only to mainstream science as it is published in mainstream science journals and official government agency dealing with climate issues.

Presumably you concur with the findings and statements from this paper you offered?

...All the stations in this study show a significant
increase in sea level over the period 1904–2003 with an
average increase of 174 mm during that time (Figure 4).
This mean rate of 1.74 mm/yr is at the upper end of the
range of estimates for the 20th century in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report
(IPCC TAR) [Church et al., 2001], and consistent with
other recent estimates [Holgate and Woodworth, 2004;
Church and White, 2006]...

...Church and White
[2006] suggested that the greater rate of sea level rise
observed in the first half of last century was due to reduced
volcanic emissions (and hence also lower variability in sea
level) during the 1930s to 1960s. This idea is supported by
results from the HadCM3 model which suggest that the
simulated global mean sea level did not accelerate through
the twentieth century due to the offsetting of anthropogenic
warming by reduced natural forcing [Gregory et al., 2006]...

It is certainly an interesting study that contributes to our understanding of the sea level records over the last century. I'm not sure what you feel is important about the paper, but I applaud and congratulate your efforts to cite and discuss actual, journal published science. If you wish to lay out the issues you feel important about the paper and its findings, I would be happy to discuss it and how it integrates with both other contemporary studies as well as more current studies and assessments.

 

[Trakar]

Acknowledging a problem and its causation are the first steps to taking actions to address that problem.

Causation has not been proven.

Science isn't about "proving." It is about collecting and categorizing data and developing explanations that account for and are not contradicted by that data. The current AGW explanation is the best scientific fit for all available data.

The Vostock Ice Cores clearly show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins and CO2 levels increase.

In climate change events forced primarily by Milankovitch cycles, CO2 may indeed lag behind initial warmings induced by orbital shifts until tipping points are reached and CO2 feedback mechanisms come to become a major forcing feature rather than merely a feedback response.

Milankovitch Theory and climate

This, however, is not the only manner or means by which climate can and does change. The closest natural analog to modern climate change is exemplified in the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum) climate event, which started with continent-wide basaltic volcanic eruptions which dumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over a relatively short period of time. The warming caused by the released CO2 heated the oceans and triggered the massive release of methane calthrates which caused the temps to soar. We face a similar situation in the current warming as we have already released almost as much CO2 in the open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels as the flood basalt eruptions of the Paleocene-Eocene.

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Zeebe_etal_ngeo578.pdf

We know from industrial accounting records how much carbon fuel has been recovered and burnt. We can measure the shifting isotopic carbon ratios in atmospheric carbon which confirm that the carbon we are mining and burning is the responsible agency for increasing CO2 levels.

Clearly CO2 follows temps, it does not drive it. Furthermore olfraud posted (oh wait that's you!)

CO2 increases can follow natural temperature increases, but this is not the only way that climate change occurs. As the oceans warm and lose their ability to absorb CO2, the ocean will switch from being a carbon sink to being a source of carbon, at that point it will not matter if we quit burning fossil carbon. As for me being Old Rocks, you are simply mistaken.

...a wonderful study that showed two major temperature swings from hot to cold over a 1000 year period...all while the CO2 was at an elevated level showing once again and quite convincingly that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature.

I'm afraid I missed this, which study are you referring to?