Melting ice a 'sleeping giant' that will push sea levels higher, scientist says

[westwall]

Wow, the stupidity of that statement is just breathtaking. It appears that the only way you could possibly have come to such a conclusion is by believing that there are no databases that climate scientists draw from in conducting their research. And if that is the case, all I can say to that is take a pill, bubba.

So in other words you can not produce said information.

So either put up or shut up!

Crap, but you are a dumb ass.

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

Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS)

National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability To Sea-Level Rise

USGS Release: New Sea-Level-Rise Modeling Forecasts Major Climate Impact to Low-Lying Pacific Islands (4/11/2013 12:00:00 PM)

Just from one scientific agency of the US government. On one subject. Kosh, people like you are damned pathetic. Willfully ignorant, and unwilling to expend even the slightest energy to do real research. You are lazy, period.

Abstract

Projection of future sea level change relies on the understanding of present sea-level trend and how it has varied in the past. Here we investigate the global-mean sea level (GMSL) change during 1993–2012 using Empirical Mode Decomposition, in an attempt to distinguish the trend over this period from the interannual variability. It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level. Recent rapid recovery of the rising GMSL from its dramatic drop during the 2011 La Niña introduced a large uncertainty in the estimation of the sea level trend, but the decelerated rise of the GMSL appears to be intact.



Global sea level trend during 1993?2012


Satellite data shows that sea levels have not been rising faster | The Daily Caller

 

[flacaltenn]

So in other words you can not produce said information.

So either put up or shut up!

Crap, but you are a dumb ass.

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

Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science (CEGIS)

National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability To Sea-Level Rise

USGS Release: New Sea-Level-Rise Modeling Forecasts Major Climate Impact to Low-Lying Pacific Islands (4/11/2013 12:00:00 PM)

Just from one scientific agency of the US government. On one subject. Kosh, people like you are damned pathetic. Willfully ignorant, and unwilling to expend even the slightest energy to do real research. You are lazy, period.

Abstract

Projection of future sea level change relies on the understanding of present sea-level trend and how it has varied in the past. Here we investigate the global-mean sea level (GMSL) change during 1993–2012 using Empirical Mode Decomposition, in an attempt to distinguish the trend over this period from the interannual variability. It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level. Recent rapid recovery of the rising GMSL from its dramatic drop during the 2011 La Niña introduced a large uncertainty in the estimation of the sea level trend, but the decelerated rise of the GMSL appears to be intact.



Global sea level trend during 1993?2012


Satellite data shows that sea levels have not been rising faster | The Daily Caller

To be fair --- there WAS that unique dip in global MSL about the time this study was done.
The dip that was alledgely (and possibly) linked to monsoon like conditions in Australia and parts of SE asia.. I posted the tide gauges off of East DownUnder for that period and they were OFF THE CHARTS low.. Amazing evidence for folks who need to be shown that Sea Level aint anywhere NEAR a global or temporal constant.

MAYBE we're getting better global averages off of satellite now -- and MAYBE we can start to see all the nuances of SL averages.
OR -- the sat radars are just confusing sea state during storms with SLRise..
More to fight about ===== YEAH !!!!!

 

[Abraham3]

Do you think sticking a label on people who don't buy into your hysteria makes your hysteria any more valid?

No, I'm laughing at the wordsmithing.

Who the heck came up with that goofy term?

I guess I should have asked that question of Abe3, huh? Sorry about that.

DENIAL + IST

denial:
1. a refusal to agree or comply with a statement; contradiction
2. the rejection of the truth of a proposition, doctrine, etc

-ist:
denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

DENIALIST:
A person who practices or is concerned with the rejection of a truth

 

[Abraham3]

Global sea level trend during 1993?2012

Global sea level trend during 1993–2012
Xianyao ChenCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author, Ying Feng, Norden E. Huang
Key Laboratory of Data Analysis and Applications, State Oceanic Administration, China
The First Institute of Oceanography, State Oceanic Administration, China

Satellite data shows that sea levels have not been rising faster | The Daily Caller

“We now have satellite measurements for 20 years which indicate a steady rise of about 3 mm per year, and during that time no acceleration,” commented Lennart Bengtsson, a senior research fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, on the Swedish blog Stockholms Initiativet.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, Hansen did.

I think he was talking about the long term...Like 300-500 down the line.

No, in 1988 he was claiming New York would be inundate within 25 years at the present increase in CO2 levels (back then!), we now know that he was horribly wrong on his worst guestimate of where the CO2 levels would be today (he was fantastically low on that estimate) and his temperature guesses were likewise worthless (being, of course, fantastically high), in other words nothing that he predicted ever occurred.

That's why the climate fraudsters no longer will give a measurable prediction. It will prove them wrong yet again.

Link?

 

[S.J.]

No, I'm laughing at the wordsmithing.

Who the heck came up with that goofy term?

I guess I should have asked that question of Abe3, huh? Sorry about that.

DENIAL + IST

denial:
1. a refusal to agree or comply with a statement; contradiction
2. the rejection of the truth of a proposition, doctrine, etc

-ist:
denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

DENIALIST:
A person who practices or is concerned with the rejection of a truth

A truth that you fail to prove. In other words, it's not the truth, it's a "claim".

 

[Abraham3]

I guess I should have asked that question of Abe3, huh? Sorry about that.

DENIAL + IST

denial:
1. a refusal to agree or comply with a statement; contradiction
2. the rejection of the truth of a proposition, doctrine, etc

-ist:
denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

DENIALIST:
A person who practices or is concerned with the rejection of a truth

A truth that you fail to prove. In other words, it's not the truth, it's a "claim".

Completely irrelevant. Which of the many statement's you've made about me have you ever PROVEN? God are you stupid. Or is English not your native tongue?

 

[polarbear]

Actually, Hansen did.

I think he was talking about the long term...Like 300-500 down the line.

No, in 1988 he was claiming New York would be inundate within 25 years at the present increase in CO2 levels (back then!), we now know that he was horribly wrong on his worst guestimate of where the CO2 levels would be today (he was fantastically low on that estimate) and his temperature guesses were likewise worthless (being, of course, fantastically high), in other words nothing that he predicted ever occurred.

That's why the climate fraudsters no longer will give a measurable prediction. It will prove them wrong yet again.

In another 15 years it`ll turn out to be the same story as with the temperature stall.
Now that even the worst alarmists finally clued into that everybody else is aware of it, it`s back to the "melting polar ice" and the "rising sea level".

One thing is for sure, this 3 mm per year sea level rise could not have happened this year because all summer long we`ve hade the same ice cover as 13 years ago and if the October to December trend continues with the same up-slope we`ll be back to the same ice cover & thickness as it was in 1990 !

It would be ridiculous to insist that today we are up by (2013-1990) * 4 = 92 mm since 1990 even if thermal expansion is factored in.
a.) As we know the temperature has not gone up any more for 15 years
b.) water has it`s greatest density at +4 C and most of the top layer water temperature in the arctic is in that temperature range
c.) above +4C the expansion coefficient for water is only 4.2 * 10^(-4) per degree...in all 3 dimensions for a cube
So if you apply that to a cube then you have to apply the cubic root to get the depth increase.
amazing how anyone could calculate the sea level increase with a geometric profile like this:

with millimeter accuracy while the bottom and the sides of the "cube" geometry can vary by 4000 meters (= 4 000 000 mm !!) depending where you are, and the sides (or shore line) can vary from near vertical to within a few degrees above horizontal.

 

[Zander]

1970's
A new Ice Age is coming!!
Humans have fucked up the climate!!
We're all gonna die!!!
You have too much freedom and fossil fuels!!
You're raping the earth!!!

1990's
It's Globull Warming !!!!
Polar bears are dying!
The glaciers are melting!
The Seas are rising!!!
Children will never know what snow is.
We only have 10 years to "save the planet"!!!
It's from "fossil fuels" and freedom.....


2010's
The Climate is changing!!
Blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
And it's all HUMAN"S FAULT!!
It's still from "fossil fuels" ... Your freedom is still the problem....

The Propaganda is always the same. Simply, Wash, rinse and repeat the same lies over and over.....

 

[westwall]

I think he was talking about the long term...Like 300-500 down the line.

No, in 1988 he was claiming New York would be inundate within 25 years at the present increase in CO2 levels (back then!), we now know that he was horribly wrong on his worst guestimate of where the CO2 levels would be today (he was fantastically low on that estimate) and his temperature guesses were likewise worthless (being, of course, fantastically high), in other words nothing that he predicted ever occurred.

That's why the climate fraudsters no longer will give a measurable prediction. It will prove them wrong yet again.

In another 15 years it`ll turn out to be the same story as with the temperature stall.
Now that even the worst alarmists finally clued into that everybody else is aware of it, it`s back to the "melting polar ice" and the "rising sea level".

One thing is for sure, this 3 mm per year sea level rise could not have happened this year because all summer long we`ve hade the same ice cover as 13 years ago and if the October to December trend continues with the same up-slope we`ll be back to the same ice cover & thickness as it was in 1990 !

It would be ridiculous to insist that today we are up by (2013-1990) * 4 = 92 mm since 1990 even if thermal expansion is factored in.
a.) As we know the temperature has not gone up any more for 15 years
b.) water has it`s greatest density at +4 C and most of the top layer water temperature in the arctic is in that temperature range
c.) above +4C the expansion coefficient for water is only 4.2 * 10^(-4) per degree...in all 3 dimensions for a cube
So if you apply that to a cube then you have to apply the cubic root to get the depth increase.
amazing how anyone could calculate the sea level increase with a geometric profile like this:

with millimeter accuracy while the bottom and the sides of the "cube" geometry can vary by 4000 meters (= 4 000 000 mm !!) depending where you are, and the sides (or shore line) can vary from near vertical to within a few degrees above horizontal.

Yes. I am constantly amused at all the claims made to the effect of "global warming is doing X" when there HAS BEEN NO WARMING! Their break with reality is quite entertaining!

 

[polarbear]

YAWN!

When insanely rich liberals start selling their gazillion dollar estates in Newport, the Hamptons, South Beach, and Malibu, I might be able to scrape up a damn to give.

When a hundred million south east Asians have no homes and no water, insufficient food, breed disease and mob the high ground, will you give a damn?

As if...(with 4 millimeters per year, which very likely won`t even materialize in the future)
A single monsoon can easily dump more than 400 millimeters in less than 24 hours where your "homeless south east Asians" are and that has been so ever since we discovered that Asia exists.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think he was talking about the long term...Like 300-500 down the line.

No, in 1988 he was claiming New York would be inundate within 25 years at the present increase in CO2 levels (back then!), we now know that he was horribly wrong on his worst guestimate of where the CO2 levels would be today (he was fantastically low on that estimate) and his temperature guesses were likewise worthless (being, of course, fantastically high), in other words nothing that he predicted ever occurred.

That's why the climate fraudsters no longer will give a measurable prediction. It will prove them wrong yet again.

In another 15 years it`ll turn out to be the same story as with the temperature stall.
Now that even the worst alarmists finally clued into that everybody else is aware of it, it`s back to the "melting polar ice" and the "rising sea level".

One thing is for sure, this 3 mm per year sea level rise could not have happened this year because all summer long we`ve hade the same ice cover as 13 years ago and if the October to December trend continues with the same up-slope we`ll be back to the same ice cover & thickness as it was in 1990 !

It would be ridiculous to insist that today we are up by (2013-1990) * 4 = 92 mm since 1990 even if thermal expansion is factored in.
a.) As we know the temperature has not gone up any more for 15 years
b.) water has it`s greatest density at +4 C and most of the top layer water temperature in the arctic is in that temperature range
c.) above +4C the expansion coefficient for water is only 4.2 * 10^(-4) per degree...in all 3 dimensions for a cube
So if you apply that to a cube then you have to apply the cubic root to get the depth increase.
amazing how anyone could calculate the sea level increase with a geometric profile like this:

with millimeter accuracy while the bottom and the sides of the "cube" geometry can vary by 4000 meters (= 4 000 000 mm !!) depending where you are, and the sides (or shore line) can vary from near vertical to within a few degrees above horizontal.

That Ice Anomaly chart up there would be TOO CONFUSING for the sheeple if they added the 70's decade average.. That would end up LOWER then the 80s and just above the 90s.

THEN --- the warmers who never remembered Algebra 2 or had a hard time with graphs wouldn't KNOW what to think... Adding the 70s into the baseline would also destroy their "average" envelope of "normal" icing..

Sometimes I think Karl Rove is getting paid to spin the numbers for them..
((PolarBear might not know Karl Rove, but he's known in these parts for being a Statistics tutor for Republican candidates.))

 

[JWBooth]

I think he was talking about the long term...Like 300-500 down the line.

No, in 1988 he was claiming New York would be inundate within 25 years at the present increase in CO2 levels (back then!), we now know that he was horribly wrong on his worst guestimate of where the CO2 levels would be today (he was fantastically low on that estimate) and his temperature guesses were likewise worthless (being, of course, fantastically high), in other words nothing that he predicted ever occurred.

That's why the climate fraudsters no longer will give a measurable prediction. It will prove them wrong yet again.

In another 15 years it`ll turn out to be the same story as with the temperature stall.
Now that even the worst alarmists finally clued into that everybody else is aware of it, it`s back to the "melting polar ice" and the "rising sea level".

One thing is for sure, this 3 mm per year sea level rise could not have happened this year because all summer long we`ve hade the same ice cover as 13 years ago and if the October to December trend continues with the same up-slope we`ll be back to the same ice cover & thickness as it was in 1990 !

It would be ridiculous to insist that today we are up by (2013-1990) * 4 = 92 mm since 1990 even if thermal expansion is factored in.
a.) As we know the temperature has not gone up any more for 15 years
b.) water has it`s greatest density at +4 C and most of the top layer water temperature in the arctic is in that temperature range
c.) above +4C the expansion coefficient for water is only 4.2 * 10^(-4) per degree...in all 3 dimensions for a cube
So if you apply that to a cube then you have to apply the cubic root to get the depth increase.
amazing how anyone could calculate the sea level increase with a geometric profile like this:

with millimeter accuracy while the bottom and the sides of the "cube" geometry can vary by 4000 meters (= 4 000 000 mm !!) depending where you are, and the sides (or shore line) can vary from near vertical to within a few degrees above horizontal.

Shhhhhhhhh you aren't supposed to introduce geologic variables into the sky is falling fear mongering.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought Obama stopped the seas from rising?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU]Obama Promises The World - YouTube[/ame]

 

[S.J.]

DENIAL + IST

denial:
1. a refusal to agree or comply with a statement; contradiction
2. the rejection of the truth of a proposition, doctrine, etc

-ist:
denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

DENIALIST:
A person who practices or is concerned with the rejection of a truth

A truth that you fail to prove. In other words, it's not the truth, it's a "claim".

Completely irrelevant. Which of the many statement's you've made about me have you ever PROVEN? God are you stupid. Or is English not your native tongue?

I'm stupid because you can't back up your claim?

 

[JWBooth]

A truth that you fail to prove. In other words, it's not the truth, it's a "claim".

Completely irrelevant. Which of the many statement's you've made about me have you ever PROVEN? God are you stupid. Or is English not your native tongue?

I'm stupid because you can't back up your claim?

Nah, he is saying that you are stoooopid because you don't blindly buy into the same nonsense that he does.

 

[S.J.]

Completely irrelevant. Which of the many statement's you've made about me have you ever PROVEN? God are you stupid. Or is English not your native tongue?

I'm stupid because you can't back up your claim?

Nah, he is saying that you are stoooopid because you don't blindly buy into the same nonsense that he does.

I know, I'm just trying to get him to admit it.

 

[polarbear]

1970's
A new Ice Age is coming!! ;

Humans have fucked up the climate!!
We're all gonna die!!!
You have too much freedom and fossil fuels!!
You're raping the earth!!!

1990's
It's Globull Warming !!!!;

Polar bears are dying!
The glaciers are melting!
The Seas are rising!!!
Children will never know what snow is.
We only have 10 years to "save the planet"!!!
It's from "fossil fuels" and freedom.....


2010's
The Climate is changing!!

blah blah blah
blah blah blah
And it's all HUMAN"S FAULT!!
It's still from "fossil fuels" ...

Your freedom is still the problem....

The Propaganda is always the same. Simply, Wash, rinse and repeat the same lies over and over.....

Here is the solution:

Costing only 5 of these:

Supplied in the US by:

 

[Abraham3]

Do you ever get tired of posting clip art?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you ever get tired of posting clip art?

That's 80% of what skeptics have to offer