NOAA says sea level rise is 1.8 mm per year?

[Billy_Bob]

Stanford study: ‘Sea levels may not rise as high as assumed.’

Sea level rise poses one of the biggest threats to human systems in a globally warming world, potentially causing trillions of dollars’ worth of damages to flooded cities around the world. As surface temperatures rise, ice sheets are melting at record rates and sea levels are rising.

But there may be some good news amid the worry. Sea levels may not rise as high as assumed.

To predict sea level changes, scientists look to Earth’s distant past, when climate conditions were similar to today, and investigate how the planet’s ice sheets responded then to warmer temperatures brought on by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In a recently published study in the journal Geology, PhD students Matthew Winnick and Jeremy Caves at Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences explored these very old conditions and found that sea level might not have risen as much as previously thought – and thus may not rise as fast as predicted now.

This is gonna make libtard heads explode.... NO reason to fear the earth warming!

 

[Crick]

Stanford study: ‘Sea levels may not rise as high as assumed.’

Sea level rise poses one of the biggest threats to human systems in a globally warming world, potentially causing trillions of dollars’ worth of damages to flooded cities around the world. As surface temperatures rise, ice sheets are melting at record rates and sea levels are rising.

But there may be some good news amid the worry. Sea levels may not rise as high as assumed.

To predict sea level changes, scientists look to Earth’s distant past, when climate conditions were similar to today, and investigate how the planet’s ice sheets responded then to warmer temperatures brought on by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In a recently published study in the journal Geology, PhD students Matthew Winnick and Jeremy Caves at Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences explored these very old conditions and found that sea level might not have risen as much as previously thought – and thus may not rise as fast as predicted now.

This is gonna make libtard heads explode.... NO reason to fear the earth warming!

From your WUWT article:

“Our results are tentatively good news,” Winnick said. “They suggest that global sea level is less sensitive to high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought. In particular, we argue that this is due to the stability of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which might be more resilient than previous studies have suggested.” However, a rise in global sea level by up to 44 feet (13.5 meters) is still enough to inundate Miami, New Orleans and New York City, and threaten large portions of San Francisco, Winnick cautioned.

While the study helps refine our understanding of Pliocene sea level, both Winnick and Caves point out that it’s not straightforward to apply these results to today’s planet. “Ice sheets typically take centuries to millennia to respond to increased carbon dioxide, so it’s more difficult to say what will happen on shorter time scales, like the next few decades,” Winnick said.

“Add that to the fact that CO2 levels were relatively consistent in the Pliocene, and we’re increasing them much more rapidly today, and it really highlights the importance of understanding how sea level responds to rising temperatures. Estimates of Pliocene sea level might provide a powerful tool for testing the ability of our ice sheet models to predict future changes in sea level.”

I'm glad you're okay with a 44 foot rise in sea level. And, since CO2 levels have increased probably a thousand times as fast as they did during the middle Pliocene and none of these hindcast models has assumed the catastrophic destabilization of the WAIS that's going on right now, I REALLY wouldn't take this as any reason not to worry.

"No reason to fear the Earth warming"... glad to see you admit that CO2 is warming the planet, but if you think there's no reason to worry, you really are an idiot.

 

[flacaltenn]

I love these historical sweeping statements like "CO2 was relatively consistent in the Pliocene.." As tho any measurements we have of that era could show even 100 year variances in the levels.

With the land and sea contributing 20 times what MAN adds to the carbon cycle -- The earth has ALWAYS had volitility in the carbon cycle numbers. Just due to LIFE and decomposition of life on the planet.. Not to mention changes in ocean uptakes and outputs.

An no -- You don't need to run and get a chart of CO2 during the Pliocene era CrickHam to attempt to prove my statements incorrect.. You need to run and get a couple technical papers on what the temporal (time) resolution of proxy studies is and how well it reflects VARIANCE of CO2 in any 1000 or 100 year period..

People who should know better are attributing accuracy to proxy data that simply is not there...

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? What evidence do you have that the earth has seen variation of 40% in CO2 in less than a two centuries in the past?

And how can you say that the land and sea contributes 20 times what man does? The emissions and absorption of CO2 was in equilibrium for as far back as we can measure. And the recent, last 20,000 years or so, record is known from the ice cores in greater detail than centuries. And there is no record of such variations. In fact, we know the CO2 varied pretty steadily between 180 ppm and 300 ppm from glacial to interglacial. And when it was 300 ppm, versus where we were for most of the present interglacial, 280 ppm, the sea level was about 3 meters to 4 meters higher.

 

[Crick]

I love these historical sweeping statements like "CO2 was relatively consistent in the Pliocene.." As tho any measurements we have of that era could show even 100 year variances in the levels.

With the land and sea contributing 20 times what MAN adds to the carbon cycle -- The earth has ALWAYS had volitility in the carbon cycle numbers. Just due to LIFE and decomposition of life on the planet.. Not to mention changes in ocean uptakes and outputs.

An no -- You don't need to run and get a chart of CO2 during the Pliocene era CrickHam to attempt to prove my statements incorrect.. You need to run and get a couple technical papers on what the temporal (time) resolution of proxy studies is and how well it reflects VARIANCE of CO2 in any 1000 or 100 year period..

People who should know better are attributing accuracy to proxy data that simply is not there...

Have you noticed how consistently the Deniers believe that large scale changes in natural parameters take place with no identifiable causation until such a claim is suggested for things like... the hiatus.

 

[IanC]

Present day CO2 levels do not represent equilibrium values. Obviously mankind has skewed the equation and comparisons to past levels have only weak correlations. We are in uncharted territory.

This thread is about SLR and how temperature affects it. We should be able to see pulses of rise and fall in the records. Where is the large increase when we came out of the LIA and all the 'easy' ice melted? Eg Glacier Bay in Alaska. Where is the drop when the easy ice formed during the LIA?

Why doesn't the SLR rates match the temp record in the 20th century? Low in the 40's during warming, high in the 60's during cooling, low in the 80's.

Why was there a 10% increase added for GIA exactly at the time when SLR was inconveniently dropping? Why did satellite measurements jump the rate 50% higher as soon as they came online? If satellites measure 3mm in open water (cannot be independently checked) and tide gauges measure 2mm at the shore where satellites can't measure, why are satellite figures used for predictions when it is obviously shorelines that we are concerned with?

So many questions, so many incompatible guesses.

 

[flacaltenn]

Really? What evidence do you have that the earth has seen variation of 40% in CO2 in less than a two centuries in the past?

And how can you say that the land and sea contributes 20 times what man does? The emissions and absorption of CO2 was in equilibrium for as far back as we can measure. And the recent, last 20,000 years or so, record is known from the ice cores in greater detail than centuries. And there is no record of such variations. In fact, we know the CO2 varied pretty steadily between 180 ppm and 300 ppm from glacial to interglacial. And when it was 300 ppm, versus where we were for most of the present interglacial, 280 ppm, the sea level was about 3 meters to 4 meters higher.

You need real measurement of historical variance in CO2 less than a couple hundred years. The only reason it APPEARS in equilibrium is that there is no time resolution to it.. What we find for temperature proxies (in ice) is a whole world DIFFERENT for "high resolution" studies that are capable of seeing 100 year swing and adequately reproducing the max and mins..

I showed you one of those a week or two ago.. All of a sudden, that "vostok equilibrium" is shot to hell with wild and wooly 10 and 12 degree changes in place where the Vostok record is flat.. You've been lied to about what charts like that and the hockey sticks really prove.. The answers to those questions are not in the sweeping generalized GLOBAL studies -- but in INDIVIDUAL proxy records explored at higher resolution and greater detail..

I'll go find a more detailed CO2 record for you and we can chat..

 

[IanC]

These warmer guys don't think for themselves. They just accept whatever they are told, until the next paper tells them something different.

An example is the Shakun paper from a few years ago. It supposedly 'proved' CO2 caused the exit from the last ice age, using proxies that were mutually inconsistent with themselves for the timing and amounts of warming. The CO2 proxy suspiciously ended at the beginning of the interglacial. Why? Because during the interglacial temps and CO2 have been going in opposite directions. Feynman said you have to point out discrepancies not hide them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well Ian -- For Feynman then..

For GoldiRocks..

THIS is what I mean when I say that you would never KNOW from just that one ice core record (Vostok) what the actual historical max and mins and variance on CO2 would have been.. I found some notes on HIGH resolution proxies for CO2..

Stomatal proxy record of CO2 concentrations from the last termination suggests an important role for CO2 at climate change transitions | Margret Steinthorsdottir - Academia.edu


We believe that our record has the fidelity to accurately reflect the evolution of [CO2] during this well-constrained time interval at an approximately 50 year resolution.

RESOLUTION IS COMPARED RIGHT NEXT TO AN ICE CORE RECORD !!!!!!!!
Note that peak CO2 reading getting close to 400ppm at just 12,750 years ago...

Abstract -----

A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based on
Betula nana (dwarf birch)leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The recordis of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollenzone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene(Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher than usually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO2 evolution through the studied time period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved from interstadial to stadial state and vice versa. A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxyfor temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2] records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concentrations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the main climate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered

And here is a longer reconstruction using some of this higher resolution proxy data.

http://www.clim-past.net/7/1459/2011/cp-7-1459-2011.pdf

Notice the wild variance in any couple thousand year interval.. And the MINs and MAXs are better suggested by this data as well. With examples of CO2 in recent history reaching into the high 300ppm with regularity and a surprising looking periodicity as well...

Imagine that Rocks.. If you actually systematically STUDY these findings (instead of poo-slinging the link of the day) --- You'd find references to PREVIOUS TIPPING POINTS occurring SINCE Younger-Dryas. AND -- before SUVs were invented to ignite forest fires..

The idea that CO2 levels have this steady and pristine level before man is NOT supported by the science that you worship......

 

[flacaltenn]

It is exactly this kind of knowledge that makes all the hooping and hollering (or yankee yip - yapping if you prefer) about UNPRECEDENTED rates and levels and the scary conclusions nothing more than juiced up propaganda.

If you STUDY IT and find the answers to those questions right in front of your nose -- You can not help but to be relieved to be called a denier... Game is pretty much over for the "catastrophic" warmers. MAYBE the whole segment of climate science will settle down to some serious and REAL work.. Not gonna be able to EVER debate and support all the wild unsubstantiated claims that have been attributed to them..

 

[IanC]

But Flac-.....they weren't told to look at THAT paper.

 

[flacaltenn]

But Flac-.....they weren't told to look at THAT paper.

Yeah -- that's the prob... Paper of the Month at Skepscience.. Not every strawberry can be a Sherry's Berry..
But what I would expect would be is that ANY one paper you read should leave you with a WHOLE long laundry list of questions. And if you're really interested in learning about this topic.. (it's not a hard one) --- you'd go launch off and find 2 or 4 more that ANSWERS your questions.

So it's not just the reading list. It's also the fact that there's too little absorption and self-motivated search for answers..

 

[mamooth]

So it's not just the reading list. It's also the fact that there's too little absorption and self-motivated search for answers..

Such a complete lack of self-awareness from Flac and Ian.

Remember the thread topic? It was Ian cherrypicking a sentence taken out-of-context, so he could deny all the actual data about the accelerating sea level rise, which can only be explained by global warming.

After that, he decided the sea level data must be faked, because he didn't understand it. After all, if he doesn't understand it, the only possible alternative is that it has to all be faked. Educating himself on the topic would clearly be a silly idea, being he already knows all the answers.

Flac, he's gone to "Well, how do you know CO2 hasn't been spiking up and down naturally, and we just haven't seen it?". Yeah, okay.

Deniers use that tactic a lot. "Have you absolutely disproved my theory of magic, huh, have you? No? Since you haven't absolutely positively ruled out magic, your theory has to be wrong!". And that usually comes from the guys pretending to be experts in the scientific method.

 

[flacaltenn]

So it's not just the reading list. It's also the fact that there's too little absorption and self-motivated search for answers..

Such a complete lack of self-awareness from Flac and Ian.

Remember the thread topic? It was Ian cherrypicking a sentence taken out-of-context, so he could deny all the actual data about the accelerating sea level rise, which can only be explained by global warming.

After that, he decided the sea level data must be faked, because he didn't understand it. After all, if he doesn't understand it, the only possible alternative is that it has to all be faked. Educating himself on the topic would clearly be a silly idea, being he already knows all the answers.

Flac, he's gone to "Well, how do you know CO2 hasn't been spiking up and down naturally, and we just haven't seen it?". Yeah, okay.

Deniers use that tactic a lot. "Have you absolutely disproved my theory of magic, huh, have you? No? Since you haven't absolutely positively ruled out magic, your theory has to be wrong!". And that usually comes from the guys pretending to be experts in the scientific method.

First of all moron -- if you read Scientific American -- you can read any temperature or CO2 proxy paper without breaking a sweat... Try it. If you don't sweat -- brag about it..

Second of all leprechaun tormenter -- I just backed up EVERY thing I asserted by showing you the difference in resolution and accuracy of different proxies for CO2 (and temp).. Using the same 97% consensus science that you approve of..

Your issue is that you never incurred any sweat on this topic. Never bothered to question the simply OUTRAGEOUS leaps to conclusions for papers that NEVER justified those leaps.. Like all the hockey stick shit that never had a PRAYER of proving that our little temperature blip was UNPRECEDENTED in any way..

Same with O-Rocks misconception about the Vostok Ice graphs. Just because the graphs are fairly flat and lack any local variance --- doesn't MEAN there wasn't any.... I'll go pass a 50 year filter over the Dow for ya and see if you recognize any depressions..

 

[mamooth]

Second of all leprechaun tormenter -- I just backed up EVERY thing I asserted by showing you the difference in resolution and accuracy of different proxies for CO2 (and temp)

Yes, you've shown nobody can prove how CO2 doesn't just magically and instantaneously spike up and down for no discernible reason.

That would be a "See! You haven't ruled out magic!" claim, so nobody cares. "Assume magic must be present unless magic is absolutely disproved" is not how science works.

 

[IanC]

So it's not just the reading list. It's also the fact that there's too little absorption and self-motivated search for answers..

Such a complete lack of self-awareness from Flac and Ian.

Remember the thread topic? It was Ian cherrypicking a sentence taken out-of-context, so he could deny all the actual data about the accelerating sea level rise, which can only be explained by global warming.

After that, he decided the sea level data must be faked, because he didn't understand it. After all, if he doesn't understand it, the only possible alternative is that it has to all be faked. Educating himself on the topic would clearly be a silly idea, being he already knows all the answers.

Flac, he's gone to "Well, how do you know CO2 hasn't been spiking up and down naturally, and we just haven't seen it?". Yeah, okay.

Deniers use that tactic a lot. "Have you absolutely disproved my theory of magic, huh, have you? No? Since you haven't absolutely positively ruled out magic, your theory has to be wrong!". And that usually comes from the guys pretending to be experts in the scientific method.

There are many things that would help allay my fears that the satellite measurements do not have serious errors in their calibration. A list of the tide gauges they use as a reference would be a good start. I searched in vain a few years ago. Maybe you would have better luck.

I find it odd that the warmers' side here disputes the lack of sensitivity in proxy records. Actually I find it odd that anyone puts much credence in proxies except to give very general clues as to the magnitude and direction of changes. Claiming accuracy or precision down to tenths of a degree is lunacy. The error bars in most of the proxy studies is a very bad joke.

 

[jc456]

So it's not just the reading list. It's also the fact that there's too little absorption and self-motivated search for answers..

Such a complete lack of self-awareness from Flac and Ian.

Remember the thread topic? It was Ian cherrypicking a sentence taken out-of-context, so he could deny all the actual data about the accelerating sea level rise, which can only be explained by global warming.

After that, he decided the sea level data must be faked, because he didn't understand it. After all, if he doesn't understand it, the only possible alternative is that it has to all be faked. Educating himself on the topic would clearly be a silly idea, being he already knows all the answers.

Flac, he's gone to "Well, how do you know CO2 hasn't been spiking up and down naturally, and we just haven't seen it?". Yeah, okay.

Deniers use that tactic a lot. "Have you absolutely disproved my theory of magic, huh, have you? No? Since you haven't absolutely positively ruled out magic, your theory has to be wrong!". And that usually comes from the guys pretending to be experts in the scientific method.

There are many things that would help allay my fears that the satellite measurements do not have serious errors in their calibration. A list of the tide gauges they use as a reference would be a good start. I searched in vain a few years ago. Maybe you would have better luck.

I find it odd that the warmers' side here disputes the lack of sensitivity in proxy records. Actually I find it odd that anyone puts much credence in proxies except to give very general clues as to the magnitude and direction of changes. Claiming accuracy or precision down to tenths of a degree is lunacy. The error bars in most of the proxy studies is a very bad joke.

They think they're clever, and because they think they're clever, they tell stories and those stories aren't, and they then think they can save their stories by using their cleverness, but alas, fail. Cut and paste is their specialty and then include mumbo jumbo. But skeptics see this and yawn.

 

[IanC]

I think even reasonable and reasoning people can be convinced by the evidence put forward by consensus climate science. Especially when skeptical opinions are demonized to the point where they are assumed to be lies.

Have you read about Feynman and the space shuttle inquiry? To me the most amazing part was the change over time relating to the safety of the flights. Initial estimates were one failure per fifty missions. With every successful flight the estimated safety went up and by the time of the Challenger failure it was pegged at a thousand to one. Groupthink and wishful thinking overrided conservative fears. In the end, one failure per 50 flights was the right estimate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But Flac-.....they weren't told to look at THAT paper.

Yeah -- that's the prob... Paper of the Month at Skepscience.. Not every strawberry can be a Sherry's Berry..
But what I would expect would be is that ANY one paper you read should leave you with a WHOLE long laundry list of questions. And if you're really interested in learning about this topic.. (it's not a hard one) --- you'd go launch off and find 2 or 4 more that ANSWERS your questions.

So it's not just the reading list. It's also the fact that there's too little absorption and self-motivated search for answers..

This is precisely why our Representative Republic is in danger of being lost. The Public has become complacent and refuses to arm themselves with information. We have become a society of idiots who are swayed by those who manage by crisis even if its a made up one to forward thier agenda....

 

[Old Rocks]

Well boy, you definately have some gaping holes in your knowledge of the information available.