Oceans rising faster than UN forecast

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Chris, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Polar ice caps are melting faster and oceans are rising more than the United Nations projected just two years ago, 10 universities said in a report suggesting that climate change has been underestimated.

    Global sea levels will climb a meter (39 inches) by 2100, 69 percent more than the most dire forecast made in 2007 by the UN’s climate panel, according to the study released today in Brussels. The forecast was based on new findings, including that Greenland’s ice sheet is losing 179 billion tons of ice a year.

    “We have to act immediately and we have to act strongly,” Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told reporters in the Belgian capital. “Time is clearly running out.”

    In six months, negotiators from 192 nations will meet in Copenhagen to broker a new treaty to fight global warming by limiting the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests.

    “A lukewarm agreement” in the Danish capital “is not only inexcusable, it would be reckless,” Schellnhuber said.

    Fossil-fuel combustion in the world’s power plants, vehicles and heaters alone released 31.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, 1.8 percent more than in 2007, according to calculations from BP Plc data.

    ‘Rapid and Drastic’

    The scientists today portrayed a more ominous scenario than outlined in 2007 by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which likewise blamed humans for global warming. “Rapid and drastic” cuts in the output of heat-trapping gases are needed to avert “serious climate impacts,” the report said.

    The report called for coordinated, “rapid and sustained” global efforts to contain rising temperatures. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, also in Brussels, told reporters that nations have to reverse the rising trend in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

    “We need targets,” Rasmussen said. “All of us are moving toward the same ambitious goals.”

    Scientists from institutions including Yale University, the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge compiled the 39-page report from research carried out since 2005, the cutoff date for consideration by the IPCC for its forecasts published in November 2007.

    Oceans Rising Faster Than UN Forecast, Scientists Say (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Meh!!

    Rising sea levels will merely force evil rich people to abandon their muckity-muck ocean front properties.

    And who cares about rich people, anyways??
     
  3. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    Not trying so much to burst your baloon, but did you notice that there is not even one referance to the actual rate of the sea level rise? Not one.

    Do you wonder why?

    It is probably due to the fact that the rise is so small as to be non existant.

    The rate of increase in sea level has increased ever so slightly from almost nothing to a little more than almost nothing. 3.3 millimeters of rise per year. For thos of you, like me, who have no clue what this means beyond "almost nothing", it means that by 2100, the total rise, if there is not a decrease, will be less than 1 foot.

    This is a continuation of sea level rise which has slowed from a rate that caused sea to rise about 15 meters over 8000 years and has actually been falling for about the last 2000 years.

    By rising, the sea level is restoring, not advancing, the shore lines of the recent past.

    Sea level rise outpacing key predictions - environment - 01 February 2007 - New Scientist

    Image:Holocene Sea Level.png - Global Warming Art
     
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Not trying to burst your balloon, but apparently you didn't even read the article.....

    Ocean levels have been rising by 3.1 millimeters a year since 2000, a rate that’s predicted to grow, according to the study. The projections of sea levels rising by a meter this century compare with the 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches) forecast by the IPCC.

    “There are indications that rates of sea-level rise are higher than projected, and impacts like Arctic melting are more rapid,” Martin Parry, who supervised part of the UN panel’s 2007 study, said in a telephone interview. He wasn’t involved in writing the new report.

    Oceans are warming 50 percent faster than the IPCC predicted and Arctic sea ice is disappearing more rapidly in summer -- exposing darker ocean that absorbs more heat, the study said.

    Oceans Rising Faster Than UN Forecast, Scientists Say (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
     
  5. RadiomanATL
    Offline

    RadiomanATL Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,944
    Thanks Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Not here
    Ratings:
    +3,836
    Well, looks like we have a conundrum here.

    Code1211 says that sea levels have been rising approximately 3.3 millimeters per year, and in about 100 years that would equal a foot. Which is inconsequential

    Chris says that sea levels have been rising 3.1 millimeters per year (less than code's assertion), and sometime within 100 years they will rise by about a meter. Which is 3.28 feet. More than 3 times the amount that Chris stated. And this could be harmful.

    OK, so lets break down the math here.

    3.3 millimeters x 100 years equals 330 millimeters. Which in the conversion equals 1.08 feet. OK, Code's math checks out. So lets check out Chris' math...

    3.1 millimeters x 100 years equals 310 millimeters. Which in the conversion equals .310 meters or 1.02 feet. One third of the supposed meter that it would rise within the 100 years. We even used the maximum span of time of 100 years and it doesn't even come close.

    But wait...Chris said that the rate was predicted to grow. Well surely that gives an "out". So lets check it out if we, say, increase the rate of the oceanic rise by 50%. Starting now. Thats a pretty hefty and immediate growth rate, and unlikely as hell, but lets check it out:

    4.65 millimeters per year x 100 years equals 1.5 feet, or .465 meters. Not even half of the supposed "projections of sea levels rising by a meter this century". I was even generous. I should have only accounted for 91 years instead of 100 years.
     
  6. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005

    My God Chris is a dupe...


    We have the summertime doom n gloom quick-hatch news releases timed for upcoming climate talks and quotes from the very people whose livelihoods depend upon further funding for this projected-maybe-could be-possibly...crisis.

    And then Chris of course posts it in here post-haste, and it appears that while he can click a mouse, he cannot add.

    Chris, you were completely...


    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    I love these personal attacks.

    This is what happens when conservatives have no answers.
     
  8. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    No, we attack you because you're a douchebag. We have all the answers. You're just too busy worshipping Obama to hear them.
     
  9. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    You have been wrong about almost everything.
     
  10. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    about you being a douchebag? No, the majority of us agree. You ARE an ignorant homosexual douchebag.
     

Share This Page