3+ meters of sea level by 2100 possible

[Vastator]

So what? There are ancient cities underwater right now from sea levels rising. It happens.

We'll mark you down as willing to host 15 displaced Bengalis in your house. It happens.

In fact there is no proof to show that the sea levels ever stopped rising since the end of the last ice age.

Sure looks like it stopped to me.

Only because your an idiot. How much higher tech measuring, and monitoring had been going on during the previous hundreds of years; prior to this century? Were they using satellites too? Even your graph shows a constant rise you dumbass.
When your alarmist pseudo scientists say that levels are rising faster than expected; it just means they got it wrong. No shocker there. That's your first clue that they don't know what they're talking about. No wonder you idolize them, and their work. Birds of a feather, and all...

 

[SSDD]

Is there no limit to how far warmers will drag their intellects through raw sewage in an attempt to alarm someone?....alarm anyone?......scare children and the uneducated? Any limit at all?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IOW, you're making the assumption that human civilization has anything to do with solar systemic wide changes in planetary weather changes. . . right?

There are no "solar systemic wide changes in planetary weather".

Which of your cult leaders told you there were, and why did you believe such a crazy story?

Solar output is dropping. Would you like to explain to us how that causes warming?

The "warming" is an accounting fiction caused by adding a new, never before tracked data set, the "excess heat" stored in the deep ocean, to the equation.

You can go now

 

[Vastator]

One way we know about sea level history ... Roman fish holding tanks, and eclipses.

Fish tanks of eastern Crete (Greece) as indicators of the Roman sea level
---
Highlights
► Submerged Roman fish tanks of Matala, Chersonissos, Mochlos, Sitia, Zakros in Crete. ► Use of roman fish tanks as tools for the dating of ancient sea levels. ► The submersion event is connected with the strong earthquake of 1604. ► Determination of a 1st and 2nd c. AD sea level 1.24 m ± 0.09 m lower than the present. ► Average rate of change in the land–sea relationship for 1900 ± 100 yrs BP is 0.65 mm/yr.
---

The Romans built stone holding tanks on their shorelines to hold live fish.for people to buy. The tanks had a standard design, with the top edge about 20cm above the highest high tide level. By seeing how far below the surface they are now, we know how much sea level has risen since Roman Times.

And then there are eclipses. Ancient astronomers were really damn good. They had water clocks good to around a minute a day, and they very carefully recorded the times when eclipses happened. We can calculate now when those eclipses should have happened. But there's one variable, the rotation speed of earth. The earth constantly slows a little, but also, when sea level rises, mass moves from poles to equator, so the earth slows more.

So, by looking at times of eclipses down the ages, and running the calcs, we can see when the sea level rise happened. And, as it turns out, most of it is recent.

As it turns out... It has been rising since the last ice age. At varying rates throughout recorded history. But rising none the less. Checkmate. Next sky is falling disater please...

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing..........

I posted up t his Photobucket Classic 5 years ago and the water has risen near Miami by 1 millimeter since



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Miami_GlobalWarming_Underwater_1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[miketx]

Well, my one year old grandson will see it. And his children and grandchildren. I think it kind of important what kind of world we leave to our descendants.

Still promoting junk science, using pretty little cartoon images that prove nothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IOW, you're making the assumption that human civilization has anything to do with solar systemic wide changes in planetary weather changes. . . right?

There are no "solar systemic wide changes in planetary weather".

Which of your cult leaders told you there were, and why did you believe such a crazy story?

Solar output is dropping. Would you like to explain to us how that causes warming?

Solar output is dropping.

Then we'd better do something to stay warm.
Ice Ages really suck.

 

[miketx]

 

[polarbear]

No matter which of their so called correlations you examine closer they fall apart if you use their data to cross correlate their so called correlations.
What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”? | NOAA Climate.gov
Global temperature anomalies over the past 11,300 years compared to historic average (1961-1990). The purple line shows the annual anomaly, and the light blue band shows the statistical uncertainty (one standard deviation). The gray line shows temperature from a separate analysis spanning the past 1,500 years. Image adapted from Figure 1(b) in Marcott et al.


And compare that with sea level rise (which they say also correlates with temperature:

Temperature "anomaly" remained steady at + 0.4 for 2000 years from 10 000 to 8000 BC but seal level rose by 30 meters ( 1181 inches !! )
No correlation between temperature and seal level aka "ice melt"
Pointing out a 2000 year non-correlation is labelled as "cherry picking" but when they pick a 60 year trend (1940 to 2000) which "correlates" is not cherry picking....

 

[miketx]

How did they measure that temperature in 10000 BC? Did they use the great big hand in the sky technique?

Or was it more like this?

 

[miketx]

Or was this more accurate?

I'd definitely say that Raquel is hot.

 

[jc456]

"Global sea levels could rise ..."

Or not.

You hope...

what's going to cause it?

 

[jc456]

Global sea levels could rise by more than three metres – over half a metre more than previously thought – this century alone, according to a new study co-authored by a University of Southampton scientist.

An international team including Sybren Drijfhout, Professor in Physical Oceanography and Climate Physics, looked at what might happen if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated.

Using new projections of Antarctic mass loss and a revised statistical method, they concluded that a worst-case scenario of a 2.5 to three-metre sea level rise was possible by 2100.

Professor Drijfhout said: "It might be an unlikely scenario, but we can't exclude the possibility of global sea levels rising by more than three metres by the year 2100.

"Unabated global warming will lead to sea-level rise of many metres – possibly more than ten metres – within a few centuries, seriously threatening many cities all over the world that are built in low-lying river deltas. This will also seriously affect the coastline of the UK."

The research – published this month in Environmental Research Letters – is consistent with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) recent adjustment of its possible future high-end sea-level rise from two to 2.5 metres.

However, the new study integrated different model estimates with a new statistical method, whereas the NOAA estimate relied on expert judgment.

Recent observation and modelling studies have shown the future melt of Antarctica might happen dramatically faster than previously thought.

Sea levels could rise by more than three metres, shows new study

Seems we started with maybe a 10 inch rise, and now we are looking at possibly over 10 feet of sea level rise. Guess we will find out, as the dingleberries are going to prevent anything being done to alleviate the rise in GHGs.

so what exactly will cause the sea rise? How far you think that land mass will move in 80+ years? It isn't clear in the link you provided. The probability of Antarctica melting all at once is what is called 'fat chance'. Plus, there is nothing that shows CO2 has any threat to warming it. Unless of course you can post something other than throwing money at nothing. And, what happens if there is an earthquake that drops chunks off? We know there are active volcanoes there. ewwwwwwwww, scare the timid, the rest of us will just laugh at your silliness.

 

[mamooth]

Check it out. Mike is repeating the old faked Time Magazine denier fraud, and some of the deniers who know that it's a fraud are cheering him on. Here's the real cover. Deniers 'adjusted" it, the same way they "adjust" all data.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Mike, thanks for proving again that anything that any denier posts should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

 

[mamooth]

No matter which of their so called correlations you examine closer they fall apart if you use their data to cross correlate their so called correlations.

Oh look, you've created another strawman.

And compare that with sea level rise (which they say also correlates with temperature)

No, we don't say that. There's your problem. You're making up phony stories about what we supposedly say. We say it correlates with temp _now_. We don't say that correlation holds when conditions are different, as they were in the past.

Temperature "anomaly" remained steady at + 0.4 for 2000 years from 10 000 to 8000 BC but seal level rose by 30 meters ( 1181 inches !! )

Yep. When there's lots of glacial ice left to melt, sea levels will keep increasing as the temperature remains steady or even declines a bit. That's basic science, and you didn't appear to know it.

No correlation between temperature and seal level aka "ice melt"

Congratulations. Once more, you've managed to disprove your own strawman. However, you haven't addressed the actual science.

 

[mamooth]

Then we'd better do something to stay warm.
Ice Ages really suck.

The ice age would have been 25,000 years away. You're demanding we overheat the earth right now to stop it.

That would be like running the furnace full blast starting in June because winter is coming. It's profoundly stupid, yet almost all deniers think it's brilliant strategy..

 

[miketx]

Check it out. Mike is repeating the old faked Time Magazine denier fraud, and some of the deniers who know that it's a fraud are cheering him on. Here's the real cover. Deniers 'adjusted" it, the same way they "adjust" all data.

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com

Mike, thanks for proving again that anything that any denier posts should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Because you say so, and la iberal rag says so, proves nothing yet again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then we'd better do something to stay warm.
Ice Ages really suck.

The ice age would have been 25,000 years away. You're demanding we overheat the earth right now to stop it.

That would be like running the furnace full blast starting in June because winter is coming. It's profoundly stupid, yet almost all deniers think it's brilliant strategy..

The ice age would have been 25,000 years away.

Based on the Ice Age timer in your head?

You're demanding we overheat the earth right now to stop it.

Only warmers can use the precautionary principle?

 

[miketx]

No matter which of their so called correlations you examine closer they fall apart if you use their data to cross correlate their so called correlations.

Oh look, you've created another strawman.

And compare that with sea level rise (which they say also correlates with temperature)

No, we don't say that. There's your problem. You're making up phony stories about what we supposedly say. We say it correlates with temp _now_. We don't say that correlation holds when conditions are different, as they were in the past.

Temperature "anomaly" remained steady at + 0.4 for 2000 years from 10 000 to 8000 BC but seal level rose by 30 meters ( 1181 inches !! )

Yep. When there's lots of glacial ice left to melt, sea levels will keep increasing as the temperature remains steady or even declines a bit. That's basic science, and you didn't appear to know it.

No correlation between temperature and seal level aka "ice melt"

Congratulations. Once more, you've managed to disprove your own strawman. However, you haven't addressed the actual science.

You mean the fake science paid for by greedy democrats?

 

[Old Rocks]

Proves you are a dumb lying prick.

The problem with that prediction of as much as 3 1/2 meters of sea level rise is that it is like the alarmists predictions in the 1990's. Then, those alarmists predicted that the Arctic Ice would be gone for a short time in September by 2100. Now there is the possibility of that ice being gone for a short time in September by 2030, possibly as early as this year. The predictions for the melting of the Arctic ice has routinely been wrong, far too optimistic. Same for the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap.

And, as the acceleration of ice melt and sea level rise occurs, these same assholes that are spouting nonsense, will then say, "Well, it is just natural variability", and will not acknowledge that they were saying that it is not going to happen. We saw this with the warming we are experiencing at present. All you goofs were saying in the '90's that there was no warming. From the obese junkie on the AM radio to the fake British Lord, when the warming became so obvious that it was undeniable, they switched to 'natural variation'. Even though no one yet has proposed a driver for that natural variation. That is what one expects from the 'Conservative' mouthpeices, here and on the media, lies, and ignorance.