Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOL And if he had said "There will be", you would be condemning the author for exhibiting a surety that does not exist in predicting the future. Plus that is the worst case scenario, his prediction was for 2 1/2 meters of sea level rise. Which would inundate many atoll islands, and much farmland in low lying areas around the world, plus render many of the present ports useless.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.
"COULD" The language of charlatans..... Nothing more need be said.
Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.Oh, you a are a fan of Patty Robertson? LOL Lying fraud tried to claim to be a combat Marine when he had his father bail him out of going with his unit to the Pusan Reservoir. He was in charge of delivering liquor from Japan to Korea. And when a sergeant, who had fought that horrible campaign, pointed that out, Robertson called him a liar. The sergeant story was backed up by officers who also fought that campaign, and Robertson could not even take Virginia, his home state, in the Presidential primaries.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.
My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.Oh, you a are a fan of Patty Robertson? LOL Lying fraud tried to claim to be a combat Marine when he had his father bail him out of going with his unit to the Pusan Reservoir. He was in charge of delivering liquor from Japan to Korea. And when a sergeant, who had fought that horrible campaign, pointed that out, Robertson called him a liar. The sergeant story was backed up by officers who also fought that campaign, and Robertson could not even take Virginia, his home state, in the Presidential primaries.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.
My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. The globe seems to be warming. It is roughly 1.5 degrees since 1960. The climate models have generally grossly over-estimated the actual warming that has taken place.
You're wrong. The models have been very accurate.
2. The warming is not uniform. Parts of the Arctic have risen as much as 15 degrees over the last 50 years. There are large parts of the Southern Hemisphere that have cooled as much as 5 degrees. No one really understands why.
You're wrong. The variability is nowhere near that large, and the reasons for it are well understood.
3. There seems to a significant pause in global temperature rise since 2000 that directly contradictions almost every climate model. There is no adequate explanation yet for why this 15 pause has taken place.
You're wrong. There has been no pause at all, and barely even a slowdown in the fast warming. The warming has been strong and steady.
4. Man produced CO2 seems to be a factor in the limited global warming that has taken place. But weather is influenced by hundreds of different variables. No one can clearly state how much of a factor man-made CO2 really is.
You're wrong. The issue has been studied, and it's been determined that human-emitted CO2 accounts for essentially all the warming.
So, you think there are at present no obvious consequences to the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? And that adding more will not create even more consequences?Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.Oh, you a are a fan of Patty Robertson? LOL Lying fraud tried to claim to be a combat Marine when he had his father bail him out of going with his unit to the Pusan Reservoir. He was in charge of delivering liquor from Japan to Korea. And when a sergeant, who had fought that horrible campaign, pointed that out, Robertson called him a liar. The sergeant story was backed up by officers who also fought that campaign, and Robertson could not even take Virginia, his home state, in the Presidential primaries.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.
My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Oh brother.
LOLSo, you think there are at present no obvious consequences to the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? And that adding more will not create even more consequences?Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.Oh, you a are a fan of Patty Robertson? LOL Lying fraud tried to claim to be a combat Marine when he had his father bail him out of going with his unit to the Pusan Reservoir. He was in charge of delivering liquor from Japan to Korea. And when a sergeant, who had fought that horrible campaign, pointed that out, Robertson called him a liar. The sergeant story was backed up by officers who also fought that campaign, and Robertson could not even take Virginia, his home state, in the Presidential primaries.
My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Oh brother.
Care to share the science that is based one?
LOL And if he had said "There will be", you would be condemning the author for exhibiting a surety that does not exist in predicting the future. Plus that is the worst case scenario, his prediction was for 2 1/2 meters of sea level rise. Which would inundate many atoll islands, and much farmland in low lying areas around the world, plus render many of the present ports useless.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.
"COULD" The language of charlatans..... Nothing more need be said.
And you are an idiot.LOLSo, you think there are at present no obvious consequences to the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? And that adding more will not create even more consequences?Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.Oh, you a are a fan of Patty Robertson? LOL Lying fraud tried to claim to be a combat Marine when he had his father bail him out of going with his unit to the Pusan Reservoir. He was in charge of delivering liquor from Japan to Korea. And when a sergeant, who had fought that horrible campaign, pointed that out, Robertson called him a liar. The sergeant story was backed up by officers who also fought that campaign, and Robertson could not even take Virginia, his home state, in the Presidential primaries.
My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Oh brother.
Care to share the science that is based one?
Your such a moron..
Paleo-Records show the earth has never 'temperature run away' with high levels of CO2 and that CO2 has always followed global temp.. It has never driven temp..
History proves you the liar..
And you are an idiot.LOLSo, you think there are at present no obvious consequences to the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? And that adding more will not create even more consequences?Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Oh brother.
Care to share the science that is based one?
Your such a moron..
Paleo-Records show the earth has never 'temperature run away' with high levels of CO2 and that CO2 has always followed global temp.. It has never driven temp..
History proves you the liar..
Permian-Triassic extinction: Organic δ13C evidence from British Columbia, Canada
Permian-Triassic extinction: Organic δ13C evidence from British Columbia, Canada
+Author Affiliations
Abstract
- 1Geological Survey of Canada, 3303-33rd St., N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A7, Canada,
- 2Department of Physics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
The Permian-Triassic (P-T) extinction is documented geochemically in a marine sequence deposited in a basinal setting at Williston Lake, northeastern British Columbia, by using elemental and isotopic organic geochemical data from well-preserved sedimentary rocks. The δ13C values of kerogens in the rocks exhibit a sudden shift at the P-T boundary from latest Permian values of -29‰ ± 1‰ (PDB) to a minimum of -32.6‰ 2 m above the P-T boundary and then back to the Permian value 4 m above the P-T boundary. After considering various factors, we conclude that reduced surface-water primary productivity following the P-T mass extinction is largely responsible for the observed δ13C shift. The abruptness of the δ13C shift in a sequence of continuous deposition argues that the strong pulse of extinction at the P-T boundary was sudden rather than gradual. Marine primary productivity did not recover until at least 50 to 100 ka after the time of the P-T boundary, so a higher atmospheric pCO2 in the earliest Triassic may have resulted from buildup of dissolved CO2 owing to reduced photosynthetic carbon demand in the surface water.
How much must we lower CO2 in order to stop the sea level rise, on a post-obama basis?
How long are you going to be a gutless troll?
Multiply that answer by the denier troll fudge factor, and you have an answer. I know you're familiar with fudge factors, being all deniers rely on fudging, fraud and fakery in every single thing they do in their lives. So just use the latest fudge factor you used.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the 200,000 year actual data set from Vostok Ice Cores shows that CO2 LAGS temperature increases AND decreases
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the 200,000 year actual data set from Vostok Ice Cores shows that CO2 LAGS temperature increases AND decreases
No, actually it doesn't. They're pretty much concurrent. Some studies even show that CO2 leads.
In any case, it doesn't matter. The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions in the present are different, and conditions are different.
A slow second grader could grasp that concept, but almost every denier can't. In order to be a denier, you have to completely lack common sense, otherwise you'd see through denier cult propaganda.
And yet there are huge numbers of papers which call this work out as severely lacking in credibility...And you are an idiot.LOLSo, you think there are at present no obvious consequences to the amount of GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? And that adding more will not create even more consequences?Not that we could not have three decades ago. But now we will have to ride the consequences of the present GHG levels in the atmosphere, because even if we stopped putting them into the atmosphere right now, the inertia in the system will carry to 30 to 50 years. And if we continue as we are, there are going to be some real problems for our children and grandchildren to deal with.My point is I agree with Colbert in this instance.
Oh brother.
Care to share the science that is based one?
Your such a moron..
Paleo-Records show the earth has never 'temperature run away' with high levels of CO2 and that CO2 has always followed global temp.. It has never driven temp..
History proves you the liar..
Permian-Triassic extinction: Organic δ13C evidence from British Columbia, Canada
Permian-Triassic extinction: Organic δ13C evidence from British Columbia, Canada
+Author Affiliations
Abstract
- 1Geological Survey of Canada, 3303-33rd St., N.W., Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A7, Canada,
- 2Department of Physics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada
The Permian-Triassic (P-T) extinction is documented geochemically in a marine sequence deposited in a basinal setting at Williston Lake, northeastern British Columbia, by using elemental and isotopic organic geochemical data from well-preserved sedimentary rocks. The δ13C values of kerogens in the rocks exhibit a sudden shift at the P-T boundary from latest Permian values of -29‰ ± 1‰ (PDB) to a minimum of -32.6‰ 2 m above the P-T boundary and then back to the Permian value 4 m above the P-T boundary. After considering various factors, we conclude that reduced surface-water primary productivity following the P-T mass extinction is largely responsible for the observed δ13C shift. The abruptness of the δ13C shift in a sequence of continuous deposition argues that the strong pulse of extinction at the P-T boundary was sudden rather than gradual. Marine primary productivity did not recover until at least 50 to 100 ka after the time of the P-T boundary, so a higher atmospheric pCO2 in the earliest Triassic may have resulted from buildup of dissolved CO2 owing to reduced photosynthetic carbon demand in the surface water.
Not one legit study makes that claim. Try again mammy.
Not one legit study makes that claim. Try again mammy.
Don't you ever get tired of being completely wrong on every topic every time? Apparently not, because you always want come back again to be even more wrong.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Shakun et al (2012)
---
Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.
---
I'll summarize it for deniers, who make it a point of pride to refuse to read actual science.
CO2 was _not_ the initial little kick that started the deglaciation.
However, after the first little kick by something else, CO2 quickly took over as the primary driver.
studies? we have an actual 200,000 year side by side data set of CO2 and temperature. what do you have, Shankun's mold spore proxies?Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the 200,000 year actual data set from Vostok Ice Cores shows that CO2 LAGS temperature increases AND decreases
No, actually it doesn't. They're pretty much concurrent. Some studies even show that CO2 leads.
In any case, it doesn't matter. The present is not constrained to act like the past if conditions in the present are different, and conditions are different.
A slow second grader could grasp that concept, but almost every denier can't. In order to be a denier, you have to completely lack common sense, otherwise you'd see through denier cult propaganda.
Not one legit study makes that claim. Try again mammy.
Don't you ever get tired of being completely wrong on every topic every time? Apparently not, because you always want come back again to be even more wrong.
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Shakun et al (2012)
---
Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.
---
I'll summarize it for deniers, who make it a point of pride to refuse to read actual science.
CO2 was _not_ the initial little kick that started the deglaciation.
However, after the first little kick by something else, CO2 quickly took over as the primary driver.
Shakun has been shown to be crap many times over. I said LEGIT. Learn English clown girl.
