3+ meters of sea level by 2100 possible

[saveliberty]

Aren't we already above 3 meters of sea level?

 

[westwall]

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.

By whom? Published in which peer reviewed journal? Link?

Given to you many times over. Go find them again.

 

[mamooth]

Shakun has been shown to be crap many times over. I said LEGIT. Learn English clown girl.

What does it say about you, the way you respond to all data with "WAAAH! IT'S A FRAUD!"?

It says you're a fanatical acolyte of a conspiracy cult. You literally have nothing except conspiracy theories. That's why you're called deniers. All the facts contradict you, so you have to auto-deny all the facts.

Given to you many times over. Go find them again.

While "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is obviously good enough for your cult's TrueBelievers, you have to understand it's not good enough for normal rational people. You'll need to do better.

A search of all your screaming insult evasion posts on this topic comes up with _one_ case where you actually addressed the paper. So, your "many times over" claim is another of your big ol' whoppers. In that post, you linked to this, an article by one Nir Shaval, who is one of Heartland's paid shills. His only science is the climate field is a couple papers on how cosmic rays drive climate, a theory that has been conclusively debunked by the evidence (climate has gone in the exact opposite direction of what the cosmic ray theories predicted.) That is, he's been a complete failure in the climate field.

The Reference Frame: Nir Shaviv: evidence shaky for \(CO_2\) as the cause of deglaciation

If you're not just a brainless parrot, you should be able to tell us, in your own words, what argument Nir Shaval is making.. All of us here on the rational side are game for discussing actual science. Are you?

I can tell you, in my own words, why the pre-Shakun papers were off. They made the fundamental error of assuming the climate at one spot in Antarctica was the global climate. Shakun demonstrated that wasn't the case. Shakun compared the temperature of the whole earth to CO2 levels, instead of just comparing the temperature of one spot in Antarctica.

Now, it's a bit more complicated than "CO2 leads" or "CO2 lags". Shakun found that CO2 led temp in the northern hemisphere, and lagged temp in the southern hemisphere. The sequence of events was.

A. Milankovitch cycles initiate warming.

B. Ice starts melting, beginning melting of glaciers in the northern hemisphere, where most of the land is.

C. Fresh water floods northern oceans, overturning AMOC. Heat that would normally go north builds up in southern oceans.

D. Southern oceans release CO2, which becomes global driver of warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

mamooth how are you coming along on fining how much we have to lower CO2 in order to Stop the seas from rising?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

mamooth how are you coming along on fining how much we have to lower CO2 in order to Stop the seas from rising?

Saving us from a depression, saving us from the rising oceans, is there anything he couldn't do?

And all it cost us was an extra $9.3 trillion in debt.

 

[mamooth]

mamooth how are you coming along on fining how much we have to lower CO2 in order to Stop the seas from rising?

I already answered you, troll. The answer is the same fraudulent fudge factor number you always use. Don't you remember your last lie?

And by the way, I have enough predatory old queers stalking me, so I don't need any new ones.

(For some reason, only the ugliest fatass homos on this board get obsessed with following me around. Why can't it ever be the hot gay dudes? At least I'd feel that was a compliment.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you can tell that AGW is a joke because instead of numbers, they answer with insults

 

[Muhammed]

I doubt I live to see it...

of course you will not see it-------you behind will be under water

Moonglow could still make fart bubbles in Morse code to give weather reports that glow in the moonlight.

 

[Moonglow]

I doubt I live to see it...

of course you will not see it-------you behind will be under water

Moonglow could still make fart bubbles in Morse code to give weather reports that glow in the moonlight.

And a different odor for each weather system....But what I don't get is, why did lightbulbs dramatically increase in price over future shore erosion?

 

[Muhammed]

Well, my one year old grandson will see it. And his children and grandchildren.

What will they see?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, my one year old grandson will see it. And his children and grandchildren.

What will they see?

 

[skookerasbil]

Whats fascinating is.........alarmists have been throwing bombs like this for over 20 years...........and where has it gotten them? But they keep doing it........

Meanwhile, President Trump is dismissing alarmists off scientific panels in the EPA left and right. Whats not to get that youre doing it wrong if you're an alarmist? The fascist approach to science is failing spectacularly in the real world.

 

[Heckler und Koch]

Whats fascinating is.........alarmists have been throwing bombs like this for over 20 years...........and where has it gotten them? But they keep doing it........

Meanwhile, President Trump is dismissing alarmists off scientific panels in the EPA left and right. Whats not to get that youre doing it wrong if you're an alarmist? The fascist approach to science is failing spectacularly in the real world.

Its managed to make many of these phonies rich, like ManBearPig, for one. There's big bucks in climate alarmism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whats fascinating is.........alarmists have been throwing bombs like this for over 20 years...........and where has it gotten them? But they keep doing it........

Meanwhile, President Trump is dismissing alarmists off scientific panels in the EPA left and right. Whats not to get that youre doing it wrong if you're an alarmist? The fascist approach to science is failing spectacularly in the real world.

Its managed to make many of these phonies rich, like ManBearPig, for one. There's big bucks in climate alarmism.

Q. How much must we reduce CO2 emissions down from the current 410PPM in order to stop Global Warming?

A. $15 Trillion

 

[skookerasbil]

Whats fascinating is.........alarmists have been throwing bombs like this for over 20 years...........and where has it gotten them? But they keep doing it........

Meanwhile, President Trump is dismissing alarmists off scientific panels in the EPA left and right. Whats not to get that youre doing it wrong if you're an alarmist? The fascist approach to science is failing spectacularly in the real world.

Its managed to make many of these phonies rich, like ManBearPig, for one. There's big bucks in climate alarmism.

There sure is.........but the religion thinks the industry are really interested in saving the planet. You look at the posts of the alarmists in this forum.........a profound level of naïve. Not sure how the hell these people navigate in real life.......guessing in fields that there are little social interactions.

 

[whitehall]

"It might be an unlikely scenario but we can't exclude the possibility". Does that sound like an opinion based on solid scientific data? Let's hope global warming scientists aren't called to jury duty, "it's unlikely that he is guilty but we can't exclude the possibility that he is".

 

[ScienceRocks]

Something really bad is going to have to happen to get to 3+ meters by 2100.

We're 3.4mm per year at the current rate (1 meter = 1,000 mm and we're talking 3 meters so 3,000 mm)

3,000mm/3.4mm/year =882 years at current rate

How fast would sea level have to raise for this to occur? 2100-2017=83 years

So to get 3 more meters of sea levels within the next 83 years we'd have to 3,000mm/83 years = 36mm or .036M per year if linear. This is 1.4 inches per year of global sea level rise!

Seeing it is likely to be experiential in nature means you get the point that something seriously fucked would need to happen.

 

[MisterBeale]

Something really bad is going to have to happen to get to 3+ meters by 2100.

We're 3.4mm per year at the current rate (1 meter = 1,000 mm and we're talking 3 meters so 3,000 mm)

3,000mm/3.4mm/year =882 years at current rate

How fast would sea level have to raise for this to occur? 2100-2017=83 years

So to get 3 more meters of sea levels within the next 83 years we'd have to 3,000mm/83 years = 36mm or .036M per year if linear. This is 1.4 inches per year of global sea level rise!

Seeing it is likely to be experiential in nature means you get the point that something seriously fucked would need to happen.

A polar shift could very well do it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Studying the sea level rise in the rapid warm up that started this interglacial, we see many times that there was a pause in the sea level rise, and at other times, as much as 3 feet of rise in a decade.

The behavior of this ancient ice sheet—called Laurentide—has puzzled scientists for decades because its periods of melting and splintering into the sea occurred at the coldest times in the last Ice Age. Ice should melt when the weather is warm, but that's not what happened.

"We've shown that we don't really need atmospheric warming to trigger large-scale disintegration events if the ocean warms up and starts tickling the edges of the ice sheets," said Jeremy Bassis, U-M associate professor of climate and space sciences and engineering. "It is possible that modern-day glaciers, not just the parts that are floating but the parts that are just touching the ocean, are more sensitive to ocean warming than we previously thought."

This mechanism is likely at work today on the Greenland ice sheet and possibly Antarctica. Scientists know this in part due to Bassis' previous work. Several years ago, he came up with a new, more accurate way to mathematically describe how ice breaks and flows. His model has led to a deeper understanding of how the Earth's store of ice could react to changes in air or ocean temperatures, and how that might translate to sea level rise.

Last year, other researchers used it to predict that melting Antarctic ice could raise sea levels by more than three feet, as opposed to the previous estimate that Antarctica would only contribute centimeters by 2100.

In the new study, Bassis and his colleagues applied a version of this model to the climate of the last Ice Age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. They used ice core and ocean-floor sediment records to estimate water temperature and how it varied. Their aim was to see if what's happening in Greenland today could describe the behavior of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

How an Ice Age paradox could inform sea level rise predictions | University of Michigan News

 

[MisterBeale]

Studying the sea level rise in the rapid warm up that started this interglacial, we see many times that there was a pause in the sea level rise, and at other times, as much as 3 feet of rise in a decade.

The behavior of this ancient ice sheet—called Laurentide—has puzzled scientists for decades because its periods of melting and splintering into the sea occurred at the coldest times in the last Ice Age. Ice should melt when the weather is warm, but that's not what happened.

"We've shown that we don't really need atmospheric warming to trigger large-scale disintegration events if the ocean warms up and starts tickling the edges of the ice sheets," said Jeremy Bassis, U-M associate professor of climate and space sciences and engineering. "It is possible that modern-day glaciers, not just the parts that are floating but the parts that are just touching the ocean, are more sensitive to ocean warming than we previously thought."

This mechanism is likely at work today on the Greenland ice sheet and possibly Antarctica. Scientists know this in part due to Bassis' previous work. Several years ago, he came up with a new, more accurate way to mathematically describe how ice breaks and flows. His model has led to a deeper understanding of how the Earth's store of ice could react to changes in air or ocean temperatures, and how that might translate to sea level rise.

Last year, other researchers used it to predict that melting Antarctic ice could raise sea levels by more than three feet, as opposed to the previous estimate that Antarctica would only contribute centimeters by 2100.

In the new study, Bassis and his colleagues applied a version of this model to the climate of the last Ice Age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. They used ice core and ocean-floor sediment records to estimate water temperature and how it varied. Their aim was to see if what's happening in Greenland today could describe the behavior of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.

How an Ice Age paradox could inform sea level rise predictions | University of Michigan News

Interesting post, though none of it relates to AGW.