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.
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.
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.
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.
westwall said: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.
Problem here is you write "could" and the right see "will".
LOL Now that is what I call a blind statement. A rapid increase in GHGs, whether from the Milankovic Cycles or from burning fossil fuels will have the same effect. Nature does not care what caused the increase in GHGs, it simply responds to that increase.
how does it respond? do you have experiments that show that scenario and affects?LOL Now that is what I call a blind statement. A rapid increase in GHGs, whether from the Milankovic Cycles or from burning fossil fuels will have the same effect. Nature does not care what caused the increase in GHGs, it simply responds to that increase.
Hey Frank..........when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was a thread about the Special Olympics!
Yet all ice core samples show an 800 to 1,000 year CO2 lag both on the increase and decrease.
Yet all ice core samples show an 800 to 1,000 year CO2 lag both on the increase and decrease.
No, they don't say that at all. Let me show you some of the real science again. I've shown it to you before, but you choose to ignore it, because you always ignore the science which contradicts you cult beliefs, which is all the science.
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 refusing to read any actual science a point of pride. They should start by noting the word "lags". Temperature lags CO2.
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.
Why were the pre-Shakun papers off? They made the fundamental error of assuming the climate at a single spot in Antarctica represented the global climate. Shakun demonstrated that wasn't the case. Shakun compared the temperature of the entire earth to CO2 levels, instead of just comparing the temperature of a single spot in Antarctica.
Shankun is a fucking joke, a complete fucking joke to see how gullible you fools are!
If CO2 is a "Driver" why the fuck to temperature collapse immediately AFTER CO2 peaks?
where is it you're seeing it in the US?We're already seeing it in the US. Hopefully Mar a lago will get trumps attention but I doubt it.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Shankun is a fucking joke, a complete fucking joke to see how gullible you fools are!
When on of my points is that you auto-reject all science that contradicts your cult, you shouldn't rush to confirm my point like that.
If CO2 is a "Driver" why the fuck to temperature collapse immediately AFTER CO2 peaks?
I pointed out your fundamental error of assuming one spot in Antarctica represented the whole planet. And you have no response, so you ignore it and repeat your fallacy.
she doesn't understand what exactly you're pointing out. can you say clueless in the tooth?Shankun is a fucking joke, a complete fucking joke to see how gullible you fools are!
When on of my points is that you auto-reject all science that contradicts your cult, you shouldn't rush to confirm my point like that.
If CO2 is a "Driver" why the fuck to temperature collapse immediately AFTER CO2 peaks?
I pointed out your fundamental error of assuming one spot in Antarctica represented the whole planet. And you have no response, so you ignore it and repeat your fallacy.
Mollusk farts in Peru as a "proxy" for actual side by side temperature and CO2 readings in the ice cores.
Yeah. That works
If CO2 is a "Driver" why does temperature collapse immediately after CO2 spikes 125,000 years ago?
Shankun is a fucking joke, a complete fucking joke to see how gullible you fools are!
When on of my points is that you auto-reject all science that contradicts your cult, you shouldn't rush to confirm my point like that.
If CO2 is a "Driver" why the fuck to temperature collapse immediately AFTER CO2 peaks?
I pointed out your fundamental error of assuming one spot in Antarctica represented the whole planet. And you have no response, so you ignore it and repeat your fallacy.
We can file this prediction in the same waste bin where the "arctic will be ice free by 2014" prediction was filed.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.
Of course, the tools who make these predictions will be long dead before they are proven wrong. That's the beauty of "climate science:" no one is ever held responsible for being wrong.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.
it's why they predict out 40 yearsOf course, the tools who make these predictions will be long dead before they are proven wrong. That's the beauty of "climate science:" no one is ever held responsible for being wrong.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.
