Story submitted by WUWT reader Mark B
…the estimates currently differ by almost five meters (16.5 feet).
The United Nations’ forecast of how quickly global sea levels will rise this century is vital in determining how much money might be needed to combat the phenomenon. But predictions by researchers vary wildly, and the attempt to find consensus has become fractious.
It is a number which will ultimately establish how billions in taxpayer money will be spent — and it is one which is the subject of heated debate, both among politicians and scientists.
When the next report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is issued in two years, it will include a forecast for how high the world’s oceans might rise by 2100. With 146 million people in the world currently living less than one meter above sea level, the forecast will be vital in determining how much money governments must spend on measures to protect people from the rising waters and to resettle those in the most acute danger.
Eighteen scientists from 10 countries are involved in the task, and their first step is to determine which of the myriad studies relating to climate change’s effect on ocean levels to consider. In the end, they are to establish a possible range, with the maximum being the most decisive — and most contested — number. Even more challenging, the estimates currently differ by almost five meters (16.5 feet).
Story:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,774706,00.html
rbateman says:
July 16, 2011 at 1:54 pm
“Does anyone know of a plan-of-action should sea levels drop precipitously?”
Well, yes, be the first to get to the choice spots such as the coasts of Europe and the Mediterranean. You can find huge archaeological treasures that were covered as recently as 2600 years ago. And you will have no competition from the Warmista or those deluded by them.
After over 30 years of global warming what has happened to the rate of sea level rise. I’m sure it’s in the pipeline. :O)
I don’t get it.
Why should I have to pay for some rich connected guy living in a $20 M mansion on the beach in
Florida. Ya got 80 years….move ahole!
Just some quick math here…146 million people below 1 meter….population by 2100 about 9 billion….I get:
98.4% of all people will be completely unaffected by rising sea levels.
The rest have about 100 years to decide what to do.
John Birch was right
I am not sure if WUWT is aware of this one, but the US Fish Wildlife Service is currently trying to restrict access to selected beaches along the entire US West Coast to protect the Western Snowy Plover as an endangered species. To make matters worse, they are using unspecified sea level rise to steal even more beach areas. As part of the proposed regulations, the Agency has written ‘with time, we anticipate that the lower portions of this unit will be inundated with sea level rise associated with climate change’. Nothing could be further from the truth. I put in my 2 cents worth in a detailed comment at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070-0127
The tide gauges along the US West Coast are just starting to show a decrease in sea level. This is confirmed in the Pacific Sea Level Trend Satellite Map, which shows the increase in Pacific sea level over the Pacific Warm Pool and a decrease along the US West Coast. Even the ocean basin averages are deceiving.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
We will see if these crooks actually bother to read the comments they asked for. They are supposed to use the ‘best scientific and commercial data available’, which excludes the IPCC reports and related propaganda. The EPA ignored the comments that they received on CO2 endangerment. Will Fish and Wildlife be any different?
This is rubbish. The coastal dwellers around the world have moved upslope 120 meters in the last 25,000 years and in some cases even abandoned their island homes and did not require one government dollar to do so. And it isn’t even like we don’t have recent experience with mass flooding causing permanent dislocations.
http://www.clui.org/lotl/v28/b.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
New Orleans has been steadily sinking for ever. It should have been allowed to sink out of sight but people are resilient (perhaps to the point to stupidity) and find work-arounds, so there today, unbelievably, sits New Orleans yet, still sinking.
And then there’s all the glacial lakes that have come and gone with hellish fury, leaving behind such metropolises as Portland, Spokane, and Salt Lake City. Sea level change does not happen on these short time scales and so will not be even approximately as hellish. And sea level has never been constant, in any event. Don’t pretend it can be made constant.
People are resilient, as mentioned. Or at least they were before the government teat became mandatory for everything we do.
The real concern is how high is Al Gore’s beach house above sea level. I assume he will be one of the first refugees requiring government assistance to move his house to higher land.
I found this article on my own yesterday and read it (should have sent it to Anthony then!)
My take on it was this:
So, scientific consensus? Where is the consensus? They don’t got no scientific consensus!
But the serious-er thing is that it says they are going to select from “myriad studies.” That selection process doesn’t say they are going to merge the studies, but “…which of the myriad studies relating to climate change’s effect on ocean levels to consider.”
That clearly says they will eliminate some of them. But ALL of them are peer-reviewed REAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. I can imagine the fury of those excluded.
Snarc:
It reeks of the Council of Nicea, where they decided which “holy scriptures” were “good enough” to put in this new thing that eventually was called the Bible. That was the Council at which St. Valentine punched out Arius in order to shut him the heck up. Arius’ followers were deemed to be deniers – oops!, I mean heretics – and none of their holy scriptures made it into the final consensus tome. Does it matter that the whole thing was really a put up by Emperor Constantine to quell the incessant quibbling among Christian sects?
So, at the Council of Sea Level Change will be decided, not by measurements, but by compromise and politics, what will be the Councilensus about sea level, to assess going forth what is to be preached among the heathens and Gentiles. Yea, thus sayeth the Lord…
All they will need is a burning bush and a few tablets, and the destruction of a few statues of Baal. And perhaps the sacrifice of a few fatted calves might be nice, too. Just to keep the Pharisees from getting out of hand. . . eos [end of snarc]
It would appear that you are directing your comment at me when, in actuality the italicized portion of your post was a comment made by “Bystander says: July 16, 2011 at 10:44 am” which WAS directed at me.
I am in basic agreement with the rest of your post in regard to sea level rise. Please see my previous posts above.
If I have misunderstood your intent and meaning, my apologies.
“On the other, sea level measurements have yet to prove any meaningful rise though there is agreement that they are, on global average, rising.”
======================
Did anybody catch this stupid nonsensical statement?
What the hell are they saying? Must be lost in translation I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
About what? Rising Sea Levels?
The outstanding statement in the article was that 125K years ago the temperature was 2C warmer and the oceans were 6 metres deeper. This gives rise to a couple of questions that would seem to disprove the basic concept of AGW. 1. Why was it hotter in the last interglacial by 2C? 2. How can one gauge the ocean height on a high and dry reef when around 1mm every 20 years of rising land mass would give you six metres. The question of why it was hotter is damning as we are now close to the end game in our interglacial and those 2C degrees would be a bonus. Though it has been postulated that a warming burst is noted as the end game of an interglacial that ends in tears and ice.
Maybe the report should not only describe the range of predicted results, but should include a methodology to rank them on the basis of when they can be discarded if not supported by future observations of sea level rise. i.e. If the observed rise in sea level in year X is less than Y, then predictive studies 1 through 3 can be discarded as unsupported. Likewise, if the observed rise in sea level in year X is greater than Y then studies 48 though 50 can be discarded.
The results, and comparison of the assumptions and techniques used on each group of studies, should prove useful and educational.
Blade;
No, watermelons.
Which implies, just about everything.
_______
What’s the list and ranking of the current alarmist scares? At random partial sample:
Runaway warming.
Wild and destructive weather.
Ocean rise.
Ocean acidification.
Ocean overheating.
Unpredictable climate flip-outs.
Loss of arable land.
Excess population, in raging migrations looking for food and mobile phones.
Warmistas, please provide your ranked lists, and maybe we can develop a threat consensus!
Things need to be put in perspective. If true, 146 million people out of approximately 10 or so billion which would be 1.46% of the world population. Most likely this would be a lot less as these are people who aren’t even born yet. There would be plenty of time for the market to make the appropriate adjustments. Unless of course you’re speaking of rich people who live near the coast. Now, that’s a different matter. Most are going to live for ever (in their own mind) and sea level rises would effect their retirement. That’d be terrible.
Doesn’t the concept of sea live rise depend on the belief that the continents are fixed and immovable? We know this not to be true. Wouldn’t continental drift and other factors such as earthquakes, tidal and other erosion, additional magma seeping from vents need to be considered in determining whether there is really any rise at all? and how many factors cause this. Is sea level rise really linear? Must another idiotic unscientific hockey stick be refuted?
The concept of sea level rise from an assumed reference point seems as bogus as an optimal termpature for the earth.
savethesharks says:
July 16, 2011 at 11:28 pm
What they are saying, Chris, is that the amount of sea-level rise they can detect is trivial and easily drowned (pun intended) out by the noise of every other factor involved.
Anthropogenic Untaxed Activity causes catastrophic sea-level rise/fall, which is to say that no matter what direction the sea-levels go, a non-existant phenomenon is to blame, not the uselessness of the models that were created solely to enable a revenue stream.
I feel sorry for the IPCC. They are looking for a second tidal gauge in the world that is showing an increase, besides the one in Hong Kong Harbor that is registering an increase (actually it is measuring the sinking geology it sits on), so they can input these two data streams into their worthless, ever-wrong, computer projections.
“With 146 million people in the world currently living less than one meter above sea level…”
i.e. 146million people live close to the beach where they can go fishing daily. Move those people inland until they are 15m above the sea and you sure are going to piss them off.
Obie says:
July 16, 2011 at 9:30 am
I wonder if Nils Axel Morner will be one of the experts from the ten countries? I hope he is otherwise I would think that the panel would be somewhat bogus.
No need to wonder. The answer is “Not no, but HELL NO!” He will be barred from this panel the same way respected and renowned polar bear expert Dr. Mitchell Taylor was barred from a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) in 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html
Of course this panel will be bogus. Because contrarian views are “not helpful”, only ‘consensus’ views will be allowed.
I’m more concerned about sea-level rise due to cometary impact than due to climate change…