Don't bother with the 2C limit, the sea will swallow us anyway

The logo is from the http://identity.rutgers.e...
Rutgers University (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Rutgers University

Global sea level likely to rise as much as 70 feet for future generations

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — Even if humankind manages to limit global warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations will have to deal with sea levels 12 to 22 meters (40 to 70 feet) higher than at present, according to research published in the journal Geology.

The researchers, led by Kenneth G. Miller, professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University, reached their conclusion by studying rock and soil cores in Virginia, Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific and New Zealand. They looked at the late Pliocene epoch, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, the last time the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were 2 degrees C higher than they are now.

“The difference in water volume released is the equivalent of melting the entire Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, as well as some of the marine margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet,” said H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences, which funded the work. “Such a rise of the modern oceans would swamp the world’s coasts and affect as much as 70 percent of the world’s population.”

“You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” Miller said. “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to1 meter) due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of mountain glaciers, and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica.”

Miller said, however, that this research highlights the sensitivity of the earth’s great ice sheets to temperature change, suggesting that even a modest rise in temperature results in a large sea-level rise. “The natural state of the earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 20 meters higher than at present,” he said.

Miller was joined in the research by Rutgers colleagues James G. Wright, associate professor of earth and planetary sciences; James V. Browning, assistant research professor of earth and planetary sciences; Yair Rosenthal, professor of marine science in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences; Sindia Sosdian, research scientist in marine science and a postdoctoral scholar at Cardiff University in Wales; and Andrew Kulpecz, a Rutgers doctoral student when the work was done, now with Chevron Corp. Other co-authors were Michelle Kominz, professor of geophysics and basin dynamics at Western Michigan University; Tim R. Naish, director of the Antarctic Research Center at Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand; Benjamin S. Cramer of Theiss Research in Eugene, Ore.; and W. Richard Peltier, professor of physics and director of the Center for Global Change Science at the University of Toronto.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating
128 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charlie A
March 20, 2012 12:15 am

So the natural sea level height is 20 meters higher with today’s CO2 levels.
What is the natural sea level height with the CO2 level of 1700 or 1800AD ?

March 20, 2012 12:15 am

“You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” Miller said.

So do we now have to look at what might possibly happen a few thousand years out? Do we assume that homosapiens will still be around?
Surely more immediate threats such as polution, famine, disease, nuclear terrorism shoudl figure far more.

pwl
March 20, 2012 12:19 am

““The difference in water volume released is the equivalent of melting the entire Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, as well as some of the marine margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet,” said H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Earth Sciences”
“You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” Miller said.
Really? A 2c increase for a duration of centuries to a few thousand years can produce the required amount of energy to melt all the ice in Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets?
“9.506×10^20 kg kJ to melt all the ice in Greenland. For those challenged by scientific notion, that is 950,600,000,000,000,000,000 kJ to melt the 2,580,000 cubic kilograms of ice.
Wolfram Alpha reports that that amount of energy, wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282.85×10%5E18%29+*+%28333.55+kJ%29, is:
3) ~1.9 x estimated energy released by the Chicxulub meteor impact;
4) ~24 x 2003 estimated energy in world’s total fossil fuel reserves;
5) ~37 x 2003 estimated energy in world’s coal reserves.
Ok, that is a huge amount of energy.”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2012/03/12/how-much-energy-is-required-to-melt-all-the-ice-in-greenland/
And that is just Greenland.
So I wonder (1) where is that energy coming from and (2) how will that energy reach the areas where there is ice? It has to warm the equivalent of 80c above 0c (the latent heat of ice) before the ice will melt. That means that significantly more heat must be available than the amount calculated for Greenland since the heat energy won’t all be concentrated in Greenland.
How much energy is a 2c increase to the entire planet’s atmosphere?

Interstellar Bill
March 20, 2012 12:20 am

The big Pliocene Lie is that the high CO2 caused the high temps,
when it was the reverse that actually happened.
The hi Pliocene temps were caused by the Panama Seaway being still open,
and the Drake Passage still closed. Warm oceans = high CO2.
Warmistas confuse the effect with the cause.

March 20, 2012 12:25 am

Me thinks the Rio+20 push is in full press.

spangled drongo
March 20, 2012 12:28 am

But we know how well temp and CO2 correlate:
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/image277-1.gif

tokyoboy
March 20, 2012 12:29 am

Where has all the sanity gone? …….. Long time passing …….

Alan Wilkinson
March 20, 2012 12:29 am

“The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to1 meter) due to warming of the oceans, partial melting of mountain glaciers, and partial melting of Greenland and Antarctica.”
No it isn’t. The current trajectory is about 300mm. To multiply that 2-3 times requires unproven assumptions.

david
March 20, 2012 12:31 am

I am so glad I am 470′ above sea level. I can watch the rise from here and not be too worried.

Sandy
March 20, 2012 12:31 am

Scientific value : V
Number of authors : N
V = N^-2
Thanks Willis!! 😀

David Cage
March 20, 2012 12:36 am

I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted with the discredit when nature proves their forecasts to be utter trash. I suppose they may well be defended from their crass incompetence by the protection of the media which appears to be burying predictions like the hundred months to doomsday runaway temperature prediction surprisingly successfully.
Facile, blinkered, ill conceived and inept are the obvious adjectives that spring to mind if this is even remotely their scope of research into the problem. The balance of temperature involves at least a hundred variables that even as an amateur I can think of so to focus on just one as say it decides everything is utterly daft.
The work reminds me of the early days of chip modelling when we took a simple lumped capacitive load and ignored track resistance, distributed capacitance, track to track capacitance and a whole lot more but al least we knew they were simplifications that made the results questionable in smaller geometries.

Peter Miller
March 20, 2012 12:45 am

I hate reading this type of grant inspired crap. Another instance of comparing apples with pears.
The Pliocene era is not comparable with the Pleistocene (2.65MY ago to 10,000MY ago). Although we call the present the Holocene, it really is no more than another inter-glacial period within the Pleistocene.
Around the end of the Pliocene, something significant happened to restrict the flow of warm water currents and reduce temperatures in the polar regions.
The culprit looks to be the emergence of the Panama Isthmus, which closed the free circulation of waters between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
For those interested in the subject of the difference between the Pliocene and the Pleistocene, this is a halfway decent article.

March 20, 2012 12:54 am

“Posted by News Staff”
WUWT has acquired some News Staff! Good stuff.

Alex Heyworth
March 20, 2012 12:56 am

Given that the sea level has already risen about 80 meters in the last 12,000 or so years, I can’t say I’m particularly concerned by this.

crosspatch
March 20, 2012 1:00 am

Oh, right … I get it …
We need to blow a bazillion gigabucks NOW in order to prevent the ocean from rising 70 feet a thousand years from now. Let me put this into a different context:
If you don’t give me $100,000 right now, your city will be under 70 feet of water in 1000 years. Yes, I know that sea levels are currently not rising, that is one of the primary indications that what I am saying is true.
Rutgers, please try not to be such morons. Please?

Christopher Hanley
March 20, 2012 1:03 am

Can’t more productive work be found for these people to do?

Martin Lewitt
March 20, 2012 1:09 am

Now that is plausible, those are the areas currently losing mass. The question becomes do we have enough fossil fuels to get temperatures that high and to keep CO2 at those levels for that long. Considering that we don’t yet have model independent evidence of net positive feedback to CO2 in this climate regime, something else was probably different in the Pliocene. To even get to these temperatures and this level of melting required significant contribution from black carbon, which much more easily and affordably reduced than CO2.

tokyoboy
March 20, 2012 1:18 am

When will they ever learn?

Steve C
March 20, 2012 1:23 am

Ah, right, this’ll be why they were jacking up the Envisat sea level readings the other day, to invent an ‘increase’ which will ‘swallow us anyway’. You can smell the next IPCC report before it’s written.
I’m not bothered. I live about 80m above current sea level, so I think I’ll have plenty of warning if anything happens.

Larry in Texas
March 20, 2012 1:35 am

I’d like to know something. Do the observations about sea level by these guys at Rutgers take into account the shifting of the surface over the many eons? Continental drift? Would that have anything to do with how sea levels may be measured or regarded?
Just a simple question from a geological ignoramus. Otherwise, this study sounds a lot like the “if present trends continue” argument. I’m not going to be around to worry about it when it ultimately happens, if it happens at all.

pethefin
March 20, 2012 1:37 am

Hm, how about the recent findings of another study claiming that Earth has lost a quarter of its water:
http://sciencenordic.com/earth-has-lost-quarter-its-water
that might have to be taken into consideration when making claims of sea-level rise based on historical levels of CO2 and temperature

Geoff Sherrington
March 20, 2012 1:42 am

I can find no reference to any prominent, unambiguous unconformity in the 700,000 year Vostok ice core record so I infer that there has been no local melting interval in this time caused by an extraordinary event. If the Vostok observations are correct, what is the cause for concern?
It is easy to conclude that young eyes blinkered by dogma see extrordinary climate events quite often, causing them to rush to print.

March 20, 2012 1:44 am

Christopher Hanley says:
March 20, 2012 at 1:03 am
Can’t more productive work be found for these people to do?

There’ll probably be a market for journeyman pontoon fabricators in 12,000 years or so…

pesadia
March 20, 2012 1:50 am

Reminds me of a car registration plate which I saw on a Rolls Royce many years ago in Birmingham UK.
Itread OBO 110X

March 20, 2012 1:52 am

When checking out the presumed historical sequence of eras and the artist rendered drawings of the continents there were huge inland seas.
So if I understand the threat, mankind will relearn terraced farming, will live on mountains or floating cities (hey if the Incas could do it) and we will fish for bonefish and other finny delights in the warm inland seas.
Sign me up!

March 20, 2012 1:58 am

I am struck by what these folks can do with 2C of temperature rise. What amazing models they must have.
I wonder how the models manage it?
Perhaps Greenland and Antartica are tectonically shifted to warmer latitudes by the 2C temperature rise?
Why do I have this nagging feeling that almost any temperature changes put into their model will melt Greenland and Antartica.

March 20, 2012 2:00 am

If indeed the Earth’s climate is 2C warmer in a couple of thousand years, I think our descendants will be extra-ordinarily glad, because it means we saved them from the next glacial phase of the current ice age.

Kasuha
March 20, 2012 2:06 am

Oh yeah, if temperatures raise and hold there for several thousands of years, some ice will melt and sea levels will raise, that’s what happens at the end of each ice age. That ‘thousands’ is the important part of it, so it’s not like it’ll be here until 2100 or 2500 or such.
Unless we slip to another ice age in the meantime, that is. That could give us a whole different set of problems to solve.

wayne Job
March 20, 2012 2:09 am

Now if the continents rise by only a millimeter a year because of plate techtonics for a million years that is a ship load of millimeters. The reverse may also be true, these idiots are judging sea level on an unchanging land mass.
It is probably more appropriate to judge the movements of the land masses rather than the ocean, I think they have it bassakwards.

Disko Troop
March 20, 2012 2:12 am

The positive news is that we will be able to move to Antarctica and Greenland, and enjoy the balmy new weather there. I am buying my plot ASAP. I wondered why The Gore and The Hansen/Branson were scoping it out… now I know. They are trying to buy in there first.

Kelvin Vaughan
March 20, 2012 2:15 am

AndiC says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:15 am
“You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” Miller said.
So do we now have to look at what might possibly happen a few thousand years out? Do we assume that homosapiens will still be around?
Surely more immediate threats such as polution, famine, disease, nuclear terrorism shoudl figure far more.
No, because they are dull, boaring. mundane, real threats that don’t affect the whole planet at the same time. The powers that be be can fly off to safe lands.

NotTheAussiePhilM
March 20, 2012 2:19 am

What’s a cubic kilogram?

Ken Hall
March 20, 2012 2:35 am

““The natural state of the earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 20 meters higher than at present,””

But the fact that current sea levels are 20 meters lower than what their opinion of what current CO2 levels show it should be shows that they are wrong. Or are they claiming that the oceans are wrong?
Or are they claiming that the oceans are definitely going to rise for a thousand years, regardless of what we do? In which case I may as well buy a V12 4×4 and enjoy driving it, until such time as I need to convert it into a boat.

Scottie
March 20, 2012 2:36 am

In predicting sea level rise of 12-22 meters, I do hope they remembered to factor in the predicted (?) effects of plate tectonics and isostatic rebound over the period of “centuries to a few thousand years.”
What a load of balderdash.

DEEBEE
March 20, 2012 2:42 am

So CO2 is the only driver not a significant one. They are taking IPCC to where no man has gone before.

Colin Porter
March 20, 2012 2:59 am

“Kenneth G. Miller, professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University”
Methinks the professors chair resides within the School of Arts.

Jimmy Haigh.
March 20, 2012 3:01 am

Sea level was up to 400 metres higher than it is today during the Ordovician – and 200 to 300 metres higher at the end of the Cretaceous. There is a decent Wikipedia page on this at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
Have a look before the revisionists get their hands on it…

Admad
March 20, 2012 3:43 am

Looks like somebody had a nightmare after watching that utterly appalling “Waterworld” movie.

Richard
March 20, 2012 3:46 am

Assuming that the quotation “The current trajectory for the 21st century global rise of sea level is 2 to 3 feet (0.8 to1 meter)” is correct then I feel that there is absolutely nothing to worry about, irrespective of the time frame. Any competent scientist should be able to do simple Imperial to metric conversions correctly. 2 to 3 feet is really 0.61 to 0.915 metres.

Bob
March 20, 2012 3:49 am

I’m not sure why this is viewed as publishable research or why it generates any excitement. “Research” restates the known that sea levels have been higher in the past and could, in some unspecified millennial time period be that high again. Yep, and the inter-glacial could end and the sea level could drop because water is trapped in the newly formed glaciers. If I knew anyone who could be relied on to hold the bets, I’d bet on ice.
Apparently doesn’t take much to get a pub credit these days.

prjindigo
March 20, 2012 3:56 am

the study actually means “up to 70 feet further inland” but you know its much more scary when they say “seventy feet higher”
If Atlantis was half the size of Australia and rose in the middle of the deeps in the Pacific the sea level wouldn’t rise 70 feet…

Gilbert K. Arnold
March 20, 2012 3:56 am

Sandy says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:31 am
Scientific value : V
Number of authors : N
V = N^-2
Thanks Willis!! 😀
Actually the correct equation is: V = 1/’N^2
Just thought I’d clear that up.

March 20, 2012 4:22 am

Not peer reviewed by Zager & Evans, thus invalid.

Zac
March 20, 2012 4:27 am

India and China are obviously not buying it. They have told the EU what they can do with their emissions trading scheme.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/uk-india-eu-emission-idUKLNE82I02Y20120319

George
March 20, 2012 4:28 am

Only 22 meters? Take a look at geologic history, where you will see that the long-term stable air temperature for the Earth was in the order of 25 C, about 10 C warmer than it is now, and that sea level was about 100 meters above its present level. I commend to your attention the history of the Florida Platform, and the pattern of shoreline change on that Platform.
Hard data show us that at the depth of the Pleistocene sea level was more than 100 meters below present, and in the Eocene it was some 100 meters above present. But in the Eocene the Earth began to cool, and ice appeared at the poles and in mountain glaciers for the first time in 200 million years.
All shorelines change with time, some faster than others due to the effects of orogeny. Shorelines, like ice caps and glaciers, are temporary. What is hard to understand is the time involved in these changes, because we human beings are terrifically anthropocentric, and judge rates of change in terms of our own brief lives. Anthropocentricism is a real curse, as evidenced by the current confusion about climate change.
George, CPG

wermet
March 20, 2012 4:32 am

“You don’t need to sell your beach real estate yet, because melting of these large ice sheets will take from centuries to a few thousand years,” Miller said.

So from this, I assume that the sea level will rise faster than humans can migrate. Or am I missing something?
In a few thousand years, I hope that humans have colonized the moon, Mars and are well on their way to other stars. Otherwise, all that science fiction I read was simply a waste of time… 🙂

Phil
March 20, 2012 4:35 am

Oh wouldn’t it be wonderful.
I could more the yacht at the foot of my bottom padock. All I have to do is live that long.

Zac
March 20, 2012 4:38 am

prjindigo, thanks for that I was wondering how it could possibly rise 70 feet vertically all over the globe. One, there isn’t enough ice to do that and two just a small rise means the oceans would spread out and become larger on a horizontal plane thus halting/limiting the vertical rise. Yes up to 70 feet further inland makes a lot more sense. How do they get away with this sensationalist propaganda?

Jimbo
March 20, 2012 4:38 am

Miller said, however, that this research highlights the sensitivity of the earth’s great ice sheets to temperature change, suggesting that even a modest rise in temperature results in a large sea-level rise.

Did Co2 rise follow temperature rise? Is this not what the Vostok ice cores tell us? The people who lived through the Holocene Climate Optimum must have been drenched. Anyway, after the ‘hottest decade’ on the record the rate of sea level rise seems to be flattening. What is up? Or down. 😉

Owen in Ga
March 20, 2012 4:41 am

@NotTheAussiePhil
Of course if you transform the field into a three dimensional mass space it is a measure of volume of an item transformed to that space. 🙂
They do realize that naturally at some point in future geologic time, the Earth WILL emerge from the current ice age of which we are only in a brief pause and the sea levels will indeed rise phenomenally. If man is still here when it happens, we will have had NOTHING to do with it.

Owen in Ga
March 20, 2012 4:42 am

I forgot to add “Don’t they?” to my previous at the end. I should really read my posts before posting them.

George Lawson
March 20, 2012 4:46 am

This is wonderful news. I was so deperately worried when we learned that the Ice caps would be gone by 2013. and that winter snow would be gone for ever by now. How marvelous that these knowledgable and committed warmists have now told us not to worry for the next 10 thousand or so years and that our grand children are going to be safe after all. I was also impressed by the finding in their research when Professor Miller said “this research highlights the sensitivity of the earth’s great ice sheets to temperature change” I presume he means if it warms above freezing. But who ever would have thought that ice would melt if it got warmer. The sponors of their research must be staggered by their findings and be really pleased that their money has been well spent. I presume the research group will be going on to grammar school in the next year or so.

Zac
March 20, 2012 4:55 am

And now we read that Britain’s green taxes have caused its carbon footprint to increase by 20%. Who would have thunk it?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117428/Britains-carbon-footprint-increased-20-cent-despite-green-taxes.html

Ian W
March 20, 2012 4:57 am

David Cage says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:36 am
I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted with the discredit when nature proves their forecasts to be utter trash. I suppose they may well be defended from their crass incompetence by the protection of the media which appears to be burying predictions like the hundred months to doomsday runaway temperature prediction surprisingly successfully.

Sorry its already too late. Looking at responses to research stories now all researchers are being tarred with the same ‘research results for rent money’ responses. If it becomes apparent that things are not going to forecast the media will volte-face overnight and pick up a new meme any criticism will be placed at the doors of science getting it wrong again.
The real damage to science though is the universities churning out graduates that have been brainwashed to believe and not been educated enough to realize that they have been brainwashed. What chance any new good engineers or scientists from that group?

March 20, 2012 5:15 am

Research that’s short on real data but long on extrapolation is indistinguishable from day dreaming by a 3-year old.

unknownknowns
March 20, 2012 5:20 am

@pwl, you seem to have a couple of typos in your post (March 20, 2012 at 12:19 am):
2,580,000 vs 2,850,000 and cubic kilograms vs cubic kilometers.

March 20, 2012 5:24 am

I don’t get it. We have decades of science and more data than can be rehashed in a lifetime, yet these CO2 alarmists continue on. In the stated “centuries to a few thousand years,” sea level will fall by meters as the ice sheets readvance and wipe out much of civilization in the northern hemisphere. As Harold Ambler says, “Don’t Sell Your Coat.”
Cold kills. Warmer is better.

March 20, 2012 5:27 am

Christie wants to merge Rutgers with Rowan due to $ levels dropping. The fast money has been on the warm burner for several decades now. Makes you wonder if this is a “follow the money” thing.

elbapo
March 20, 2012 5:35 am

the only variable in the level of glaciation and sea level is c02. The one and only variable. I was sure this level of understanding has been surpassed by now, even by the mainstream media.

Coach Springer
March 20, 2012 5:39 am

Christopher Hanley says:
March 20, 2012 at 1:03 am
Can’t more productive work be found for these people to do?
=========================================================================
I doubt it. This is their very best work. So, not for these guys. And preferably not anything important or involving sharp instruments or heavy equipment.

John Law
March 20, 2012 5:48 am

Christopher Hanley says:
March 20, 2012 at 1:03 am
“Can’t more productive work be found for these people to do?
There’ll probably be a market for journeyman pontoon fabricators in 12,000 years or so …”
Probably not enough time to retrain them!

March 20, 2012 5:50 am

It has already degraded science. I used to love all things scientific and believed in peer review. Now I take science discoveries with a grain of salt. I also bemoan the explosion of modelling in science, and other fields – just waiting to form the next insanity.
Take the standard model of the universe which works a treat only if it’s filled mostly with dark matter and dark energy, neither of which exists to the best of our knowledge. I am glad for them, but only while they don’t try to tax me for it.

gallopingcamel
March 20, 2012 5:51 am

The Rutgers guy has the cart before the horse. The CO2 concentration was high 2-3 million years ago because the oceans were warmer. Glassman has a theory that fits the facts:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Jean Parisot
March 20, 2012 5:57 am

When are we going see degree programs in sensational, agitprop writing? Why bother making these guys take the hard maths?

Owen in GA
March 20, 2012 6:03 am


I prefer the 3 year old day dreams…they don’t destroy the economies of the world!

Pofarmer
March 20, 2012 6:03 am

So, 3.2 million years ago we know what the Global temperature was down to a couple of degree’s Centigrade, really?

Bill Wood
March 20, 2012 6:11 am

This reflects favorably on the brilliant foresight of Senator Byrd (D-WV) in his efforts to neutralize this immediate threat by moving the Federal government to West Virginia. Compare this with the shortsightedness of Senator Gore the Lesser (D-TN) buying beachfront property in California.

Pamela Gray
March 20, 2012 6:12 am

What was at one time a real education has been replaced by village idiots playing caps and gowns. So here is an idea whose time has come. Kick every 18 year old out of your house and let them sink or swim on their own. Do it now. Don’t fund their schooling. Don’t pay their rent. And for heaven’s sake, don’t feed them. Thus grounded in reality, we have a more reasonable chance of a future lived in freedom.
Freedom isn’t free, but if we send people to universities on someone else’s dime, they learn something we never intended them to learn. It is time for us to own up to the fact that we more than likely sent our village idiots to university. And now our collective stupidity has come home to roost.

Jim Clarke
March 20, 2012 6:22 am

“higley7 says:
March 20, 2012 at 5:15 am
Research that’s short on real data but long on extrapolation is indistinguishable from day dreaming by a 3-year old.”
Please… do not insult 3-year olds.

thanes
March 20, 2012 6:23 am

People being happy about this nice winter weather is analogous to a death row inmate being excited that the food just got a lot better. You guys in this Right Wing echo chamber want any cherry pie?

adolfogiurfa
March 20, 2012 6:28 am

Whence will it come all that water?, it´s real water !

wws
March 20, 2012 6:29 am

Agree – too late for the reputation of “Science” to be saved. “Science” as it is practiced by Rutgers et al has a very simple formula:
1) define the conclusions you want to reach
2) design a computer program with enough variables and assumptions to allow you to reach those conclusions, regardless of the underlying data.
3) Plug in some random data and run the program.
3a) if the results are not what you expect, dump the program and start over.
3b) if the program brings forth the desired conclusion, rejoice! The work is done
4) Once the “proper” conclusion has been reached, announce the results to the public with great fanfare and declare “The Science is Settled!!!”
5) Bask in the warm glow of all the money that will flow in from government and all other vested interests who have a strong financial stake in seeing you reach the “right” conclusions; ie, the conclusions which will allow them to separate the most people from the most money.
5) Wash, rinse, repeat.

March 20, 2012 6:32 am

All you need to know about this is that one researcher is “now with Chevron Corp”. That means that he is funded by big oil, which means that nothing he says can be believed.

DirkH
March 20, 2012 6:39 am

David Cage says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:36 am
“I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted with the discredit when nature proves their forecasts to be utter trash.”
Too late.
http://www.neurope.eu/article/talking-risk-and-benefits-eu-s-first-lady-science
Science is a branch of politics.

Jaye Bass
March 20, 2012 6:46 am

Progressive institutions of higher learning…oy. Academics are incredibly spoiled.

Joseph Bastardi
March 20, 2012 6:47 am

The correct conclusion is that CO2 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GLOBAL TEMP, not that the global temp has to rise and melt the ice sheets. Typical drivel

Billy Liar
March 20, 2012 6:58 am

Gilbert K. Arnold says:
March 20, 2012 at 3:56 am
Sandy says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:31 am
Scientific value : V
Number of authors : N
V = N^-2
Thanks Willis!! 😀
Actually the correct equation is: V = 1/’N^2
Just thought I’d clear that up.

You’re obviously unaware that V = N^-2 ≡ V = 1/N^2 ( ≡ = is the same as)

David Ball
March 20, 2012 7:14 am

We will probably have a Carrington-like event before then, so it shouldn’t be difficult for the remaining human population ( or the ruling apes, lol ) to move their huts further up the beach, …

Olen
March 20, 2012 7:20 am

Reports like this will continue as long as government gives support for reports like this.

Pull My Finger
March 20, 2012 7:21 am

thanes, climaet scientists have been making dire predictions for decades and so far none of these catastrophic results have even come close to reality. You are the sucker.

Don K
March 20, 2012 7:25 am

Has anyone tracked down the real paper? Is it paywalled? The press release looks to me like classic climate crap — poorly written speculative fiction disguised as science. And I’m a bit hazy on how data from New Zealand (not remotely tectonically stable) and Eniwetok ( low coral islands with a maximum elevation of about 2 meters above current sea level) can tell us much about sea levels 2-3 million years ago.
That said, there is a structure in Virginia and the Carolinas called the Suffolk Scarp that does seem to indicate that sea levels might have been 3-8 meters higher a few hundred thousand years ago. Given mankind’s proclivity for building expensive and essential infrastructure just above mean higher high water, 3-8 meters of sea level rise would likely be a very real problem.

Hal
March 20, 2012 7:33 am

How did these guys ever become Professors of Anything?

kbray in california
March 20, 2012 7:42 am

Steve Goddard has revealed an interesting trajectory line too…
http://www.Real-Science.com/the-linear-trend
reminds me of those real estate prices a few years back…..

Arno Arrak
March 20, 2012 7:42 am

First, let’s clear the CO2 level out of the way. Ferenc Miskolczi has shown, using NOAA database of weather balloon observations, that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for 61 years. Carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent during this time. This means that addition of this carbon dioxide to atmosphere had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is today but one would think someone would have deduced it sooner from the wide discrepancy between CO2 and temperature in geologic time, not to mention the reverse order of temperature and CO2 in ice cores. Now the sea level. Chao, Yu, and Li (Science 320:212-214 April 11th 2008) found that the sea level rise has been linear for at last eighty years. The slope of the sea level rise curve was 2.46 millimeters per year which works out to a little under ten inches per century. Anything that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. So what is it now? Satellites report 3 millimeters per year, within the statistical error of sea level projection from Chao, Yu, and Li. Now that you know what sea level to expect you can throw out all the fantasies from Miller to Gore that depend on a non-existent greenhouse effect.

Doug Proctor
March 20, 2012 7:46 am

Charlie A says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:15 am
So the natural sea level height is 20 meters higher with today’s CO2 levels.
What is the natural sea level height with the CO2 level of 1700 or 1800AD ?
Charlie A gets it. But his point will be lost on the warmists: if today’s CO2 and 2C (above 1850?, as that is the reference, 1.3C more to go) “naturally” result in a melting of ice and a rise of 70′, what would a lower CO2 level and DROP of 2C do to sea level?
Notice that the physics works only one way? That back during the LIA the sea level didn’t drop by 70′ – or even 10′?
I’m still getting a grip on the particulars of “post-normal science”. This must be another of those features. Warming melts, cooling doesn’t do anything. But, apparently, only Gore-times warming, as the Minoan, Roman and MWP did nothing to sea levels.
CO2 doesn’t cause sea-level changes. Temperature changes enough to cause melting OR freezing causes sea-level changes.
What is wrong with these people?

RDG
March 20, 2012 7:55 am

thanes says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:23 am
People being happy about this nice winter weather is analogous to a death row inmate being excited that the food just got a lot better. You guys in this Right Wing echo chamber want any cherry pie?
**********************************
If ‘right wing echo chamber’ means capable of laughing at the patently absurd, I thank you.

TomRude
March 20, 2012 8:00 am

Pathetic paper and that Peltier would co sign this kind of garbage is really sad.

Justthinkin
March 20, 2012 8:06 am

Why don’t they just come out and speak the truth? This “research” was done to see if we can scam some more money from brain dead sheeples and their gubermints(for us),while at the same time adhereing to the Useless Nation’s treay #21 to help reduce world population by diverting much needed monies and energies to us.
Marx,lenin,etal must be kicking their butts they didn’t come up with such as simple scheme.
Oh well.At least they spouted something about a few thousand years from now.Wish I could play the markets for just a few DAYS from now!

Garry Stotel
March 20, 2012 8:09 am

As I learned from Anthony’s posts, sea rise in the XX century was about 30 cm, and the rate of the sea rise has not accelerated. We are in the second decade of the XXI century, and so far had no warming, and I remember reading that the rates of the rise are dithering.
To speed the sea rise trend to 90 cm by the end of the century we indeed need to have some kind of catastrophic global warming, or something…
Also, what CO2 has got to do with global temperature (if there is such a thing)? A couple of million years ago sea levels may have been 70m higher, and so was CO2. But it does not follow that the CO2 caused the higher sea levels…

kbray in california
March 20, 2012 8:15 am

Looks like the Arctic Sea Ice Area has expanded enough to have intersect the 1979-2006 monthly average on the Norsex SSM/I chart…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
I’ve been holding my breath, so that proves it works. :-]

Brandon
March 20, 2012 8:20 am

So we are right back where we started. Geologists point out that past interglacial had much higher sea level peaks than our current level, so we can expect sea level to rise alot yet. Our cities are not “sustainable” in their current locations (something we already knew looking at past sea levels). But it will take centuries or millenia to happen.
So……..no problem then. The age expectancy of our cities and their infrastructure is only about 100-200 years, tops. So we move our cities slowly as sea level creeps up, and since we need to rebuild the infrastructure anyway, there is zero lost wealth. Failing to see the emergency here.

Rob Crawford
March 20, 2012 8:42 am

I love the assumption that current conditions are permanent.

David Corcoran
March 20, 2012 8:57 am

Rob Crawford says:
March 20, 2012 at 8:42 am
I love the assumption that current conditions are permanent.
…..
I love the assumption that despite 121+ years of environmental doomsaying, The world has seen no man-made environmental cataclysms.
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

March 20, 2012 9:49 am

Ho-Hum.

jayhd
March 20, 2012 10:00 am

Is there any way we can speed up this sea level rise? All that coastal development would make fantastic fishing structure when it gets flooded!
Jay Davis

adolfogiurfa
March 20, 2012 10:03 am

@Joseph Bastardi: Putting it in electromagnetic terms : you cannot tune a FM radio station with a AM only receiver. As simple as that.
More interesting is that this law applies to EVERYTHING, thus information, “knowledge”, being as material as everything else in the universe, cannot be “seen”, “tuned” by a gross mind having a primitive circuitry. LOL!. Through this generalization you can explain the crying of some people, when rejecting or angrily responding deniers!

March 20, 2012 10:07 am

The one world government will stem this sea level rise. Don’t worry. Human gene engineering can give us gills in any case.

DonS
March 20, 2012 10:11 am

I’ve been trying to locate their budget and money sources. I’d like to take soil and rock samples in London, Paris, Rio and Singapore next year, accompanied by a few carefully selected colleagues. If needs must, we will also produce a paper. Any idea where to look?

Gail Combs
March 20, 2012 10:15 am

David Cage says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:36 am
I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted with the discredit when nature proves their forecasts to be utter trash…..
________________________
Considering most (All?) of the learned societies of science have also jumped of the bandwagon to support CAGW I would not bet the farm on it. Several of the scientists here at WUWT have given up membership in those learned societies because of their blind support.
Science is going to get the black eye it richly deserves in my opinion. The high and mighty ivory tower types need to be knocked off their pedestals.

Marc77
March 20, 2012 10:29 am

One problem with this analysis, a 2C warmer planet might not accumulate ice at the poles when there is no ice, but it might accumulate ice when there is already an ice pack. Climate is not necessarily as simple as that. It’s not an amount of ice for a certain temperature. It’s a rate of ice increase that depends on the temperature and the amount of ice already present.

Gail Combs
March 20, 2012 10:37 am

David Cage says:
March 20, 2012 at 12:36 am
I just hope the stupid scaremongering of all those even remotely involved in climate sciences does not discredit science to such a degree that all the other branches are tainted
Ian W says:
March 20, 2012 at 4:57 am
Sorry its already too late. Looking at responses to research stories now all researchers are being tarred with the same ‘research results for rent money’ responses…..
The real damage to science though is the universities churning out graduates that have been brainwashed to believe and not been educated enough to realize that they have been brainwashed. What chance any new good engineers or scientists from that group?
___________________________
All I can tell you is that I was a Lab Manager for years and I gave up on the younger crowd. I would not look at anyone under 35. This was because of poor manners, a worse work ethic and a Know -it -All attitude that dynamite would not penetrate.

Jeff L
March 20, 2012 10:43 am

Hmmm ….. CO2 was @ the same levels but temps were 2 deg C warmer ….. Sounds like there are other forcing mechanisms besides CO2 @ work. Oh yeah, that’s what skeptics have been saying all along. Life for the alarmists is not easy – the data just won’t cooperate

Leo Morgan
March 20, 2012 11:04 am

There’s something I’ve wondered about for some time.
Antarctica is said to be the driest continent on Earth. It’s so cold that all the moisture freezes out of the air.
Wouldn’t we therefore expect a warming world to permit water to travel much further inland, and to accumulate as much more snow and ice than currently exists there?
Has anybody calculated the effect this would have?

mfo
March 20, 2012 11:57 am

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1052257
Award Abstract #1052257
“Pliocene peak sea level and warmth: Integration of a Virginia corehole array and deep-sea isotope and trace metal records.
“Investigator(s): Kenneth Miller kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Principal Investigator) …
“PIs promise to establish the sea level rise associated with warm Pliocene high stands. This is critical to our understanding of the cryosphere during a time that has been suggested by many to be similar in some respects to conditions expected by the end of this century.
Awarded Amount to Date: $75488”

John from CA
March 20, 2012 12:13 pm

The conclusions are absurd.
“They looked at the late Pliocene epoch, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, the last time the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were 2 degrees C higher than they are now.”
Did anyone explain to Miller that the Earth was spinning faster than it is now (the day was much shorter in length and the earth’s shape was different).
Comparing the present to the late Pliocene epoch is ridiculous.

Billy Liar
March 20, 2012 12:57 pm

Leo Morgan says:
March 20, 2012 at 11:04 am
There’s something I’ve wondered about for some time.
Antarctica is said to be the driest continent on Earth. It’s so cold that all the moisture freezes out of the air. Wouldn’t we therefore expect a warming world to permit water to travel much further inland, and to accumulate as much more snow and ice than currently exists there?
Has anybody calculated the effect this would have?

In the international standard atmosphere, the 0°C isotherm is at 7,500 ft. Let’s say that a 2°C increase in surface temperature has a linear effect; that would put the 0°C isotherm at 8,500 ft. This is not going to stop glaciers forming on plenty of the world’s mountains. Any increase in humidity would cause more precipitation to fall and the glaciers, although they would start higher up, would probably extend to lower altitudes because of the increase in the flow of ice.
Interesting hypothesis.

Robbie
March 20, 2012 2:12 pm

Title of the paper please. Is that so hard to do in the text?
I would like to read the actual source. Not some media mumbo jumbo.

March 20, 2012 3:55 pm

We have just been informed that researchers, led by Kenneth G. Miller, professor of earth and planetary sciences in the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University did come to some wrong conclusions.
STOP PRESS – STOP PRESS!!
We can now reveal that although their study results are mainly correct, “the time-span of thousands of years conclusion”, cannot be substantiated as new and later research by a former bicycle repairman and tractor-mechanic – turned professor of EIFW and Planetary Assumptions Owen R Darhipsy – shows that it is happening much faster than the good Miller and his team first anticipated. – That the year 2100 sticks in our minds, he says, is no coincidence. –It is because unconsciously – we know that – for life as we know it – that is the end year.
Sorry, Dr Owen R Darhipsy says, but all you fossil- guzzlers are still a boil festering in your grandchildren’s minds.
– But there is a solution he says – and he urges humans to build more and bigger boats. – And – don’t forget the rafts, he adds.
If you think this is all BS, then all I can say is that I was not the one who started it!

March 20, 2012 4:27 pm

A few million years ago, Antarctica was not as centered on the South Pole
as it is now. There was a cooling trend over the past several million years,
especially from 3 to 1.1 million years ago. The cooling trend was in large
part from Antarctica drifting to a location favoring year-round ice over
nearly all of the continent.
Also, I have seen that the 2 degree C rise to avoid is 2 degrees C above
pre-industrial temperature levels, when HadCRUT3 averaged around .25
degree C below its baseline. In recent years, HadCRUT3 has been around
.4 degree C above its baseline. So, maybe as little as 1.35 degrees C of
warming from where we have been in recent years is the maximum that is
“safe”. 2 degrees of warming on top of .4 degree above “HadCRUT3
baseline” may be unsafe.
There is also the matter of global climate sensitivity to change of CO2.
In recent years, I have mostly come up with .67 to 1.48 degree C per 2x
change of CO2 (on log scale). For example, I use the woodfortrees.org
tool, using it on a recent 13 year period that I selected for appearing to
have little linear trend in ENSO or AMO. (Beginning of 1999 to beginning
of 2012.) That says warming rate of .044 degree/decade, which I think
*may be* the result of CO2 increasing at rate of .199 log scale doubling
from 1980 to 2010. This *may indicate* climate sensitivity to CO2 being
.67 degree C per 2x change of CO2.
I have done other efforts, such as a recent one on considering 2001
version of HadCRUT (before it had significant downward adjustment of past
times), from its 1944 spike to its 2005 hump. That is close to 1 cycle of the
~64 year period that is easily visible in HadCRUT. As a result, I come up
with climate sensitivity to CO2 change around .7-.9 degree per 2x change
in CO2.
Another effort I have done is identifying and removing the ~64 year periodic
component in HadCRUT3, to isolate temperature increase due to increase
of greenhouse gases. Further, I figure how much of the remaining warming in
1973-2005 was from anthropogenic increase of greenhouse gases other than
CO2, which was largely stalled in the mid 1990’s. At that rate, I came up with
climate sensitivity around 1.25-1.48 degree C per 2x change of CO2.
However, the 2001 version of HADCRUT shows less warming from 1973 to
1978, and even greater ~64 year periodic component, than 2008 version and
more recent versions. So, if I redo that work using HADCRUT having less of
adjustments, I would probably come up with climate sensitivity a little less than
1.3 degree C per 2x change of CO2 – possibly close to the “zero feedback
figure” of 1.12 degree C per 2x change of CO2.

Jeef
March 20, 2012 5:15 pm

“Posted by News Staff”
WUWT has acquired some News Staff! Good stuff.
———–
Paid for by big oil via Heartland no doubt. Nefarious Contrarians!! 😉

March 20, 2012 5:16 pm

Gail Combs says on March 20, 2012 at 10:37 am:
“All I can tell you is that I was a Lab Manager for years and I gave up on the younger crowd. I would not look at anyone under 35. This was because of poor manners, a worse work ethic and a Know -it -All attitude that dynamite would not penetrate.”
========
I’ve got the “T shirt” Gail, but as far as I can see, it looks like we (us humans) spawn a generation – or two, or three – of caring, diligent people and then —Pwfifft – for a generation or two pure nonsense people emerge.
Maybe the answer is that sense and nonsense is very equally distributed amongst us and that “the tipping point” is really a “Seesaw”
In the case of “Climate research” let’s hope I am wrong, as ever since Euclid, some 2300 years ago (to my knowledge), first instated the basic “Thermodynamic Law”- (now named “The Zeroth Law”) and up until the late 19th Century when Maxwell proposed and Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1857 –1894) clarified and expanded on the electromagnetic theory of light, the research done was a “research” of the Earth System, i.e. the Atmosphere, The Land surfaces and the Oceans, rivers and lakes.
Ever since “electromagnetism” (EM) was discovered, climate-science has gone to pot.
If you wish to study what EM is you will be as baffled – as you already are – if you now study what “energy” really is. – Nowadays, you study models.
Don’t get used to it!

March 20, 2012 5:20 pm

There is another matter: We are likely approaching the end of an interglacial
period of the roughly 100,000 year cycle that has been prominent for about
11 cycles.
Something else: Climate sensitivity to change of CO2 may vary inversely with
global temperature when global temperature change correlates with a change
of amount of greenhouse gases. In fact, I think it probably does. Why: The
lapse rate feedback (a negative one) probably increases as increase of
greenhouse gases increases the lapse rate, and vice versa.

March 20, 2012 5:40 pm

Robbie says on March 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm:
“Title of the paper please. Is that so hard to do in the text?
I would like to read the actual source. Not some media mumbo jumbo.”
=========
If you are the handsome little Robbie my wife gave birth to some 54 years ago, I’ll gladly strangle you right now, you little so and so.
You must learn that in a written letter you begin either with Dear Sir or Dear Madam (o k maybe madman)
But here on WUWT please tell us, somehow, who you are addressing. – It should be easy enough even for imbeciles

barry
March 20, 2012 6:03 pm

We’ve emitted the same amount of CO2 over 150 years that it took natural processes to outgas over 5 milennia in the last 3 glacial terminations. The same amount of CO2 that accompanied global warming of 6C in a thirtieth of the time. And we’re currently still emitting at an even faster rate. We’re conducting a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere and we have a poor idea of what the outcomes will be. We are inside the test-tube – we can’t escape the experiment.
I don’t know what will happen or how fast. Optimism about low impacts jar with emphasis on the uncertainty of knowledge. Either the IPCC range of projections is a fair indicator of potentials, or their upper values are too unlikely, in which case one is arguing for greater certainty than the IPCC gives out.
For those who stress unertainty and don’t make the mistake of equating this with more likelihood for lower impacts in the future, I do not know how it is possible to shrug the shoulders considering the scenario in my first para.
For those who are more certain of (low impact) outcomes than the IPCC, I hope you are right.

Jim in Kalama, WA
March 20, 2012 7:03 pm

Darn it, anyhow. I was going to break ground and begin construction of my pleasure boat pier to celebrate the coming of Spring this weekend. But, only 70 feet of rise ? I need an additional 33 feet to be able to dock my boat. And, by constructing now, I can build my pier without swimming or rowing a boat.

Bill Illis
March 20, 2012 8:11 pm

I have Miller’s previously published data on Sea level and what he is now saying about late Pliocene sea levels, 2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago, is completely different.
The average over this whole period according to Miller 2005 was -16 metres below today. The variance is from -55 metres to +20 metres. So another bandwagon jumper and I hope he reads that..
All paleo sea level estimates starting 580 million years ago (going in the opposite direction most people are used to but I am too lazy to update it).
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/328/paleosealevelcurves.png
Paleo sea levels are very unusual in that not only are ice levels involved, but also the age of ocean basins, the relative conglomeration of continents etc.
100 million years ago, sea level was 250 metres higher and the continents were 25% flooded by the ocean. Most of our oil comes from this period as a result ….

E.M.Smith
Editor
March 21, 2012 1:54 am

Sea level is headed down now…
Oh, and in about 1500 years we are headed into the next Ice Age Glacial, so any projections beyond that are meaningless. It’s baked into the cake in our orbital mechanics.
And Antarctic Ice is already growing… that ice comes from water that comes from the ocean…
And…
Oh, nevermind. This is just so brain dead. Folks need to go to dinner at the nearest warf and notice that the water is NOT higher. There are “ports” in Italy, Greece, Turkey and all over the place that are now inland, as water levels have dropped since the days of the Roman Empire.

LazyTeenager
March 21, 2012 5:47 am

Interstellar Bill says
Warm oceans = high CO2.ectrob
Warmistas confuse the effect with the cause.
—————
They don’t get confused at all. But when you have feedback effects, cause and effect become kinda meaningless or at least not useful.
Anyone who has a decent understanding of electronics will tell you that if feedback is present in a circuit, perturbing the input will change the output and perturbing the output will change the input.
In the case of CO2 an initial warming produces more CO2, which in turn causes more warming, which produces more CO2 and so on……… It’s this cycle of multiplication that allows tiny solar isolation changes to move the earth out of an ice age.
BUT
The process does not have to start with warming. The initial change can be a change in CO2.

Shooter
March 21, 2012 6:18 am

At least they had the decency to say the ice caps would melt over time, not instantly. And 70 feet? Last I checked, it was just a few inches!

March 21, 2012 9:32 am

Excuse me for butting in LazyTeenager but you say on March 21, 2012 at 5:47 am:
“They don’t get confused at all. But when you have feedback effects, ———.
————-. In the case of CO2 an initial warming produces more CO2, which in turn causes more warming, which produces more CO2 and so on……… It’s this cycle of multiplication that allows tiny solar isolation changes to move the earth out of an ice age.
BUT
The process does not have to start with warming. The initial change can be a change in CO2.”
========
All the evidence from Ice Core graphs show that warming (T) came first, and then the atmospheric CO2 level started rising. – At no point during that rise do the two graph lines (CO2 and T) cross over.
BUT
Once they (CO2 and T) are at the top and have stayed for a while, T starts falling back while CO2 stays for a while longer. (Just as the situation is at the moment – and has been for the past 8 or 9 thousand years) –
Why should that be happening if CO2 is the driving force behind warming?

Syl
March 21, 2012 12:39 pm

When I first started looking in the matter of global warming about six years ago I ran across a pdf by a geologist out in California. IIRC he was at one time the state geologist. In that paper he said the high stands that represented sea level height before the last age are still visible in certain parts of California. He said we have a good 40 meters yet to go before the next glaciation kicks in.
This kind of makes coming sea level rise a natural occurrence with or without CO2.
Unfortunately I don’t remember his name and the pdf I saved was on a pc that died of heat death and took all the insides with it.

noloctd
March 21, 2012 1:50 pm

The authors have clearly constructed their model to showing rising grant income for themselves.

John Brookes
March 22, 2012 4:35 am

Looks like a good paper. But the residents here dislike any actual research into climate, preferring planetary influences, oceanic cycles and tarot readings.
The level of misunderstanding above is enormous. Surely the best is thinking that N^(-2) is different to 1/(N^2). Oh well.

Gail Combs
March 22, 2012 4:55 am

mfo says:
March 20, 2012 at 11:57 am
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1052257
Award Abstract #1052257
“Pliocene peak sea level and warmth: Integration of a Virginia corehole array and deep-sea isotope and trace metal records.
“Investigator(s): Kenneth Miller kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Principal Investigator) …
“PIs promise to establish the sea level rise associated with warm Pliocene high stands. This is critical to our understanding of the cryosphere during a time that has been suggested by many to be similar in some respects to conditions expected by the end of this century…..
____________________________________
Oh Great.
You can see that much of South Carolina, North Carolina (and I would expect it is true of Virgina) is old sand dunes. That is why part of NC is called “The Sand Hills” “The Sand Hills are hilly, unconnected bands of sand left from the ocean dunes during the Miocene Epoch.” http://sciway2.net/2001/sc-geology/sandhills.htm
I am sure this area of “Research” is rich grounds for some real scare stories to stampede the naive in the USA into accepting Cap and Trade.
The fact the earth was very different then and that whole tectonic plates have shifted will be left out of the narrative.

Though a relatively short epoch, tremendous events occurred during the Pliocene (Plio – more; cene – recent), such as the development of ice caps, the drying of the Mediterranean, and the joining of the Americas…
The formation of a land bridge across the Isthmus of Panama between North and South America had profound impact on the fauna of these continents…
A shift in the Caribbean tectonic plate joined North and South America, providing a land bridge for mammals to migrate across… http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/plio2.htm

garymount
March 22, 2012 5:12 am

John Brookes says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:35 am
—————–
The mathematical error you reference was done by one individual, and it was quickly corrected by another commenter. NASA’s rocket scientists have made mistakes that so far have killed off 17 highly trained astronauts. And you only seem to add snark in comments whenever I come across your “contributions” on science blogs.

Gail Combs
March 22, 2012 5:46 am

John Brookes says:
March 22, 2012 at 4:35 am
Looks like a good paper. But the residents here dislike any actual research into climate, preferring planetary influences, oceanic cycles and tarot readings….
_____________________________
Yes you are correct! Except it is changes in the sun’s insolation not tarot readings. If there is one variable that explains glacial/interglacial it is the Planetary Influences aka Milankovitch cycles.
Milankovitch cycles have been known to all scientists for decades even the warmists.

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
… Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

Dansgaard (Greenland Ice core team) noted three rapid climate collapses are linked to orbital features that diminished the radiance from the sun… Climate Crash

…A more definitive confirmation of Milankovitch came in 1976, in a paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, using Shackleton’s data in the figure above. But long before either that paper or my own, there was widespread behind-the-scenes acceptance of Milankovitch, and Kukla, for one, was concerned about the implications….. http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/

Luboš Motl brings up the basic correction to the Milankovitch cycles that make the theory fit.

…Gerard Roe realized a trivial mistake that had previously been done. And a similar mistake is being done by many people all the time – scientists as well as laymen; alarmists as well as skeptics. The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives…
In defense of Milankovitch, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817, 2006
So the right quantity that should be compared with the insolation – i.e. the sunshine near the Arctic circle – is not the ice volume itself but its time derivative. No doubt about it. This “fix” is analogous to the transition from the Aristotelian science to the Newtonian one. 😉 By taking the derivative, the faster, high-frequency, short-period cycles in the ice volume are amplified while the very slow ones (100,000-year cycles) are suppressed. http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html

Also See:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Hays_OrbitPacemaker_Science76.pdf
OCEANS:

Abrupt and sudden climatic transitions and fluctuations: a review:
A number of persistent oscillations exist, particularly one about 1500 years, but their amplitudes vary considerably between time periods. The Holocene appears to be no more climatically benign than the similar period in the Eemian. The importance of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for generating abrupt climatic changes in Europe, particularly in association with sudden pulses of fresh water, is illustrated. The concept of antiphase temperature changes between the North and South Atlantic is discussed. Externally generated abrupt climatic deteriorations owing to explosive volcanic eruptions and variations in solar irradiance are also discussed. ~ 2001 Royal Meteorological Society: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/85007975/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Gail Combs
March 22, 2012 6:53 am

barry says:
March 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm
We’ve emitted the same amount of CO2 over 150 years that it took natural processes to outgas over 5 milennia in the last 3 glacial terminations. The same amount of CO2 that accompanied global warming of 6C in a thirtieth of the time. And we’re currently still emitting at an even faster rate. We’re conducting a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere…
_____________________________________
And the plants thank us for it because they were close to starving. CO2 levels were much higher in the past and those are the levels the plants are adapted to. Returning CO2 levels to past levels (1,000 ppm) is not “a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment” It is RESTORING the environment. See: http://i32.tinypic.com/nwix4x.png
Plants are so close to starving, that more “CO2 efficient” types are evolving (C4 and CAM). C3 plants include more than 95 percent of the plant species on earth and include varieties such as trees. C4 plants include summer annuals and grasses. The C4 plants photosynthesis is 6 times faster than C3 plants. There is a third kind, the CAM plants.
examples:
C3—–>wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet. (most of the plants are C3)
C4—–>fourwing saltbush, corn ,many of summer annual plants.
CAM—> cactuses,some orchids and bromeliads
I did find in my notes “200 pm CO2 trees starve” SOURCE= http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067 but the link no longer works… Now all the searches turn up papers showing 180 ppm or lower…. I just check a couple of studies the 180 -200 ppm CO2 for trees is now based on “models” derived from the ice cores. Talk about circular reasoning! The death of trees below 200 ppm was one of the arguments against the validity of the CO2 measurements Ice Cores. (There are several others)

…growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3 plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991).” http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf

The minimum level CO2 needed by plants (200 to 300 ppm) can also be inferred from these experiments.
In open air ~ WHEAT:

The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.
source

CO2 depletion in a greenhouses ~ From the people who know and depend on the truth, FARMERS
Hydroponic Shop

…Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient, so air circulation is important. As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or producehttp://www.thehydroponicsshop.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=27

Below 200 PPM, plants do not have enough CO2 to carry on the photosynthesis process and essentially stop growing. Because 300 PPM is the atmospheric CO content, this amount is chosen as the 100% growth point. You can see from the chart that increased CO can double or more the growth rate on most normal plants. Above 2,000 PPM, CO2 starts to become toxic to plants and above 4,000 PPM it becomes toxic to people….. http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php

Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusionSource
Notice that statement…Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… So even the idea that CO2 is evenly mixed in the atmosphere given all the sources and sinks is ludicrous. I worked mix rooms as a chemist for years and the “Well Mix” statement always makes me laugh. Getting stuff to mix and become “Uniform” is no easy task and takes quite a bit of time even in controlled settings with mechanical mixing.
As mike about town said: “They say it’s thoroughly mixed all the way through…..They don’t even understand it to care. So they extrapolate from nanometre scale Brownian motion in a fluid to the whole of their empty vacuum space, ideal gas, gravity less, atmosphere! Stupid isn’t a strong enough word for this.”
Further, the amount of CO2 emitted by termites is enormous, 50 gigatons/year. Source for termite CO2 production: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/218/4572/563
According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)”
Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans. Should we cap-and-tax them? http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
CAGW is a scam to take our money and it is working just fine. We are taxed to fund “Green projects” that move our tax dollars into the pockets of the wealthy. That is what always happens when politicians talk of “spreading the wealth” It is spreading OUR wealth among THEIR friends.

%d bloggers like this: