And a bunch of volcanoes could erupt, and a Carrington type solar flare event could happen, and an asteroid could hit the Earth. I worry about these far more than Antarctica.
From Penn State climate modeling via Eurekalert:
An ice sheet model that includes previously underappreciated processes indicates that sea level may rise almost 50 feet by 2500 due to Antarctic ice sheet melting if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, according to researchers from Penn State and University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
“In this case the atmospheric warming will soon become the dominant driver of ice loss, but prolonged ocean warming will delay the recovery for thousands of years,” the researchers report in today’s (Mar. 31) issue of Nature.
Antarctica was the primary contributor to sea level rise in the past and may be the primary contributor in the future because much of its ice sits on ground. Floating ice, like that of the Arctic Ocean, is already in the water and if it melts, does not raise sea level. The Antarctic contribution will also probably dominate melt from the smaller Greenland Ice Sheet. While only parts of Antarctica will melt in the worst case scenario, the melting suggested by the model would be sufficient to double the recent estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for future sea-level rise over the next 100 years.
“Recently we looked at the long-standing problem posed by geological evidence that suggests sea level rose dramatically in the past, possibly up to 10 to 20 meters around 3 million years ago in the Pliocene,” said David Pollard, senior scientist in Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Penn State. “Existing models couldn’t simulate enough ice sheet melting to explain that.”
Ocean warming has previously been identified as the main cause of ice retreat occurring today. Warmer water quickly erodes the underside of floating ice sheet portions. Floating ice shelves act as buttresses for the grounded ice inland, whose base is below sea level. Once the shelves are gone, the grounded ice can move faster. However, in previous models, this process did not simulate enough melting to explain the past sea levels, with only West Antarctica collapsing even though similar areas in East Antarctica with huge amounts of ice could collapse in the same manner.
Pollard, working with Robert M. DeConto, professor of geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, looked at two further mechanisms that could account for greater melting. The first mechanism is fracturing and deepening of crevasses on the low-lying floating ice shelves by pooling of surface meltwater and rainfall caused by warming air temperatures. If emissions continue unabated, this process will begin to dominate ocean warming within 100 years. It already caused the disintegration of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002.
The second mechanism comes into play once floating ice sheets disintegrate back to the grounding zone, leaving extremely high walls of ice. These walls are so high that simple physics says they cannot structurally support their weight, and then collapse into the sea, eroding the cliff further and further inland as long as the bedrock stays deep enough below sea level. Similar cliffs, with about 328 feet of ice above sea level and 2625 feet below, exist today at a few of the largest outlet glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula, where huge calving events occur regularly.
Both of these mechanisms are known, but neither has been applied to this type of ice-sheet model before. The researchers incorporated the physics and tested the model, driven by high-resolution climate models and past climate data. The updated model reproduced ice-sheet retreat consistent with geologic sea-level data for the warm Pliocene and also for the last interglacial period around 125,000 years ago. Then they applied the model to the future, forcing it with various greenhouse-gas emission scenarios.
“Although the future sea-level contribution in our model is greater than previously thought, it is based on credible mechanisms and is consistent with geologic evidence of past sea-level rise,” said Pollard. “We regard the results as worst-case envelopes of possible future behavior, and the mechanisms should be considered seriously in future work.
###
The National Science Foundation supported this work.
Added – Some thoughts to consider h/t to Chip Knappenberger and Mike Bastasch)
The current rate of sea level rise is 3.3mm/year & unchanged over past 25 years.
New York City has effectively dealt with Sea Level Rise since it was founded, see end of this article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/28/freaking-out-about-nyc-sea-level-rise-is-easy-to-do-when-you-dont-pay-attention-to-history/
The Dutch could prevent sea level rise in 1000 AD, I’m pretty sure we have better technology now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands
[snip]
Marcus, you’ve been warned about those kind of comments more than once. Your comments are now being held for moderation. Clean up your act, and you may come off that list.
Is this the same story Anthony? ?http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35926694
Alright last I heard the Antarctic ice sheet was either slightly growing or not appreciably diminishing, so barring a Hollywood based event, it’s not happening. Me no worry.
I’m happy just to learn that their newly discovered/invented/imagined/ conjectured/whatever models are based on ‘credible mechanisms.
Rube Goldberg has a patent on all the incredible mechanisms, so it is good that these researchers are using credible mechanisms for their guesswork.
It is also good that they say that these credible mechanisms, when and if they decide to start to occur “continue unabated”.
Why is it that catastrophic scare type weather events always need to continue unabated in order to create the conjectured calamity ??
Why don’t they do what ordinary non-climate scientists do, and base their models on real things that they have actually observed happening ??
Science after all is supposed to be observation and experimentation of phenomena in the real world. Or words to that effect according to OED.
G
Alarmists are now claiming that the Antarctic sea ice growth is because more fresh water is coming off Antarctica, and it’s easier for the cold fresh water to freeze. For some reason they think that isn’t happening in the Arctic or Greenland.
Full on GW alarmism here… Models say CO2 emissions will also cause extreme weather, and flooding.
Sea levels set to ‘rise far more rapidly than expected’
New research factors in collapsing Antarctic ice sheet that could double the sea-level rise to two metres by 2100 if emissions are not cut
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/30/sea-levels-set-to-rise-far-more-rapidly-than-expected
And what is this process that allows ice to build up so that it is far too high to support its own weight structurally. Usually in playing table games where you build up stuff too high for it to support itself, it will collapse the instant it gets to the point beyond which it can’t remain standing. This can happen as quickly as 10^-43 seconds from the time it gets too high to support itself.
So I thought ice sheets grew (thicker) slowly; excuse me that’s very slowly.
So why do they wait long after they are far too tall to support structurally their own weight ??
This might be the first reported evidence of something actually waiting after it gets to the point of being able to happen, and it just doesn’t happen.
Most physical processes happen as fast as they possibly can and always no faster than that. Nobody is going to tell them to wait until somebody at Penn State wants to study their failure, as it happens. There must be some other unknown mechanism or condition that is stopping it from happening, in which case we have made a grievious error in concluding that it can happen, when in fact it cannot happen because of it being prevented from happening by something we don’t know about.
So in fact because of this X-factor, the unknown factor, the event can’t possibly happen yet so it won’t happen yet; but it will when it can.
G
Who do these Penn State students think is going to hire them for a paying job, after they are able to pass the exams, and get out of school ??
Nobody is going to pay money to find out if something hasn’t happened, even when conditions are such that it cannot possibly have not happened.
That could take forever to find out that something that hasn’t happened isn’t going to happen even though it absolutely can’t not happen.
I can see a coming need for more post doc fellowships, to feed all these students who are unable to get a job.
G
“Who do these Penn State students think is going to hire them for a paying job,”
Why that’s easy, they go on the dole, the climatstrologist dole that is. After all isn’t Penn state where the Mann is…
“Who do these Penn State students think is going to hire them for a paying job,”
The government will hire them. Bureaucrats are exactly what they are training to be.
It’s not the sheets that collapse, it’s the cliff face that’s the leading edge of it. It collapses because the ice that used to be there, floating on the sea, melted and calved into icebergs. If you have a sloping hill and the lower part of the hill floats away, what’s left is a cliff.
“New research factors in collapsing Antarctic ice sheet that could double the sea-level rise to two meters by 2100 if emissions are not cut”
=====================
Hum? when did we get to one meter? We are on pace for about five inches.
I’m sufficiently alarmed by the claims of these scientists that as soon as I stop typing this, I’ll be out in the yard digging a hole to install a depth gauge. I live only about 25 feet above current sea level, so may need an aviation hazard light on top. May I please have the authors’ e-mail addresses, so that, provided they keep them current, I can send them the results in 2500?
And if another dinosaur killer asteroid hits Antarctica, there will be gross sea level rise:-)
Well no ! Such an arsteroid would simply blast all that ice into outer space to become our other water moon, so the sea level would go down and not up.
g
Tom they will unload a little known alarmist trick – A double double!
See Apophis 2036.
I think the assumption must be made that at some point in time (I think for sure in this century) fusion power will replace fossil fuel power. To make predictions about climate change, global warming, rising sea levels etc. out to the year 2500 without assuming that CO2 content in the atmosphere will peak within the next 50 to 100 years is silly.
No scientist should even dare make a projection into 2500. Sheer nonsense.
Here we go again. These “scholars” will be retired by the time their 2500 “projection” can be ascertained.
What makes you think they are scientists, they are greedy people living off they tax payer dime and will say anything to keep that reward.
@R2Dtoo, These “scholars” will be retired,… Retired?… They’ll have been fertilizer a thousand times over by then . And that is being kind.
Well I’m still waiting for somebody to demonstrate controlled continuous nuclear fusion taking place, without using gravitational confinement. But I am not holding up on any plans while waiting for that to happen.
G
“still waiting for” “controlled continuous nuclear fusion”
Probably don’t have to as bigger surprises are some to come in much smaller packages…..
Well I have at least one possible ‘ entity ‘ that can use the text contraction of BFL, but I’m sure that’s wrong, so why don’t you surprise us and mention some (even just one) of these much smaller packages.
In my experience, bigger surprises in much smaller packages, is a sure fire recipe for much greater hazard.
87 octane ordinary oxygen free gasoline is as big a surprise in a small package, that I ever want to be around.
But I’ve had it up to …. here …. with hypotheticals, and so called ” research ” projects that purport to study hypothetical non events that haven’t happened yet, and may never happen.
Yes I understand the concept of sending five ships out to sea carrying valuable cargoes, so you can be fairly sure that one of them will make it through.
But what is your plan B for dealing with the market glut, if all five of your ships make it through ??
G
There’s that crazy assumption again that CO2 causes global warming. Gotta watch that. Crazy sneaks up on a person. Look at Bernie Sanders.
Very good point.
those climate scientists love their models, but they will be long gone before those models are proven to be right or wrong. keep the grants coming in the meantime though. and a Nobel prize wouldn’t be bad either. Has Al Gore sailed to the North Pole yet, as promised?
Pity the poor drowning polar bears.
in our model is greater than previously thought
How can they say that with a straight face?
“How can they say that with a straight face?”
Cash the check first?
What planet are these people on?
Antarctic air temperatures are falling
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Southern ocean temperatures are falling
BTW – what happens a mile under the ice is not climate.
It is geology.
It is not relevant to the only important climate question, that of, when will glacial inception start?
Climate is what happens on the surface.
FIFY: Climate is what happens
on the surfacein the models.Don’t you know that ice cannot structurally support itself when it builds up to over a mile high, so it simply does not build up to such great heights as to be able to have things happen a mile below it.
G
It seems this global warming alarm is just a scare tactic and distraction for the more important issues on our earth.
It’s also telling that they looked back 3 million years ago for a 20m-30m example… when the Big Melt between 18500 and 8000 years ago that followed the last glaciation saw a 120m sea level rise which has tapered off to a miniscule 0-3mm a year.
They didn’t want to point out that sea levels have never remained constant in the last 3 million years or that the rise has slowed to a snail’s crawl from the recent past.
They’re trying to set up another “unprecedented sea level rise” lie.
belousov March 30, 2016 at 12:28 pm
Antarctic air temperatures are falling
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Southern ocean temperatures are falling
It is not relevant to the only important climate question, that of, when will glacial inception start?
____
You missed this one, the ice sheet on land is growing as well, net transfer of water from ocean to land.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses – Oct. 31, 2015
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
What is amazing is that these models fail to take the most crucial thing into account. It is absurd to assume CO2 levels will remain high much beyond 2100. By then we’ll have switched to some nicer form of nuclear (thorium, fusion…something) and CO2 will be removed almost as rapidly as it was released.
While past CO2 fluctuations took thousands of years, the reason for that long uptake has little to do with CO2 exchange…and more to do with ocean temperature changes. At today’s estimated energy imbalance, it will take 500 years for the ocean temperatures to go up even by 1C. And while yes, CO2 did vary with temperature in the past (largely due to that), even if the world was several degrees warmer…the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than could be supported, so the system will only ever remove ever-increasing amounts of CO2 (as levels climb)
From Penn State – no need to read further!
Sadly true. I am a 1971 graduate of PSU (engineering), and it was a great school then, but things have really changed in the last 30 years or so. Back in the 80’s it made national headlines when it became the first university (to admit to) giving minority students cash rewards for getting good grades. Kinda like first graders get a dollar for all ‘A’s, except it was $500 for each ‘A’. So while other kids were ponying up big bucks to pay their tuition for a chance at a quality education, these favored students had to be bribed to go to class, study, and otherwise open their books. Hey, anything to get those diversity numbers up. Since that time it has been political correctness full speed ahead.
Their climatology woes began with Dean Eric Barron, who after leaving PSU several years ago to do some resume polishing, returned about a year ago as its President. As dean, Barron had lured Michael Mann away from Virginia, and still considers him to be the keystone of its rapidly disintegrating (from my perspective) climate science program. Mann is Barron’s guy, make no doubt. The PSU “investigation” into the caliber of Mann’s work is a worldwide joke. It’s just sad.
Ed,
Shocking. And in 1971 a dollar could buy probably 8 – 9 times more than it can buy now.
Well when I went to school (back in the Plasticine Era), there was no such thing as a multiple choice exam, where they gave you five proposed answers to the question; each of which was supposed to be equally plausible to somebody with ordinary skill in the subject, so a WAG by somebody with absolutely no knowledge of the subject could get 20%. They actually expected the student to be able to deduce the answer him(er)self with no prompting.
Our exams were always (supposed to) result in a normal distribution of scores with 50% being the most probable, and the full passing grade, demonstrating the required level of understanding of the subject. Today it seems like a passing grade is north of 80%, so all the passing students are crowded into the top 20% space.
In fact our teachers were required to ” scale ” the class scores to produce that 50% most probably result, and do that for each subject, since not everyone in the class was doing the same list of subjects.
There was one exam I took where the teacher could not get the class average score down below 70%; I think it was a math exam using any fair ” scaling ” recipe.
For example if the class average came out to 70%, you could simply subtract 20 points from everybody to get down to 50. That would still leave everybody in the class in that subject in the same relative position to all of their competitors. You could also multiply everybody by 5/7 to get a 50% average, but that would move everybody closer together in points, than the raw scores, and that was always a problem, since pecking order was the name of the game.
In the case of the exam I referred to, we did not have a class of really good mathematicians; the number wasn’t that big. I scored 98 out of 100 points on that test and that screwed up the class average royally. When the teacher did the post mortem review of the exam, and described model answers, I realized that the part where he docked me two points, I actually was correct and he was wrong. So I explained that he had made a mistake, and I should have scored 100. After a brief haggle he finally admitted that I was correct. But then he told me; “I’m not going to give you those two points because you didn’t explain it on the test, the way you just did. ” And he didn’t change my score. He also left the class average at 70%, and in essence said to the “educators” screw you and your 50% required class average. (and screw me for haggling over those two points) No I was only # 6 in the class for that year.
Today of course everybody has to be equal, and in common core math, the correct answer doesn’t matter, and what is important is that the student ” follow the correct procedure .”
Hey ! Earth to Educators, If you follow the correct procedure, you ALWAYS get the correct answer. That’s how “correct procedure” is defined.
But when these California Academical Educators replace Algebra with Statistics; then the students will be expected to get the correct common core answer about 50% of the time, just to make it all fair.
G
PS In a combat situation, if your opponent is better than you are, he will get you, before you get him. Fair people get to be dead people (most of the time).
If the (fill in the blank) continues/increases/diminishes then the (fill in the blank) will (fill in the blank). Ah yes! If the canine had not stopped to….well, shall we say clear his digestive tract of waste…he would have apprehended the lagomorph. If unfulfilled longings were domesticated equines then mendicants could ride. If we don’t die of hyperthermia or hypothermia we might all drown if we all live another 400 years.
> An ice sheet model that includes previously underappreciated processes indicates that sea level may rise almost 50 feet by 2500 due to Antarctic ice sheet melting if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, according to researchers from Penn State and University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Model? Check.
New data in the settled science? Check.
“May” included in the conclusions? Check.
Insanely long time frame? Check.
Steady state conditions extrapolated? Check.
That’s it boys. I meets all the criteria for publication. Run with it.
Does the year 2500 qualify as a “looming” threat?
Cuz I only worry about stuff that is looming.
I’d it doesn’t loom, I cannot gloom.
Kinda poetic. I like it.
Just 50 feet? Piece of Cake. (H/T “Wag the Dog”)
My computer
gamemodel says that it is possible that CO2 could cause the sea to rise 150 feet by next Thursday. Its possible. It also says that the ancient god Cthulhu will return and destroy us all if we don’t stop using CO2.Of course we all believe anything a computer model says, right?
Numerologists should not receive funding from taxpayers (via NSF).
I spent a couple of hours refreshing my memory and doing some additional research on this paper after spotted an article in WaPo this morning raising the alarm.
The model is junk, and the paper’s conclusions absurd.
First, the Paleocene isn’t relevant. The isthmus of Panama had not yet closed, so ocean circulation and therefore climate would have been completely different. The ice ages had not yet started.
Second, there is a general consensus (including IPCC TAR) that the last interglacial, the Eemian, was generally about 2C warmer than present (e.g. ocean foraminifera paleoproxies) in tropical and temperate zones, and that Greenland was up to about 8C warmer (Neem core) for a few thousand years around 125,000 years ago. Neem also suggests Greenland would have contributed 2-3 meters SLR at the Eemian highstand, which was about 6.6-7 meters above present sea level. (Kopp et. al. in Nature 462: 863-867 2009). That means Antarctica (mainly WAIS) would have contributed 4-5 meters. BUT the Eemian highstand above present Sea Level took about 3000 years to reach, and about 4000 to recede back to present sea level. NOT 15 meters in 5 hundred years! (50 feet by 2500) The PR claim that the new model was validated by recreating the Eemian SLR has to be an outright fabrication. Academic misconduct by Pollard if the PR is correctly reported.
This new model is off by more than an order of magnitude. Should never have passed peer review based on minimal knowledge of Eemian highstand. Contradicted by a previous well accepted Nature paper. Just more warmunist fantasizing.
The model is junk, and the paper’s conclusions absurd. or in other words normal for climate ‘science’
ristvan,
Additionally, it strikes me that the paper by DeConto and Pollard has a lot of unstated assumptions. For example, it seems that they assume that predicted surface meltwater will not find its way to the ocean through subterranean passages, as typically happens with melting glaciers. Further, that the water will fill surface tension-fractures to a sufficient depth to provide effective hydrofracturing. Additionally, they are assuming that the lateral forces will be sufficient to cause increased calving, (and not be contained by ground friction) instead of the re-frozen water squeezing out at the surface, or at least filling voids above the re-frozen water. So, instead of being based on “physical principles,” it would seem that there is a significant amount of speculation going into the models. GIGO! It is an interesting paper, but I think that it should be examined skeptically, looking for all those unstated assumptions and evaluating their probability and reasonableness.
“Recently we looked at the long-standing problem posed by geological evidence that suggests sea level rose dramatically in the past, possibly up to 10 to 20 meters around 3 million years ago in the Pliocene,”
Oh for goodness sake what books are these students reading? It would appear that the sea has risen 120 meters starting only 20,000 years ago. Much much more that 20 meters and not 3 million years ago. It took me 2 minutes to find this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
“Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago.”
And for good measure there is this:
http://www.quicksilver-cruises.com/information/gbr/
“Although coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years, the Great Barrier Reef is relatively young at 500,000 years, and this most modern form is only 8,000 years old, having developed after the last ice age.”
Stephen Skinner says:
“Global sea levels have fluctuated widely over geological time”
Fair enough, standard sort of claim. Read the NASA reference that you quoted.
All data for supporting claims appears to derive from analysis of stratigraphy of coastal sediment cores. However no provision or analysis is made for the potential effects of subsidence of coastal sediments. Indeed they seem to be assumed to be in situ at their point of initial deposition.
I view the potential of coastal subsidence over geological time to be significant. As a result the study’s cited may in large part simply be documenting coastal subsidence.
The REAL problem with sea level rise is Cruise Ships and Oil Tankers. All those ships displacing hundreds of million hundred tons of water all over the oceans, raising the sea level by who knows how many millimeters!? We’ve got to ban ships! (Or better yet, enact a displacement tax.)
When did wild speculation become publishable science? And how did unpublishable science become newsworthy? An unvalidated model has no place in serious science. At best, it’s the equivalent of a toy. It’s wasteful to give billions of dollars of grant money to “scientists” so they can play with toys. Unvalidated models are not scientific evidence and fiddling with them to get sensational results is not science. There is no evidence that warming in the future will be any different from warming in the past—mild and mostly beneficial to the biosphere to which we are inextricably bound. We need sanity in the science grant letting process. There are so many natural phenomena and teleconnections that we know so little about. Yet we waste money, time and talent on this kind of nonsense? That’s a real shame. We need leaders who can see through the smoke and mirrors of the grant process and ensure that our money is well spent. We get useful information and fundamental understanding, not wild speculation.
“When did wild speculation become publishable science?”
Well it goes back as far as the beginning of climate “science”. Maybe further back.
At what point do you think we will just go there and harvest freshwater? Au is really close by. I bet t
Oops.. Fat finger. It was off topic, anyway.
“The current rate of sea level rise is 3.3mm/year & unchanged over past 25 years.”
That number is GIA corrected. Hat Tip to the sharp-eyed WUWT reader who noticed that U Colorado dropped “GIA Corrected” from the graphs description. But what is GIA? Near as I can tell, it is ocean floor dropping in response to the continents doing glacial rebound.
So 3.3mm/yr is not really sea level rise.
GIA “corrected” data = “Sea Level Rise” + “Ocean Floor Drop”
And the “Sea Level Rise” portion is still 2.8mm/yr
What does the Gemological Institute of America have to do with climate ??
They do not do grading on ice crystals; they are not considered gem quality crystals. And they deteriorate rapidly if you try to wear one around your neck.
g
Before any net melting can occur, the Antarctic needs to start warming up. It’s been cooling significantly according to CFSR estimates since 1979 for the satellite era for latitudes 60S-90S:
There is no sign that rapidly rising CO2 levels are having any effect on temperatures in Antarctica and that raises serious questions about how much, if any effect it is having elsewhere.
Recovery from warming, which assumes that an ice age is the ideal climate? Is this now the “settled science”? Most of the Northern United States and all of Canada under 3 miles of ice is preferable to the coastline moving inland a little? Do these “researchers” ever think anything through?
Well prolonged anything will always delay something else.
g
“The researchers incorporated the physics and tested the model, driven by high-resolution climate models and past climate data.”
So they “tested” their worthless model against the other worthless models…
The claim ‘and [against] past climate data’ is a blatant falsehood. See my comment above. Constitutes clearcut academic misconduct if the authors actually said that. Especially if said in the paper itself. Would not be the first time in ‘climate science’. OLeary’s sudden SLR, Marcott’s hockey stick, Fabricius’ coral acidification are all clearcut academic misconduct provable from within those paper’s SIs. All published in Science or the Nature stable of journals. Not even negligent science. Deliberately manipulated and misrepresented ‘science’.
Whew! Thanks for the the warning. I’ll have to double the height of the gunwales on my boat.
If that goes well, I think I’ll advertise my gunwale-raising services to CAGW true believers. I’m sure there’s a market in there somewhere.
lol
FEMA already beat you to it!
So… you have a boat that doesn’t float? I think when waters rise your boat should rise too, eliminating the need to increase gunwhale height. Oh… I get it now. You think this stuff is funny. Haha. Like war is funny. Haha.
Like war is funny. Haha.
Bill Mauldin ain’t funny?
Leland, there’s no comparison between war and sea level rise over 500 years. In wars, people get killed whereas sea level rise over centuries merely inconveniences some people.
The Democrats will give your gunwale business a subsidy. The DOE as no one that understands Physics or chemistry so it will be approved.
Hmmmmm… so the permafrost bio-mass surrounding the arctic is from kelp beds of an ancient sea that covered the continent, and where mastodon and other large aquatic mammals frollicked?
The two meters by 2100 based on WAIS collapse was also claimed by OLeary in Nature Geoscience 2013. Not junk models as here, claimed observations of highstand corals along the western Australia coast. Proven clear cut academic misconduct in figure 3 which is labeled as if corresponds to Figure 1 coastline but is actually only Quobba Ridge, which provably was disturbed by a major earthquake. Essay By Land or By Sea lays out the sordid details. Presented them to Nature and asked it be retracted. Nope.
The prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will not be denied.
That said, sequester another carbon-based human baby for environmental stability and green lawns.
Luckily we have environmentalists making great efforts to preserve the existing Antarctic ice. They set up heated camps on it, drill thousands of deep holes in it to study the ice cores, and continually zap it with microwaves to measure it. As for the sea ice, they employ ice breakers to keep the channels open for supply shipments.
Other than that, I’d like them to Show their Math.
– Are they assuming the ice is entirely solid? I saw how they “measure” sea ice, they segment satellite images into squares and then determine if each square has at least 15% ice and if so then the whole square is added to the total.
– Are they using the formula for the volume of a sphere? Each increment of sea level rise requires more volume of water than the previous one.
So once the ice is all gone in Antarctica will it still be a UN protectorate or will we have to go to War to decide which nation gets all the Natural resources? This is certainly as serious a policy issue as the paper on sea level rise 500 years from now is.
Actually, the last group of antarctic scientists to have overwintered will claim “Indigenous Peoples” status. No fools them. The UN grants their claim under international law, and the scientists declare Antarctica as a new and independent country. With themselves as the government, of course. A bunch of penguin counters and ice core drillers end up owning it all.
It will contain the only ski resort on earth, but no where to go get groceries.
Such a course of action would be doomed to failure for the simple reason that after all the scientists have become the government there will be no taxpayers. Pooof! A government without taxpayers has never and will never exist.
@JustAnOldGuy, 6:31 pm, You are vastly underestimating the power of bureaucrats. As ever they will find a source of OPM.
Exactly up the same strasse as the TV New Zealand pre-news advertorial proclamation, “Climate change responsible for rise in school head lice.”
More hand wringing about arctic sea ice here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/30/arctic_sea_ice_hits_record_low_maximum_extent_in_2016.html
“It already caused the disintegration of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002.”
How about near Wolf Island in December 1956 that was the largest measured tabular berg? Shhhhh…
The only time that sea level rises have ever got any where near the rate they suggest. ls when the climate moved out of an ice age.
Sea Level measured to the resolution of Millimetres? Total B.S. Watch the Video.
I suggest everybody who has not yet done so watch this video. It is an object lesson in how to deal with problems arising in real science. If the methodology was not good, your GPS elevation would not work.
What posh.
50 feet in roughly 484 years is 3.15 cm/year (on average) which is ABOUT 10 TIMES the current sea-level rate of 3.27mm/year.
In addition, as Anthony pointed out, MSL is not accelerating over the last 25 years.
In fact: the 2nd order quadratic fit shows that sea-level is actually DECELLERATING since 1993.
(using all the data available here: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed)
Also, the 2nd order curve fit to the data has a better R-value than the linear fit. In laymans terms meaning that a decellerating model of sea-level fits the data better, i.e. the rate of sea-level increase is actually slowing.
That’s what the data says anyway.
There were even two recent warmunist papers attempting to explain the recent deceleration you note. Both complete nonsense, amusingly kiboshed in essay PseudoPrecision.
Do you really believe Mother Nature more than models? RICO on you!
The West Antarctica ice sheet is not collapsing now, so it will not have an impact on the present rate of sea level rise. Therefore, using current rates of rise does not factor in WA, nor its impact.
Correct.
But it won’t ‘collapse’ in the future either. Essay Tipping Points gives the specifics. OLeary’s 2013 west Australia highstand corals Eemian collapse evidence is bogus, comprising clear academic misconduct. Essay by Land or By Sea, in ebook but also one line at Judith Curry’s place.
During the warmer than now Eemian, Average Rate of SLR change was about 25-30 cm/century, for about 30 centuries. About what we see now with sat altimetry before silly modelled GIA adjustments, and more than what we see now with reasonably geostationary tide gauges.
Sure, it’s fine to debate the merits of the analysis done in the paper, and the measurements they have used to validate their conclusions (or not done). A substantial % of the comments here are saying it’s not possible as the present rate of sea level rise is too low – which is not relevant to the type of scenario outlined in the paper.
The only comfort l can take in this report. ls that climate science is at last starting to become aware of the important role that the weather has in climate change. Not just an one of the effects of it, but as a cause of it.
Looks like Manhattanites will have to migrate to Syracuse. Too bad, so sad. It sucks to be you.
The smart ones will sell now before their property value dives to swampland in Florida levels.
Wait did he say 2500? Whew! Plenty of time to plan a move.
This sort of stuff is so far removed from any type of certainty that imo it’s tantamount to blatant propaganda designed solely to maintain influence and keep the grant money flowing. Activist garbage. Nothing less.
Given this is a “worse case scenario” from a computer model, it’s the upper bound of what is a wild guess, making it a wild wild guess. If they even try claim they have modeled accurately it would be a massive leap of faith not supported by anything of a factual nature, “we think” “Could” “might” “may” “if” “possibly”.
More junk science, complete waste of money, and not falsifiable for 480 years.
Any fool can produce this junk and as long as it fits dogma, it slips under the radar and gets published even though it is crystal ball gazing posing as scientific research
For connoisseurs of pure high octane wingnuttery everywhere – that’s a keeper! Surely a wingnut tour de force of that magnitude must be worth some kind of award. Anyway, huge bravo from me.
How many climate alarmist scientists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
just one to hold the bulb … but rotating Antarctica is a beast and will take the whole team from Penn State and UMASS
@FJ: They’d need a 4 year old to help them open the box the bulb came in.
I thought i read someplace connected with this blog, that if this were true, that no matter how much we reduce CO2 emissions, there will be negligible short-term effect on the climate.
So, do you want stay on present speed or do you want to slow down to alleviate the consequences of impending impact?
My God. Can you read? What we can do, under present theories, has almost no effect what so ever. So suggest something else.
@Hugs
I was trying to express that because of inertia in the climate system it takes time to get to the full impacts of CO2 emissions that have already occurred.
So there will be consequences. The question was if we (all humans on earth) should keep on the present path and make consequences worse, or try to minimize the consequences of the impact (by not adding to it).
…0 x 0 = 0 !
“The question was if we (all humans on earth) should keep on the present path and make consequences worse, or try to minimize the consequences”
But the people and governments in Asia and elsewhere in the ROW have already made the decision to keep on the present path. What the rest of us do does not help the world significantly, it only harms us.
That’s exactly what IPCC AR5 says, but only with the worst*4 scenario RCP 8.5 (Tables 13.5, 7, 8 – max 6.63 m or 21.8 feet) which is impossible to achieve even with burning all of the estimated fossil fuel reserves.
What’s up with the site today? Balky, slow, erratic.
“The first mechanism is fracturing and deepening of crevasses on the low-lying floating ice shelves by pooling of surface meltwater and rainfall caused by warming air temperatures.”
(Bold mine)
So, how much has the Antarctic air been warming?
Well, that clinches it FJ Shepherd – I’m moving to higher ground tomorrow!
Maybe we should just move on to the “Second Mechanism” since you obviously aren’t willing to take the first one seriously.
/grin
Oh, wait…
“The second mechanism comes into play once floating ice sheets disintegrate back to the grounding zone, leaving extremely high walls of ice…”
it looks like the second mechanism is dependent on the first.
Good thing we caught this before the paper was published.
Uh, oops….
Maybe they did Mike’s other trick, and turned that graph upside down ??
Well, Antarctica is “down under”.
/grin
I think I might start having a laugh with some people and report the hilarity, with:
“Well, you know how the bath water swirls around the plug hole in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere, right, well it’s also well known by scientists that the dipole moment of carbon dioxide works the opposite way too, because of the magnetic field being the other way around, so that’s why Antarctica is cooling”.
Good catch. Spotted it also, but thought a more basic attack should come first. Checked the average summer air temperature on the Antarctic sea edges. Almost never gets close to above freezing there IN SUMMER except on the peninsula. So the ice face iceberg calving mechanism (hydraulic thaw/freeze wedging) at work in Greenland (where summer obviously does get well above freezing) IS ALMOST NEVER at work in Antarctica. And 3C warmer does not change that basic fact. Adding a Greenland calving mechanism to Antarctica ice faces is just more Penn State Mannian ‘climate science’. Self evidently stupid.
The average annual surface temperature of Antarctica is -47 degrees C. If it rose by 10 degrees C to -37 degrees C, would the ice melt by much? I doubt it would melt at all.
An ice sheet model….
well my model says it won’t….so there
Please publish and widely publicize all of the researchers’ names. there is nothing makes a researcher more careless, than a cloak of anonymity. Nothing makes them more careful of what they say and do, than their name being known and widely publicized as often as needed to expose their errors, and with a great fanfare of publicity.
So now we pay scientists to write science fiction after playing with the computer. That’s great.
What they describe is impossible.
1. Antarctica is cooling not warming.
2. Antarctica is not contributing to sea level rise according to NASA researchers NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
3. The study does not take into account that we will run out of fossil fuels to burn long before that happens.
Scientific Journals should make a better job at filtrating this type of silly works.
But you don’t understand! The models say it will happen, so clearly Antarctica adding ice mass means that there is more water going into the ocean. Or something. Because models, CO2 and climate.
This is what happens when you forget how old the Earth is compared to the 140 year record that is used for Global Warming/Climate Charge (oops Freudian slip Change).
The Baltic Sea used to be frozen over.
There was a land bridge from England to Europe.
Parts of the Rocky Mountains were under water.
You can see pillow lava in the geologic formations in Sonoma County.
People and animals migrated from Asia to America.
It is silly to think the Earth is static.
I have lived in LA for 40 years. Sea level is supposed to have risen a few centimeters. However, LA moves north a few centimeters every year. This is ignored. Some time in the future, LA will be due west of San Francisco.
Stopping burning fossil fuels is not going to change this.
“I worry about these far more than Antarctica.”
Why? Antarctic land ice release in the oceans is a certainty in a warming world while vulcanoes series and asteroids are much more unsure in the immediate future (not impossible of course).
Giving a warming world with warming oceans (as is happening), the oceans destabilize the basis of the ice sheets. Once destabilized, the now-buttressed ice will be free to move faster into the sea (this is just depending on the geological conditions that can be found in several locations in Antarctica (and a few in Greenland)):
“Warmer water quickly erodes the underside of floating ice sheet portions. Floating ice shelves act as buttresses for the grounded ice inland, whose base is below sea level. Once the shelves are gone, the grounded ice can move faster.”
“The second mechanism comes into play once floating ice sheets disintegrate back to the grounding zone, leaving extremely high walls of ice. These walls are so high that simple physics says they cannot structurally support their weight, and then collapse into the sea (…).”
Basically, land ice unloads in the ocean, therefore sea level will rise. Compare to the recent paper from Hansen et al which sketches a similar scenario but is more of a worst-case scenario regarding the speed that it might happen (several decades instead of a century of two)
“The Dutch could prevent sea level rise in 1000 AD, I’m pretty sure we have better technology now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands”
A) The Dutch could not prevent sea level rise in 1000 AD. They cannot prevent it now either.
B) The Dutch did reclaim land, sometimes still do. How did they do that several centuries ago? With wind power!
C) The Dutch did never have to deal with the rate of sea level rise described in the paper.
D) Defence against the sea is expensive! Should taxes be raised in the USA to do the same?
These are pure Warmist fantasies, that’s why. We are far more likely to descend back to LIA conditions than the computer-generated scenarios they present, which merely churn out the garbage they want it to.
“We are far more likely to descend back to LIA conditions ”
Why? Which mechanism will cause this? Please explain.
The Dutch did reclaim land, sometimes still do. How did they do that several centuries ago? With wind power!
I’m fairly certain they did that with dykes. Windmills ground wheat grown in the reclaimed land.
I am also certain we cannot control climate by reducing CO2 emissions. What do you believe to be the ideal climate and how do you think it can be controlled at that state?
Oops, block quote did not work in first paragraph.
“I’m fairly certain they did that with dykes. Windmills ground wheat grown in the reclaimed land.”
Of course they build dykes first! But how do you think they got the water out? Hint: not with wheat-grinding mills 😉
Pumping has been required (depending on water influx) ever since to keep it dry.
@ wagen March 30, 3: 20 pm, About the Dutch, I think you’d better re read how the Dutch over the centuries dealt with the estuary they lived on. It had very little to do with “Sea level rise”. It had way more to do with the annual snow melt upriver ( from France, Switzerland , Germany etc.), Just one way they dealt with that was an extensive system of dikes both at spring and fall levels, The system contained the flood stages in spring with high dikes and the people let dirt settle, reclaimed it during summer as clay to make bricks for roads and housing etc., the summer dikes kept the flow of the river contained for trade and to prevent flooding while they reclaimed land in between those two dike systems and so they prepared for next spring flooding. I know this a short version of everything that is involved it is way more complex. They also build towns on raised areas to keep them safe during bad years. The history is a bit more complex but your view is infantile. As we speak you said : “The Dutch did reclaim land, sometimes still do”, Sorry they do it ongoing. You other statement is even worse: “C) The Dutch did never have to deal with the rate of sea level rise described in the paper.” Every spring in Holland we have to deal with the flooding of the Delta we live on and I can tell you it can be measured in the multiple meter range! ( It is to me no wonder the Dutch have exported the tech to places like Venice, Bangladesh and many other countries face with similar river delta river type problems). Yes I was born Dutch ( and now proud a Canadian for 40+ years but I still bleed orange when people start stupid statements like yours)
Cheers!
Delta, Estuary, they sink over time. Sometimes significantly. Venice, new Orleans, Bangladesh, etc., all built on deltas and all sinking. Yes water does rise when you sink
@asybot
I do not disagree that the Dutch have extensive river flood defenses. But it was not me that said:
“The Dutch could prevent sea level rise in 1000 AD”
And since the topic is sea level rise I did not bother bringing it up.
“Sorry they do it ongoing”
Except for a few additions to the Rotterdam harbor area, not that much at the moment.
And they still never have dealt with SEA level rise as described in the paper that is the subject of discussion.
Cheers!
‘B) The Dutch did reclaim land, sometimes still do. How did they do that several centuries ago? With wind power!’
Now when we have coal et nuclear, we can do much better.
Fun fact. This one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ir.D.F._Woudagemaal
is still used now and then.
How many more charts do you all need to keep flipping upside down to stay in business? Why don’t you use your big brains to become part of the solution rather than a source of bitter nagging. The “pause” is over or never was, you’re wrong– not just on a probabilistic basis, but now you’re just flat out wrong. Take a cue from Rubio’s kids and stop embarrassing yourselves.
Go away, troll. And while you’re at it, get a clue.
Do you think that people who have a different opinion are trolls? That is not the general definition.
Seems just to be different outlooks on life.
L.N.
Yeah, go away, troll.
Everyone accepted and tried to explain the ‘pause’. The excuses were up to 50 – 60 by last year.
Then the talking points were issued to folks like Leland, and he turned into the typical parrot, repeating his failed narrative.
Too late. The internet never forgets. That’s why O’Haren pegs the meter:
Leland, I’ll take your possible troll bait (you might have forgotten a /sarc) since I have published the better part of 2 ebooks on these issues. Yes, tiljander was used upside down. Yes, centered PCA automatically flips some paleoproxies, and automatically produces hockey sticks from red noise. Yes, surface temp records have been fiddled. Yes, the cyclic Arctic has been misportrayed. Yes, UC manufactured SLR by adding modeled GIS to geostationary tide gauge records. Yes, climate models do NOT reproduce actual temps (hence water phase changes), a fact hidden by using anomalies. Yes, SLR is not accelerating as predicted. Yes, there is no tropical troposhere hot spot as predicted. Yes, polar bears do not depend on late summer sea ice, and are thriving. And so on.
Wish to debate any of those specifics, please bring referenced facts, not just blind belief assertions. You won’t because you cannot. Tant Pis.
Climate models, like economic models, are bound to fail or at least be inaccurate, so I honestly don’t know why everyone gets so focused on if, or how much, models are off or fail. I also don’t discuss anything with anyone who believes in conspiracy theories, faked data, staged moon landings, Aubrey Mc’s steering wheel hacked, or anyone who says they are a scientist but still believes in Santa and God. So that don’t leave too many people left here. And yes, if you surf, see, or read you know that temperatures are rising, on a trend, with the high water marks being defined by El Nino years, each subsequently higher. A storm heading to Boston doesn’t change global data. It really doesn’t, but it does boost Anthony Watt’s web traffic data, increasing his click returns. However, if you think a ebook qualifies you to call BS on NOAA or anyone else who wears big boy pants, you are no different than a boy waiting in line to tell Santa where to land on your roof.
In addition, assuming my posts are still being permitted, “blind belief” assertions is a biased attack, as is almost every point you make: “fiddled”, “misportrayed” “manufactured”, “hidden” and then you just had to bring in polar bears, like they matter at ALL. It’s a thermometer dude, and 1,000 of real scientists don’t own stock in solar companies or have some liberal conspiracy to tell you what kind of car to drive. It’s simply the future, unknown, but with probable outcomes that we can assess in our behavior, or not, that we be concerned about or not care at all as long as our taxes are low. Like drinkin’, smokin’, whorin’ or just eating bacon. It all has benefits and costs and perhaps none of it matters if you get hit by car.
Wagen,
Just about every assertion you made there is provably wrong. Where do you get your misinformation? Really. Please stop posting it here. Otherwise, you have justifiably earned the ‘troll’ label.
The world has not been warming, as you wrongly assert. Your anti-science nonsense is irritating to people who know the facts. The oceans are not warming as predicted. I’ve posted the ARGO deep ocean graphs dozens of times. Why do you keep asserting otherwise?
And your foolish nonsense about ‘destabilizing’ the ice sheets is nothing but an ignorant scare tactic. If you believe it you’re an ignorant fool. Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
Whatever your motivation is, it is based on pseudo-science that belongs on thinly trafficked blogs like hotwhopper.
Finally, I see that Mr. Oharen (how clever, spelling your name backward) has made his usual stupid assertions, which have been ably deconstructed by ristvan. No contest: another hotwhopper escapee, versus someone who actually understands the science.
I was also in the thick of it when Climate Audit exposed Michael Mann’s deliberate misuse of Ms. Tiljander’s upside-down sediments. It’s all still there, for anyone who wants to learn about Mann’s corruption. And ristvan is right about his other comments — which means your baseless assertions are misinformation. whether deliberate or through ignorance doesn’t matter. They are wrong; misstatements of fact.
But don’t take my word for it. Go to McIntyre’s site and do a search for ‘Tiljander’ and the rest of it. Either learn the truth, or you’re part of the problem.
Oh no, not DB Stealy again, working anagrams and reversing my name. So does that mean Dnalel is my first name instead of Leland? What planet are you guys all fake landing on? Temperatures, are not rising, they have RISEN. Your pause, that has been cited here for years over 100,000 times is now false unless you think someone has been spiking the mercury. And Rivstan… he throws out the term warmunist, which I assume means we are to infer communist, which is largely a political system and some might argue an economic system, neither of which would be relevant elements to a climate scientist unless they were pushing an agenda. So everything he states is biased and therefore inadmissible.
Are you saying Oharen is not your last name? And yes, temperatures have risen. Naturally. CO2 has nothing measurable to do with that at current concentrations.
And the so-called ‘pause’ was fully accepted by both sides of the debate… until the talking points changed the alarmist Narrative. Then, like 100,000 parrots changing course overnight, they all started squawking, “No Pause! AW-W-W-W-K!! No Pause! Polly want a cracker!”
LN, I did not bring in polar bears. Al Gore did. Fail.
As for thermometers, please present your globals corrected for Surface Station artifacts and ship biases. You know, post UHI and Karlized.
I challenged you to some present data. You ran away. As all warmunists always do.
Now it’s the “SO CALLED PAUSE?” WTFoccia bread? And what difference does it make if I use my writer’s/artist name vs another? No one complains about Latitude, Philincalifornia, rivstan or anyone else, DB. And since this is not a scientific site (search “Marcus” to get a sense of the level here), I’m not on trial, I am posting my thoughts and opinions, which is all everyone else here is doing — remember the title of this article starts, “Oh noes!… ” so hardly a serious place at all– and people make stuff up, flip charts, slap each other on the back and congratulate McIntyre for finding a calculation error (I’ll give him that the programmer had inherent bias). But that doesn’t make it 3 degrees colder outside. Nor does it mean China exists in a vacuum, one that sucks all it’s CO2 back into its gullet. When you all stop making all of your snarky “warmist” and liberal and whatever else you have and start sounding like scientists, I’ll use my off-screen name and I’ll still run circles around you. Because no one here accepts that humans make mistakes and are quick to rationalize what they want to believe. See 2007, Bernanke, Sub Prime Contained. Or WMD, or … I can go on and on and never get close to the bible..
Okay, for those needing a little more context to understand the bible reference, note that 3-4 billion people on this planet (many with smart phones in their hands mind you), still believe in a mono-theist creator that knows what all of its constituents are thinking and doing. And cares. So by definition, humans are stupid until proven intelligent. That’s all, nothing to snip.
@db
“And your foolish nonsense about ‘destabilizing’ the ice sheets is nothing but an ignorant scare tactic.”
That is part of the Nature science paper being discussed here. Take it up to the authors or Nature that it is an ‘ignorant scare tactic’ that a warming ocean can destabilize the base of ice sheets and that when they disintegrate that the ice higher up comes down faster.
“If you believe it you’re an ignorant fool.”
Nice!
“Otherwise, you’re just trolling.”
Nicer still!
You sure know how to flatter someone!
:*
Leland Oharen says:
Now it’s the “SO CALLED PAUSE?”
Yes. NOW the alarmist talking point is: ‘Global warming never stopped!’
That’s this year’s talking point. But recently even arch-Alarmist Kevin Trenberth grudgingly admitted that global warming had stopped. Prof. Richard Lindzen agrees. So did Dr. Phil Jones. So did many other scientists. Even Michael Mann admitted that global warming stopped.
But as they say, that was then, and this is now. Now, the Narrative requires that the eco-lemming crowd must repudiate their own scientists, and insist — directly contrary to observations — that global warming never stopped. Because that is the new talking point.
Leland Oharen and Wagen must have been born without the gene that causes embarassment. For more than 18 years, there was no statistically significant global warming (within error bars). Global temperatures were essentially flat; there was no upward trend, as was predicted incessantly by the always-wrong climate alarmist contingent.
Isn’t the internet great? It doesn’t forget.
I have even more statements from scientists who say the same thing: global warming stopped (the so-clled ‘pause’). But many of those statements and papers are from what the eco-lemmings would consider skeptical scientists, so I didn’t bother linking them.
The fact is that the so-called ‘pause’ lasted many years, and contradicted the hypothesis that a rise in CO2 will cause measurable global warming.
As the great Prof. Richard Feynman pointed out: when your hypothesis is contradicted by observations, it is wrong.
But if the eco-lemmings admitted that Planet Earth has falsified their pet conjecture, they would be admitting that the hated skeptics were right all along. They cannot bear to admit that fact.
So they parrot the new talking point: global warming never stopped.
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”
Seriously, this is your defense of climate alarm-ism? Galileo, Michael Angelo, stupid?
Do explain the connection between monotheism and smart phones please? Are they in some way incompatible?
“In this case the atmospheric warming will soon become the dominant driver of ice loss, but prolonged ocean warming will delay the recovery for thousands of years,” the researchers report in today’s (Mar. 31) issue of Nature.”
Ice melt needs a driver since after 100’s of million ys there’s no handles on this planet to deal with ice sheets
Yes.
Leyland is right ” all humans are stupid unless proved otherwise” guess what Leyland .
Protection against a 1 meter sea level rise for the USA is approximately 500 billion.. Last time I checked the estimate
Well then, we have nothing to worry about for a long time, at ±6 inches per century.
No DB, WE don’t have anything to worry about. But is it just about us? Do WE want to bet a condo against the entire state of Florida? Your condo for generation Z living without Florida? Sounds like a bet a guy like you would make, suddenly thinking your models are good, while bagging everyone else’s. Enjoy the view.
Leland,
If you’re trying to alarm me over the slow, natural rise in sea levels, you didn’t succeed.
LN, my permanent US residence is directly on the Atlantic in Fort Lauderdale. Made that bet. 15 years ago. Am winning. Up over 200% since then.
A Florida man… I am on level 5 bedrock in SF and a little vineyard up north, I’m up 600% from 2001, same year as you. So if you’re winning… what does that make me? Really not the door you want to open.
Leland,
Nouveau riche, but still rather ignorant on the subject of climate.
According to the Climate Change Business Journal Climate Change™ is a $1.5 trillion a year industry.
The US ‘Climate Change Consulting Market’ alone is worth ~ $1B per year:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/app/uploads/2015/07/CCBJ-Climate-Consulting-Graphic.jpg.jpg
Food for thought…
Antarctica has a surface area of roughly 14 million square kilometers with an average elevation of 2835 meters (9300 ft). The average Summer temperature in Antarctica at 2835 meters is -28C. The Antarctica land ice sheet thickness averages 2100 meters. If half of the Antarctica ice sheet melts (highly unlikely even with a summer temperature rise of 10C), several things will start to happen… 1) the interior snow fall rate will increase significantly, 2) the continental crust will start to rebound from the removal of the ice mass from the lower elevations, 3) the ice flow rate from the interior elevations will increase, 4) sea levels will rise, and 5) ice thickness over the remaining higher elevation will increase due to increased snow fall rate. How this would balance out is at best a guess. However, with an ocean surface area of 360 million square kilometers, the maximum sea level rise from melting 7 million square kilometers of 2.1 km thick ice is only about 37 meters (with the change in density of ice to water). I submit that half of the Antarctica ice cap melting within 500 years due to CO2 driven climate change is highly unlikely.
Others have already pointed out the actual measurements show that Antarctica ice mass is increasing and air temperature has been decreasing and that Antarctica is currently contributing a net reduction in sea level.
The trouble with the paper is that Measurements and Observations indicate otherwise.
Pay-walled pubs like Nature, the AGU ‘Journals’ and an Elephant Load more are publishing Science Fiction!
When you read the word “could” that puts the paper into science fiction.
Here is the funny part.
If the authors (usually one with all the other strung along, now days they will recruit a grad or undergrad student to be the ‘Fall Guy’ should negotiations with the ‘journal’ go south so they can claim ignorance and defer culpability) [usurping Grad and Undergrad students as ‘First Authors’ is a prided mechanism of the National Science Foundation] would publish in “Astonishing Stories” remember that from the 1950s-60s, Had they done that, then they ‘the authors’ would reap a land-slide of money from the royalties, IRS Tax Alert Here!, and live much happier in their attempted conquests of Planet Earth through the National Science Foundation and the Journals of the American ‘Geophysical’ Union.
Ha ha
model ….underappreciated ….may .. melting……greenhouse gas emissions ……unabated.
science by cliches.
Mark Twain could have been writing about climate science:
That was in Life on the Mississippi a great read then and still a great read.
THE FUTURE OF CLIMATOLOGISTS
Penn State has the Willard building preacher, who tells no one in particular that “hell is there.”
As I passed him by walking with my students, I realized. Here is a self financed fellow who tries to convey his vision of apocalypse to passers by, day after day.
Climatologists do basically the same, but are now generously funded by $10m/day in the US budget.
The future is nigh, and I mean the future when all those funds will have vanished. So the Willard preacher IS the future of climatology. Just change the words.
Every climatologist will be preaching climate apocalypse in front of buildings and at street corners. Day after day after day.
Considering recent studies have shown that the Antarctic has been gaining ice I am not ready to put my head between my knees. 🙂
Leland Neraho March 30, 2016 at 6:00 pm
” I also don’t discuss anything with anyone who believes in conspiracy theories, faked data, staged moon landings, Aubrey Mc’s steering wheel hacked, or anyone who says they are a scientist but still believes in Santa and God. So that don’t leave too many people left here. ”
If this is what you believe the people who post here believe, why have you posted so many times today? Your own standard prohibits you from posting on this site.
“assuming my posts are still being permitted”…
“this statement tells me you don’t know anything about this site, or it’s readers.
SR
Spot on Steve , but obviously he has proof that Co2 is as evil as the crooked scientists will have us believe and I’m sure the IPCC would love to hear it because they have none .
Steve R,
You’ve got O’Haren’s number. A typical troll who knows nothing about the subject, except for the superficial pseudo-science he copies from his thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs.
ristvan has forgotten more than O’Haren has ever learned about the subject.
Winston Churchill was asked what qualities a politician required. He replied that they need the ability to foretll what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen. (For politician read climatologist)
The paper uses NCAR CCSM4 model to reach it conclusions. According to Bob’s climate model articles, NCAR CCSM4 is a total outliner among all climate models.
Pollard, working with Robert M. DeConto, professor of geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, looked at two further mechanisms that could account for greater melting. The first mechanism is fracturing and deepening of crevasses on the low-lying floating ice shelves by pooling of surface meltwater and rainfall caused by warming air temperatures. If emissions continue unabated, this process will begin to dominate ocean warming within 100 years. It already caused the disintegration of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002.
Difficult scientific question – ice sheets are crevassing when
1. Emmissions continue unabated
2. You’re stuck in the rush hour
3. Ice sheets are one side supported on solid ground, while some ice mass is already free floating in sea water
4. There’s nothing of interest in the news
______
Und there’s the days, even month hard work teach it to the models.
sea level may rise almost 50 feet by 2500 ..is that a typo?
are they doing the ice in himalayas thing again?
by some cruddy model..and we should give a flying damn with a pretend event at a timeline that far out?
Advocacy bullshit pseudo pal-review science. Write headlines on year 2500 and be laughed at later on.
Don’t give a damn.
More Xbox science…
As of this writing, there are 12 articles about this story on the Yahoo homepage. That is what is known as ‘saturation bombing’.
“The first mechanism is fracturing and deepening of crevasses on the low-lying floating ice shelves by pooling of surface meltwater and rainfall caused by warming air temperatures.” Has any one of these bozos actually walked on Antarctic ice? Meltwater? Rainfall? At -15 deg C in midsummer? Can they please go back to High School and learn the simple physics behind ice?
Wait — let’s have a little context here. We’re in an interglacial period — meaning we’re still in an “ice age”. Wikipedia says the earth has endured five ice ages — meaning there were 5 periods when the earth was entirely ice free. Until someone offers up a workable solution to “freeze” the ice age/thaw mechanism, our descendants can look forward to the current ice age ending and the extant glaciers and ice sheets (both Antarctic and Greenland) completely melting. If the past is prologue, it’s gonna happen.
Of course we humans weren’t around at the ends of the previous 4 ice ages so the warmists would be hard put to blame mankind (and anthropomorphic CO2) for the much higher sea levels. So it seems to me that this paper claims to have “discovered” a way for mankind to suddenly end the current ice age. Bravo!
But I don’t think anyone has claimed that CO2 levels rising to even 500 ppm ended the previous ice ages.
The arguments here may be good … but the MSM is running this over and over and over with all the alarmism they can muster.
Suddenly melting ice cubes are over topping drink glasses all over the world.
There seem to be three different reports (Washington Post, Nature, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics) in the media on March 31 about the same subject, projected sea-level rise.
Are they all reporting the same research? Am I correct is seeing a confluence of James Hansen and Michael Mann in the research? Does anyone know how much Federal funding was involved?
Six years ago James Hansen went on record stating that the human race faces extinction because of… well, you know. The usual alarmist nonsense.
Hansen said this would happen by 2016. Here’s the article:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101122_ChinaOpEd.pdf
Every Wall Street Brokerage has financial models to forecast the markets…none of them work. Everyone knows to take the publications with a grain of salt. Everyone knows the limitations of modeling. These Climate Scientists are like Wall Street Models, but no one is forcing them to add SEC style disclaimers to their works. We need a regulatory body like the SEC applied to climate science, with countless pages of disclosures and risk statements. The amount of money that is lost, stolen, looted, extorted, granted, double dipped, etc etc etc in this field certainly merits further scrutiny. Madoff sole a few billion, Climate Scientists stand to impose costs in the trillions on the global public.
1) Sea Level was basically unchanged between 2005 and 2012
?w=720
2) Each data set seems to have dramatically different variability
3) AGW theory would only support an acceleration of the rate of sea level change, there is no evidence of that.
4) How could CO2 causing and increase in the rate of warming result in a steady rise in sea level, or a pause?