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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
@ur momisugly 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?