Antarctic ice melt not rising sea-level fast

So you can't point to what the difference or dissension is....got it

 

I am amazed at the climate-istas on this thread that can't point to what they claim is wrong with the article I posted, I imagine they're putting their homes on stilts right now

 

Here if you can actually read this will help. But it is hard to point out actual difference since your article appears to be a total work of fiction unsupported by anything in the actual Nature article.

Correcting estimates of sea level rise
Date:
January 14, 2015
Source:
Harvard University
Summary:
The acceleration in global sea level from the 20th century to the last two decades has been significantly larger than scientists previously thought, according to a new study. Previous estimates of global sea-level rise from 1900-1990 had been over-estimated by as much as 30 percent, researchers suggest.
Share:
731 201 38 21 Total shares: 1982
FULL STORY

"What this paper shows is that sea-level acceleration over the past century has been greater than had been estimated by others," said Eric Morrow, a recent Ph.D. graduate. "It's a larger problem than we initially thought."
Credit: Photo by Robert Kopp
The acceleration in global sea level from the 20th century to the last two decades has been significantly larger than scientists previously thought, according to a new Harvard study.

The study, co-authored by Carling Hay, a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS), and Eric Morrow, a recent PhD graduate of EPS, shows that previous estimates of global sea-level rise from 1900-1990 had been over-estimated by as much as 30 percent. The report, however, confirms previous estimates of sea-level change since 1990, suggesting that the rate of sea-level change is increasing more quickly than previously believed. The new work is described in a January 14 paper published in Nature.

"What this paper shows is that sea-level acceleration over the past century has been greater than had been estimated by others," Morrow said. "It's a larger problem than we initially thought."

"Scientists now believe that most of the world's ice sheets and mountain glaciers are melting in response to rising temperatures." Hay added. "Melting ice sheets cause global mean sea level to rise. Understanding this contribution is critical in a warming world."

Previous estimates had placed sea-level rise at between 1.5 and 1.8 millimeters annually over the 20th century. Hay and Morrow, however, suggest that from 1901 until 1990, the figure was closer to 1.2 millimeters per year. But everyone agrees that global sea level has risen by about 3 millimeters annually since that time, and so the new study points to a larger acceleration in global sea level.

"Another concern with this is that many efforts to project sea-level change into the future use estimates of sea level over the time period from 1900 to 1990," Morrow said. "If we've been over-estimating the sea-level change during that period, it means that these models are not calibrated appropriately, and that calls into question the accuracy of projections out to the end of the 21st century."

To obtain their improved estimate of 20th century global sea level, Hay and Morrow approached the challenge of estimating sea-level rise from a completely new perspective.

Typically, Hay said, estimates of sea-level rise are created by dividing the world's oceans into sub-regions, and gathering records from tide gauges -- essentially yard-sticks used to measure ocean tides -- from each area. Using records that contain the most complete data, researchers average them together to create estimates of sea level for each region, then average those rates together to create a global estimate.

"But these simple averages aren't representative of a true global mean value" Hay explained. "Tide gauges are located along coasts, therefore large areas of the ocean aren't being included in these estimates. And the records that do exist commonly have large gaps."

"Part of the problem is related to the sparsity of these records, even along the coastlines," Morrow said. "It wasn't until the 1950s that there began to be more global coverage of these observations, and earlier estimates of global mean sea-level change across the 20th century were biased by that sparsity."

"We know the sea level is changing for a variety of reasons," Hay said. "There are ongoing effects due to the last ice age, heating and expansion of the ocean due to global warming, changes in ocean circulation, and present-day melting of land-ice, all of which result in unique patterns of sea-level change. These processes combine to produce the observed global mean sea-level rise."

The new estimates developed by Hay and Morrow grew out of a separate project aimed at modeling the physics that underpin sea-level "fingerprints" -- explainer from previous story.

"What we were interested in -- and remain interested in -- was whether we can detect the sea-level fingerprints we predicted in our computer simulations in sea-level records," Morrow said. "Using a global set of observations, our goal has been to infer how individual ice sheets are contributing to global sea-level rise."

The challenge, Hay said, is that doing so requires working with a "very noisy, sparse records."

"We have to account for ice age signals, and we have to understand how ocean circulation patterns are changing and how thermal expansion is contributing to both regional patterns and the global mean," she explained. "We try to correct for all those signals using our simulations and statistical methods, then look at what's left and see if it fits with the patterns we expect to see from different ice sheets."

"We are looking at all the available sea-level records and trying to say that Greenland has been melting at this rate, the Arctic at this rate, the Antarctic at this rate, etc." she continued. "We then sum these contributions and add in the rate that the oceans are changing due to thermal expansion to estimate a rate of global mean sea-level change."

To their surprise, Hay said, it quickly became clear that previous estimates of sea-level rise over most of the 20th century were too high.

"We expected that we would estimate the individual contributions, and that their sum would get us back to the 1.5 to 1.8 mm per year that other people had predicted," Hay said. "But the math doesn't work out that way. Unfortunately, our new lower rate of sea-level rise prior to 1990 means that the sea-level acceleration that resulted in higher rates over the last 20 years is really much larger than anyone thought."

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Harvard University. The original item was written by Peter Reuell. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica. Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise. Nature, January 2015 DOI: 10.1038/nature14093
Cite This Page:
MLA
APA
Chicago
Harvard University. "Correcting estimates of sea level rise." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 January 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150114140517.htm>.
Share This Page:

731 201 38 21

 

I almost feel bad for laughing at them at times.

 

What is wrong is that you article claims Nature magazine as the source of it's data and that claim is clearly false.

 

Don't, we are not offended by your ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

Most city slums are at a high enough level to be safe?

 

Oh, so this science article is wrong also

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34859398

The most likely outcome is an input of about 10cm to global waters by 2100.

Wow, a 5 inches in the next 84 years. Both articles I posted point to the doomsday as not realistic bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

- - - Updated - - -

No, I just posted a BBC article on the same topic, and your doomsday nightmare just ain't gonna happen

Here, read this one

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34859398

 

Their willful ignorance is why I don't feel bad. If it wasn't willful then I wouldn't almost feel bad, I would feel bad.

I don't believe that leftist slum NYC is above sea level, no. I hear the models show it being underwater now.

 

Did Al?

 

Supporting elected officials who are informed on the issue and will propose legislative solutions instead of voting for any dipwad who runs on the ignorance platform.

 

I myself at least, have pretty much given up on the effort to educate deniers on the facts. For one they do not grasp the concept of time frames but also because they do not understand the differences between weather an climate. Primarily however it is because of one simple fact:

Whatever is going to happen is beyond the ability of humankind to change anymore. The geopolitical and economic needs of our species do not allow for collective action in the first place, and anything we actually might have done passed us by decades ago.

I'm just going to try to live my life happy, help my kids understand and prepare, and do the only thing I can...wait and die before it gets really bad.

 

I believe you forgot a few other things, perhaps the primary reasons beyond their limited scientific knowledge. That would include a limited education for most either in school or gained through experience, making them easy marks for the better educated who can cater to their particular beliefs; the brainwashing that's occurred in a generation (or a healthy percentage of it) to avoid any media which does not publish information which conflicts with their beliefs, thereby depriving them of the ability to reason, examine various pieces of information from different sources, analyze it and come out with a logical conclusion, and change their opinions if that's where the path takes them. You might also call this part of the plantation or hive mentality, which strongly encourages obedience to the person in charge and acceptance of their goals (no thinking needed or allowed).

I disagree and will point to the upcoming world conference on climate change. Will all of their proposed solutions be accepted? Naw. But it is a collective step toward an important goal we all should share.

Hell no. Rage against the machine. Always. And keep a spare bottle of wine available for bad days.

 

The time for agreed upon actions to address Climate Change has passed. In about a century we will actually see the full effects of what we have already done, we will likely take action between now and then and it may even have an effect...it will not be enough to change the inevitable. I am not a doom sayer, I am a realist and have enough understanding of chemistry and climate to accept what I see as fact. The simple reality would be that the planet has always been in climate flux, and always will be...all that is happening is a relatively dramatic speed up that is being noticed by the sentient beings that have sprung up for the first time.

 

I'm not sure the time has passed; that we do still have some time to prevent irreversible catastrophic changes (at least I hope so). Yes, I agree that we have finally noticed (by having our noses rubbed in it) that we are the current cause of the rapid warming, but if we did that, hopefully we can stop contributing what has pushed it to the brink. I believe that is a matter of education as much as anything, but with about half of the population of this country believing that it doesn't even exist, it's going to be an uphill climb.

 

I can still remember the comment of a Russian minister some years ago: "What is wrong with global warming? This gives us a lot more usable farmland in Siberia and can thereby provide our population better!"

If stupidity would hurt ... he would never cease to cry out in pain!

 

Even if this country reached consensus and began a campaign of perfection in energy use it would have minimal effect when taken in the context of the entire world. The Gasses already released will float around for decades before positive feedback truly begins to show it's ugly head, and in the meantime 90% of the planet will still be adding to it. This is what I refer to as inevitability for I can see no possible way the population of Earth will act in unison for ANYTHING.

 

I believe one of the goals of the upcoming conference is to bring on board those who might be dragging their feet. My personal feeling is that if the Chinese can get with the program, then other countries with long shorelines (like India) could see and heed the dangers. I guess what I'm saying is that despite my temper and a bit of blockheadedness, I still remain optimistic.

 

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit &#8216;Irrational&#8217; &#8211; &#8216;Based On Nonsense&#8217; &#8211; &#8216;Leading us down a false path&#8217;
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It&#8217;s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'
AUSTIN, Texas &#8211; A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were &#8220;irrational&#8221; and &#8220;based on nonsense&#8221; that &#8220;had nothing to do with science.&#8221; They warned that &#8220;we are being led down a false path&#8221; by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: &#8220;At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.&#8221;
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate &#8220;catastrophism.&#8221;
&#8220;Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,&#8221; Lindzen said.
Lindzen cautioned: &#8220;The most important thing to keep in mind is &#8211; when you ask &#8216;is it warming, is it cooling&#8217;, etc. &#8212; is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.&#8221;

&#8220;We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity &#8211; meaning no problem at all,&#8221; Lindzen explained.
&#8220;I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,&#8221; he noted.
&#8220;When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It&#8217;s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,&#8221; Lindzen said.
&#8220;And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn&#8217;t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,&#8221; he said. (Also See: Scientists balk at &#8216;hottest year&#8217; claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year &#8216;Pause&#8217; &#8211; &#8216;We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree&#8217; &#8211; The &#8216;Pause&#8217; continues)
&#8220;The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,&#8221; he said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for a catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Backing away from climate alarm? NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone says &#8216;we don&#8217;t have that kind of evidence&#8217; to claim we are &#8216;going to fry&#8217; from AGW
Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the &#8220;language of science.&#8221;
&#8220;The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,&#8221; Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. &#8220;The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be &#8216;catastrophic&#8217; hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,&#8221; Hulme wrote.
&#8220;Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?&#8221; Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his &#8216;ignorance&#8217; on science.
&#8220;John Kerry stands alone,&#8221; Lindzen said. &#8220;Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,&#8221; he added.

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 &#8220;based on nonsense.&#8221;
&#8220;Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.

&#8220;To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?&#8221; he asked.
&#8220;Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it&#8217;s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,&#8221; Happer explained.
Happer continued: &#8220;CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.&#8221; &#8220;More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,&#8221; he added.

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
&#8220;Let&#8217;s celebrate CO2!&#8221; Moore declared.

&#8220;We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,&#8221; Moore said.
&#8220;We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,&#8221; he continued.
&#8220;The deserts are greening from rising CO2,&#8221; he added.
&#8220;Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,&#8221; Moore said.


Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...e-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2sAUYG6

 

I do hope your optimism wins out, if only for my grandkids.

 

It is amazing the sheer denial of reality, even in our own country; http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/09/28/lunar-cycle-brings-flood-of-trouble-to-miami-beach/

 

While I do agree in much of what you say, that we may well be beyond the point of turning it around, I do however, for our kids sake, believe that preparing our kids with a defeatist attitude as you suggest, is not the way to go. Collectively as a species, we have come together in crisis in the past. And we can do it again. We can do this, and we have to try. Do not give up. We will need all those with knowledge such as yourself and Grizz to keep pushing the message and the knowledge, until it finally sinks in. And it will sink in. I guarantee it.

Think of it this way; species from all over the world have used adaptations for thousands of years to perpetuate their own kind to survive. And so must we. We, as a species now know that the earth has limitations, and that we must formulate strategies to alleviate the unnecessary burden on our planet. In many ways, we are already starting to do that. Now we must accelerate that start, right now. And, it is the educated like you and Grizz that will ultimately move the human population to finally give in to the needs of the planet. You and others don't know it yet, but you will be the driving force that pushes us all to move on climate change.

 

Spoken like a true prophet

 

I did not mean to imply I have given up doing what I can to prevent further damage, or that I am neglecting this education for my kids...I was stating I had given up trying to reach the deniers base, as they do not seem reachable or teachable. While I freely admit I am resigned to the realities of Climate Change and pessimistic where human ability is concerned....I am still doing what I can to survive it.

 

I dont think that there are that many 'deniers' as those who question the contribution of the human race as the major cause.

We've had several long wars during the 20th century, sunspot activity is at its highest which in one place said 9300 yrs, we have been in a high volcanic activity period the last 100 yrs (avg active volcanoes used to be in the 20's at one time and now has hit the mid 40's), etc. not too mention that CO2 is the byproduct of all creeping things upon the earth. (and history has shown large eruptions have caused 'winters' etc. over the northern hemisphere---the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are just a couple)

The question is how much impact do we do to the human race, particularly the poor, if cheap available energy (fossil) is killed for non-24/7 renewable's (wind/solar)? If they can find a way to store those renewable's (some kind of super battery technology) then they become more 24/7 reliable.

Plus heavy hitters like China are & have been lying about their contributions and reduction of greenhouse gases....is the US willing to become a 2nd or 3rd rate economical power to lead the way where other big hitters (including India, etc.) will not follow?!