Sea level rise is accelerating

Well....assuming you have enough wit and gumption to actually read the article at the link.....of course, it's obvious you avoided reading the previous evidence you were shown, so....

Anyway, here ya go....

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
The Guardian
27 March 2013

 

Here's a few more lists of successful climate science predictions for you to delusionally deny...

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate
UniverseToday
APRIL 6, 2012

Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
ClimateProgress
JANUARY 3, 2013

Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles
A new study shows that when synchronized with El Niño/La Niña cycles, climate models accurately predict global surface warming
The Guardian
21 July 2014

 

that article is 2 years old and was proven to be full of errors that had to be corrected since..want to try again..and just so you know if the sea levels rise it has to rise over the entire planet and the same time and same space..water seeks its own level in the oceans

 

Do you want to actually link to that so called "proof"?

And no you are wrong about the sea level rise being consistent across the globe - partly because the Earth is not a true globe and also because of a thing called GRAVITY

Might have heard of it


There is also THERMAL EXPANSION

 

Is that a new denier cult myth you just pulled out of your butt, or did some fraudulent denier cult blog pretend to find 'errors'? Since you seem congenitally unable to provide any links to support your bullcrap claims, I'll have to assume the former is correct.

 

More expert scientists chime in....

Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
A new study surveys 90 sea level rise experts, who say sea level rise this century will exceed IPCC projections
The Guardian
Dr. John Abraham
Wednesday 4 December 2013 - Last modified on Tuesday 26 January 2016


Sea level rise over the next century depends on future greenhouse gas emissions. Photograph: Jon M Fletcher/AP

It looks like past IPCC predictions of sea level rise were too conservative; things are worse than we thought. That is the takeaway message from a new study out in Quaternary Science Reviews and from updates to the IPCC report itself. The new study, which is also discussed in depth on RealClimate, tries to determine what our sea levels will be in the future. What they found isn't pretty.

Predicting of sea level rise is a challenging business. While we have good information about what has happened in the past, we still have trouble looking into the future. So, what do we know? Well it is clear that sea levels began to rise about 100 years ago. This rise coincided with increasing global temperatures.

What causes sea level to rise? Really three things. First, water expands as it heats. Second, glaciers melt and water flows to the oceans. Third, the large ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica can melt and the liquid water enters the ocean; often the water transfer is added by calving at the ice fronts which result in icebergs that float into the ocean. In the past, much of the sea level rise was related to the first cause (thermal expansion). Now, however, more and more sea level rise is being caused by melting ice.

But this is all the past. What we really want to know is, how much will sea level rise in the future? There are a number of ways to predict the future. First, we can look at the deep past and see how sea level changed with Earth temperature long ago.

A second way to predict the future is through computational models. These models are computer programs which create a virtual-reality of the Earth. These virtual reality models are very useful because they allow scientists to play "what if" scenarios; but, they have their weaknesses as well. One of their weaknesses is that they don't necessarily capture all of the phenomena which cause sea level rise. It is believed by most scientists that the computer programs are too conservative.

How does this all relate to the current study? Well the authors took a different approach. They decided to ask the scientists themselves. What do they think sea level rise will be by 2100 and 2300 under different greenhouse gas scenarios? The authors found 360 sea-level experts through a literature survey. They then worked to find contact information for these scientists and finally, they sent a questionnaire. After receiving 90 expert judgments from 18 countries, the results were tallied. So, what do experts think?


Sea level rise over the period 2000–2100 for high and low warming scenarios. The ranges show the average numbers given across all the experts. For comparison we see the NOAA projections of December 2012 (dashed lines) and the new IPCC projections (bars on the right).

According to the best case scenario (humans take very aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gases), the experts think sea level rise will likely be about 0.4–0.6 meters (1.3–2.0 feet) by 2100 and 0.6–1.0 meters (2.0–3.3 feet) by 2300. According to the more likely higher emission scenario, the results are 0.7–1.2 meters (2.3–3.9 feet) by 2100 and 2.0–3.0 meters (6.5–9.8 feet) by 2300. These are significantly larger than the predictions set forth in the recently published IPCC AR5 report. They reflect what my colleagues, particularly scientists at NOAA, have been telling me for about three years.

How should we plan for this rise? Some areas can be protected by expensive walling off of ocean water. Other locations simply cannot be saved. Particularly, in areas that have porous subsurfaces, it isn't possible to stop the rising waters. Dealing with the costs of relocation, storm surges, and rising waters will be expensive. This is just another reason why reducing emissions is the best, most cost effective way of adapting to climate change.

 

More predictions based on models? Models are not fact.

 

Since no one ever said that "models are fact", that's kind of a 'straw-man argument'.

Scientific models can and do provide pretty good, pretty accurate reflections of reality that guide policy in many areas of human life.

Your denier cult rejection of the value of models is just more of your manipulated anti-science-ism.

In the case of this article though, they aren't talking about using models at all.

The article discuses the challenges of trying to predict the amount of sea level rise the world is facing and how quickly levels will rise.

It mentions models as one method that is used, but says that they may be underestimating the rate of sea level rise by not including all of the factors affecting the rising, and then says that this article is about something different.

It is an actual survey of the world's top experts on sea level rise, gathering their personal predictions based on their understanding of the data. They collected 90 expert judgements from scientists in 18 different countries.

These experts agree that the coming sea level rises are going to be significantly larger than the very conservative estimates in the IPCC reports. Almost 4 feet of sea level rise by 2100 and almost 10 feet by 2300.

This just emphasizes what climate scientists have been warning the world about for years.....global warming driven sea level rises threaten to destroy a large number of the world's most populous cities that happen to be on or close to coastlines, and also destroy billions of dollars in coastal infrastructure, cause salt water contamination of aquifers close to coastlines further reducing agricultural production, and make literally billions of people homeless and turn them into desperate climate refugees, fleeing inland.

Except, according to all of these experts, all that is going to be even worse and happen faster, with much higher sea levels spreading salt water ever farther inland.

 

Yes, it is plainly obvious, that from the 5 yrs that the OP posted this, the sea levels have risen dramatically. Coastal cities are flooded, just as they predicted.

 

Demented drivel! And a moronic straw-man argument!

No climate scientists have ever predicted that coastal cities would be flooded BY NOW.

Nor does the OP say anything even remotely like that.

Your post was just typical meaningless denier cult twaddle.

 

look who is the real 'denier.' You just ignore past predictions, & continue with the same hysteria. This is not a discussion for you, but a propaganda pitch. Enjoy your lies & your propaganda. That is all you have. There is certainly no logic or facts.

 

And still more meaningless bullcrap. You can't back up any of your incoherent claims with any evidence. You just spew hot air and delusional propaganda.

 

try reading news sources just one time...quit insulting people and read...you would learn something maybe...and i am still waiting for just one prediction that they made that came true...and you do know what that 97% scientists really was..right?...not real scientists..right?

 

"There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."

No matter which data is used, they are measuring year-over-year numbers to understand sea level rise per year...

 

The desire to model Earth's climate on a long-term, global scale grew naturally out of numerical weather prediction. The goal was to use equations to describe atmospheric circulation in order to understand not just tomorrow's weather, but large-scale patterns in global climate, including dynamic features like the jet stream and major climatic shifts over time like ice ages. Initially, scientists were hindered in the development of valid models by three things: a lack of data from the more inaccessible components of the system like the upper atmosphere, the sheer complexity of a system that involved so many interacting components, and limited computing powers. Unexpectedly, World War II helped solve one problem as the newly-developed technology of high altitude aircraft offered a window into the upper atmosphere (see our Technology module for more information on the development of aircraft). The jet stream, now a familiar feature of the weather broadcast on the news, was in fact first documented by American bombers flying westward to Japan.

As a result, global atmospheric models began to feel more within reach. In the early 1950s, Norman Phillips, a meteorologist at Princeton University, built a mathematical model of the atmosphere based on fundamental thermodynamic equations (Phillips, 1956). He defined 26 variables related through 47 equations, which described things like evaporation from Earth's surface, the rotation of the Earth, and the change in air pressure with temperature. In the model, each of the 26 variables was calculated in each square of a 16 x 17 grid that represented a piece of the northern hemisphere. The grid represented an extremely simple landscape – it had no continents or oceans, no mountain ranges or topography at all. This was not because Phillips thought it was an accurate representation of reality, but because it simplified the calculations. He started his model with the atmosphere "at rest," with no predetermined air movement, and with yearly averages of input parameters like air temperature.

Phillips ran the model through 26 simulated day-night cycles by using the same kind of sequential calculations Bjerknes proposed. Within only one "day," a pattern in atmospheric pressure developed that strongly resembled the typical weather systems of the portion of the northern hemisphere he was modeling (see Figure 6). In other words, despite the simplicity of the model, Phillips was able to reproduce key features of atmospheric circulation, showing that the topography of the Earth was not of primary importance in atmospheric circulation. His work laid the foundation for an entire subdiscipline within climate science: development and refinement of General Circulation Models (GCMs).

By the 1980s, computing power had increased to the point where modelers could incorporate the distribution of oceans and continents into their models. In 1991, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines provided a natural experiment: How would the addition of a significant volume of sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide, and volcanic ash affect global climate? In the aftermath of the eruption, descriptive methods (see our Description in Scientific Research module) were used to document its effect on global climate: Worldwide measurements of sulfuric acid and other components were taken, along with the usual air temperature measurements. Scientists could see that the large eruption had affected climate, and they quantified the extent to which it had done so. This provided a perfect test for the GCMs. Given the inputs from the eruption, could they accurately reproduce the effects that descriptive research had shown? Within a few years, scientists had demonstrated that GCMs could indeed reproduce the climatic effects induced by the eruption, and confidence in the abilities of GCMs to provide reasonable scenarios for future climate change grew. The validity of these models has been further substantiated by their ability to simulate past events, like ice ages, and the agreement of many different models on the range of possibilities for warming in the future, one of which is shown in Figure 7.

The widespread use of modeling has also led to widespread misconceptions about models, particularly with respect to their ability to predict. Some models are widely used for prediction, such as weather and streamflow forecasts, yet we know that weather forecasts are often wrong. Modeling still cannot predict exactly what will happen to the Earth's climate, but it can help us see the range of possibilities with a given set of changes. For example, many scientists have modeled what might happen to average global temperatures if the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is doubled from pre-industrial levels (pre-1950); though individual models differ in exact output, they all fall in the range of an increase of 2-6° C (IPCC, 2007).

All models are also limited by the availability of data from the real system. As the amount of data from a system increases, so will the accuracy of the model. For climate modeling, that is why scientists continue to gather data about climate in the geologic past and monitor things like ocean temperatures with satellites – all those data help define parameters within the model. The same is true of physical and conceptual models, too, well-illustrated by the evolution of our model of the atom as our knowledge about subatomic particles increased.

The various types of modeling play important roles in virtually every scientific discipline, from ecology to analytical chemistry and from population dynamics to geology. Physical models such as the river delta take advantage of cutting edge technology to integrate multiple large-scale processes. As computer processing speed and power have increased, so has the ability to run models on them. From the room-sized ENIAC in the 1950s to the closet-sized Cray supercomputer in the 1980s to today's laptop, processing speed has increased over a million-fold, allowing scientists to run models on their own computers rather than booking time on one of only a few supercomputers in the world. Our conceptual models continue to evolve, and one of the more recent theories in theoretical physics digs even deeper into the structure of the atom to propose that what we once thought were the most fundamental particles – quarks – are in fact composed of vibrating filaments, or strings. String theory is a complex conceptual model that may help explain gravitational force in a way that has not been done before. Modeling has also moved out of the realm of science into recreation, and many computer games like SimCity® involve both conceptual modeling (answering the question, "What would it be like to run a city?") and computer modeling, using the same kinds of equations that are used model traffic flow patterns in real cities. The accessibility of modeling as a research method allows it to be easily combined with other scientific research methods, and scientists often incorporate modeling into experimental, descriptive, and comparative studies.

Some models are facts while other models are as close to facts as we can get at this point in time...

 

Ummmmm - who predicted??

Must have been Mr Strawman!!

 

That is so ridiculous.

I do read the news sources....and all of the reputable newspapers or news organizations of national or international standing report regularly on the rising temperatures, record hot years, rising sea levels, melting ice, changing seasonal timing, increasing ocean acidification, increasing extreme weather events, the worldwide scientific consensus on AGW/CC, the recent International agreement by almost 200 nations to limit carbon emissions, etc., etc..

If you aren't seeing that, then you must have your head stuck in the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber (FauxNews, Hannity, Rush, Glenn, and assorted nutjob blogs), where you are fed fraudulent propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry, and it is bounced back and forth until you fall for it. Jerk your head out and look some factual mainstream news sources for a change.

What scientists just discovered in Greenland could be making sea-level rise even worse
The Washington Post
January 4, 2016

 

Every time a denier is faced with sea level rise you get the same response... "sea level isn't rising the ground is sinking" It is like trying to argue with a fence post...you always get the same response.

I figure a denier is dishonest or just plain...well you know.

 

so in the last seven decades ice in greenland has been growing...

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...e-greenland/FoqPHcnYyGf0UvY3OF6Z8J/story.html



next

just so you know they dug down to reach the plane ..it din't expose itself

and here is another 6 planes 260 feet down

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...e-greenland/FoqPHcnYyGf0UvY3OF6Z8J/story.html

 

Nope! Wrong again!

For the last seven decades and longer, Greenland has been losing ice...lots of it.

Since you seem to be completely ignorant about science and certainly about ice sheets and glaciers, you imagine that your articles mean anything. They actually have no bearing whatsoever on Greenland's ice sheet losses over the last century.

Ice sheets accumulate snow on the top, where it gets compressed by further snowfalls and turns to ice. Ice sheets lose ice normally at the edges of the ice sheet where glaciers flow down and calf off into the ocean. They also can lose ice, as Greenland is doing now, when it gets warm enough to melt portions of the top of the ice sheet, forming melt lakes that then flow down through cracks and fissures in the ice sheet and flow out over the underlying rocky base into the ocean, lubricating and speeding the flow of the ice sheet towards the ocean.

The ice sheet on Greenland used to be in balance, with approximately as much ice accumulating at the top as was being lost into the ocean at the edges. For over a century now it has been losing ice faster than it has been gaining ice, resulting in a net loss and rising sea levels. The rate of ice loss has increased enormously in recent decades.

In the real world of science, here are a couple of examples of what scientists have discovered has been happening to Greenland over the last decade and the last century or so.

Greenland Ice Loss May Be Worse Than Predicted
Discovery News
DEC 16, 2014
(AFP) - A warming planet may lead to swifter ice loss on Greenland’s ice sheet, and faster sea level rise for the rest of the world than previously predicted, scientists said Monday.

Two separate international studies raised concern about the pace of ice melt on the world’s second largest ice sheet after Antarctica, and suggested that scientists may have underestimated the variable behavior of Greenland’s ice.

"The current models do not address this complexity,” said Beata Csatho, an associate professor of geology at the University at Buffalo and lead author of the paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal.

Currently, scientists use simulations based on the activity of four glaciers - Jakobshavn, Helheim, Kangerlussuaq and Petermann - to build forecasts of melting into the ocean.

But the new PNAS study used NASA satellite data to look at nearly 100,000 points of elevation and how they changed from 1993 to 2012, painting a much fuller picture of where melting has happened in the past.

Researchers also came up with a new number for how much ice has been lost in recent years on Greenland’s ice sheet. For 2003-2009, the time period with the most accurate data, 243 metric gigatons of ice were lost annually, adding about 0.68 millimeters of water to the oceans each year, said the PNAS study.

“This information is crucial for developing and validating numerical models that predict how the ice sheet may change and contribute to global sea level over the next few hundred years,” said co-author Cornelis van der Veen, professor in the department of geography at the University of Kansas.

Lakes on the move

A second study in the December 15 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change projects that lakes atop Greenland’s ice sheet will become twice as common in the next 50 years as they are today, and by moving from the coasts to the inland areas they could have a major impact on the way the ice sheet melts.

The bodies of water, known as supraglacial lakes, are darker than other areas, attracting more sunlight and leaking water that can cause ice nearby to melt.

“Supraglacial lakes can increase the speed at which the ice sheet melts and flows, and our research shows that by 2060 the area of Greenland covered by them will double,” said lead author Amber Leeson from the University of Leeds’ School of Earth and Environment.

When the lakes get large enough, they begin to drain through fractures in the ice, making the entire ice sheet more slippery and prone to faster melting.

Researchers had never before simulated the future behavior of these lakes, which have already been migrating slowly inland since the 1970s.

But using data from the European Space Agency’s Environmental Remote Sensing satellites, they made new simulations of how meltwater will flow and pool on the ice surface to form supraglacial lakes in the years to come.

Today, the bulk of Greenland’s ice sheet is too cold for these lakes to form and they are restricted to band along the coast.

The band has already gained 35 miles (56 kilometers) since the 1970s, and by 2060 the area where these lakes can form will have crept inland up to 68 miles, or about double the area they cover today.

‘Key signal’ of global change

Greenland’s ice sheet is considered an important factor in sea level rise from climate change, and has been expected to contribute nine inches (22 centimeters) by 2100.

Since prior projections did not include the changing behavior of these lakes, those projections may be far short, said the researchers, but just how short has yet to be forecast.

“Because ice losses from Greenland are a key signal of global climate change, it’s important that we consider all factors that could affect the rate at which it will lose ice as climate warms,” said co-author Andrew Shepherd, also from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds.

“Our findings will help to improve the next generation of ice sheet models, so that we can have greater confidence in projections of future sea-level rise.”

*****

Greenland Ice Loss Accelerates 110-Year-Old Record Reveals
Scientists have pieced together a history of Greenland’s ice over the last century
Scientific American
By Malavika Vyawahare
December 17, 2015
Thousands of black-and-white aerial photographs of Greenland taken between 1978 and 1987 are helping scientists reconstruct a 110-year-long record of ice loss in this region.

A new study published in Nature yesterday that used the photographs found that the Greenland ice sheet lost about 9,000 gigatons of ice between 1900 and 2010 and that the rate has accelerated in recent years. The reduction in the ice mass has contributed to global average sea-level rise of 25 millimeters.

The results are consistent with other estimates, but this is the first time scientists have used actual observations from this far back in time rather than relying on model-generated estimates. “We have observation-based estimates that is new and super important,” emphasized Kristian Kjellerup Kjeldsen, the lead author of the study at the Natural History Museum of Denmark.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was missing these crucial data about Greenland’s ice melt in its 2013 assessments of sea-level rise, which excluded the contribution of the ice sheets. The gap existed because of the lack of direct observations of Greenland, according to scientists.

“By processing the historical archive acquired by the Danish during the last century, they were able to provide an estimation of the ice sheet contribution to sea-level rise since 1900, which was critically missing in the last IPCC report,” noted Jeremie Mouginot, a climate scientist at the University of California, Irvine.

Reliable records of this scope both in time and geographic area are difficult to obtain because the use of satellite imagery for climate research became popular only in the 1990s. “The effort to use the old photographs to learn how the margins of the ice sheet have changed is wonderful,” said Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University.

“There have been many efforts over the years to photograph the edge of the ice sheet, for many purposes,” he added. “This new effort is the most comprehensive and consistent that I know of to pull evidence together and produces useful and important results.”

Looking back in time

The study - the result of an international team led by climate researchers at the Natural History Museum of Denmark - divided the studied time period into three phases, largely dictated by the availability of data: 1900 to 1983, 1983 to 2003, and 2003 to 2010.

The 1900 start date was chosen to mark the end of what is called as the Little Ice Age. There is some debate about when the “Little Ice Age” - the last time when global average temperatures were falling ended, but it is well documented that glaciers started receding around that time as a result of the relative warming of the planet. Regional variations notwithstanding, 1900 was a fair guess for when all of the Greenland ice sheet was in retreat, Kjeldsen said.

More than 3,500 images were recorded during aerial surveys by the National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark in the late 1970s and early ’80s, captured with a camera that used film. These were very high-resolution images that were later digitized.

The 1983 time stamp for the start of the second phase was chosen because it was the midpoint of the period when the photographs were taken. The images from this period are not just a window into where the boundaries of glaciers were when the photographs were taken, but a measure of how far they had receded from their maximum expansion at the end of the Little Ice Age.

The photographs of the landscape allowed the researchers to visually capture the extent to which the boundaries of the glaciers had receded since the 1900s.

The line that demarcates the farthest reach of a glacier from areas that have not been overrun by a glacier is called the trim line. It can be distinguished by the difference in the vegetative cover on either side of the line. When glaciers advance, they erode and transform the landscape they pass over. When they retreat, they leave behind a freshly polished, pristine landscape that is markedly different from land that has not been buried under an ice sheet.

The movement of these large masses of ice also leaves distinct marks on the walls of valleys and in the form of deposits of glacial sediment. Much of the work of analyzing the photographs in the study was left to sophisticated software that is designed for the purpose of processing images and generating estimates.

Making ‘better’ future projections

Using the photographs, the researchers were able to not just map the historical boundaries of Greenland glaciers but also build models and determine how much ice was lost at the periphery of the ice sheet, where the maximum ice loss usually occurs.

Observing techniques have vastly improved with greater reliance on remote sensing data from satellites and aircraft that capture high-resolution images over large areas. For the last phase, from 2003 to 2010, the researchers relied on laser altimetry and radar altimetry to estimate the ice elevation and map the receding ice sheet.

One of the limitations of the work, Kjeldsen pointed out, was comparing rates of ice loss in time periods of different lengths. Their estimations show an average annual ice loss of about 75 gigatons for the first two phases - an 80-year-long period and a 20-year one. The most recent data showed that an average of 186 gigatons of ice per year was lost during 2003-10, which is only a seven-year period.

However, experts noted that actual observations, despite their limitations, have great value not just to test model data but to improve forecasting. “The new work improves our understanding of history, allowing better model tests and allowing better assessment of how the ice responded to climate changes in the past,” Alley said, “and this will help in making better and more-reliable projections for the future.”

 

You could just post your opinion and then a pertinent paragraph of a site and then a link instead af these mile long multi colored bolded tyrades, just saying.

 

I tried posting just a simple link to some scientific evidence in post #317. The response clearly indicated that you denier cult dupes just ignore links and never look at any evidence that isn't spelled out in detail, with the most significant parts highlighted in red. Now you seem to be looking for some lame excuse to ignore that evidence. "Ooowwww, your post is too long and stuff is highlighted....it hurts my brain"....LOLOLOL.

It is not my fault if you have the attention span of a fruitfly.

Man up and actually read the evidence that debunks your denier cult myths, instead of keeping your head in the sand.

 

You mean the 'Oh My God, it's worse than we thought" post in #317? Surface layer melt is a weather event and have been found throughout the past using ice core data, that last one happened in 1889. This is a naturally occurring event caused by the jet stream and happens on a 150 year cycle.

You fall for the media hype of every event is AGW every time.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said models were bad, but they are useless for predicting global events out 100 years and are being used for politics, not science.

 

Just trying to help. After a while nobody takes you serious with your mile long post in rainbow bolded highlighted and underlined in a fit of rage. We just kind of laugh at you

 

I laugh like a serious belly laugh, without ever reading his crude.....it hurts my eyes! Good point on the post structure.