« Citroën to Reveal New Diesel Hybrid Concept at Paris | Main | New Ford Ka to Debut at the Paris Motor Show; Diesel Engine Option »
New Analysis Concludes Global Sea-Rise By 2100 Kinematically Limited to 2 Meters or Less
5 September 2008
Despite projections by some scientists of global seas rising by 6 meters (20 feet) or more by the end of this century as a result of warming, a new study by researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder; the University of Montana; and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, concludes that global sea rise of more than 2 meters (6.6 feet) is a near physical impossibility in that timeframe. A more plausible, but still accelerated level, is about 0.8 meter (2.6 feet). The paper is published in the 5 September edition of the journal Science.
The researchers made calculations using conservative, medium and extreme glaciological assumptions for sea rise expected from Greenland, Antarctica and the world’s smaller glaciers and ice caps—the three primary contributors to sea rise.
We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a “most likely” starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics.
—Pfeffer et al. (2008)
The gist of the study is that very simple, physical considerations show that some of the very large predictions of sea level rise are unlikely, because there is simply no way to move the ice or the water into the ocean that fast.
—Tad Pfeffer, fellow of CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
The team began the study by postulating future sea level rise at about 2 meters by 2100 produced only by Greenland, said Pfeffer. Since rapid, unstable ice discharge into the ocean is restricted to Greenland glacier beds based below sea level, they identified and mapped all of the so-called outlet glacier gates on Greenland’s perimeter: bedrock bottlenecks most tightly constraining ice and water discharge.
For Greenland alone to raise sea level by two meters by 2100, all of the outlet glaciers involved would need to move more than three times faster than the fastest outlet glaciers ever observed, or more than 70 times faster than they presently move, and they would have to start moving that fast today, not 10 years from now. It is a simple argument with no fancy physics.
—Tad Pfeffer
In Antarctica, the majority of ice entering the ocean comes from the Antarctic Peninsula and the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers, said Pfeffer. Most of the marine-based ice in West Antarctica is held behind the Ross and Filcher-Ronne ice shelves, which Pfeffer’s team believes are unlikely to be removed by climate or oceanographic processes during the next century. The researchers used varying glacier velocities to calculate sea-rise contribution estimates from the Antarctic Peninsula, Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.
The team also used assessments of the world’s small glacier and ice cap contributions to sea level rise calculated by a CU-Boulder team and published in Science in July 2007 (Meier 2007). That study indicated small glaciers and ice caps contribute about 60% of the world’s ice to oceans at present, a percentage that is accelerating.
In my opinion, some of the research out there calling for 20 or 30 feet of sea rise by the end of the century is not backed up by solid glaciological evidence.
—Tad Pfeffer
Considering all major sources of sea level rise, including Greenland, Antarctica, smaller glaciers and ice caps and the thermal expansion of water, the team’s most estimate of 0.8 to 2 meter rise by 2100 is still potentially devastating to huge areas of the world in low-lying coastal areas, said Pfeffer.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and a University of Colorado Faculty Fellowship.
Resources
W. T. Pfeffer, J. T. Harper, S. O’Neel (2008) Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise. Science Vol. 321. no. 5894, pp. 1340 - 1343 doi: 10.1126/science.1159099
Mark F. Meier, Mark B. Dyurgerov, Ursula K. Rick, Shad O’Neel, W. Tad Pfeffer, Robert S. Anderson, Suzanne P. Anderson, Andrey F. Glazovsky (2007) Glaciers Dominate Eustatic Sea-Level Rise in the 21st Century. Science Vol. 317. no. 5841, pp. 1064 - 1067 doi: 10.1126/science.1143906
September 5, 2008 in Climate Change | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/33112438
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Analysis Concludes Global Sea-Rise By 2100 Kinematically Limited to 2 Meters or Less:
Comments
Wow - imagine that. The Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore and his inconvenient movie are wrong! And these were lefty schools and institutions doing the research - Univ. Colorado at Boulder (Ward Churchill), Scripps (celebrate alternative lifestyles)....
Posted by: ejj | Sep 5, 2008 5:23:08 AM
Before you get too carried away the triumphant crowing ejj, take a look at this graphic in this week's New Scientist which illustrates the damage a 1m rise would cause:
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2672/26724101.jpg
from
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19926724.100-greenland-melt-could-see-huge-sealevel-rises.html
(sub required)
A 1m sea level rise scares me.
Posted by: | Sep 5, 2008 5:47:13 AM
Wasting your time Anon, ejj don't listen to nobody who eats granola and reads new scientist.
Sarah Palin ........hmmm, maybe he would listen to her. If it looks familar and sounds familar, it's all good.
Posted by: Wigwam Willy | Sep 5, 2008 7:16:40 AM
For more informed discussion see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/#more-598
= http://tinyurl.com/55oz37
Here it is pointed out that Pfeffer et al's estimate of sea level rise (SLR) by 2100 is among the *largest* that has yet appeared in the reviewed literature. If correct it will result in some 100 million refugees. And of course SLR is the most lagging of lagging indicators... "The problem is not that people think that we will get 6 meters of sea level rise this century, it's that they don't think there'll be anything to speak of."
Posted by: richard schumacher | Sep 5, 2008 7:34:38 AM
"Despite projections by some scientists of global seas rising by 6 meters (20 feet) or more by the end of this century..."
This is VERY misleading : who are those scientists ? Where are their papers ? As Richard Schumacher says, I've never heard of such alarming figures for SLR at the end of the century. After 10 centuries, that's another story...
Posted by: François | Sep 5, 2008 8:07:05 AM
You lefty swine will all rue the day you bashed Palin. She's a true environmentalist. Lives off the land, beleives all human life is sacred. Gore is an elitest who will take all your freedom away and make you live in a tent. You watch! I warned you!
Posted by: ejj | Sep 5, 2008 10:12:57 AM
I believe what ejj is saying (and please forgive me if I'm wrong) is that the Left tries to make environmental issues into political issues.
They do this for thier own benefit, of course.
You'd have to be blind not to see thier angenda.
Truth be known the - Environmental Protection Agency came into existence because of a Republican president.
It's funny how left-wing commie types try to villify Republicans over environmental issues while flying around in a private jet.
The left can count on naive kids to swallow thier crap. But most people switch to Republican after they age and mature a little. At that point they are finally able to see through the "Save the Planet", Environmental Rhetoric that the liberals have been dishing out.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 5, 2008 10:41:44 AM
How nice to claim 'victory' over these 'lefty swines' and 'left-wing commie types' by reducing the consequences of climate change to sea level rise alone. Any more would overload their limited brains I guess.
Posted by: Anne | Sep 5, 2008 11:29:38 AM
Couldn't resist to look up the official numbers. It turns out that the IPCC projects a sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm for the end of this century in its fourth assessment report.
That is slightly lower than in the third assessment report. There I can find an absolute maximum of 95 cm for the most extreme scenario:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-12.htm
So what actually is the news that all denialists are so euforic about?
Posted by: Anne | Sep 5, 2008 12:33:44 PM
You are assuming political parties represent statically social responsibility and belief. It obviously does not.
They may have been created under republican regimes but they do not represent the mores and ideals of what is typically defined as the "right", especially today's right.
Couching things in the veil of patriotism, nationalism and political/social beliefs is an emotional arguement, not one based on facts. The right is typically aligned with business to the detriment of all that interferes with it or can interfere with it.
The belief that government is more evil than large corporations is nonsensecal. Large corporation are just as bureaucratic and uncaring as gov't. At least in a democracy, you get a say about the gov't and how it acts. Corporations have no requirements for social responsibility and when they do they are often doing both good and bad.
The "right" , the "conserveratives" whatever you may want to call them, consider it leftist propaganda anything from the EPA, the clean air act, regulations that protect national parks that interfere with what they believe their rights are, even if these instituitions were originally by regimes on the right.
Belief in the environment and solutions to it are typically ascribed to the left which is true but only to an extent. It is evident that individual action is limited and the actions necessarily require large scale implementation that is typically achievable by large scale organizations like the government or it's instituitions. Many find that ideologically unpalatable. Others do not, but that doesn't make them commies or lefties.
Hansen is a republican. Always has been. He only changed support when it became obvious that the Republican party has gone neo-conservative and choose ideology over science.
There are also models of actions to help the environment that require little or no gov't involvement or better yet the gov't proping up of older technologies or ones that are pushed by special interests, whatever they may be. Models which emphasize private corporate actions.
It is more than small minded to consider those that take environmental conditions into consideration as lefties, commies, or something else that the "right" denigrate. It doesn't mean that environmentalists are luddites, wear grass clothing, or some other nonesense that those who don't share that belief, believe that environmentalists should be doing or are.
Ejj, started this with shots at Al Gore and lefty comments rather than any intellectual insights into the article or it's consequences. He's the one who immediately politicized it. "...you...will rue the day..." Who talks and thinks like that. Talk about ideology run amuck. Blind following and acceptance. Living off the land? Really? And yet he mocks A.G., thinking that environmentalists are blindly following and accepting him.
@Patrick, your last paragraph says it all. People will see the "truth" and convert to your belief and that your belief is the correct one. Yah, right. It's more along the lines that you get more invested in the system as it exists. The hierarchies, the technologies, the moneys, the instituitions. You naturally become more conservative. More resistant to change even when that change is necessary. Problem is, change is always around the corner. And not necessarily change for the better. Or that the systems you've invested in or invested in you, are based on systems or ideas that are flawed because all things are incomplete.
PS. Would like to thank R.Schumacher for the link. It puts the article in much better perspective as an increase in a century, but doesn't remove the real possibility of larger increases of sea level later on, which the denialists have been clinging to as proof that it is a total limit as if in the next century after, sea level would stop rising.
Posted by: aym | Sep 5, 2008 1:13:35 PM
The problem for the AGW proponents is the regular increasing volume of data disputing IPCC "assessments." They have had to revise so many of their projections and models and extravagant claims in so many areas that the general perception is that anything from this semi-official "government" body is deeply suspect.
Al Gore's award winning film claimed a twenty foot sea level rise in the "very near future." He is wrong. As is his hockey stick chart and most everything else Al has to say. A major failure of AGW campers has been their denial of blowback from Al's exaggerated claims. And of course their stubborn refusal to accept the effects of radiative forcing on climate above those of CO2.
The more interesting question is will Al come forward, admit his errors (including profligate living extravagances) and return his portion of the Nobel - thereby redeeming his now battered image as no more than a failed politician with an undeserved trophy.
Posted by: Sulleny | Sep 5, 2008 2:01:15 PM
Patrick: Your views are quiet daring, yet you show a talent for expression that is admirable. Keep firing, you give an aged man moments of entertainment in what can be a dismal setting.
Posted by: Mick | Sep 5, 2008 4:45:12 PM
Aym,
I twigged to the after 2100 what? That is relevant as it brings into the discussion the unknown.
Sulleny mentions the hockey stick graph,
(that enhanced greenhouse deniers seem to be suggesting Al Gore won a Nobel prize for inventing?)
Apparently they know what the J curve represents. No doubt they know where J curves apply and where to look for them.
It should be pointed out that multiple overlay graphs can be seen as supporting evidence and that "the" J curve is extremely robust.
This is where I depart from the conservative easy to digest babyfood understatements that are designed to keep the peace by apologising for seeing that we are currently in that part of history where a large anomaly is underway and that extrapolation of the j curve(s)
and now the outcomes based evidence is well established.
When credible Astronomical or ground data presents, I will be only too happy to shift my perspective.
To see the limits of kinetics slowing glacial melting
is as reassuring as saying that a disaster cannot exceed a certain monetary value because here are not enough capacity to print that much money.
Some aspects of climate change are well understood through ordinary chemistry, paleontology, weather forecasting and the geological and man made or anthropological influences and social and economic models or bodies of knowledge.
Solar and other heavenly influences are not so well understood that they can be reliably included into the working model of our planets climate.
That is a much newer science.We are building an understanding of how it works but not to the degree that it can be used predicatively.
We don't have full knowledge of our current situation as solid data.
We have plenty of geological data that support a correlation between temperature, atmosphere composition, glaciation and sea level relationships.
Posted by: Arnold Garnsey | Sep 5, 2008 5:01:54 PM
Unknown in this instance is timerame.
Posted by: arnold | Sep 5, 2008 5:04:14 PM
Why does this have the be political? global warming or not we need to change to alternative energy, unless you also don't believe in peak oil and oil buyouts to the Saudis, but if your that delusional you really should be put down.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 5, 2008 5:24:42 PM
"...problem for the AGW proponents is..."
not the IPCC or it's claims or the volume of data which clearly shows that things are not as rosy as the denialists claim. In the case of this article, the IPCC claims were lower for projected sea rise, and have been, which isn't surprising since consensus views are moderated within it's own ranks.
Anne, from above gave the link.
The arctic is showing an accelerated ice loss and may even break last year's low.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The only ones who think that the IPCC predictions are way out of wack are only looking at interpreted data and sites.
As for Gore, he made no time outlines in the film. As seen in the IPCC statement 2001, way before the film, it was well known what conservative sea level increases were. Your interpretation of a time scale is just that, yours. The blowback is from closed minded people who would not believe in it in any case and can't face up the conclusions.
His movie was mostly correct in the main points. Was he correct in all of them? Unlikely. It too is a consensus piece. Science does not transfer easily to the big screen. But it did succintly put it together for public consumption.
Al Gore isn't a saint. Believing in the scientific evidence of AGW, doesn't confer sainthood. It doesn't mean that he trying to be. It doesn't mean he promised to wear a hairshirt or live like a monk or promised himself to a life of poverty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html
The general acceptance of AGW hasn't changed. AGW is recognized by all national and international scientific organizations as the way climate works.
Climate change represents a cause of massive social instability affecting a large portion of people that can magnify war. And that is from the CNA report. It was comprised of 11 high-level retired officers — including Marine General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html
Gore's film put the message of AGW in the forefront. It put the IPCC's work in the spotlight. AGW represents huge impovershment for a large portion of people and social instability. Did he deserve a Nobel peace prize? That isn't for me to say. But I can say this. Unreasoning hatrid for the man or the message he conveyed based on ideological grounds doesn't constituite a close enough reason for the medal to be returned.
Posted by: aym | Sep 5, 2008 5:57:45 PM
Gore is the devil incarnate. Lefty swine are going to march most of you into camps. AGW myth is their tool of choice.
Posted by: ejj | Sep 6, 2008 3:38:43 AM
ejj, I applaud your efforts but you take up the cause of truth and humor when you are obviously without the skills to explain it clearly or humorously.
You and the other posters are missing the real inspired truth here.
Your preoccupation with left handed pigs is clouding your brain.
Let me put myself in your place and explain this simply and concisely.
The myth of AGW is part of a grand deception starting with the myth of round earth and evolution. The AGW pseudo science is exposed when we accept that the earth is only 6000 years old, The arguments for AGW cannot evolve from these old myths when it has recently been proven that evolution itself is bogus.
Lastly, the sea level can rise very little before the water pours over the edge of the world.
To put it concisely; It is all very simple to the simple.
Posted by: | Sep 6, 2008 7:07:07 AM
ROTFLMHO :^D
bravo!
Posted by: ai_vin | Sep 6, 2008 8:39:51 AM
15 Aug 08 - “Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer".
“The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.
“The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record (see link below to view graphs).
However, a comparison of maps derived from NSIDC data shows that “Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)
"... ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer - with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.
“(The NSIDC graph) appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) - hardly a trivial discrepancy.
“The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.
And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn't NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?
See entire article by Steven Goddard
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
Thanks to Steven Woodcock, Chuck Clancy and Marc Morano for this link
Posted by: ESabre | Sep 6, 2008 9:14:48 AM
Why not co-locate a Calera Cement (by Contantz) factory with every coal fired power plant to sequester most of the CO2 emission from the power plants and eliminate the one for one Ton of Co2 produced for every Ton of Portland Cement produced today.
This way, USA, China, India (and many other countries) could build many more coal power plants:
1) to supply the CLEAN energy required for many millions (eventually billions) PHEVs and BEVs.
2) to make 2.5 billions tons of green (CALERA) cement a year to replace existing polluting Portland Cement.
It would be a major win-win solution.
Posted by: HarveyD | Sep 6, 2008 9:42:31 AM
ESabre:
Why ask for balance in climate reportage? To some balance means "weighted to meet my agenda - 'cause it's Al about me!"
And the idea that honesty requires the wearing of hair-shirts is just plain out-of-date.
Posted by: Sulleny | Sep 6, 2008 12:20:41 PM
@Esabre,
Read the last paragraph -
Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.
"it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."
geez. Not only that but the it's also 2 weeks older than the NSIDC link.
As for the antarctic, here's the info from NSIDC.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Antarctic ice levels are much different than that of the arctic due to the fact that there is a land mass. East Antarctica is most likely gaining snow cover but the west is losing. With that in mind, overall levels should show an increase but that was never a question. Our understanding always included the postulation that precipitation levels would increase in the antarctic as the ocean warmed due to increases in atmospheric moisture. Temperatures though show a warming in the outer areas with a slight increasing coldness in the interior (one theory is the ozone hole). What is worrysome is the continued breakup of the west antarctic ice sheet. Complete collapse of the west antarctic ice sheet would cause a sea level rise of 5-6m. At present, this ice sheet is breaking up, slowly, intermittently but it is breaking up.
Posted by: aym | Sep 6, 2008 12:34:11 PM
aym
No matter how you spin it, there is more ice this year than last year at both poles, compared year over year. This isn't supposed to be happening, the polar bears should be drowning as we speak. World wide temperatures have been static or decling for almost ten years. I just wonder if the Global Warming Hysterics (formerly known as the Global Cooling Hysterics) will go back to preaching Global cooling in a year or two. They are probably just waiting until they figure out how to blame "Big Oil" and Hallyburton.
Posted by: Esabre | Sep 6, 2008 2:27:10 PM
AGW is an overall trend. It doesn't mean every year has to be warmer than the last.
Your 'there's more ice this year' arguement has two distinct problems. First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is simply dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence. In the case of this particular region[The Antarctic], there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets, and the conclusions we have seen of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is such a small amount, that with the uncertainty, it might be shrinking. But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be right. Some very recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that in fact ice mass is on the whole being lost.
Secondly, the phenomenon of thickening of an ice sheet is not by itself inconsistent with warming! Such an increase in ice mass in the face of actual warming would be the result of increasing precipitation and this is fully consistent with the Antarctic in a warming world. The Antarctic is actually one of the most extreme deserts on the planet, and warmer climates tend towards more precipitation. So even if you warmed a whopping 20oC from -50oC, you would still be well below freezing and accumulating snow, not melting in the rain.
While on the subject of ice sheets, Greenland is also growing ice in the centre for the same reasons described above, but it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km^3 of ice annually, doubled now from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to what the changes may be in the Antarctic, around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea level rise, any potential mitigation due to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is wiped out many many times over by Greenland's ice sheet.
The Antarctic warmed by 6oC over the last 50 years so a little cooling during the last 10[if that's even true] only gives us a little breathing room, it doesn't cancel climate change.
BTW - about Global Cooling? CO2 isn't the only thing we pump into the air. There's also aerosol pollution which blocks sunlight,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382
but the various 'clean air acts' the environmentalists forced into being have reduced these. It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970's but a very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. On the other hand, in the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements.
Quite simply, there is no comparison. I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
Posted by: ai_vin | Sep 6, 2008 4:58:19 PM
One more thing; I knew your "World wide temperatures have been static or decling for almost ten years" statement didn't sound true. This comes from the "warming stopped in 1998" falsehood.
1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. But El Ninos are often followed by La Ninas which cause mostly the opposite effects of El Niño. And sure enough 1999 and 2000 saw a drop far below the trend line. However 2001 saw temperatures climb back up, in fact in was the second hottest year on record up to that point. I say 'up to that point' because 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 all saw even higher temperatures. [I don't have data for 06 or 07 and 08 isn't over yet.]
Posted by: ai_vin | Sep 6, 2008 9:34:52 PM
BTW The latest La Nina pattern began in the third quarter of 2007 so any slowing in GW you see now is explainable.
Posted by: ai_vin | Sep 6, 2008 9:41:24 PM
Thanx ai_vin, I was starting to get tired. :( Should try to remember that it isn't so much as trying to convince others but to dispute information being spread around so that the less informed get a fuller picture.
Anyway, the myth of the 1970S global cooling scientifc consensus.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
which is a peer reviewed paper on the subject printed in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
There might be more ice than last year but from a perspective like ai_vin's post of temperature, that would be an overly simplistic view of the ice readings. It is a steady decreasing of ice levels in the arctic. Using a base line of the lowest year would be a statistical error which would give erroneous perceptions.
And of course a new update from NSIDC.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/09/arctic-experien.html#more
Posted by: aym | Sep 7, 2008 11:46:27 AM
Back on topic:
IPCC's James Hanson testified April 26, 2007 before US House of Representatives that: "...sea level rise this century may be measured in meters if we follow business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions," concurring with this study.
However according to peer-reviewed paper in May 2008, Nature (Dominguez et al) updated estimates for sea level rise are 1.6 ± 0.2 mm/year.
1) Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research
2) Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre
3) Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
No environmentally concerned person wants to follow fossil fuel business as usual. The are a multitude of good reasons not to do so. The point is we do not need Mr. Hanson's/IPCC's exaggerated claims to know which way the wind blows.
Posted by: Sulleny | Sep 8, 2008 2:39:56 PM
The problem with convincing people to believe in all of the hype is that they've been lied to and can't realistically decide who/what is correct. Lying to prove a point just doesn't work. If the goal is the eradication of all internal combustion engines (and I'm not saying it is), just say so. Lies stink, but the truth has a ring to it.
Personally, all the BS started with Kyoto. When the "experts" decided man-made CO2 has a greater effect on warming than natural CO2, I had to laugh. You can't seriously tell me this makes sense. CO2 is CO2, period. Apparently the experts picked CO2 as man's greatest scourge to the environment because we can't control water vapor, the real #1 influence of warming.
I'm sure there is a set of statistics somewhere that can prove any side of an argument. But it's a well known fact that 57% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (I just made that up):)
Having said all this, I'm still doing my part to save the planet. Not because I buy the fact that man can control the earth, (arrogant thinking at it's finest), but because there are huge piles of cash to be made! I say "Hurray for Al Gore!" I'm sitting in my 14,000 sq. ft. house with the AC on full blast. I'm just trying to keep up with Al! Next, I'll have to form a company in England to take advantage of all the hysteria Al has stirred up. Woohoo! More money! Way to go Al baby! Where should I send your finders fee?
Come on folks. You don't think Al and T. Boone Pickens are in this for their stewardship of the planet, do you?
Posted by: BC | Sep 10, 2008 11:55:48 AM
Al's a bonafide scientist and he's got a Nobel Prize to prove it.
Posted by: Always wrong | Sep 10, 2008 3:04:43 PM
The article linked to said this
We add our observational estimate of upper-ocean thermal expansion to other contributions to sea-level rise and find that the sum of contributions from 1961 to 2003 is about 1.5+-0.4 mm yr-1, in good agreement with our updated estimate of near-global mean sea-level rise (using techniques established in earlier studies of 1.6+-0.2 mm yr-1.
It doesn't say that the present levels are 1.6 or the future ones. You do realize that. I mean is it that hard to read? It's an enhanced computational model that more closely matches things in the time period of the past.
TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellite data show an increase of sea levels. An increase of ocean level of 3.2 +- 0.4 mm/year is the present level of increase. Whether it stabilizes or even goes down is something else.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
As for Kyoto. No it didn't say that man-made carbon contributed more. It was that it tipped the balance that was there so that more heat gets trapped.
Just because some people are trying or are making money doesn't invalidate the science though it does inflame people.
Posted by: aym | Sep 11, 2008 9:01:03 AM
"When the "experts" decided man-made CO2 has a greater effect on warming than natural CO2, I had to laugh."
You might have heard '150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year.' This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. But in the natural process, for roughly the last 10K years until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out. What we have done is to alter only one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.
Thankfully, nature is actually compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half of the CO2 we are emitting is staying in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%. So whatever the total amounts going in and out on their own, humans have clearly upset the pre-existing balance and altered significantly an important part of the climate system.
"Apparently the experts picked CO2 as man's greatest scourge to the environment because we can't control water vapor, the real #1 influence of warming."
There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It IS the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 36% - 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will finish absorbing any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long lasting effects on the climate system. And the experts picked CO2 as man's greatest scourge because as the climate warms in response to the CO2, the humidity rises and the increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2 driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.
Posted by: ai_vin | Sep 12, 2008 10:46:26 AM
One more thing, and I'll try to make this simple for you; The difference between between "natural CO2" and "man-made CO2" is time. Natural CO2, the CO2 that goes in and out of the air because of natural processes, does so on the short term. Plants take it out of the air to grow, but most of it only stays in the plant while its alive. Once it dies it either rots or gets eaten. Even for the oldest trees this is only 4,000 years.
Man-made CO2 comes from fossil fuels; key word here is - FOSSIL. We're talking about carbon that could have been taken out of the air 300,000,000 years ago or more!
Posted by: ai_vin | Sep 12, 2008 1:14:27 PM
no body talks about that the oceans with current chemistry have an equilibrium point of less than 550 ppm, meaning that no matter how much CO2 is put in the air the oceans will absorb it turn it to CaCO3 and it will precipitate as calcarouse ooze on the seafloor
Posted by: | Sep 18, 2008 6:21:32 PM
