I think I'm a "sea-level-rise" skeptic!

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mbender

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
824
Location
The Great California Delta, and environs
I know it's a "right wing" website and I may take issue with a lot of other pieces in it, but someone just sent me a link to this,

Worried About Floods Due to Rising Sea Level? Forget It: Not Happening

and the mathematics seems pretty unassailable to me.

Is there something wrong, missing, or "more to the story"?

Something always seemed off/alarmist about the height of sea-level rise predictions/threat (the earth is a pretty big place), but I never took the (small) effort to "do the math". Now I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't, and thus don't feel fully justified in criticizing others, especially reporters, for not doing the same. (Or having it done for them.)

I still believe there is great value in not polluting and heating up the atmosphere (and even preserving glaciers, etc.), but preventing sea-level rise is likely no longer one of them!
 
mbender said:
I know it's a "right wing" website and I may take issue with a lot of other pieces in it, but someone just sent me a link to this,

Worried About Floods Due to Rising Sea Level? Forget It: Not Happening

and the mathematics seems pretty unassailable to me.

Is there something wrong, missing, or "more to the story"?

Something always seemed off/alarmist about the height of sea-level rise predictions/threat (the earth is a pretty big place), but I never took the (small) effort to "do the math". Now I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't, and thus don't feel fully justified in criticizing others, especially reporters, for not doing the same. (Or having it done for them.)

I still believe there is great value in not polluting and heating up the atmosphere (and even preserving glaciers, etc.), but preventing sea-level rise is likely no longer one of them!

Let's start with the "more to the story". Missing any discussion about thermal expansion, for one. This is about 35% of the sea level rise over the past century. Warm up the oceans, the water expands.

IPCC AR5

It is very likely that warming of the upper 700 m has been con-
tributing an average of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8] mm yr–1 of sea level rise
since 1971. It is likely that warming between 700 m and 2000 m has
been contributing an additional 0.1 mm yr–1 [0 to 0.2] of sea level rise
since 1971, and that warming below 2000 m has been contributing
another 0.1 [0.0 to 0.2] mm yr–1 of sea level rise since the early 1990s.
{3.7.2, Figure 3.13}

What about by 2100? At the low end, 70 mm of rise or about 3 inches. IPCC AR5 Table 13.8. The higher end of estimates, 550 mm or a foot and a half. These are for thermal expansion only.
 
We have actual measurements. That trumps any website that has to use Watts as a 'sanity check'...


http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators


Here's a look at Florida - this is real-world.
http://video.wpbt2.org/video/2365148517/

No, there's no tsunami rolling across the Pacific to take out the west 1/2 of the country - but the storm surge from both Sandy and Hainan were higher and flooding more damaging because the seas were warmer and higher.
 
More junk "science" in response to real science. There seem to be two...let's be generous and say "mistaken" assumptions in the piece. The first is that estimates of sea level rise are based on simple spherical geometry. They aren't. The second is that only a linear projection of current melt volumes into the far future is valid. It isn't. The more ice melts, the more ice *will* melt - the melting accelerates because there is less ice to reflect solar energy, and more heat to melt still more ice, feeding the cycle. Barring a catastrophic event like an asteroid strike or a huge increase in volcanic activity across the globe, the scenario suggested by the author of that piece is the unbelievable one.
 
mbender said:
Is there something wrong, missing, or "more to the story"?

And then there is this red herring.

Put aside, too, any doubts about how much melting will occur even if the Earth warms by a few degrees, given that the average annual high temperature in Antarctica is -49 F.

This is a red herring because it is not the air temperature that will melt West Antarctica. It is the water temperature. West Antarctica's ice is piled on land below sea level, and the more it melts back the deeper the bottom gets, and the more ice will be exposed to the water.
 
mbender said:
Is there something wrong, missing, or "more to the story"?

Something to consider. From the peak of the last ice age to about 8000 years ago, the climate warmed by about 4C +- about 1C. That raised ocean levels in total by about 120 meters, or 360 feet. There is not enough ice left to raise ocean levels by that much, and it is unlikely to melt as fast as we warm the climate. Oh, and the climate was cooling from 4000 BC to about 1800 AD. Why did the ocean level continue to rise? (Need a hint?)

250px-Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png


Over the next century, we are fairly likely to warm the surface by at least 2C and perhaps much more.

Temperature_record-wheelchair.png
 
I love stuff like this. What's the idea here; that multiple teams of researchers world wide have all ignored 8th-grade mathematics? Or, they made everything up with the hopes that nobody would in the entire WORLD would check their math?

Didn't it ever cross this fellow's mind that if the fruits of his 2-minutes of mental effort disagreed with the models that maybe he should research the actual models, the ACTUAL math, and the ACTUAL science on which they're based, before declaring GAME OVER for sea-level rise predictions?
 
Thank you all. I realize now how simplistic the assumptions were, and (of course), that it's a physical problem, not solely "mathematical". From your replies, am I correct that most of the rise will be due to thermal expansion rather than melting land ice? I obviously haven't looked into this (part of) the issue that deeply, and gladly accept any assistance &or pointers offered. And of course, that's partly why I posted this in the first place!

And AndyH: nice video, thanks!
 
mbender said:
From your replies, am I correct that most of the rise will be due to thermal expansion rather than melting land ice?

More than half of the rise, according to the IPCC AR5.

At the high end, according to table 13.8

Thermal expansion 0.08 to 0.55 m
Glaciers 0.17 to 0.19 m
Greenland ice sheet 0.02 to 0.09 m
Antarctic ice sheet –0.07 to –0.00 m
Total 0.21 to 0.83 m

Notice that Antarctica's contribution is projected to be basically zero.

Antarctica's contribution staying zero is looking increasingly wrong. It has been known for a long time (196?) that the West Antarctica Ice Sheet (WAIS) was unstable. West Antarctica's ice is piled on land below sea level, and the more it melts back the deeper the bottom gets, and the more ice surface will be exposed to the water. If the WAIS was to start to melt, it will melt at an increasing rate even if the temperature stayed the same. However, until recently, measurements of mass balance were not detailed enough to show that it was starting to melt. IPCC has taken the conservative view that until something can be shown conclusively, it will not be part of the estimate.
 
WetEV said:
Something to consider. From the peak of the last ice age .....
Grrrrr... :evil:


WHEN will people actually stop and read up on whether they are talking nonsense or not.

The first thing to do is make sure you know what you're talking about.

We are IN an ice age. An ice age is any period of the earth's history where there is perennial (all year round) ice at the poles.

This is an unusual scenario for the earth, and only accounts for 20% or so of its whole history.

An ice age consists of 'glacial' and 'inter-glacial' periods. We are in an 'inter-glacial'.

Ice ages have typically lasted 20 to 200 million years. This one started 2 million years ago.

We are well into an ice age. We are in an 'interglacial' period which is characterised by receeding glaciers and erratic climate.

Ice ages consist of either advancing or stable glaciers, or receeding glaciers. They never stay still for very long, and the climate is unstable while their coverage is changing.
 
I think that everybody is getting hung up on the science, whether you are fore or against, or whether it supports your view point or not; the only certainty is that the planet has had in its long past, warm events (up) and cold events (down), in a bio-rhythm like pattern; some short lived, some long. The only thing that the current planetary inhabitants need to understand is that the waste emissions we produce have an effect and in a negative way; unless you think that our waste emissions are good for humanity personally and I do not think anyone believes that.

The powers that be (governments) are only interested in what affects the resources that are needed for their/our current lives and in their/our limited lifetimes. So as soon as we can get past the selfishness, then maybe we can learn to live long enough to adapt to the changing conditions that we had a hand in creating.
 
donald said:
We are IN an ice age. An ice age is any period of the earth's history where there is perennial (all year round) ice at the poles.

This is an unusual scenario for the earth, and only accounts for 15% or so of its whole history.

An ice age consists of 'glacial' and 'inter-glacial' periods. We are in an 'inter-glacial'.

Your usage is more correct than mine, however do note that the general use of the phrase "last ice age" is to refer to the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM.

Saying "Last Glacial Maximum" is more likely than not to get blank looks in a general audience, at least in my experience.

I'll try to use both terms in the future, thanks for the heads up.
 
WetEV said:
however do note that the general use of the phrase "last ice age" is to refer to the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM.
OK, I appreciate you explaining that's your use of the term, but the more it is used in error the more people associate the current state of the planet, with ice at the poles, as something that is 'normal'. It isn't. Ice ages are not the norm for the planet, yet we are in one right now.

The only geologically evidenced certainties while you are in an ice age are:
1) erratic climate, and
2) it will get warmer!
 
D3Leaf said:
The only thing that the current planetary inhabitants need to understand is that the waste emissions we produce have an effect and in a negative way; unless you think that our waste emissions are good for humanity personally and I do not think anyone believes that.
Well, I do not actually agree that they are yet proved harmful.

Bear in mind that biota has evolved on this planet when it was at 97% carbon dioxide, and that it was the biota thus evolving that brought the CO2 levels down.

... and what do biota grow on? ... CO2 ....

In other words, the plant-life we rely on to stabilise the climate of the planet feed off and metabolise CO2. It may therefore be logically argued that the more CO2 there is, the more they will metabolise and stabilise the climate.

Mammals evolved at a time when the CO2 level was 2000ppm, and the temperature has dropped ever since. Stick 2000ppm into a climate researcher's computer model and it says the earth will burn up into a cinder. Clearly that doesn't happen. There is, evidently, an interaction with the planet's flora and fauna that means variations of CO2 alter the growth patterns, and thus effects on climate, of the biota.
 
If the earth gets warmer overall (say by 2 degrees C) causing the water in the oceans to expand, would the land masses also expand? I suppose that's coefficient of thermal expansion, readily understandable for salt water, but what about dirt, rocks, end everything else that makes up the earth's crust in land areas?
 
donald said:
Bear in mind that biota has evolved on this planet when it was at 97% carbon dioxide, and that it was the biota thus evolving that brought the CO2 levels down.

... and what do biota grow on? ... CO2 ....

In other words, the plant-life we rely on to stabilise the climate of the planet feed off and metabolise CO2. It may therefore be logically argued that the more CO2 there is, the more they will metabolise and stabilise the climate.

Mammals evolved at a time when the CO2 level was 2000ppm, and the temperature has dropped ever since. Stick 2000ppm into a climate researcher's computer model and it says the earth will burn up into a cinder. Clearly that doesn't happen. There is, evidently, an interaction with the planet's flora and fauna that means variations of CO2 alter the growth patterns, and thus effects on climate, of the biota.

Know what the "Main Sequence of Stars" means for climate and CO2 levels over geologic time?
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
If the earth gets warmer overall (say by 2 degrees C) causing the water in the oceans to expand, would the land masses also expand? I suppose that's coefficient of thermal expansion, readily understandable for salt water, but what about dirt, rocks, end everything else that makes up the earth's crust in land areas?

in practical terms the answer is no, technically the solids will change size with temperature but at a much slower rate than the liquids and gases.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Thermal_expansion_coefficients_for_various_materials" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sort the table by linear expansion and you see

Water 69 and 207
concrete 12 and 36
Glass 8.5 and 25.5
Silicon 3 and 9

so while the solids will expand they'll do so at many times slower a rate, so much so that the water rise will dwarf any volume expansion of the solids many times over.
 
I am so sick of this idiotic argument. The evidence is out there. The damage is beginning to ramp up.

But if you really refuse to see the truth of this issue... please go out and bet with your dollars... buy up all the coastal lands and prove to all of us how smart you really are. However... we as a nation should stop bailing out the coasts when their cities get ruined time and again by flood waters. Since our scientists know this is happening.

Just because the change appears to be slowly approaching... don't wanna be the frog in the frying pan.

Show me don't tell me. Buy up the coasts. But when you lose your investments don't come crying.

p.s. For my next trick I will stand in front of a speeding train and demonstrate why I don't believe in physics.
 
Good idea, jsongster. Actually if you believe in it so strongly you could place a bet too... if you can find a REIT with large holdings in coastal areas, short it and you can really clean up.
 
Back
Top