Posted on 07/06/2009 10:32:33 PM PDT by Lorianne
In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a sea level rise of between 19 and 59 centimetres by 2100, but this excluded "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow".
"Larger rises cannot be excluded but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood," the IPCC report stated.
Even before it was released, the report was outdated. Researchers now know far more. And while we still don't understand the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers well enough to make precise predictions, we are narrowing down the possibilities. The good news is that some of the scarier scenarios, such as a sudden collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, now appear less likely. The bad news is that there is a growing consensus that the IPCC estimates are wildly optimistic.
Even if all emissions stopped today, sea level would continue to rise. "The current rate of rise would continue for centuries if temperatures are constant, and that would add about 30 centimetres per century to global sea level,"
"If we burn all fossil fuels, we are likely to end up with many metres of sea level rise in the long run, very likely more than 10 metres in my view."
This might sound dramatic, but we know sea level has swung from 120 metres lower than today during ice ages to more than 70 metres higher during hot periods. There is no doubt at all that if the planet warms, the sea will rise. The key questions are, by how much and how soon?
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
The good news: With a big enough rise in sea level, we could get rid of New Orleans, New York City, Washington, DC, parts of California and the East Coast, and large sections of Europe and Russia. And have warmer winters, too.
The bad news: The British Museum would have to be relocated to somewhere in the Scottish Highlands.
All in all, quite a bit more than a fair trade, I'd say.
. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
US can contribute capn’trade taxes to the extent of 1/15 of what the rest of the world is to pay (if they do)...China and India are huge emitters. US alone will pay a huge price for nil result. Nothing rational here at all.
Total world output of manmade CO2 is irrelevant to global warming. Furthermore, since 2006 world temperature has dropped 0.76 of a degree.
I don’t know what the hell that thing is, but it sure is creepy looking....
Repeat after me, “Woe is me. Woe is me. Woe is me...”
Come on folks, put your heart and soul into it.
A monotone droll tone really helps. To get the full effect,
stretch your arms out in front, close your eyes, and step forward in a lurching motion...
Central casting will be by shortly...
This is complete BS. Here’s Dr. Tim Ball’s weekly column from yesterday:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/1/Ball/
His work is usually posted here, if you look you might find it.
Those damn Germans!
These alarmist whackjobs just don’t give up, do they? In 1980, they asserted that Antarctica would melt by 2030, causing the seas to rise by 250 feet by 2030. Here it’s practically 2010, and the seas haven’t even risen half an inch in the last 30 years. The BS never ends from these shameless morons.
The wacko environmentalists will want to stop h2o based cloud cover and global flooding, maybe they can tax GOD?
I must say I am not impressed by the brainpower of these New Scientists.
First we know that there have been extrememe fluctuations in sea level many times in the past without man and fossil fuels being part of the equation.
Now, suddenly, the burning of fossil fuels will "likely end up with many metres of sea level rise..."
HELLO??!!??
Might it not be more credible to document scientifically and persuasively what caused the dozens of rises and falls of sea level before fossil fuel use? Before going on hysterically with the absolute certainty that only the ignorant can possess?
Ha! The earth is already inundated with meters and meters of BS, most of it originating in the vicinity of Wash. D.C. in North America.
Junk Science at its best.
The data is inconclusive yet it has been massaged to meet a political agenda.
It’s interesting that the recent slackening of sunspots has had an almost immediate affect on temperature averages.
Did anyne read the Rolling Stone article last week, where Al Gore and Goldman Sachs will make millions and millions from trading cap and trade??????
It’s all a sham.....and the media is in on it.
What a friggin’ load.
First, note, that much of the origin of the hysteria is based on the fiction that sea level has changed as dramatically as they say it has in the past. The archaeological evidence for sea level changes is real, but that doesn't mean you should ASSUME it is the water level that rises and falls, and not the level of the land itself. That degree of change in sea level as a function of changing ocean volumes is a fiction that predates our awareness of plate tectonics. The entire coast of Oregon is presently a couple of hundred feet higher than in the recent geological past... not because the water is lower ? Parts of western Oregon are still rising... surprisingly rapidly ?
Then, note, that if the sea level is going to rise as much as they say, all the water needed to make it rise has to come from somewhere ? Since ice that is floating at sea is already contributing all it can to higher sea levels... that means the only contributor to higher sea level can be ice melt from land. The ocean covers 70% of the planets surface. That leaves 30% land surface. Of that 30%, what portion is permanently covered with ice ??? How deep is the ice ? Or, how deep would the ice HAVE to be over what portion of the surface to have sufficient volume, after shrinking upon melting, to raise sea level as much as claimed ?
Do the math yourself... and you'll find it appears you can't get there from here. The reality is that if ALL the ice melted, sea level would rise perhaps as much as six inches... which is significantly less than the tidal variations over much of the planet... and it is far more likely that no one even would notice it than it is that we would see that event as a catastrophe worse than monthly highs in the tides.
Unless they guess wrong, missread, or the rest of the world doesn't join in....etc....
No matter what they are gonna STEAL EVERY LAST PENNY THEY CAN!
Oh Yeah
Sea level rise: its worse than we thought?
Well obviously it is. In order to keep the dollars coming in the alarms have to get more and more hysterical.
By next year I expect sea levels will be predicted at over 100 metres. By 2012 maybe by 150 metres.
Easy- whenever there's a volcanic event, we have to give government more money. It's a crisis, you see. Giving government more money is the answer to everything.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
H. L. Mencken
I’ve got a question for all you “OMG-the-Oceans-are-Rising crowd. I winter in Florida near Orlando, center of the state. Ever dug a hole there? Half the dirt is full of seashell fragments. Now let’s think about that for just a moment....what the heck could that mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.