UN to launch new round of talks on global warming
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 11/28/2012 4:10:39 PM PST by NormsRevenge
According to NBC News, a newly released peer-reviewed study has concluded that sea levels between 1993 and 2011 rose by 3.2 millimeters per year. This number is nearly 60 percent more than the 2-millimeter annual projection made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the same time period. The disparity between the two numbers raises a point that the projections for the upcoming decades could also be too low and that sea level could rise much more than current estimates predict.
Here are some facts and details about the new study and what it could mean for upcoming climate reports:
* The new study entitled "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" was a collaboration between three researchers: Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, Grant Foster of the consulting firm Tempo Analytics in Maine, and Anny Cazenave of the Laboratory of Geophysics and Spatial Oceanography Studies in France
* The study entitled has been published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters and was presented at U.N. climate change conference in Qatar, which will run until Dec. 7, noted Reuters.
* The IPCC's most recent report was issued in 2007 and projected that sea level could rise between 18 and 59 centimeters this century, but Rahmstorf, lead author of the new study, estimates that sea level rise would be between 50 centimeters to a meter.
* The Huffington Post reports that the new study had five more years of data and utilized satellite technology, which offers a broader picture than tide gauges. Additionally, it analyzed the relationship between sea level and temperature, which is a more sophisticated analysis method.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Most of the glaciers in the world are growing and the ice in the Antarctic is way up.
They gave it away too quickly. Whenever they use the expression “peer reviewed” anymore, it is a major red flag that it is a totally bogus fabrication.
“Peer review” died an ignoble death in MMGW when it turned out that the “peer reviews” being used in many reports were “incestuous”.
This means if say, there are six insiders, three of them will write a paper, with one of the three as the “lead researcher”. Then the other three do the “peer review” and give it an ‘A++’ grade. Then they rotate.
One of the “peer reviewers” from the last paper becomes the “lead researcher” in the next paper, etc.
These “mutual admiration societies” can crank out huge numbers of bogus papers that all agree with and support each other. And by publishing so much, it appears that they are “top researchers” in their field.
It took a long time for this Lysenkoism to be unmasked, but now that it has, their technique has been compromised, though they are even too dumb to stop using it.
Lies brought to you by the very same people that appointed Libya and China to the Human Rights Commission.
LLS
And are we to believe our lying eyes and common sense or the sainted global warming priests of pseudo-science?
Of course, the sad fact is, these are not scientific studies, not just because they aren’t intended to be — they are also unverified claims; and in the past, each time the global warming demagogues have made a claim, real scientists have studied whatever it was, and found it to be false. The “oceans warming at depth” (something physically impossible anyway, short of a volcano on the ocean floor; ocean waters get colder and carry more non-water molecules with depth) lie which was done to cover up the fact that there had been no change in the normal natural fluctuation of the climate (the lie was, the excess heat was being stored in the depths and would eventually emerge and bite us in the ass) was studied, even though impossible, and was found to be a lie — and yet, it reemerged in the past year or so, because the so-called journalists don’t do their job. That latter fact is in part due to the fact that so many of them are pushing an agenda.
Thanks ApplegateRanch.
The new methods involve filtering out noise from the data produced by the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft, sent into orbit with the aim of finding out just how much ice is melting from the world's ice sheets and glaciers. Such water then runs off into the sea, providing one of the main potential drivers of sea level rise - which is itself perhaps the main reason to worry about climate change.
"GRACE data contain a lot of signals and a lot of noise. Our technique learns enough about the noise to effectively recover the signal, and at much finer spatial scales than was possible before," explains professor Frederik Simons of Princeton uni. "We can 'see through' the noise and recover the 'true' geophysical information contained in these data. We can now revisit GRACE data related to areas such as river basins and irrigation and soil moisture, not just ice sheets."
Simons and his colleague Christopher Harig tried their new methods out on GRACE data covering the Greenland ice sheet, which is of particular interest as the rest of the Arctic ice cap floats on the sea and so cannot contribute directly to sea level rise by melting. Meanwhile the Antarctic ice cap is actually getting bigger, so Greenland is probably the major worry.
According to a Princeton statement highlighting the new research:
While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.
In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.
The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line.
In other words the possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all. Similar results were seen not long ago in GRACE data for central Asian mountain glaciers, another suggested source for sea-level rises. If the Greenland ice losses aren't accelerating, there's no real reason to worry about them. According to the Princeton statement: At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters). Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount. Authoritative recent research drawing together all possible causes of sea level rise bears this out, suggesting maximum possible rise in the worst case by 2100 will be 30cm. More probably it will be less, and there will hardly be any difference between the 20th and 21st centuries in sea level terms.
The new GRACE research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Details of the computer code can be found here.
New York had a sheet of ice over it a mile thick during the last ice age, and the Sahara Desert was once ocean bottom. We were touring Sequoia National Park recently and that was also once ocean bottom, they told us there. I think the earth is a dynamic creation that is ever changing, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms... this is the way it was meant to be. We can no more change or alter the climate than we can wish ourselves taller!
I was thinking the other day about fountains and swimming pools, that get drained after anyone drowns in them. People drown in the ocean, and also people are killed by sharks, so shouldn’t we just Drain the Ocean already LOL
Hee hee I love that comment!
If it is rising I suspect it’s not water flowing in thats doing it but what the water brings with it. The Mississippi alone dumps an average of 159 million tons of sediment a year into the ocean, add all the other rivers across the world plus streams and erosion and thats going to displace alot of water. I know the same effect plays hell on my stock ponds and I have to dredge them out every so often.
““Peer review” died an ignoble death in MMGW when it turned out that the “peer reviews” being used in many reports were “incestuous”.
This means if say, there are six insiders, three of them will write a paper, with one of the three as the “lead researcher”. Then the other three do the “peer review” and give it an ‘A++’ grade. Then they rotate.
One of the “peer reviewers” from the last paper becomes the “lead researcher” in the next paper, etc.
These “mutual admiration societies” can crank out huge numbers of bogus papers that all agree with and support each other. And by publishing so much, it appears that they are “top researchers” in their field.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Excellent description! Especially the second paragraph above. Thank you. I will use this example next time I need to rebut these ‘experts’.
If one were to take the time to read or at least scan that report, they might notice the caption for Figure 3 which gives the estimate of 3.2 +/-0.5 mm / year during the period of 1993-2011, but also makes the flat statement “this period is too short to determine meaningful changes in the rate of rise.”
next
UN to launch new round of talks on global warming
Global Warming on Free Republic
I believe the projection from the UN Projection was just the increase due to climate change. Remember, it is going up from because we are still coming out of the last ice age.
So this may in fact actually be lower than their projections.
I know. How will we ever withstand a rising sea level of 2.26" every eighteen years?
It's an extinction level event!!!
Everybody panic and start listening to "The Air That I Breathe."
This is an easy one to solve. The quickest and safest way to get sea levels to drop is to remove all sea volume increasing factors such as whales, dolphins, baby pup seals and all coral reefs. .
This is an easy one to solve. The quickest and safest way to get sea levels to drop is to remove all sea volume increasing factors such as whales, dolphins, baby pup seals and all coral reefs. .
It's lower than that, Colorado University adds in 0.3 mm/yr og GIA adsjustment,
so it's really only 2.8 mm/yr and the tide gauges around the world average out
to even less.
Here's a link to the reasoning behind CU's GIA adjustment:
...the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models
at -0.3 mm/yr ...We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series
to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series
to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes ... GIA correction has the effect of increasing
previous estimates of the global mean sea level rate by 0.3 mm/yr.
And here's a link that tells us that sea level rise is slowing down:
Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
Add it all up, and the threat of sea level rise isn't very scary.
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.