2013 Global Sea Level Thread

[Scuddz]

I'd trust wxtrix over blizzard1024 in a heartbeat. Red tags are meaningless. While I may not fully agree with all of trix's thoughts on climate change, I would trust her thoughts more so than most others on here due to her more extensive knowledge and experience with the subject.

 

This

[FloridaJohn]

Has she ever posted her qualifications? I thought she simply works with publishing and chastises people who don't use her channels to get information out.

 

How is that relevent? She is not claiming to be an expert in climate change.

 

This board is for discussing the science behind climate change and it's impacts. A degree in climate change is not necessary for that.

 

I think the general consensus on this board is that if you are bringing up a scientific claim (of any sort), please back it up with references to the original work so that others may read the details. Bringing up scientific claims without any sort of references makes it difficult to discuss in any meaningful way. You don't need any specific credentials in order to do that.

 

Besides, this is the internet, and anyone can claim knowledge or experience they don't have. So asking for qualifications won't resolve the matter anyway. As always, on the internet, it is best to judge someones credibiity by reading their posts, following the links, and making your own decisions on the merits of a particular post. After a while, you get to know who is posting information based on current scientific knowledge, and who is just posting.

[Ellinwood]

Has she ever posted her qualifications?

What are yours?

[Harry]

How is that relevent? She is not claiming to be an expert in climate change.

 

This board is for discussing the science behind climate change and it's impacts. A degree in climate change is not necessary for that.

 

I think the general consensus on this board is that if you are bringing up a scientific claim (of any sort), please back it up with references to the original work so that others may read the details. Bringing up scientific claims without any sort of references makes it difficult to discuss in any meaningful way. You don't need any specific credentials in order to do that.

 

Besides, this is the internet, and anyone can claim knowledge or experience they don't have. So asking for qualifications won't resolve the matter anyway. As always, on the internet, it is best to judge someones credibiity by reading their posts, following the links, and making your own decisions on the merits of a particular post. After a while, you get to know who is posting information based on current scientific knowledge, and who is just posting.

 

Umm.. When you start telling people their ideas are junk science then yeah you are claiming to be a expert.

[WeatherRusty]

Umm.. When you start telling people their ideas are junk science then yeah you are claiming to be a expert.

Are you saying the scientific literature is irrelevant? Thinking for yourself points to the correct direction?

[FloridaJohn]

Umm.. When you start telling people their ideas are junk science then yeah you are claiming to be a expert.

 

Unless, of course, their ideas have been discounted by scientists doing actual scientific research.

 

Here's an example for you to contemplate:

 

When I stand in my backyard, I see the sun rise from the east very early in the morning. I stay in my backyard and watch the sun all day. It crosses the sky and eventually sets in the west in the early evening. I repeat this experiment every day for a month, always with the same result.

 

My "idea" is that the earth is fixed and the sun rotates around the earth. Common sense tells me this is true, since during the entire length of my "experiment," I never left the back yard. If I didn't move, then clearly the sun must have.

 

Now, tell me, is my idea junk science? How do you know? Are you claiming to be an expert in planetary physics?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Umm.. When you start telling people their ideas are junk science then yeah you are claiming to be a expert.

 

 

The Starting Point of CC.  Besides how much 20th century warming human vs non-human(often called natural) which is still between 50-75% or so variance between real skeptics and "full believers".  The only difference is the future predictions. We don't argue over data set's at this point.  Some of us get mad over changes, sometimes GISS being warmed makes folks made and want more scrutiny other times UAH does it.  But we accept it when it's legit on either "perceived" side when it's sound science. 

 

We disagree over the future and sometimes have bias in predictions, but thats about it.

 

Only Denier's and Fake Skeptic's pull the Peer reviewed is bias crap and science is shut down.

 

 

 

[Harry]

nope. you're just demonstrating the ability to use reason and discernment.

you don't need to hold a degree in mathematics to know that "2 + 2 + 5" is wrong. you don't need to hold a degree in history to know that Dewey did not defeat Truman.

you're just angry because your beloved junk science talking points are routinely destroyed by facts in this forum. again, there are a lot of places on the Internet where deniers aren't troubled by facts and you might like to check those places out. we'll keep on with fact-based discussion here, whether you like it or not.

 

 I am mad?

 

You really need to get a grip.

 

NOBODY here has destroyed anything. But you and the rest here keep living in lala land thinking otherwise. lol

[skierinvermont]

Umm.. When you start telling people their ideas are junk science then yeah you are claiming to be a expert.

 

I don't need to be an expert to know that most of what blizzard1024 posts is junk personal conjecture by an un-informed individual. All I have to do is read actual peer-reviewed science done by people who actually are experts with advanced physics and atmospheric degrees (which neither blizzard1024 nor I are). Then compare the research findings of the actual science to the bogus claims made by blizzard1024. It quickly becomes apparent that what he is posting is junk. 

 

Where are you confused?

[WeatherRusty]

 I am mad?

 

You really need to get a grip.

 

NOBODY here has destroyed anything. But you and the rest here keep living in lala land thinking otherwise. lol

 

I make you this challenge. Read through this thread and find for me a single instance where blizzard has offered anything other than personal opinion. All he does is deny, deny and deny more. Then you support his baseless argument as if he has some sort of valid point. Where is his science. His personal opinion is what is destroyed by the scientific community and it's scientific literature, not his science because he shows none.

[The_Global_Warmer]

AVISO updated into late September.  This is why some of us are worried about ice melt.

 

As seen below, there is no doubt OHC anomaly growth as slowed.  Granted it's not dropping at all.  But for purposes here slowing = less SLR from heat expansion.  But yet SLR has kept up.  We know it's from increasing ice melt. 

 

Obviously  as OHC keep's risings, things, keep warming, ice keeps melting.  This will go faster and faster.

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

It will hold different meanings at different times of year.

Obviously it matters a lot during peak solar insulation periods.

But it was mostly used because volume sucked bad.

And before cryosat and ice bridge it was easy to dismiss piomass.

At this point no metric can be used to throw bias on the sea ice situation.

This summer I am going to put the majority of my time into glaciers and Greenland.

There is tremendous change happening there that isn't getting the press it deserves.

Losing a trillion tonnes+ of land ice each year from 2010-2012 is quite amazing and the warming is just getting started.

I've noticed more articles about sea level rise, mostly because predictions were increased from 13"-24" to as much as 3-23 ft (higher range very unlikely) by 2100 according to IPCC scientists. As for the extent of the melting, it seems to be a cause of the symptoms and most individuals are only interested in treating the symptoms.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sea-level-20130329,0,4001215.story

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/sea-level-rise-2012-rising_n_2204402.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9706587/Doha-Sea-levels-to-rise-by-more-than-1m-by-2100.html

 

 

“The worse-case scenario, if both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt, could push up sea levels by 13m,” he said.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Considering the recent huge slow down in thermal expansion.  yeah.

 

[AvantHiatus]

It appears as though the oceans are finally responding to last year's record-breaking melt season. Thermal expansion cannot account for all the rise, there must be some delayed feedback in place.

 

According to that data source there was a 10mm rise in one year......

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

While not as bad as Greenland it seems the idea that Antarctica was not losing land ice was wrong.

 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

Temperature anomalies have been a bit toasty down there lately. I suppose it seems logical and expected. Perhaps if one examined only the Southern Hemisphere oceanic heat content anomaly they would find new revelations in a region that has been predominantly colder than the rest of the world.

[Msalgado]

Was fortunate to listen to Dr. Richard Alley give a talk on sea level rise an some of his research on the WAIS this past week.  When I asked him how much rise that area could contribute if it were to go relatively quickly and he basically said meters over the next ~100 years.  Pretty incredible stuff.

[ben4vols]

Was fortunate to listen to Dr. Richard Alley give a talk on sea level rise an some of his research on the WAIS this past week.  When I asked him how much rise that area could contribute if it were to go relatively quickly and he basically said meters over the next ~100 years.  Pretty incredible stuff.

 

I'll take the under bet. 

[Msalgado]

To be clear - he wasn't forecasting that type of an increase but the point I got was that its possible.  The upper bound on sea level rise seems to be far more uncertain than the lower bound.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Updated into March:

 

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

This is now updated through the last week of April. 

 

[bobbutts]

It's interesting how little discussion there is on sea level rise here.  Anyone else read "Goodbye, Miami" in the current Rolling Stone?

[The_Global_Warmer]

There was a ton of talk back when the 2010 Nina/excessive rainfall/ohc temporarily stopped all met.  Then the blow-back came.  And here we are.

 

it's not good. that's for sure.

 

One guy on here says it's some 12 year sun cycle.  Except the last 21 years it's gone up 70MM+

[Snow_Miser]

I completely forgot about this thread.

 

What do people think of this paper, published in the Journal of Climate last year?

 

"Twentieth-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?" (my emphasis)

 

"Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century."

[icebreaker5221]

We're definitely beginning to face the harsh reality of sea level rise here in Miami.  Miami Beach used to only flood during "super moon" events along Alton Rd from 9th-10th streets.  Now 9th-10th flood during almost every high tide, and it beginning to expand to 8th-12th streets during full moons.  I saw sandbags and water pumps put in place that I assume will now be there permanently. 

 

Edit to add:

If you go through each of the links on the top of this site, you can see some good photos that are examples of the "fair weather flooding" we're starting to see:

http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/

[nflwxman]

We're definitely beginning to face the harsh reality of sea level rise here in Miami. Miami Beach used to only flood during "super moon" events along Alton Rd from 9th-10th streets. Now 9th-10th flood during almost every high tide, and it beginning to expand to 8th-12th streets during full moons. I saw sandbags and water pumps put in place that I assume will now be there permanently.

Edit to add:

If you go through each of the links on the top of this site, you can see some good photos that are examples of the "fair weather flooding" we're starting to see:

http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/

Very interesting. Have you lived in Miami long enough to see this evolve over time?

[icebreaker5221]

Very interesting. Have you lived in Miami long enough to see this evolve over time?

 

I've lived here since 2008, and there has already been a small but definitely noticeable difference during this timeframe.  People who have lived here longer tell me that 15-20 years ago the aforementioned roads only flooded during heavy rain events or TCs - so a fairly dramatic difference over the course of a decade or two. 

 

I guess that's the problem when parts of a city are not measured in feet, but inches above sea level. 

[A-L-E-K]

yeah, Miami is screwed

[tacoman25]

The rate of sea level rise in Miami has been around 9 inches per 100 years. That could increase, but at this point, while the city will continue to be increasingly vulnerable to flooding, there is plenty of time to figure out an exit strategy.

 

Just sucks for those owning Miami real estate. Now is the time to sell.