Global sea-rise levels by 2100 my be lower than some predict, says new study

But Manbearpig is real! Why won't you take me serial?

Now this is real science in regard to sea level rise. It's about time.

Isn't there another article floating around here which is all a twitter about how FAST the sea level rise is going to be??

"If we plan for 6 feet and only get 2 feet, for example, or visa versa, we could spend billions of dollars of resources solving the wrong problems."

Whoahhhhhhhhh. That smacks of common sense. Shout him down Al!

Yeah, I fully expected the denialists to get all a-twitter about an article that "debunks" GW. Ooooh. The excitement.

Except of course, it doesn't.

It doesn't say that GW doesn't exist. It doesn't say that temperatures won't rise, or even that they won't rise as much as predicted. It doesn't say there isn't enough ice there to make the oceans rise 20 ft. In fact, it doesn't even say the oceans won't rise 20 ft!!!

What it says is that the oceans *probably* (notice the author uses the word "opinion") won't rise as fast or as soon as some other predictions, because all the ice falling off the glaciers is going to get logjammed. So if the author's right (not guaranteed), the oceans will hit 20 ft maybe what, 20 years later? 10? 30? He doesn't say. Wow. Time to celebrate.

And of course, there's always the caveat that *he* might be the one that's wrong. Remember, the idea of GW prep is to try to fix things BEFORE they go blewy.

{sigh} I don't know why I bother...

Yeah, I fully expected the denialists to get all a-twitter about an article that "debunks" GW. Ooooh. The excitement.

Except of course, it doesn't.

What are you talking about? We're appreciating an article that's using science to describe what they think is happening by testing and observing.

It doesn't say that GW doesn't exist. It doesn't say that temperatures won't rise, or even that they won't rise as much as predicted. It doesn't say there isn't enough ice there to make the oceans rise 20 ft. In fact, it doesn't even say the oceans won't rise 20 ft!!!

Right, because unlike the AGW crowd he has conclusive data about his theory, and he didn't run off to make a movie about it then use those profits to buy a houseboat.

What it says is that the oceans *probably* (notice the author uses the word "opinion") won't rise as fast or as soon as some other predictions, because all the ice falling off the glaciers is going to get logjammed. So if the author's right (not guaranteed), the oceans will hit 20 ft maybe what, 20 years later? 10? 30? He doesn't say. Wow. Time to celebrate.

And of course, there's always the caveat that *he* might be the one that's wrong. Remember, the idea of GW prep is to try to fix things BEFORE they go blewy.

{sigh} I don't know why I bother...

Neither do I, you're going the wrong way with this. We appreciate this article because whether we agree with the guy or not, he's using rational science, not speculation based on interpretive data.

We don't jump on the AGW crowd for any reason other than "we're right because we say so" mentalities that are pushed on us by the AGW supporters.

If you bring a paper to the table with accurate data and intelligent discourse then you won't see the anti agw regulars jump on it.

Yeah, there are so many conflicting studies on this area. Many articles are like this one and state that sea rise will not be as much, and then others say it will be much higher than we currently believe. It's all a big uncertainty.

Look at this graph of global sea level. Especially notice the last two years. You have to scroll down a little.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Notice the last two years on this global sea level graph.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

At this rate the sea level will rise about 14" in a hundred years.

At this rate the sea level will rise about 14" in a hundred years.

And that's assuming the rise is constant.

Look at this graph of global sea level. Especially notice the last two years.

Doesn't look like a statistically significant deviation from the trend.

The last two years on that graph could also be attributed to the new satellite's greater accuracy in measurement over it's predecessor.

What it says is that the oceans *probably* (notice the author uses the word "opinion") won't rise as fast or as soon as some other predictions,

I noticed! :) Too bad the alarmists rarely uses those words. I also noticed that he didn't try to blame evil humans as the root cause of a natural phenomenon.

How did this Heresy make it past the dogmatists onto the website...?

With so many studies making conclusions that are mutually exclusive, I'd say, as far as GW goes: "They just don't know."

What it says is that the oceans *probably* (notice the author uses the word "opinion")

Wow, obviously you don't know science well. At it's heart is a whole bunch of untestable philosophy (like do we exist, etc.) that we *assume* to be true. If we all took these words of "opinion", "assumption", "probably", "insert other soft stance word here" as strongly as you did then we would come to the decision that either:
1) the world doesn't exist so nothing matters anyway
2) that God is making the warming, so we should live our lives as we do now and use his gifts as we see fit. If he wants us flooded, then we will be flooded. If he wants us to stay dry, then he will make a great miracle and stop it.

Because, after all there is only a *probability* to existance and that we are only *probably* in control of our situation.

As always with global warming issues, I personally take no opinion. However, the science usually seems quite weak from what I've seen on both sides of the fence. We ARE at the end of an ice age. There ARE periodic fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures (see the little ice age, etc.). The earth is believed to have historically been WARMER than it currently is. Deforestation and habitat destruction has been SEVERE since the 1600s. Continued population growth will only make the situation worse. I'm actually quite surprised that the GW alarmists haven't stepped up with a campaign of ZPG, as this would be a sure fire way to reduce the growth of CO2 emissions.

Notice the last two years on this global sea level graph.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

From looking at that chart I'd say that it was 3.2mm plus/minus 10mm instead of 0.4mm.

Looking at the calibration graphs for TOPEX and Jason-1 seem to confirm that. The interesting issue those bring up are:
1) the negative slope to the linear coefficient,
2) the precision appears to be plus or minus 4mm
3) the accuracy appears to be all over the place (plus or minus ~30mm)

Also looking at the chart it appears that the slope on sea level change is zero from 2005 to 2008

What it says is that the oceans *probably* (notice the author uses the word "opinion")

Wow, obviously you don't know science well. At it's heart is a whole bunch of untestable philosophy (like do we exist, etc.) that we *assume* to be true. If we all took these words of "opinion", "assumption", "probably", "insert other soft stance word here" as strongly as you did then we would come to the decision that either:
1) the world doesn't exist so nothing matters anyway
2) that God is making the warming, so we should live our lives as we do now and use his gifts as we see fit. If he wants us flooded, then we will be flooded. If he wants us to stay dry, then he will make a great miracle and stop it.

Because, after all there is only a *probability* to existance and that we are only *probably* in control of our situation.

As always with global warming issues, I personally take no opinion. However, the science usually seems quite weak from what I've seen on both sides of the fence. We ARE at the end of an ice age. There ARE periodic fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures (see the little ice age, etc.). The earth is believed to have historically been WARMER than it currently is. Deforestation and habitat destruction has been SEVERE since the 1600s. Continued population growth will only make the situation worse. I'm actually quite surprised that the GW alarmists haven't stepped up with a campaign of ZPG, as this would be a sure fire way to reduce the growth of CO2 emissions.

Friends don't let friends post high on Physorg.

A couple of thoughts:
"Science" is a peer reviewed journal known for high quality content and this adds more weight to this article.

Also regarding sea level measurement, convert the unit weight of 1 inch of mercury (atmospheric pressure change) to the unit weight of seawater and you will see that it will cause about a 15 inch sea level change - thus the surface of the ocean is going up and down in different regions just from changes is atmospheric pressure, not even considering the effect of tides and wind...where do you think that puts the "accuracy" of these measurements?

They have the measurements displayed with or without the inverted barometer applied, however you would like to see them. See here, you have to scroll down a little.

http://sealevel.c...ults.php

Notice the last two years on this global sea level graph.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

The TOPEX satellite was orbiting at about 1366KM. NASA's acuracy data is that measurements are plus or minus 4cm to 5cm.

I would question the data from the satellites until I'd matched it against other measuring techniques. Certainly averaging a large number of measurements can improve your resolution IF the variation is totally random (white noise) instead of a periodic event or sensor bias (it's been known to happen.) Discarding data through statistical manipulation is sometimes controversial and almost always requires a deep knowledge of the processes involved and statistics.

This sounds like quite a bad news, as the very conservative predictions from IPCC estimated that the sea level would not rise more than 18cm to 59cm. Now we are saying that 3 meters are possible by 2100. Maybe someone should ask then, what about 2200? Is it looking like 6 meters to 10 meters? I do not understand the reason behind limiting our view to 2100 only but anyway.

Did anyone read their full paper by the way? Something I would like to know is if ice can also melt quite much on top of their estimates? It seems that they estimated the amount of ice that flows from the icefields into the sea, but that they did not count the water increase due to the melting of ice apart from the ice on these icefields flowing into the sea. Does anyone know?

If they did not count such ice, how much would this ice amount to and what would be a fair estimate of it's contribution to the sea level rise?

This sounds like quite a bad news, as the very conservative predictions from IPCC estimated that the sea level would not rise more than 18cm to 59cm. Now we are saying that 3 meters are possible by 2100. Maybe someone should ask then, what about 2200? Is it looking like 6 meters to 10 meters? I do not understand the reason behind limiting our view to 2100 only but anyway.

That rise is far under the alarmist IPCC prediction as well. The problem I have with bringing the IPCC into this is they are more of a political organization than a scientific one. According to the paper past 2100 there would be no net change as that particular ice field would be exhausted assuming it gains no more precipitation.

Did anyone read their full paper by the way? Something I would like to know is if ice can also melt quite much on top of their estimates? It seems that they estimated the amount of ice that flows from the icefields into the sea, but that they did not count the water increase due to the melting of ice apart from the ice on these icefields flowing into the sea. Does anyone know?

If they did not count such ice, how much would this ice amount to and what would be a fair estimate of it's contribution to the sea level rise?

As for your question of meltwater, the rise would be the same regardless, ice when melted does not gain mass so melting the ice would not make a difference in the sea level once it's already in the ocean which the paper proposes.

@dbren - Lol !

This sounds like quite a bad news, as the very conservative predictions from IPCC estimated that the sea level would not rise more than 18cm to 59cm. Now we are saying that 3 meters are possible by 2100. Maybe someone should ask then, what about 2200? Is it looking like 6 meters to 10 meters? I do not understand the reason behind limiting our view to 2100 only but anyway.

That rise is far under the alarmist IPCC prediction as well. The problem I have with bringing the IPCC into this is they are more of a political organization than a scientific one. According to the paper past 2100 there would be no net change as that particular ice field would be exhausted assuming it gains no more precipitation.

Did anyone read their full paper by the way? Something I would like to know is if ice can also melt quite much on top of their estimates? It seems that they estimated the amount of ice that flows from the icefields into the sea, but that they did not count the water increase due to the melting of ice apart from the ice on these icefields flowing into the sea. Does anyone know?

If they did not count such ice, how much would this ice amount to and what would be a fair estimate of it's contribution to the sea level rise?

As for your question of meltwater, the rise would be the same regardless, ice when melted does not gain mass so melting the ice would not make a difference in the sea level once it's already in the ocean which the paper proposes.

The maximum rise here is 2 to 3 meters while the politicaly influenced IPPC by the Oil industry, sorry I meant the Bush administration predicts a maximum of 59cm.

"ice when melted does not gain mass so melting the ice". On Greenland the ice is on land, therefore when it melts, it goes into the sea and adds to sea level. Thanks to Co2 Caused Global Warming.

This sounds like quite a bad news, as the very conservative predictions from IPCC estimated that the sea level would not rise more than 18cm to 59cm. Now we are saying that 3 meters are possible by 2100. Maybe someone should ask then, what about 2200? Is it looking like 6 meters to 10 meters? I do not understand the reason behind limiting our view to 2100 only but anyway.

That rise is far under the alarmist IPCC prediction as well. The problem I have with bringing the IPCC into this is they are more of a political organization than a scientific one. According to the paper past 2100 there would be no net change as that particular ice field would be exhausted assuming it gains no more precipitation.

Did anyone read their full paper by the way? Something I would like to know is if ice can also melt quite much on top of their estimates? It seems that they estimated the amount of ice that flows from the icefields into the sea, but that they did not count the water increase due to the melting of ice apart from the ice on these icefields flowing into the sea. Does anyone know?

If they did not count such ice, how much would this ice amount to and what would be a fair estimate of it's contribution to the sea level rise?

As for your question of meltwater, the rise would be the same regardless, ice when melted does not gain mass so melting the ice would not make a difference in the sea level once it's already in the ocean which the paper proposes.

The maximum rise here is 2 to 3 meters while the politicaly influenced IPPC by the Oil industry, sorry I meant the Bush administration predicts a maximum of 59cm.

"ice when melted does not gain mass so melting the ice". On Greenland the ice is on land, therefore when it melts, it goes into the sea and adds to sea level. Thanks to Co2 Caused Global Warming.

Sorry, there are a lot of advancing and thickening glaciers. That and the ice packs in greenland are theorized to be melting due to subglacial tectonic activity and vulcanism.

That and the IPCC has still failed to prove AGW let alone that CO2 is a main factor of it.

It's a hypothesis as it's never undergone proper peer reviewed scientific exploration or experimentation.

That is why you will consistantly see articles revealing facts like the above "Global see rise will be lower than expected." Because the "expected" sea rise is based off a model with arbitrary varibles and is of questionable design.

If the IPCC practiced science and not hobby modeling they would come up with far different results, as well as more credible findings.

Like I've said before, I don't oppose the idea of AGW, I don't think AGW is impossible (although highly improbable), but I know that AGW is nothing more than an unverified hypothesis. And an unverified hypothesis is not deserving of intergovernmental funding, press coverage, acclaim, financial or social reform.