Catastrophic sea levels 'distinct possibility' this century: study

All good science until the point where they throw in "But as manmade climate change kicks in..."

Yep, sea levels absolutely rise and fall in response to climate change, and there is good geological evidence, well studied and peer-reviewed that shows that sea level rise and fall can be quite large over relatively short periods of time.

So the question becomes, will the people living in those low-lying areas build massive levees or will they move?

For an example of how a sea level drop affected a major urban center in recent times, see the historical record of the Roman city of Ostia Antica...
http://en.wikiped...al_site)

Interesting. Keep up the great research, people.

Of course they ignore all the evidence that the Earth hasn't warmed in the last decade or so and may in fact be starting a cooling tread.

When will people learn that geometric curves don't exist in nature... even when you factor in our playing with it? Either it levels off (as our population curve, recently considered to be geometric, is going to do) or it follows a cycle (as the climate does.)

Anytime you take recent trends and project them out 100 years, of course you're going to see disaster looming.

QubitTamer: Given that eg. the entire palace of Cleopatra at mouth on Nile is now underwater it seems a stretch to assume that "Ostia now 3 km from sea" is entirely due to sealevel dropping and not either silting of Tiber or plate movements due to earthquakes etc.

"The 1998 campaign of underwater investigations on the Lighthouse has lead us to think, together with geophysicists, about the constitution of this site; apparently, subsidence is particularly strong in this region %u2013 from 5 to 7 m since Antiquity. "

http://www.unesco...lex6.htm

Amazing, and all this happened before humans had any major effect on the environment through SUVs, coal burning plants, etc. 121,000 years ago? Major jumps in sea levels? Who was doing this, Atlantis?

Didn't they recently find the remains of a town off the coast of Spain in around 100 feet of water?

Additionally, what is the probability behind the statement "now a distinct possibility within the next 100 years"? What is the chance, based off of what factors, and with what error ranges? Or is this just somebody's opinion?

Nothing wrong with research, and this is good stuff to know, if it is confirmed, but it bothers me when I see these automatic assumptions about AGW casually thrown into articles.

If it weren't for "manmade climate change" kicking in, the unspoken suggestion seems to be that it might NOT get as hot during this interglacial period, and we would all remain safely high and dry.

Why?

We hear all kinds of complicated explanations about how we are causing global warming/climate change, but very little speculation about why we have glacial fluctuations at all.

If the primary cause is orbital eccentricities, wouldn't that be a pretty simple, straight forward set of calculations? I mean orbital dynamics is a solidly understood science, so is it possible to predict these eccentricities the same way we predict cometary orbits, etc?

Fazer,
You are right - orbital eccentricities are well known math. Since nobody has noticed this, I conclude that the global warming seen recently is not caused by eccentricities. I could be putting too much faith in the people that normally do these measurements but I do not have the tools to do the math myself.

That leaves a lot of things that can change the climate, including solar eccentricities which cannot be measured as well as orbits. All we can do is go off measurements made over the last few decades where reliable equipment has been recording these measurements.

We can jump to conclusions without reliable data but it is not really science then, it is speculation.

Just over 120,000 years ago sea level was on the order of several meters higher than it now is. Mankind did not load CO2 into the atmosphere at that time. Several places along the coasts of the Mediterranean are subject to geological phenomena and there are numerous techtonic platelets in the entire region.

They just had to throw in the alarmist crap, now didn't they? No one is talking about what could happen to the majority of the continental United States should there be changes in the magma-water ratio under the southwestern region.

The environment will not cause this. It could just happen. Should it do so, most of the western United States as well as most of the Great Plains will be submerged under meters of water. Bet if it happened the alarmists will blame CO2 for it. :)

You right wingers are so funny (:

And there he is, Johnballs... crawling out from under his soft fuzzy blanket of stupdity and group-think to peep out some kind of non-sequitur.

Funny how he assumes we are all right wingers. I guess anyone who thinks, observes, and forms their own opinions based on empirical data and non-politicized research is a right-winger to him. Ironic that it's people like him, driven by fear and hatred of other people that are always the tools of the real right wingers and other facists. If Johnballs was living in 1930's Germany i am sure he would believe everything Hitler said about Jews and he would attack anyone who dissented. If he lived in Stalinist Russia during the purges he would be turning in his neighbors to the NKVD if they didn't parrot everything the Commisars said. It's the ignorant masses like Johnballs who are the tools of the fear-mongers and hate-spreaders like Al Gore and all of the pathetic little men who came before him that have caused humanity such grief over the centuries.

And there he is, Johnballs... crawling out from under his soft fuzzy blanket of stupdity and group-think to peep out some kind of non-sequitur.

Funny how he assumes we are all right wingers. I guess anyone who thinks, observes, and forms their own opinions based on empirical data and non-politicized research is a right-winger to him. Ironic that it's people like him, driven by fear and hatred of other people that are always the tools of the real right wingers and other facists. If Johnballs was living in 1930's Germany i am sure he would believe everything Hitler said about Jews and he would attack anyone who dissented. If he lived in Stalinist Russia during the purges he would be turning in his neighbors to the NKVD if they didn't parrot everything the Commisars said. It's the ignorant masses like Johnballs who are the tools of the fear-mongers and hate-spreaders like Al Gore and all of the pathetic little men who came before him that have caused humanity such grief over the centuries.

Couldn't say it better myself.

my plans are in motion. the chloride ion rockets are working! very soon... ahahahahahahahahahahh

All the politically correct right-wingers, please stand to that side. All the left-wingers, the other side. Everyone else, in the middle: there's plenty of space there.

That leaves a lot of things that can change the climate, including solar eccentricities which cannot be measured as well as orbits. All we can do is go off measurements made over the last few decades where reliable equipment has been recording these measurements.



We can jump to conclusions without reliable data but it is not really science then, it is speculation.

http://scienceand...tter.pdf

Ahhh , my fans love me.

And there he is, Johnballs... crawling out from under his soft fuzzy blanket of stupdity and group-think to peep out some kind of non-sequitur.



Funny how he assumes we are all right wingers. I guess anyone who thinks, observes, and forms their own opinions based on empirical data and non-politicized research is a right-winger to him. Ironic that it's people like him, driven by fear and hatred of other people that are always the tools of the real right wingers and other facists. If Johnballs was living in 1930's Germany i am sure he would believe everything Hitler said about Jews and he would attack anyone who dissented. If he lived in Stalinist Russia during the purges he would be turning in his neighbors to the NKVD if they didn't parrot everything the Commisars said. It's the ignorant masses like Johnballs who are the tools of the fear-mongers and hate-spreaders like Al Gore and all of the pathetic little men who came before him that have caused humanity such grief over the centuries.

See I knew you were a right wing extremist , you could not help but bash Al gore.

I don't listen to a person, a sky god etc. I listen to peer reviewed science. Try it some day and you will learn something.

While your at it please post your own scientific work so that it may be peer reviewed. Oh ..your not a climatologist??

While your at it please post your own scientific work so that it may be peer reviewed. Oh ..your not a climatologist??

Interesting John, very interesting. What are Hansen and Manns' degrees in? Oh yeah, Physics.

SUV and coal pollution are extremely beneficial for human baby and infant lungs, so let's have more of it. Yeah, smart. Anyway. I'm almost 40 and I wonder to this day if the possibility exists that I will see Antarctica in my lifetime. I mean the continant and islands under the ice. Would the stronger nations that lost land want to take some back from this new continant? Would the land have any use or workabillity being dark a good chunk of the year? If no seeds are found frozen and intact how long would it take for plants to adapt? Will I still be in good enough shape to hike one of the islands? Ahh the future, one can only imagine.

SUV and coal pollution are extremely beneficial for human baby and infant lungs, so let's have more of it. Yeah, smart.

No, particulates from pollution are bad and we should limit those. On the other hand, CO2 is nothing to worry yourself about. When it rises to above 7000 ppm that would be the time to worry. (Millions of years before man walked the earth, CO2 levels were that high).

Coal technology in the US is much cleaner than that now. I'd be worrying more about diesel and biodiesel, however. These fuels produce more particulates that are harmful to infants and other people.

SUVs are not a problem. The fuels they use are a problem. But, chemicals used to produce and maintain solar arrays have their own ill effects, including up to 17000 times the radiative forcing of CO2.

Anyway. I'm almost 40 and I wonder to this day if the possibility exists that I will see Antarctica in my lifetime. I mean the continant and islands under the ice.

Well, what are you waiting for? Go to Antarctica and quit whining about not going. Will Antarctica be there in the next forty years with ice? Certainly. That will not be changing anytime soon contra AlGo and the Obamamessiah. The only thing that will de-ice Antarctica would be for the ocean currents to stop flowing around the continent. 55 million years ago Antartica was a pine-forest. Millions of years before that it was a tropical climate.

Would the stronger nations that lost land want to take some back from this new continant?

I doubt it.

Would the land have any use or workabillity being dark a good chunk of the year?

Probably. As I said above, Antarctia was once a pine-forest with varied forms of life now extinct.

If no seeds are found frozen and intact how long would it take for plants to adapt?

There already are plants living there in the form of certain grasses. There are also algaes and so forth, as well as various species of insects. It would not take long in the geological schema of things, I imagine.

Will I still be in good enough shape to hike one of the islands?

Who knows? If you sit on your rear-end all the time believing AlGo, probably not. But, in the end it does not matter since Antarctica will not be de-icing anytime soon.

Ahh the future, one can only imagine.

There seems to be a lot of imaginary science that passes for legitimate science of late so you go right on imagining as you have been deceived into imagining. I, on the other hand, will just keep on waiting for some legitimate science that is not falsifiable in the place of the "computer models" that nowadays leave much to the imagination...

But, you can stop imagining an Antarctica without ice in your lifetime. That will not happen until the ocean currents are stopped by continental drift.

Someone please tell these scientists that it's impossible to measure a 50 year trace on something that covers 120,000 years. They'd be lucky if they could narrow it down to which 1,000 years, never mind 50 years.

Research I've done in 2004 studding solar radiation received by earth that goes back to 200 years ago and global carbon output shows a very strong correlation between emission rates of Co2 and the increase in earth's average temperature. From the start of the research I excluded changes in earth's orbit as it have no effect on solar radiations received by earth, that's as far as I remember its been a while since I looked into that paper.

Anyway, there is no real evidence that the three meter change in sea level is global unless they find the same trend in different regions. For all we know it could be just plate tectonics in play.

From the start of the research I excluded changes in earth's orbit as it have no effect on solar radiations received by earth

Priceless.

Fazer,

You are right - orbital eccentricities are well known math. Since nobody has noticed this, I conclude that the global warming seen recently is not caused by eccentricities.

Actually, the math has been done and there appears to be a correlation (http://icecap.us/...AGE.doc) but this has been poo-pooed by the AGW crowd (they never debate it, just ignore it.)

Nothing wrong with research, and this is good stuff to know, if it is confirmed, but it bothers me when I see these automatic assumptions about AGW casually thrown into articles.



If it weren't for "manmade climate change" kicking in, the unspoken suggestion seems to be that it might NOT get as hot during this interglacial period, and we would all remain safely high and dry.



Why?



We hear all kinds of complicated explanations about how we are causing global warming/climate change, but very little speculation about why we have glacial fluctuations at all.



If the primary cause is orbital eccentricities, wouldn't that be a pretty simple, straight forward set of calculations? I mean orbital dynamics is a solidly understood science, so is it possible to predict these eccentricities the same way we predict cometary orbits, etc?

Now cross-reference this article with another story about atmospheric lead causing more cloud cover:

http://www.physor...515.html

Could coal burning and use of leaded gasoline have masked a natural warming trend. Over the last two decades, lead levels have dropped, I think, and now we are wide open for the warming to continue toward levels similar to the last interglacial.

Just food for thought, if anyone is interested.