Sea Level Rise Will Double Due To Melting Of Antarctica

[Coast]

Previous research had predicted sea levels would only rise by a couple of feet (59cm) by the end of the century, however this does not include melting ice from the South Pole.

The most comprehensive study into the impact of global warming on the region by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) found ice is already melting in the West Antarctic region due to an increase in temperatures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6692899/Sea-level-rise-will-double-due-to-melting-of-Antarctica.html

Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,” said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.

www.timesonline.co.uk

All 529 pages in .pdf format here: www.scar.org/publications

Top 10 key finidngs here: www.scar.org/ACCE_top_10_points

[Methuselah]

I don't buy into this new 'theory'. IMO, it's just another scare story brought-up to prepare us all for the Copenhangen Conference...I am not convinced at all!!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Last time I checked the net volume of ice in the Antarctic wasn't showing much sign of declining with the Southern Hemisphere ice extent, if anything, showing a slight upward trend. The Antarctic is so cold that it would take a colossal amount of global warming to have a major impact on that ice sheet.

The Arctic, as should be well established by now, is much more of a concern.

[Methuselah]

The Arctic, as should be well established by now, is much more of a concern.

Exactly Ian. Do 'they' think we are all stupid???

[OldGreggsTundraBoy]

wouldn't really surprise me if both the north and south pole had melted by 2100 unless something radical happens like a mini ice age or human influences.

[Methuselah]

wouldn't really surprise me if both the north and south pole had melted by 2100 unless something radical happens like a mini ice age or human influences.

However sceptical I am, OGTB - I cannot envisage the complete melting of Antarctica by 2100...

[cyclonic happiness]

I and everyone else have been "bombarded" with so much information over the past few years that many people refuse to beleive anything.

This, i think, is the really worrying thing.

[Interitus]

I and everyone else have been "bombarded" with so much information over the past few years that many people refuse to beleive anything.

This, i think, is the really worrying thing.

Yes quite possibly. However, I'm certain that if the body of scientific evidence was pointing in the other direction many of the present sceptics would probably accept it unreservedly. People quite often believe what they want to believe.

Briefly regarding Antarctic ice extent, increased area is not incompatible with warming resulting in shelf collapse and/or increased ice flow rates.

But I wouldn't worry about Antarctica being ice-free by 2100 - anything that caused that so quickly would wipe us out anyway.

[towbar0]

Makes me wonder what the average 15 year old feels about it all. Off to Weatherspoons (!) maybe.... .....

[Ripeberry]

Just pray that in the future some nutter does not get hold of some nuclear bombs and decides that the only way to save the planet is to let it off and cuase a nuclear winter and stop the industrial world in its tracks

[Gray-Wolf]

Because data was sparse and certain nations demanded it's emission from TAR4 sea level rise was artificially low (did not include and Antarctic element or a Greenland element).

The melting of an ice sheet is not a linear function. It's start may appear to be a slowly increasing out put but it's 'collapse' is a sudden event (all paleo data seems to show this).

Recent papers also highlight the sensitivity of the ice sheets by comparing past interglacial sea levels with past temps.

125,000yrs ago we had a sea level 6m above present with temps not dissimilar to todays.

Maintain the temps and the question is not 'if' the shelfs will start to collapse but 'when'.

The air above Antarctica has been shown to be warming faster than anywhere on the globe;

http://news.national...tarctica_2.html

so only the impacts from our Ozone hole are holding back widespread melt.Once we are successful in allowing the hole to heal we will face unleashing sudden warming onto both East and west Antarctic from the atmosphere above and the oceans surrounding it.

My guess would be within 10yrs of this happening we will be witnessing unstoppable collapse across both ice sheets with Ross shelf being badly impacted and it's role as a buttress to the majority of the EAIS negated.

On the up side there may well be increased snowfall to 'lock up' some of the waters the melting unleashes

Edited February 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Cycles]

Most of the truth concerning sea level rises, or possible sea level rises, is somewhere between the liberal and conservative view.

Yes the earth's oceans normally experience sea level rises near 300 feet leading up to the 120,000 year mega global warming cycles. they also see an approximate 10 foot rise during the a warm cycle right at the peak of the 120,000 year cycle.

Earth has been approaching the peak of the 120,000 year mega warming cycle for the past 15,000 years, and thus the oceans experienced a 300 foot rise as the glaciers melted between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago. Then only about a 20 foot rise during the past 8000 years, and no rise during the past few years as the earth begins cooling from the 1920 to 2007 mini warming cycle.

Earth will experience an approximate 120 year cooling cycle from 2008 to about 2120, then warming to the next mini global warming cycle between 2125 to 2200. It is this cycle that will see an approximate 10 foot rise in oceans...because global cooling began in 2008, it cannot happen during the upcoming 50 years.

Regards

David Dilley

Global Weather Oscillations Inc

www.GlobalWeatherCycles.comb

[sunny starry skies]

Most of the truth concerning sea level rises, or possible sea level rises, is somewhere between the liberal and conservative view.

Yes the earth's oceans normally experience sea level rises near 300 feet leading up to the 120,000 year mega global warming cycles. they also see an approximate 10 foot rise during the a warm cycle right at the peak of the 120,000 year cycle.

Earth has been approaching the peak of the 120,000 year mega warming cycle for the past 15,000 years, and thus the oceans experienced a 300 foot rise as the glaciers melted between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago. Then only about a 20 foot rise during the past 8000 years, and no rise during the past few years as the earth begins cooling from the 1920 to 2007 mini warming cycle.

Earth will experience an approximate 120 year cooling cycle from 2008 to about 2120, then warming to the next mini global warming cycle between 2125 to 2200. It is this cycle that will see an approximate 10 foot rise in oceans...because global cooling began in 2008, it cannot happen during the upcoming 50 years.

Regards

David Dilley

Global Weather Oscillations Inc

www.GlobalWeatherCycles.comb

Oh dear. Did you write that with a straight face? Not really worth responding to, as you clearly are more interested in politics than hard science, and have little idea about the science of palaeoclimatology. Dare I ask for some evidence for these bizarre ideas? Your phantom cooling cycle and falling sea levels are yet to be observed. I particularly like the "because global cooling began in 2008." Clearly you were on holiday for the last four record or near-record warm months globally. Have you even looked at temperature records?

The current view is that sea level rise was underestimated in AR4.

Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf

"We propose a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean temperature. This relationship is tested on synthetic data from a global climate model for the past millennium and the next century. When applied to observed data of sea level and temperature for 1880–2000, and taking into account known anthropogenic hydrologic

contributions to sea level, the correlation is >0.99, explaining 98% of the variance. For future global temperature scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, the relationship projects a sea-level rise ranging from 75 to 190 cm for the period 1990–2100."

sss

[Cycles]

Oh dear. Did you write that with a straight face? Not really worth responding to, as you clearly are more interested in politics than hard science, and have little idea about the science of palaeoclimatology. Dare I ask for some evidence for these bizarre ideas?

Guess I should say "Oh dear to you also".

First you have to understand natural cycles, and it is evident the IPCC does not. You may read my ebook free if you like.

Cycles are cycles, and we are now entering global cooling. Do not let the El Nino warming sway the fact that earth is cooling. If it were not cooling, the United States would not have had the large snowstorms of 2009-10, they would likey have been rain.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The El Nino is weaker than the El Nino of 1998, yet global temperatures are comparably high. If anything, this is evidence for a slight underlying warming trend over the last 12 years, not a cooling.

[Cycles]

The El Nino is weaker than the El Nino of 1998, yet global temperatures are comparably high. If anything, this is evidence for a slight underlying warming trend over the last 12 years, not a cooling.

The United States has set all kinds of temperature and snow records the past 3 winters, with this winter more so than other's for snow. Yes, direct link to El Nino. But, earlier El Nino's were more rain than snow during the 1997 to 2007 period. What this means is that although the El Nino is causing warming this winter, it likewise means there is more cold air available than anytime during the past 10 years...thus cooling.

Seems the IPCC was 99.8 percent sure man is causing warming (as of a few years ago), and likewise confidence of a melt down. Sure is a high confidence level with global cooling likely occurring for the next 100+ years. Need to look at the next warming cycle between 2130 and 2200 for the melt down.

[johnholmes]

If it were not cooling, the United States would not have had the large snowstorms of 2009-10, they would likey have been rain.

that is an OTT statement if I ever read one David.

Said without any proof other than your belief in 'natural cycles'. For the large snowstorms you quote to have been rain then the overall temperature globally let alone over the north American continent, would need to be several degrees warmer than it currently is.

I respect your views David although, after reading your e mail book, I am not convinced by a fair amount of what you say but lets stick to reality and posts with some depth in them please.

I have to say neither do I believe all that IPCC publish.

Edited March 2, 2010 by johnholmes

[Cycles]

that is an OTT statement if I ever read one David.

Said without any proof other than your belief in 'natural cycles'. For the large snowstorms you quote to have been rain then the overall temperature globally let alone over the north American continent, would need to be several degrees warmer than it currently is.

I respect your views David although, after reading your e mail book, I am not convinced by a fair amount of what you say but lets stick to reality and posts with some depth in them please.

I have to say neither do I believe all that IPCC publish.

John

It is a fact the United States was below the long term mean (temperature) during January and February, even with an El Nino. Normally the United States would be warmer with an El Nino, but it was not. Many of the years from 1998 through 2007 saw rainy winters here, and not snowy winters...and this occured without the aid of warm El Nino years.

Florida is having one of the coldest years in 100 years, earliest snow ever in Houston texas, most snow ever in Dallas texas and some of the mid Atlantic states, most number nights with below freezing temperatures in north Florida, snow in central Florida.

Oh, guess it is global warming. Or could it be the El Nino circulation brought milder air into western and eastern Canada, but yet more cold air was available than prior years to still enable cold enough temperatures for snow?

Yes some areas of the globe have been warm during this El Nino winter, and some have been cold and snowy. Pretty difficult to say global warming is well entrenched when we see snow and cold records fall that have been in place for 100 years....thought global warming only began about 80 years ago.

Regards

David

[jethro]

GWO, you cannnot catagorise every El Nino as being the same, nor having the same effect. This El Nino, although moderate in strength, has not engaged with the atmosphere in a typical Nino fashion.

Regardless of climate change, natural or otherwise, deep cold has always been available from the North during winter months - the deciding factor on whether or not it stays in the North or floods South are synoptic weather patterns. This year, the AO has been incredibly negative, this is the primary cause of cold heading South.

It is not indicative of global warming or cooling, it's weather.

I'm incredibly sceptical of some of the claims of AGW and I was equally scathing of the claims back in 2006 when we had a scorching summer; that didn't validate the global warming theory, a cold, snowy winter doesn't invalidate it either.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The United States has set all kinds of temperature and snow records the past 3 winters, with this winter more so than other's for snow. Yes, direct link to El Nino. But, earlier El Nino's were more rain than snow during the 1997 to 2007 period. What this means is that although the El Nino is causing warming this winter, it likewise means there is more cold air available than anytime during the past 10 years...thus cooling.

Seems the IPCC was 99.8 percent sure man is causing warming (as of a few years ago), and likewise confidence of a melt down. Sure is a high confidence level with global cooling likely occurring for the next 100+ years. Need to look at the next warming cycle between 2130 and 2200 for the melt down.

This winter has been nothing like the El Nino winters of 1997-2007, so we aren't really comparing like with like here. As it happens, most of the USA and Canada has experienced above average temperatures this winter, but less so than in most recent El Nino years, but if it's cold enough when precipitation occurs, it will be snow even if mean temperatures are above the average.

The prevailing pattern this winter has seen unusual cold over Eurasia, and unusual warmth over Greenland and north-eastern Canada and the west Atlantic. Most recent winters have seen warm anomalies over the continents and cold anomalies over the oceans, and the greater incidence of cold/snow reports over the continents this winter can be explained entirely by the synoptics. The globe as a whole, depending on which source you prefer to use, has been at either record or near-record levels of warmth.

"Global warming" specifically refers to the rise in the mean global temperature, and if that temperature is rising (which still appears to be the case, in view of the similar temperatures to 1998 despite a weaker El Nino), it doesn't matter if individual areas of the globe are colder than average.

[Cycles]

As I was saying, El Nino normally brings warmer winters and this instance it did not over the U.S., yes it did in some areas, and that is to be expected.

My main point is that we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warm during an El Nino winter, but over here there has been 3 severe winters in a row. Next winter without an El Nino will be very interesting temperature wise.

But, it is hard to neglect such record snow and cold during the past 2 winters...much of which had not been seen since prior to the warm period of 1997-2008.

Then it comes to the melting of glaciers. Past cycles during the last half million years strongly indicate we are now in a cooling cycle and that rises in sea levels will have to wait until the next warming cycle in about 200 years.

Regards

David

[Iceberg]

My main point is that we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warm during an El Nino winter, but over here there has been 3 severe winters in a row. Next winter without an El Nino will be very interesting temperature wise.

You would expect it to be warm, it was warm (a Top 5 according to the sat record).

[sunny starry skies]

As I was saying, El Nino normally brings warmer winters and this instance it did not over the U.S., yes it did in some areas, and that is to be expected.

My main point is that we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warm during an El Nino winter, but over here there has been 3 severe winters in a row. Next winter without an El Nino will be very interesting temperature wise.

But, it is hard to neglect such record snow and cold during the past 2 winters...much of which had not been seen since prior to the warm period of 1997-2008.

Then it comes to the melting of glaciers. Past cycles during the last half million years strongly indicate we are now in a cooling cycle and that rises in sea levels will have to wait until the next warming cycle in about 200 years.

Regards

David

It's been cold here too - the Met Office have said that this is Scotland's coldest winter since 1963 and I believe that. But, exactly as Jethro posted - regional-scale cold/warm is weather. You do realise that this is one of the warmest winters (if not the warmest) globally on record. Other regions of the world, notably Greenland and Arctic Canada, where the cold air ought to be, are remarkably warm. This was (and others may correct me if I'm wrong) an unusual west-based El Nino, that would not be expected to interact with weather patterns in a 'normal' way. The western US and Canada was clearly remarkably warm too.

From the evidence on here, you're struggling with the difference between weather and climate, let alone palaeoclimate, and so no I'm not going to read your book.

sss

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It's been cold here too - the Met Office have said that this is Scotland's coldest winter since 1963 and I believe that. But, exactly as Jethro posted - regional-scale cold/warm is weather. You do realise that this is one of the warmest winters (if not the warmest) globally on record. Other regions of the world, notably Greenland and Arctic Canada, where the cold air ought to be, are remarkably warm. This was (and others may correct me if I'm wrong) an unusual west-based El Nino, that would not be expected to interact with weather patterns in a 'normal' way. The western US and Canada was clearly remarkably warm too.

From the evidence on here, you're struggling with the difference between weather and climate, let alone palaeoclimate, and so no I'm not going to read your book.

sss

That is disrespectful - David (GWO) spent some considerable time on this forum about a year or so ago politely, patiently and pleasantly discussing his own natural causes case analysis and his book contains some very thought provoking and credible suggestions. Whether you are inclined to agree with them or not. If you refuse to read his book or consider other potential causes of climate variation then you shouldn't be continually surprised why others don't step up to answering your own questions.

The e-book analysis, I clearly recall, was sadly hijacked at one stage over a side discussion about the latest el nino event (which had/has absolutely nothing to do with future climate change) and a lot of nitpicking over its strength and timing. One or two members regretfully appeared to take satisfaction in his predictions being rather astray in terms of timing of the event etc. However any discussion about el nino or the difference between weather and climate has nothing whatsoever to do with Davids own work - and his appraisal wrt climate variation through natural causes should be taken on those merits rather than attempting to undermine him over irrelevant side issues.

Similarly the same sort of quibbling is now taking place over what the difference between weather and climate is etc.

From reading the book and his thread on here, my own view regarding the switches in the jet stream periodically polewards (such as we have seen since the 1970's until the changes southwards again in the last few years) and as history has previously shown could well be, at the very least, a part consequence of the forcings that David describes. Worth remembering that the climate periods he discusses in his book represent whole climate periods in terms of hundreds of thousands of years rather than the narrower focus of AGW which makes assumptions about changes within a much shorter period of time

Edited March 3, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

Similarly the same sort of quibbling is now taking place over what the difference between weather and climate is etc.

I've got to pick you up on that. The difference between weather and climate isn't a quibble. Look back at the archives and you clearly, succinctly and knowledgeably explained and argued for the difference when the pro AGW side of this debate were stating categorically that not only was the hot summer of 2006 proof positive of climate change, but that cold winters were no longer possible here.

You can't have it both ways.