The number is not a prediction, though. It is inevitable
The reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are balanced and comprehensive documents summarizing the impact of global warming on the planet. But they are not without imperfections, and one of the most notable was the analysis of future sea level rise contained in the latest report, issued in 2007.
Given the complexities of forecasting how much the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will contribute to increases in global sea level, the IPCC chose not to include these giant ice masses in their calculations, thus ignoring what is likely to be the most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century. Arguing that too little was understood about ice sheet collapse to construct a mathematical model upon which even a rough estimate could be based, the IPCC came up with sea level predictions using thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of mountain glaciers outside the poles. Its results were predictably conservative — a maximum of a two-foot rise this century — and were even a foot lower than an earlier IPCC report that factored in some melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.
Blah blah blah. From this, the authors, who, incidently, are trying to sell a book, end up with
Most climate scientists believe melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will be one of the main drivers of sea level rise during this century. The message for the world’s leaders and decision makers is that sea level rise is real and is only going to get worse. Indeed, we make the case in our recent book, The Rising Sea, that governments and coastal managers should assume the inevitability of a seven-foot rise in sea level. This number is not a prediction. But we believe that seven feet is the most prudent, conservative long-term planning guideline for coastal cities and communities, especially for the siting of major infrastructure; a number of academic studies examining recent ice sheet dynamics have suggested that an increase of seven feet or more is not only possible, but likely. Certainly, no one should be expecting less than a three-foot rise in sea level this century.
There’s a reason folks like this are called alarmists.
Hey, I want in on this prediction nonsense! I predict rats the size of midget elephants who will only eat children ranging from 0 to 3 years old. Unless we ratify the Kyoto treaty of course. If we ratify it, then the gigantic rats will only eat children from zero to TWO years old.
Yes, global warming has taken on a new nastier look, huh? Just to cover my butt, my prediction of giant rats is 50 years out, so no one can prove me wrong until I’m just about dead.
;)
I was rather pleased to get this back in response to an email I sent Wednesday:
Dear Mr. Otter, – Many thanks for your enquiry. Judging by both the temperature records from Antarctic stations and the growing extent of sea ice there, the south polar region has been cooling for 30 years. Though warm seas possibly caused by alterations in the circumpolar current and by local seabed volcanic activity have caused small losses of ice-sheets in the Antarctic Peninsula (which occupies only 2% of the continent), there is no real evidence for widespread loss of ice on the high plateau of East Antarctica. On the contrary, ice continues to accumulate there (see Doran et al., 2002). A single recent paper by Stieg et al., using dodgy statistical methods first applied by one of the co-authors falsely to abolish the medieval warm period, has recently suggested that the Antarctic has been warming. This may be true of the Peninsula and of parts of West Antarctica, but is not true of the rest of the continent, where the authors simply made up data for vast areas of the continent in the absence of weather stations on the ground. The British Antarctic Survey has recently reported a major loss of grounded ice on the Wilkins Ice Shelf in West Antarctica, but I cannot find out where the ice went: there has been virtually no sea-level rise in the past four years, and the long-run rate of around 1 ft/century continues uninterrupted and without showing the increase that the suggested major loss of ice would lead us to suspect. Unfortunately, one now has to be very suspicious of data even from the most apparently respectable of sources. So many people in the scientific community are making money out of the “global warming” scam that they do not always do the science honestly, for fear that their work might bring the whole edifice of nonsense crashing down about their ears. – Monckton of Brenchley
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
C****, R******, P*** ***
I wonder if you could get a grant to study that, Kevin? Probably so, if you blame Mankind! :D
Seriously, Otter? That is majorly cool, no pun intended. I’d love to attend one of his speeches.