Hyperventibloviation over at CNN from 1 expert
Expert: We’re ‘locked-in’ to 3 feet sea level rise
It was less than two years ago that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its all-encompassing assessment on the current state of climate change research and made projections for the future climate of our planet.
According to the latest from NASA, however, the projections the panel made for a rise in global sea levels of 1 to 3 feet may already be outdated.
According to Steven Nerem of the University of Colorado, we are “locked into at least 3 feet of sea level rise, and probably more.”
Nerem said experts now think a rise in sea levels toward “the higher end of that range is more likely, and the question remains how that range might have to shift upwards.” (snip)
There are three main causes for rising sea levels: The expansion of warmer ocean water, melting mountain glaciers, and ice loss from the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Of course, CNN eludes to this all being caused by Mankind’s greenhouse gas output, despite this having all happened before. Despite the 20th Century seeing just 7 inches of sea rise, when it should have seen at least double that to be a very warm Holocene warm period. Oh, and
(No Tricks Zone) Â It appears the NOAA also agrees that sea level rise is not happening any where near as fast as many among us would like to think it is. At its site here, it writes the following n(my emphasis):
The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year. Note that they are relative sea level trends, and are not corrected for local land movement. The calculated trends for all CO-OPS stations are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century. A complete table of non-CO-OPS station trends are available as a table in millimeters/year and in feet/century.â€
Hurry up and read it before this gets taken down! To be on the safe side I’ve cut out the location of interest:
Even if sea rise was high, it still wouldn’t prove mostly/solely anthropogenic causation. Just what’s been going on throughout the Holocene, not too mention the rest of Earth’s history. If we do the math, it gives us 151 millimeters, using the 1.8 figure, by 2100. That equals……..just under 6 inches over the next 84 years. So, pretty much what we saw during the 20th century, and exactly average for the last 7,000 years.
So, if we are “locked in” to that rise in sea level, there’s no sense in wasting money trying to do something about it, right?
No Dana once again you have managed to come to the wrong answer
We are locked into that sea level rise as a minimum
Of course this ride will not have the same impact in rich people as on pour people
If you are self centered narcisstic personality. It is if little consequence to you
A 3 foot tide jn sea level will adversely effect 100s of millions of humans who already are living a marginal existence
Is that a concern of yours ?
john,
A rise in sea level would wipe our LA, New York, Boston, New Orleans, San Francisco, etc. So what is not to like about the concept??? These are all liberal bastions and a natural disaster would be heaven sent. By the way, you are the one who is backward, not anyone else on the comment section, except old jeff.
David in the Sandy storm (which Teach said was over hyped BEFORE it hit) the water in New York City rose 14 feet not 4 feet. It did cause a lot of damage but New York recovered.
Rich cities will not wash away. Those cities that you mention ? They are the economic engines that power business in the USA. Remember the Blue liberal states pay to DC more taxes than they get back, unlike the Red States that take more from DC than they give AND then claim that taxes are too high,The biggest victims will be poor brown and black subsistence farmers in rich river deltas such as Bangladesh. So maybe you are really stupid and didn’t realize that OR you just don’t really care about human beings, but care only about yourself.
I am not going to be badly effected myself, but I do care about humanity.
David have you ever travelled and seen what the typical condition of a human being on planet Earth is?
1/3 of the population on planet Earth live on less than $2 per day. They are the ones who will be most adversely affected.
John, the sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. Didn’t your cult leaders tell you that? “1/3 of the population lives on less than $2 per day. They are the ones who will be most adversely affected.” Then John, why would you and the cult want to raise the energy rates for people making less than $2 a day? Because they’d be the ones most adversely affected by raising energy rates if the alarmists get their way. Let’s review a quote from “genius” debater John: “So maybe you’re really just stupid and don’t realize that or you just care only about yourself.” So John, are you really stupid and only care about yourself?
john,
I have been to just about every corner of the world. I have seen families living in under a sheet of tin. Even though I pity their circumstances, I know that little can be done to alter their environment. I do know that when well meaning, clueless liberals try to do something, they make the circumstances worse and set up a class of people that will never achieve, just like what good old LBJ did. The best thing that people can do is attend to their own problems, help directly when they can, but leave government out as it never, ever does any good.