Oceans may rise over 4 1/2 feet by 2100

[Professor]

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061214/sc_nm/climate_oceans_dc

Oceans may rise over 4 1/2 feet by 2100
By Alister Doyle

The world's oceans may rise up to 140 cms (4 ft 7 in) by 2100 due to global warming, a faster than expected increase that could threaten low-lying coasts from Florida to Bangladesh, a researcher said on Thursday.

"The possibility of a faster sea level rise needs to be considered when planning adaptation measures such as coastal defenses," Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research wrote in the journal Science.

His study, based on air temperatures and past sea level changes rather than computer models, suggested seas could rise by 50-140 cms by 2100, well above the 9-88 cms projected by the scientific panel that advises the United Nations.

A rise of one meter might swamp low-lying Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, flood large areas of Bangladesh or Florida and threaten cities from New York to Buenos Aires.

"The computer models underestimate the sea level rise that has already occurred," Rahmstorf told Reuters of a rise of about 20 cms since 1900. "There are aspects of the physics we don't understand very well."

Sea level changes hinge on poorly understood factors such as the pace of the melt of glaciers and of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Water also expands as it gets warmer but the rate of penetration of heat to the depths is uncertain.

"My main conclusion is not that my forecast is better but that the uncertainty is much larger because of the different results you get with reasonable methods," he said.

Almost all climate scientists reckon the world is warming because of emissions of greenhouse gases from human use of fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars. Rising temperatures could bring more droughts, floods and heatwaves.

TIDES

Rahmstorf likened his approach to predicting the height of tides along a coast, largely based on past observations.

He said seas were 120 meters below present levels during the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago and 25-35 meters higher than the present in the Pliocene epoch 3 million years ago.

In the Ice Age temperatures were 4-7 Celsius (7.2-12.6 Fahrenheit) cooler than today and 2-3 C (3.6-5.4F) warmer in the Pliocene. That suggested sea levels change 10-30 meters per rise or fall per degree Celsius (1.8F), over thousands of years.

The U.N. climate panel has projected temperatures will rise by 1.4-5.8C (2.5-10.4F) by 2100, mainly because of human influences.

"Sea level is a very slow component of the climate system so what we see by the year 2100 is just a small percentage of the total we are causing," Rahmstorf said.

There was still time for the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions but he said the slow pace of U.N. talks on extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 "gives you the impression that governments are not very well aware of how urgent the whole problem has become."

Coastal cities in the North Atlantic -- from New York to London -- could be especially vulnerable because a possible slowdown of ocean currents could also raise sea levels in the North Atlantic and lower them in the southern hemisphere.

"Any time you change ocean currents you change the sea surface...if you slow down the North Atlantic current you get a rise in the North Atlantic," Rahmstorf said.

[bobbylien]

Sorry bout that,
1. But its god punishing us for our treatment of gays
2. This could also be a massive conspiracy by the liberals to take control of our country.
3. Yes, thats right... I just thought that up 10 seconds ago. It is fact because I say so.

Regards,
SirbobofWisconsin

[Professor]

Sorry bout that,
1. But its god punishing us for our treatment of gays
2. This could also be a massive conspiracy by the liberals to take control of our country.
3. Yes, thats right... I just thought that up 10 seconds ago. It is fact because I say so.

Regards,
SirbobofWisconsin


OMG!!!

[micfranklin]

4.5 feet doesn't really sound like much to worry about.

[BoogyMan]

4.5 feet doesn't really sound like much to worry about.


Hey Mic,

Do you realize how much water 4 1/2 feet covering the surface of the oceans amounts to?

Its enormous.

[Nemo]

Most people are egocentric - they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. Most will face the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves; others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water.

[Buck Laser]

4.5 feet doesn't really sound like much to worry about.


Read some of the articles that explain what a 4.5 ft rise in sea level would entail. It sounds to me as if you're pulling your opinions out of your ass.:P

[Oedipus Rex]

Science fiction strikes again!!!:D

[Nemo]

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.
- Juvenal, xiv.321.

The cause of global warming has been much debated. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition that point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations ofÂ*Â*“trashing the planet.â€� And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - “for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice.â€�

[Oedipus Rex]

Opposing this conventional wisdom, are scientists looking forward to their next grant. There are just too many variables to consider when looking at 'global warming'. Heck, just 35 yrs ago, the big concern was 'global cooling'.

[Nemo]

A little mentioned consequence of global warming is the dramatic decrease in Antarctic krill; which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. The decline of antarctic krill will dramatically increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. If krill populations continue to decline at the present rates, it is projected to have a profound (and pervasive) effect.

See Science Daily article at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206230630.htm

[Oedipus Rex]

And that is but one variable. It still doesn't prove the concept of 'global warming'. Its just another assumption, lumped with more assumptions, trying to put specifics on the earth's past while drawing concrete proof of our future. Hoccus poccus... whamo! Now we have international policy!!!:rolleyes:

[Nemo]

You don't know what "proof" is.

[Oedipus Rex]

You don't know what "proof" is.


Esp. if that 'proof' involves a lot of assumptions.

Science is suppose to deal with truth, not speculation.

[Elrathin]

Science is suppose to deal with truth, not speculation.


There is quite a lot of scientific proof that Global Change is happening. The question is why is it happening.

[Nemo]

Opinionum commenta delet dies, naturae judicia confirmat.
- Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II. ii. 5.

[Labrocca]

Facts....at one point the Earth was warmer and at another point the earth was colder. It's not hard to deduce that changes happen with or without us here. If they happen quicker because we are here...so be it. Our fate lies with this planet and if we destroy it...we destroy ourselves. Global warming is another politicized issue that's pure bullshit. It goes along with other so-called "issues" of our time that politicians stand on pulpits and scream about to get elected (or re-elected).

Let the sea rise...let it destroy what it wants. Humanity will adjust. You don't scream fire just because someone has a match in their hand.

[Nemo]

John Ruskin was deeply concerned about man’s duty as a caretaker of this earth.Â*Â*Here is an excerpt from one of his many essays:

"The benevolent regards and purposes of men in masses seldom can be supposed to extend beyond their own generation. They may look to posterity as an audience, may hope for its attention, and labor for its praise: they may trust to its recognition of unacknowledged merit, and demand its justice for contemporary wrong. But all this is mere selfishness, and does not involve the slightest regard to, or consideration of, the interest of those by whose numbers we would fain swell the circle of our flatterers, and by whose authority we would gladly support our presently disputed claims. The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose, efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions but the successors of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and by whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, it is the fulness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave."

- John Ruskin, The Lamp of Memory (1849)

[Danoz]

Good post Nemo. What I can't undestand however, is the view held by some that just because global warming is not undeniable fact that we should not be making drastic changes to try and avert disaster. It's like having a professional pitcher try and bean you. You know there's a 99% chance that you'll get very badly nailed, but you decide to take the 1% chance that it won't hit you and just stand there like an idiot because it's too much effort to move.

If climate change scientists get this wrong and we implement renewable energy sources as our primary method of gerating power, then we've only gained access to cheap power (albeit at a significant intiial outlay cost). On the other hand, every human on Earth is going to suffer enormously if they're right.

With oil reserves becoming scarce any country that has a healthy power grid will be at a significant advatage to those that are less prepared. In terms of pure ecomomics it's a gamble worth taking even if you're skeptical about the science behind global warming.

It really seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Nemo]

We may already be beyond the tipping point. The Bush administration has already tacitly acknowledged global warming to be a serious problem; however the politics of the issue are short-sighted; they don’t see beyond the next election. For the powers that be, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. As to the latter, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political leaders would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese.

[Oedipus Rex]

Good post Nemo. What I can't undestand however, is the view held by some that just because global warming is not undeniable fact that we should not be making drastic changes to try and avert disaster. It's like having a professional pitcher try and bean you. You know there's a 99% chance that you'll get very badly nailed, but you decide to take the 1% chance that it won't hit you and just stand there like an idiot because it's too much effort to move.

If climate change scientists get this wrong and we implement renewable energy sources as our primary method of gerating power, then we've only gained access to cheap power (albeit at a significant intiial outlay cost). On the other hand, every human on Earth is going to suffer enormously if they're right.

With oil reserves becoming scarce any country that has a healthy power grid will be at a significant advatage to those that are less prepared. In terms of pure ecomomics it's a gamble worth taking even if you're skeptical about the science behind global warming.

It really seems like a no-brainer to me.



The problem is that science cannot prove human kind is responsible for 'global warming'. There are just too many variables to consider to prove one way or another. 'Scientists' tend to 'fill in' data where none exists in order to create a big picture. But science is suppose to be about the thruth, not conjecture. This is one of the main reasons why I reject 'global warming' and the 'science' behind those who believe in it.