Catastrophic Sea Level Rise within Three Generations

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. No, no link about a meltwater pulse in your blog post

Yes, Hansen argues for non-linearity - but he doesn't put it forward as a prediction of 7m in 55 years, but, possibly, 5m in 85 years. And he thinks negative feedbacks kick in once you get to one metre rises. Haranguing people about exponential change when your primary source is saying it won't be exponential once the rise gets to a notable size is ridiculous.

That's the first time you've linked to climatecrocks, or talked about GRACE satellite measurements, so it's pointless claiming you're stating it again. It's possible that is roughly exponential, though it was remarkably linear up to 2010, before an acceleration - but last year, the decline stopped:


http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

"An initial doubling time has been established. "

No, it hasn't. There is not enough data for that. Some people are guessing it could be exponential, and are then guessing a doubling period.

"Arctic sea ice decline has been documented to be exponential."

No; the documentation says 'linear'. I've given the linear figure.

"As I explained earlier, you have to differentiate between old ice and new weaker ice."

You have given no reason why the PIOMAS volume measurement, which is given as a linear decline by PIOMAS, should need differentiation between old ice and 'new weaker ice' ('weaker'? That's the first time you've talked about weaker ice. We've been talking about thickness, but the PIOMAS volume measurement already depends on thickness as well as area). And we've seen that average thickness is back up to the 2007 level.