Potsdam Institute Study - Minimum Two-Meter Sea-Level Rise Now Almost Unstoppable - Reuters

[hatrack]

OXFORD,- A rise of at least two meters in the world's sea levels is now almost unstoppable, experts told a climate conference at Oxford University on Tuesday. "The crux of the sea level issue is that it starts very slowly but once it gets going it is practically unstoppable," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at Germany's Potsdam Institute and a widely recognized sea level expert. "There is no way I can see to stop this rise, even if we have gone to zero emissions."

Rahmstorf said the best outcome was that after temperatures stabilized, sea levels would only rise at a steady rate "for centuries to come," and not accelerate. Most scientists expect at least 2 degrees Celsius warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and probably more. The world warmed 0.7-0.8 degrees last century.

Rahmstorf estimated that if the world limited warming to 1.5 degrees then it would still see two meters sea level rise over centuries, which would see some island nations disappear.

His best guess was a one meter rise this century, assuming three degrees warming, and up to five meters over the next 300 years. "There is nothing we can do to stop this unless we manage to cool the planet. That would require extracting the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There is no way of doing this on the sufficient scale known today," he said.

EDIT

http://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/54889

[kestrel91316]

1. IOW, real estate that sits less than 5 ft above sea level is an exceptionally

risky investment.

[Lochloosa]

10. Ummm.....a lot of my state.

[kestrel91316]

11. Yep.

[GliderGuider]

2. The picture just gets darker and darker, doesn't it? nt

[hatrack]

5. Of course, I haven't been toiling here in order to audition for the role of Mr. Sunshine . . .

And it's not that it's inevitable in and of itself. It's that it's inevitable given human nature and human actions. What I mean by that is that the quieter counterpoint to all my downbeat posts are posts that show that nature can be resilient and respond quickly if we'd just give her a break. The problem is that we just never give her a break.

Fisheries can and do rebound if we'd just stop fishing for a while, but we just won't stop fishing.

Forests can and do rebound if we just stop cutting them down, at least for a while and at least in some spots, but we won't.

Grasslands can recover, given time and restoration enough, but we just won't stop grazing and overgrazing them.

Aquifers and surface water can be conserved and protected, but we just won't do so - at least, not in a lasting and significant way.

"Perhaps man was neither good nor bad, was only a machine in an insensate universe--his courage no more than a reflex to danger, like the automatic jump at the pin-prick. Perhaps there were no virtues, unless jumping at the pin-pricks was a virtue, and humanity only a mechanical donkey led on by the iron carrot of love, through the pointless treadmill of reproduction."

Take this quote by T. H. White and substitute the words "growth" for "love" and "economics" for "reproduction".

[GliderGuider]

6. The way we've set things up, it's not "won't", but "can't".

We must first turn can't into can. Then we can work on turning won't into will.

In other words, we have a system that must either grow or die. If we want to keep it growing we pretty much have to maintain Business as Usual, which really means accepting Damage as Usual.

If we decide that it's OK that the system stop growing (i.e. we accept that the pain of stepping off the path of growth will be less than the pain of staying on it) then we can work on developing the will and skill needed to move humanity forward from that point onto a different path. I think that primal decision is being made right now in the hearts and minds of millions of people around the planet.

[XemaSab]

8. As thunder rising said yesterday:

"We can only pray that China poisons itself faster than they poison us."

From the standpoint of the planet, the Earth can only hope that humanity damages itself faster than we damage other critters and ecosystems.

On the one level, humanity has built some pretty resilient institutions, but all it takes is one war, natural disaster, or major planning error before the lights go off, and who knows? Someday soon they might go off and not come back on again. :shrug:

[tinrobot]

12. Every other ecology finds balance

In nature, when one part of an ecosystem grows too big, something evolves or happens to balance it out.

We're growing way too big. Either we stop growing, or nature will take care of it for us.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Why do you think people are worried about swine flu and bird flu

and whatever? The quickest and easiest way for nature to take down humanity would be a virus that is 95% lethal.

Captain Tripps.

Reduce the world population from 7 billion to 35 million. Back to a population level of 1500 BCE.

[Richard D]

3. There surely are ways to reduce CO2

Just nothing that is "practical" (e.g. won't hurt the bottom dollar or life styles too much.)

[bain_sidhe]

4. These are the kind of news stories that make me hope

that there's no such thing as reincarnation! Ok, a joke (kind of) reflecting the fact that we have no children - but I still have to worry about nieces and nephews I love.

Still though, on days like today (and after yesterday) one of my "goals" in life seems to be to get out of it before the shit hits the fan.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. He's wrong.

If nothing changes, even with zero increase in emissions, we will see a two meter rise by 2050. Five meters by the end of the century.

Every time there's been an official worrisome statement by climatologists, they UNDERESTIMATED the problem by 100%.

ON EDIT - Case in point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x212128

[joshcryer]

14. Underestimation may be better described as overly tentative.

The scientific community can't quickly jump to conclusions, especially when we're talking about a situation as complex as this. It's unfortunate. I think IPCC should start doing annual, if not biannual reports rather than reports every 5 years.

[Nederland]

15. Except of course, when they overestimate things...

In the 1990 IPCC report, temperature rises where estimated to be at the 2.5 degrees per century. As the graph above shows, that estimate proved to be slightly higher than what actually happened in the 18 years that followed. One outcome of this is that the IPCC dropped their initial 2.5 degree rise prediction to the current 2.0 degree rise prediction. As far as sea level rises go, I'd be curious to see why the author of this study believes the IPCC ar4 estimate of 19-58 inches of rise is inaccurate. And as far as your prediction of a sea level rise of two meters by 2050, are you aware that works out to be a 4.76 cm rise every year between now and then? Are you actually predicting that type of unprecedented rise?

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Personally, I think the jury is still out on the 2.5 temp rise. As your chart

shows, it is not experienced in anything like a straight line, so the fact that it is coming in under the prediction at this point doesn't mean it will continue to come in under the prediction.

And, yes, I do expect a two meter rise by 2050. It, also, will not be in a straight line increase, like somebody leaving a tap running. I think the Greenland ice cap will undergo a catastrophic collapse between 2020 and 2040. As more and more research uncovers more and more contributing factors - for instance, methane was not considered a serious problem at all in 1990, and nobody knew about the way melt lakes penetrate glaciers and are lubricating their movement toward the sea - I expect the researchers to up their estimates.

And, need I mention, a 4.75 cm average annual rise is not unprecedented - there was a couple hundred years about 11,000 years ago where that was exceeded, big time, with the collapse of the continental ice sheets.

[Nederland]

18. Methane only stays in the atmosphere for 7 years

So it doesn't have the permanent warming effect that CO2 does. However, it is 20+ times stronger than CO2 in terms of its effect on climate. As a result, the combined effect is very hard to model.

[NickB79]

49. Yes, but there are gigatons of methane locked away.

Even with a 7-yr lifespan (after which it still decomposes into CO2), there is enough of it in permafrost and hydrates, released over decades and centuries, to make a serious mess of things.

[joshcryer]

50. A local effect must be considered, too. It's one thing for it to be released in the tropics...

...it's another thing entirely for it to be released in the very place where warming because of it is most dangerous.

If you look at any "warming map" most warming is in the polar regions. I wonder how much methane plays a part in that and how much it affects the map, and whether or not studies have been done to that effect.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[Viking12]

19. Eh, why bother with peer-review when you can just turn to blog science?

Oh, because blog science is worthless.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

[Nederland]

23. Learn to read

In my post I was pointing out the that 1990 IPCC report overestimated both the rate of temperature and the rate of sea level change. This is an accurate charge. Your link looks at the 2000 IPCC report, and notes that they adjusted downward too far. There is therefore nothing contradictory between your link and my assertions. When I look at that process, it looks like the IPCC is honing in on correct models and getting closer to the truth. To believe all of the hysterics being posted on EE these days, you have to believe that the IPCC is getting worse, not better. The data does not support that assertion. The computer models the IPCC references in their reports have been getting steadily better over the last 20 years, and anyone who thinks differently is living in a fantasy world.

[Viking12]

25. Just read the fuckin blog post you link. Pielke admits he just made up numbers base on how he reads

For christ sake learn how science is done.

[Nederland]

28. I never posted a link to a blog post

I think someone is confused.

[Viking12]

29. Really? What's the origin of that graph in your post, #15?

You link directly to Roger Pielke Jr's (former) website. I think someone's a lying asshole.

Again, blog science is not science. Get a clue.

[Nederland]

31. If you have a problem with the graph...

...address it. If the data is wrong, explain why it is wrong. Don't blabber on about some mythical blog post.

[Viking12]

33. You're denying that graph comes from a blog?

You apparently don't know that all anyone has to do is right click on the image, select 'Properties' and they can see the URL source of the image.

Here's the source:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001317verification_of_1990.html

Now that we've established you're either a liar or a fool (probably some of both), let's look at the numbers.

In that blog post he admits he just makes the numbers up:

With the relevant emissions scenario, I then went to the section that projected future temperatures, and found this in Figure Ax.3 on p. 174. From that I took from the graph the 100-year temperature change and converted it into an annual rate. At the time the IPCC presented estimates for climate sensitivities of 1.5 degree, 2.5 degrees, and 4.5 degrees, with 2.5 degrees identified as a "best estimate." In the figure above I have estimated the 1.5 and 4.5 degree values based on the ratios taken from graph Ax.2, but I make no claim that they are precise. My understanding is that climate scientists today think that climate sensitivity is around 3.0 degrees, so if one were to re-do the 1990 prediction with a climate sensitivity of 3.0 the resulting curve would be a bit above the 2.5 degree curve shown above.

There's no logic in converting the 100 year projection into an annual rate -- the 100 year projection suggests the rate of temperature rise will increase as CO2 concentrations rise. In other words, the models do not expect a simple linear trend as represented in the stupid graph -- he builds a big fucking strawman. From there he uses a climate sensitivity of 2.5. Guess what, that number refers to the temp response to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels. Ooops! We won't reach a doubling for 30-40 more years so the expected temperature response between 1990-2007 doesn't yet fit a sensitivity of 2.5. there's just so much wrong with the graph that its laughable anyone would be defending it. Again, if you get your science from a blog, you're an idiot.

[Nederland]

34. Finally

At last you explain what exactly it is you don't like about the graph. Thank you. Next time please just dispense with the insults and stick to the science. You'll find that works better in an argument.

[Viking12]

35. Why should I waste my time on "blog science"?

You deserve to be insulted if that's what you think is reliable information.

[Nederland]

36. I don't know, but obviously you did

Posted several times in fact...

[Viking12]

37. So you finally admit you rely on "blog science"?

[kristopher]

38. I think his point is that it would have been simplier

If you'd stop the nastiness and just make your case. I don't agree with Neders very often but he argues with integrity and when he is shown to be wrong, he acknowledges it.

[joshcryer]

40. He made his case in post #19.

I did not see a refutation. Hansen et el have been remarkably consistent, especially given that their earliest models were extremely simple.

[kristopher]

41. No he didn't Josh.

He accused Neders of using "blog science" and gave nothing to explain the assertion. If he'd provided the explanation of what was meant at that time, the subsequent exchange could have been much different.

As for Hansen, he is skirting a dangerous line. I understand his frustration but his calls for greater activism on the part of scientists (2007)* is a decidedly risky approach in that it risks undermining the legitimacy of the data. On one hand I feel the same sense of urgency, but on the other I can see a scenario where the kickback could set us back to where we will never recover.


*Scientific reticence and sea level rise
Environmental Letters

[joshcryer]

42. This is the exchange:

Nederland: We overestimated and here's a non-scientific graph.(1)

Viking12: I don't like your non-scientific graph from a blog, here's a scientific paper that shows your assertion is wrong.(2)

(1) Nederland does not say that the graph is non-scientific, this an action; he shows a graph that is not scientific.

(2) Viking12 does not actually say he doesn't like the non-scientific graph, but it is clear that he doesn't like it.

The rest of the exchange is non-sense. The debate was finished in post #19, and I have no reason to further defend Viking12 as anyone else who is rational and reading this would understand what happened.

Enjoy insulting me in your ignorant response.

[kristopher]

44. You need to lay off the pot, dude.

That isn't "the exchange", it is a self serving approximation you've manufactured since the direct evidence contradicts you. Your argument is what, that a snarky accusation and a single paper with no accompanying comment is a valid refutation?

It isn't.

[joshcryer]

45. The paper refutes the assertion that there is significant overestimation (on 20 y/o data).

I provided further details in a post below. 1990 IPCC was not even prepared to say CO2 caused global warming, that global warming was even happening, it merely made projections that may be possible from known physics. The final numbers were, in fact, within the margin of error. This is amazing given that they were based on very little empirical evidence at the time! (Just basic physical equations Hansen et al came up with in 1981, 1988.) Remember, global temperature rise was not discernible from background noise until the mid to late 90s at best. This is one reason why, if you ever noticed, denialists stop their graphs at the 90s.

Note that Nederland exposes his obvious bias when he discusses sea level rise in AR4, unwittingly failing to recognize that AR4 doesn't even consider this kind of arctic meltoff. He's obviously been reading too many skeptic websites, and it has clouded his understanding of the issue, and presumably, your own.

Rather than discussing the basic points we then get into these tangential discussions about scientists and blogs, and whether or not a 15 year old chemistry student is brilliant or not.

Facts. Has IPCC been accurately estimating the warming trend for at least 7-8 years? Yes. Did the 1990 report even claim to know that global warming was happening or being caused by CO2 emissions? No. Therefore they are simply not comparable.

The whole argument falls apart when you see where Neaderlands bias lies:

Except of course, when they overestimate things...

In the 1990 IPCC report, temperature rises where estimated to be at the 2.5 degrees per century <...> that estimate proved to be slightly higher than what actually happened in the 18 years that followed.

It was within the margin of error, in a report that could not claim to know that global warming was happening due to CO2 emissions, based on little empirical evidence. Overestimate? Holy shit, they were almost right on target. Off by freaking .5C? Seriously? Oh wow.

As far as sea level rises go, I'd be curious to see why the author of this study believes the IPCC ar4 estimate of 19-58 inches of rise is inaccurate.

Bias exhibited. If IPCC could "overestimate" on the warming features (again, with very little data, and almost guessing based on some guys equations), then clearly these guys could be having the same problem.

Of course, he didn't realize AR4 did not include arctic sea level rise in their equations. Thus invalidating his "concerns" from the onset. The whole fucking discussion is pointless and no one here will learn shit about the scientific process.

[kristopher]

47. I never said he didn't have a bias.

Like I said, I don't agree with his biases, but just having them isn't lethal. You and I also possess them. I think he is open about his perspective and discusses it well, and that's the point. If you strip the meanness out of your last post it is a perfect response for a real exchange. If, as you state, you don't think such exchanges have a point, then what the hell are you doing here?

In fact there are a lot of very well informed people who are in hard climate science up to their armpits who simply do not share the degree of conviction you have about how the events of global change are going to play out. These people are not deniers, but it is routine for them to voice opinions that you would find intolerable. There isn't a lot of doubt about the science, but there IS a lot of doubt about how the science all fits together. We now understand a lot but we DO NOT FUCKING KNOW EVERYTHING. To pretend that we do marks you in a very negative manner.

Nederland is obviously looking at the issue from the perspective of a skeptic, but do you even know what he is actually skeptical about? There might be 50 sincere people who share his doubt that read the exchange. He promotes nuclear energy, so his goal is one that I presume you approve of in that even though it may not be he most efficient overall solution to AGW, it is at least a realistic course to to achieve that primary goal. (I don't agree but that isn't the point)

Perhaps a more effective strategy would be to start with what you agree on and work backwards toward where your visions diverge. You might not learn anything, but others reading the discussion might.

[joshcryer]

48. To pretend that we do?

To pretend that we do marks you in a very negative manner.

I know I have made statements in the past about AGW causing sea level rise, but I was only rejecting the "overestimation" implication with regards to an "unstoppable 2 meter sea level rise," using old data to suggest that climate scientists are "capable" of "overestimation." Of course climate scientists can be wrong, I am not disputing that.

The fact is I admit that we simply don't know enough in post #26.

We don't know enough yet, but as we learn more, the data gets worse, not better.

We know that AR4 did not include any estimations on polar ice melting, therefore is it so hard to accept, maybe, just maybe, a well respected scientist in the sea level rise field might not be overestimating? In fact, I said I think he's being conservative in post #20.

A *lot* of research is being done and it seems the arctic / Greenland sheets are decreasing at an alarming pace. I frankly think this guy is being actually quite conservative.

That shows my bias right there, sure, but it also shows that I'm willing to believe this guys numbers over objections about "overestimation" that have no basis in reality.

If I was being accused of "overestimating" then we could talk about that and I probably would be ambivalent and not try to convince people that I was right that it's a bigger problem (I wouldn't even know where to begin, intuition tells me we have more than a 2 meter rise in store, but I have no number I could pull out of the air). But I'm not being accused of that, a peer reviewed, highly respected scientist is. And the 'evidence' to suggest it comes from a report that doesn't even consider meltoff that the scientist in question is discussing!

[Viking12]

51. I must have missed the acknowledgement that he was wrong in this case...

Moreover, a person of integrity wouldn't have tried to conceal the source of his graph.

[kristopher]

52. How did he "try to conceal the source of his graph"?

When you click on the graph, the source is right there. Now if the graph had been copied to a photo database you *might* have a point. (But even then it could reflect something other than deception, such as an original source that someone doesn't have a link to.)

As for acknowledging he was "wrong" - I think if you'd originally posted specifics instead of just hurling invective, there would have been an OPPORTUNITY to respond. As it unfolded, you were just intent on making it a pissing contest and trying to shut someone up. When you finally did respond with something meaningful he wrote, "Finally, At last you explain what exactly it is you don't like about the graph. Thank you. Next time please just dispense with the insults and stick to the science. You'll find that works better in an argument."

Under the circumstances that seems more than gracious.

BTW, A person of integrity wouldn't make an overtly false claim such as the one about concealing the source of the graph.

[Viking12]

53. He repeatedly denied that the graph was from a blog.

Specifics:

I never posted a link to a blog post

Don't blabber on about some mythical blog post

Are you reading disabled?

Again, the person to whom I was responding was a) wrong, b) using a notably unreliable source, c) tried repeatedly to deny his use of said unreliable source. As I stated before, people who engage in discussion employing such tactics do not deserve to be given any respect.

[kristopher]

54. I disagree.

He didn't "post a link to a blog post", he posted a graph. There is a distinct difference and the communication failure falls on you not specifing your meaning.

Secondarily, the idea that "blog science" is somehow forbidden is absolutely absurd. How many times have you linked to blog sites that debunk climate deniers using "blog science" and expected people to accept the arguments presents? Hell, in this thread Josh did it two or three times and I didn't see you acting like a jerk about it.

[Viking12]

55. Are you on crack?

The graph was part of the post for christ sake.

You clearly are confused about the difference between "blog science" and "science blogs".

[kristopher]

56. That's lame

Yes the graph was part of the post, but the graph was a graph, not a LINK.

Your ridiculous attempt to draw a distinction between "blog science" and "science blog" really says everything that needs to be said about you.

And frankly your statements are rendered even more absurd when you expect people to bow to your bizarre characterization when the graph came from a site maintained by a tenured professor at an accredited mainline university - http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/index.html

The graph may not be an accurate assessment, but it is hard to fault the presumption that the site has validity.

[Viking12]

58. A tenured professor of POLITICAL science

Not a scientist. If you had any clue about the history climate blogging, you'd know that Roger Pielke Jr. is an attention whore who will say just about anything to get people to take notice. A reputable scholar making such dramatic claims would not do such shoddy analysis and put it on the web; they'd do a complete analysis and submitted through the peer-review process. A quick google would provide all you need to know about the credibility of referenced source.

As for your inability to understand the difference between "blog science" and "science blogs" -- the former are sites like "Climate (Fr)Audit" and "Watts Up with That" that pretend to do actual science while that latter, such as "RealClimate," are sites that report and discuss actual peer-reviewed science. See the difference? If you don't there's no point in carrying this discussion any further.

Finally, there is no "distinct difference" between posted a link to graph that is a primary portion of a blog post and the blog post itself. That you believe there is elicits questions like, "Are you on crack?"

[joshcryer]

64. Viking12, I've been quite enjoying the Yamal drama.

I thought RC did a thorough debunking of the insanity, but of course, Yamal will now be used as an "argument" to "debunk" in future debates, similarly as to how that graph was used to minimize (or even go so far as to discredit) climate change data or arguments. We'll have to keep a look out in the future, and know the arguments to effectively show that Yamal is fine.

[Viking12]

65. No doubt we'll see that crap here eventually.

And when we do I'll call the person that posts it an idiot for posting long-debunked crap. They'll cry because I'm such a big meany. Kristopher will jump in to defend the poor defenseless moron and tell me just what a big meany I am and if I wasn't such a big meany the poor idiot wouldn't post stupid crap.

[Nederland]

57. Perhaps I can help explain

It was my understanding that the 1990 IPCC report over-predicted temperature rise. I decided to try and find a chart or graph illustrating this, and so I went to Google Images (http://images.google.com/) and typed in IPCC Temperature Predictions. Try it yourself, you'll see the image I chose is the first one that comes up. I clicked on it, clicked on "See Full Size Image" and cut and pasted it into my post. I never read the blog post associated with it, because I wasn't looking for a blog post, I was looking for an image. That's why I was really confused when you went on and on about the blog post.

I can see now why you might think I was lying, but honestly that's what happened.

And as far as being wrong, I thought I did admit that in post #34. Perhaps it wasn't clear, so I'll say it it a manner that is unambiguous: I was wrong. I thanked you for your explanation of why the graph was inaccurate and dropped the matter. In the future, I really think you need to be a little less abrasive. People around here all generally agree about climate change, so there is no excuse for being so abusive.

[Viking12]

59. So any old graph on the web is credible as long as it supports your position?

[Nederland]

60. What are you, 12?

I've already said I was wrong and thanked you for your explanation. Give it up before you look like more of an asshole than you already do.

[joshcryer]

61. Readers: do yourself a favor and skip posts #52-60.

Nothing is accomplished but ego stroking and arguing stupid shit.

[kristopher]

62. That is a BIZARRE post...

[joshcryer]

63. Is it?

Any more bizarre than arguing about, say, the definition of a link?

[joshcryer]

43. The 1990 IPCC report, and indeed, reports going back as far as the 60s...

...were self-admittedly *uncertain*. What the link proves is that the accuracy has been nearly dead on for almost a decade. Referring to something almost 2 decades old, then, as some sort of "proof" of "overestimation," is a joke.

From FAR (1990 IPCC):

We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.

Hansen stated back in '81 that it would be after 1990 before we could even discern CO2 warming from noise. The fact that they were within the margin of error of their assumptions is pretty fucking remarkable given how little data they had.

[joshcryer]

20. That's because AR4 does *not* include any data on arctic/antarctic melting.

None. Nada. It only includes sea level rise from thermal expansion of the seas (as water heats up it takes up slightly more volume) and alpine glacial runoff. That's *all*. Even before AR4 got published estimations of ice melt were being thrown around, but since it was past the deadline AR4 could not include it.

A *lot* of research is being done and it seems the arctic / Greenland sheets are decreasing at an alarming pace. I frankly think this guy is being actually quite conservative.

[Viking12]

22. Exactly. Someone high above Boulder doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Nederland]

24. Question

What empirical evidence do you expect to see in the next three years that supports your claims regarding sea level rise? As I pointed out earlier, a sea level rise of 2m between now and 2050 means 4.76cm every year. This of course, assumes a linear rate of melt, which perhaps you are not predicting...

[joshcryer]

26. Read this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/

We don't know enough yet, but as we learn more, the data gets worse, not better.

[Nederland]

27. Good article

I would agree, we don't know enough yet. However, as the article in your link asserts, we do know that the impact of the big ice sheets melting gets spread out over thousands of years, not decades. Given that, I don't see how you can get to 5 meters sea level rises in the next century. There simply isn't enough water in glaciers to make that level of rise, and thermal expansion won't generate it either.

[joshcryer]

30. The article is talking about how they derive their estimations, written by the same guy.

He wrote that article and he was quoted in this particular article. If you google his name you'll find his publications page, with all of his documents available for free (a nice change, given how many papers are on pay-sites).

They know that sea ice melt occurs over centuries from the data, however, the planet hasn't faced an experiment on this scale before (the exponential release of a greenhouse gas; did you know in the next 16 years we will have released as much CO2 that we did in the past 150?).

I was talking to this chemistry student, 15 years old, pretty brilliant kid. When I told him we release, annually, roughly 30 billion tonnes of CO2, his only response, "Well that can't be good." And that number is increasing by 1.8% every year. China alone is contributing more than half of that, and they bring online the equivalent of 2 500 MW coal plants every week.

[Nederland]

32. Your 15 year old student doesn't seem brillant to me

If someone told me that we were dumping roughly 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, my first response would be to ask what percentage of the atmosphere that represented. Unless the kid happened to know the mass of the atmosphere off the top of his head, assuming that 30 billion tons is significant is a bad assumption. Understanding that things need to placed into context is a key quality of brilliant people. Is 100 trillion tons a lot? If we are talking about the mass of galaxies, no, it's not. See my point?

[joshcryer]

39. The radiative forcing of CO2 is a constant that can be determined in a lab.

Its infrared forcing is independent of atmosphere density.

[joshcryer]

46. Are you aware that summer melt over Greenland is increasing at around 40,000 km^2 a year?

Read this: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028466.shtml

It is a non-trival problem.

[Ghost Dog]

9. The corporate-capitalist mindless-consumer growth-oriented system

must be smashed.

[GliderGuider]

13. Or at the very least

dismantled brick by brick, with love and compassion for all beings.

[Ghost Dog]

16. With love and compassion, naturally.

But I'm not sure there's either the time or the will for the brick-by-brick dismantling approach, now.

:cry:

Did you happen to see this: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Ghost%20Dog/236 ?