This is Utterly Horrifying – Worst News yet on Global Warming

[autorank]

Comment: 262 feet...rise in sea level...that's what we're looking at. Down load this and save it. It will be gone soon. Remember that until February of this year, the best estimate was 3 feet. Then it was quickly readjusted to 20 feet based on new data. Well, like American politics, the news only gets worse. Fasten your seat belts. We're in for a rocky ride. The increases are incremental not absolute at the end of the time period. Disruption indefinitely over time is the key here.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO WAKE UP THE SLEEP WALKERS?

Full Document: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Sea Level and Climate

Introduction

Most of the current global land ice mass is located in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (table 1). Complete melting of these ice sheets could lead to a sea-level rise of about 80 meters, (240 feet) Whereas melting of all other glaciers could lead to a sea-level rise of only one-half meter.



Figure 3. Red shows areas along the Gulf Coast and
East Coast of the United States that would be flooded
by a 10-meter rise in sea level. Population figures
for 1996 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished data,
1998) indicate that a 10-meter rise in sea level
would flood approximately 25 percent of the Nation's
population.

HOW HIGH ARE YOU?

[autorank]

1. HOW HIGH ARE YOU? n/t

[mod mom]

7. a little early for that question-isn't it?

;)

On the serious note: Wish our elected President Gore was in office and this nighmare senario would be science fiction.

[ochazuke]

69. Seriously

How much less carbon dioxide would there be in the atmosphere had Gore been elected?

[autorank]

84. I wish I could answer that but I can't. Maybe someone here can. One

thing for sure, we would have been all over this immediately, from the very start and there would not have been any debate with hack scientists involved.

In looking at this issue, I found this exchange below. This is the type of nonsense we've got now. People getting energy industry money trashing Gore's film as though nobody would notice. The attacks on Gore are over now because he got such strong support and also, maybe, because people asked the critics and "skeptics," who pays you? ;)
------------------------

http://www.thecitizen.com/node/8493

Post by Dr. Robert Balling criticizing Gore's book and film:

(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”

(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970.

OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States.

Dr. Robert Balling, Jr. is director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. This article originally appeared online in TCS Daily, a publication of Tech Central Station. © 2006 TCS Daily.

RESPONSE:
An Inconvenient $408,000
basmati's picture
Submitted by basmati on Wed, 07/19/2006 - 8:49am.

Dr. Robert Balling has been paid $408,000 by a consortium of organizations including ExxonMobil and OPEC to produce "research" that disproves global warming.

He opted to publish his comments on the TCS Daily website, a "journo lobbying" organ of public relations firm DCI International.

Coincidentally (or maybe not), DCI's most famous client is George Bush.

[nam78_two]

98. I think about that every single day

Every single day ......x(

And many times a day....
(and not just in relation to global warming)


What is that line about the saddest words being "what might have been" or something like that....

[Raster]

114. It isn't a question of how much less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if

if President Gore had taken office, but our reaction to the crisis. Let's see, I can pretty much guarantee you that President Gore would NOT have had an employee of exxon/mobile in the White House doctoring policy papers and reports from climatologists (once said employee was identified, he slithered back to Dallas to hide under the exxon rock). I can further pretty much guarantee that President Gore would not have been bottom-drawing the reports the pointed to fossil fuels as the main culprit for global warming, and I can also guarantee that the American Petroleum Party and their wholly-owned subsidiary the G.O.P. would not have been allowed to write American energy policy. And that's just for starters.

[lvx35]

90. Wow! I dreamt last night of Seattle under water...

..which wasn't possible with previous predicion due to the hills...but damn! My house is sooo under the sea.

[Teaser]

2. excellent news!

soon I'll have that beachfront property after all.

[rock]

8. And you have a mountain cabin now?

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Looks like it cut off at least a half hour

of my drive time to the ocean.

I certainly won't miss the concrete canyon that use to be Miami Beach.

[0007]

3. It will indeed be a feat to relocate people living on the east coast.

[autorank]

14. 60,000,000 Re-Locations Nationwide - quite a "feat" ;) n/t

[rman]

24. On the upside, relocation will take place over the course of many years,

probably decades.
On the downside, rising sea levels will probably mean that many who live in coastal areas will be hit by more severe floods than we have seen so far.

[Land Shark]

52. constantly moving waterlines is not an "upside" it means

constant disruption. Just like moving climate zones, the climate zone for wheat growing, for example, moves northward and all farming in the original zone is disrupted. But then it moves AGAIN in a few years, creating a constant DustBowl dislocation phenomenon.

Now, who wants to invest on seaside property or development at any time, not knowing if it will be near water, or under water? The fact that the uncertainty will continue for decades is WORSE than a sudden big change over one year creating a new status quo.

[rman]

58. I think it would be more disastrous if it'd all change in one go

Yes it is constant disruption, and it will cause lots of serious problem no matter what - but each disruption on it's own will be moderate compared to the total change. It's not like 60 million people are going to drown over night if the aren't relocated pronto.

[Virginia Dare]

72. Which is why the insurance companies are positioning...

themselves now to avoid the potential big payouts that are coming.

[Mnemosyne]

94. Great point Virginia! I remember reading

that the ins. co.'s have been canceling insurance along the Gulf and the east Coasts.

This would explain the rush maybe.

[Uncle Joe]

80. That would make Katrina look like a fire drill

Thanks for posting autorank

Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[Julius Civitatus]

4. Well, that may be too high according to other studies

I think we need to be careful when parsing all the different theories and predictions on global warming, particularly those that seem too high.

Most reports I've read talk about only a few feet in the rise of sea level over the next few years, but enough to create floods in coastal areas.

Other scientific reports say most of that water will concentrate in the atmosphere (evaporated water), increasing humidity, leading to larger storms, worst hurricanes, chiller winters, floods, etc.

Let's be careful and not fall into fear mongering, because we risk being ridiculed if our predictions later become too exaggerated. Let's keep a measured view on this very real and very serious phenomenon.

[Iwasthere]

10. Just a 3 foot increase could be catastrophic

Doesn't take much research to determine that. Will cause more than just a few coastal floods. We HAVE to act NOW to alter this rapidly increasing threat. No, I have not seen the Gore movie though I plan to. I have know of these threats for years and we do need to be very alarmed! Do you have kids?

However 80 meters is higher than any study I have seen. That would take a total meltdown, which isn't out of the question I guess. Look at the Snows of Kilamenjaro (almost gone!) So sad, such a beautiful mountain.

[Julius Civitatus]

21. Most studies talk about a few feet in increase, which is bad enough

I have no other evidence for that claim of "240 feet increase" than the article they posted above. I think it's prudent and wise to maintain a certain skepticism when most studies on global warming refer to a lower number. Yes, only three feet could be catastrophic. Running around screaming "240 feet raise" may make us look foolish, like the silly movie "The Day After Tomorrow." The wild exaggerations of that film made more damage to the environmental cause than Exxon-Mobile.

Just saying: please be caution and take it with a huge grain of salt.

[nam78_two]

99. "Caution" hasn't really helped us much so far has it

:shrug:

I think we are suffering from too much complacence at this point not too much panic....
just my two cents

[krkaufman]

16. Do we need to go over the "boiling the frog" example again? : ) n/t

[Julius Civitatus]

22. I only want us to focus on the studies of most scientists on

global warming. There's a consensus about certain trends and certain numbers. Pardon me if I use a healthy skepticism before I believe someone in a web forum screaming "240 feet raise", with no other proof than one scientific adjustment. I'll wait until this is discussed and adjusted by other researchers and otehr scientific communities. Peer review is important. Not that 3 feet isn't catastrophic enough, but I just don't think hysterics will make us look good, really.

PS: the Gore movie was effective because while educating the public about global warming, it kept a sober tone and offered people hope and solutions, a good list of things we can do to change the tide.

[autorank]

23. You can't find a better source than the US Geological Survey on this.

You need to wake up. The increases that are talked about are generally delays from what's happening in real science. Prior to 2/06, the consensus was a 3' rise. Then, remarkably, science writers at "The Independent" collated brand new data and realized we'd past the "tipping point," point of no return for stopping global warming. They approached the disparate scientists who generated the data and there was a NEW CONSENSUS 20' (twenty feet). Nothing "fear mongering" about this (and before you throw that around, you need to check things out yourself, including sources).

This is from the US Geological Survey, the finest collection of geo-scientists in the world. Despite the anti intellectual activities of the various administrations, they still tell the truth as they see it, which is empirical conclusions drawn from data. That's what this is. Sorry for the bad news, but we're screwed, to a greater or lesser degree.

[Julius Civitatus]

29. I don't need to wake up, thank you

I am fully awake and active on this matter, for a long time. Don't need

I'm just not going to take everything anyone posts in a web forum as the truth. I rather wait until this is either confirmed or denied by the scientific community as a whole. Somehow this "80 feet raise" seems exaggerated.

I think caution and skepticism is a sensible way to act in this case.

[Trillo]

124. This has been known for some time

I don't know why the mass media tells stories the way they do.

Here's a edu site that says the sea level is known to change between 300-500 meters from high to low.
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/01FallClass/geo100/Lectures/SM_lecture13.html

Another one, "...the highest sea-level stand of the late Phanerozoic, reaching nearly 300 m above present stand (Pitman, 1978; McDonough and Cross, 1991)..."
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309051274/html/47.html
Oh cool, they mention extinction events...!

[The Stranger]

35. No, let's just stay in denial. How's that?

Works for a few nations.

[Julius Civitatus]

38. Since when does caution mean denial?

Before you get the pitchforks and torches, read my posts. Yes I am all for warning people about global warming and making the necessary changes to curve the trend.

Now, I'm only saying that an adjustment that changes calculations from 3-to-10 feet to 240 feet is a huuuuge adjustment. In my experience, it seems to wild a number when most scientific accounts point to the lower numbers. Something doesn't seem right. They also mention that's the full water rise in case of all ice caps, and all snow caps in the world malter at once. and none of it evaporated into the atmosphere. There's a huge difference between a hypothetical number like that, and claiming that the water will indeed raise 240 feet.

So, what if the same site posts another adjustment next week, saying that when they accounted for other climatological factors, their true number would be (for instance) 12 feet, not 240 feet. Peer reviews correct many independent studies and adjust matters all the time. Caution is in order.

[The Stranger]

57. You're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

You do not question that Global Warming is happening.

You do not question its catastrophic impact upon the Earth and its ecosystems.

Yet you come here and want to argue "caution" that the oceans are not going to rise as far as some believe they will?

The very fact that they are rising at this rate is enough to do everything to prevent it -- the days of "caution" were decades ago.

The problem has progressed so far, and still those in power refuse to do anything about it.

The days of "caution" were decades ago.

[Julius Civitatus]

64. You are dissembling and distorting what I said

It doesn't make sense to me to reply to your post if you are going to completely distort what I said. Sorry. My post is exclusively about the '240 ft raise' claim. Read the original article before taking the '240 ft' number as anything other than a theoretical number (the article says it so).

[autorank]

115. FYI

...the disturbing thing about all this is that the level of change is so rapid and the revisions are so significant. If it were a straight line based on models predicting a 1 m rise by 2100 that would be a challenge but maybe manageable, although that would nail Bangladesh and 10% of the land mass (where millions live). But it then turns into an estimate of 6-7 m with a consortium of scientists who are all working together. Then we hear that the Brazilian rain forest, a major source of oxygen, might collapse as a productive eco system with two years of drought...and droughts are more common. I can't predict a trend line because I'm not a scientist but I can follow what the scientists say and every time a credible group comes out with new information, it's bad news, much worse. These are not partisans and they're not paid to be "green." They're just giving us their interpretation of new data, and its getting worse. Prudence is not called for. We need to act now and ratchet back the absurdity of all this filth in the atmosphere and on the earth, in the water.

It's an estimate based on certain assumptions...

[stellanoir]

5. no where near HIGH enough

I live on the tallest hill in a coastal town so more than likely, not HIGH enough.

Maybe I'll take up stilt walking or somethin'.

Or it appears to be nearing Splish Splash time 24/7.

[dipsydoodle]

6. I'm 274 feet above sea level

according to Google Earth. So - please don't make any waves ! :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. The good news is that melting the East Anarctic Ice Sheet

which is where most of the 80m figure comes from is less likely to happen, and would take far longer - hundred of years.

He claimed the most serious prediction involving the melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, where most of the ice in the world exists, was "extremely unlikely".

This is because the East Antarctic is far colder, by some 15C, than the other two major ice sheets, Greenland and the West Antarctic. Even if the global temperature does increase by five or ten degrees, it will still remain frozen.

But Dr Osborn added: "I don't want to say sea-level rise isn't going to happen, as even if you only have a one-metre rise it will cause significant problems."

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=710322005

[BeFree]

17. Maybe, maybe not

Do you know what the feedback loop means? It means the worse things get, the faster they get worse. The methane/hydrates now trapped under ice and sea might just begin flowing in a way we've never seen before, and that would power up the feedback loop, eh?

And what happens if atmospheric pressure is reduced? Right now it's around 14 lbs. per square inch. Imagine if it somehow went to 10 lbs. per square inch.... the sea level rise would be tremendous. And who knows? The feedback/warming may just have that big surprise in store.

Ice core records have shown that with the levels of co2 we now have, water levels were many meters higher than presently. Thing is, they have no way of knowing what the atmospheric pressure was back then, do they?

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Atmospheric pressure? What's that got to do with it?

I've never seen anyone claim atmospheric pressure will change because of global warming. Do you expect one third of the atmosphere to boil off into space?

No, I wouldn't expect a sea level rise because of a global change in atmospheric pressure anyway. Don't confuse it with something like a hurricane, where pressure drops only in one part - so the water rushes there from places where the pressure remains normal. Lower atmospheric pressure, and all you'd do is decompress all water on the earth. Since water is very hard to compress, the change would be negligible, I'd think.

Yes, they do consider feedback loops when trying to predict what might happen. I'll try and find a reference, but I think scientists say it would take hundred of years for the East Antarctic sheet to go - and, as others point out here, a 15 degrees centigrade rise would mean the coastlines would be the least of our worries then. Anywhere in the tropics would be uninhabitable.

[autorank]

53. murial, Take a critical look at the source of the evidence I presented.

It's from the US Geological Survey, part of the Department of the Interior (remember who runs that) and signed by three scientists. Don't you think that there is a certain risk in them putting this out. One USGS person I showed this to was surprised that it was released. They really are an extraordinary collection
of scientists, like a graduate faculty and research group combined.

Why would they go on very public record for 80 meters? if they were not convinced? and their time line is stated.

It's simply science. Heat melts ice. Ice in land goes into the ocean and displaces, increases volume. Therefore you get the 80 meters.

It's going to happen unless we get serious right away.

The neoconservatives have a "world killing" philosophy. There is no way around it.

This is excellent science.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. They do not say it's going to happen

They say if the whole Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, it would cause a rise of 80 metres. It is not a prediction of what they think will happen. They do not give a time line for the 80m rise - only for the melting of glaciers in Montana and Iceland. They go on to concentrate on the effects of West Antartica and Greenland melting.

Despite what you claim, your link is not new information. It is dated 2000, and the estimate of an 80m rise comes from 1993.

[autorank]

77. Facts are facts & new data comes on line all the time.

New information is coming out all the time. The first article here is about the tipping point based on atmospheric pollution. It's interesitng to see how the volume of data available produces new informaiton. The 80m rise is based on physical science, it could have been dated in 1883 and still be correct. The point is that things are getting worse at an acceleating rate and the prospects of calamatous outcomes is significant, particularly since we're doing nothing at all. California, and I commend the state, is working on a polution exchange that will reduce some greenhouse gasses. Terrific, now where is the rest of the country.

Here's an article about the tipping point and how we surpassed it, and some examples of what's happening at and around the South Pole.

1). Passing the tipping point, the point of no return…

Published on Saturday, February 11, 2006 by the lndependent/UK
Global Warming: Passing the 'Tipping Point'
Our special investigation reveals that critical rise in world temperatures is now unavoidable
by Michael McCarthy
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0211-05.htm

A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences.

Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return.

The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century.

2) Some data on Antarctica

The Impact of Global Warming in Antarctica
http://www.climatehotmap.org/antarctica.html

0. Antarctic Peninsula -- Warming 5 times global average. Since 1945, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of about 4.5F (2.5C). The annual melt season has increased by 2 to 3 weeks in just the past 20 years.

73. Antarctica -- Ice shelf disintegration. The 770 square mile (1,994 km2) Larsen A ice shelf disintegrated suddenly in January 1995.

74. Antarctica -- Ice shelf breakup. After 400 years of relative stability, nearly 1,150 square miles (2,978 km2) of the Larson B and Wilkins ice shelves collapsed between March 1998 and March 1999.

122. Southern Ocean - Strong warming trend. Measurements from data recorders in the Southern Ocean waters around Antarctica show a 0.3F (0.17C) rise in ocean temperatures between the 1950s and the 1980s.

140. Antarctica - Decreasing Ice-thickness. The permanent ice cover of nine lakes on Signey Island has decreased by about 45% since the 1950s. Average summer air temperature has warmed by 1.8F (1C).

141. Antarctic Peninsula - Collapsing ice-shelf, January-February 2002. The northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf, an area of 1,250 square miles (3,250 km2), disintegrated in a period of 35 days. This was the largest collapse event of the last 30 years, bringing the total loss of ice extent from seven ice shelves to 6,760 square miles (17,500 km2) since 1974. The ice retreat is attributed to the region's strong warming trend - 4.5F (2.5C) in the last 50 years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. and note how that says nothing about East Antarctica

where the bulk of the land ice is. You presented the 80m figure as if it was a new calculation; but it's not - it's a theoretical maximum increase, if all the ice on land in the world melted, and was known over 10 years ago. The article from The Independent talks about whether the Greenland ice could melt - again, giving a rise of a few metres, not the 80m.

We should always present proper facts, not misleading ones.

[Skidmore]

11. How will the rise in sea levels affect large rivers like the

Mississippi or waterways like the St. Lawrence Seaway? There certainly will have to be a "backing up" of water into those waterways and the watersheds that contribute to them. Anyone know if any study done about this?

[ArbustoBuster]

51. Those will form estuaries.

You'll get bays like the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Oceanic researchers can see the old courses of some rivers like the Susquehanna and Delaware Rivers (the big rivers going into the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays) going out to sea on the seafloor. These old, drowned river courses are where those rivers flowed during the most recent Ice Age, when sea levels were signigicantly lower than they are now.

[skids]

109. Like this...

http://maps.grida.no/go/collection/collectionid/13FF91C4-70EB-7C76-4F40-903AFA7FFEE5

...much more than 2m and you are looking at complete evacuation of the Nile delta.

[autorank]

120. 2m and what a nightmare. When will people wake up?

The Nile Delta gives life to Egypt, population...78,000,000

Now what do we do with all those evacuees? Amazing isn't it?

[kpete]

12. 8,500'

How High Are You?

[donco6]

85. 5,280.

Guess where?

[kpete]

107. Colorado?

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Java applet to tell you where gets affected by a given sea level rise

http://atlas.geo.cornell.edu/education/quest/

(takes a bit of time to load; select Menu->Data Sets->Topgraphy->Show Sea Level Change, and enter the change in metres; select the region from Menu->Map Area; then click Get Map - and be patient)

[Greyhound]

37. School project?

Hopefully the computer science school didn't do this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. Why, do you think it's that awful?

OK, it takes a bit of time to calculate things some time, but it's not just reading a set of pictures - it's actually calculating new coastlines based on topographical data. It can do the coastline of anywhere in the world for any sea level rise in metres up to - I don't know, but it does 80m OK. It also does other things.

Is there a better app you can point us to?

[Greyhound]

68. No, in fact I've been looking for just this sort of thing for quite some

time. I just tried to run it and 30 minutes later still had no results. It's probably an issue with Winblows, but alas, that's what I'm stuck with.

I suspect purposeful sabotage of JAVA by M$, just as they have done in the past.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. Well, it runs OK on my 5 year old Windows 2000 computer

(in a Firefox or Internet Explorer browser) - it takes maybe 15 seconds to calculate things. It might be the level of Java plugin you have - mine is 1.3.1.

[mom cat]

95. That is a good one. Put in 80 meters and see what happens.

[mcscajun]

131. Very interesting, thanks for posting this.

Well, at 60 meters all of Florida will be gone; at 50 meters, all of NYC vanishes along with Long Island and Cape Cod; at 80+ the state of Rhode Island, a goodly chunk of Georgia, half of South Carolina, and nearly half of North Carolina are wiped out; the Delmarva area is obliterated at about 45 meters...say goodbye to the Chesapeake Bay, all of D.C. and the state of Delaware. On the plus side, at 85 meters, I'll own beachfront property here in what was formerly Northwest NJ.

Oh, and let's not forget Louisiana and Mississippi: at 15 meters, the Gulf Coast will be gone, along with the cities of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Biloxi, and Gulport. Louisiana will be gone later on as the sea level rises to 65 meters.

[lonestarnot]

18. Damn, I need to start building a boat.

[autorank]

26. Don't forget the Captain...

[lonestarnot]

31. Nope won't forget him!

[0007]

63. Noah did and then got drunk

[lonestarnot]

71. cute.

[kurth]

19. Boil or Drown - Pick your poison

Heck of a job.

[librechik]

20. I'm sittin in the mile high city, Denver

me and the new domestic offices of the CIA (under construction)

[hlthe2b]

44. Yupper... The Mile High City-- Buy your sea side property, NOW!

But, seriously... we all may be wishing for water out west, if global warming does its worst.

[librechik]

61. Frankly, it all comes from here

so hold onto your hat--and your water rights!

[BootinUp]

25. 1200 to 1800 ft

North GA is a pretty safe location by that measure.

[stepnw1f]

27. Greed Trumps Reason or Logic (nt)

[autorank]

54. They act as though they don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.

[stepnw1f]

59. They Live in a Bubble of Psychosis

and need to be removed from any and all power in this country. We are now talking about our existence. We really need to get a lid on these crazy people before it is too late.

[Mr_Spock]

28. I keep telling people I'm gonna have beachfront property

388ft above sealevel & 30 miles inland.

[Gregorian]

30. Every thing you own comes with an invisible container of fuel.

When I buy an avocado, I see the invisible bottle of fuel it took to harvest, grow, transport. A dish takes a high temp oven to cure the ceramic. Everything is this way, and we should have been looking at it this way.

BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANT-

Until we can decrease the number of people on this planet, we will not be able to get a handle on global warming. Prove me wrong. Please. And as such, I see this as a crisis that is unavoidable. Especially since the energy conversion and consumption is skyrocketing.

[The Stranger]

34. No one can prove you wrong. Overpopulation is THE global problem that no

one wants to talk about, and some here will viciously attack anyone pointing this out.

But that Imbecile in Rome keeps telling people that contraception is in violation of his perverted morality, and the millions nod in agreement -- dooming the rest of us.

[Greyhound]

39. True, but like all of earth's systems, it is self-correcting.

It's just too bad that we are too stupid to take the steps necessary to prevent the inevitable correction.

Chinese curse (I'm told); "May you live in interesting times".

[northzax]

32. right.

if every bit of ice currently on land melts, you would have this kind of rise (of course, a lot of it would evaporate in the higher temperatures.

do you have any idea how much ice you are talking about here? the Antarctic ice sheet is as much as five miles thick over much of the continent. in order for it to actually melt, you'd need a rise in temperature of about 25 degrees. At that point, we are already so fucked that drowning wouldn't matter. the global weather patterns would be unrecognizable, you would nave non-stop tropical storms and hurricanes of immense size in the tropics, the Gulf Stream would shut off, everything between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn will be uninhabitable due to extreme weather, intense heat and flooding. the traditional agricultural zones will have long ceased to be arable, cutting global food production in half, at least. And you're worried about something that is going to happen 100 years AFTER that?

there are a lot of things to worry about in the world. the complete melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is not one of them.

[Greyhound]

41. Good point. n/t

[The Stranger]

33. Has Chimp signed the Kyoto Protocol yet?

Or are we all going to suffocate while the Religious Nutcases and the Neocons protect him in office?

[autorank]

79. No but the Governator, Arnold Schwarzennegger has a program.

It involves buying polutants or something that actually tries to reduce, and may well reduce greenhouse gasses. There is bipartisan support for that and somehow California and Great Britain are working on it. So even Arnold and Blair are doing something. Bush is too busy with his dirt bike.

[globalvillage]

101. No, but the Sierra Club is taking it local.

All over America, cities, counties and states are launching an exciting grassroots movement to help solve one of our country’s most pressing problems: global warming. Frustrated by stalling on the federal level, local leaders are moving forward with innovative energy solutions that cut our dependence on oil, benefit public health and save taxpayer dollars. These mayors, county commissioners and governors are leading the way toward a safer and more secure future.

http://www.coolcities.us/taxonomy_menu/2/4

[smomfr]

36. Beavers (the kind that build dams) are the answer............

More rain is going to fall, beaver dams will keep a lot of that water out of the oceans.

[porphyrian]

40. We're way overdue for the magnetic poles to flip, too.

According to geological data, that occurs every so many brazillion years, where the north pole switches to the south and vice versa. The details are scetchy, since it happens really quickly on a geological scale, but what they can determine is that, following the pattern that's come before, we are overdue for it to happen again. I wonder what happens as the poles are switching...

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. On the whole, not much happens

There was an idea that we'd receive more harmful radiation from space, but I saw an article saying a simulation seemed to say that wouldn't be a noticable increase. When a flip does happen, the effects don't seem to have been too much - they happen every 700,000 years or so, but migrating birds have survived without dying out (I think the theory is they learn their roots from the previous generation, and use landmarks as well as magnetic fields, so a small change each year doesn't do too much harm to each bird). It will be a problem for magnetic compasses, and satellites with sensitive electronics might have a fun time.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. 80 meters if all the ice in the world melts, but...

that's never happened before. At least not in the past few hundred million years-- the site says the highest known interglacial rise has been 20 meters.

There is the distinct possibility that long before all that ice melts, the Gulf Stream will reverse course and put the North Atlantic into a deep freeze, reversing the effects of global warming and causing a lot more trouble than a sea rise. They always thought it took a hundred years or so to turn on the freezer, but now they realize that it's 10 years or less from the time the current changes to ski resorts in Florida.

But, yeah, just a few feet of rising, possibly in our lifetimes, means a huge dislocation of population and industry around the world.

It ain't gonna be pretty, whatever happens.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. I sit on a hillside at about 100' elevation...

Beachfront or ski slope. My bases are covered.

[hlthe2b]

43. Bush* knows how to stop this so-called "global warming"

He's gonna NUKE the sun. That'll do it, you whiney Libruls!


















:sarcasm:

[autorank]

117. I'll take no whine with that cheese if * just backs off. I'm a night ...

...person but do enjoy the sun every now and then. Can he just nuke part of it, or maybe get a really big folding shade that we put up every now and then so we get a few days of just night. Just asking?

[NobleCynic]

45. Pay attention! This does not say a 262 ft. rise is likely

, only that it is the theoretical maximum if every glacier and ice sheet in the world melts.

Don't take something like this that far out of context.

[autorank]

56. I presented the full context. Time for you to take it seriously.

The Greenland Ice sheet is gone, that's consensus. The question, posed well in the Gore film, is what happens to the Antartic land ice.

Since we've gone from 3' to 20' for sure, no questions by 2100 in just the last six months based on new data and accelerating trends, this is certainly realistic. If we do nothing, it will get worse and this will happen.

I refrained from presenting the "Ages of Chaos" option which scientists put out as a possibility. Don't even ask...

[hunter]

49. Here's the deal: Even a small rise in sea level will kill world trade.

It's damned hard to unload a container ship or a tanker without a port. Developed areas along the coast are about to become a treacherous maze of shifting rubble. Inland river ports will fare little better as the mouths of the rivers will be clogged with debris. This will all be further complicated by more destructive weather patterns.

Rising sea levels will mark the end of this civilization. We must be ready to develop a new sort of civilization quickly, one that is not so dependent upon the bulk movement of commodities across the globe.

[kineneb]

62. Good points, also-anyone thought about the toxic waste

that will get into the oceans as the water level raises? Nowhere have I seen this addressed. Those coastlines have ports, etc. on them, with lots of pollutants just sitting around. Even with plenty of time to move and perform remediation, there will be tons of toxic residue left behind.

How much crud has contaminated the Gulf since Katrina? What has it done to the marine life there? How much will make it into the food chain?

Inquiring minds wish to know.

[autorank]

78. Excellent point!

And fairly obvious. That's well worth discussion since I don't see how you can be anything but correct on the disruption to ports. Sea level increases foster isolation rather than integraiton. Yikes...

[Buddyblazon]

55. GEEZ!

262 ft? That would wipe out most coastal cities.

On the good side...it'll drive the value of my home here in Denver way up.

[Poiuyt]

60. Calm down everyone. Bush is solving the global warming crisis

"It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline," he said.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/7/03653/84950

[Viking12]

66. Maybe if people would focus on the real dangers of Global Warming

we could get something done. The lack of understanding between if and is likely is lost in this horrendously awful post.

[Julius Civitatus]

67. Thank you!

My point exactly

[autorank]

74. Glad yo liked it. This is the end product of global warming. Nobody

talks about the consensus view that by 2100, and they're firm on the date, we're looking at a 20 foot rise in sea level. One of the imminent dangers is to Bangladesh, which will lose something like 10% of it's land mas with a 3 foot (1 meter) rise in seal level. That's happening in the next two decades at the latest. So what do you do with that portion of the 140,000,000 Bangladesh citizens who face a loss of their homes. We struggled with New Orleans and 200,000 citizens. What will they do.

If you think that the post his horrendous, then complain to USGS, I simply put their facts up and suggested that people had their heads in the sand. Name one major news presentation by corporate media that addresses the consensus view on 2100 outcomes other than the 60 Minutes piece around the start of the year and the Tom Brokaw documentary.

This is where we're headed, making the earth uninhabitable for the human species. The earth will survive and do whatever it does, we may not. That's what's at stake. That's the ultimate danger of global warming.

[Viking12]

76. Bullshit, There is no "consensus view" we're looking at a 20 foot rise.

Consensus view is 10"-36" by 2100. Sorry to burst your ill-informed bubble.

[autorank]

81. Twenty feet it is...Greenland Glaciers ... adios and good bye

From USGS: “If Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will decrease. Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters…” (20 feet).

1). Passing the tipping point, the point of no return…

Published on Saturday, February 11, 2006 by the lndependent/UK
Global Warming: Passing the 'Tipping Point'
Our special investigation reveals that critical rise in world temperatures is now unavoidable
by Michael McCarthy
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0211-05.htm

A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences.

Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return.

The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century.

Snip

By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level rise of several metres.

Snip

Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it."


E-Mail This Article


Published on Sunday, November 20, 2005 by The Independent/UK
The Big Thaw: Global Disaster Will Follow If the Ice Cap on Greenland Melts
Now scientists say it is vanishing far faster than even they expected.
The Independent/UK

by Geoffrey Lean
Over the past four years, the research adds, the front of the glacier - which has remained in the same place since records began - has retreated four and a half miles. As it has retreated and thinned, the effects have spread inland "very fast indeed", says Professor Tulaczyk. As the centre of the Greenland ice cap is only 150 miles away, the researchers fear that it, too, will soon be affected.

The research echoes disturbing studies on the opposite side of Greenland: the giant Jakobshavn glacier - at four miles wide and 1,000 feet thick the biggest on the landmass - is now moving towards the sea at a rate of 113 feet a year; the normal annual speed of a glacier is just one foot.

The studies have found that water from melted ice on the surface is percolating down through holes on the glacier until it forms a layer between it and the rock below, slightly lifting it and moving it toward the sea as if on a conveyor belt. This one glacier alone is reckoned now to be responsible for 3 per cent of the annual rise of sea levels worldwide.

"We may be very close to the threshold where the Greenland ice cap will melt irreversibly," says Tavi Murray, professor of glaciology at the University of Wales. Professor Tulaczyk adds: "The observations that we are seeing now point in that direction."

[Viking12]

82. That's supposed to support your claim?

1st: Not one mention of a likely 20' rise by 2100 in anything you posted.

2nd: None of the newspaper articles you post represent any actual scientific literature. Cite for me at least 1 peer-reviewed scientific article that claims it likely that sea-level rise will be greater than 10' in the next century. Just one. Good luck though because no such scientific article exists.

Look. Global warming is serious enough that you don't have to make shit up to make a claim for action. So stop making shit up, you feed into the RW accusations of 'alarmist' and ultimatley undermine efforts to make real progress.

[autorank]

83. Last communication.

Here's a journal article, little one called "Science" and an exposition of the contents. Go read it.
Don't expect me to respond to you any more because your tone is so nasty.

The composite informaiton here shows that there is a rapid change in the Greenland ice melt due to accelerated changes in the atmosphere, beyond the tipping point as the two Independent articles described. This is all new. Prior to that, 3' was an esitmate, now the people who are working on this intensely (and not paid by the energy or lobbying interests) are saying 20'. Peer reviewed journal articles take a few months bue here's one shortly after the 'tipping point' discovery. In addition, a failure to address the issues or an acceleration out of our control due to our foolishness may very well lead to the USGS description of events in the OP. It's a description and, btw, nothing goes out from USGS without internal peer review so that was reviewed. It's mechanics and has to do with disiplacement. If you put ice from the land into the ocean as water then there is more water. Not too hard.

Here's the journal article. There are more, you go find them.

Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1747 – 1750
DOI: 10.1126/science.1115159

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise
Jonathan T. Overpeck,1* Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Gifford H. Miller,3 Daniel R. Muhs,4 Richard B. Alley,5 Jeffrey T. Kiehl2

Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.

1 Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Department of Geosciences, and Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
2 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Post Office Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
3 Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Campus Box 450, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.
4 U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 980, Box 25046, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, USA.
5 Department of Geosciences and Penn State Ice and Climate Exploration Center, Pennsylvania State University, 0517 Deike Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA.


Here's an article about the Journal article.

Sea levels to rise 20 feet if ice melting trend continues
Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com
March 23, 2006

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0323-sea_levels.html

New research says if current warming trends continue, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are on track to melt sooner than previously thought, leading to a global sea level rise of at least 20 feet.

"This is a real eye-opener set of results," said Jonathan T. Overpeck, a geoscientist at the University of Arizona in Tucson and co-author of the paper. "The last time the Arctic was significantly warmer than present day, the Greenland Ice Sheet melted back the equivalent of two to three meters (about six to ten feet) of sea level."

The study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Arizona, the University of Colorado, and the University of Calgary, modeled its findings based on evidence collected from existing academic research on ice cores, ancient coral reefs, fossilized pollen, and cores from marine and lake sediments. The model suggests that during the past warming event, the Antarctic ice sheet also melted substantially, doubling the previously believed magnitude of rise in sea levels. By successfully recreating the last period of significant global warming using existing data, the scientists believe their model can forecast future climate change.

Snip

"Unless something is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution," said Peck "we're committed to four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."

[Viking12]

88. That article does not support your claims.

I happen to have access to the full article, trying to pass off the abstract in support of your BOGUS claims that there is "a solid consensus" that there will be a 20' rise in sea-level by 2100 is totally ignorant or completely dishonest. As a matter of fact the article supports exactly what I have been saying: "it remains that ice sheets have contributed meters above modern sea level in response to modest warming, with peak rates of sea-level rise possibly exceeding 1 m/century".

If you don't like the tone of my posts, then do your research. I'm sick and tired of the distortion whether from the RW denialists or the LW hyperbolists. If you make claims you better back them up. If you're going to continue making crackpot claims, expect those claims to get attacked.

[autorank]

110. I don’t know who you are … but I do know who Dr. Overpeck is – 20feet-2100

You said you read the article and that somehow makes you an expert. Lets take reports on the article where the author is quoted directly: The Times of London; a University of Arizona release 2100-20 foot rise sea level; and a release in August of this year on an “ice free” Arctic Ocean in Summer along with his collaborators.

I know that Dr. Overpeck can represent his own article as he does in the London Times article and his own university release. I’d take the interpretation of these folks over you along with the direct words of Dr. Overpeck. Afterall, your just a name on DU like me and thousands of others. You may be a scientist or a prankster or something else altogether.

I know I said I wouldn’t respond if you continued your rudeness but it was just too much so like Frank Sinatra who retired 7-8 times, I reserve the right to resind my retirement.

The Times of London on the Science Article with quotation by the author on 20’ sea level rise by 2100

The Times March 24, 2006
LONDON
London 'under water by 2100' as Antarctica crumbles into the sea.
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent

In re: “The findings, which are published today in the journal Science…”, my previous reference, post

Science 24 March 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5768, pp. 1751 - 1753
DOI: 10.1126/science.112080

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2100776,00.html

DOZENS of the world’s cities, including London and New York, could be flooded by the end of the century, according to research which suggests that global warming will increase sea levels more rapidly than was previously thought.

The first study to combine computer models of rising temperatures with records of the ancient climate has indicated that sea levels could rise by up to 20ft (6m) by 2100, placing millions of people at risk.

The threat comes from melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, which scientists behind the research now believe are on track to release vast volumes of water significantly more quickly than older models have predicted. Their analysis of events between 129,000 and 116,000 years ago, when the Arctic last warmed to temperatures forecast for 2100, shows that there could be large rises in sea level.

While the Greenland ice sheet is expected to start melting as summer temperatures in the Arctic rise by 3C degrees to 5C (5.4F-9F), most models suggest that the ice sheets of Antarctica will remain more stable.

The historical data, however, show that the last time that Greenland became this warm, the sea level rise generated by meltwater destabilized the Antarctic ice, leading to a much higher increase than can be explained by Arctic ice alone.

That means that the models of sea-level rise used to predict an increase of up to 3ft by 2100 may have significantly underestimated its ultimate extent, which could be as great as 20ft.

Snip

Her colleague, Jonathan Overpeck, of the University of Arizona, said: “This is a real eye-opener set of results. The last time the Arctic was significantly warmer than the present day, the Greenland ice sheet melted back the equivalent of two to three meters (6ft-10ft) of sea level. Contrary to what was previously believed, the research suggests the Antarctic ice sheet also melted substantially, contributing another 6ft to 10ft of sea level rise.”

…release by the author of Science article with reference to 20 foot sea level rise by 2100

Polar Melting May Raise Sea Level Sooner Than Expected
By Mari N. Jensen
March 23, 2006
University of Arizona
http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/4/wa/MainStoryDetails?ArticleID=12389

Co-author Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said, “Although the focus of our work is polar, the implications are global. These ice sheets melted before and sea levels rose. The warmth needed isn’t that much above present conditions.”

The ice sheets are melting already. The new research suggests the melting could accelerate, thereby raising sea level as fast, or faster, than three feet (about one meter) of sea level rise per century.

Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise lags behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible sometime in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, “unless something is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.

The red and pink areas in this image of the coasts of the states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island indicate the areas that would be submerged if the sea level rose about 20 feet (six meters). Courtesy of Jeremy Weiss and Jonathan Overpeck, The University of Arizona.

"We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade. If we don't do something soon, we're committed to four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."

Previous work by the author referenced and research collaborators mentioned.

Source: University of Arizona
Posted: August 24, 2005

Arctic Ocean Could Be Ice-free In Summer Within 100 Years, Scientists Say
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050824081334.htm

In re: “Aug. 23 Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union…”


The current warming trends in the Arctic may shove the Arctic system into a seasonally ice-free state not seen for more than one million years, according to a new report. The melting is accelerating, and a team of researchers were unable to identify any natural processes that might slow the de-icing of the Arctic.

Such substantial additional melting of Arctic glaciers and ice sheets will raise sea level worldwide, flooding the coastal areas where many of the world’s people live.

Melting sea ice has already resulted in dramatic impacts for the indigenous people and animals in the Arctic, which includes parts of Alaska, Canada, Russia, Siberia, Scandinavia and Greenland.

"What really makes the Arctic different from the rest of the non-polar world is the permanent ice in the ground, in the ocean and on land," said lead author University of Arizona geoscientist Jonathan T. Over peck. "We see all of that ice melting already, and we envision that it will melt back much more dramatically in the future awe move towards this more permanent ice-free state."

The report by Overpeck and his colleagues is published in the Aug. 23 Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union. A complete list of authors and their affiliations is at the end of this release.

Overpeck’s coauthors on the Aug. 23 Eos paper are Matthew Sturm of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Fort Wainwright, Alaska; Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J.; Donald K. Perovich of the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.; Mark C. Serreze of the University of Colorado, Boulder; Ronald Benner of the University of South Carolina in Columbia; Eddy C. Carmack of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, BC, Canada; F. Stuart Chapin III of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; S. Craig Gerlach of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Lawrence C. Hamilton of the University of New Hampshire in Durham; Larry D. Hinzman of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks; Marika Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.; Henry P. Huntington of Huntington Consulting in Eagle River, Alaska; Jeffrey R. Key of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service in Madison, Wis.; Andrea H. Lloyd of Middlebury College in Middlebury, Va.; Glen M. MacDonald of the University of California, Los Angeles; Joe McFadden of the University of Minnesota in St. Paul; David Noone of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif.; Terry D. Prowse of the University of Victoria, in BC, Canada; Peter Schlosser of Columbia University in Palisades, N.Y.; and Charles Voeroesmarty of the University of New Hampshire in Durham.

From the London Times article: (impact of sea level rise)

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,281997,00.jpg

[Viking12]

118. Big letters and lots of bold don't make you right.

and they're quite annoying.

1) You've obviously never read the article in Science because it never claims there would be a 20' rise in sea-level by 2100. In fact it claims only that sea-level rise "could" accelerate to 1 meter per century by 2100.

Don't believe me? How about Eric Steig, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

"Sea level is going to rise somewhere between 1/2 and three feet in the next century or so."

Here's his analysis of the literatture on sea-level rise (including the Overpeck article that you fail to undestand).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/

2) No where in the newspaper articles do the "direct words of Dr. Overpeck" make the claim of 20' rise by 2100. He says, "four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future". At 1m/century it will be many centuries before there is a 20' rise.

[autorank]

122. Actually they do. Check for the memo from the "Central Office."

I was asked what to do about this. Of course there are many more qualified than I am to make suggestions but I responded nonetheless to focus on alternatives. It's a daunting prospect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1936383&mesg_id=1942076

Even if you think as you do that it's just a 1 m rise in sea level, 3', ("how quaint as Condi would say), that means a lot for, oh lets say, Bangladesh.

So at 1 meter, your figure, what do you do?

"In addition, sea rise of only 1 meter in Bangladesh would put one-half of the nation underwater, displacing more than 100 million people."

Where do they go? Calcutta?

---------------------------
...and just for the heck of it...

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006908.shtml

According to the new satellite measurements from images produced by the US National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) , surface melting of Greenland's ice cap reached 57 cubic miles a year or 239 cubic kilometers, between April of 2002 and November of 2005, compared to about 19 cubic miles a year between 1997 and 2003.(Comment: Whoa, accelerating 300% from 2002 to 2005 compared to previous period...and there's lots more warming to come...we're relatively stable now...what about when the sucker really spikes...)

Snip

Researchers Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, Lawrence, used data from Canadian and European satellites. They conducted a nearly comprehensive survey of Greenland glacial ice discharge rates at different times during the past 10 years.

"The Greenland ice sheet's contribution to sea level is an issue of considerable societal and scientific importance," Rignot said. "These findings call into question predictions of the future of Greenland in a warmer climate from computer models that do not include variations in glacier flow as a component of change. Actual changes will likely be much larger than predicted by these models."

[nashville_brook]

129. so like, in order to meet your standard of rational debate

do you have to be such a prick?

just asking, b/c it seems like you and auto agree in principle, but not in tone. your tone being a major turn-off. gee, if this is "rational debate" pass me the dang Enquirer.

[Viking12]

130. No, we don't agree in principle.

I believe we should ground our positions in accurate science. The OP seems to believe that science doesn't really matter as long as we make the claims as scary as possible.

Don't like my tone? Then hold posters accountable for accurate information.

[nashville_brook]

133. you're painting with an IMAGINARY brush

he's done nothing of the sort.

but, keep repeating your TALKING POINTS ad nauseum.

[Cleita]

70. Although I can see the ocean from my front porch, I am pretty

high up on a hill and we are about five miles from the beach. But a rise like that would give us beachfront property. Also this hill we are perched on might become an island.

[slackmaster]

75. My house is about 260 feet above mean sea level

Bring it on!

:hide:

[Nothing Without Hope]

86. K & R - as you wisely suggest, I've downloaded the file, since the Bushies

are likely to suppress this information.

Very, very scary. Doubtless the fringe nutcases who want to promote Armageddon will see this as the fulfillment of prophecy and be cheered. And don't forget, these people have been having meetings in the White House: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060814&s=new_christian_zionism

[autorank]

87. Well, now I know it will be saved:)

:hi:

[Neshanic]

89. So southern New Jersey still exists in a 240' rise? I think not.

Same with Long Island? That map needs scrutiny...most of New Jersey would dissapear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. The map is for a 10m increase

not the 80m increase that would happen if East Antarctica lost all its ice. As noted elsewhere, the typical increase expected in the next century from melting ice is 1m. That still causes problems for very low-lying areas.

[autorank]

113. Wrong on the 1 meter increase...the latest science...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1936383&mesg_id=1941983

You are right about the 10 m increase and the map however. Very good.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. Overpeck, 14 Aug 2006: perhaps 3 feet a century by 2100

Overpeck says accelerating ice-sheet melting in Greenland and Antarctica might lead to even higher rates of sea level rise, perhaps 3 feet a century by 2100.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-14-greenland-warming_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

From your own link:

The new research suggests the melting could accelerate, thereby raising sea level as fast, or faster, than three feet (about one meter) of sea level rise per century.

[Mnemosyne]

93. Elevation: 1428 feet

:kick:

[1monster]

96. How high am I? About 12 feet above sea level on the coast of

Northeast Florida. I've been telling my son to move inland and north as soon as he finishes school since he was born... Meanwhile, I guess I need to go out and buy a little dinghy to get back and forth to work and the grocery store for when we have waterways instead of streets.

Better put the house up on stilts too......

[Nothing Without Hope]

97. Millions of years ago there was an ocean in the center of North America

The geologists call it the Sundance Sea (at least what I've read of it). Does anyone here know how high an ocean rise it would take to flood the center of the country again? Calling all geologists...

In the meantime, many of the great cities here and around the world began as ports, and 240 feet would pretty much do them in. And there there are the low-lying areas like the areas of Bangladesh that are repeatedly hit by flooding. 240 feet is enough to do incredible harm. I really can't begin to imagine the scope of it.

[motocicleta]

100. Fuckburger, that's depressing

And for Viking12? I suggest you give us some alternative rather than simply running down the OP. You are likely right, but your approach isn't helping you.

[Viking12]

102. Geez, sorry the truth is so inconvenient.

:eyes:

From now on I'll just go along with all ridiculous interpretations of scientific studies.

:crazy:

[motocicleta]

103. whatever, pal

you tell me what I should believe, and I'll give a look. There is no snarkiness here. I am serious; right now I have no reason to be upset about an extremely dire reading of the predictions. Science hasn't given me so much hope, shall we say, so I think if you're going to cast stones you ought to be prepared to give something in exchange.

Of course, if you just want to run down Autorank, you're allowed; it's just boring if you don't want to suggest what we should actually do.
You decide: be boring or be informative.

[Viking12]

104. I've offered an alternative to the OP. Accuracy.

Maybe you should read my posts...I've stated,

"Global warming is serious enough that you don't have to make shit up to make a claim for action. So stop making shit up, you feed into the RW accusations of 'alarmist' and ultimatley undermine efforts to make real progress."

"Maybe if people would focus on the real dangers of Global Warming we could get something done."

Running around screaming chicken little and failing accurately assess our risk does no one any good.

[motocicleta]

105. what?

I read your posts, and I have read this post. Again (and I am starting to feel like Autorank) you have offered us nothing but deprecating comments about being alarmist. You can bolster your point by suggesting what we can actually do.
Since science itself has given us the situation we are in, telling us we aren't being scientific isn't really a good point for your side, no matter the accuracy.
When you just ditch on a post as inaccurate without suggesting what would be accurate, you aren't helping. Like AR, if you don't start doing such, you will get no more responses from me.

[Viking12]

106. So you don't know the difference between 3' and 262'?

I'm not sure where I lost you but as near as I can tell that seems to be the place. I have provided you with the accurate figures; I even demonstrated that the OP's sources show that sea-level is expected to rise less than 1m over the next century. Granted, that is still significant and could be disasterous but it is a FAR cry from 20' or 262'.

science itself has given us the situation we are in

Umm, no. Production and consumption have.

[motocicleta]

108. I really should just ignore this one

but the idea that I cannot comprehend the difference between 3' and 262' just gets my back up. I am suggesting that science may not have enough information to tell us what the changes will be, and that the problem may be larger than we have considered, even if we have not really considered what is really bad about the small predictions. Yet you are convinced that I and mine are morons, and keep saying that we are harming the movement by thinking that the scientists may not have a complete idea of what is going to happen. At the same time, you don't suggest anything that should be done differently; you just seem to suggest that anyone who thinks it could possibly be worse than you think is a fool.

Is that a clear enough explanation as to why you are solely an irritant, and not a help in any way whatsoever?

[autorank]

111. Wrong Viking12

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1936383&mesg_id=1941983

Are you getting this information from where...Dr. Balling?

Look at the link.

A) The USGS page is reviewed internally prior to release. Its an estimation of what can happen under certain circumstances. That's the baseline.

B) Overpeck et al have done combined studies referenced in the link above and they're calling for a 20' rise in sea level by 2100 given the fact that we're dunces and doing nothing to stop it.

C) Your 1 meter rise is bogus. Thats from a report that's been bypassed. It's convenient to quote but not new science.

D) You continue to use rhetoric that casts aspersions on the validity of your content. I've not had time to get back to you and now I see you going after other users. Shame shame shame...

Just look at the link above. If you disagree fine but don't represent the author of an article as saying something he didn't when you're credentials are not known. I'll take science reporters form The Independent and The Times of London plus scientists who are the subject of the science reporters stories as THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION over you.

[Viking12]

119. Right Viking12

A) The USGS page is reviewed internally prior to release. Its an estimation of what can happen under certain circumstances. That's the baseline.

..and yet you represent a theoretical possibility over many centuries as what will happen in one.

B) Overpeck et al have done combined studies referenced in the link above and they're calling for a 20' rise in sea level by 2100 given the fact that we're dunces and doing nothing to stop it.

Umm. no they didn't. Go to your local university library and read the actual article. No such claims are made in the article.

C) Your 1 meter rise is bogus. Thats from a report that's been bypassed. It's convenient to quote but not new science.

For the 5th or 6th time. This is exactly what Overpeck et.al. claim in the article to which you refer. read the freaking article and/or this astute summary:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets


don't represent the author of an article as saying something he didn't when you're credentials are not known.

You clearly don't understand the concept of irony.

[autorank]

121. Viking 12 THANK YOU - another source for 20 feet

No offense, but I don't know who you are. I know who Overpeck et al are, at least by credentials and positions. I also know that The Times of London and The Independent are first rate publications with full time science writers on staff. I also know that when interviewed about his article, Overpeck said 20'. Sorry, they've got more credibility than a two dimensional name on the internet.

But you redeemed yourself. The reference above is a gimme, as we say. You gave me more reverences for my point. Overbeck is described as positing a 6 m, or 19.68 (lets call it 20) foot rise in sea level. Mercer's theory is referenced as regaining favor in the glaciology community, and you give me that nice quotation on "accelerated glacial melting" as a "probable" event, one to be relied upon.

You sir and the sole possessor of the IRONY PRIZE. It was a wonderful gesture on your part to me and we'll include user motocicleta as well.

Thank you so much for bringing forth a source that supports what I've tried to get you to understand.

Viking12 was kind enough to prove my point. Thanks for the link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets

Second, in a paper by Overpeck et al., they examine the implications for past and future sea level rise. The results show that the Greenland and other Arctic ice sheets probably did not contribute more than 3.4 m to the LIG sea level rise. However, data from coral reefs exposed above sea level today, and other evidence, point to an LIG sea level at least 4 m and possibly as much as 6 m (my comment: 6 m = 19.68 feet) VOILA Viking12)greater than today. This suggests that the balance came from the Antarctic ice sheet. This is turn implies a strong sensitivity of the Antarctic ice sheet to sea level rise and climate warming -- an idea that goes back to John Mercer (1976) but that had until recently fallen out of favor in much of the glaciology community.

Snip

On the other hand, none of the new evidence points in the direction of smaller rates of sea level rise in the future, and probably nudge us closer to the upper end of the IPCC predictions. Those who have already been ignoring or naysaying those predictions now have even less of a leg to stand on. Coastal managers, real estate developers, and insurance companies, at the least, would be wise to continue to take such predictions seriously.** As Don Kennedy and Brooks Hanson write in the lead Editorial,"accelerated glacial melting and larger changes in sea level should be looked at as probable events, not as hypothetical possiilities."

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

140. woohoo!

[autorank]

144. Is that a promise...please say yes..we're done...

...whew. Thanks, it's been real...

[nashville_brook]

132. gotta love a guy from Wisconsin telling the rest of us about

sea level rise.

I've returned to my native florida beach. When i was a kid high tide, AT ITS NOREASTER HIGHEST still left 10 feet of beach to walk on.

high tide... could still walk on beach.


now, you just don't go to the beach at high tide. there's no place to stand. the water is lapping the dunes causing a big EROSION problemo, which is what gets reported around here.

the local story... erosion

the global story... sea level rise

in the 25 years since i've lived here, i'd say the water has risen AT LEAST 3 METERS (9-10 feet). and i'd say that MOST of that SEACHANGE has occured in the last 7-10 years.

so... i don't find it difficult to imagine a 24'+ rise. we've already had the first 10. we'll just call it erosion, dump sand on the beach and go about our merry lives.

until -- oh wait! fucking insurance companies aren't covering property here anymore. what's up with that? that's right now, folks.

so, mr. viking, i have a challenge -- if you're so confident in the enduring health of the sea, why don't you put your money where you mouth is and buy some beachfront property?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

137. "apparently you side with the OP that you can make stuff up..."

bwahahahaha!

nice scientific observation there. gee, would you like a hypothesis go with that?

[nashville_brook]

138. "YOU'RE ON CRACK" nice scientific observation there, too

[nashville_brook]

139. well, here's some accurate info for you --

the sea is rising rapidly here on my little patch of coast. i don't need the US Geologic Survey or some dood in Wisconsin to tell me yay or nay on that.

for you, accurate info comes from a reliable source. that's just fine. you stick to your "reliable sources" and i'll continue to believe what i experience first-hand.

[Viking12]

141. OK then. Good luck with that.

:crazy:

[autorank]

116. Good point motocicleta ..what to do about the collapse of our eco system.

First, we need to stop worrying about "the earth" surviving, it will survive in some form and how would it know the difference;) although we and other sentient beings certainly would.

Second, here's a simple plan:

1) develop a comprehensive plan to detoxify the water, land, and earth over a set period of years;

2) prioritize so that the key dangers, by estimate not certain knowledge, are addressed first to mitigate current trends and then to reverse them where possible;

3) make the planning process comprehensive and inclusive and make sure that everybody is able to make money in the process.

It's a lot of work, monumental, so there has to be a way to finance it so that all involved benefit. Obviously there would be dislocations in the economy but with careful planning and open ended opportunities, the shift might actually stimulate growth. GM would have problems since they're not so fuel efficient (although that could change) but they do have a micro-power plant business they're building that might just take off. We've had nearly zero private sector growth under Bush so this might be the ticket (latest I saw (* regime) was 2.9 mil. new jobs, government; -.6 mil. new jobs private sector for 2.3 net new jobs; we can do better!).

4) be prepared for uncertainty.

We really don't know what will happen when things start to turn around. I remember NYC during the gas crisis in the '70's. Summer went from 90's to 70's; humid to more reasonable; and dirty sky to blue sky with clouds in days, then right back to the nasty old pattern after the pumps were filled again).

5) get really intelligent, accomplished scientists together and working as teams and make sure they don't take one dime from anybody other than a foundation structure that has no strings attached.

From the Gore reference, the only scientific journal articles, true refereed journals, saying that global warming is not a man made event and taking place are..., well there are not any. There are hack journals and hack foundation publications but the clear consensus of scientists not paid by energy groups is that global warming is there, caused by us, and a real problem. It wouldn't be hard to identify the scientists and get them working on a Manhattan Project for our environment.

There are much much better action plans but just form a citizen's perspective, one who would like to see his children live in a decent place, it's not that hard to map out some general strategies.

[autorank]

112. And Viking12, who is doing the screaming around here? n/t

[autorank]

123. Speculation but being discussed - Age of Chaos emerging.

Comment: This is from Tomdispatch.com but appeared in Alternet a few months ago. It's a minority view now but is interesting for one reason. It challenges the notion of linear change in the earth''s climate. Assuming a linear model, we throw out the spike in global warming and any impact that may have, and go with the "big picture" estimates. However, what if things don't happen in a linear fashion?


ALTERNET

Has the Age of Chaos Begun?
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/26545/

By Mike Davis, Tomdispatch.com. Posted October 8, 2005.

But all the major components of global climate -- air, water, ice, and vegetation -- are actually nonlinear: At certain thresholds they can switch from one state of organization to another, with catastrophic consequences for species too finely-tuned to the old norms. Until the early 1990s, however, it was generally believed that these major climate transitions took centuries, if not millennia, to accomplish. Now, thanks to the decoding of subtle signatures in ice cores and sea-bottom sediments, we know that global temperatures and ocean circulation can, under the right circumstances, change abruptly -- in a decade or even less.

The paradigmatic example is the so-called "Younger Dryas" event, 12,800 years ago, when an ice dam collapsed, releasing an immense volume of meltwater from the shrinking Laurentian ice-sheet into the Atlantic Ocean via the instantly-created St. Lawrence River. This "freshening" of the North Atlantic suppressed the northward conveyance of warm water by the Gulf Stream and plunged Europe back into a thousand-year ice age.

Snip

In contrast to Bushite flat-Earthers and shills for the oil industry, their skepticism has been founded on fears that the IPCC models fail to adequately allow for catastrophic nonlinearities like the Younger Dryas. Where other researchers model the late 21st-century climate that our children will live with upon the precedents of the Altithermal (the hottest phase of the current Holocene period, 8000 years ago) or the Eemian (the previous, even warmer interglacial episode, 120,000 years ago), growing numbers of geophysicists toy with the possibilities of runaway warming returning the earth to the torrid chaos of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM: 55 million years ago) when the extreme and rapid heating of the oceans led to massive extinctions.

Snip

The good parent in me, however, screams: How is it possible that we can now contemplate with scientific seriousness whether our children's children will themselves have children? Let Exxon answer that in one of their sanctimonious ads.

[nashville_brook]

135. i think this is the core of the matter -- climate is not LINEAR

small-minded rationlistas DEMAND adherence to linear models -- otherwise -- you're not being science-y enough.

the truthiest truth is that The Linear Rationalists are dinosaurs. They are 2-dimensional flatworms in a multidiminstional world. Viking's perturbance is the DEATH RATTLE of his precious "billiard balls in motion" model of how shit works.


current models of large systems (large systems = climate, social groups) have LONG embraced tipping-point behavior.

hmmm. tipping point behavior... like... The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
[br />we'll be seeing the vikings in the fossil record with a mouth full of some sort of fast food and wonder.... "gee, how could they not see that coming?"

[autorank]

142. That book should be mandatory reading...

"The Structure of Scientific Revolution" what a mind opener and how wonderful it is to find out that we move forward in the oddest ways. I'm glad I had a chance to read it warly on in college.

We're small minded, imho, when we assume the logical, limited scenarios we've been sold on global warming by the "establishment" folks; and we're small minded when we assume that there are not robust solutions out there, parhaps, if we just take a shot.

If we'd devoted 1/3 of Iraq War funds to this problem and 1/3 to health/stem cell research, we'd be in such great shape. Maybe we'll get smart soon.

:hi:

[Jeroen]

126. It will not happen

For example:
The oceanic conveyer belt, which transports energy (heat) from the equator to the north will come to a stop, resulting in a (super quick) ice age, freezing large parts of the northern hemisphere. But that is just one theory.

According to scientists, it is very hard to predict the influence of temperature rises in the global climate system. There are to many unknowns and new parameters will be introduced when the climate is changing. The system itself is extremely complex.

All these climate models and theories provide a false sense of security: event A will happen, event B will happen. As if we are able to anticipate these events. The truth is that we don’t really know what is going to happen. It will be like living in a blender.
Science should have make us humble, but I am afraid the opposite has happened.

[rman]

127. Whichever, it's going to be a mess

Climate disruption and the end of cheap oil within a few decades, and the transformation of democracy into totalitarian rule as the only way our 'leaders' see to handle this crisis for the capitalist paradigm of eternal economic growth.

[Pachamama]

136. I'm here in Montana - just came back from 2 days at Glacier Nat'l Park!

Glaciers???? What Glaciers???

Oh, yeah....those couple of ice patches sitting up high on the rock above that waterfall.....

Hey Autorank! :hi:

Here with the Pachafamily on vacation....I am actually not kidding when I state what I did above. I haven't been to Glacier Nat'l in about a decade....what I saw when I was there was frightening. I'm not exaggerating, but there is hardly anything left. And as I took pix of the kids with the little ice patch in the background (barely visible), I thought to myself that this may be the last time that they or I will see the "glaciers" at "Glacier Nat'l Park".

Folks, seeing is believing....things are bad and getting worse....

Atlantis here we come.... :cry:

[autorank]

143. Get to a park!

Look at the trees, talk to the rangers about changes, and check out the glaciers...

:hi: Thanks for the update. It's amazing isn't it. Glad you had a great itme.