fred smith wrote:You still do not know and neither does anyone else.
Jack: Still waiting for the reason why only ONE scientist could be named and all of your evidence is subject to a $39.95 fee to access. Got anything else? Surely with all the information out there we don't need to rely on this one site?
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 issued only a partial prediction. The panel said that sea level could be expected to rise 11 to 23 inches by the year 2100 but this number, they pointed out, included mainly thermal expansion and did not include the meltwater contribution from the great ice sheets. Unfortunately, many groups have mistakenly assumed the 11-to-23-inch prediction to be the total anticipated sea level rise
The western tropical Pacific is usually considered as one of the most vulnerable regions of the world under present-day and future global warming. It is often reported that some islands of the region already suffer significant sea level rise. To clarify the latter concern, in the present study we estimate sea level rise and variability since 1950 in the western tropical Pacific region (20°S–15°N; 120°E–135°W). We estimate the total rate of sea level change at selected individual islands, as a result of climate variability and change, plus vertical ground motion where available. For that purpose, we reconstruct a global sea level field from 1950 to 2009, combining long (over 1950–2009) good quality tide gauge records with 50-year-long (1958–2007) gridded sea surface heights from the Ocean General Circulation Model DRAKKAR.
they have observed 3mm/year so far (global mean), but again, the other links, those guys argue the trend will not be linear. Acceleration will result from ice dynamics ie increasing glacier loss.
err, what fee are you talking about? everything I read so far is free on the net.
fred smith wrote:they have observed 3mm/year so far (global mean), but again, the other links, those guys argue the trend will not be linear. Acceleration will result from ice dynamics ie increasing glacier loss.
Have they OBSERVED a 3 millimeter rise? OBSERVED or PROJECTED one?
Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.
fred smith wrote:Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993 to 2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.
Translation: We don't know.
Durack and team combined salinity data from 1950-2000 and the relationship between salinity, rainfall and evaporation in climate models to find that for every degree Celsius of warming at the Earth's surface, the water cycle strengthens by 8 percent.
Temperature data shows the planet heated up by 0.5 deg C between 1950-2000. But climate models suggest the world is on track to warm by 3 deg C by the end of the century unless the current growth of greenhouse gas emissions is quickly halted.
A warming of that magnitude would mean the water cycle intensifying by up to 24 percent, with wet regions getting wetter and dry regions drier.
"This has big implications for dry regions, such as Australia, which are already dry," Durack said in an email to Reuters.
How can you predict stuff without models? And in the absence of prediction, all you can do is wake up one day and say: Fuck me! Where did all that water come from?
You use models all the time, though you don't notice it. You model the way others normally drive, and fit your reactions into what you predict the majority of people will do. Sometimes you encounter something that runs counter to your model, and you may crash. Other times you move to a place where your model isn't valid anymore, and you may crash. What is so wrong when a scientist models stuff bigger than what fits into a small brain and predicts larger things based on that?
Forumosans browsing this forum: fred smith, Google [Bot] and 3 visitors