Report sees sharper sea rise from Arctic melt (Update)

May 03, 2011 By KARL RITTER and CHARLES J. HANLEY , Associated Press Writers
In this July 19, 2007 file photo an iceberg is seen off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the ice in the region is melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

(AP) -- The ice of Greenland and the rest of the Arctic is melting faster than expected and could help raise global sea levels by as much as 5 feet this century, dramatically higher than earlier projections, an authoritative international assessment says.

The findings "emphasize the need for greater urgency" in combating global warming, says the report of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), the scientific arm of the eight-nation Arctic Council.

The warning of much higher seas comes as the world's nations remain bogged down in their two-decade-long talks on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Rising sea levels are expected to cause some of global warming's worst damage - from inundated small islands to possible flooding of New York City's subways. Oceans will not rise uniformly worldwide, because of currents, winds and other factors, but such low-lying areas as Bangladesh and Florida will likely be hard-hit.

The new report, whose executive summary was obtained by The Associated Press, is to be delivered to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and foreign ministers of the other seven member nations at an Arctic Council meeting next week in Greenland. It first will be discussed by some 400 international scientists at a conference this week in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Drawing on improved research techniques and recent scientific papers, the AMAP report updates forecasts made by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change in its last major assessment in 2007.

The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, is projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90 to 160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, although it noted that estimate was highly uncertain.

That's up from the 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19 to 59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel. The U.N. group had left out the possible acceleration of melting in Greenland and Antarctica, saying research on that hadn't advanced sufficiently by the mid-2000s. The U.N. estimate was based largely on the expansion of ocean waters from warming and the runoff from melting land glaciers elsewhere in the world.

Now the AMAP assessment finds that Greenland was losing ice in the 2004-2009 period four times faster than in 1995-2000.

In addition, the cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel, threatening the long-term survival of polar bears and other ice-dependent species. Summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, said AMAP, predicting the ocean will be almost ice-free in the summer in 30 to 40 years.

Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and "feedback" mechanisms are believed to be speeding up warming in the far north.

One such mechanism involves the ocean absorbing more heat when it's not covered by ice, because ice reflects the sun's energy. That effect has been anticipated by scientists "but clear evidence for it has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years," AMAP said.

It projected that average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic will climb by roughly 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.

"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," AMAP said.

A leading American ice specialist, Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University, who did not take part in the AMAP assessment, agreed that recent scientific estimates generally support its central finding.

A sea level rise of more than 3 feet this century "fits well within these estimates, and a somewhat higher value cannot be excluded," Alley said.

Scientists have steadily improved ways of measuring the loss of ice into the oceans.

In research reported in March in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, U.S. and European scientists used two independent methods to corroborate their findings: the on-the-ground measurement of ice thickness and movements using GPS stations and other tools, and the measurement of ice mass through gravity readings from satellites.

Led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, they calculated that the accelerating melt of the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would contribute to an overall sea-level rise of some 13 inches by 2050. They didn't project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties, but their work, like AMAP's, significantly updates previous projections.

The AMAP report said melting glaciers and ice sheets worldwide have become the biggest contributor to sea level rise. Greenland's ice sheet alone accounted for more than 40 percent of the 0.12 inches (3.1 millimeters) of sea-level rise observed annually between 2003 and 2008, AMAP said.

The AMAP group's main function is to advise the nations surrounding the Arctic - the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland - on threats to its environment.

The updated projections should supply further scientific ammunition in the uphill struggle for concerted global action to rein in greenhouse emissions. The failure of emissions-capping legislation in the U.S. Congress last year was one major setback.

"I'm not sure what is more alarming, the glacial pace of Congress to reduce carbon pollution or the astounding rate of melting Arctic ice," Lou Leonard, climate chief at the World Wildlife Fund, said of the new report.

Explore further: Likely near-simultaneous earthquakes complicate seismic hazard planning for Italy

4 /5 (27 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arctic heats up more than other places

Jan 16, 2009

Temperature change in the Arctic is happening at a greater rate than other places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this is expected to continue in the future.

NASA Sees Rapid Changes in Arctic Sea Ice

Sep 13, 2006

NASA data shows that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and remains year-round, shrunk abruptly by 14 percent between 2004 and 2005. According to researchers, the loss of perennial ice ...

Melting ice prompts navigation warning

Oct 29, 2007

The U.S.-based International Ice Charting Working Group predicted significant navigation hazards will develop as Arctic sea ice diminishes.

Recommended for you

NASA radar system surveys Napa Valley quake area

19 hours ago

NASA scientists are conducting an airborne survey of earthquake fault displacements in the Napa Valley area of Northern California using a sophisticated radar system developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ...

Aging Africa

Aug 29, 2014

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermontā€“Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

Aug 29, 2014

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

baudrunner
3.2 / 5 (10) May 03, 2011
Given that water expands as it cools, with a maximum volume at 4 degrees centigrade, and that about ninety percent of an iceberg is below the water line, will the impact on sea levels due to melting of Arctic ice be really as great as they say?
Kingsix
3.3 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
Measuring the melt of the ice caps is one thing, but I personally always take their predictions about the effects of anything with a grain of salt. Mostly because time and time again it is shown that we don't yet truly understand how the whole ecosystem of the earth works.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (14) May 03, 2011
If there's one pattern about global warming science, it's the fact that scientists keep underestimating how fast it is happening. Scary stuff.

Much of the sea level rise is going to come from Greenland, since the ice there is sitting on top of a land mass, and thus not normally displacing any water. When it melts, it therefore adds 100% of the volume. The same is true in a more limited sense for Antarctica.

Arctic ice is already floating, so it makes little difference in sea levels when it melts. However, it reflects light from the sun, so when it melts the exposed seawater warms up even more. This is a typical feedback effect. Plus, ocean currents are likely to change significantly once enough of the ice is gone, which would alter weather patterns across the northern hemisphere.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (17) May 03, 2011
Given that water expands as it cools, with a maximum volume at 4 degrees centigrade, and that about ninety percent of an iceberg is below the water line, will the impact on sea levels due to melting of Arctic ice be really as great as they say?


I am confident that such details will not change the story promoted by Al Gore, the UN's IPCC and their army of climatologists!

Remember, they are all Nobel Prize winners!

That is why we can all rest assured that the science is settled.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

NotParker
2.5 / 5 (16) May 03, 2011
Sea Level hasn't changed much in 5 years according to satellite JASON-1 and JASON-2.

US Tide Gauges say no change over the 20th century in sea level.

The people writing thse reports remind of shlock horror movie directors who rush out crappy movies hilighting the fear of the day.
axemaster
3.8 / 5 (16) May 03, 2011
I am confident that such details will not change the story promoted by Al Gore, the UN's IPCC and their army of climatologists!

Remember, they are all Nobel Prize winners!

That is why we can all rest assured that the science is settled.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Perhaps you should learn basic physics instead of parroting wrong ideas put forth by other people. The volume of frozen VS liquid water makes zero difference when it is floating. It is the weight that determines the displacement for a floating solid like ice.

Sea Level hasn't changed much in 5 years according to satellite JASON-1 and JASON-2.

US Tide Gauges say no change over the 20th century in sea level.

Wrong. Sea levels have risen significantly over the past century. A reference:

http://scienceblo...ling.php

Good job making a false claim there.

BTW, I suggest you read it thoroughly before saying anything else dumb.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
I suppose I should highlight the important bits for you:

"According to the latest state of the art satellite measurements from over the Arctic, sea levels are falling!"

"But even if these results hold up to time and scrutiny, it is not evidence that globally sea levels are not rising, because they are."

"Local sea levels are subject to many influences including: wind and ocean currents that can "pile up" the ocean water locally, temperature anomalies like El Nino, local gravity wells of ice sheets and land masses and regional salinity levels that alter the water's density. "

I guess that ruins your US Tide Gauges.

Moreover, I should probably add that 5 years is nowhere near statistically significant. It's far too early to say anything about results from JASON-1 and JASON-2.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) May 03, 2011
"Given that water expands as it cools, with a maximum volume at 4 degrees centigrade"

Just thought I'd correct this... Actually water contracts as it cools down towards 4C. ie: it is at its most dense at that temperature - and as it cools to freezing point expands again.
Moebius
3.3 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
And I predict, again, that these estimates are conservatively wrong. It is STILL much worse than we know. The acceleration will accelerate. Look for effects predicted for the end of the century by 2050.

And if you wonder someday how I knew this, the answer is simple. I know with absolute certainty this is man made not natural and that we will not stop. So rejoice skeptics, you'll get your way but you won't like it.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (12) May 03, 2011
GOD!!! It's risen 20cm the last hundred years!!! Ruuuuuuun for the hills!!!!!!!!!!

*snicker*
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (10) May 03, 2011
Moebius:

This has got to be a joke.

Nobody actually believes this stuff. If they did somebody would be doing something about it.

3 to 5 feet by the end of the century eh? Well, kiss Galveston, Tampa Bay, Miami, the Keys, and NOLA (along with most of the Louisiana coast) as goodbye. They are unsalvageable if these projections are correct.

Even the low end of that would be a third of an inch per year. Even a dumbass who happened to live along the coast would notice that within a few years. So why aren't there like 10 million confirmations from coast dwellers saying, "Gee, I've never seen the water this high!"

Anyway, look on the bright side. Even if this does happen, at least Greenland, Canada and Alaska will get new growing seasons for crops, and there'll be more habitats for fish.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) May 03, 2011
As an aside did you know that atmospheric pressure can effect the sea level more in a few hours than all the "melting" over the past century combined by a factor of 50?
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011
Wrong. Sea levels have risen significantly over the past century.


Actually, they've been rising for 12,000 years as the last ice age entered this interglacial (which will come to an end).

See levels are up 100m from 12,000 years ago. But that just natural variability.
NotParker
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011
Accoring to satellites, sea leve has risen on average about 1.7mm a year for the last 100 years, and for a few years it went up to 3mm and is now back to 1 - 2mm per year.

To rise 1m in in century (1000mm) it needs to rise 11mm a year for the next 90 years. It has never come close to 11mm a year in the last 1000 years or more. Not even in the last 20.
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (10) May 03, 2011
@NotParker,
It has never come close to 11mm a year in the last 1000 years or more. Not even in the last 20.
And that's the whole point. This is NOT "natural variability". It's man-made. AND you're a liar:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

@ModernMystic,
atmospheric pressure can effect the sea level more in a few hours than all the "melting" over the past century
You know how to add, don't you? Global sea level rise + atmospheric pressure/weather/wind effects = more than atmospheric pressure/weather/wind effects alone. Both peaks and valleys get higher as a result of global sea level rise.

@QC,
Nobody actually believes this stuff.
Nobody except something like 99% of all scientists, and all the people in the world except for a tribe of pigheaded American "conservatives".
why aren't there like 10 million confirmations from coast dwellers
Because that rise isn't going to be linear. It's comparatively slow now, and will accelerate over time.
Moebius
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
Modernmystic: GOD!!! It's risen 20cm the last hundred years!!! Ruuuuuuun for the hills!!!!!!!!!!

*snicker*


Snicker? What has the past 100 years to do with the next 100? A 15 foot sea level rise from Greenland if it melts and it IS melting. You will see articles here soon about how Greenland is melting faster than we thought. I don't think it is going to just melt. I think there is a good chance much of it will hit the ocean still frozen, that it can slip off eventually. A sudden 15 foot rise will flood many cities, permanently.

Then we will do our reaction dance spending billions in damages that could have been spent in prevention. Just like Japan is doing now.
Moebius
4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
Quantum Conundrum to Moebius:

...

3 to 5 feet by the end of the century eh? Well, kiss Galveston, Tampa Bay, Miami, the Keys, and NOLA (along with most of the Louisiana coast) as goodbye. They are unsalvageable if these projections are correct.

Even the low end of that would be a third of an inch per year. Even a dumbass who happened to live along the coast would notice that within a few years. So why aren't there like 10 million confirmations from coast dwellers saying, "Gee, I've never seen the water this high!"

Anyway, look on the bright side. Even if this does happen, at least Greenland, Canada and Alaska will get new growing seasons for crops, and there'll be more habitats for fish.


It's not going to happen gradually and it hasn't really started yet. We are just seeing the smoke now, the fire is coming, the tinder is smoldering and we are fanning it. When it starts it will accelerate quickly. Flooding of the US coasts will bring our economy to its knees for decades.
joefarah
1.4 / 5 (10) May 04, 2011
Interesting. 5' by 2100 - that's over 1.5cm/year which means that in the past 5 years it has risen by 8 cm. Yet even the AGW propaganda posted by axemaster suggests rates are rising by, at most 25cm/century, not 150. And the reference actually shows that it has been falling the last couple of years. Hmm. I'm confused.

Maybe I should stop reading AGW propaganda and go back to real science.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2011
Flooding of the US coasts will bring our economy to its knees for decades


No need to worry about that anyway. If the price of gas keeps going up, our economy is going to be in the crapper a long time before then anyway.

Unless we can somehow transition to like 1 car per family and a five minute commute, everyone is going to be in poverty in a few years anyway, except circus clowns, republicans and oil companies.

As gas prices start to reach the projected $5 to $8 range, we'll all go broke. Nobody can afford to pay up to $15 or $20 per day for gasoline to drive to work, certainly not for sustained time periods of years on end.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011
You know how to add, don't you? Global sea level rise + atmospheric pressure/weather/wind effects = more than atmospheric pressure/weather/wind effects alone. Both peaks and valleys get higher as a result of global sea level rise.


Yes I do, my point is that the effect is SO fricken minuscule that simple atmospheric conditions outweigh it's effects by a factor of FIFTY...can you multiply?
lengould100
3.6 / 5 (9) May 04, 2011
As gas prices start to reach the projected $5 to $8 range, we'll all go broke. Nobody can afford to pay up to $15 or $20 per day for gasoline to drive to work, certainly not for sustained time periods of years

Hmmm... Never been outside the USA I see? Those numbers are common in Canada. You yanks are a joke, really, tremendously funny to watch if it wern't for the damage you cause.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (11) May 04, 2011
As gas prices start to reach the projected $5 to $8 range, we'll all go broke. Nobody can afford to pay up to $15 or $20 per day for gasoline to drive to work, certainly not for sustained time periods of years

Hmmm... Never been outside the USA I see? Those numbers are common in Canada. You yanks are a joke, really, tremendously funny to watch if it wern't for the damage you cause.


Like keeping you whining, simpering "take care of me big daddy uncle government" crybabies from being a province of the USSR for fifty years and deferring nearly all your defense costs so you can pay for your socialist "paradise"? That damage?

People like you make me literally ill...
Kingsix
3.5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011
Lengould $15 -$20 per day? I am not sure what Canada you live in, but unless you drive across Ontario everyday I doubt it. I spend about $35 every 10 days on fuel.

Modernmystic, you truly show the worst of what America has to offer. The only reason the US protected us against the USSR was because they would come through us to get to you, and you had to protect Alaska anyway and in exchange for allowing American radar in Northern Canada. Americans have always been good at ignoring everyone elses contributions, probably because the school system doesn't teach its people about other countries or cultures. It leads to ignorant and pigheaded thinking, like you are demonstrating.
Probably what has led to the stink pit that the US finds itself in today. And if it continues you may find your rich neighbors to the north cutting the US off from its Oil, Water, well pretty much just about everything that it gets for cheap right now.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011
Modernmystic, you truly show the worst of what America has to offer.


And you truly show that apparently Canada has nothing to offer.

The only reason the US protected us against the USSR was because they would come through us to get to you,


No we protected you because we had a treaty with you and share similar values.

and you had to protect Alaska anyway and in exchange for allowing American radar in Northern Canada.


LMFAO, you must be joking. We could have had early warning any number of different ways. If that's the best you could come up with it really shows how sad and LACKING and one sided our relationship has been.

And if it continues you may find your rich neighbors to the north cutting the US off from its Oil, Water, well pretty much just about everything that it gets for cheap right now.


You really don't get economics do you? We'd just buy it from whoever you sold it to. Besides if it ever became a problem we'd just take it VERY easily.
nighmare
not rated yet May 04, 2011
the study is scary but the bad thing they did not include the data from the southpole to complete th pitcure
lengould100
2.5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
KingSix: You're correct, I meant to say "week" not "day".

Modernmystic: Not only do you badly need some science and math training, obviously, but you prove above that you can't do history, geography or economics. Get back to class, your grade-school teacher might mark you absent.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011
KingSix: You're correct, I meant to say "week" not "day".

Modernmystic: Not only do you badly need some science and math training, obviously, but you prove above that you can't do history, geography or economics. Get back to class, your grade-school teacher might mark you absent.


Coming from you that means....well absolutely nothing...
Javinator
4.5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011
$15 a day is about an hour drive at highway speeds by Canadian prices (at least in southern Ontario). There are lots of people in the US and Canada who live outside of the cities they work in who pay this when they go to work.

Driving across Ontario would cost significantly more than $20 (even if you're just talking about the southern portion).

The "My country's better than your country" debate is so emotionally involved and biased that having the argument (especially in a public forum) is ridiculous.

Grow up.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2011
Accoring to satellites, sea leve has risen on average about 1.7mm a year for the last 100 years,


lol

When did satellites start measuring sea level? I've never seen the satellite record from 1911.

Oh and BTW, Arctic ice is bouyant.

Questions in regard to sea level: At what rate and in what direction are the sum of global ocean basins changing. They are certainly either getting larger or smaller at some rate. Which is it, and how fast? When a continent moves several feet in a single earthquake, what does that do to sea level? As the northern hemisphere continues to rebound from the last ice age, how does that affect both the sea level and the sea level relative to the elevation of continents? Is the internal volume of the Earth basically constant, or does it change over time? Is gravity constant? Is the ratio of the width to the hight of the Earth constant, and how would that effect sea level distribution?
axemaster
3 / 5 (6) May 05, 2011
Well I guess the posts in this thread pretty much confirm that 50% of humans are dumber than average...

Amazing that people whose entire lives depend on technology created by scientists are so quick to throw them away as soon as they say something unfavorable about them...

It's also amazing how unstable the US society is right now... almost harkens back to the Civil War years. The two sides have to be diametrically opposed, no matter what the topic, and in complete ignorance of reality.
Javinator
not rated yet May 05, 2011
$15 a day is about an hour drive at highway speeds by Canadian prices (at least in southern Ontario).


Correction... that would be about the round trip cost. It would be more like 2 hours driving.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) May 06, 2011
Amazing that people whose entire lives depend on technology created by scientists are so quick to throw them away as soon as they say something unfavorable about them...


Yeah, it's amazing how fast some idiots are willing to throw away the many years of work done by hundreds of scientist over the past century in order to believe a report that says all that work is wrong because it supports their alarmist views.

I think I'll stick with the accumulated work of hundreds of accredited scientists at NASA, NOAA, NCDC, CRU, USGS, Army corp of Engineers, US Navy, US Commerce Dept (they maintained the sea level record before NOAA existed), IPCC etc. None of those esteemed agencies agree with the above statements, despite years of detailed work and millions of dollars in satellites, tide guages, aircraft born measurements, etc.
Sanescience
not rated yet May 06, 2011
Boy, the moral high ground is crowded here...

A couple observations:

Water temperature: water has maximum density at 4 degrees Celsius when getting warmer or colder, it becomes less dense. Some regions of ocean levels might be "artificially low" due to colder temperatures "weighing it down" as might be happening on the west coast.

Greenland: Ice cores show that it's ice levels have radically changed over time. The rate of loss and accumulation are cyclical and the long term trend is not yet apparent. Total ice mass may be trending upward at this time:

http://bprc.osu.e...2010.pdf

omatumr
1 / 5 (8) May 06, 2011
I think I'll stick with the accumulated work of hundreds of accredited scientists at NASA, NOAA, NCDC, CRU, USGS, Army corp of Engineers, US Navy, US Commerce Dept (they maintained the sea level record before NOAA existed), . . .


Is that the same group Al Gore and the UN's IPCC used to hide evidence of declining temperatures, promote the illusion of AGW (Anthropologic Global Warming), and wreck Western economies?

anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/hide-the-decline-explained/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) May 07, 2011
@Modernmystic,
my point is that the effect is SO fricken minuscule that simple atmospheric conditions outweigh it's effects by a factor of FIFTY...can you multiply?
It's not a question of either-or. You don't get to choose which one applies. They BOTH apply, simultaneously. Thus, worst-case events will get commensurately worse with global sea level rise, with the delta being a function of that global sea level rise.

As for the rest of your Canada-bashing jingoistic masturbation spree, I only feel the need to remind you that the Soviets have been gone for over 20 years, yet our military budget hardly shrank with the end of the Cold War. Quite to the contrary, it's setting new records with every passing year. The military-industrial complex needs its welfare support; it can't survive without suckling on that government tit. Or is your Big Government Bashing rooted in partisan politics as opposed to fundamental principles? Just asking...
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (4) May 07, 2011
The military-industrial complex needs its welfare support; it can't survive without suckling on that government tit.


Eisenhower warned of TWO dangers to our free society:

1. The Industrial-Military Complex

2. A Scientific-Technological Elite

Al Gore and his followers have repeatedly warned us about #1, while leading the scientific community and an army of tit-sucking scientists down path #2.

Hear Eisenhower's warning for yourself here:

http://www.youtub...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2011
Interestingly, Eisenhower also said this:
As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.


Now, as for the "Scientific-Technological Elite" -- would that by any chance include the likes of Exxon and BP, or perhaps the nuclear lobby? Or is that distinction reserved only for Al Gore (who is neither scientific nor elite) and "his followers" who are neither scientific nor elite?

With kind regards,

How are your kids these days, Oliver?
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (9) May 07, 2011
The COOLING trend continues.

U.S. records for the past week....

High Temperatures: 122
Low Temperatures: 651
Lowest Max Temperatures: 581
Highest Min Temperatures: 104
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) May 07, 2011
The COOLING trend continues.
Thanks for the WEATHER update.
Starbound
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2011
I don't see a problem with conducting climate research. More data is obviously needed since we still don't really have a good idea of what is going on. Humanity needs to get better at detecting climate trends and controlling the climate whether or not AGW exists. One day, not too far off, we will need to artificially prevent the onset of the next ice age, which will dwarf any damage caused caused by global warming.
arcticman
3.7 / 5 (6) May 08, 2011
Axemaster...how do you do it? How do you get the energy to keep trying to educate, inform, or correct the deniers? Don't you see that no matter what information you give them, show them, or lead them to, they will simply dismiss it. They really don't want to know. They like being ignorant. It is a choice they have made, and prefer life that way. I have long lost the enthusiasm of any discourse with them. People who don't know, but truly want to know, react differently, and ask good questions. Still, I admire your energy.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2011
Thanks for the WEATHER update.


Nope, that's records. Records tell you about climate.

Let's take yesterday:

Low Temperatures: 4
Lowest Max Temperatures: 1

There were no high records or highest minimum records yesterday.

The lowest max was a tie in Texas along the coast for a record set in 1980.

The four low minimums were a 1 degree break for record in 1982, and three 2 degree breaks for records set in 1980, 1978, and 1932 respectively.

That's right. Yesterday, four locations were colder than they have EVER been on May 7, including colder than they have EVER been before the alleged greenhouse effect ever happened.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
That's right. Yesterday, four locations were colder than they have EVER been on May 7, including colder than they have EVER been before the alleged greenhouse effect ever happened.


WHEN these anomalies persist over a long enough time period to drive average temps below the warming trendline that has emerged over the last few hundred years, THEN you can get back to us with your climate report.

Until then, you are only squawking about weather.

LEARN the difference. FEEL the difference. BE the difference.

SemiNerd
3 / 5 (4) May 08, 2011
That's right. Yesterday, four locations were colder than they have EVER been on May 7, including colder than they have EVER been before the alleged greenhouse effect ever happened.


WHEN these anomalies persist over a long enough time period to drive average temps below the warming trendline that has emerged over the last few hundred years, THEN you can get back to us with your climate report.

Until then, you are only squawking about weather.

LEARN the difference. FEEL the difference. BE the difference.


Caliban... not a chance, but you get credit for the attempt. Its best not to respond to QC's posts. He really is not capable of understanding. I am not saying this as a personal attack against anyone. But hes really a troll who hasn't mastered the ability to even sound a little believable.
rwinners
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011
Hey, QC, you are wrong and you are right. Wrong, because it is happening. Right, in that nothing much will be done. What most people fail to understand is that untold wealth is tied up in oil and coal production and that wealth isn't going to go quietly into the night. The Chinese will be burning coal long after all US electrical production is done by other means, simply because the cannot develop alternatives quicly enough to satisfy 1+ billion people. The story in India is much the same.
And so, good luck to us all.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011
to pink:

It's not a question of either-or. You don't get to choose which one applies. They BOTH apply, simultaneously. Thus, worst-case events will get commensurately worse with global sea level rise


thus, worst-case events will get commensurately worse at such a slow rate that it will be decades or maybe centuries before the effects are even measurable. Any statements to the contrary are unsupportable. Sea level rise is not a catastrophic event that will happen one day, and any effect of sea level rise on things like hurricaines will remain too small to measure and differentiate from the norm for quite a long time, even if it rises 10 times faster than our current best guess. A 2 METER rise in sea level isn't going to make waves 20 feet taller you know. You can see the proof of that by looking at storms that happen at high and low tide every day at places that have over 1 meter tides. To increase wave height you have to increase wind speeds, not sea level.
wranglerwayne
not rated yet May 30, 2011
The greater portion of the world's glacial ice is in the Canadian North. Some glaciers are melting while others are actually growing. So, the net contribution to sea level rise is very little unless ALL the glaciers are melting in unison. This is not happening. Also, the snout ice of a glacier melts easily and thus responds quickly to local changes in glacial conditions. There is no danger of a quick melt of Greenland's ice cap. It's about 87 deg F below freezing. A rise of a few degrees will have little effect on hard glacial ice, lying below the creep line in a bowl shaped area for the past 700,000 yrs. It will not slide into the sea. The Arctic ice has melted in the past. However, as Arctic ice decreases, Antarctic ice increases. The Antarctic estimated meltdown at today's rates is 300,000 years. The net effect of both polar caps total ice is that there has been little change in the past 30 yrs. Rememer those WW2 planes found in Greenland were under 267 ft of ice.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jun 04, 2011
@GSwift7,
such a slow rate that it will be decades or maybe centuries before the effects are even measurable
That's right, it's our grandkids' problem. Nothing for US to worry about. Screw the grandkids.
To increase wave height you have to increase wind speeds, not sea level.
If you measure it relative to calm sea level, yes. But since we're talking about wave height relative to a landmark on the shore, you've uttered yet another blatant falsehood.
A 2 METER rise in sea level isn't going to make waves 20 feet taller you know.
Relative to the shoreline, it's going to effectively turn a 20 foot wave into a 26 foot one.