From Speigel Online
According to the most recent estimates, the sea level is expected to rise by about 1 meter (3.28 feet) — on average — in the next 100 years. This is the number that will be mentioned again and again during negotiations at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico over the next two weeks.
That is much higher than even the high end of IPCC estimates. People saving the world feel entitled to make up numbers to support their cause.
The sea level currently rises by about 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) a year on average.
Not really. Tide gauges show much smaller numbers and even the questionable altimetry numbers have dropped well below 3.0 in the last five years. Even if it were true, it is less than one third of what is needed to reach one meter.
h/t to Marc Morano
What is the estimate based on*? Obviously, it’s not reality. Models, perhaps?
The estimate is based on how much it has to be for “rising sea levels” to be of some concern.
ps Steven…it’s Spiegel, not Speigel…or…have you just done a very clever game with German words?? 😎
GRACE data looks more like ~1mm/year, here:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-satellites-reveal-differences-sea.html
“That is much higher than even the high end of IPCC estimates”
The IPCC did not include figures for melt from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets at all due to uncertainties at the time.
Uncertainties still exist but it is clear that any estimates that include these will be much higher than the last IPCC estimates.
Oh right. The IPCC didn’t mean what they said.
Are you suggesting that the IPCC did not make it clear that not all factors were included in their estimate?
Just means that the IPCC models were even further from reality.
It has nothing to do with models and reality. Any estimates from the ice sheets, whether modelled or not, were not included. This isn’t news – it was in their report.
LAZ:
If it has nothing to do with modeled results then the numbers were pulled out of someones ass! The amount of sea level rise they are promoting is not based on historic evidence.
The IPCC made it clear that they were using a wild ass guess for all the work in their reports.
Mike point is, that has never been addressed, is that the IPCC predictions were always going to be low because they did not include melt from glaciers and they made this clear.
LAZ:
It shows the IPCC predictions about sea level were always going to be wrong. Just like all the other IPCC projections. They admit that they do not understand what they are talking about but make shit up anyway!
Mike, predictions almost always wrong to a degree no matter what the context. I repeat my original point;
It is clear that any estimates that include ice sheet melt predictions will be much higher than the last IPCC estimates, because they did not, by intention include any.
They did not include any because the science is not settled. They did pull a number out of their ass to claim some amount of sea level rise that would get peoples attention while claiming it is on the low side.
That did not stop them from making bad predictions about everything else they wrote about such as Himalayan Glaciers or the Amazon rain forest.
Your Chicken Little Brigade is doing a good job for this meeting and providing more distorted information that will allow people to realize just how corrupt the entire IPCC process is.
Laz
If the IPCC assumed no extra melting from glaciers and the actual figures are way below their forecasts, which they are – then either there is no melting from glaciers or their forecast for thermal expansion is totally wrong – or both.
“At the moment, it appears that the net amount of melt water is still rising in Greenland. It is currently at 237 cubic kilometers (57 cubic miles) per year.”
So, out of the estimated 2.6 million cubic kilometers of ice in Greenland, the rate of loss appears to be 237 per year, or .0000911 %.
It’s going to take a while to raise ocean levels from melting ice at those rates of loss.
Decent of them to acknowledge the Antarctic ice as “generally stable”, and it contains an estimated 30 million cubic kilometers.
Paul H says:
December 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Laz
If the IPCC assumed no extra melting from glaciers and the actual figures are way below their forecasts, which they are – then either there is no melting from glaciers or their forecast for thermal expansion is totally wrong – or both.
or both.
Pingback: Hazte Eco | Pinto Pinto Gorgorito
Funny. If you are a warmer no one checks your facts. If you are a realist you are hauled through the wringer. Truth does not appear to be a requirement for AGW supporters.
Is the loss actual loss as in the difference between yearly growth and yearly melt or just the melt?
It is a Guestimate based on the supposition that they know WTF they are talking about. For all we know the amount of H2O locked up in a frozen state could be increasing at dramatic rate. Melting just happens to go hand in hand with the Chicken Little claims, so melting it is!
Any credit for greenland meltwater has to be assessed against increased precipitation on top of the hinterland.( i hear that redundant Dewline American radar stations are now 50 or 60 feet below the surface of the ice sheet for example )
Another case of alarmist disinformation ?
While at CalTech in the 60’s I did a lot of systems programing that was used to
develop models that estimated the Earth’s surface temperatures over the life time cycle of our Sun. This proved that the earth is warming as the Sun burns off over the next 4.5 billion years and could reach an Ambient Temperature of 120 degrees F . By altering a few variables in the models we could drastically change the rate of warming. Most models predicting the future of the Earths climate are base on data from the last 1,000 years or so and guesses of what will happen in the next century.
It was an interesting experiment but only proved that we as mere mortals can not change the ultimate fate of the Earth.
I think it is safe to say that Human generated CO2 has no effect on our climate since total Atmospheric CO2 is < .04 percent of which human activity is responsible for around 2 percent of that. One thing I would like to say is that I've never met a physicist that believes that any molecules can trap heat for this implies molecules can also store heat. Wouldn't that be a nice.
The problem in predicting accurate results for long term climate required using
data from the last million years which at that time did not exists.
What facts that are known are that the major changes of the Earths climate are the Sun's activity, the ocean currents and wobble of the earths axis.
In closing I would worry about when can I plant my tomatoes or go to the beach and let mother nature take care of the weather. We can not change it nor should we try.
We can work on cleaning up our air and getting alternatives to fossil fuels in the distance future.