New findings, however, point to a rise of anywhere from three to six feet by 2100, lending serious credence to Raymo’s disaster-to-catastrophe creep.
http://www.bu.edu/today/node/12237
That would only require an increase of 10X over current rates, which have slowed to about two millimetres per year over the last five years.
Scientists are having a real problem with this internet thing.
They talk crap and it’s thrown straight back at ’em, and they fling hissy fits.
It would be highly entertaining if the whole boondoggle wasn’t being funded from tax.
OK -You got me. Even I can’t figure out what’s going. If you go to the BU site, what’s being said is largely what the reporter “interprets and the assemblage of remains being displayed don’t jive with either.
The Colorado site, if you check it, shows only a long list of raw data from a number of unidentified sites. There is no graph, nor explanation of the numbers. What I see on the graph is a number of cyclic,”saw-tooth” peaks (no lines for them) and 2 heavy red lines; neither of which are trend fitted well to the data points.
You can’t make a (serious) 50 year climate projection on 10 years of data. If the graph shows anything it should be a curve and shows a slight increase over the previous 5 years.
Not knocking either institution; but maybe see what Scripps (California) and Woods Hole (Mass.) Institutions are saying.
Damn! I let you sucker me into trying to introduce reason into a basically irrational discussion.
You got me. I assumed that readers know how to use a web browser and have some familiarity with the subject of sea level measurement.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The CU numbers show much higher rise rates than tide gauges do. I was being very conservative using the altimetry data. Perhaps you should learn something about the subject before commenting, and you might also take a basic course in web browser use at your local community college.
Michael
Sea level records show that the rate of increase in recent years has not changed from previous decades and indeed centuries. There has been a small steady rise for many centuries of about 7″ per century.
“Scientists” computer models have been warning us for at least the last 20 years that this rate of increase would quickly start to rise rapidly.
As this clearly has not happened, why should give any credence to the latest alarmist forecasts?
“It so happens that three million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide—the most influential gas, atmospherically speaking—was about the same as today. Mid-Pliocene temperatures were about three degrees warmer than ours, so as our mercury creeps toward that ancient temperature under the influence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, knowing how much ice melted back then might shed light on how much could melt in the future.”
So, Michael, if above is true why are we 3 deg cooler and how long did it take the Mid-Pliocene temperature to get that high?
Does anyone have the numbers for the past 20 years?
I can’t seem to find it, I found charts and graphs, but can’t get a number from that.
What I’m looking for is how much are they saying sea levels have risen in exactly the past 20 years.
20 years ago, this winter, I had to put a bolt in the dock for something. I put it exactly 1 inch above mean high tide.
It’s still exactly one inch above mean high tide…….