London 'under water by 2100' as Antarctica crumbles into the sea

[J. J.]

I wonder if they every heard of the borough and parliamentary constituency of Dunwich?

See this link for a map:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=648250&y=270750&z=1&sv=648250,270750&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&ax=647548&ay=270550

[J. J.]

Another doom & gloom prediction by scientists who, just a generation ago, were warning about an impending Ice Age. 

Who knows what they will be saying a generation from now?  They'll probably be warning about London being under two miles of ice next time. 

I saw George Will pull out a quote from the 1975 NYT article referring to the possibility of glaciers rolling across the the northern US in the middle of the 21st Century.

The greatest estimate on sea level increase data that I've seen 3 mm per year.  If it keeps up at that rate, by 2100, about 11.5 inches higher.  Now, sea level has been increasing slightly for the last 2000 years, so not all of that is man made, and the 3mm is the highest estimate I've seen.  Even if this doubled, this still less than two feet by the end of this century.  That's not exactly Waterworld.

Here is the chart for 120 years:

[J. J.]

I saw George Will pull out a quote from the 1975 NYT article referring to the possibility of glaciers rolling across the the northern US in the middle of the 21st Century.

And of course, George Will is an unbiased observer. We all know that George Will has no agenda. Let us all let George Will decide what to do for George Will only cares about scientific truth. He's far better than those opinion columnists

And as for the article you cite, I found it easily (WashPost Dec 23, 2004, A23), and it never cites "glaciers rolling across the the northern US in the middle of the 21st Century," which just shows an intellectual dishonesty on your part. I love the fact how not only did you try to portray George Will with equivalence of a professional scientific journal, you also dishonestly embellished and changed his quote to fit your own ends.

I don't claim George Will is unbiased; I do claim he is accurate in this case.

Here is a link that includes some of the media reports from the mid 1970's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century
 I'm not really sure what you quote from 2004 has to do with it.

Oh, and, BTW, they had the data to show that the temperatures were trending downward, for about 35 years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/DSCN4904-nas-a.6_crop.jpg

It wasn't even, but if you looked at it in 1975 (even into the early 1980's), it was suppose to be cooling.  Plenty of anecdotal evidence to show it too; I can even provide some.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm looking at the current increase in sea level.  The highest estimate is that sea level might be rising at an average of 3 mm per year, with the increase in temperature; other estimates put this 1-2 mm per year.

Let's assume that the high figure is correct and let's assume that the average will increase from 2005.

At 3 mm per year, sea level will increase 285 mm, or 28.5 cm, or roughly 11.4 inches.

Now, let's assume things really heat yup and this rate triples.  Now, I have not seen any evidence of a dramatic increase like this, but let's say it happens.  The increase is 34.2 inches, less than 3 feet. 

Now that's bad news if you've build a city 10 feet below current sea level, or if you're on an island that is one foot above sea level, but that does include most of the population of the planet.  There are some other alternatives for those people, e.g. building artificial barriers or moving inland by a few yards (in most cases), if it happens.

We know that from about 1350-1800, roughly, the temperature in the northern hemisphere (and there is some evidence that this was the case in South America as well) was substantially cooler; we also know that the cause of this was not human activities.  This might have been a cyclical effect, the equivalent of Jan-March (in the Northern Hemisphere, when it tends to be cooler).  We also know that since this time, it has tended to become warmer.  Some of this warming is likely to be due to human activities.  We do not know how much of this is due to human activities.  We may be entering the climatological equivalent of July-August. 

We don't have enough data, nor enough long term correlation to reach another conclusion.  This is a bit like taking the temperature data from February through August of 2005 and noting that if the temperature increases at the same rate, we'll be having 100 degree weather in December of 2005.

We, at this point, don't have enough data to make long term predictions about temperature.  As best, we have models, that may or may not be predictive.

As per the graphic, this long term period has been one where temperatures have increased.  You can see the "dramatic" result.    This estimates make two assumptions:  1.  That temperature will increase at an increased rate.  2.  That this increase will trigger a dramatically increase in sea level.  Neither assumption may be correct.

[J. J.]

There is another possibility that the "politically correct" have not considered.  Methane is a "greenhouse gas," and it's produced by the biomass.  One thing that is increasing with the warming is, guess what, the increase of human population.  By living, not necessarily by being technological, we are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gasses; this means the guy in the rice patty in SE Asia doing everything by muscle power.  When this guy has children, he's increasing the problem.

Any of you want to tackle that problem?

[J. J.]

There is another possibility that the "politically correct" have not considered.  Methane is a "greenhouse gas," and it's produced by the biomass.  One thing that is increasing with the warming is, guess what, the increase of human population.  By living, not necessarily by being technological, we are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gasses; this means the guy in the rice patty in SE Asia doing everything by muscle power.  When this guy has children, he's increasing the problem.

Any of you want to tackle that problem?

sure. Use west europe and africa as nuclear testing grounds and provoke an indian-chinese-pakistani nuclear war.

That is, unfortunately, what it might take to "solve" the "problem."  I'd much rather see sea level rise a few feet.

While there are problems with the Shaidurov Theory, water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

[J. J.]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

I'm far from certain it is "prudent" to wreck the total economy of the West is order to slow sea level increase.  Keep in mind, it's been generally increasing for several thousand years.

[J. J.]

Obviously no one knows for sure what is going to happen, or what the cause is.

However, better safe than sorry seems a prudent strategy with regards to global warming. There are many benefits to society from reduced greenhouse gas emissions besides simply global warming. A phased in approach in which emissions are gradually cut through technological advances which improve efficiency would seem to be the best policy.

I'm far from certain it is "prudent" to wreck the total economy of the West is order to slow sea level increase.  Keep in mind, it's been generally increasing for several thousand years.

I agree, which is why I advocated a phased in approach with gradual reductions in emissions. Increases in efficiency of things such as automobile engines can be focused more towards increasing fuel economy rather than increasing horsepower, as just one example that jumps immediately to mind.

Not to mention the effect on the world economy if the sea level did go up 10 or 20 feet.

You are, as the attorneys would say, assuming facts not in evidence.  First, it is that sea level will rise 10 to 20 feet.  I took a look at the current rate, or I should say the highest estimate of the current rate, and tripled it.  That came up with 95 years, less than 3 feet. 

Second, we don't know how much of that less than three feet is due to a., human activities, and b., due to auto emissions (or industrial emissions).

Now, I'm 100% in favor of getting those facts, and looking at the costs and benefits, but not making policy until we do.  We might be spending $20 per person on the planet to say $1 in damages.

Just for the record, I drive less than 3,600 miles per year.

[J. J.]

Just to give you an example of hyperbole, you used the measurement of "10 to 20 feet."  The current rate, the highest of the current estimates, is 3 mm/year.  Now, even assuming that sea level increases at average of ten times that rate, 30 mm per year, by 2100, we will still see a sea level rise of less than ten feet.  Actual estimates are less than two feet.

As per the melt off, not only is it possible, but it happened, 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.  You can see the results on Chesapeake Bay, 10,000-12,000 years ago, it was a delta, like the Mississippi delta today.  Sea level was about 120 M lower.  The major difference was that there was a lot more ice locked up in glaciers at that time.

[J. J.]

Just to give you an example of hyperbole, you used the measurement of "10 to 20 feet."  The current rate, the highest of the current estimates, is 3 mm/year.  Now, even assuming that sea level increases at average of ten times that rate, 30 mm per year, by 2100, we will still see a sea level rise of less than ten feet.  Actual estimates are less than two feet.

As per the melt off, not only is it possible, but it happened, 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.  You can see the results on Chesapeake Bay, 10,000-12,000 years ago, it was a delta, like the Mississippi delta today.  Sea level was about 120 M lower.  The major difference was that there was a lot more ice locked up in glaciers at that time.

But is it statistically significant?

If you are asking a serious question, over the last 8,000 years, yes:



You basically had a range of about one meter.  Those scores outside of one meter are going to be well above 99% confidence level.

In terms of geological time, probably not.

To put it into strict mathematical terms, roughly between 6,000 BC and 16,000 BC you had an increase of 120,000 mm (120 meters) or a rate of 12 mm a year.  The highest estimate is currently 3 mm a year. 

In other words, at the current rate, we'll see another 120 meter increase around AD 42,005; even if the rate were to quadruple, we'd still be seeing the increase that size in AD 12,005.  It's unlikely that there would be enough water left to get to that level. 

To get a one meter (1000 mm) raise by 2100, sea level would have to rise at a rate of just over 10.5 mm per year.  The maximum estimate of the current rate of sea level increase is 3 mm; other estimates put it at between 1 and 2 mm/year.