The Nazis are right about him… » « Making Examples: Remember Roger Ailes And The Damage He Has Done

The Dam Continues to Crumble: Rate of Sea Level Rise Doubled or Tripled.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the rate of sea level rise between 1993 and 2012 was two or three times greater than before 1990. This appears to be partly due to a slight over-estimate in the rate of sea level rise prior to 1990, and partly due to the fact that higher temperatures mean more ice melt and faster thermal expansion.

As I’ve said before, it is inevitable that the waters will rise faster and faster as the planet gets hotter, and while the yearly increase in sea level is still a matter of a couple millimeters, it’s going to be a lot more pretty soon. You can read more on this from Chris Mooney at the Independent.

The Nazis are right about him… » « Making Examples: Remember Roger Ailes And The Damage He Has Done

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    … two or three times greater …

    I somehow expect greater precision from reputable scientists on widely-accessible phenomena.

  2. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Pierce R. Butler:

    They were more precise:

    Our reconstructed GMSL trend of 1.1 ± 0.3 mm⋅y−1 (1σ) before 1990 falls below previous estimates, whereas our estimate of 3.1 ± 1.4 mm⋅y−1 from 1993 to 2012 is consistent with independent estimates from satellite altimetry, leading to overall acceleration larger than previously suggested.

    The lowest possible increase given their data is the extreme low end of recent rise rates divided by the extreme high end of older rise rates.

    (3.1 – 1.4) = 1.7
    (1.1 + 0.3) = 1.4

    1.7/1.4 = 1.2143, the precision of the data probably doesn’t justify using a conclusion more precise than 1.2 or 1.21 however. Thus the acceleration = 20% and the new rate is 1.2 times the old.

    The max takes the converse extremes:

    5.5/0.8 = 6.875, rounded to 6.9 or to 6.88

    This would be a 588% increase in the rise rate, with the new rate 6.9 x the old.

    So, yes, the popular articles say 2-3 because their data makes it unlikely (though possible) the increase was as low as 1.9 or as high as 3.1. But the actual journal article is not so imprecise. All the numbers are there if you want them.

  3. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    sorry I should have said:

    So, yes, the popular articles say 2-3 because their data makes it unlikely (though possible) the increase new rate divided by the old rate was as low as 1.9 or as high as 3.1. But the actual journal article is not so imprecise. All the numbers are there if you want them.

  5. Pierce R. Butler says

    Crip Dyke… & Abe Drayton @ #s 2-4 – Thanks for the explications!

    As with all current climatic discussions, it remains frustrating that all the real scientists’ numbers come out fuzzy and the denialists’ sharp and tidy.

  7. StevoR says

    Science has error bars and uncertainties -and is honest about those.

    Denialist ideologues and demagogues have no honesty, no error bars and keep their certainty or doubts about their often extraordinary and generally mendacious claims to themselves. Bad faith defined really vs genuine scientific scepticism which looks at and accepts the actual evidence.

  8. StevoR says

    Meanwhile in other news – somewhat related – projections here of forecast sea level rise and what it means for some major Aussie cities :

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-23/coastal-areas-at-risk-new-climate-study-reveals/8549934

    Also some impressive work by Aussie scientists here :

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-01/greenhouse-gases-database-shows-co2-ch4-n2o-rising-relentlessly/8578918

    The researchers created a comprehensive worldwide database that charts 43 greenhouse gases over 2,000 years.It shows how carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are at higher levels than they have ever been at any time over the last 800,000 years, according to the ice core records going back that far.

    Plus what was the deal with Nicaragua not joining the Paris Accords? :

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/paris-climate-accord-why-arent-nicaragua-and-syria-signatories/8582950

    Turns out the Nicaraguans don’t think the agreement went far enough and raise some good points there incl.

    Mr Oquist (Nicaraguan lead envoy – ed) said the world’s 10 biggest carbon polluters accounted for 72 per cent of historical emissions, while the 100 smallest were responsible for just 3 per cent.

  9. StevoR says

    Good article /interview here :

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4692813.htm

    Climate scientists rarely speak publicly about their personal views. But in the wake of some extreme weather events in Australia, the specialists who make predictions about our climate reveal they’re experiencing sometimes deep anxieties. Kerry Brewster reports. ..

    (Snip) …PROFESSOR DAVE GRIGGS, DIRECTOR, MONASH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE: You can say you don’t believe in gravity but the apple is still going to hit you on the head. You can say you don’t believe in climate change but it’s not going to stop it getting it hotter.

    The follow up interview (or two) is well worth watching too.

    PS. Hoping you are okay and wishing you the best. Please let us know and blog again soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *