Rising Seas: Learn how ice melting at the poles will affect shores all over the globe.
Image: George Resteck
Key concepts
Water
Ice
Oceans
Sea levels
Climate change
Introduction
Have you ever noticed that if you leave an ice cube out on the kitchen counter and come back to check on it in a while, you find a puddle? The same thing happens to ice in nature—if the temperature gets warm enough, ice melts. In this activity you'll explore what happens to the sea levels when ice at the North or South poles melts. Does melting ice at either or both caps contribute to a rise in the world’s oceans? It's an especially important question for the millions of people who live along the coasts of the world.
Background
If you've ever been to a beach, you may have noticed that the ocean waves come farther up at certain times of the day than at others—this is due to daily tides, caused mainly by the gravitational pull mostly from the moon (along with some assist from the sun). Tides are a normal daily rise and fall of the ocean surface.
Scientists are concerned, though, about a different kind of rise in the ocean surface—one not due to the moon's tug, but due to changes in Earth's climate. Many areas of the globe have been getting warmer for decades. This warming is thought to be caused mainly by things that people do, such as burn gasoline to drive cars, coal to make electricity, oil or natural gas to heat homes or forests to make room for growing crops. All this burning creates gases that trap heat from the sun. As more gases are created, more heat is trapped in Earth's atmosphere, and the average temperature of Earth's air and oceans increases. One concern with the warming of Earth's global climate is that as the average temperature increases, greater amounts of northern and southern polar ice will melt, which could make the sea level rise. Both poles are slightly different, however; the region around the North Pole—the Arctic—is simply a large sheet of ice covering ocean underneath, whereas the South Pole—the Antarctic—is actually a continent covered by ice that also extends part of the way into the surrounding water.
Materials
• Measuring cup
• Permanent marker
• Two clear plastic containers, approximately two and a quarter cups in size, such as take-out containers that are slightly larger than a pint (Note: Smaller or larger containers can be used if they are both the same size, but you'll need to scale up or down the amount of clay you add to the containers. Also, you will be marking the clear plastic containers with a permanent marker, so make sure they are containers you won't mind marking.)
• Play-Doh or modeling clay
• Butter knife
• Tap water
• Ice cubes
Preparation
• If you're using containers that are not two and one quarter cups in size, scale up or scale down the amount of clay you use in the next step.
• Put one cup of Play-Doh or modeling clay into one of the clear plastic containers. This container will be a model of the South Pole, with the mound representing the continent of Antarctica. Use a butter knife to scrape around the sides of the measuring cup, if necessary.
• Leave some space between the sides of the clay and the wall of the container all around, so that you can add water later.
• Make the top of the clay flat and level.
Procedure
• Take the second, empty clear plastic container and fill it about one third to half full of tap water. The water represents the ocean.
• Add two ice cubes to the container and immediately mark the water level on the side of the container with a permanent marker. This container is a model of the North Pole, where the ice cubes represent the floating northern polar ice cap. What do you think will happen as the ice cubes melt?
• Take the first plastic container, which has the Play-Doh or modeling clay inside of it, and add around one quarter cup of water around the sides of the clay, so that the water level comes up about one third to half of the way up the clay. The water represents the ocean.
• Place two ice cubes on top of the clay, lightly pressing them down into the clay. Immediately mark the water level on the side of the container with the permanent marker. The ice cubes represent the southern polar ice sheet in this model of the South Pole. What do you think will happen as the ice cubes melt?
• Allow the ice in your models to melt in a place where they won't be disturbed. Keep an eye on the ice cubes in the South Pole model to make sure they stay balanced on the clay, and that all the water from these melted ice cubes is able to drain off of the clay.
• Once the ice has completely melted, check the water level in each container again. Has the water level risen in any of the containers? If it has, why do you think this is, and what do you think the implications are for changes in sea level in the real world?
• Extra: Repeat this activity two more times. Do you get the same results each time?
• Extra: Using the remaining clay, create a different South Pole ice model in which two ice cubes are placed on the clay continent to represent the ice sheet and one ice cube is placed in the water to represent floating ice shelves surrounding and attached to the continent of Antarctica. What do the results of doing this new activity tell you?
See what we're tweeting about
51 Comments
Add CommentThe melting north pole will contribute zero to sea levels, just like your melting ice cubes will not overflow your drink. The melting south pole cannot contribute either because it is -50°. The ice packs that break off in the south are floating and contribute as much as the melt the north does. At current rates of ~3mm/year,less lately, we will see almost a foot rise in a century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are loosing mass at an accelerating rate; where do you expect this water to end up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level rise is accelerating.
Why hasn't it shown up in an acceleration in rate of sea level rise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level rise has been accelerating. Why are you pretending it hasn't?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere, knock yourself out.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2009&q=sea+level+rise+accelerating&hl=en&as_sdt=0,6
Chris G., You are wrong, sea level increase has slowed. Rather than look at papers on conjecture, look at the satellite data:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
You clearly don't understand the difference between signal and noise. In this case, the signal is the general rising trend, and the noise is the fluctuations about it. Or, you just want to believe really badly that the little downward wobble at the end is more significant than the increasing trend over the last 100 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that latter, or you would not label years of work by those that understand the physics better than you conjecture.
BTW, where do you expect the water coming off of Greenland and Antarctica to end up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis experiment is clearly inappropriate as analogue. The magnitude of the "modeled" oceans, compared to that of the polar ice, is underestimated when using such a setting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the experiment subliminally makes people think ONLY about warming, which induces a cognitive bias. Furthermore, the water cycle is not considered, nor are many other crucial factors.
It reminds me of a school experiment that supposedly was designed to modelize greenhouse warming by comparing two containers, with two thermometers, exposed to the same light, one filled with normal air, and the other filled with CO2. Of course there is a difference between an athmosphere with 335ppm of CO2 and another with 1000000ppm, but this does not account for the reality of our world, where we face CO2 changes between, say, 335 and 340ppm... (!) The laboratory setting can be carefully controlled, and the real world can be measured, so in the lab it is unacceptable to provide initial settings that clearly do not mimic the real world and still pretend to obtain results that do. Am I wrong?
If the rate of increase is slowing, what does that say about the amount of water going into the oceans? The the maximum rate of rise from that trend is 14" in a century, regardless of what the recent data has done. There is nothing in that graph that supports any great mass loss from either area you mention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, first you look at too short an interval to distinguish signal from noise, or detect a change in the rate, and then you apply a linear model to too long a period to see acceleration taking place over decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe accelerating mass loss coming off of Greenland and Antarctica is not in question; it can be measured due to the change in gravity. There is some question about how much it is accelerating because the land is also rising, but the fact that it is accelerating is not in question. So, where do you expect the water to end up?
"Am I wrong?" - Yes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are focusing on the trivial and loosing sight of the primary principles. Yes, we know there exists complexity in the real world not modeled in the experiment, but the law regarding the conservation of matter still applies.
Chris(tian), do you really believe (!) in the catastrophic claims about significant rises in global sea level? Can you quantify the global sea-level change in the last decennies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding subliminal warming alarmism: have you heard about the work of Landscheidt and Charvatova? Do you know what these studies forecast regarding climatic evolution in the next decennies
-That´s for your "loosing sight" comment-
;)
How much global temperature rise would ne needed to melt the antarctic cap? Is the consideration of such a temperature rise scenario truly realistic? Are there interests in generating alarmism regarding climate change? Where are the evidences for anthropogenic global warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo your questions have a point or are you simply trying to distract from fact that your original assertion is indefensible?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother rhetorical series of questions that should have been asked. Many glaciers are actually growing. Where is that water coming from? What effect will this have on ocean levels?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow here is a peer reviewed paper for you:
ONE of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are "decelerating".
The analysis, by NSW principal coastal specialist Phil Watson, calls into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australian coast by 2100 -- the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change.
Based on century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (1903 to present), Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds there was a "consistent trend of weak deceleration" from 1940 to 2000.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056
Sault- The rate of sea level rise has been fairly accurately measured via satellite measurements since 1992 and there has been no evidence of an increase in the rate of sea level rise over that period. How do you explain the inconsistency in the fact that during that period that you believe that there has been such an increase in ice melt, but no change in the rate of sea level rise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrior to the satellite era of measurements the historical record shows that sea level has been rising for about 5 thousand years at a pretty rate. Referencing a paper that suggests that prior to 1992 that the rate of sea level rise was less than it is today does not really reinforce your position. The paper’s conclusions are not generally accepted as the estimates for the pre-1992 have high margins of error in their estimates. Doesn’t it seem a bit incredible that the rate of rise was somehow magically lower when we had poor data than it was from 1992 to present?
Bottom line- nobody reasonable believes that the current rate of sea level rise to be an impending disaster and there is ZERO evidence of that rate of rise increasing to an alarming rate. Sault- would you care to examine the conclusions of the silly post by skeptical science that assumes that they know how conditions will change at a local level with ZERO reliable data to support their conclusions.
You are not answering to questions on 14 and 15. I assume you are trying to distract attention from science by using rethorics, in order to hide the bias of the experimental design, and in general, in order to hide the absence of realism of the global warming propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the ROOM TEMPERATURE during the experiment? ... (!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, you are limiting your view to too narrow a window to see the acceleration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me put this on a spoon for you.
Church 2008
Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
Skip down to pages 11-12 for the easy to understand pictures.
You and Geo haven't questioned the acceleration of ice loss, nor the law regarding the conservation of matter; so, where do you think the water coming off the ice sheets will end up?
The paper you have linked to from 2007 is laughable in attempting to define the root causes for sea level rise with VERY incomplete data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet’s make it very simple and stick to facts that are not in dispute.
1. Sea level has been rising for about 5 thousand years. Prior to that rise it was very near to the long time low levels ever estimated. It is still very near to historical lows.
2. The rate of sea level rise has only been reasonably accurately measured on a worldwide basis since 1992 when satellite measurements became available. Since 1992 the rate of sea level rise has been pretty consistent at a rate of approximately 3 mm per year. Most scientists believe that the current rate of rise is consistent with the prior 5 thousand years although some have claimed that the rate from 1992 to present is 1 mm per year higher than the previous 5 thousand years. Regardless, the current rate is an un-alarming rate of less than 1 foot per century.
3. Some are very concerned about a potential increase in the rate of sea level rise that would lead to 1 to 2 meters of rise between 2000 and 2100. Thus far there is ZERO evidence of acceleration in the rate of rise in spite of all of the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere and the warming that has occurred since 1992.
Chris- you asked me to explain where all the melting water went, but I do not know and there are many potential answers. I do know that it is not going into rising sea levels. How long will the current rate of rise need to be maintained for your fear to be reduced/eliminated?
blah, blah, blah..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chris- you asked me to explain where all the melting water went, but I do not know and there are many potential answers. I do know that it is not going into rising sea levels. "
So, you don't know, but you are sure it isn't going into the oceans. Is there something wrong with gravity?
Well, well, I found it rather amusing how the irrelevancies of the global warming denialists were given an opportunity to intervene. But that's how it goes. And how uptight they can become on the subject, too. I travel under the category of a global warming alarmist!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't imagine where any meltwater from land-based ice will find its way anywhere other than into the sea - whether or not it first goes into intervening rivers.
Meltwater from floating ice will, of course, have virtually no effect on seawater levels, although don't forget the interesting fact - which no one has mentioned anywhere - that water becomes slightly more dense (ie reduces slightly in volume) when its temperature rises from 0 to 4 deg. Centigrade, thereafter continually falling right up to the boiling point.
Another interesting fact depends on the most remarkable property of water - sorry if I run off context here! - namely that ice is lighter than water. Try and imagine what the world's oceans would be like if ice was heavier than water. However, that's a rather different scenario, maybe for another time.
Could be going into growing glaciers, inland lakes like huge Lake Ayre in Australia, increased CO2 fertilised vegetation, raised water tables. Mostly tongue in cheek comments but on the ground water subject, during the drought years in outback Queensland in the early 70s, ground water over a vast area dropped by at least 10 metres. There was a massive flood in 74 that turned the Gulf Of Carpentaria hinterland into an inland sea for thousands of square kilometres. The underground water table completely recovered. In fact it rose in many areas by 10 metres above the long term average, taking years to return to normal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you see there are possible explanations apart from sea level rise. The Oakum’s Razor answer though is that there simply has not been the degree of melting that has been claimed.
Carlyle, you are willfully ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's take a look at the types of locations where water is stored.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/2010/gallery/global-water-volume.html
Looking at some of the numbers, your hypothesis is that if we lose a little more than half of the frozen land ice, every lake in the world will grow to 100 times its current size. Do I have to point out how impossible that is?
CO2 fertilization, really? So, there will be something like 10,000 times more plants and animals on the planet; that's your hypothesis.
Groundwater, well, there is a possibility. Please tell us where in the world groundwater levels can be expected to rise, and by how much.
"The Oakum’s Razor answer though is that there simply has not been the degree of melting that has been claimed."
Or, we could choose to believe that the large number of studies showing general declines in land ice and snow cover, and the studies showing increasing sea level rises, are on the right track, and ice at the boundary of 0 C melts when it gets warmer.
Well you tell us where the melt water has gone. It is NOT reflected in sea level rises. By the way, I was merely pointing out that there were other possible answers, not that I necessarily had them. Your crowd do not want to even look. The same went for the possible influence of the sun. Do not look there. Might upset the gravy train. When theory does not reflect reality, you have to keep looking. In fact even if it does, you still must keep looking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is NOT reflected in sea level rises."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is why we call you 'deniers', because the reality is that it IS. You want to pretend that no one has looked into alternatives, but 10 sec search of the research articles belies this. I have already shown this. You want to pretend that there is some explanation other than ice melts when it gets above 0 C (or lower in the presence of salt), and that water flows downhill. That is just basic reality that you are choosing not to believe, and that is the definition of denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour original assertion was, "This experiment is clearly inappropriate as analogue."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you given up on that, or, in what way do you think that link supports your assertion?
Chris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been pretty clearly shown that the rate of sea level rise is NOT increasing regardless of how often you wrongly claim otherwise. If it increases by about 400% for an extended period let me know.
Denial you say? How many more would you like?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Current Wisdom: No Climate-Related Acceleration in Sea Level Rise http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/current-wisdom-no-climaterelated-acceleration-sea-level-rise
The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year….
The research, led by NASA scientist Carmen Boening from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at California University of Technology, has blamed the unexpected sea level fall on the weather pattern that also caused chaos on land. The switch to a strong La Nina weather pattern, which was responsible for the big wet that flooded large parts of Australia, northern South America, and Southeast Asia in 2010 was also to blame for the shrinking oceans, the paper said. Put simply, the water had moved from the oceans to the land as rainfall. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-fall-defies-climate-warnings/story-e6frg6nf-1226483797934
Sea-level Expert:
It’s Not Rising!
1. [PDF]
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner - Climate Change Facts
www.climatechangefacts.info/.../NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls: Sea Level Rise Has Slowed 34% Over The Last Decade!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://notrickszone.com/2012/12/06/meteorologist-klaus-eckart-puls-sea-level-rise-has-slowed-34-over-the-last-decade/
By P Gosselin on 6. Dezember 2012
German veteran meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls here has done an analysis of sea level rise. Contrary to claims made by fringe alarmist physicists, we see that sea level rise has decelerated markedly since 2003.
Sisko, Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless you can show that ice doesn't melt or that water doesn't flow downhill, you are wasting our time.
Up until the 20th century, sea level has been very stable for the last 2,000 years. During the 20th century it was rising at around 1.7 mm/year. You agree that the current rate is around 3 mm/year. How is it that you go from 0, to 1.7, to 3 without any acceleration?
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html
Well look up Uue 119. I think you give it a run for its money for density. You might also ponder how water gets to the top of a tree or to a mountain top come to that. How about hail thousands of feet up? You see, unless you open your eyes, you are blind to all kinds of possibilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater gets to the top of a tree largely through capillary action, and to the top of a mountain, or in a cloud via atmospheric convection. So, now you believe that there are invisible trees on the ice sheets or that convection will keep the ice sheets aloft. Is that it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI try to keep an open mind, but I'm constrained by physics within the current topic. Apparently, you are not.
Apparently you think melt water flows into the sea & stays there. Why would it not be subject to evaporation & the other forces that act on Sea water? If the world really is warming up, wouldn’t this cause greater evaporation & more precipitation? Some of it ending up in Antarctic ice sheets, Glaciers & any other reservoirs. The real problem though is that you seem to think half the Antarctic Ice sheet is about to melt. Ditto Greenland. Even if there is increased melting it would still take thousands of years. Before that happens it is much more likely that we will go into a cooling period. There certainly is no need to panic. If you insist n panicking, get out & lobby for nuclear power. That is the only thing that would bring down carbon fuel consumption. I propose nuclear because it would conserve our fossil fuels, is the cleanest, cheapest & almost limitless supply that would lift the developing world out of poverty & lead to population stabilisation & probably decline as has already happened in the developed world. Only migration keeps population growing in the developed world. Get your thinking cap on & stop listening to propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of this is mentioned in the article: http://iceagenow.info/category/glaciers-are-growing-around-the-world/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AGW people do not like some of these sites but like all sites that give links, you can check out what they claim.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171434/Satellite-study-Asian-mountains-glaciers-NOT-melting--actually-gaining-new-ice.html
Melt Or Grow? Fate Of Himalayan Glaciers Unknown : NPR
www.npr.org › News › Science › Environment
24 Apr 2012 – A few years ago, the U.N.'s climate panel warned that the Himalayas' glaciers were quickly disappearing. The claim was dead wrong.
Glaciers are growing back on Kilimanjaro, guide insists http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jan/24/glaciers-are-growing-back-on-kilimanjaro-guide/
I might add that Kilimanjaro is only 3 degrees from the Equator. Sure its peak is about 5800 meters high but still it is on the equator
"Apparently you think melt water flows into the sea & stays there. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, but as we've already been over, the evaporation process and the water stored somewhere other than the ocean would have to increase about 100 times in order to prevent a sea level rise.
"Why would it not be subject to evaporation & the other forces that act on Sea water?"
I fully expect it to. Why do you expect lakes to hold 100 times the water they do now?
"If the world really is warming up, wouldn’t this cause greater evaporation & more precipitation? "
Look, you really are not paying attention. Changes in the hydrological cycle are one of the primary concerns of a changing climate. Changes in the cycle mean floods in some areas and droughts in others. When Pakistan flooded, there was a little more water on land and a little less in the ocean, but the water did not stay on land, did it?
Besides, what do you mean 'if'? You don't get to act as though every measurement record in existence is hypothetical. But then, there we go again into with your denial showing.
"Some of it ending up in Antarctic ice sheets, Glaciers & any other reservoirs. "
Yes, that is what is happening in now. Greenland and the WAIS are loosing mass at an accelerating rate, and East Antarctica is gaining a little. Overall, there is much less land ice.
You really should become more familiar with the subject before subjecting others to your ignorance.
So, now you are going from, ice doesn't melt or water doesn't flow downhill, to, it will take a long time for this to happen. Well, OK, no one said it wouldn't. Which is it, will it not happen at all, or will it take a long time?
In any case, taking a long time to happen does not mean we won't see more than a meter in the next hundred years. It also doesn't mean that it will quit at 1 meter; it won't.
BTW, are you giving up on your assertion that sea level is not accelerating? If not, can you respond to my change in rate question?
There is zilch proof that the rate of sea level increase is accelerating therefore out of ocean storage does not have to increase. By the way, up to 15% of any increase we are having is probably caused by underground aquifer depletion. Extra rainfall would replenish at leat some of them. What it all comes down to, regardless of who is right or wrong, we should be decreasing our reliance on fossil fuel where possible to conserve the resources & reduce pollution. The only way to do that is to embrace nuclear power. Most of those who scream the loudest about the dangers of AGW scream just as loudly at the prospect of switching to nuclear. The only possible way of reducing carbon fuel consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is zilch proof ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm, the rate of increase is increasing, as I've shown. So, again, how you you increase the rate without there being some acceleration?
"By the way, up to 15% of any increase we are having is probably caused by underground aquifer depletion."
Earlier you said that the water coming off the ice sheets might end up as an increase in groundwater, now you are saying that ground water is reducing. Which is it?
Aquifer depletion caused by human consumption does not rule out aquifer replenishment via natural processes. I was pointing out the various potential storage areas apart from the oceans. How about you do your own research away from your alarmist’s sites about the decreasing rate of sea level rise. You will find an equal or greater number of sites with equal or greater credibility. I gave you plenty already. Here is another one: An Australian expert, Phil Watson, has written a peer-reviewed paper showing that sea levels which have been rising naturally since the Little Ice Age are now decelerating. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuppose you were right. What is your solution. Your solution needs to be like the doctors pledge. First - Do no harm. Greens inspired bio fuel for example does not cut it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I was pointing out the various potential storage areas apart from the oceans."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, but the math is not there. The only other storage area of even close to the magnitude required is groundwater, and you are aware that we are drawing that down. I don't expect us to quit irrigating farmland, and that is the largest use of groundwater.
"You will find an equal or greater number of sites with equal or greater credibility."
No, you won't. Number or popularity of sites, maybe, credibility, no. You can get your information directly from people actually doing research, or you can get your information from other sites misrepresenting their work.
Here is some evidence of the types of things that the latter group does.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data.html
The closer to the source of the information you get, the less distorted it is. Dr. Watson's work is a good start, but he is one of many looking at the issue. Some have detected an acceleration and he has not. His area of focus is narrow. If twenty people say, "Hey, there is an elephant in the kitchen.", and the guy looking in the cupboard doesn't see it, well...
This is a pretty good summary of the larger view.
Looking at the last 20 years, you can't detect significant acceleration; looking at the last 100 years, acceleration is evident.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
(As I've said before, you can't go from near 0, through 1.7, to 3 without there being acceleration.)
Bottom line, you can see the increase in mass loss from the ice sheets, and there is no viable alternative but for most of that mass to end up in the oceans. The ice sheets have accounted for a certain percentage of sea level rise so far; as they lose more mass, that percentage will increase.
"Suppose you were right. What is your solution."
A gradually phased in, revenue neutral, carbon tax and dividend. Tax carbon fuel and return the money as a general dividend. Let the market sort out what combination of alternative energies work best. Would it be enough? Depends on how much pain avoidance you deem enough.
I've had this debate before and the last time the guy flipped from the problem was too small to worry about to, if you are right, it is so big that there is nothing we can do about it anyway. I'm really hoping there is some middle ground.
Chris G
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level has been rising for 5 thousand years at very close to the current rate.
The current rate of rise will lead to about a foot of total rise between 2000 and 2100.
Stop lying and admit that the rate of rise is not a problem unless it changes.
Billions have already been wasted chasing fairytale solutions that actually cause harm. Bio fuel being the prime example but also large areas of wilderness poluted by wind farms & large scale solar farms. All as usless as tits on a bore pig.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as usless on a boar pig:)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Chris G and other rethorical alarmists: where is the evidence for anthropogenic ("man-made") global warming? Can't you ask a simple question? WHERE IS IT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFace the truth. In words of scientist Nir Shaviv: "There is no direct evidence that links climate change to anthropogenic greenhouse gases"."
The hockey stick graph by Mann was absolute propagandSolar cycles and cosmic radiation are the silenced but primary causesof climate change. An increase in 0.005% of athmospheric CO2 does not account for any significant global warming. Check instead the good correlation between solar emission and athmospheric temperature... On planet Earth, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD.
Carlyle (post 25) has done his/her best to set a different scenario of water retention inland and in relatively warm climates. However, he has overlooked a rather important point. Where ice has accumulated - eg Greenland and Iceland - this ice accumulation has been over periods of 100s of 1000s of years, probably much longer. Over that period the land mass will have been cooled below 0 deg.C to very substantial depths. Ice will melt at its surface through direct radiation from the sun and from warm air flowing over it. There will be nowhere for the meltwater to be absorbed in the frozen earth's surface. Therefore it will find its way to the sea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is unwise to talk about being clever before one has properly thought matters through. QED.
As for Geologon (post 49), and his/her arrogant assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, evidence which is accumulating round the world is demonstrating otherwise. Burying one's head in the sand is an ill-advised technique for keeping up to date with the latest global temperature scenario, and I recommend that Geologon instead tries to keep himself/herself up to date by a more appropriate means.
He/she must surely have downloaded all the reports that have been published during 2012.
Show the evidence for AGW...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvaporation is imminent. The sun is hot, the rivers and lakes are drying up. Listen to mother nature and realize that the four seasons are also surrounded by other seasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this