Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
While we all discuss the implications for this study -- please note that the higher sea-level rise estimates are based on an assumption of COMPLETE collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The Bamber study assumes only TWO-THIRDS of the ice sheet would flow into the sea, with much of the rest prevented from free flow into the Southern Ocean by underlying topography. Dave William Silvert wrote: In light of the discussion that this posting has raised, I am taking the liberty of posting the NY Times report which describes both the study and some comments on it, which I think adds some useful perspective: May 15, 2009 Study Halves Prediction of Rising Seas By ANDREW C. REVKIN A new analysis halves longstanding projections of how much sea levels could rise if Antarctica's massive western ice sheets fully disintegrated as a result of global warming. The flow of ice into the sea would probably raise sea levels about 10 feet rather than 20 feet, according to the analysis, published in the May 15 issue of the journal Science. The scientists also predicted that seas would rise unevenly, with an additional 1.5-foot increase in levels along the east and west coasts of North America. That is because the shift in a huge mass of ice away from the South Pole would subtly change the strength of gravity locally and the rotation of the Earth, the authors said. Several Antarctic specialists familiar with the new study had mixed reactions to the projections. But they and the study's lead author, Jonathan L. Bamber of the Bristol Glaciology Center in England, agreed that the odds of a disruptive rise in seas over the next century or so from the buildup of greenhouse gases remained serious enough to warrant the world's attention. They also uniformly called for renewed investment in satellites measuring ice and field missions that could within a few years substantially clarify the risk. There is strong consensus that warming waters around Antarctica, and Greenland in the Arctic, will result in centuries of rising seas. But glaciologists and oceanographers still say uncertainty prevails on the vital question of how fast coasts will retreat in a warming world in the next century or two. The new study combined computer modeling with measurements of the ice and the underlying bedrock, both direct and by satellite. It did not assess the pace or the likelihood of a rise in seas. The goal was to examine as precisely as possible how much ice could flow into the sea if warming seawater penetrated between the West Antarctic ice sheet and the bedrock beneath. For decades West Antarctic ice has been identified as particularly vulnerable to melting because, although piled more than one mile above sea level in many places, it also rests on bedrock a half mile to a mile beneath sea level in others. That topography means that warm water could progressively melt spots where ice is stuck to the rock, allowing it to flow more freely. Erik I. Ivins, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, described the new paper as "good solid science," but added that the sea-level estimates could not be verified without renewed investment in satellite missions and other initiatives that were currently lagging. A particularly valuable satellite program called Grace, which measures subtle variations in gravity related to the mass of ice and rock, "has perhaps a couple of years remaining before its orbit deteriorates," Dr. Ivins said. "The sad truth is that we in NASA are watching our Earth-observing systems fall by the wayside as they age - without the sufficient resources to see them adequately replaced." Robert Bindschadler, a specialist in polar ice at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the study provided only a low estimate of Antarctica's possible long-term contribution to rising seas because it did not deal with other mechanisms that could add water to the ocean. The prime question, he said, remains what will happen in the next 100 years or so, and other recent work implies that a lot of ice can be shed within that time. "Even in Bamber's world," he said, referring to the study's lead author, "there is more than enough ice to cause serious harm to the world's coastlines." - Original Message - From: "James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958)" To: Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
e, which measures > > subtle variations in gravity related to the mass of ice and rock, "has > > perhaps a couple of years remaining before its orbit deteriorates," Dr. > > Ivins said. "The sad truth is that we in NASA are watching our > > Earth-observing systems fall by the wayside as they age - without the > > sufficient resources to see them adequately replaced." > > > > Robert Bindschadler, a specialist in polar ice at NASA's Goddard Space > > Flight Center, said the study provided only a low estimate of > Antarctica's > > possible long-term contribution to rising seas because it did not deal > with > > other mechanisms that could add water to the ocean. > > > > The prime question, he said, remains what will happen in the next 100 > years > > or so, and other recent work implies that a lot of ice can be shed within > > that time. > > "Even in Bamber's world," he said, referring to the study's lead author, > > "there is more than enough ice to cause serious harm to the world's > > coastlines." > > > > - Original Message - From: "James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958)" > > > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:19 PM > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised > > > > > >> Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice > >> sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been > >> revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* > >> > >> I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al > >> Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I > also > >> recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not > >> melting. > >> > >> My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global > >> Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their > >> gums. > >> > >> * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado > >> University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science > and > >> published in the journal Science 5/15/09. > > > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Associate Professor of Biology > Texas A&M University-Texarkana > Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology > http://www.herpconbio.org > http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio > > Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours: > Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm > Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm > Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm > Genetics: M 6-10pm > Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
Thank you Bill! I am wondering about the original estimate of 20. Was this an estimate of 20 or up to 20? most risk assessments involve confidence intervals, fuzzy sets, or ranges. I don't remember, and do not have the time right now to check it out what their actual estimate was. In such as case, the change from 20 to 10 would be a refined more narrow model than the original risk projection. The whole point of projecting risk is to establish what can and can't happen rather than give a point estimate of what will happen. Anyone know off the top of their head? On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:55 AM, William Silvert wrote: > In light of the discussion that this posting has raised, I am taking the > liberty of posting the NY Times report which describes both the study and > some comments on it, which I think adds some useful perspective: > > May 15, 2009 > Study Halves Prediction of Rising Seas > By ANDREW C. REVKIN > > A new analysis halves longstanding projections of how much sea levels could > rise if Antarctica's massive western ice sheets fully disintegrated as a > result of global warming. > > The flow of ice into the sea would probably raise sea levels about 10 feet > rather than 20 feet, according to the analysis, published in the May 15 > issue of the journal Science. > > The scientists also predicted that seas would rise unevenly, with an > additional 1.5-foot increase in levels along the east and west coasts of > North America. That is because the shift in a huge mass of ice away from the > South Pole would subtly change the strength of gravity locally and the > rotation of the Earth, the authors said. > > Several Antarctic specialists familiar with the new study had mixed > reactions to the projections. But they and the study's lead author, Jonathan > L. Bamber of the Bristol Glaciology Center in England, agreed that the odds > of a disruptive rise in seas over the next century or so from the buildup of > greenhouse gases remained serious enough to warrant the world's attention. > > They also uniformly called for renewed investment in satellites measuring > ice and field missions that could within a few years substantially clarify > the risk. > There is strong consensus that warming waters around Antarctica, and > Greenland in the Arctic, will result in centuries of rising seas. But > glaciologists and oceanographers still say uncertainty prevails on the vital > question of how fast coasts will retreat in a warming world in the next > century or two. > > The new study combined computer modeling with measurements of the ice and > the underlying bedrock, both direct and by satellite. > > It did not assess the pace or the likelihood of a rise in seas. The goal was > to examine as precisely as possible how much ice could flow into the sea if > warming seawater penetrated between the West Antarctic ice sheet and the > bedrock beneath. > > For decades West Antarctic ice has been identified as particularly > vulnerable to melting because, although piled more than one mile above sea > level in many places, it also rests on bedrock a half mile to a mile beneath > sea level in others. That topography means that warm water could > progressively melt spots where ice is stuck to the rock, allowing it to flow > more freely. > > Erik I. Ivins, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, described > the new paper as "good solid science," but added that the sea-level > estimates could not be verified without renewed investment in satellite > missions and other initiatives that were currently lagging. > > A particularly valuable satellite program called Grace, which measures > subtle variations in gravity related to the mass of ice and rock, "has > perhaps a couple of years remaining before its orbit deteriorates," Dr. > Ivins said. "The sad truth is that we in NASA are watching our > Earth-observing systems fall by the wayside as they age - without the > sufficient resources to see them adequately replaced." > > Robert Bindschadler, a specialist in polar ice at NASA's Goddard Space > Flight Center, said the study provided only a low estimate of Antarctica's > possible long-term contribution to rising seas because it did not deal with > other mechanisms that could add water to the ocean. > > The prime question, he said, remains what will happen in the next 100 years > or so, and other recent work implies that a lot of ice can be shed within > that time. > "Even in Bamber's world," he said, referring to the study's lead author, > "there is more than enough ice to cause serious harm to the world's > coastlines." > > - Original Message - From: "James T. Conklin (BSME
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
whether its 10 or 20 feet is immaterial to most of the world's poor constrained to live on the coastlines of the earth they'll drown or be refugees while experts and scientists while continuing to theorize and chatter will shift to higher ground cheery news ? seems like we have blinkers on while sitting on the branch we saw upon Quoting William Silvert : This cheery news seems inconsistent with recent reports of large areas of ice breaking off from Antarctica. Perhaps someone knowledgable who is not an "expert" (fanatic) but knows what he is talking about could clarify the situation. Someone who is neither using fear and terror to get research funding nor trying to cut up Al Gore into bite-sized chunks to feed to the exploding population of polar bears. In any case, there are a lot of threats ahead of us, and temperature increases and sea level rise are only some of them. Others, like dissolved CO2 in the oceans, are serious and not so controversial. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958)" To: Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09. Department of Biology, University of Miami www.bio.miami.edu/asaha
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
Keep in mind that all these various estimates of sea level rise are just that...estimates. An estimate of a parameter is only as good as the data and the methodology used to calculate the estimate. It seems to me that most published estimates are indicating an increase in sea level rise and that is really all we can safely concluded from the collective wisdom of the various studies and publications. Averaging across studies (which I have not done) would probably show that an average of the averages is positive. When there are a slew papers predicting no increase or a decline in sea level, then we can declare Al Gore et al. reactionary idiots. Also, I read in the New York Times that flossing and regular brushing will take care of most gum diseases. In that same news paper I read that the solutions to estimated sea level rise are somewhat more complicated. -- Conor P. McGowan, Ph.D. Post-Doctoral Research Associate USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 12100 Beech Forest Rd. Laurel, MD 20708 EM:cmcgo...@usgs.gov Ph:301 497 5632 --- -"Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" wrote: - To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU From: "James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958)" Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" Date: 05/17/2009 10:19AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
In light of the discussion that this posting has raised, I am taking the liberty of posting the NY Times report which describes both the study and some comments on it, which I think adds some useful perspective: May 15, 2009 Study Halves Prediction of Rising Seas By ANDREW C. REVKIN A new analysis halves longstanding projections of how much sea levels could rise if Antarctica's massive western ice sheets fully disintegrated as a result of global warming. The flow of ice into the sea would probably raise sea levels about 10 feet rather than 20 feet, according to the analysis, published in the May 15 issue of the journal Science. The scientists also predicted that seas would rise unevenly, with an additional 1.5-foot increase in levels along the east and west coasts of North America. That is because the shift in a huge mass of ice away from the South Pole would subtly change the strength of gravity locally and the rotation of the Earth, the authors said. Several Antarctic specialists familiar with the new study had mixed reactions to the projections. But they and the study's lead author, Jonathan L. Bamber of the Bristol Glaciology Center in England, agreed that the odds of a disruptive rise in seas over the next century or so from the buildup of greenhouse gases remained serious enough to warrant the world's attention. They also uniformly called for renewed investment in satellites measuring ice and field missions that could within a few years substantially clarify the risk. There is strong consensus that warming waters around Antarctica, and Greenland in the Arctic, will result in centuries of rising seas. But glaciologists and oceanographers still say uncertainty prevails on the vital question of how fast coasts will retreat in a warming world in the next century or two. The new study combined computer modeling with measurements of the ice and the underlying bedrock, both direct and by satellite. It did not assess the pace or the likelihood of a rise in seas. The goal was to examine as precisely as possible how much ice could flow into the sea if warming seawater penetrated between the West Antarctic ice sheet and the bedrock beneath. For decades West Antarctic ice has been identified as particularly vulnerable to melting because, although piled more than one mile above sea level in many places, it also rests on bedrock a half mile to a mile beneath sea level in others. That topography means that warm water could progressively melt spots where ice is stuck to the rock, allowing it to flow more freely. Erik I. Ivins, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, described the new paper as "good solid science," but added that the sea-level estimates could not be verified without renewed investment in satellite missions and other initiatives that were currently lagging. A particularly valuable satellite program called Grace, which measures subtle variations in gravity related to the mass of ice and rock, "has perhaps a couple of years remaining before its orbit deteriorates," Dr. Ivins said. "The sad truth is that we in NASA are watching our Earth-observing systems fall by the wayside as they age - without the sufficient resources to see them adequately replaced." Robert Bindschadler, a specialist in polar ice at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said the study provided only a low estimate of Antarctica's possible long-term contribution to rising seas because it did not deal with other mechanisms that could add water to the ocean. The prime question, he said, remains what will happen in the next 100 years or so, and other recent work implies that a lot of ice can be shed within that time. "Even in Bamber's world," he said, referring to the study's lead author, "there is more than enough ice to cause serious harm to the world's coastlines." - Original Message - From: "James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958)" To: Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
The fact that increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere are causing global climate change, much more serious than just global warming, should not be controversial. The pace at which it is occurring, what climate changes will occur where and when, what the impacts of these changes will be, whether we have reached the point where change becomes irreversible, etc. should be the subject of debate and continued research. The only reason why climate change is controversial is greed - too many of us are unwilling to make the sacrifices which will be necessary to insure that our environment is protected for future generations. Robert Mowbray -- Original message from William Silvert : -- > This cheery news seems inconsistent with recent reports of large areas of > ice breaking off from Antarctica. Perhaps someone knowledgable who is not an > "expert" (fanatic) but knows what he is talking about could clarify the > situation. Someone who is neither using fear and terror to get research > funding nor trying to cut up Al Gore into bite-sized chunks to feed to the > exploding population of polar bears. > > In any case, there are a lot of threats ahead of us, and temperature > increases and sea level rise are only some of them. Others, like dissolved > CO2 in the oceans, are serious and not so controversial. > > Bill Silvert
[ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE Change Research quality and qualities plus data hoarding by hordes of scientists? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
Ecolog: If the hordes weren't hoarding their papers and were facilitating rather than retarding efficient dissemination, McCallum and others could efficiently and economically check out which conclusions are based on what. Luckily the lazy likes of me have McCallum and Conklin and other authorities to summarize and interpret the temperature extremes at the poles and in between. Persons, start your engines! And keep it "clean" and fun--but valid. (To a scientific certainty?) I anxiously look forward to the following statements of fact: 1. Sea-level rise/fall will be, in (feet, meters, inches, millimeters, etc.) in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: The supporting data for these calculations are based upon/in: 2010: ; percent of that rise that will be due to anthropogenic activity due to degrees increase/decrease (+ or -) in global average atmospheric temperature change. 2020: ; percent of that rise that will be due to anthropogenic activity due to degrees increase/decrease (+ or -) in global average atmospheric temperature change. 2050: ; percent of that rise that will be due to anthropogenic activity due to degrees increase/decrease (+ or -) in global average atmospheric temperature change. 2099: ; percent of that rise that will be due to anthropogenic activity due to degrees increase/decrease (+ or -) in global average atmospheric temperature change. other ; percent of that rise that will be due to anthropogenic activity due to degrees increase/decrease (+ or -) in global average atmospheric temperature change. 2. percent of that rise that will be due to anthropogenic activity due to degrees increase/decrease in global average atmospheric temperature change. 3. The percentages of the anthropogenic component of that rise/fall due to the following will be the following quantities/ranges of values due to CO2* changes for the following causal subsets: a. Electrical power generation release in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: b. Industrial release in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: c. Domestic release in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: d. Background rates of release in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: e. Deforestation release in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: f. Anthropogenic ecosystem restoration and enhancement in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: g. "Spontaneous" ecosystem recovery and enhancement in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: h. Active sequestration in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: i. Passive sequestration in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: j. Other (please specify) in 2010: ; 2020: ; 2050: ; 2099: ; other: *Please change this component (methane, soot particles, etc.) and answer each of the questions with respect to each component you consider to be significant/relevant. Note: Please make any necessary changes to the above, citing the reasons for each change, including additions. Gratefully, WT - Original Message - From: "malcolm McCallum" To: Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised I have not read this manuscript yet because I don't have a subscription. However, why would the findings in this paper be any more or less fanatical than any other paper on climate change studies? They use the best available data and try to project possible risk. Insulting statements such as labeling Global Warming experts as fanatics is inappropriate and rude. This paper, if it stands the test of time and if the short summary is backed up by the internal text, is an important finding and good news. We should be happy about this, not angry. However, it could in all right be as right or wrong as any other study. If one is exceptionally excited about this finding supporting one's political agenda or views, then one should be equally dismayed by the hoards of other studies that are weighing against them. There are more problems with climate change than sea level rise. Thankfully, sea level rise may end up being less severe than previously thought. Of course, temperature rise is currently being projected as more severe than previously modeled. Hopefully the whole disaster will be invalidated, but I'm not keeping my hopes up on that one. On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958) wrote: Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I reca
[ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
Dear Dr. Conklin, I too saw the NYT item on this. The predicted level is now 10, not 20 feet DUE TO THE MELTING OF THE WA ICE SHEET. Other sources of water are not revised. The author of the revision believes that "the odds of a disruptive rise in seas over the next century or so from the buildup of greenhouse gases remained serious enough to warrant the world’s attention" (quote from NYT article), a more serious problem than gums. Or is Dr. Bamber just another "esxpert" (fanatic)? As the study did not address the pace of ice loss, you figure of 500 years must come from another source. Phil Ganter Dept. of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] on behalf of James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958) [conk...@cfl.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:19 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Attachments: Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
This cheery news seems inconsistent with recent reports of large areas of ice breaking off from Antarctica. Perhaps someone knowledgable who is not an "expert" (fanatic) but knows what he is talking about could clarify the situation. Someone who is neither using fear and terror to get research funding nor trying to cut up Al Gore into bite-sized chunks to feed to the exploding population of polar bears. In any case, there are a lot of threats ahead of us, and temperature increases and sea level rise are only some of them. Others, like dissolved CO2 in the oceans, are serious and not so controversial. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958)" To: Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:19 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
I have not read this manuscript yet because I don't have a subscription. However, why would the findings in this paper be any more or less fanatical than any other paper on climate change studies? They use the best available data and try to project possible risk. Insulting statements such as labeling Global Warming experts as fanatics is inappropriate and rude. This paper, if it stands the test of time and if the short summary is backed up by the internal text, is an important finding and good news. We should be happy about this, not angry. However, it could in all right be as right or wrong as any other study. If one is exceptionally excited about this finding supporting one's political agenda or views, then one should be equally dismayed by the hoards of other studies that are weighing against them. There are more problems with climate change than sea level rise. Thankfully, sea level rise may end up being less severe than previously thought. Of course, temperature rise is currently being projected as more severe than previously modeled. Hopefully the whole disaster will be invalidated, but I'm not keeping my hopes up on that one. On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958) wrote: > Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice > sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been > revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* > > I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al > Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also > recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not > melting. > > My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global > Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their > gums. > > * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado > University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and > published in the journal Science 5/15/09. > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours: Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm Genetics: M 6-10pm Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
[ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised
Experts have cut the sea-level rise forecast IF the West Antarctic ice sheet were to collapse due to Global Warming. The forecast has been revised to 10 feet in 500 years, or 0.24 inches per year.* I recall that a sea-level rise of 20 to 50 feet had been predicted by Al Gore and other Global Warming "experts" (fanatics) within decades. I also recall that the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker, i.e.: not melting. My advice to people who have been traumatized by Al Gore's dire Global Warming and Sea-Level Rising warnings is to start worrying about their gums. * Research by U.K. Natural Environment Research Council and the Colorado University Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science and published in the journal Science 5/15/09.
