Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised

2009-05-19 Thread David M. Lawrence
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) 
conk...@cfl.rr.com

To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
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 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised

2009-05-18 Thread rnmowbray
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 cien...@silvert.org: 
-- 


 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 


Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised

2009-05-18 Thread William Silvert
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) conk...@cfl.rr.com

To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
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

2009-05-18 Thread Conor McGowan
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
ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU wrote: -


To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
From: James T. Conklin (BSME UMD 1958) conk...@cfl.rr.com
Sent by: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
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

2009-05-18 Thread Amartya Saha

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 cien...@silvert.org:


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)
conk...@cfl.rr.com
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
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

2009-05-18 Thread malcolm McCallum
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 cien...@silvert.org 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)
 conk...@cfl.rr.com
 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
 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 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised

2009-05-18 Thread James Crants
I haven't had a chance to read the whole article in Science yet, but in
skimming it, it's clear that previous estimates of sea level rise resulting
from a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are in the range of 5 to 6
meters, while the authors' model predicts about 3.3 meters.  In other words,
these are best estimates of sea-level rise, not upper (or lower) limits.
It's also worth noting that the authors identify the melting of this ice
sheet as a high-impact, low-probability event, and my understanding (from
the article) is that previous authors have said the same.

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:36 AM, malcolm McCallum 
malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote:

 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 cien...@silvert.org
 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 

[ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE Change Research quality and qualities plus data hoarding by hordes of scientists? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sea-Level Rise Revised

2009-05-17 Thread Wayne Tyson

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 malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org

To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
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)
conk...@cfl.rr.com 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