Sea levels likely to rise 25cm this century

No matter what happens, sea levels and temperatures are going to rise over the next century, according to a pair of reports out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Global warming will likely cause the sea level to rise by about 25cm, or close to a foot, by 2100, while average temperatures will rise by at least a half degree Celsius, according to Tom Wigley, a researcher at the agency and an author of one of the studies released today. Researcher Gerald Meehl wrote the other.

Tom Wigley,
researcher

Wigley added that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by human activity. Even if humans stopped pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, sea levels will rise by 11 centimeters (about 4 inches) over the next century at a minimum, the studies predicted.

"That is an extreme lower bound of what might happen," Wigley said. "More likely, the sea level rise will be considerably greater."

A worst-case scenario predicts a 30-centimeter rise in sea level and a world temperature rise of 3.5 degrees Celsius. Worldwide sea levels rose by 5 centimeters in the 20th century, when human-induced global warming began to be tracked.

The inevitable nature of climate change comes as a result of two factors: the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the fact that water heats and cools more slowly than air. Carbon dioxide, which is increasing in the atmosphere, traps sunlight, which then heats the ocean, which in turn rises and expands.

While Northern Europe and the United States would be able to adapt to a 25-centimeter rise in sea level, poor countries in coastal areas could face huge problems. Bangladesh, for instance, is sandwiched between the snow melt from the Himalayas and tropical storms from the Bay of Bengal. Elevated temperatures and sea levels could dramatically increase the impact of storms.

By 2400, barring major changes, worldwide sea levels could rise by 100 centimeters. "A meter sea level rise would have a lot of major consequences for many parts of the world," Wigley said.

[Voice of Sanity]

So after decades of lowering it is finally rising again?

So after lowering for decades the sea level is finally rising. This has been known for a while.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=292

How about some pictures atleast.

[Voice of Sanity]

So after decades of lowering it is finally rising again?

So after lowering for decades the sea level is finally rising. This has been known for a while.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=292

How about some pictures atleast.

[CapoNumen]

Global warming is natural and unavoidable

Global temps have been rising for the last 12,000 years. This is scientific fact that this trend has continued in a mostly linear fashion.
The man-made global warming myth is a product of the for profit fear mongers and have no basis in fact.
It is perpetuated by the ignorant liberal media and as an economic attack mainly from Europe and now Russia.
President Clinton attempted to use it as a political tool to gain leverage over big oil and to try to curb the US dependence on foreign oil.
His administrations propaganda campaign blatantly attempted to
tie day to day weather to this myth and many in the US government continue to attempt to support this scientific fallacy.

Sea levels have risen over 200 meters in this time and will do so until the next ice age.
carbon dioxide levels are largely a secondary effect of the temperature rise NOT the reverse.
Water vapor, ice and liquid water in combination with orbital variations and solar variability sets 99.99% of the overall climate trends.
There is overwhelming proof that that this is the case.
The propaganda tool of choice now is the many climate simulations that predict anything from cooling to extreme warming.
All of these models are completely meaningless in the real world and are in fact based on flawed assumptions and broken mathematical theories.
There are many many other factors that these models ignore as they are totally unknown in variation and magnitude in there effects on climate. One of the most glaring flaws that all these models share is that they pretend to predict future solar output. It is simply not possible to predict future solar trends which have varied very considerably over its known history.

So it is clear that man-made global warming is a religion not science and certainly not based in fact.
It?s the same old tried and true formula used for thousands of years: find a frightening perplexing natural phenomenon pin it on humanity then convert it into power, profit and control.

The shocking thing in this case is that if Kyoto where placed into law the economic disaster that will surely follow will kill thousands if not millions of people around the world and unleash a tremendous ecological disaster as well.
So in reality if you support this religion you are very likely supporting the next great crime against humanity. I can only hope that those of you guilty of perpetrating this crime
will live long enough to suffer your just fate.

[Andrew J Glina]

Perhaps...

...but whatever the reasons for global warming, ice caps melting and sea levels rising there are other reason for us to try to reduce our dependency on CO2 producing fuels. For one atmospheric polution within cities is becoming worse, but most of all there is a finite amount of fossil fuels. We need to, at some point, find an alternative. There is no time like the present!

[Kelson]

Scientists disagree with each other all the time

That doesn't make one side a "religion."

You can pick just about any theory and find a paper (or several) countering it. In fact, the greatest accolades are for the people who prove the prevailing establishment to be wrong. Look at Einstein's relativity vs. Newtonian gravity for a neutral example.

Keep in mind that it's people who *prove* the establishment wrong. That doesn't mean just making contrary claims, that means providing compelling evidence and *convincing* people that the new theory is correct.

You shouldn't evaluate science based on whether it matches your political views. You should evaluate it based on whether it's good science.

[czvo024]

I would like to see your sorces Capo Numen

Your liberal use of the word propagana has led me to believe you are in fact a propagandist. Where's the data to prove that the sea level has risen 200 meters over the past 12,00 years?

The existance of global warming is still in limbo, the earth does naturally heat and cool in cycles. But i dont see how one could make the argument for more co2 to be realsed into the atmosphere. Kyoto is a step into the right direction, but it is to invasive to just casually walk into, espicially for us lazy americans.

In reference to the fools that say so what about 25cm of addition sea level. Perhaps the metric system threw you off, but for an entire planet to gain 25cm's of water is, millions of gallons/ or (liters if you prefer) of sea water, its ignorant to believe that the climate wont change.

I wait your responses!

[Dendrian]

Still Pretty Interesting

I haven't thought too much on either side of the global warming issue, until recently. (many new politicians are using it as a platform, and even making movies about the potential negative effects) That's when I began to start looking into it further. Obviously it is still very much a battle of who's right and wrong.
I believe the warming does exist and has been existing for thousands of years, there is no question. But many say in the past hundred it has intesified more so than usual (I guess this would explain why we blame human tech. resulting in atmospheric pollution and warming, not sure if thats right or not) It seems to me that if we are causing so much of the pollution and it is rising to the sky, that would mean there is a blanket of "scum" above us right?
Has anyone thought that the scum might actually be causing a dimming effect of the sun? And if that pollution wasn't there we would actually be experiencing a MORE rapid warming trend? I'm no expert, i'm just a dude on the fence of this argument, but that would mean our climate figures and measurements we have been going off of for the past years of are skewed, and we are probably heating up much faster than we even realize.
What would that mean? I am all for cleaner burning engines and factory's. I for one think I'll die from lung cancer faster than burning from the sun or freezing solid in the ice age that's predicted. I've lived in new jersey and southern california and the air is terrible.
I guess what I am saying is: I hope people are using this global warming thing as a basis for scientifc fact and not just a political agenda. What ya think?

[CapoNumen]

Global warming is natural and unavoidable

Global temps have been rising for the last 12,000 years. This is scientific fact that this trend has continued in a mostly linear fashion.
The man-made global warming myth is a product of the for profit fear mongers and have no basis in fact.
It is perpetuated by the ignorant liberal media and as an economic attack mainly from Europe and now Russia.
President Clinton attempted to use it as a political tool to gain leverage over big oil and to try to curb the US dependence on foreign oil.
His administrations propaganda campaign blatantly attempted to
tie day to day weather to this myth and many in the US government continue to attempt to support this scientific fallacy.

Sea levels have risen over 200 meters in this time and will do so until the next ice age.
carbon dioxide levels are largely a secondary effect of the temperature rise NOT the reverse.
Water vapor, ice and liquid water in combination with orbital variations and solar variability sets 99.99% of the overall climate trends.
There is overwhelming proof that that this is the case.
The propaganda tool of choice now is the many climate simulations that predict anything from cooling to extreme warming.
All of these models are completely meaningless in the real world and are in fact based on flawed assumptions and broken mathematical theories.
There are many many other factors that these models ignore as they are totally unknown in variation and magnitude in there effects on climate. One of the most glaring flaws that all these models share is that they pretend to predict future solar output. It is simply not possible to predict future solar trends which have varied very considerably over its known history.

So it is clear that man-made global warming is a religion not science and certainly not based in fact.
It?s the same old tried and true formula used for thousands of years: find a frightening perplexing natural phenomenon pin it on humanity then convert it into power, profit and control.

The shocking thing in this case is that if Kyoto where placed into law the economic disaster that will surely follow will kill thousands if not millions of people around the world and unleash a tremendous ecological disaster as well.
So in reality if you support this religion you are very likely supporting the next great crime against humanity. I can only hope that those of you guilty of perpetrating this crime
will live long enough to suffer your just fate.

[Andrew J Glina]

Perhaps...

...but whatever the reasons for global warming, ice caps melting and sea levels rising there are other reason for us to try to reduce our dependency on CO2 producing fuels. For one atmospheric polution within cities is becoming worse, but most of all there is a finite amount of fossil fuels. We need to, at some point, find an alternative. There is no time like the present!

[Kelson]

Scientists disagree with each other all the time

That doesn't make one side a "religion."

You can pick just about any theory and find a paper (or several) countering it. In fact, the greatest accolades are for the people who prove the prevailing establishment to be wrong. Look at Einstein's relativity vs. Newtonian gravity for a neutral example.

Keep in mind that it's people who *prove* the establishment wrong. That doesn't mean just making contrary claims, that means providing compelling evidence and *convincing* people that the new theory is correct.

You shouldn't evaluate science based on whether it matches your political views. You should evaluate it based on whether it's good science.

[czvo024]

I would like to see your sorces Capo Numen

Your liberal use of the word propagana has led me to believe you are in fact a propagandist. Where's the data to prove that the sea level has risen 200 meters over the past 12,00 years?

The existance of global warming is still in limbo, the earth does naturally heat and cool in cycles. But i dont see how one could make the argument for more co2 to be realsed into the atmosphere. Kyoto is a step into the right direction, but it is to invasive to just casually walk into, espicially for us lazy americans.

In reference to the fools that say so what about 25cm of addition sea level. Perhaps the metric system threw you off, but for an entire planet to gain 25cm's of water is, millions of gallons/ or (liters if you prefer) of sea water, its ignorant to believe that the climate wont change.

I wait your responses!

[Dendrian]

Still Pretty Interesting

I haven't thought too much on either side of the global warming issue, until recently. (many new politicians are using it as a platform, and even making movies about the potential negative effects) That's when I began to start looking into it further. Obviously it is still very much a battle of who's right and wrong.
I believe the warming does exist and has been existing for thousands of years, there is no question. But many say in the past hundred it has intesified more so than usual (I guess this would explain why we blame human tech. resulting in atmospheric pollution and warming, not sure if thats right or not) It seems to me that if we are causing so much of the pollution and it is rising to the sky, that would mean there is a blanket of "scum" above us right?
Has anyone thought that the scum might actually be causing a dimming effect of the sun? And if that pollution wasn't there we would actually be experiencing a MORE rapid warming trend? I'm no expert, i'm just a dude on the fence of this argument, but that would mean our climate figures and measurements we have been going off of for the past years of are skewed, and we are probably heating up much faster than we even realize.
What would that mean? I am all for cleaner burning engines and factory's. I for one think I'll die from lung cancer faster than burning from the sun or freezing solid in the ice age that's predicted. I've lived in new jersey and southern california and the air is terrible.
I guess what I am saying is: I hope people are using this global warming thing as a basis for scientifc fact and not just a political agenda. What ya think?

Global Warming

What the !@#!@# is this article doing under the R&D section? I use this site for technology news. I read CNN's site for propaganda!

Global Warming

What the !@#!@# is this article doing under the R&D section? I use this site for technology news. I read CNN's site for propaganda!

Article on Sea levels likely to rise 25cm this century

Interesting article... but I can't help asking myself "So what"? what would be the consequences of sea level rising 25 cm? A follow on article would certainly help understand why it is such a big deal. Until then, an increase in sea level does not seem like a big deal? I'll just move my towel higher when I go to the beach.

So What ?

Well, I'll grant you that a foot higher sea level doesn't sound like much of a big deal to me either. But I live in Phoenix and I thought about the accompanying temperature rise. Here in July & August the average high is about 105F. Adding another 5F to that would be a VERY big deal. So, what would happen if a significant proportion of the 3 million or so people in Southern AZ (plus similar groups in SoCal, NM & TX) decide it's too hot & move ? Consider labor markets, housing, law-enforcement, services, etc. The'd ALL be affected, both in the hotter SW and where-ever these people move to.
SO - this made me think about an 8 inch rise in sea level. Offhand, I can't think who would be affected, except those people who live right at the margin of land/sea.
But I did see a "Waterworld" scenario discussed on a geology NG one time. They mentioned a couple of insignifcant things that might happen here - the earth's rate of rotation could reduce (as mass moves towards the center) and "sea-level" air pressure would be reduced.

It's like assuming that a gun isn't loaded - just because someone tells you so. Is it wise to assume that global warming is no big deal (whether natural or man-made) ? I'm not totally sure about the phenomena, but I'm not going to ignore it :-)

Article on Sea levels likely to rise 25cm this century

Interesting article... but I can't help asking myself "So what"? what would be the consequences of sea level rising 25 cm? A follow on article would certainly help understand why it is such a big deal. Until then, an increase in sea level does not seem like a big deal? I'll just move my towel higher when I go to the beach.

So What ?

Well, I'll grant you that a foot higher sea level doesn't sound like much of a big deal to me either. But I live in Phoenix and I thought about the accompanying temperature rise. Here in July & August the average high is about 105F. Adding another 5F to that would be a VERY big deal. So, what would happen if a significant proportion of the 3 million or so people in Southern AZ (plus similar groups in SoCal, NM & TX) decide it's too hot & move ? Consider labor markets, housing, law-enforcement, services, etc. The'd ALL be affected, both in the hotter SW and where-ever these people move to.
SO - this made me think about an 8 inch rise in sea level. Offhand, I can't think who would be affected, except those people who live right at the margin of land/sea.
But I did see a "Waterworld" scenario discussed on a geology NG one time. They mentioned a couple of insignifcant things that might happen here - the earth's rate of rotation could reduce (as mass moves towards the center) and "sea-level" air pressure would be reduced.

It's like assuming that a gun isn't loaded - just because someone tells you so. Is it wise to assume that global warming is no big deal (whether natural or man-made) ? I'm not totally sure about the phenomena, but I'm not going to ignore it :-)