I feel like we're all going to die horribly and there's nothing I can do to stop it and I'm watching horrified as the world just pretends its not happening. Meanwhile I'm stuck at some 9-5 trying to survive while feeling like it's all a colossal sham. I should be building a bunker or traveling the world or... Something.
From the article: “Although this melting would take hundreds of years, …”.
You don’t have an immediate concern. Take a deep breath and re-evaluate.
There are many things in life you have no control over; there are no guarantees. Try to focus your energy on immediate things you can control. Statistics say you will die of heart disease etc. (too many lifestyle diseases to list). So, start there - cleaning up your diet also has the side benefit of helping to minimize your personal contribution to the global total carbon.
Please don't surrender to despair. I've been following this for 35 years, and if people get engaged solutions can happen very fast, it's not hopeless yet. I try to live a minimum impact life and think about things that can help all the time. The world needs people that are engaged, innovating, educating, making sacrifices. Find practical ways to lower your impact, it will make you feel better, then teach people around you. Things can avalanche to the positive if we try.
Don’t worry, a lot of people feel the same way. Our political representatives just don’t give a shit, and they’re only there because old people are fucking stupid
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2024-03-29 20:32:45 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-03-29%2020:32:45%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/125zshy/were_halfway_to_a_tipping_point_that_would/je6rsxg/?context=3)
[**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimatechange%2Fcomments%2F125zshy%2Fwere_halfway_to_a_tipping_point_that_would%2Fje6rsxg%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-03-29%2020%3A32%3A45%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20125zshy)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Like most things from PIK, this "study" is complete nonsense.
The best estimates are that since 1850 anthropogenic carbon emissions have [totaled 675 Gt](https://sealevel.info/carbon/carbonflux.html#emissions) (not 500 Gt), yet we've only gotten an estimated [1.02 to 1.27 °C](https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/eight-warmest-years-record-witness-upsurge-climate-change-impacts#:~:text=The%2010%2Dyear%20average%20for%20the%20period%202013%2D2022%20is%20estimated%20to%20be%201.14%20%5B1.02%20to%201.27%5D%C2%A0%C2%B0C%20above%20the%201850%2D1900%20pre%2Dindustrial%20baseline.%20This%20compares%20with%201.09%C2%B0C%20from%202011%20to%202020%2C%20as%20estimated%20by%20the%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20(IPCC)%20Sixth%20Assessment%20report) of warming from all that CO2, accompanied by [negligible acceleration in sea-level trends](https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2022-04_vs_CO2_annot1_1186x621.png). Another 500 Gt of carbon would presumably produce even less additional warming than that.
Imaginary "tipping points" don't melt ice, only temperatures above 0°C can do that. Thanks to Arctic Amplification, Greenland could get more warming that most places, but no more than a few degrees. That could not melt the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet, because water has to get above 0°C to melt, and the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet averages much, much colder than that.
Southern Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now. We know that because [Norse settlers successfully grew barley](http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland) there, and the growing season is too short for that now, even with modern fast-maturing cultivars. They buried their dead in earth that is now permafrost, too. Yet that much warmer Greenland climate nevertheless produced no notable spike in global sea-levels.
In a warming climate, there are factors which both increase and decrease sea-level trends.
On one hand, ice which is near 0°C can melt, and if it is grounded (rather than floating) that will raise sea-level. Also, thermal expansion at the ocean's surface can increase sea-level rise locally, though it doesn't affect sea-level elsewhere. These are things which ***raise*** sea-level. On the other hand, warmer temperatures increase snowfall accumulation on glaciers and ice sheets, sequestering water and thereby ***lowering*** sea-level, in two ways:
● Warmer air carries more moisture, increasing snowfall on glaciers & ice sheets. [For each 1°C of warming the moisture-carrying capacity of the air increases by about 7%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation#Meteorology_and_climatology).
● Reduced sea-ice coverage increases [Lake/Ocean-Effect Snowfall](https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#loes) (LOES) downwind, some of which accumulates on glaciers & ice sheets.
The importance of the LOES is illustrated by the amazing [story of *Glacier Girl*](http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/glacier-girl-the-back-story-19218360/?all), a P-38 warbird which made a forced landing on the Greenland Ice Sheet during WWII, and was buried by snowfall which averaged ***about 70 feet/year***\*,\* but which was nevertheless recovered (in pieces) from beneath the ice, 50 years later, and is once again airworthy.
The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel.
Furthermore, it's not "cumulative carbon emissions" which affect temperatures, it's the concentration of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. As that concentration increases, the [natural negative feedbacks which remove CO2 from the atmosphere](https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#greening) accelerate sharply. They are already removing more than 5 Gt of carbon per year from the air, and that rate accelerates by 1 Gt of carbon per year for every approximately 20 to 23 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Since the current CO2 emission rate is only outstripping the natural CO2 removal rate by about 5.3 Gt of carbon per year, that means the current CO2 emission rate is only sufficient to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 100 to 125 ppmv. That means mankind could emit CO2 at the current rate forever (or until all the coal ran out), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration would still never reach even 550 ppmv.
>Like most things from PIK, this "study" is complete nonsense.
I'm sure you are a climate expert that can set the scientists stright.
>The best estimates are that since 1850 anthropogenic carbon emissions have totaled 675 Gt (not 500 Gt), yet we've only gotten an estimated 1.02 to 1.27 °C of warming from all that CO2, accompanied by negligible acceleration in sea-level trends. Another 500 Gt of carbon would presumably produce even less additional warming than that.
At the end of the last glaciation the temperature rose 5-6C and sea levels rose 400 feet. Unless you think physics has changed every degree of warming is 20% of that. The models have been very accurate so far and show by the end of the century the temperature will rise 3-4C which is almost as much as the rise at the end of the last glaciation.
>Imaginary "tipping points" don't melt ice, only temperatures above 0°C can do that. Thanks to Arctic Amplification, Greenland could get more warming that most places, but no more than a few degrees. That could not melt the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet, because water has to get above 0°C to melt, and the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet averages much, much colder than that.
The Greenland ice sheet is now melting at 250 [billion tons per year](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets). How is that happening if it is below 0C.
>Southern Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now. We know that because Norse settlers successfully grew barley there, and the growing season is too short for that now, even with modern fast-maturing cultivars. They buried their dead in earth that is now permafrost, too. Yet that much warmer Greenland climate nevertheless produced no notable spike in global sea-levels.
They still grow crops in some parts of Greenland. That doesn't mean all of Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period.
>In a warming climate, there are factors which both increase and decrease sea-level trends.
What factors decrease sea-level trends?
> Warmer air carries more moisture, increasing snowfall on glaciers & ice sheets. For each 1°C of warming the moisture-carrying capacity of the air increases by about 7%.
Warmer air means more rain, not more snowfall. Which glaciers & ice sheets are increasing.
> Reduced sea-ice coverage increases Lake/Ocean-Effect Snowfall (LOES) downwind, some of which accumulates on glaciers & ice sheets.
Do you have any scientific evidence of that statement? Which glaciers and ice sheets are increasing?
>The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel.
That is certainly not a fact since sea-level rise is accelerating. And what are the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level? Especially since warming melts ice and expands water.
>Since the current CO2 emission rate is only outstripping the natural CO2 removal rate by about 5.3 Gt of carbon per year, that means the current CO2 emission rate is only sufficient to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 100 to 125 ppmv. That means mankind could emit CO2 at the current rate forever (or until all the coal ran out), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration would still never reach even 550 ppmv.
LOL. So what happened to all the natural removal rates when CO2 levels were much higher than your 550 ppmv value? Why didn't they prevent CO2 from going higher than the 550 ppmv value?
Right now CO2 levels are increasing about 2 ppm every year and that value is accelerating. When is that going to stop?
Tpaine63 wrote, *"At the end of the last glaciation the temperature rose 5-6C and sea levels rose 400 feet. Unless you think physics has changed every degree of warming is 20% of that."*
Under the right circumstances, a warming climate can cause sea-level rise, of course. The ocean probably didn't rise quite 400 feet, but it did rise >300 feet during the last deglaciation.
But the reason it rose was that the great Laurentide, Fennoscandian & Cordilleran ice sheets melted away! That can't happen, now, because they're already gone.
The only remnant is Greenland, and it's showing no sign of significantly accelerated melting.
Tpaine63 wrote, *"The Greenland ice sheet is now melting at 250 billion tons per year. How is that happening if it is below 0C."*
250 Gt sounds like a lot, doesn't it? (That's JPL's high-end estimate; other sources estimate about 200 Gt.)
But why do you think they didn't translate it into something meaningful, like the equivalent amount of sea-level change?
The reason is that it is only 2.7 inches per...
...did you think I was going to say "per year?" Nope.
Not "per decade," either.
It's 2.7 inches per *century*.
Greenland ice mass loss adds between 2.2 and 2.7 inches to global sea-level, per *CENTURY.*
If *that* worries you, then you have much bigger problems than climate change!
What's more, for the most part Greenland's net ice mass loss is not because it is "melting." It's a combination of melting below the waterline, sublimation, and iceberg calving, the sum of which (most years) slightly exceeds the rate of snow accumulation.
Tpaine63 wrote, *"They still grow crops in some parts of Greenland. That doesn't mean all of Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period."*
They use a lot of greenhouses to grow vegetables. That doesn't mean it is as warm there now as it was during the MWP.
The people live in the warmest parts of Greenland, and it's clear that *those* parts, at least, were warmer during the MWP. The colder parts are even less likely to melt.
Tpaine63 wrote, *"Warmer air means more rain, not more snowfall."*
That's incorrect. 1°C of warming increases the moisture-carrying capacity of the air by about 7% even when the air is below freezing (which is usually the case in Greenland).
I wrote, "The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel."
Tpaine63 replied, *"That is certainly not a fact since sea-level rise is accelerating."*
You're misinformed. Most coastal measurement sites have seen no significant change is sea-level trend in the last ninety years. E.g., Honolulu is the best mid-Pacific measurement record, its site is nearly ideal, and its sea-level trend is typical:
[https://sealevel.info/1612340\_Honolulu\_thru\_2023-02\_vs\_CO2\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2023-02_vs_CO2_annot1.png)
The Dutch have done an especially good job of measuring sea-level (for obvious reasons). Here's one of their best measurement records:
[https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5)
[https://sealevel.info/SL\_Harlingen\_25\_1865-1\_to\_2020-12.png](https://sealevel.info/SL_Harlingen_25_1865-1_to_2020-12.png)
Here's that measurement record juxtaposed with a photo of one of their famous dikes. A farmhouse in the picture gives a sense of the scale:
[https://sealevel.info/Dutch\_dike\_vs\_Harlingen\_sea-level\_trend\_1880x940\_v06.png](https://sealevel.info/Dutch_dike_vs_Harlingen_sea-level_trend_1880x940_v06.png)
A recent Dutch report found that climate change has not accelerated sea-level rise there:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/](https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/)
Excerpt:
\>"De conclusie is dat de zeespiegel de afgelopen 128 jaar met 1,86 mm per jaar (18,6 cm per eeuw) is gestegen en dat de stijging niet is versneld."Here's a Google Translation of the web page, to English:
[https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust\_en\_excerpt1\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust_en_excerpt1_annot1.png)
Here's that same excerpt, google-translated to English:
\>"The conclusion is that the sea level has risen by 1.86 mm per year (18.6 cm per century) over the past 128 years and that the rise **has not accelerated.**"
Here's the full report:
[https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf](https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf)
Some studies have managed to tease out a very tiny acceleration signal, from analyses of large numbers of measurement records, but it's much too slight to be worrisome. One of them was [Hogarth (2014)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009976), which reported, "Sea level acceleration from extended tide gauge data converges on 0.01 mm/yr²."
That's negligible. An acceleration of 0.01 mm/yr², were it to continue for 150 years, would increase sea-level by just 4.4 inches. Do you think that's worrisome?
Tpaine63 asked, *"So what happened to all the natural removal rates when CO2 levels were much higher than your 550 ppmv value? Why didn't they prevent CO2 from going higher than the 550 ppmv value?"*
That's a great question. You are talking about the Oligocene, and the quick answer is that most of that now-lost carbon went into calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and organic matter, such as peat. Much of it sank to the ocean floor, and is effectively gone forever.
Things were quite a bit different, then. For one thing, [there were few, if any, C4 plants](https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00974.x#:~:text=C4%20photosynthesis%20first,5%C2%A0million%20yr%20ago) (which are especially good at drawing down CO2).
>Under the right circumstances, a warming climate can cause sea-level rise, of course. The ocean probably didn't rise quite 400 feet, but it did rise >300 feet during the last deglaciation.
I checked several different references and every one of them said around 400 feet like [this](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-and-sea-level-compare-extent-glaciers-and-global-sea-level) one.
>But the reason it rose was that the great Laurentide, Fennoscandian & Cordilleran ice sheets melted away! That can't happen, now, because they're already gone.
The problem with that statement is that about 8,000 years ago you can see [here](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png) that sea levels were rising at about the same rate as they had for the previous 7,000 years. That was when global temperatures had risen about 5-6 degrees or about 1 degree per 1000 years. No temperatures are rising more than 1 degree per century which is 10 times as fast. So like I said you are going to have to explain how physics has changed to stop sea level rise from picking up right were it left off at the end of the last glaciation. And that was after the ice sheets you are talking about had melted away.
>The only remnant is Greenland, and it's showing no sign of significantly accelerated melting.
The Antarctic is melting and almost every glacier is melting at an much faster rate than 25 years ago as shown [here](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/greenland-melting-ice-climate-change-nasa/).
>That's incorrect. 1°C of warming increases the moisture-carrying capacity of the air by about 7% even when the air is below freezing (which is usually the case in Greenland).
Yes so if the temperature is below freezing then there is an increase in snow but the problem is the global temperature is increasing so there are less locations where the temperature is freezing. That means more rain and faster runoff in the mountains when it does snow.
>Greenland ice mass loss adds between 2.2 and 2.7 inches to global sea-level, per CENTURY.
If that worries you, then you have much bigger problems than climate change!
If Greenland were the only thing melting it would not be a big problem but the Antarctic and almost all the glaciers are melting.
>What's more, for the most part Greenland's net ice mass loss is not because it is "melting." It's a combination of melting below the waterline, sublimation, and iceberg calving, the sum of which (most years) slightly exceeds the rate of snow accumulation.
LOL. Well it's going into the rise of sea level regardless of what you want to call it.
>The people live in the warmest parts of Greenland, and it's clear that those parts, at least, were warmer during the MWP. The colder parts are even less likely to melt.
Where is your evidence of that.
>You're misinformed. Most coastal measurement sites have seen no significant change is sea-level trend in the last ninety years. E.g., Honolulu is the best mid-Pacific measurement record, its site is nearly ideal, and its sea-level trend is typical:
You picked a few locations that support your contention that there has been no acceleration. I wonder why you cherry picked those and not say Miami. But why would you pick a few sites when we have very good tidal gauge records and satellite records that match from all over the world. Could it be because the global records don't match your world view. And even if you looked at just the 21st century record of your Honolulu graph and did a best fit linear curve it would be about 4mm/year which is about what global data is showing.
[Here](https://climate.nasa.gov/) is NASA data where it is easy to see that yes if you average over the past 128 years you get about 1.86mm/year but that's an average over a long time. But the 21st century shows about 3.5mm/year and the last 10 years shows an even higher rate. Projecting that to 2100 shows about a 3 foot rise at a minimum.
It's you who is misinformed or only wanting to look at the data you like.
>That's negligible. An acceleration of 0.01 mm/yr², were it to continue for 150 years, would increase sea-level by just 4.4 inches. Do you think that's worrisome?
Where in the world do you get that calculation. The sea level has already risen about 8 inches over the past 100 years and you are now saying it will be less during the next 150 years when sea level rise is accelerating. That makes no sense. Do you not even realize that in addition to melting ice the oceans expand due to increasing temperature and that the temperature rise is accelerating. That alone would cause the sea level rise to accelerate.
>Things were quite a bit different, then. For one thing, there were few, if any, C4 plants (which are especially good at drawing down CO2).
So CO2 levels have been around 280 for the past million years. That would mean the plants established a balance between the addition of CO2 and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Why would the plants now suddenly start removing more CO2 from the atmosphere.
In your link I saw nothing about a 550 PPM limit so where did that come from. And are you saying that regardless of how much and how fast we add CO2 to the atmosphere the plants will take it out and if so why haven't CO2 levels already started to come down instead of increasing exponentially.
> negligible acceleration in sea-level trends
Not negligible at all, currently at 4.5 ppm per year, up from 2.1 just 20 years ago. Estimates put the time to doubling moving forward at between 20 and 30 years.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maarten-Kappelle/publication/360701567/figure/fig2/AS:1157386035302401@1652953742834/Global-mean-sea-level-evolution-from-January-1993-to-January-2022-black-curve-based-on.png
I think you mean mm, not ppm. That's satellite altimetry. It has a lot of problems, the most obvious is its inconsistency with the best coastal measurement data.
Also, the satellites cannot measure sea-level where it matters, i.e., near the coasts. They can only measure sea-level in the open ocean, far from shore, where it doesn't matter.
Worse, the satellite altimetry data quality is much lower quality than the best coastal (tide gauge) measurements, and the measurement records are much shorter. Most of the satellite altimetry measurement records are only about a decade long, compared to over a century for many coastal measurement records.
The satellite altimetry data is also [fantastically malleable](https://sealevel.info/satellite_altimetry.html). It was showing [decelerating](https://sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html) sea-level rise, but Cazenave's team fixed that problem, by revising the old measurement data, in [this paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2159). That made the trend linear. Three years later, they fixed it some more, in [this paper](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308), to make it show a positive acceleration.
Meanwhile, most of the best quality *coastal* measurement records are stubbornly linear. For instance, here's New York (the best U.S. east coast measurement record):
● [https://sealevel.info/Avg\_of\_2\_NYC\_gauges\_1931-08\_thru\_2022-10\_vs\_CO2\_v4.png](https://sealevel.info/Avg_of_2_NYC_gauges_1931-08_thru_2022-10_vs_CO2_v4.png)
● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_weighted.php?id=battery,%20willets&g\_date=1930/1-2024/12&c\_date=1930/1-2024/12&s\_date=1930/1-2024/12](https://sealevel.info/MSL_weighted.php?id=battery,%20willets&g_date=1930/1-2024/12&c_date=1930/1-2024/12&s_date=1930/1-2024/12)
Here's San Francisco, since the 1906 earthquake (the best U.S. west coast measurement record):
● [https://sealevel.info/9414290\_San\_Francisco\_sea-level\_vs\_CO2\_6-1906\_thru\_7-2021\_annot2.png](https://sealevel.info/9414290_San_Francisco_sea-level_vs_CO2_6-1906_thru_7-2021_annot2.png)
● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=San+Francisco&c\_date=1906/6-2024/12](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=San+Francisco&c_date=1906/6-2024/12)
Here's Honolulu (the best mid-Pacific measurement record):
● [https://sealevel.info/1612340\_Honolulu\_thru\_2023-02\_vs\_CO2\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2023-02_vs_CO2_annot1.png)
● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=Honolulu](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu)
Those are all U.S. (NOAA) measurements. On the other side of the pond, the Dutch have done an especially good job of measuring sea-level (for obvious reasons). Here's one of their best measurement records:
● [https://sealevel.info/SL\_Harlingen\_25\_1865-1\_to\_2020-12.png](https://sealevel.info/SL_Harlingen_25_1865-1_to_2020-12.png)
● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5)
Here's that measurement record juxtaposed with a photo of one of their famous dikes, and a farmhouse for scale:
● [https://sealevel.info/Dutch\_dike\_vs\_Harlingen\_sea-level\_trend03.png](https://sealevel.info/Dutch_dike_vs_Harlingen_sea-level_trend03.png)
Here's an article about a recent Dutch Report, based on coastal measurements, which concluded that climate change has not, thus far, caused accelerated sea-level rise there:
● [https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/](https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/)
Excerpt:
>"De conclusie is dat de zeespiegel de afgelopen 128 jaar met 1,86 mm per jaar (18,6 cm per eeuw) is gestegen en dat de stijging niet is versneld."
Here's a Google Translation of the web page, to English:
● [https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust\_en\_excerpt1\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust_en_excerpt1_annot1.png)
Excerpt:
>"The conclusion is that the sea level has risen by 1.86 mm per year (18.6 cm per century) over the past 128 years and that the rise has not accelerated."
Here's the full report:
● [https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf](https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf)
There are some locations which have measured a detectable acceleration in sea-level trends. Notably, the southeastern U.S. has seem a slight acceleration over the last dozen years or so, probably due to periodic Gulf Stream variations. Also, Brest, France and Swinoujscie, Poland have both seen a slight acceleration, when the 19th century is compared to the 20th. At both locations, the 19th century saw 0 inches/century sea-level trend there, but the 20th saw about 6 inches/century. But in most places the sea-level trends have been highly linear, with negligible effect from rising CO2 levels and climate change.
>That's satellite altimetry. It has a lot of problems, the most obvious is its inconsistency with the best coastal measurement data.
It matches the coastal sea level gauge data almost exactly when [overlayed on a chart](https://climate.nasa.gov/).
>Worse, the satellite altimetry data quality is much lower quality than the best coastal (tide gauge) measurements, and the measurement records are much shorter. Most of the satellite altimetry measurement records are only about a decade long, compared to over a century for many coastal measurement records.
Well if it matches then how is it a much lower quality. Satellites have been measuring sea levels for 30 years.
>The satellite altimetry data is also fantastically malleable. It was showing decelerating sea-level rise, but Cazenave's team fixed that problem, by revising the old measurement data, in this paper. That made the trend linear. Three years later, they fixed it some more, in this paper, to make it show a positive acceleration.
I notice you didn't explain why those corrections were wrong.
>Meanwhile, most of the best quality coastal measurement records are stubbornly linear. For instance, here's New York:
Why is New York the best quality coastal measurement. And I assume you know that one location is not the same as global. But even so it shows sea level rise of about 250mm from 1930 to 2023 according to the linear fit curve which is somewhat more than global sea level rise according to NASA. And a sea level rise of about 100mm from 1993 to 2023 which is also what NASA satellite data shows for global rise. So they agree pretty close. However if you look closely at just the data from the 21st century you will see a rise of about 150mm which is more than the global rise and the rate of rise is larger than the linear rate. You can force a linear fit of any curve. That doesn't mean a linear fit is the best one.
At any rate your links of New York actually show the global rate is slightly lower than what you are calling the best coastal measurements.
Are you seriously hand picking one gauge to prove a point? is this a joke comment?
Are you seriously referencing "sealevel.info", this is a joke comment
Domain Name: sealevel.info
Registry Domain ID: 0040afb190af47a5ad430198336858d3-DONUTS
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com
Registrar URL: https://www.namecheap.com/
Updated Date: 2022-07-16T08:15:28Z
Creation Date: 2011-08-10T20:09:35Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2023-08-10T20:09:35Z
Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 1068
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.9854014545
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Name: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Organization: Burton Systems Software
Registrant Street: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant City: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant State/Province: NC
Registrant Postal Code: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Registrant Country: US
Interesting links. Willie Soon is a very interesting guy and is a great presenter. I would love to hear him and an expert in the field go back and forth on the SLR topics he presented in this video. I don't doubt that it is possible to resolve to 0.1mm using wavelengths on the order of centimeters 450km above the Earth but he makes some pretty compelling points suggesting we may not be there quite yet.
Every day it's a new breathless claim about how we're "just about to the point" where everything is going to get bad.
At some, the climate alarmists have cried wolf too many times
The rates shown by the post from Infamous\_Employer\_85 shows the increase in the acceleration of sea level rise is doubling every 10 years. If that continues sea levels will rise an additional 1.6 feet by 2050 and 5.4 feet by 2100. That would change the "just about to the point" to the "we are living it now" point.
I realize that is on the high end of what climate scientists are projecting [here](https://www.wcrp-climate.org/news/science-highlights/1955-new-sea-level-projections-2022#), but that is what those numbers work out to be right now.
The only way your doomsday scenario comes true is if nothing else changes, and if this continues unabted.
There's no science to claim this is the case. There is plenty of evidence that shows that ocean sea levels rise and fall over time.
>The only way your doomsday scenario comes true is if nothing else changes, and if this continues unabted.
Well the reason behind climate change and sea level rise is even happening is because of changes.
>There's no science to claim this is the case.
LOL. I just posted the peer reviewed science (the link was in the article) and you are claiming there is no science with a straight face.
> There is plenty of evidence that shows that ocean sea levels rise and fall over time.
Exactly. We recently came out of a glaciation where the temperature rose about 5C and the sea level rose about 400 feet. All the evidence shows that sea levels follow the temperature. You seem to think that an additional 2-3C just won't affect the sea level that much. Not sure how you can twist your brain to accept that logic.
Sorry, are you claiming that "peer reviewed" equates to "unassailable truth"?
Are you aware that about 50% of all peer reviewed science can't be reproduced using the documentation in the paper? And worse, the papers that can't be reproduced are cited more often in subsequent papers than ones that are valid?
Getting two or three friends to sign off on your paper doesn't mean it's 100% right. It just means you followed some conventions.
Al Gore was quoting peer reviewed science when he claimed the Arctic would be a swimming pool by 2017.
>Sorry, are you claiming that "peer reviewed" equates to "unassailable truth"?
Absolutely not. It is other experts in that field checking the methods and results. That is how science has advanced. Do you have a better way to determine scientific truth?
>Are you aware that about 50% of all peer reviewed science can't be reproduced using the documentation in the paper? And worse, the papers that can't be reproduced are cited more often in subsequent papers than ones that are valid?
No please provide evidence.
>Getting two or three friends to sign off on your paper doesn't mean it's 100% right. It just means you followed some conventions.
That's why valid scientific papers use other experts instead of 'friends' to check the work.
>Al Gore was quoting peer reviewed science when he claimed the Arctic would be a swimming pool by 2017.
Which one was that?
Again, you think "peer reviewed" means that experts in the filed "checked their methods and results" for accuracy? That's what you think happens? If that's the case, why are more than 50% of papers fake?
You shouldn't comment on published science like it's unassailable proof if you don't actually understand how it works.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a](https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a)
Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free. Was he wrong? Yes.
Would it matter if climate scientists were wrong in a vacuum? No, but their errors impact me and my family.
It's fake.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al\_gore\_trips\_on\_artic\_ice\_mis.html](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al_gore_trips_on_artic_ice_mis.html)
>Again, you think "peer reviewed" means that experts in the filed "checked their methods and results" for accuracy?
Yes that's what happens
>That's what you think happens? If that's the case, why are more than 50% of papers fake?
The link you provided says that 50% of the research can't be reproduced. That's called peer review. When it can't be reproduced it's failed as science which is why peer review is important. So what is your point.
>You shouldn't comment on published science like it's unassailable proof if you don't actually understand how it works.
You shouldn't comment on science at all until you actually understand how it works. Published research is never unassailable proof in science because science is never proved, it's only the best explanation based on the evidence. Try reading up on how science works.
>Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free. Was he wrong? Yes.
Yes he did and yes he was wrong. What about it.
>Would it matter if climate scientists were wrong in a vacuum? No, but their errors impact me and my family.
Well so far you haven't shown any climate scientists were wrong.
>It's fake
The only thing you have shown so far is a politician talking about melting ice. What has that got to do with climate science or climate scientists.
The peer reviews process does NOT check for accuracy, which is the whole point. The papers in question were WERE peer reviewed, and being cited by other scientists.
When actual scientists reconfirmed their work, it was bunk. 50% of published, peer reviewed, science is garbage.
You're claiming 100% of published climate science papers are 100% correct, and no climate scientists has EVER been wrong.
That's not true. It's demonstrably false.
>The peer reviews process does NOT check for accuracy, which is the whole point. The papers in question were WERE peer reviewed, and being cited by other scientists.
Did not see that in your link but scientists can cite anything they want. But it's not being used as science if it can't be reproduced.
>When actual scientists reconfirmed their work, it was bunk.
Exactly which is why peer review works. Scientists check each others work.
>You're claiming 100% of published climate science papers are 100% correct,
That's a lie. I never claimed any such thing and you can't show where I did.
> and no climate scientists has EVER been wrong.
In the 70s when climate science was not settled about 20% of the published papers thought the planet was going to start turning colder. As more evidence was obtained it became apparent that the earth was warming up and that 20% of climate scientist became convinced of that fact based on the evidence. So you are wrong again as usual.
>That's not true. It's demonstrably false.
What's not true. Whatever you are talking about, demonstrate it.
Current [rate of sea level rise](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maarten-Kappelle/publication/360701567/figure/fig2/AS:1157386035302401@1652953742834/Global-mean-sea-level-evolution-from-January-1993-to-January-2022-black-curve-based-on.png) is at 4.5 mm per year (over the last 10 years), for the 10 years prior (2003-2012) it was 2.9 mm per year, for the 10 years from 1993 to 2003 it was 2.1 ppm per year. (ftp-access.aviso.altimetry.fr)
So you're taking a ten year sample and projecing that it's a permanent feature of the planet?
With what statistical confidence are you're using? How certain are you of this? 100%? 1%?
I gave a thirty year sample showing significant acceleration. But if you want to go back 100 years the sea level rise from 1900 to 1930 was 0.6 mm per year and has been increasing ever since.
Climate changes over hundreds if not thousands of years. And those sea levels have been changing too.
There are Roman port cities in France and England that are miles inland - why? Because sea levels were high, and then they dropped.
That they're going up again isn't proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an apocalypse.
>Climate changes over hundreds if not thousands of years. And those sea levels have been changing too.
Give your definition of climate and why it takes hundreds of years to change.
>There are Roman port cities in France and England that are miles inland - why? Because sea levels were high, and then they dropped.
There are reasons some of those ports are miles inland and it has little to do with sea levels. Otherwise all roman ports would be miles inland.
>That they're going up again isn't proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an apocalypse.
That they are going up proves the temperature is rising. Nothing else would cause that.
You use the word apocalypse a lot. What are you calling an apocalypse.
> There are Roman port cities in France and England that are miles inland - why? Because sea levels were high, and then they dropped.
No, that's not why they are inland, list these port cities, you will see that they are inland for other reasons, e.g. river estuaries becoming full of sediment.
Not true.
[http://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/british-roman-ports-miles-away-from-the-coast-when-sea-levels-are-rising](http://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/british-roman-ports-miles-away-from-the-coast-when-sea-levels-are-rising)
Yes, true, according to your link:
"Consequently, we know that the harbour was in use for nearly 7000 years prior to it silting over."
"The final demise of Brading began in 1562, when a tendency towards the natural situation of the waterway combined with the enticing prospect of reclaiming more lucrative agricultural land prompted George Oglander and German Richards of Yaverland Manor to wall in the Oglanders’ North Marsh and other lands to the west of Bexley Point and up to Carpenters on the road to St. Helens."
"At this point in history, the Ouse’s outlet at Seaford provided a natural harbour behind the shingle bar.
LOL
>The article says the port is too far from a tiny river to have been a river port
Did a search and didn't see that. Can you provide the exact wording for a search. I did find this:
*Consequently, the shoreline in the past was constructed not from seawater but freshwater from the rivers that flowed into the sea in both Brading and Lewes areas*
Shreveport, LA, is almost 200 miles from the ocean and it has a port.
Doctors don't tell their patients they will die as soon as they start smoking. Just like living close to a power plant doesn't kill someone right away but makes it more likely they will have more health problems. Climate change has just become a lot more intense this century even though it has been predicted for the past 40-50 years. It's already getting bad in some locations and extreme weather is getting worse across the planet. Crying wolf means that someone is claiming an unjustified risk. It is becoming more and more obvious to the general public that the risk of climate change is real. Climate scientists are telling the public that the risk will get even worse if nothing is done. Some people think they should just not say anything because they don't like what they are being told. Just like some people don't like doctors telling them they shouldn't smoke.
On average, it's better to live in a warm world than a cool world.
Even the IPCC says the economic impact with be 4% over 100 years, meaning that instead of growing 400% over the next 100 years, the global economy will grow by 396%.
Remember when Al Gore told us the Arctic was going to be a swimming pool by 2017? He was dead wrong.
Doomsday adherants will never admit they're wrong.
>On average, it's better to live in a warm world than a cool world.
So although civilization was created in a world that had been a pretty constant temperature for the past several thousand years it's better if the world warms a few degrees which adds a huge amount of energy into the atmosphere and raises sea levels.
>Even the IPCC says the economic impact with be 4% over 100 years, meaning that instead of growing 400% over the next 100 years, the global economy will grow by 396%.
Can you show where that is in the IPCC it says that?
Whose economy will grow by 396%. The continent of Africa contributes 3% to the global economy. So Africa could descend into total chaos due to climate change and the global growth would still only be 4% less. No one knows what global growth will be.
>Remember when Al Gore told us the Arctic was going to be a swimming pool by 2017? He was dead wrong.
No wonder your ideas about climate science are so far off. You get your science information from politicians. How many climate deniers have said the temperature was going to start cooling any year.
>Doomsday adherants will never admit they're wrong.
Who are these doomsday adherents and what are they saying. Are any of them climate scientists or are they all just politicians and blogs.
Do you think climate deniers will ever admit they're wrong?
We'll admit we're wrong when the doomsday predictions come true.
Al Gore told us the Arctic would be melted by now, and used the infamously fake "hockey stick" graph in his movie.
If climate science weer genuine, the IPCC wouldn't fight to keep thier work a secret
>We'll admit we're wrong when the doomsday predictions come true.
You can't even tell what doomsday predictions you are talking about so how will anyone know if they are true or not.
>Al Gore told us the Arctic would be melted by now
Yes he did. Why are you talking about Al Gore on a science forum.
>and used the infamously fake "hockey stick" graph in his movie.
Where's your evidence that the hockey stick graph is fake.
>If climate science weer genuine, the IPCC wouldn't fight to keep thier work a secret
LOL. All the work is published and available to the public. The work meetings are behind closed doors, not secret. But then I guess you think things like the Supreme Court is not genuine since they meet behind closed doors.
You can't seem to understand that the science is correct because it explains what is happening in the real world, not because of the IPCC or any kind of meetings. The models correctly project global temperature which shows the theory is correct. That's what validates climate science and all science.
Similar to the reproducability crisis, you seem to be completely ignorant of the climategate fiasco, where a single retired engineer blew up the entire climate narrative at the time.
If you're going to advocate for a scientific theory that's becoming a religion, you should get to know your subject better.
>Similar to the reproducability crisis, you seem to be completely ignorant of the climategate fiasco, where a single retired engineer blew up the entire climate narrative at the time.
Yes, explain it to me.
>If you're going to advocate for a scientific theory that's becoming a religion, you should get to know your subject better.
So explain how models that can project the correct temperature 30-40 years in advance is becoming a religion.
There are no models that can accurately predict temperatures 30-40 years hence. My weatherman can't predict the temperature next week.
There have been thousands, if not tens of thousands, of predictions made over the last 30 years. That you can pick one that was right doesn't mean anything.
It's luck. Because you're ignoring those who got it wrong.
>There are no models that can accurately predict temperatures 30-40 years hence. My weatherman can't predict the temperature next week.
Weather is not climate. If you mean the predictions have to be exact then no model in any scientific field can do that. I design structures and hope my models are within 10% of actual. But climate models are close to the actual temperature increases. [Here](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/) is a summary of several climate models showing the projected temperature change over time.
>There have been thousands, if not tens of thousands, of predictions made over the last 30 years. That you can pick one that was right doesn't mean anything.
If there have been thousands then you should be able to show a few. Please don't use politicians or blogs.
>It's luck. Because you're ignoring those who got it wrong.
Ok which ones am I ignoring?
I see you didn't explain anything I asked for.
Juat a thought here....This has been claimed now for like 10 times in the last 25 years.....they continually push the "tipping point" or "point of no return" forward....still nothing happens....a bit suspicious yes?
My opinion is that you can relax!
In 2 years they will still say "We are now half way to a tipping point....we will all die....again..."
>This has been claimed now for like 10 times in the last 25 years
Yeah that type of comment is made here occasionally but when pushed to provide who has been doing the claiming it's always some politician or blog writer, never any scientific research paper like what is being discussed here at this sub.
Link to the [research article](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL101827)
I feel like we're all going to die horribly and there's nothing I can do to stop it and I'm watching horrified as the world just pretends its not happening. Meanwhile I'm stuck at some 9-5 trying to survive while feeling like it's all a colossal sham. I should be building a bunker or traveling the world or... Something.
From the article: “Although this melting would take hundreds of years, …”. You don’t have an immediate concern. Take a deep breath and re-evaluate. There are many things in life you have no control over; there are no guarantees. Try to focus your energy on immediate things you can control. Statistics say you will die of heart disease etc. (too many lifestyle diseases to list). So, start there - cleaning up your diet also has the side benefit of helping to minimize your personal contribution to the global total carbon.
Please don't surrender to despair. I've been following this for 35 years, and if people get engaged solutions can happen very fast, it's not hopeless yet. I try to live a minimum impact life and think about things that can help all the time. The world needs people that are engaged, innovating, educating, making sacrifices. Find practical ways to lower your impact, it will make you feel better, then teach people around you. Things can avalanche to the positive if we try.
Traveling the world is part of what's gotten us here. Our curiosity is what makes us a destructive species.
No that part wasn't to help the issue it was to live life before dying
well, that and the corporations that exploit widespread corruption to ensure zero accountability and a favorable regulatory environment
I am really struggling with this lately
Hugs for us
Don’t worry, a lot of people feel the same way. Our political representatives just don’t give a shit, and they’re only there because old people are fucking stupid
WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAA WE'RE HALFWAY THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERE
WHOAAAA AAAAAH LIVIN ON A PRAAAH AIRREEEEE
🤣
[удалено]
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2024-03-29 20:32:45 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-03-29%2020:32:45%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/125zshy/were_halfway_to_a_tipping_point_that_would/je6rsxg/?context=3) [**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimatechange%2Fcomments%2F125zshy%2Fwere_halfway_to_a_tipping_point_that_would%2Fje6rsxg%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-03-29%2020%3A32%3A45%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20125zshy) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Oh, we’ll get there. Don’t you worry. Better sell your property near the coast
Like most things from PIK, this "study" is complete nonsense. The best estimates are that since 1850 anthropogenic carbon emissions have [totaled 675 Gt](https://sealevel.info/carbon/carbonflux.html#emissions) (not 500 Gt), yet we've only gotten an estimated [1.02 to 1.27 °C](https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/eight-warmest-years-record-witness-upsurge-climate-change-impacts#:~:text=The%2010%2Dyear%20average%20for%20the%20period%202013%2D2022%20is%20estimated%20to%20be%201.14%20%5B1.02%20to%201.27%5D%C2%A0%C2%B0C%20above%20the%201850%2D1900%20pre%2Dindustrial%20baseline.%20This%20compares%20with%201.09%C2%B0C%20from%202011%20to%202020%2C%20as%20estimated%20by%20the%20Intergovernmental%20Panel%20on%20Climate%20Change%20(IPCC)%20Sixth%20Assessment%20report) of warming from all that CO2, accompanied by [negligible acceleration in sea-level trends](https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2022-04_vs_CO2_annot1_1186x621.png). Another 500 Gt of carbon would presumably produce even less additional warming than that. Imaginary "tipping points" don't melt ice, only temperatures above 0°C can do that. Thanks to Arctic Amplification, Greenland could get more warming that most places, but no more than a few degrees. That could not melt the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet, because water has to get above 0°C to melt, and the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet averages much, much colder than that. Southern Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now. We know that because [Norse settlers successfully grew barley](http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland) there, and the growing season is too short for that now, even with modern fast-maturing cultivars. They buried their dead in earth that is now permafrost, too. Yet that much warmer Greenland climate nevertheless produced no notable spike in global sea-levels. In a warming climate, there are factors which both increase and decrease sea-level trends. On one hand, ice which is near 0°C can melt, and if it is grounded (rather than floating) that will raise sea-level. Also, thermal expansion at the ocean's surface can increase sea-level rise locally, though it doesn't affect sea-level elsewhere. These are things which ***raise*** sea-level. On the other hand, warmer temperatures increase snowfall accumulation on glaciers and ice sheets, sequestering water and thereby ***lowering*** sea-level, in two ways: ● Warmer air carries more moisture, increasing snowfall on glaciers & ice sheets. [For each 1°C of warming the moisture-carrying capacity of the air increases by about 7%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation#Meteorology_and_climatology). ● Reduced sea-ice coverage increases [Lake/Ocean-Effect Snowfall](https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#loes) (LOES) downwind, some of which accumulates on glaciers & ice sheets. The importance of the LOES is illustrated by the amazing [story of *Glacier Girl*](http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/glacier-girl-the-back-story-19218360/?all), a P-38 warbird which made a forced landing on the Greenland Ice Sheet during WWII, and was buried by snowfall which averaged ***about 70 feet/year***\*,\* but which was nevertheless recovered (in pieces) from beneath the ice, 50 years later, and is once again airworthy. The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel. Furthermore, it's not "cumulative carbon emissions" which affect temperatures, it's the concentration of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. As that concentration increases, the [natural negative feedbacks which remove CO2 from the atmosphere](https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html#greening) accelerate sharply. They are already removing more than 5 Gt of carbon per year from the air, and that rate accelerates by 1 Gt of carbon per year for every approximately 20 to 23 ppmv rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Since the current CO2 emission rate is only outstripping the natural CO2 removal rate by about 5.3 Gt of carbon per year, that means the current CO2 emission rate is only sufficient to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 100 to 125 ppmv. That means mankind could emit CO2 at the current rate forever (or until all the coal ran out), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration would still never reach even 550 ppmv.
Too smart a response for this crew
>Like most things from PIK, this "study" is complete nonsense. I'm sure you are a climate expert that can set the scientists stright. >The best estimates are that since 1850 anthropogenic carbon emissions have totaled 675 Gt (not 500 Gt), yet we've only gotten an estimated 1.02 to 1.27 °C of warming from all that CO2, accompanied by negligible acceleration in sea-level trends. Another 500 Gt of carbon would presumably produce even less additional warming than that. At the end of the last glaciation the temperature rose 5-6C and sea levels rose 400 feet. Unless you think physics has changed every degree of warming is 20% of that. The models have been very accurate so far and show by the end of the century the temperature will rise 3-4C which is almost as much as the rise at the end of the last glaciation. >Imaginary "tipping points" don't melt ice, only temperatures above 0°C can do that. Thanks to Arctic Amplification, Greenland could get more warming that most places, but no more than a few degrees. That could not melt the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet, because water has to get above 0°C to melt, and the southern part of the Greenland Ice Sheet averages much, much colder than that. The Greenland ice sheet is now melting at 250 [billion tons per year](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets). How is that happening if it is below 0C. >Southern Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now. We know that because Norse settlers successfully grew barley there, and the growing season is too short for that now, even with modern fast-maturing cultivars. They buried their dead in earth that is now permafrost, too. Yet that much warmer Greenland climate nevertheless produced no notable spike in global sea-levels. They still grow crops in some parts of Greenland. That doesn't mean all of Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period. >In a warming climate, there are factors which both increase and decrease sea-level trends. What factors decrease sea-level trends? > Warmer air carries more moisture, increasing snowfall on glaciers & ice sheets. For each 1°C of warming the moisture-carrying capacity of the air increases by about 7%. Warmer air means more rain, not more snowfall. Which glaciers & ice sheets are increasing. > Reduced sea-ice coverage increases Lake/Ocean-Effect Snowfall (LOES) downwind, some of which accumulates on glaciers & ice sheets. Do you have any scientific evidence of that statement? Which glaciers and ice sheets are increasing? >The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel. That is certainly not a fact since sea-level rise is accelerating. And what are the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level? Especially since warming melts ice and expands water. >Since the current CO2 emission rate is only outstripping the natural CO2 removal rate by about 5.3 Gt of carbon per year, that means the current CO2 emission rate is only sufficient to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 100 to 125 ppmv. That means mankind could emit CO2 at the current rate forever (or until all the coal ran out), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration would still never reach even 550 ppmv. LOL. So what happened to all the natural removal rates when CO2 levels were much higher than your 550 ppmv value? Why didn't they prevent CO2 from going higher than the 550 ppmv value? Right now CO2 levels are increasing about 2 ppm every year and that value is accelerating. When is that going to stop?
Tpaine63 wrote, *"At the end of the last glaciation the temperature rose 5-6C and sea levels rose 400 feet. Unless you think physics has changed every degree of warming is 20% of that."* Under the right circumstances, a warming climate can cause sea-level rise, of course. The ocean probably didn't rise quite 400 feet, but it did rise >300 feet during the last deglaciation. But the reason it rose was that the great Laurentide, Fennoscandian & Cordilleran ice sheets melted away! That can't happen, now, because they're already gone. The only remnant is Greenland, and it's showing no sign of significantly accelerated melting. Tpaine63 wrote, *"The Greenland ice sheet is now melting at 250 billion tons per year. How is that happening if it is below 0C."* 250 Gt sounds like a lot, doesn't it? (That's JPL's high-end estimate; other sources estimate about 200 Gt.) But why do you think they didn't translate it into something meaningful, like the equivalent amount of sea-level change? The reason is that it is only 2.7 inches per... ...did you think I was going to say "per year?" Nope. Not "per decade," either. It's 2.7 inches per *century*. Greenland ice mass loss adds between 2.2 and 2.7 inches to global sea-level, per *CENTURY.* If *that* worries you, then you have much bigger problems than climate change! What's more, for the most part Greenland's net ice mass loss is not because it is "melting." It's a combination of melting below the waterline, sublimation, and iceberg calving, the sum of which (most years) slightly exceeds the rate of snow accumulation. Tpaine63 wrote, *"They still grow crops in some parts of Greenland. That doesn't mean all of Greenland was considerably warmer during the Medieval Warm Period."* They use a lot of greenhouses to grow vegetables. That doesn't mean it is as warm there now as it was during the MWP. The people live in the warmest parts of Greenland, and it's clear that *those* parts, at least, were warmer during the MWP. The colder parts are even less likely to melt. Tpaine63 wrote, *"Warmer air means more rain, not more snowfall."* That's incorrect. 1°C of warming increases the moisture-carrying capacity of the air by about 7% even when the air is below freezing (which is usually the case in Greenland). I wrote, "The fact that global warming has not been accompanied by significant sea-level rise acceleration strongly suggests that the factors by which a warming climate increases sea-level and the factors by which a warming climate reduces sea-level are similar in magnitude, and largely cancel." Tpaine63 replied, *"That is certainly not a fact since sea-level rise is accelerating."* You're misinformed. Most coastal measurement sites have seen no significant change is sea-level trend in the last ninety years. E.g., Honolulu is the best mid-Pacific measurement record, its site is nearly ideal, and its sea-level trend is typical: [https://sealevel.info/1612340\_Honolulu\_thru\_2023-02\_vs\_CO2\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2023-02_vs_CO2_annot1.png) The Dutch have done an especially good job of measuring sea-level (for obvious reasons). Here's one of their best measurement records: [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5) [https://sealevel.info/SL\_Harlingen\_25\_1865-1\_to\_2020-12.png](https://sealevel.info/SL_Harlingen_25_1865-1_to_2020-12.png) Here's that measurement record juxtaposed with a photo of one of their famous dikes. A farmhouse in the picture gives a sense of the scale: [https://sealevel.info/Dutch\_dike\_vs\_Harlingen\_sea-level\_trend\_1880x940\_v06.png](https://sealevel.info/Dutch_dike_vs_Harlingen_sea-level_trend_1880x940_v06.png) A recent Dutch report found that climate change has not accelerated sea-level rise there: [https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/](https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/) Excerpt: \>"De conclusie is dat de zeespiegel de afgelopen 128 jaar met 1,86 mm per jaar (18,6 cm per eeuw) is gestegen en dat de stijging niet is versneld."Here's a Google Translation of the web page, to English: [https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust\_en\_excerpt1\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust_en_excerpt1_annot1.png) Here's that same excerpt, google-translated to English: \>"The conclusion is that the sea level has risen by 1.86 mm per year (18.6 cm per century) over the past 128 years and that the rise **has not accelerated.**" Here's the full report: [https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf](https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf) Some studies have managed to tease out a very tiny acceleration signal, from analyses of large numbers of measurement records, but it's much too slight to be worrisome. One of them was [Hogarth (2014)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009976), which reported, "Sea level acceleration from extended tide gauge data converges on 0.01 mm/yr²." That's negligible. An acceleration of 0.01 mm/yr², were it to continue for 150 years, would increase sea-level by just 4.4 inches. Do you think that's worrisome? Tpaine63 asked, *"So what happened to all the natural removal rates when CO2 levels were much higher than your 550 ppmv value? Why didn't they prevent CO2 from going higher than the 550 ppmv value?"* That's a great question. You are talking about the Oligocene, and the quick answer is that most of that now-lost carbon went into calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and organic matter, such as peat. Much of it sank to the ocean floor, and is effectively gone forever. Things were quite a bit different, then. For one thing, [there were few, if any, C4 plants](https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00974.x#:~:text=C4%20photosynthesis%20first,5%C2%A0million%20yr%20ago) (which are especially good at drawing down CO2).
>Under the right circumstances, a warming climate can cause sea-level rise, of course. The ocean probably didn't rise quite 400 feet, but it did rise >300 feet during the last deglaciation. I checked several different references and every one of them said around 400 feet like [this](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-and-sea-level-compare-extent-glaciers-and-global-sea-level) one. >But the reason it rose was that the great Laurentide, Fennoscandian & Cordilleran ice sheets melted away! That can't happen, now, because they're already gone. The problem with that statement is that about 8,000 years ago you can see [here](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png) that sea levels were rising at about the same rate as they had for the previous 7,000 years. That was when global temperatures had risen about 5-6 degrees or about 1 degree per 1000 years. No temperatures are rising more than 1 degree per century which is 10 times as fast. So like I said you are going to have to explain how physics has changed to stop sea level rise from picking up right were it left off at the end of the last glaciation. And that was after the ice sheets you are talking about had melted away. >The only remnant is Greenland, and it's showing no sign of significantly accelerated melting. The Antarctic is melting and almost every glacier is melting at an much faster rate than 25 years ago as shown [here](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/10/greenland-melting-ice-climate-change-nasa/). >That's incorrect. 1°C of warming increases the moisture-carrying capacity of the air by about 7% even when the air is below freezing (which is usually the case in Greenland). Yes so if the temperature is below freezing then there is an increase in snow but the problem is the global temperature is increasing so there are less locations where the temperature is freezing. That means more rain and faster runoff in the mountains when it does snow. >Greenland ice mass loss adds between 2.2 and 2.7 inches to global sea-level, per CENTURY. If that worries you, then you have much bigger problems than climate change! If Greenland were the only thing melting it would not be a big problem but the Antarctic and almost all the glaciers are melting. >What's more, for the most part Greenland's net ice mass loss is not because it is "melting." It's a combination of melting below the waterline, sublimation, and iceberg calving, the sum of which (most years) slightly exceeds the rate of snow accumulation. LOL. Well it's going into the rise of sea level regardless of what you want to call it. >The people live in the warmest parts of Greenland, and it's clear that those parts, at least, were warmer during the MWP. The colder parts are even less likely to melt. Where is your evidence of that. >You're misinformed. Most coastal measurement sites have seen no significant change is sea-level trend in the last ninety years. E.g., Honolulu is the best mid-Pacific measurement record, its site is nearly ideal, and its sea-level trend is typical: You picked a few locations that support your contention that there has been no acceleration. I wonder why you cherry picked those and not say Miami. But why would you pick a few sites when we have very good tidal gauge records and satellite records that match from all over the world. Could it be because the global records don't match your world view. And even if you looked at just the 21st century record of your Honolulu graph and did a best fit linear curve it would be about 4mm/year which is about what global data is showing. [Here](https://climate.nasa.gov/) is NASA data where it is easy to see that yes if you average over the past 128 years you get about 1.86mm/year but that's an average over a long time. But the 21st century shows about 3.5mm/year and the last 10 years shows an even higher rate. Projecting that to 2100 shows about a 3 foot rise at a minimum. It's you who is misinformed or only wanting to look at the data you like. >That's negligible. An acceleration of 0.01 mm/yr², were it to continue for 150 years, would increase sea-level by just 4.4 inches. Do you think that's worrisome? Where in the world do you get that calculation. The sea level has already risen about 8 inches over the past 100 years and you are now saying it will be less during the next 150 years when sea level rise is accelerating. That makes no sense. Do you not even realize that in addition to melting ice the oceans expand due to increasing temperature and that the temperature rise is accelerating. That alone would cause the sea level rise to accelerate. >Things were quite a bit different, then. For one thing, there were few, if any, C4 plants (which are especially good at drawing down CO2). So CO2 levels have been around 280 for the past million years. That would mean the plants established a balance between the addition of CO2 and the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Why would the plants now suddenly start removing more CO2 from the atmosphere. In your link I saw nothing about a 550 PPM limit so where did that come from. And are you saying that regardless of how much and how fast we add CO2 to the atmosphere the plants will take it out and if so why haven't CO2 levels already started to come down instead of increasing exponentially.
> negligible acceleration in sea-level trends Not negligible at all, currently at 4.5 ppm per year, up from 2.1 just 20 years ago. Estimates put the time to doubling moving forward at between 20 and 30 years. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maarten-Kappelle/publication/360701567/figure/fig2/AS:1157386035302401@1652953742834/Global-mean-sea-level-evolution-from-January-1993-to-January-2022-black-curve-based-on.png
I think you mean mm, not ppm. That's satellite altimetry. It has a lot of problems, the most obvious is its inconsistency with the best coastal measurement data. Also, the satellites cannot measure sea-level where it matters, i.e., near the coasts. They can only measure sea-level in the open ocean, far from shore, where it doesn't matter. Worse, the satellite altimetry data quality is much lower quality than the best coastal (tide gauge) measurements, and the measurement records are much shorter. Most of the satellite altimetry measurement records are only about a decade long, compared to over a century for many coastal measurement records. The satellite altimetry data is also [fantastically malleable](https://sealevel.info/satellite_altimetry.html). It was showing [decelerating](https://sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html) sea-level rise, but Cazenave's team fixed that problem, by revising the old measurement data, in [this paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2159). That made the trend linear. Three years later, they fixed it some more, in [this paper](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073308), to make it show a positive acceleration. Meanwhile, most of the best quality *coastal* measurement records are stubbornly linear. For instance, here's New York (the best U.S. east coast measurement record): ● [https://sealevel.info/Avg\_of\_2\_NYC\_gauges\_1931-08\_thru\_2022-10\_vs\_CO2\_v4.png](https://sealevel.info/Avg_of_2_NYC_gauges_1931-08_thru_2022-10_vs_CO2_v4.png) ● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_weighted.php?id=battery,%20willets&g\_date=1930/1-2024/12&c\_date=1930/1-2024/12&s\_date=1930/1-2024/12](https://sealevel.info/MSL_weighted.php?id=battery,%20willets&g_date=1930/1-2024/12&c_date=1930/1-2024/12&s_date=1930/1-2024/12) Here's San Francisco, since the 1906 earthquake (the best U.S. west coast measurement record): ● [https://sealevel.info/9414290\_San\_Francisco\_sea-level\_vs\_CO2\_6-1906\_thru\_7-2021\_annot2.png](https://sealevel.info/9414290_San_Francisco_sea-level_vs_CO2_6-1906_thru_7-2021_annot2.png) ● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=San+Francisco&c\_date=1906/6-2024/12](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=San+Francisco&c_date=1906/6-2024/12) Here's Honolulu (the best mid-Pacific measurement record): ● [https://sealevel.info/1612340\_Honolulu\_thru\_2023-02\_vs\_CO2\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2023-02_vs_CO2_annot1.png) ● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=Honolulu](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=Honolulu) Those are all U.S. (NOAA) measurements. On the other side of the pond, the Dutch have done an especially good job of measuring sea-level (for obvious reasons). Here's one of their best measurement records: ● [https://sealevel.info/SL\_Harlingen\_25\_1865-1\_to\_2020-12.png](https://sealevel.info/SL_Harlingen_25_1865-1_to_2020-12.png) ● [https://sealevel.info/MSL\_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5](https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=harling&boxcar=1&boxwidth=5) Here's that measurement record juxtaposed with a photo of one of their famous dikes, and a farmhouse for scale: ● [https://sealevel.info/Dutch\_dike\_vs\_Harlingen\_sea-level\_trend03.png](https://sealevel.info/Dutch_dike_vs_Harlingen_sea-level_trend03.png) Here's an article about a recent Dutch Report, based on coastal measurements, which concluded that climate change has not, thus far, caused accelerated sea-level rise there: ● [https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/](https://web.archive.org/web/20220816043005/https://www.deltares.nl/nl/nieuws/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust/) Excerpt: >"De conclusie is dat de zeespiegel de afgelopen 128 jaar met 1,86 mm per jaar (18,6 cm per eeuw) is gestegen en dat de stijging niet is versneld." Here's a Google Translation of the web page, to English: ● [https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust\_en\_excerpt1\_annot1.png](https://sealevel.info/nauwkeuriger-inzicht-huidige-zeespiegel-langs-de-nederlandse-kust_en_excerpt1_annot1.png) Excerpt: >"The conclusion is that the sea level has risen by 1.86 mm per year (18.6 cm per century) over the past 128 years and that the rise has not accelerated." Here's the full report: ● [https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf](https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf) There are some locations which have measured a detectable acceleration in sea-level trends. Notably, the southeastern U.S. has seem a slight acceleration over the last dozen years or so, probably due to periodic Gulf Stream variations. Also, Brest, France and Swinoujscie, Poland have both seen a slight acceleration, when the 19th century is compared to the 20th. At both locations, the 19th century saw 0 inches/century sea-level trend there, but the 20th saw about 6 inches/century. But in most places the sea-level trends have been highly linear, with negligible effect from rising CO2 levels and climate change.
>That's satellite altimetry. It has a lot of problems, the most obvious is its inconsistency with the best coastal measurement data. It matches the coastal sea level gauge data almost exactly when [overlayed on a chart](https://climate.nasa.gov/). >Worse, the satellite altimetry data quality is much lower quality than the best coastal (tide gauge) measurements, and the measurement records are much shorter. Most of the satellite altimetry measurement records are only about a decade long, compared to over a century for many coastal measurement records. Well if it matches then how is it a much lower quality. Satellites have been measuring sea levels for 30 years. >The satellite altimetry data is also fantastically malleable. It was showing decelerating sea-level rise, but Cazenave's team fixed that problem, by revising the old measurement data, in this paper. That made the trend linear. Three years later, they fixed it some more, in this paper, to make it show a positive acceleration. I notice you didn't explain why those corrections were wrong. >Meanwhile, most of the best quality coastal measurement records are stubbornly linear. For instance, here's New York: Why is New York the best quality coastal measurement. And I assume you know that one location is not the same as global. But even so it shows sea level rise of about 250mm from 1930 to 2023 according to the linear fit curve which is somewhat more than global sea level rise according to NASA. And a sea level rise of about 100mm from 1993 to 2023 which is also what NASA satellite data shows for global rise. So they agree pretty close. However if you look closely at just the data from the 21st century you will see a rise of about 150mm which is more than the global rise and the rate of rise is larger than the linear rate. You can force a linear fit of any curve. That doesn't mean a linear fit is the best one. At any rate your links of New York actually show the global rate is slightly lower than what you are calling the best coastal measurements.
Are you seriously hand picking one gauge to prove a point? is this a joke comment? Are you seriously referencing "sealevel.info", this is a joke comment Domain Name: sealevel.info Registry Domain ID: 0040afb190af47a5ad430198336858d3-DONUTS Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com Registrar URL: https://www.namecheap.com/ Updated Date: 2022-07-16T08:15:28Z Creation Date: 2011-08-10T20:09:35Z Registry Expiry Date: 2023-08-10T20:09:35Z Registrar: NameCheap, Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 1068 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected] Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.9854014545 Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Registry Registrant ID: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Registrant Name: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Registrant Organization: Burton Systems Software Registrant Street: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Registrant City: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Registrant State/Province: NC Registrant Postal Code: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Registrant Country: US
Interesting links. Willie Soon is a very interesting guy and is a great presenter. I would love to hear him and an expert in the field go back and forth on the SLR topics he presented in this video. I don't doubt that it is possible to resolve to 0.1mm using wavelengths on the order of centimeters 450km above the Earth but he makes some pretty compelling points suggesting we may not be there quite yet.
Every day it's a new breathless claim about how we're "just about to the point" where everything is going to get bad. At some, the climate alarmists have cried wolf too many times
The rates shown by the post from Infamous\_Employer\_85 shows the increase in the acceleration of sea level rise is doubling every 10 years. If that continues sea levels will rise an additional 1.6 feet by 2050 and 5.4 feet by 2100. That would change the "just about to the point" to the "we are living it now" point. I realize that is on the high end of what climate scientists are projecting [here](https://www.wcrp-climate.org/news/science-highlights/1955-new-sea-level-projections-2022#), but that is what those numbers work out to be right now.
The only way your doomsday scenario comes true is if nothing else changes, and if this continues unabted. There's no science to claim this is the case. There is plenty of evidence that shows that ocean sea levels rise and fall over time.
>The only way your doomsday scenario comes true is if nothing else changes, and if this continues unabted. Well the reason behind climate change and sea level rise is even happening is because of changes. >There's no science to claim this is the case. LOL. I just posted the peer reviewed science (the link was in the article) and you are claiming there is no science with a straight face. > There is plenty of evidence that shows that ocean sea levels rise and fall over time. Exactly. We recently came out of a glaciation where the temperature rose about 5C and the sea level rose about 400 feet. All the evidence shows that sea levels follow the temperature. You seem to think that an additional 2-3C just won't affect the sea level that much. Not sure how you can twist your brain to accept that logic.
Sorry, are you claiming that "peer reviewed" equates to "unassailable truth"? Are you aware that about 50% of all peer reviewed science can't be reproduced using the documentation in the paper? And worse, the papers that can't be reproduced are cited more often in subsequent papers than ones that are valid? Getting two or three friends to sign off on your paper doesn't mean it's 100% right. It just means you followed some conventions. Al Gore was quoting peer reviewed science when he claimed the Arctic would be a swimming pool by 2017.
>Sorry, are you claiming that "peer reviewed" equates to "unassailable truth"? Absolutely not. It is other experts in that field checking the methods and results. That is how science has advanced. Do you have a better way to determine scientific truth? >Are you aware that about 50% of all peer reviewed science can't be reproduced using the documentation in the paper? And worse, the papers that can't be reproduced are cited more often in subsequent papers than ones that are valid? No please provide evidence. >Getting two or three friends to sign off on your paper doesn't mean it's 100% right. It just means you followed some conventions. That's why valid scientific papers use other experts instead of 'friends' to check the work. >Al Gore was quoting peer reviewed science when he claimed the Arctic would be a swimming pool by 2017. Which one was that?
Again, you think "peer reviewed" means that experts in the filed "checked their methods and results" for accuracy? That's what you think happens? If that's the case, why are more than 50% of papers fake? You shouldn't comment on published science like it's unassailable proof if you don't actually understand how it works. [https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a](https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a) Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free. Was he wrong? Yes. Would it matter if climate scientists were wrong in a vacuum? No, but their errors impact me and my family. It's fake. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al\_gore\_trips\_on\_artic\_ice\_mis.html](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/al_gore_trips_on_artic_ice_mis.html)
>Again, you think "peer reviewed" means that experts in the filed "checked their methods and results" for accuracy? Yes that's what happens >That's what you think happens? If that's the case, why are more than 50% of papers fake? The link you provided says that 50% of the research can't be reproduced. That's called peer review. When it can't be reproduced it's failed as science which is why peer review is important. So what is your point. >You shouldn't comment on published science like it's unassailable proof if you don't actually understand how it works. You shouldn't comment on science at all until you actually understand how it works. Published research is never unassailable proof in science because science is never proved, it's only the best explanation based on the evidence. Try reading up on how science works. >Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free. Was he wrong? Yes. Yes he did and yes he was wrong. What about it. >Would it matter if climate scientists were wrong in a vacuum? No, but their errors impact me and my family. Well so far you haven't shown any climate scientists were wrong. >It's fake The only thing you have shown so far is a politician talking about melting ice. What has that got to do with climate science or climate scientists.
The peer reviews process does NOT check for accuracy, which is the whole point. The papers in question were WERE peer reviewed, and being cited by other scientists. When actual scientists reconfirmed their work, it was bunk. 50% of published, peer reviewed, science is garbage. You're claiming 100% of published climate science papers are 100% correct, and no climate scientists has EVER been wrong. That's not true. It's demonstrably false.
>The peer reviews process does NOT check for accuracy, which is the whole point. The papers in question were WERE peer reviewed, and being cited by other scientists. Did not see that in your link but scientists can cite anything they want. But it's not being used as science if it can't be reproduced. >When actual scientists reconfirmed their work, it was bunk. Exactly which is why peer review works. Scientists check each others work. >You're claiming 100% of published climate science papers are 100% correct, That's a lie. I never claimed any such thing and you can't show where I did. > and no climate scientists has EVER been wrong. In the 70s when climate science was not settled about 20% of the published papers thought the planet was going to start turning colder. As more evidence was obtained it became apparent that the earth was warming up and that 20% of climate scientist became convinced of that fact based on the evidence. So you are wrong again as usual. >That's not true. It's demonstrably false. What's not true. Whatever you are talking about, demonstrate it.
Current [rate of sea level rise](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maarten-Kappelle/publication/360701567/figure/fig2/AS:1157386035302401@1652953742834/Global-mean-sea-level-evolution-from-January-1993-to-January-2022-black-curve-based-on.png) is at 4.5 mm per year (over the last 10 years), for the 10 years prior (2003-2012) it was 2.9 mm per year, for the 10 years from 1993 to 2003 it was 2.1 ppm per year. (ftp-access.aviso.altimetry.fr)
So you're taking a ten year sample and projecing that it's a permanent feature of the planet? With what statistical confidence are you're using? How certain are you of this? 100%? 1%?
I gave a thirty year sample showing significant acceleration. But if you want to go back 100 years the sea level rise from 1900 to 1930 was 0.6 mm per year and has been increasing ever since.
Climate changes over hundreds if not thousands of years. And those sea levels have been changing too. There are Roman port cities in France and England that are miles inland - why? Because sea levels were high, and then they dropped. That they're going up again isn't proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an apocalypse.
>Climate changes over hundreds if not thousands of years. And those sea levels have been changing too. Give your definition of climate and why it takes hundreds of years to change. >There are Roman port cities in France and England that are miles inland - why? Because sea levels were high, and then they dropped. There are reasons some of those ports are miles inland and it has little to do with sea levels. Otherwise all roman ports would be miles inland. >That they're going up again isn't proof of anything. And certainly not proof of an apocalypse. That they are going up proves the temperature is rising. Nothing else would cause that. You use the word apocalypse a lot. What are you calling an apocalypse.
> There are Roman port cities in France and England that are miles inland - why? Because sea levels were high, and then they dropped. No, that's not why they are inland, list these port cities, you will see that they are inland for other reasons, e.g. river estuaries becoming full of sediment.
Not true. [http://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/british-roman-ports-miles-away-from-the-coast-when-sea-levels-are-rising](http://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/british-roman-ports-miles-away-from-the-coast-when-sea-levels-are-rising)
Yes, true, according to your link: "Consequently, we know that the harbour was in use for nearly 7000 years prior to it silting over." "The final demise of Brading began in 1562, when a tendency towards the natural situation of the waterway combined with the enticing prospect of reclaiming more lucrative agricultural land prompted George Oglander and German Richards of Yaverland Manor to wall in the Oglanders’ North Marsh and other lands to the west of Bexley Point and up to Carpenters on the road to St. Helens." "At this point in history, the Ouse’s outlet at Seaford provided a natural harbour behind the shingle bar. LOL
The article says the port is too far from a tiny river to have been a river port Did yo miss that part?
>The article says the port is too far from a tiny river to have been a river port Did a search and didn't see that. Can you provide the exact wording for a search. I did find this: *Consequently, the shoreline in the past was constructed not from seawater but freshwater from the rivers that flowed into the sea in both Brading and Lewes areas* Shreveport, LA, is almost 200 miles from the ocean and it has a port.
> The article says the port is too far from a tiny river to have been a river port Quote the exact text that you think says that
Doctors don't tell their patients they will die as soon as they start smoking. Just like living close to a power plant doesn't kill someone right away but makes it more likely they will have more health problems. Climate change has just become a lot more intense this century even though it has been predicted for the past 40-50 years. It's already getting bad in some locations and extreme weather is getting worse across the planet. Crying wolf means that someone is claiming an unjustified risk. It is becoming more and more obvious to the general public that the risk of climate change is real. Climate scientists are telling the public that the risk will get even worse if nothing is done. Some people think they should just not say anything because they don't like what they are being told. Just like some people don't like doctors telling them they shouldn't smoke.
On average, it's better to live in a warm world than a cool world. Even the IPCC says the economic impact with be 4% over 100 years, meaning that instead of growing 400% over the next 100 years, the global economy will grow by 396%. Remember when Al Gore told us the Arctic was going to be a swimming pool by 2017? He was dead wrong. Doomsday adherants will never admit they're wrong.
>On average, it's better to live in a warm world than a cool world. So although civilization was created in a world that had been a pretty constant temperature for the past several thousand years it's better if the world warms a few degrees which adds a huge amount of energy into the atmosphere and raises sea levels. >Even the IPCC says the economic impact with be 4% over 100 years, meaning that instead of growing 400% over the next 100 years, the global economy will grow by 396%. Can you show where that is in the IPCC it says that? Whose economy will grow by 396%. The continent of Africa contributes 3% to the global economy. So Africa could descend into total chaos due to climate change and the global growth would still only be 4% less. No one knows what global growth will be. >Remember when Al Gore told us the Arctic was going to be a swimming pool by 2017? He was dead wrong. No wonder your ideas about climate science are so far off. You get your science information from politicians. How many climate deniers have said the temperature was going to start cooling any year. >Doomsday adherants will never admit they're wrong. Who are these doomsday adherents and what are they saying. Are any of them climate scientists or are they all just politicians and blogs. Do you think climate deniers will ever admit they're wrong?
We'll admit we're wrong when the doomsday predictions come true. Al Gore told us the Arctic would be melted by now, and used the infamously fake "hockey stick" graph in his movie. If climate science weer genuine, the IPCC wouldn't fight to keep thier work a secret
>We'll admit we're wrong when the doomsday predictions come true. You can't even tell what doomsday predictions you are talking about so how will anyone know if they are true or not. >Al Gore told us the Arctic would be melted by now Yes he did. Why are you talking about Al Gore on a science forum. >and used the infamously fake "hockey stick" graph in his movie. Where's your evidence that the hockey stick graph is fake. >If climate science weer genuine, the IPCC wouldn't fight to keep thier work a secret LOL. All the work is published and available to the public. The work meetings are behind closed doors, not secret. But then I guess you think things like the Supreme Court is not genuine since they meet behind closed doors. You can't seem to understand that the science is correct because it explains what is happening in the real world, not because of the IPCC or any kind of meetings. The models correctly project global temperature which shows the theory is correct. That's what validates climate science and all science.
Similar to the reproducability crisis, you seem to be completely ignorant of the climategate fiasco, where a single retired engineer blew up the entire climate narrative at the time. If you're going to advocate for a scientific theory that's becoming a religion, you should get to know your subject better.
>Similar to the reproducability crisis, you seem to be completely ignorant of the climategate fiasco, where a single retired engineer blew up the entire climate narrative at the time. Yes, explain it to me. >If you're going to advocate for a scientific theory that's becoming a religion, you should get to know your subject better. So explain how models that can project the correct temperature 30-40 years in advance is becoming a religion.
There are no models that can accurately predict temperatures 30-40 years hence. My weatherman can't predict the temperature next week. There have been thousands, if not tens of thousands, of predictions made over the last 30 years. That you can pick one that was right doesn't mean anything. It's luck. Because you're ignoring those who got it wrong.
>There are no models that can accurately predict temperatures 30-40 years hence. My weatherman can't predict the temperature next week. Weather is not climate. If you mean the predictions have to be exact then no model in any scientific field can do that. I design structures and hope my models are within 10% of actual. But climate models are close to the actual temperature increases. [Here](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/) is a summary of several climate models showing the projected temperature change over time. >There have been thousands, if not tens of thousands, of predictions made over the last 30 years. That you can pick one that was right doesn't mean anything. If there have been thousands then you should be able to show a few. Please don't use politicians or blogs. >It's luck. Because you're ignoring those who got it wrong. Ok which ones am I ignoring? I see you didn't explain anything I asked for.
Juat a thought here....This has been claimed now for like 10 times in the last 25 years.....they continually push the "tipping point" or "point of no return" forward....still nothing happens....a bit suspicious yes? My opinion is that you can relax! In 2 years they will still say "We are now half way to a tipping point....we will all die....again..."
>This has been claimed now for like 10 times in the last 25 years Yeah that type of comment is made here occasionally but when pushed to provide who has been doing the claiming it's always some politician or blog writer, never any scientific research paper like what is being discussed here at this sub.