Oh I think I wasn't clear, and I apologize. I think the null hypothesis for sea level rise with man made green house gasses, should be sea level rise without them. For that number we can look to the last two interglacial periods, where the rise looks like it would bring sea levels up 6 meters from here. As for rate, we have a large number of papers saying even 2 meters this century is extremely unlikely. The likely number for sea level rise this century is between 0.2-1 meters this century based on these papers. We have one climate scientist that is still pushing much faster melt, but we have not seen it in the measurements. That likely figure is a good enough model to figure out mitigation strategies, and insurance losses. I hope in the next 20 years we get a better grip on the numbers, including likely melt rates. There has been a great deal of data in the last decade that has helped nail down that upper end. This includes better paleo reconstructions of past interglacials, as well as better understanding the mechanisms of the melts. The big modeling problems for sea level rate now are rates of calving of glaciers, ocean circulation models, regional precipitation models, and finally atmospheric release of the methane from clathrates (and if man can capture it, or does it go up as ghg). Only after we have good models for sea level rise, can we do attribution of how much is "natural", how much is "caused by humans burning fossil fuel". and how much is "caused by other human activities (deforestation, cities, black soot, factory farming, etc)".
SLR had been much less than 1 mm/year over the previous 6000 years. I suggest that would qualify as natural.
Where are you getting your information regarding past 6000 year sea level rise? Thats less than 4 inches per century. Quite out of line with any other estimate Ive ever heard of.
Hi mojo, see the wiki page on sea level. I don't paste the graph, because pretty sure I have posted it before to PC. Shame to repeat myself. That wiki does not fully cite the studies involved, but they'd be easy to find. Maybe IPCC or NIPCC or some other source could be also consulted? One difficulty (as we are in a post glacial) is to be careful looking at sites with isostatic rebound after ice unloading. So N Europe is not an ideal choice. You know who I'm talking about
Note: middle link updated, to show intended chart, which was already visible as a thumbnail on other pages Quite in line with the estimates I've heard. Maybe I shouldn't spoil your reading assignment, but I'm much too ill for any research right now. I'll just show you mine on the condition that you show me your's: File:Holocene Sea Level.png - Global Warming Art globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level_png Sea Level Gallery - Global Warming Art
By the way ,you guys denigrate "affinity" websites ,then quote propaganda from Wikipedia. Thats boldface BS. From IPCC . https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html "Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1. Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr"
What's wrong with Wikipedia? It's a crowd source data bank, that corrects errors quickly, and has links to the original sources in most cases.
From the earlier part of the very same paragraph: This IPCC description perfectly fits the charts I linked above. DAS's statement of less than 1mm/year over 6000 years, also perfectly fits the very same charts. Specifically, the charts show sea level has risen less than 4 meters over the past 7000 years, or < 0.6 mm/year. Your challenge to DAS's statement remains unsupported, so I'm still waiting for you to show me your's:
Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia – Telegraph Blogs "Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement"
Emphasis added: Are you really so dense as to be unable to distinguish 100 years from 6000 years? File:Holocene Sea Level.png - Global Warming Art Your challenge to DAS's 6000 year statement remains unsupported, so I'm still waiting for you to show me your's.
Pardon me. I didnt realize Tohotchitu was cherry picking a specific period to support an even larger BS meme. I now realize its to support a new BS hockey stick using sea level. Fig. 2. The Late Holocene sea level changes in the Maldives (Mörner, 2007) including 7 transgression peaks in the last 4000 years with 3 peaks in the last millennium.
Would you care to point to any specific item in any specific post of mine as evidence? Absent such pointers, I'll take your continued reversion to profanity has evidence that your claims are empty.
Apparently the powers that be at Wikipedia did not approve. The Little Ice Age and Climategate articles note that its editors have been sanctioned. Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And here are the 'court recordings': Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No that is quite right for the last 6000 years its been kind of slow most of the time. In the last 20,000 years it rose approximately 120 meters though, making the average 6 meters every millenium, but most of the melt is thought to have happened between 15,000-6,000 years ago. Lots of papers out there doing various reconstructions. After the melt things slowed down quite a bit. The question is what is the natural rate going forward, and how much are ghg accelerating it. Again, I think we need better models. The melt in southern hemisphere seems to have much more to do with ocean circulation than ghg, but the arctic melt seems to have a lot to do with ghg. Thermal expansion of course needs yet a third attribution model.
I admit I was wrong about the 6000 year meme. Because I assumed the 3mm rise after the "Little Ice Age" was consistent for the past 6000 years ,but I was wrong and I admit it. What I discovered in searching "6000 year sea level rise" is what is important. There is a new hockey stick BS meme.Sea level was flat for 6000m years and now it rises due to anthropogenic CO2. But the rise in sea level began in 1850,100 years before CO2 levels rose significantly . And much more important ,sea level wasnt flat for 6000 years,
Perhaps we need a millennial scale sea level thread. Use this for new pubs that tend towards 'good news'. Eh, wiki-pages are as good as they are. Some are embroiled in revisions. As a source, at its best, it provides useful references to the primary literature, and non-technical explanations of...various things. CO2science, an example I often mention, provides a lot of primary references (good thing) but their non-technical explanations tend to leave things out. For example, that CO2 fertilization is limited by water and nutrient availability. When I say affinity websites, I mean that a particular point of view is promulgated. That is of no consequence if you are going there for references. It may matter if you look for explanations. When in doubt, one may always consider reading the original stuff. If websites don't provide enough references, google scholar or similar are awaiting your visit. We have a list of refs on millennial scale sea level, and mojo adds Morner. nothing' wrong with that, until it occurs to you that Morner suggests there have been about 6, one-meter falls in sea level each occurring within about a century. I am at a loss to suggest a mechanism that could have got so much water out of the ocean so fast. Six times! This does not prove that Morner is wrong. But it is inconsistent with the other literature, and these breath-taking sea-level excursions ... Well, a mechanism would help. Concordance of results means a lot to me. For others, perhaps the odd outlier is the only thing you should pay attention to.
Back on the good news side, I will mention one that is 'old news' because published in 2013. But I just saw it today. Arora et al, Journal of Climate. Full ref if anyone has gotten tired of SLR The main thing is that they ran climate models but allowed carbon and nitrogen to both affect biology. Strangely enough, models generally don't do that Their 'fully coupled' (biology and climate) models showed that net C uptake would increase, both land and sea, for at least 100 years. Recalling that net C uptake is currently limiting CO2 increases to half of emissions, the future of net C uptake seems rather important. Arora model results qualify easily for good news. It cheered me all up after some of these recent posts.
