Slashdot Mirror
25 Years of Satellite Data Shows Global Warming Is Accelerating Sea Level Rise (usnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Associated Press: Melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are speeding up the already fast pace of sea level rise, new satellite research shows. At the current rate, the world's oceans on average will be at least 2 feet (61 centimeters) higher by the end of the century compared to today, according to researchers who published in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Sea level rise is caused by warming of the ocean and melting from glaciers and ice sheets. The research, based on 25 years of satellite data, shows that pace has quickened, mainly from the melting of massive ice sheets. It confirms scientists' computer simulations and is in line with predictions from the United Nations, which releases regular climate change reports. Of the 3 inches (7.5 centimeters) of sea level rise in the past quarter century, about 55 percent is from warmer water expanding, and the rest is from melting ice. But the process is accelerating, and more than three-quarters of that acceleration since 1993 is due to melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, the study shows.
Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Seriously. The only way to stop the CO2 is to have ALL NATIONS STOP ADDING COAL and back off rather quickly. This is ESP TRUE for China. Yet, there will be many here (including a chinese troll that follows me) that will actually DEFEND China's adding 750+ GW of new coal plants over the next 11 years. And that is just CHINA. That does not include the large number of extra coal going in, nor does it include the massive number of ICE vehicles being sold.
If ppl want to stop this, then ALL NATIONS MUST STOP. Not just 1 or 2.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
He doesn't say it's a myth, he says it's a hoax.
He agrees that the climate is changing, but believes that it's not due to man-made changes in the environment.
I'll admit... I'm not an actual climentoligist, but has anybody thought about maybe just making a bunch of ice and hauling it down to Antarctica? I mean if its getting warm, throw some ice on it instead of sitting around poking and measuring it.
It's pretty clear you aren't a climatologist when you can't even spell the word, but it's also clear you aren't a scientist or an engineer. The laws of thermodynamics, let alone the sheer magnitude of the logistical/technological problem, mean that making ice for Antarctica is a non-starter. You need to consume energy in order to move energy around.
Better to stop the Sun's energy from being trapped by greenhouse gasses, and harvesting the same energy (via wind and solar) for our needs, rather than using carbon-based fuels. But if you want to make ice for Antarctica with renewables, by all means knock yourself out.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
And NYC's elevation is 10m. So it will take 5000 years or so for it to be inundated.
Yeah, no. For one thing the outcrop of Manhattan Schist in the middle of Central Park is not "NYC", and for another a large part of lower Manhattan*, western Brooklyn, and northern Queens was underwater during Hurricane Sandy which had a surge of about 13 feet (4m). Due to rebound of the continental plate since the last glaciation the city is already sinking at a rate of about 1 foot per century, and most of the gravity driven sewers were built more than 100 or 200 years ago when sea level was lower. Most of the subway entrances are staircases down from street level.
NYC has some serious problems. Maybe not as bad as Miami, but there's more infrastructure to deal with.
Stop spreading lies.
* just maybe the financial district has some huge impact on the national GDP, even if it is shut down for one day?
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
You are somewhat right. This is the first study to claim an upward trend in the rate of change.
Meanwhile, in mainstream science, there has been dozens of papers and theories trying to describe how a steady increase of slightly more than three millimeters per year could have happened. This is what the entirety of our precise data, the satellite data set, shows. The stark linearity has made quite a stir.
Either the satellites are miscalibrated in some unknown, novel way, the rate of thermal expansion is increasing over time at an absurd rate, the amount of thermal expansion reduction over time is offset by meltwater, or some other unknown mechanism. All the settled science shows, until we have new data stating otherwise, we should have an increase in sea level just over 24 cm by 2100 and no more than 25 cm.
This paper might be a hard-science pseudo case of "p-value hacking", where they threw everything they could think of at the problem until they coaxed out a plausible formula that they wanted all along.
Climate does not change during seasons, because climate is the weather average over 30 years. Global warming is defined by the change if the global temperature. While weather is specfic to you region. For example the US had a cold and snow rich winter and we in Europe had a lot if rain and no snow. So in our region it was exceptionally warm weather while you had snow rich weather.
Only one of those papers says what you imply. The others either explicitly agree with the posted article or are consistent with it (though the first link is unreadable in my browser so I canâ(TM)t really speak to that).
25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?
Because the earliest data set came from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimetry mission, which launched in 1992, and the paper was received for review in 2017. 2017-1996 = 25 years.
Paper under discussion: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
The scientists were unable to use satellite data taken before the satellite launched because that data does not exist.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.
It is new in that this article shows the satellite altimetry, while the article you cite, showing similar trends, combines tide-gauge and satellite data to get a much longer data set. Basically, that article is using satellite data to calibrate tide-gauges, and then using that calibration to measure historical sea level rise.
Good article, though.
Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.
Yes, exactly: it is useful when different work by different groups shows the same result. This is reproducability, which is important in science.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!
That's why satellite altimetry measurements-- what the article being discussed here is about-- are important. You can measure the entire globe, not just the places that have tide gauges, and you can separate out the local effects from the sea level rise.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall. If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I.
Just for reference, the 25 years of data was not cherry picked. The article being discussed analyzed satellite altimetry data, and the first of the satellite altimetry missions being discussed was TOPEX/Poseidon, which started giving data 25 years ago. 25 years is all the data that exists.
When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com