Sea level rise could hit 2 metres by 2100 - much worse than feared

www.newscientist.com... le/2203700-sea-level-rise-could-hit-2-metres-by-2100-much-worse-than-feared/

His team came to their conclusions after taking evidence from 22 leading researchers on how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets might respond to future climate change. Aggregating the responses revealed a one in twenty chance that seas could rise by more than 2 metres by 2100 if unchecked carbon emissions lead to average global warming of 5°C, about 2°C more than the temperature rises current government pledges would lead to. “It’s unlikely but it’s plausible. We are talking about a 5 per cent probability,” says Bamber, of how the ice would react to such extreme warming.

Saw this on the news this morning and they go with it as more 'happening' than the 'could' in title and the above snippet from article.

There are plenty of other articles out there with much the same spin.

The climate, as it always has been, is changing but it does seem to be getting more noticeable and how much effect we are having is difficult to say but cutting down our pollution is a win for everybody even those who are too blind to see it.

Sea levels have been rising for last 20,000 years from climate change. Paying extra taxes won't prevent it. But it will make banks richer.

Sea level rise could hit 2 metres by 2100 - much worse than feared

And monkeys could fly out of my ass as well. Interesting that they use the word ‘fear’ in the article because that is what the climate cult wants to do...create a fearful climate so people will comply with the U.N. anti-human agendas and allow global governance and wealth distribution. It also doesn’t help that they ban anyone from social media if they question the data, process and science behind the ‘fear’.

a reply to: johnb

We are talking about a 5 per cent probability,” says Bamber, of how the ice would react to such extreme warming.

Oooh, scary. 😱

The Gulf of Mexico was once a forest....so who caused that? Dino farts?

earthsky.org...

a reply to: johnb

Doom porn designed to separate us from our money and reality. If the Sun goes cold we die!

Al Gore has been taking it to the bank but avoiding the Car at the University he taught at when this was built that was designed to run on WATER 30 flipping years ago!

phys.org...

I am tired of the lies.

I much rather a gradually flooding world that. One covered in ice for thousands of years. The ice age must have really sucked! I'll take my chances living in floating cities.

a reply to: Metallicus

i don't mind my ridge becomes beach front property

Sounds like Middle America's land value will skyrocket. I'm not seeing a downside.

a reply to: johnb

Who is to say the earth will exist in 2100,there are currently seas disappearing,there is more sea ice then ever one of the most irrelevant things is the general public so hypnotized by the BS being fed daily,and the liberals will scream and cry,and we will be taxed again,with nothing but some tool bought scientists hate to use that word but that's what they call themselves,taxed for speculation at best

I'm the first who is really convinced that we should stop with pollution and be more friendly with our environment.

But, sorry, 2 meters in 100 years doesn't sound that catastrophic. You have enough time to move your house on the beach, if you really are one of the persons who owns one.

Regardless of the whys, the climate will change with or without our help. The human race needs to limit pollution output, but not because of global climate change, but because it is poisoning the planet. We don't hear much these days about how we poison the planet or how industry is the main polluters including carbon dioxide output. Other countries are doing more of that than the U.S. is, get them to clean up their act too. We should do what we can to clean up our world at any rate, not just because the climate is changing but because unchecked pollution will destroy the food chain and eventually cause an ELE.

Otherwise, our time and efforts should be used to adapt to our changing climate, not adapt the climate to our idea of how it should be. Trying to change the climate is a foolish and expensive endeavor IMO and it could totally backfire and likely screw things up more. Somehow we survived the last ice age and have been able to live in almost every habitat on Earth, we need to do the same after whatever the climate does next.

a reply to: johnb

There will always be UTTER AND TOTAL deniers that deny climate change is real and will even when faced with proven fact's.

There will always also be war profiteers whom make there money from the suffering of others' and that ilk of individual will be gambling on both sides of this debate as it is very profitable to do so.

Fact.
Climate change is real.
Human activity has accelerated climate change - BUT may very well have offset an early return to an ice age or little ice age at least once (a beneficial outcome).

Proof of regional cooling has been found that correlates precisely to the mongol expansion and destruction and depopulation of entire kingdom's that vanished from history under there sword - when the human's were removed the climate in much of that area cooled - perhaps as a result of human activity having ceased.

We ARE in a natural period of warming, what is called an Inter-glacial period which is a warm period between major ice ages and we are technically still in the ice ages approaching the middle of such an inter-glacial period so while human's have definitely played a part in global warming they are NOT it's cause and have merely accelerated a natural process of climate fluctuation which has gone on for millions of years and is likely to continue for millions of years.

Fact.

The sun is getting warmer as it get's older and some estimates state that natural warming caused by an increase in solar radiation may turn earth into a second Venus were life as we know it will no longer be able to survive in anywhere between 500 million to 2 billion years meaning that the earth is not only in what we call a Goldilocks zone around our star but also in a Goldilocks period in time after which time life here will be unsustainable through natural process.

Fact there are other far more pressing problems with human culture - it is not population but our current economic model, we 'CAN' ethically sustain a far larger population with far less ecological impact but are not doing so, we can ethically produce far more energy through natural sources but are not doing so because our economic model is based on a barter system more suitable for a hunter gatherer society than a truly sentient species.

Farming can be sustained using high intensity natural farming techniques instead of using slash and burn farming or chemical derivative (were do most of those chemical's come from?) artificial pesticide and fertilizer techniques which leave the soil sterile and dead and destroy the ecological balance which is necessary to sustainable natural farming techniques and even enhanced (using ethical science) natural techniques (look at the harm they are doing to pollinators for example), energy harvested from wave action, wind and solar rather than hydrocarbon and fission are all ethically and morally what we should be implementing today and in fact should have been for over half a century now.

Fact even if we do mend our way's - and human population is not the problem our economic model is as are run away corporate politics - global warming will continue into the foreseeable future mostly through wholly natural causes.

50 thousand years ago during the LAST inter-glacial period - Britain was pretty much were it is today, just a few inches or feet in all of that time due to continental drift - unless someone can PROVE a controversial axial shift theory which I doubt - and here the climate was pretty much the same as the Savannah of Africa, Hippo, Elephant, Lion, Hyena Zebra and Giraffe as well as many now extinct mega fauna lived alongside one another spending there lives on a Savannah type landscape and climate as they did in much of southern Europe, the Ice age came, there climate vanished and there landscape was buried under two miles of ice, the climate was too cold for them and the land were anything may have lived was exposed from the sea due to so much water then being locked up in those huge glaciers that the sea level was itself hundreds, not ten's but hundreds over two hundred in fact feet lower than it is today so if people were around they either hunted or perhaps? farmed and lived in coastal city's on the shores of that lowland which is now sea bed only for there period to come to a cataclysmic end and the land's they thought of as Terra Firma to be lost beneath the waves in a very real Atlantis type event that raised sea level's the world over almost instantly especially when great ice damn's gave way and trapped melt water rushed into the ocean's, many island's vanished perhaps even populated ones the world over and over in the pacific there are story's of islands' with tunnel's that stretch beneath the ocean, road's that pass from one island to another meaning that if those structures are not that old then sea level has therefore most likely again risen catastrophically between the end of the ice ages and today or land has subsided catastrophically in those regions since.

Though anecdotal and of unproven provenance have a read of these tale's and pay most attention to Number 3, Number 9 and Number 18.
www.beforeus.com...


Could we stop sea level rise - NO!, could we slow it - perhaps but we could limit it's impact and ensure our civilization is able to survive such a catastrophe if we really wanted to.

But whom is to say that these ancients that modern archaeology does not even accept existed did not try before us to do just that - but try and try again, if at first fail try until you succeed.

Didn't big AL predict polar ice caps melt by 2013

However, this would mean Commifornians and New Dorkers would be moving inland....polluting the Midwest with their holier than thou mindset.

I believe in man made climate change. The correlation between heightened co2 levels and the industrial age is compelling to me personally. I don't know how much it has affected it, it's just my opinion that it has.

However ...

I also believe taxing people won't fix it when countries like China and India exist. I don't think socialism will fix it. I don't think more carbon in the atmosphere will result in the runaway endgame 'we will become Venus' doom porn scenario often touted. I don't think anyone will be convinced to change their lifestyles and pay more money by assholes flying private jets.

I also don't want to hear the "it's better than doing nothing" argument, because slowing the inevitable at the expense of only western economies just feels stupid to me.

a reply to: johnb

2 meters, eh? Someone must need money. I have noticed there seems to be a direct link between how much the sea is going to rise and how much money the politicians want need.

Someone should do a study on that correlation...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: Metallicus

i don't mind my ridge becomes beach front property

What, you want beach front property in seismically active and tsunami vulnerable New Zealand? Are you an adrenaline junkie?

a reply to: Flavian

Ha you were thinking along the Lex Luther lines there, difference is the movie villain was going to deliberately trigger a fault line to make his property into valuable real estate (Sure the bond franchise also nicked the same idea for one of there villain's) but the real world may do pretty much the same thing assuming nation's do not collapse as a result of such as sea level rise and the economic model remains intact.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Sea level rise is a real and measurable thing now. As others like to point, this has happened since the planet developed oceans (rise and fall). However, the latest data sets show quite large increase (statistically) over the last 30 to 40- years and much more particularly over the last decade. For example, the annual rise now is nearly double a decade ago.

Obviously, when still talking in cm's it doesn't really panic anyone. But what if current rates double over the next decade? And then those rates double over the following decade? It soon starts to stack up.