Brett, you mean these scientists AREN'T from the UN? Whoa, better check their credentials! I bet they're really Communists masquerading as scientists who are rigging their studies to support AGW and in turn favor policies that will undermine our way of life and turn us into a Third World country while countries like India and China become superpowers, invade our country, and turn us into slaves. Whew!

It'd be more interesting if we could see exactly why they think the IPCC has underestimated the projected rise.

Here's a link to the 48 page section of the IPCC report for sea-level rise:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch05.pdf

From my read of it, sea level rise is estimated by the IPCC to be about 2 mm/yr. However, currently the rise is slightly more than that and has been as great as 4mm/yr. Still less than a meter by 2100 even at the highest yearly rate.

Most of the rise is from thermal expansion of the oceans. However, global warming is projected to affect the artic more than any other region of the earth. So, perhaps they are projecting that the melting of Greenland will accelerate.

Within the next few years, if artic sea ice continues to reach new minimums, we will hear a lot more about Greenland melting.

In the June 8, 2007 issue of Science Magazine, the article "Pushing the Scary side of Global Warming", basically discusses why the IPCC didn't communicate the worse case scenarios. To quote from the article "IPCC gets an A+ for scientific assessment, but a gentleman's C for communication." It appears that the IPCC just did not want to put out such dire warnings to the public about the potential even higher sea rise. To quote again, "The IPCC has been overly cautious in not wanting to give any larger number to [future] sea-level rise,", says climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Another quote, "scientists need "a better way" than IPCC's consensus approach, so we can communicate with the public without becoming scaremongers."

In my opinion, if this is the way the IPCC reports, then I have even less respect for it then before, which was pretty low to begin with. The problem is, if you make the climate problem too scary, the majority of us are just going to go, oh, well, might as well enjoy life now, there's nothing we can do about it. Actually, I'm looking forward to owning beach front property from my current homesite in inland Pennsylvania, and growing those tropical plants I've always wanted. See "Myth" #8, "It's too cold where I live - warming will be great"

90% of the world's ice is in Antarctica, and the Antarctic ice mass is steadily increasing - not decreasing.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

The whole AGW story reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes." People seeking political favor refuse to see even the most obvious facts.

None of the dire predictions have come to pass as of yet, so why start dredging them up again? To keep AGW in the forefront and attract more government funding perhaps?

Gosh, I wonder how come temperatures have been rising since 1900?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png

Could it possibly have something to do with an increase in the amount of energy reaching the earth? Is that idea too far fetched for people who want to believe it is due to a gas which comprises 0.03% of the atmosphere, and of that 0.03%, 97% of is from natural sources?

Brett, I wonder if these scientists are the same forecasters that predicted all of this massive warmth that was supposed to come into the Northeast this weekend, but as it stands, the 82-86 degree F predictions of the last few days for today (Sunday)were considerably WRONG! Yet the earth will be in peril at the turn of the century if we don't follow along in goose step with the panic monger (sarcastic posters on this thread) agenda via government intervention? You bet, better check their credentials! And I don't mean maybe! And I am still waiting for more than just two days of summer in the Northeast/Great Lakes area too, without any cold fronts wiping it out! Cold Front? Gee, I thought Global Warming was going to end all cold fronts and cause massive draught conditions? Spare me the "Earth is in Imminent Peril" tripe!

The Denier from Hades

Let's see, somehow, someway, this warming cycle (which isn't the hottest found in paleoclimate studies) just isn't going to do what it has done every other time in history. You know, go into a cooling phase.

In the meantime, we must assume that human caused GHG, despite being at worst a fraction of a percent of all sources of GHG is the keystone of this world shattering, never before seen event of permanent warming. We also get to assume that despite geological, ice core and even recent indicators that carbon is a driver and not a follower of GW.

Oh well, maybe all this warming has a purpose. It is going to melt the ice cap over the Artic since the only Ice Age model I know of that fairly well models the most recent one depends on a relatively warm and ice free Artic Ocean to happen. Maybe we will get finally get the Ice Age predicted by the AGWers back when they were Coming Ice Agers.

The predictions in the IPCC reports were not all based on proven facts.
The report was based on best guessed estimates, like a weather report is based on expert knowledge and clearly stated by all that in order to get agreement the text was carefully scripted so that a message counter signed by scientists was not dismissed as unfounded or alarmist.
AGW deniers were not able to dismiss the report.
The 100 years of �relative safety� time frame was retained on purpose so that there was hope to avert the risk. However this 'safe' time has allowed business to continue as usual, and it will.
Rising temperatures will remain part of the threat that will affect ice melt at an accelerating rate. The Ice melt at both poles already occur 3 times faster than those that underpinned the IPCC calculations. Obviously the current rate of ice melt will continue to accelerate as oceans warm and atmospheric temperatures rise. This knock on effect will cause sea levels to rise by well over 3 meters within 100 years if the sceptic�s sun spots do not cool , altering the outcome in the next 30 years.
It is more likely that Oceans will continue to inundate coastal aquifers and salt water will flood the worlds most fertile agricultural land making the desperate lives of climate refugees in 100 years quite hopeless.
The first region to suffer the effect of a rising sea was coastal Pakistan over two years ago where villages were abandoned forcing people to move inland. Since 2004 villages across Alaska and in Pacific island communities have suffered the same environmental threat of rising seas.
In the mean time it has become apparent that rising sea levels will only be taken seriously when it affects the economies of wealthy western nations and is seen washing over our own door steps. While it�s happening to the poor we could not care less.
Perhaps environmental refugees making their way to Europe from Africa are already bringing the effects of global warming to our attention as they are being followed by population movements between South America and the USA, Asia and Australia,
For a while this current exodus of 40 million plus people is being explained away as being caused by economic reason due to war or political instability and not global warming, but it�s a thin line, a recent report on Darfur raises AGW as a contributing factor that sceptics were unable to refute .
Nevertheless due to the effects of global warming it can be said without argument that an economic effect of global warming is already being felt.
Therefore the threat is not imminent it is in fact a current economic cost.
To stem the flow of African environmental refugees, Europe has released plans to develop industry in North Africa. A free trade agreement is in place, with a fast track industrial transfer to make a manufacturing belt possible outside Kyoto aligned EU nations driven by adequate fossil fuel reserves and cheap African labour.
This kind of development will increase and accelerate global warming but goes to show us all that business as usual will carry on regardless.

Mark,

You're not far off in your assessment. The RawStory.com site is run by a woman who was born in the USSR.

I did decide to check on the credentials of the 6 scientists who wrote this article.

Makiko Sato
B.S., Physics, Osaka University, Toyonaka, 1970
M.A., Physics, Yeshiva University, New York, 1972
Ph.D., Physics, Yeshiva University, New York, 1978

Dr. Gary L. Russell
B.A., Mathematics, 1968, University of Rochester
Ph.D., Mathematics, 1976, Columbia University

David Lea
B.S. Geology
Ph.D. Oceanography

Mark Siddall
B.S. Oceanography
Ph.D. Oceanography

James Hansen
B.S. Physics & Mathematics
M.S. Astronomy
Ph.D. Physics

Pushker Kharecha
Post-doc

Now I am not saying that these individuals cannot assess the climate based on their backgrounds. However I do find it quite disingenuous when AGWers critique and discount someone like Dr. William Gray because he forecasts hurricanes, even though he has a degree in Meteorology. Yet at the same time AGWers laud the individuals above, with none having degrees in Meteorology. Somehow the person's background matters when stating a position that runs counter to AGW. However when supporting AGW, content matters more than background. This was all too apparent last week when the moderator of the blog pointed out the "ultra-conservative" nature of a paper. However he has chosen to NOT point out the leanings of news stories from the likes of Reuters.

Then there's a scientist by the name of Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University who has studied sea-level rise for the past 35 years and says that claims like the one posted here by our moderator are a total fraud.

He claims that the IPCC falsified data in order to make the doomsday scenario fit. If he is a quack, then why doesn't the IPCC sue him for libel? Here is a link to a recent interview:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

Todd,

You did your homework.

Nice job!

I sure wish that everyone would start giving some factual information on this site and not just make stuff up. Data taken from buoy data off the west coast of the united states shows not rise in sea level what so ever, over the last 30 yrs. Greenlands ice has actually increased in the last ten years and so has antartica. Im not even sure where they are getting the u.s.a temp data from because all data taken from viable sensors that are not near cities (which give inaccurate results) do not show a rise in temp in may and actually show a decrease. I just wish this site would cut through some of the bs when its odvious..

Todd:

Excellent point.

Can anyone tell me why a change in sea level over the next 93 years is an imminent threat to society? Oh right, I forgot, this is about control over present day things.

Say, can one of the AGWers please look at their blantantly accurate climate computer models and let me know what the temps will be this Sunday and on the 4th of July here in Central Ohio? Gotta a couple of events to get to and the wife was asking about what she should wear. Would hate to look at the short range models as they are not accurate. Thanks.

"Say, can one of the AGWers please look at their blantantly accurate climate computer models and let me know what the temps will be this Sunday and on the 4th of July here in Central Ohio?"

Climate and weather -- you and Ozio still can't comprehend the difference.

Who said AGW was an imminent threat? Mitigating AGW will require decades of work and incremental changes; reversing it completely will probably take hundreds of years. That's why we're starting now.

Mark:

Humor and sarcasm still escapes some in our society I see. It was a joke. Granted nothing as good as Robin Williams or George Carlin, but a joke nonetheless.

I certainly am not under any concern of imminent threat to either Mother Earth or us humans or wildlife. Guess I was just kinda looking at the title of this thread. Also, the apparent pertinent AGW stream of consciouness seems to involve the quick peril of the planet thereby necessitating the use of the word imminent.

Gotta ask, did you "read" the thread starter here.

LOL, it was a joke, relax.

The only thing more ludicrous than fearing climate change is thinking you can actually do something about climate change.

Climate and weather -- you and Ozio still can't comprehend the difference.

REPLY: Yeah, what's the matter with you? Silly boy, not knowing the difference between Climate and Weather. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other! Like oil and gasoline have absolutely nothing to do with each other....(Rolling on floor laughing uncontrolably).....

NOT GUILTY

Let's see, how did it go?...

Oh yeah, "Climate is what the real estate agent sells you, Weather is what you really get."

See, the difference is easy and I don't have to do silly things like proving models, refuting data that contradicts my position totally, worry about the stuff I handwave away like the sun and clouds, or deal with strong evidence of corrupted data collection and biased interpreting.

Too bad I'm not an AGWer, this is simple.

"Who said AGW was an imminent threat?"

Scroll up a little. That is the topic of this thread.

Scroll up a little. That is the topic of this thread.

*LOL* Well, Mark, he does have a point there.

Good effort, Patrick. Point and game.