EnviroLink Forum

and the dutch are already below sea level so they are not going to accept hype... you can be sure they are taking their study seriously.

It is now an established fact that only 10 000 years ago, the global sea level rose a few hundred feet creating the ocean separating Antarctica and Australia (and New Guinea, New Zealand, Tasmania).

I think that's a very old theory. I think these days Continental drift theory is accepted and Antarctica and Australia are generally thought to have separated in the late Cretaceous.

And the dutch pay a lot of taxes to build those dykes. With sea level rise you get bigger dykes and more taxes. eventually it will get to the stage were sustaining coastlines is untenable. They are already doing that in my country in East Anglia with managed retreat.

Also it's not that hard to build sea defences. 39 inches will be easy to cope with

Did you miss the link I posted after the chart to the actual scientific paper the legislature made "illegal" to use. It has the references used in the determination of the rise presented.

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/slr/NC%20Se ... 0Panel.pdf

A set of sea-level curves is presented in Figure 2, which present scenarios of differing rates of SLR acceleration. The curves are projected to 90 years in the future (2100 AD) and the initial rate of rise is set at 4.27 mm per year (Zervas, 2004). A rise of 0.4 meter (15 inches) is considered a minimum, since this is the amount of rise that will occur given a linear projection with zero acceleration. Various models and observations indicate that accelerated rates of SLR in the future are likely (IPCC, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2007; Pfeffer et al., 2008). In fact, various investigations indicate a two- to four-fold increase in rates of rise over the last century (Church and White, 2006; Rahmstorf, 2007; Kemp et al., 2009).

Rahmstorf (2007) proposed that there is a roughly proportional relationship between global mean near-surface air temperature and global MSL. Rahmstorf’s “method” for projecting future SLR has been adopted by several states and municipalities. The method has produced highly accurate hindcast results, particularly for the thermal expansion component of rise, and predicts a total rise of 0.50 meter to 1.4 meters (20 to 55 inches) by 2100. Rahmstorf cautions that delayed positive feedbacks might result in the method underestimating the contribution from land ice, resulting in total rise of over 1.4 meters. In spite of this caveat, the Science Panel believes that the Rahmstorf method is robust and 1.4 meters a reasonable upper limit for projected rise.

Pfeffer et al (2008) attempted to constrain the upper limit of land ice contribution to sea level by investigating the physical ability of glaciers and ice sheets to discharge into the ocean. The research was intended to provide a basis and methodology for incorporating land ice contributions into calculations of future global MSL. The research concluded that a range of 0.80 meter to 2 meters is a more plausible range than the figures presented by the IPCC. A 2-meter rise is considered very unlikely, but still possible, and could only occur with rapidly accelerated and very high rates of warming and ice sheet melting.

I think that's a very old theory. I think these days Continental drift theory is accepted and Antarctica and Australia are generally thought to have separated in the late Cretaceous.

And the dutch pay a lot of taxes to build those dykes. With sea level rise you get bigger dykes and more taxes. eventually it will get to the stage were sustaining coastlines is untenable. They are already doing that in my country in East Anglia with managed retreat.

The assesment report you quoted is not a peer reviewed paper.

4.27 mm per year is more than a 2 fold increase in sea level rise over last centuary so the proposed 2-4 fold increase is already factored into that. Don't apply another 4 fold multiplier.

You want there to be a 1.4m sea level rise by 2100. Where is all the water coming from and how much temperature increase is expected to give such a reasult?

Having 3,375 miles of shoreline, a 39 inch sea level increase would be easy to cope with?

Not to mention the estuaries which would have to have similar defenses built and all without ever admitting there was an impact since it would affect the economic development of the areas.

Could be worse if you lived in Norway...........

Coastline: 25,148 km (includes mainland 2,650 km, as well as long fjords, numerous small islands, and minor indentations 22,498 km; length of island coastlines 58,133 km)

We in England are having a "managed retreat" because we want to have a dooms day scenario play out. It's a strange mental condition, we need a feeling of being doomed.

When the great ice sheets of the northern hemasphere melted they did so quickly and all together because they were all at low altitude and close in temperture to melting anyway. Today's land ice is at high altitude and mostly not at all vunerable to small changes in tempertaure. Antarctica would meed a 20 degree c rise to get any melting of land ice (peninsular excepted).

Small increases in temperature will cause the terminal piont of the ice to move up in altitude. 1 degree c will produce a 100m increase in altitude of the end point of the ice.

It is fairly easy to add up the amount of such ice which is vunerable to a specific temperature increase. Dividing by the surface area of the world's oceans is also easy. The result is generally in the range of 7-12cm. Thermal expansion produces a similar number.

The Dutch will increase the height of their dykes for less cost than they spend on trafic lights.

We in England are having a "managed retreat" because we want to have a dooms day scenario play out. It's a strange mental condition, we need a feeling of being doomed.

Do you have a referance to an actual scientific paper which says that a 1m sea level rise is on the cards?