3 ms·

So how much was the actual global sea-level rise in the past 10 years and how does it relate to previous estimates?

mythrwy 7y ago
Maybe something like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm I don't doubt humans are affecting the climate. I do doubt that humans can extrapolate the effects of what they are doing out into the future very well.
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  That article describes one scientist's hypothesis based on an extreme year - another more conservative scientist is quoted also. The thing to pay attention to is peer reviewed consensus, which is still alarming.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 7y ago
Current estimates, before this finding, are that it's rising by about 3mm/year, up from an average of 1-2mm/year for the previous century. About 55% of that is estimated to be due to continental ice melt and 30% to thermal expansion of the oceans.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > it's rising by about 3mm/year, up from an average of 1-2mm/year for the previous century That's a questionable comparison since we don't have reliable data from before 1993. If the actual sea level rise was 3mm/year recently, we should surely not expect it to rise 25mm/year on average for the next 80 years?
  - simonh 7y ago
    Yep the historical data is an estimate. I don’t understand your last point. A 2m rise by 2100 isn’t the prediction of the article, it’s more likely under a metre. 2m is the 95th percentile outlier or something. Even so, if carbon emissions are continuing, the rate of warming will increase. Also I’d expect to see a hysteresis effect, where the effects of warming lag the cause so it wouldn’t be surprising to me to see an acceleration of its consequences. Finally, if the rate of sea level rise could up to triple in a few decades, why couldn’t it triple again? And again? I just don’t see the basis of your argument.

Maybe something like this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm I don't doubt humans are affecting the climate. I do doubt that humans can extrapolate the effects of what they are doing out into the future very well.

cheerlessbog 7y ago
That article describes one scientist's hypothesis based on an extreme year - another more conservative scientist is quoted also. The thing to pay attention to is peer reviewed consensus, which is still alarming.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

simonh 7y ago

Current estimates, before this finding, are that it's rising by about 3mm/year, up from an average of 1-2mm/year for the previous century. About 55% of that is estimated to be due to continental ice melt and 30% to thermal expansion of the oceans.

lazyjones 7y ago
> it's rising by about 3mm/year, up from an average of 1-2mm/year for the previous century That's a questionable comparison since we don't have reliable data from before 1993. If the actual sea level rise was 3mm/year recently, we should surely not expect it to rise 25mm/year on average for the next 80 years?
- simonh 7y ago
  Yep the historical data is an estimate. I don’t understand your last point. A 2m rise by 2100 isn’t the prediction of the article, it’s more likely under a metre. 2m is the 95th percentile outlier or something. Even so, if carbon emissions are continuing, the rate of warming will increase. Also I’d expect to see a hysteresis effect, where the effects of warming lag the cause so it wouldn’t be surprising to me to see an acceleration of its consequences. Finally, if the rate of sea level rise could up to triple in a few decades, why couldn’t it triple again? And again? I just don’t see the basis of your argument.