what do skeptics say to the idea that the sea level will rise 4.6 feet over this century?

Question

quotes from skeptics would be great too.

Answer 1

Hummmm Does saying it is so make it true?

The sea levels today are 30 cm below the levels they were 160 years ago.

Why do you believe sea levels would go up?

Answer 2

Most of the ice in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (3.3 E7 km&3) is cold, say -30 C. The AGW forcing is about 1.5 W/m^2 over the surface of the earth, which in a year gives about 2.4 E22 J of excess energy. If all ot that energy went into warming the ice sheets (which it won't) it would take about 586 years to increase the average temperature to 0 C using a specific heat of 126 kJ/kg and another 485 years to melt completely using latent heat of 334 kJ/kg. Please note that this simple model does not take into account any of the conduction and convection transporting energy to the poles and within the ice sheet, or the distribution of alpine glaciers. This model also uses the incorrect assumption that the forcing is constant. The forcing is increasing now, but will surely diminish when mankind runs out of fossil fuels within the next 100 years. With those significant disclaimers, the worst case scenario is that the sea level does not change much for 500-600 years, and then rises at an average rate of 15 cm (6 inches) per year thereafter. In answer to the original question, 4.6 feet does seem high becasue most of the energy is now going into raising the temperature of the ice rather than melting it. Do consult a source that has taken all of the factors that I neglected for a more accurate answer.

Answer 3

The IPCC does not agree with the 4.6 feet prediction, although a few alarmist scientists do.

Quoting Jim Hansen:
"The IPCC (2007) midrange projection for sea level rise this century is 20–43 cm (8–17 inches) and its full range is 18–59 cm (7–23 inches)."

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html

Jim Hansen himself thinks:
"However, as a physicist, I find it almost inconceivable that BAU climate change would not yield a sea level change of the order of meters on the century timescale. The threat of a large sea level change is a principal element in our argument (Hansen et al 2006a, 2006b, 2007) that the global community must aim to keep additional global warming less than 1 °C above the 2000 temperature, and even 1 °C may be too great. In turn, this implies a CO2 limit of about 450 ppm, or less. Such scenarios are dramatically different than BAU, requiring almost immediate changes to get on a fundamentally different energy and greenhouse gas emissions path."

Hansen is an alarmist of the first order. Most scientists do not agree with him.

Answer 4

Predictions like this are only possible if the scientist is factoring in significant positive feedbacks. This is the concept that a warmer climate will cause a warmer climate. Roger Pielke has pointed out that up until now the net feedbacks have been negative. Could something change that? It is possible, but highly unlikely.

The most likely scenario is that sea level rise will continue at the same rate until the Earth begins to cool again which could be this year. For the last 30 years the sea level has risen an average of .07 inches per year for a total of 2.1 inches. This has certainly not been catastrophic.

Answer 5

I would say that the scientists have too much time on their hands. Why don't they go obtain a multi-billion dollar government grant and study the love life of a gnat or something? The world existed long before these big cheese scientists were around and it will continue to do so when they are dead and buried. Didn't I just read in the news that South Americans don't think winter is EVER going to end? And that this is the worst winter they have had in 90 years? Well it all evens out, it gets warmer in some places and cooler in others...and it is occurs NATURALLY. Sure global warming might be real, but I do not believe it is caused by man. Basically to destroy the ozone one would have to put out the sun because the sun is what produces the ozone. When I was in elementary school, the huge indoctrination then was SAVE THE RAIN FORESTS! Now how much of that do you hear any more?

Answer 6

Let me start off by saying that I'm a skeptic. However, I'm not going to claim that statements made by the IPCC or any other group or person are false. How can I say that ocean levels won't rise 4.6 feet in the next 100 years? I can't. That being said, my biggest problem with Al Gore and the IPCC is that they're all talk. Everyone so far has been great at identifying the problems and making dire predicitons for the future of our planet. None of them have given any solutions to the problem though. I'm not talking common sense solutions - saving water, reducing carbon emissions, reducing dependency on fossil fuels - I'm talking real solutions. Government sanctions on pollution-creating companies, tax breaks for green companies, whatever.
I'm an Environmental Resource Management major at Penn State, so I'm in the thick of this whole global warming epidemic. I've got professors on both sides of the fence. I've got one professor who was part of this year's Nobel Prize winning IPCC panel. So....to get back to your question....what do skeptics say about the ocean levels rising? They say "prove it." They say that anyone can manipulate data to fit their particular needs. They say that until some big catastrophic event happens, no one will care. I don't know of any quotes by skeptics, other than myself and my roommates, but I don't think we count. I just know that until someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the direction we're heading, and then that same someone tells us what to do to avoid imminent disaster, there are going to be skeptics out there, trying to balance out the equation.

Answer 7

At least you are willing to look at an opposite viewpoint!
The consensus might censor or delete you message if it doesn't fit their 'mind set' = intolerable liberals.

An excerpt from a good, logical and intelligent web page:
http://www.amlibpub.com/essays/ipcc-global-warming-report.html

"Nautical records show ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries, long before the rise in atmospheric CO2 or the world became industrialized. And polar ice is not disappearing. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost two-thirds of its ice mass since the last ice age but is now growing. Side-looking interferometry shows it is now growing at a rate of 26 billion tons a year. How can this be when there are pictures of huge ice chunks breaking off and melting? While ice is disappearing at the perimeter, it is piling up inland. Most of the Antarctic ice is above 4,000 feet. As the ice increases there, it pushes the glaciers toward lower elevations at the edge of the continent, where they break off. The only part of Antarctica that is warming is the peninsula, which is furthest from the South Pole and comprises only 2 percent of Antarctica—but it is the part the news media focuses on when they talk about global warming in Antarctica. They never mention the other 98 percent that is getting colder, as can be seen from the measurements of the British meteorological stations there, which can easily be found on the internet."

Answer 8

A laughable estimate. The globe has warmed about .6 degrees so far, and where is the ocean level rise so far? Even if the AGW fanatics are correct (and they are not), the most we could expect the temp to rise would be another .4 to .9 degrees. Not enough to cause much in the way of sea rise.

Answer 9

Louisiana loses 60 acers of coastal land every day and we are still here, it is not the world will end if the sea level rises 4.6 ft.

Answer 10

um well im not realy sure what youre asking this for, and i dont think im a skeptic but...take the surface area(in feet) of all the oceans in the world, now multiply that by 4.6. thats a big number isnt it? thats how much water is being added to the oceans (in ft squared)