rockdoc123 wrote:RCP 8.5 imagines that fossil fuel consumption increases at an accelerating rate through to 2100 which doesn't seem to fit with the concept of Peak Oil where the resource becomes more limited prices rise and alternatives become more accessible.
You can't just look at oil when talking about "fossil fuel consumption." Coal is also a fossil fuel, and it puts out even more CO2 then oil per Btu. Most of the massive increase in CO2 production globally over the last 20 years is due to increased coal use in China. Right now the use of coal is increasing rapidly in India.
You also have to consider increasing consumption of natural gas. NG releases less CO2 per Btu then either coal or oil, but some CO2 is emitted. In addition, more methane is released, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2.
rockdoc123 wrote: .... 117 mm contribution by 2100.
Once again you demonstrate that you can't do math. You just don't get it, do you?
The most recent data on sea level rise shows its currently going up by 3.5 mm per year. But the rate is accelerating so mostly likely the rate of sea level rise will be higher in the future.
If for a moment we ignore the acceleration in sea level rise rates, the MINIMUM sea level rise by 2100 can be calculated by assuming a continuation of the current 3.5 mm/year for the next 82 years. That yields a MINIMUM of sea level increase of ca. 287 mm, or 28.7 cm by 2100. This is more than twice the number you determined. This clearly demonstrates you can't do even the simplest math---your result is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent with the observations.
And as I said I already took into account acceleration in Antarctica when I quoted the 117 mm contribution by 2100.
your problem is you can't read. I was referring to the contribution from Antarctica which when you use the acceleration suggested as continuing (which the data is already showing it isn't) then you get 137 mm of sea level rise total over the period from now to 2100 attributed to Antarctica. Antarctica contributes somewhere between 13 and 17% of total current sea level rise. Do the numbers yourself. And if current sea level rise continues as you suggest then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm, less than predicted at the most likely case in AR5. The argument isn't about what is going on elsewhere it is about Antartica and it's contribution. Clean your reading glasses.
Once again you demonstrate that you can't do math. You just don't get it, do you?
The most recent data on sea level rise shows its currently going up by 3.5 mm per year. But the rate is accelerating so mostly likely the rate of sea level rise will be higher in the future.
If for a moment we ignore the acceleration in sea level rise rates, the MINIMUM sea level rise by 2100 can be calculated by assuming a continuation of the current 3.5 mm/year for the next 82 years. That yields a MINIMUM of sea level increase of ca. 287 mm, or 28.7 cm by 2100. This is more than twice the number you determined. This clearly demonstrates you can't do even the simplest math---your result is wildly inaccurate and inconsistent with the observations.
And as I said I already took into account acceleration in Antarctica when I quoted the 117 mm contribution by 2100.
your problem is you can't read. I was referring to the contribution from Antarctica which when you use the acceleration suggested as continuing (which the data is already showing it isn't) then you get 137 mm of sea level rise total over the period from now to 2100 attributed to Antarctica. Antarctica contributes somewhere between 13 and 17% of total current sea level rise. Do the numbers yourself. And if current sea level rise continues as you suggest then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm, less than predicted at the most likely case in AR5. The argument isn't about what is going on elsewhere it is about Antartica and it's contribution. Clean your reading glasses.
Cog wrote:What was the sea level change last year and for the past ten years? To speculate on meter rises when millimeter rises are actually occurring is simply ludicrous doomerism.
rockdoc123 wrote:you dolt
rockdoc123 wrote: your really stupid
rockdoc123 wrote:Clean your reading glasses.
rockdoc123 wrote: ...current rate of 3.5 mm/yr equates to 30 cm in 9 years.
Once again, you can't do math. Try this: 3.5 mm/yr over 9 years equates to 31.5 mm, or 3.5 cm. And thats a MINIMUM number because it doesn't include the effects of the observed ongoing acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.
As I said, you can't do math, and as a result you make dumb mistakes post wildly inaccurate numbers. In this case you are so wrong it is absurd. The annual rate of sea level rise is now about 3.5 mm per year. That means there will be 30 cm of sea level rise in just 9 years.....not the 82 year you postulate. So now your math is wrong by a factor of 10.
Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math...its will take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.
Cog wrote:What was the sea level change last year and for the past ten years? To speculate on meter rises when millimeter rises are actually occurring is simply ludicrous doomerism.
The current sea level rise is clearly accelerating and exhibiting an e-folding response, i
Research into sea-level rise has taken on particular prominence in more recent times owing to the global threat posed by climate change and the fact that mean sea level and temperature remain the key proxies by which we can measure changes to the climate system. Under various climate change scenarios, it has been estimated that the threat posed by the effects of sea-level rise might lead to annual damage costs across Europe on the order of €25 billion by the 2080s. European mean sea-level records are among the best time series data available globally by which to detect the presence of necessary accelerations forecast by physics-based projection models to elevate current rates of global sea-level rise (≈3 mm/y) to anywhere in the vicinity of 10–20 mm/y by 2100. The analysis in this paper is based on a recently developed analytical package titled “msltrend,” specifically designed to enhance estimates of trend, real-time velocity, and acceleration in the relative mean sea-level signal derived from long annual average ocean water level time series. Key findings are that at the 95% confidence level, no consistent or compelling evidence (yet) exists that recent rates of rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records available across Europe, nor is there any evidence that geocentric rates of rise are above the global average. It is likely a further 20 years of data will distinguish whether recent increases are evidence of the onset of climate change–induced acceleration.
Admit you bungled the math and miscalculated the amount of likely future sea level rise in your posts.
rockdoc123 wrote:Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in the year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math----it will only take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.
OK....once again read what you wrote. 3.5 mm per year time over 9 years does not give you 30 cm it gives you 30 mm or 3 cm.
Honestly, you claim to be a geophysicist and you can't convert mm to cm? I laid this out pretty simply before. Do you actually think mm and cm are the same thing?
So once again....3.5 mm/yr over 82 years is 287 mm or 28.7 cm if you can't understand simple math like this you have a problem. The projections into the future are model based on various representative concentration pathways....they are not a continuation of current trends.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to stop you from coming back and repeating your nonsense....but I guess making a fool of yourself isn't a problem for you.
It’s pretty clear something is going on in Miami for instance. Also Annapolis is below regularally flooded. They bring portable walkways to the boat shows because the parking lots where the displays are go under at high tide.
rockdoc123 wrote: why you are now claiming you never said any of this
You are a liar. I never claimed I didn't say "any of this". Yes I typed 30 cm instead of 3.0 cm. Wow!
And I've already corrected my typo several times. For instance, just above I posted
I've already admitted I made a typo, and I've already posted the correction several times in the two days since rocdoc got all wee-wee'd up about the typo.
rockdoc123 wrote:It is hardly a "typo"....
Once I realized there I had made a typo, I corrected it in all subsequent posts.
Which you missed, in your agitated state.
rockdoc123 wrote:If it was a typo .... in the second post....
You are as ignorant about typos as you are about most things.
Typos are very commonly repeated. For instance the word "the" is commonly mistyped as "teh," with the exact same typo appearing over and over again in some people's manuscripts.
Plantagenet wrote:rockdoc123 wrote: if current sea level rise continues .....then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm
As I said, you can't do math, and as a result you make dumb mistakes post wildly inaccurate numbers. In this case you are so wrong it is absurd. The annual rate of sea level rise is now about 3.5 mm per year. That means there will be 30 cm of sea level rise in just 9 years----not the 82 years you postulate. So now your math is wrong by a factor of 10. I'm afraid you are hopeless when it comes to math.
Cheers!
Plantagenet wrote:rockdoc123 wrote:if current sea level rise continues .....then the total amount of sea level rise by 2100 is about 30 cm
You're just making a complete fool out of yourself on this one.
Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in the year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math----it will only take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.
Do you get it now? If so, then please man up and acknowledge your error.
Cheers!
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests