So glad this isn't really happening. 

"The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable."

Fortunately, our state is totally prepared: "After promoters of coastal development attacked a science panel’s prediction that the sea would rise 39 inches higher in North Carolina by the end of this century, the General Assembly passed a law in 2012 to put a four-year moratorium on any state rules, plans or policies based on expected changes in the sea level."

Comments

[NitWitCharmer]

I have often considered the mysterious ways of the French Huguenot Protestants who in the 1690's settled North Carolina's oldest town.

While today Bath is on the water, that clearly could not have been the case during settlement when one considers the history ocean level increases. Why would anyone, even French Huguenots, settle a town in a location that surly must have been far from water transportation so many hundreds of years ago?

Of course, the French Huguenots did plant Bath on the water in 1690 and over the ensuing centuries Bath has not succumb to rising oceans that have never risen.

[William Heasley]

Ah, but it isn’t happening as a “collapse“. Yep, no collapse. Ed you have another 1,000 years to build that seawall desperately needed. You forgot to read or report the entire article, Ed.

“But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/

[Ed Cone]

Yeah, the linked article is clear that it will take time for the whole thing to go bye-bye. Nobody is predicting a Noahic flood, so there's nothing to debunk there.

But the guy who led the study says a three-foot rise in the next century is a reasonable prediction. And three feet is a big enough rise that maybe long-term planning should take it into account as a possibility.

[NitWitCharmer]

Has ice not been melting throughout the past 10,000 to 12,000 years ... you know, since the last Ice Age or glacial period?

And in 1000 years this newest finding as reported by the NYT might add to that 12,000 year trend in climate?

Good.

If anything, humanity's greatest fear should be a shift toward more ice than the continuance of the current Goldilocks conditions marked by decreasing ice during over the past 12,000 years.

[Hartzman]

I agree with Ed on this one.

[Dave Dobson]

NitWit (appropriately named, I guess) - the world was at the last glacial maximum at about 18,000 years ago and melted into an interglacial period by about 6,000-8,000 years ago. Since that time, climate has varied some (e.g. North Africa has become much drier), but over the past 150 years (mostly the last 40 or so), atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature have increased to levels not seen in the past 3,000,000 years. We know this from data sets like Antarctic ice cores, tree rings, and marine sediments. This problem is not a thousand years away - we're in the middle of it now, and it's going to get a lot worse over the next few decades.

[john hayes]

"global temperature have increased to levels not seen in the past 3,000,000 years."
not true at all

[Hartzman]

Cognitive dissonance keeps the mold with arithmetically unsustainable longevity happy.

I fear we will see 2.5 billion human inhabitants of this planet before 10 billion...

[john hayes]

Take 2:
"global temperatures have increased to levels not seen in the last 3,000,000 years"

not
true
at all

[john hayes]

What is the earth's ideal climate? Is that not a relevant question? What do you think "climate optimum" means historically?

[john hayes]

What has man/life on earth done when it is warmer? What has it done when it is colder?

[NitWitCharmer]

It is clear that CO2 levels have risen. It is also clear that global mean temperature fluctuates over time. What is not clear is the correlation between the two.

The reason for this is that the CO2 argument rests entirely on positive feed-backs that magnify the global temperature increasing traits of CO2. Others like myself recognize that negative feedbacks also also exist.

But the science now shows that negative feedbacks are stronger than previously assumed by global warmists and that positive feedbacks are stronger than previously assumed by global warmists.

What science is that? It is the plethora of projections based on grossly exaggerated positive feedback assumptions and grossly ignored negative feedback assumptions made over the past 25 to 30 years that have claimed warming and sea level rises that have not occurred.

The experiment has been run and the models were wrong, the assumptions were wrong. In short man made global warming by way of CO2 has been proven non existent by the modeling failure.

[NitWitCharmer]

"positive feedbacks are stronger than previously assumed by global warmists."

Make that:

"positive feedbacks are weaker than previously assumed by global warmists. "

[NitWitCharmer]

Here:

[NitWitCharmer]

Geologically speaking we are experiencing a CO2 famine.

Also of note is the fact that there was no issue with runaway global temperatures due to CO2 int he past when CO2 was many times higher than the dire predictions of warmists.

If CO2 was not a problem then, why is CO2 a problem today? The answer is that science has been politicized, that science has lost objectivity due to government funding.

John's links:

Not

True

At All

[Ed Cone]

If only NASA scientists had access to Google, they could stop their foolish hand-wringing and get on with the important business of building cities on the moon.

Also, Are there hats?

But we were talking about the melting antarctic ice, and the foolish rule in NC.

We all seem to agree that climate changes over time (in this case, cause is not a necessary element of the discussion).

If the ice is melting at a rate that might well have an impact on the NC coastline in the relatively near future, shouldn't our plans for the coastline incorporate that risk factor?

[john hayes]

How'd you do that nitwit?

[NitWitCharmer]

Ed has been gracious enough to allow html image tags on his site so I try to keep the images small (no more than 500-600 px wide) by using google's image search feature and choosing an appropriate size.

Additionally, I use it for charts alone.

img src="url" alt="some_text" (within chevrons<>)

replace url with the link to your chosen image. If the url later breaks "some_text" shows in the image's absence and you can change "some_text" to whatever you want.

Wordup does require a comment to be made thus images alone can not be posted.

[Ed Cone]

"Wordup does require a comment to be made thus images alone can not be posted." Hmm. Not something I'm doing on purpose, will see if I can change it.

Back to the point about probability and planning. I'd guess most of us grab an umbrella on the prediction of rain, would hesitate to send our families to a beach under evacuation watch for a hurricane still miles away, support the idea of earthquake-proofing buildings in relevant regions, etc.

Same logic applies here. The ice is observed to be melting. There is a reasonable possibility of rising sea levels because of it. So erasing any such calculations from the risk projections along our coastlines is foolish.

[NitWitCharmer]

Same logic applies here. The ice is observed to be melting. There is a reasonable possibility of rising sea levels because of it.

...

Melting?

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

Just as the predictions for global warming have been wrong and the "reasonable precautions" which include foisting the expense of the green lifestyle via high energy prices on those who can least afford it was a mistake, so too is believing and acting on the same sort of forecasts from the same poor prognosticators in regard to the above linked and only forecasted ice melt ... ice melt that has not occurred.

Simply put it is foolish to respond to individuals who are have a track record of being wrong and are little more than a modern version of ancient eclipse forecasters crying eminent doom is neigh.

[Ed Cone]

Per the report from NASA, the antarctic ice sheet is melting. Nothing in the link you provide about sea ice contradicts that data, or suggests that the amount of sea ice will offset the melting ice sheet. Again, the NASA scientists have Google, too, and are unlikely to have their work undermined by an article you found from their hometown paper.

This is not about a "green lifestyle," it's about sensible risk management and planning in coastal areas, bases on observable conditions and reasonable projections.

[Dave Dobson]

The deuterium data you post generally end around 1910, or more than 100 years ago, and thus do not include modern warming. They also reflect the temperature of Antarctica, not the world. Most of the graphs you post are unsourced and uncaptioned. CO2 levels are far higher now than at any time in the past ice age cycles. Lots more here and at many other places, but this graph sums up the CO2 history nicely:

[NitWitCharmer]

Ed points to projections of ice melt, I point to actual increases in Antarctic ice that baffle the same scientists that project melt.

Sensible people would ask why we should believe the predictions of scientists befuddled by current observations.

Less sensible people ... simply believe.

And while less sensible people believe in doom Dobson debates himself:

Dobson now

CO2 levels are far higher now than at any time in the past ice age cycles.

vs. Dobson then

atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature have increased to levels not seen in the past 3,000,000 years.

proof of which Dobson contends can be found snapshot of a chart one comment above that extends back not even 1/2 million years. One wonders why Dobson did not post this chart which more closely matches his 3,000,000 year time span and found at the link he provided within his comment:

Actually, no we don't wonder why he did not post that chart. It does not support his preconceived notions.

And Dobson says:

The deuterium data you post generally end around 1910, or more than 100 years ago.

Not true. The CO2 chart I posted clearly notes current CO2 at 387ppm and marks that point on the chart with a row of green dots on a green line. Perhaps you missed it as it is at the bottom of the chart.

As for John's each of his charts end on the right with today's readings. One can recognize this is the case by the "0" on the timeline or the arrow that marks the point labeled "today".

[Ed Cone]

"The pace and magnitude of the changes observed in this region match the expectation that Amundsen Sea embayment glaciers should be less stable than others. In some cases, the changes have outstripped expectations." NASA, emphasis mine.

Nitwit/Polifrog,we seem to be at the same point in this thread that we were when you derailed on coal ash -- you're just typing, without reference to the material in front of you. So, barring some substantive comments, I'm done responding to you here.

[NitWitCharmer]

Nitwit/Polifrog,we seem to be at the same point in this thread that we were when you derailed on coal ash -- you're just typing, without reference to the material in front of you. So, barring some substantive comments, I'm done responding to you here.

Derailed? It was and is a fact that much of what is considered pollution is the result of concentrating otherwise benign naturally occurring matter. Dispersal is the answer and dispersal the reason we once used rivers to rid ourselves of pollution, but the idea that our over burdening of that method of dispersal equates to the dispersal of pollution being wrong is itself wrong headed....

...just as it is wrong headed to look at changes in ice in one small part of Antarctica as a harbinger of the future while ignoring the fact that the amount of ice in Antarctica is expanding at unheard of rates confound the same scientists that predict doom.

Our climate is more than a single ice flow, or single molecule (CO2).

Feel free to ignore me but I suggest you consider ignoring neither science nor logic.

[john hayes]

Dave Dobson, while I am not using this as an excuse to dismiss its content, your graph is no better sourced or captioned than any other one in this thread. But while you are on the subject, could you share with us the source of your contention that global temperature have increased to levels not seen in the past 3,000,000 years?

[Ed Cone]

John, any thoughts on the NASA report and the NC rule?

[john hayes]

Ed, why do you want to skip past my questioning the seemingly incorrect assertions by someone who calls out everyone's assertions as incorrect? Are you at all interested in Dave's answer to the question, or do you just want to rally to the aid of "our team"? Do you yourself have evidence to confirm that temperatures are higher now than they have been in 3,000,000 years, and do you find Dave's graphs as presented in this thread better sourced or captioned than the rest of us? Answer those questions and I will answer yours with equal specificity

[Ed Cone]

I haven't been following the sidebar discussion, John. My interest here is in the material I posted.

One reason I find this material worth discussing is that it's based on real-time observation and fairly simple science, which I hope will mitigate the tendency toward a "team" mentality you mention.

[NitWitCharmer]

I am reminded of an article I read some time ago about hot spot of volcanic activity in West Antarctica. I don't know now which one, but it could have been this one. or this one.

It should be noted that is the same area, West Antarctica, that the NYT article references.

NYT:

The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable.

VoaNews:

Scientists have discovered a previously unknown volcano buried a kilometer under the Antarctic ice.

A group of scientists from Washington University initially set out to study the history of Anarctica’s climate. To do so, they set up seismic equipment across Marie Byrd Land in West Anarctica to “weigh the ice.”

Two seismic events, one in January of 2010 and another in March of 2011, puzzled the team.

Bold added.

Hmm... Ice melts in West Antarctica due to a questionable CO2 hypothesis that has proven wrong or ice melts in West Antarctica due to a massive volcanic hot spot.

So to summarize, in one article scientists are puzzled by previously unknown volcanic hot-spot under West Antarctica, in another article scientists are baffled by the record increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica, yet we are to believe the scientists who claim it is beyond debate that the Antarctic is melting due to global warming....

This leads to whether NC's rule is wise.

Of course it is.

Science has been compromised in the area of global warming and the NC rule addresses that issue.

The worst thing to happen to the purity of science has been government funding, thus the NC rule is appropriate in the context of grossly distorted government funded global warming "science" populated by unscientifically over confident global warming scientists who are anything but scientists.

[Dave Dobson]

Scientists are not "baffled" by the increase in West Antarctic ice. More heat in the atmosphere means more evaporation from the oceans, which means more atmospheric water content, which means more snow in some areas. Look at me, not being baffled.

On the graph I posted, the ice age information (blue line) comes from Antarctic ice cores, while the modern run-up data come from ice cores and Mauna Loa measurements. Specific data sets are cited here.

Thermometers also show a significant increase in global temperature. If you wish to continue this argument, I suggest you buy a thermometer and argue with it.

[Dave Dobson]

Hmm, didn't accept my link to sources. Here's another try: Sources

[john hayes]

I only see one source. Is that the the source of your contention that global temperatures have increased to levels not seen in the past 3,000,000 years? Otherwise I don't think a thermometer is going to give me an accurate record of anything other than what the temperature is at a given time and maybe that going forward.
Are you upset over this discussion?

[john hayes]

Besides, I didn't think our ice core records have been able to assess ice older than 420,000 years, which is the exact timetable of the ice core readings I posted above, which is the same time period as your own graph. And even during that span there have been 4 periods during which it was warmer than it is today.

"Researchers working at Vostok Station produced one of the world's longest ice cores in 1998. A joint Russian, French, and United States team drilled and analyzed the core, which is 3,623 m (11,886 ft) long. Ice samples from cores drilled close to the top of the lake have been assessed to be as old as 420,000 years."

[NitWitCharmer]

Dobson:Scientists are not "baffled" by the increase in West Antarctic ice.

According to the scientists via the article:

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

Their doubt, their skepticism, is the result of their being scientists. They understand that when there is no room to be wrong the scientific method does not work, thus real scientists are never cock-sure and would never say, "Look at me, not being baffled."

As to Dobson's thermometer... Does your thermometer read global temperatures? Does it give you a read on the climate? I suggest you begin arguing with your thermometer if it does.

My thermometer gives me quite local readings.

[NitWitCharmer]

A study by the Institute for Geophysics UTA is produced by scientists driven by their desire to not be baffled concluded:

Our results further suggest that the subglacial water systems of the Thwaites Glacier may be responding to heterogeneous and temporarily variable basal melting driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism and support the hypothesis that both heterogeneous and geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the WAIS.

Baffled scientists produce science while cock-sure scientists produce AGW politics...