“The current rate of sea-level rise at the mouth of the Chesapeake is about 4 millimeters per year (about 1.3 feet per century)” [as of 1998, when the rate had just begun to go up faster]”

Yeah, right. Because the Chesapeake Bay is like the entire world, right?

Why don’t you go to this graph posted at Real Climate within the past week, and tell me what rate of sea level rise *you* get from the “satellite altimeter.”

http://www.realclimate.org/images/sealevel_2.jpg

It looks to me like approximately 3 cm per decade…or 0.3 cm (3 mm) per year.

Hmmmm…that’s just about exactly like what I wrote, isn’t it?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs102-98/

“… the rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century has not been constant and that modern rates are more rapid than those determined by geologic studies conducted two decades ago. The current rate of sea-level rise at the mouth of the Chesapeake is about 4 millimeters per year (about 1.3 feet per century)” [as of 1998, when the rate had just begun to go up faster]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs102-98/fig6.gif

“… Our understanding of ice-sheet flow suggests the possibility that too much melting beneath ice shelves will lead to “runaway” thinning of the grounded ice sheet. Current understanding is too limited to know whether, when, or how rapidly this might happen, but discussions at the meeting included the possibility of several feet of sea-level rise over a few centuries from changes in this region….”

Seems to me this issue’s raised eyebrows and alarms from a variety of people, in a variety of forums, all rather much at the same time.

The message seems more important than how you like the particular messenger or how you split hairs over the issue being raised.

Ummm…yes.

100 cm = 1 meter.

So if the sea level is going to rise at least 1 meter in the next 100 years, it must rise by an average of 1 cm per year.

P.S. It’s currently rising at about 0.3 cm (i.e., 3 mm) per year.

I also agree that Benny Peiser was being ironic when he wrote

“Can I suggest that someone gently informs Mr Hansen that 2500 of the world’s top scientists cannot be wrong. It’s the consensus. The science is settled and the debate is over.”

An obvious irony.

1. By “interpolate” I mean to summarize the science in between the IPCC assessment reports.

2. I am not a sea level rise expert. The most recent consensus perspective is the IPCC report. If the science has advanced since that report was done then we need to “interpolate” the IPCC. This sort of “interpolation” made good sense in the case of hurricanes and I have no objections to sea level experts doing the same thing.

3. You ask “what _have_ you heard, to say that you’ve “heard everything” on the issue?”

That is a sarcastic comment referring to the fact that Dr. Hansen is using (inappropriately in my opinion) the sociology of science to make a point about the state of science, why he is correct and brave, and others are either wrong or cowardly.

4. If Dr. Hansen’s point is that the science of sea level has advanced faster than the IPCC can handle it and we need more frequent scientific summaries then he might have said something like: “the science of sea level has advanced faster than the IPCC can handle it and we need more frequent scientific summaries.”

The introduction of “reticence” as the basis for needing a new summary or why the IPCC is wrong simply doesn’t wash with me, sorry.

Nonetheless, a more rapid assessment of the science of sea level certainly makes sense.

Hope this helps, if not, please ask again. Thanks.

Do you suppose James Hansen is willing to put his money where his mouth is?

I’ll be happy to bet him $50 a year for the next 40 years that the sea level rise from 2000 to that year will be at a rate of less than 1 meter per century.

In other words, in 2008, it sea level will be less than 8 cm higher than in 2000. In 2009, it will be less than 9 cm higher than in 2000. In 2010, less than 10 cm higher, and so on.

Being the really nice guy that I am, I’ll even give him even money, instead of demanding that he give me 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 money when he loses. (It would be reasonable to demand better than even money, since he says that, “as a physicist, I find it almost inconceivable that BAU climate change would not yield a sea level change measured in meters on the century time scale.”)

How about it Dr. Hansen?

Of the science on sea level published since the IPCC deadline, which papers have you read? and do you consider any of those you’ve read significant enough to warrant concern before the next IPCC report?

If you’re not talking about science published since the IPCC deadline, would you say so clearly? It’s awfully hard to tell.

A list of papers would be most helpful clarifying your basis for the thread — what _have_ you heard, to say that you’ve “heard everything” on the issue?

Here’s an analogous situation — the Montreal Protocol isn’t due for reconsideration for another decade, but most of the signatory countries, including the USA, are urging quite strongly for an early meeting to tighten and shorten the limits on production of hydrofluorocarbons, because the ozone layer science is exceedingly clear, the problem’s not going away as hoped.

With sea level, there’s new science in since the last IPCC deadline; in the ordinary schedule it would not be considered until four or five years from now; the argument’s being made that it should be considered sooner.

Would you please take the time to pin yourself down as clearly as possible about the basis for your thinking here? Show us how the science side of ‘political science’ is done — please.