How much will global sea level rise this century?

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:49 PM GMT on July 13, 2009

Share this Blog
4
+

How much will global sea level rise this century? Well, global sea level rise began in the late 1700s, and accelerated to 1.2 inches (3 cm) per decade over the past 25 years (see my post, Sea level rise: what has happened so far). If the conditions that led to this acceleration continue, we can expect sea level will rise an additional 1.1 ft (0.34 m) by 2100 (Jevrejeva et al., 2008). At a minimum, sea level rise during the 21st century should equal that of the 20th century, about seven inches (0.6 ft, 0.18 meters). This is the lower bound given by the IPCC in its 2007 assessment, which projected sea level rise of 0.6 - 1.9 ft (0.18 - 0.59 m) by 2100. However, they cautioned in their report that due to the lack of knowledge about how melting glaciers behave, the actual sea level rise might be higher. There is a growing consensus that the 2007 IPCC sea level rise estimates are much too low.


Figure 1. Observed global sea level from tide gauges (red line, pink color is the uncertainty range) and satellite measurements (green line), with forecasts for the future. The blue colors show the range of projections for three different forecasts (the forecasts overlap, but this overlap is not shown). Image modified from U.S. EPA.

The 2007 IPCC report: too conservative?
Three major sea level rise studies published since the 2007 IPCC report have argued that the IPCC's projections of sea level rise are too conservative. A paper published in 2008 in Science by Pfeffer et al. (2008) concluded that the "most likely" range of sea level rise by 2100 is 2.6 - 6.6 ft (0.8 - 2.0 meters). Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model--the ice flow dynamics of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. For example, increased glacial flow may result when water draining from melt water lakes on the surface of the glacier to the base of the glacier, where it acts as a lubricant. The authors cautioned that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial.

Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany looked at the observed relationship between changes in sea level and global temperatures since 1900 (Rahmstorf, 2007). Rahmstorf showed that that there has been a direct relationship between sea level rise and global average temperature: 0.1 - 0.3 meters of sea level rise occurs per °C increase in global temperature. Using this relationship, Rahmstorf predicted 1.6 - 4.6 ft (0.5 - 1.4 m) of sea level rise by 2100, since the IPCC predicts that global temperatures will rise 1.4° to 5.8°C. Rahmstorf concluded, "very low sea-level rise values as reported in the 2007 IPCC report now appear rather implausible in the light of the observational data".

A similar approach was taken by Grinsted et al. (2009), but they extended the relationship between sea level and global average temperature all the way back to 200 A.D. using proxy records. They concluded that ice sheets respond more quickly to temperature changes than the computer models used in the 2007 IPCC assessment. The authors estimated that "IPCC projections of sea level rise 2090 - 2099 are underestimated by roughly a factor of three". The authors predicted that global sea level will be rising 11 mm/year by 2050--four times faster than the 20th century rise. By the last decade of this century, they forecasted that sea level will rise 3.0 - 4.3 feet (0.9 - 1.3 meters), using the IPCC's A1B "business as usual" scenario.

The long-range forecast: using paleohistory to forecast sea level rise
We can also look at times in Earth's past that had similar climate to what we expect by the year 2100. The best time to look at is probably just before the most recent ice age--the Eemian. This interglacial period 130,000 - 114,000 years ago featured temperatures near the poles that were 2°C warmer than present-day temperatures. Tree line lay about 500 miles farther north in the Canadian Arctic, and the hippopotamus ranged as far north as the Thames River in England. A similar climate is expected under some of the more moderate global warming scenarios envisioned by the IPCC. Sea level is believed to have been 4 - 6 meters (13 - 20 feet) higher than at present during the Eemian, but there is at least one unpublished study that presents evidence that global sea level was 6 - 9 meters (20 - 30 feet) higher. If the climate does warm to levels seen in the Eemian, it is widely believed that we would again see sea levels at least 4 - 6 meters higher than the present-day levels. Clearly, sea level rises of this magnitude would be ruinous to society. However, most climate change scientists believe that it would take many centuries for enough ice to melt from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to create sea level rises of 4 - 6 meters.

However, the scientist who is arguably the most visible and authoritative climate scientist in the world, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, stated (Hansen, 2007) "I find it almost inconceivable that business-as-usual climate change would not yield a sea level change of the order of meters on the century timescale" (IPCC business-as-usual (BAU) scenarios assume that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will continue to increase year after year). Hansen gave a hypothetical but potentially realistic scenario where the sea level rise due to ice sheet disintegration doubles every decade, leading to a 16 foot (5 meter) sea level increase by 2100. He noted that during the Plio-Pleistocene period 2 - 3 million years ago, CO2 levels were similar to today (350 - 450 ppm), and global temperatures were 2 - 3°C warmer, similar to what we expect by the end of the century. Yet, this Plio-Pleistocene world was "a dramatically different planet, without Arctic sea ice in the warm seasons and with a sea level 25 ± 10 m higher."

Summary
To summarize, here are some predictions of how high global sea level might rise by 2100:

0.6 ft (0.18 m): Constant linear rise, equal to 20th century rise
1.1 ft (0.34 m): Constant acceleration model (Jevrejeva et al., 2008)
0.6 - 1.9 ft (0.18 - 0.59 m): Primitive models of ice sheets (IPCC, 2007)
1.6 - 4.6 ft (0.5 - 1.4 m): Relationship between temperature and sea level rise since 1900 (Rahmstorf, 2007)
3.0 - 4.3 feet (0.9 - 1.3 m): Relationship between temperature and sea level rise since 200 A.D. (Grinsted et al., 2009)
2.6 - 6.6 ft (0.8 - 2.0 meters): Considering glacier ice flow dynamics not included by the IPCC (Pfeffer et al., 2008)

In a 2009 interview with New Scientist magazine, sea level expert Stephan Rahmstorf said, "I sense that now a majority of sea level experts would agree with me that the IPCC projections are much too low." This sentiment was echoed by glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who commented, "most of my community is comfortable expecting at least a metre by the end of this century."

In forthcoming posts in this series, I'll explore how a meter (3.28 feet) of sea level rise will affect the U.S. coast, the Caribbean, and other vulnerable locations world-wide. It would be wise to begin preparing now for a potential rise in sea level of a meter this century. In particular, development near the coasts should be severely restricted in low-elevation zones. It will be very expensive to protect or move infrastructure away from rising seas later this century. However, even if the rate of sea level rise doubles every decade, those of us who are over the age of 50 will not live to see sea level rise cause a significant disruption to society. There is time for society to prepare for the rising sea.

References
Jevrejeva, S., J.C. Moore, A. Grinsted,, and P.L. Woodworth, 2008, "Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?", Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611, 2008.

Grinsted, A., J.C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2009, "Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD", Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0507-2, 06 January 2009.

Hansen, J., 2007, "Scientific reticence and sea level rise",, Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (April-June 2007) 024002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, 996 pp.

Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, and S. O'Neel, 2008, "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise", Science 321 no. 5894, pp. 1340-1343, 5 September 2008. DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099

Rahmstorf, Stefan. "Sea-Level Rise: A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future." Science 315 (2007): 368–370.

Other posts in this series
Sea level rise: what has happened so far
U.S. vulnerability to sea level rise

Wednesday, I'll take a look at the Atlantic hurricane forecast for the remainder of July. There's currently nothing out there worth discussing--will it stay that way?

Dr. Ricky Rood has some interesting commentary on the new climate change legislation that passed the House last month, and will go to the Senate in September.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 2485 - 2435

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50Blog Index

2485. wsvnweatherteam
12:43 AM GMT on July 16, 2009
DOES ANYONE THINK SOMETHING WILL DEVELOP IN THE TROPICS BY AUGUST?
2484. atmoaggie
4:54 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting errantlythought:


This isnt really intelligent, its an exercise in pointing out fallacies. Which, honestly, I'm not going to bother with.

However, I wanted to make the post simply to point one thing out: You will see what you want to see in this single post even without considering both sides of it or actually reading the content.


I cannot fathom seeing anything but the words in the post. There are some objective folks out there, believe it or not.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
2483. Patrap
4:49 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
2482. errantlythought
2:51 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting DeVryguy:
Let the reader note that Dr. Masters latest blog concerning sea level rise--with it's dramatic graph of a human figure standing next to an awesome and precipitous change in sea level in the closing decades of the 21st century--cites as a reference an article by Rahmstorf. Click on the link provided one notes that the article is entitled "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise." The use of the term "semi-empirical" in much scientific work is quite often little more than a synonym for guess work and reminds the educated reader that the 18th century use of the word empirical was entirely pejorative--as in pulling something from a place where the sun doesn't shine. But more than that, if you click on the second technical comment you will read that Rahmstorf's method doesn't produce a "robust" regression coefficient. The commentators propose a different method similar to what is commonly used in econometrics. The irony here is that, judging by the spectacular failure of the big economic brains to predict the economic collapse that occurred several months ago, one should place any confidence in an econometric method. Perhaps one should but it becomes clear as one "follows the links" on global warming in general, there's a lot of interpretation going on that stretches the limit of the data. I also remind the reader that whatever the quality of today's sea level data, such quality must fall off sharply when one goes back in time even a few decades. According to Dr. Masters, "The authors cautioned that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial." "Statistically substantial uncertainties" are often accompanied by substantial uncertainties in the error bars themselves which means that all of the ranges given may be totally off. The author's work may be consistent with zero change in sea-level in the next 100 years or even negative changes. Indeed, the ranges given by Jevrejeva (0.6 - 1.9 ft) are outside the ranges of Pfeffer (2.6 ft - 6.6ft). Perhaps if Jevrejeva had been a teensy bit more optimistic he might have included 0ft within his range? Not by fudging but compared the quality of physical data one encounters in other branches of the physical sciences (like estimates of the velocity of light, for example), perhaps the author should place less confidence in his model and simply say that we really don't know enough to definitively exclude it? When Dr. Masters says, in reference to Pheffer's results, "Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model" he indavertantly illustrates another problem with climate research: the mixing of modeling and data. Dynamical modeling is fraught with difficult mathematical problems even with today's powerful computers. Much of the modeling involves fluid dynamics and if one looks at other areas where this is used--which aren't freighted with the politics of climate change--one will get a sobering view of just how hard it is. The free admixture of results--now from models, now from "data"--that is so common in the literature of climate change should raise red flags. Such admixture is also common in economics and I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether, given the powerful models and impressive mathematical apparatus they use, they've come close to predicting, say, the business cycle--the ability to do so being something of obvious concern and benefit to all.


This isnt really intelligent, its an exercise in pointing out fallacies. Which, honestly, I'm not going to bother with.

However, I wanted to make the post simply to point one thing out: You will see what you want to see in this single post even without considering both sides of it or actually reading the content.
Member Since: August 27, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 191
2480. Chicklit
2:40 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Link

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2009jcap.html
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2479. Chucktown
2:38 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
The entire global warming scheme is politically driven. People, we are basing global warming on a 100 year data set. Thats absurd. We don't know what happenned 5000 years ago - and I don't want to hear about ice core samples. How do you determine what happenned in the sub tropical climates where there was no ice. The world is being brainwashed by the media and people like Al Gore. You know what, if big Al was so concerned with the changing climate, he would stop flying around in his private jet at 35 K feet. Whether you believe in evolution or Adam & Eve - there just isn't enough data to support whether or not the planet is warming or is it humanly induced.
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1662
2478. Prgal
2:38 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
New blog.
Member Since: September 7, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 918
2477. AussieStorm
2:35 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Hello all.

Tsunami warning for the marine environment for parts of NEW SOUTH WALES.

Threatened areas extend from Gabo Island to Seal Rocks including Batemans Bay,
Bellambi, Botany Bay, Gabo Island, Jervis Bay, Kiama, Merimbula, Montague
Island, Moruya, Moruya Heads, Narooma, Nelson Bay, Norah Head, Shell Harbour,
Sydney Harbour, Ulladulla and Wollongong.

Possibility of DANGEROUS WAVES, STRONG OCEAN CURRENTS AND SOME LOCALISED
OVERFLOW ONTO THE IMMEDIATE FORESHORE from now until 1:00am EST Thursday.

Although major evacuations are not required, people are advised to get out of
the water and move away from the immediate water's edge.

Next update will be issued by 01:14 AM EST on Thursday 16 July 2009
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15749
2476. InTheConeOIO
2:32 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
OFF TOPIC: I hope Joe B is correct in his Winter forecast for 2009-2010, because I'm in the Cold and Snowy section!:)Link
2475. FatPenguin
2:32 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting atmoaggie:


Bravo! (Throwing roses at you.) You put that all together so much better than I.


DeVryGuy makes a valid point, but let's remember what the prediction was for loss of summer Arctic ice in 2006 vs today's prediction. In 2006 the range was between 75 to 100 years for total loss of summer Arctic ice extent. Today that prediction is 5 to 20 years. That's not the direction you want your incorrect computer models to go.
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 315
2473. Chicklit
2:26 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Hi Sefl...in about a week we will know. Until then, it's watch and wait.
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2471. Seflhurricane
2:24 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
anyone have any idea if the tropical wave near the coast of africa will develop soon
Member Since: July 14, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 2990
2470. Chicklit
2:23 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
We knew thirty years ago that the ozone layer was being depleted at the poles. Now the caps are melting. Whether ocean levels are rising or not is a technicality. What is important is chemical emissions controlled by humans are changing our atmosphere.
So talk around it all you want, make it a political issue, pride yourself on your cleverness at refuting arguments, the plain truth is we are altering our atmosphere, peeling the skin off of our planet, so to speak.
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2468. jurakantaino
2:19 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
/>Well...I guess things are a little better...96E is now TD 5E (probably becoming Dolores), Carlos is still a hurricane, a thrid tropical wave will emerge w/ the 1st and 2nd wave and maybe develop???? I guess things are a little better?Better? I don't get this,or what you are saying is better because we can track and analise more weather systems?
Member Since: July 31, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 730
2467. InTheConeOIO
2:09 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Crown Weather Tropical Discussion for July 15, 2009: Link
2466. BeadLady
2:09 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
New to this, so any help would be appreciated. Have been reading this blog for several years. Lots of helpful information as we live on the AL coast and keep a close eye on the weather down here. Sometimes you guys/gals are a hoot!!!! Can someone give me the link to the Navy's page on Gulf Stream eddies? And the map showing where everyone lives? We are in Gulf Shores, AL. And extremely happy to be here.
2464. atmoaggie
2:07 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting DeVryguy:
Let the reader note that Dr. Masters latest blog concerning sea level rise--with it's dramatic graph of a human figure standing next to an awesome and precipitous change in sea level in the closing decades of the 21st century--cites as a reference an article by Rahmstorf. Click on the link provided one notes that the article is entitled "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise." The use of the term "semi-empirical" in much scientific work is quite often little more than a synonym for guess work and reminds the educated reader that the 18th century use of the word empirical was entirely pejorative--as in pulling something from a place where the sun doesn't shine. But more than that, if you click on the second technical comment you will read that Rahmstorf's method doesn't produce a "robust" regression coefficient. The commentators propose a different method similar to what is commonly used in econometrics. The irony here is that, judging by the spectacular failure of the big economic brains to predict the economic collapse that occurred several months ago, one should place any confidence in an econometric method. Perhaps one should but it becomes clear as one "follows the links" on global warming in general, there's a lot of interpretation going on that stretches the limit of the data. I also remind the reader that whatever the quality of today's sea level data, such quality must fall off sharply when one goes back in time even a few decades. According to Dr. Masters, "The authors cautioned that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial." "Statistically substantial uncertainties" are often accompanied by substantial uncertainties in the error bars themselves which means that all of the ranges given may be totally off. The author's work may be consistent with zero change in sea-level in the next 100 years or even negative changes. Indeed, the ranges given by Jevrejeva (0.6 - 1.9 ft) are outside the ranges of Pfeffer (2.6 ft - 6.6ft). Perhaps if Jevrejeva had been a teensy bit more optimistic he might have included 0ft within his range? Not by fudging but compared the quality of physical data one encounters in other branches of the physical sciences (like estimates of the velocity of light, for example), perhaps the author should place less confidence in his model and simply say that we really don't know enough to definitively exclude it? When Dr. Masters says, in reference to Pheffer's results, "Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model" he indavertantly illustrates another problem with climate research: the mixing of modeling and data. Dynamical modeling is fraught with difficult mathematical problems even with today's powerful computers. Much of the modeling involves fluid dynamics and if one looks at other areas where this is used--which aren't freighted with the politics of climate change--one will get a sobering view of just how hard it is. The free admixture of results--now from models, now from "data"--that is so common in the literature of climate change should raise red flags. Such admixture is also common in economics and I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether, given the powerful models and impressive mathematical apparatus they use, they've come close to predicting, say, the business cycle--the ability to do so being something of obvious concern and benefit to all.


Bravo! (Throwing roses at you.) You put that all together so much better than I.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
2463. Chicklit
2:07 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2462. Chicklit
2:05 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Link
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2461. cyclonekid
2:01 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Well...I guess things are a little better...96E is now TD 5E (probably becoming Dolores), Carlos is still a hurricane, a thrid tropical wave will emerge w/ the 1st and 2nd wave and maybe develop???? I guess things are a little better?
Member Since: July 14, 2009 Posts: 51 Comments: 1715
2460. IKE
1:59 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting ALCoastGambler:
Just typical summer storms then. I keep hearing talk of trailing end of a front with some possibilities of doing something in the GOM and saw a cluster of "clouds" at the MS/LA line and didn't know if it all had to do with that. Figured not because the storms were moving s-se. Thanks


That would be probably Sunday-Monday of next week time frame.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
2459. hurricanejunky
1:59 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Heck, a blog about possible development of all the hyped blobs in the ITCZ and tropical atlantic would be nice. If for no other reason than to align the blog with the content being discussed.
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2895
2458. ALCoastGambler
1:58 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting IKE:


Got nothing yesterday or the day before at my house.
Just typical summer storms then. I keep hearing talk of trailing end of a front with some possibilities of doing something in the GOM and saw a cluster of "clouds" at the MS/LA line and didn't know if it all had to do with that. Figured not because the storms were moving s-se. Thanks
2457. IKE
1:53 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting ALCoastGambler:
Ike have you been getting these horrific afternoon thunderstorms over there? Had one yesterday about noon winds about 40mph. Assuming a possible cold front headiing through?


Got nothing yesterday or the day before at my house.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
2456. ALCoastGambler
1:51 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Ike have you been getting these horrific afternoon thunderstorms over there? Had one yesterday about noon winds about 40mph. Assuming a possible cold front headiing through?
2455. IKE
1:49 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Come on doc...I want a new blog...
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
2454. ALCoastGambler
1:48 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting Orcasystems:


Thats what I do also.. I just change locations from home to work.
I tried doing that but I drive for a living. I got a good hand went all in and dang near crashed my truck
2453. skibrian95
1:46 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Follow the money. Fund Manager BlackRock is betting against global warming. This gentleman is on retainer (should be unbiased, BlackRock wants to make money whichever way the weather goes, they just need to know which way it is going!):

Judah Cohen, Ph.D.
Dr. Cohen joined AER as a staff scientist in 1998, having previously spent two years as a National Research Council Fellow at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and then two years as a research scientist at MIT's Parsons Laboratory. Cohen received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from Columbia University in 1994 and has since focused on conducting numerical experiments with global climate models and advanced statistical techniques to better understand climate variability and to improve climate prediction. In addition to his research interests, Cohen is leading AER's development of seasonal forecasts for commercial clients. A member of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Cohen has published over two dozen articles in their journals and others.

So...obviously qualified.

The article from Yahoo! Finance:

http://finance.yahoo.com/techticker/article/280504/Top-Manager-Sees-


Top Manager Sees "Huge Risk" in Alternative Energy as Proof of Global Warming Cools
Posted Jul 15, 2009 08:00am EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Commodities, Clean Tech
Related: XOM, FSLR, XLE, TAN, STP, PBW, IYE
Daniel Rice, manager of the BlackRock Energy & Resources Fund, is the best-performing U.S. equity fund manager of the past decade, according to Morningstar. He's also not afraid to speak his mind, especially when it comes to the subjects of global warming and alternative energy, as revealed in the accompanying video.

Rice paints a "pretty dire picture" of the whole alternative energy industry, with the possible exception of wind, based on the following:

* Global warming patterns have reversed in the past decade, Rice says, citing studies by meteorologist Dr. Judah Cohen, whom BlackRock has on retainer. Ten years is microscopic in geological terms but "you'd better hope global warming is caused by man-made [carbon dioxide] if you're investing in these sectors," he says. "I think that's a huge risk based on some of the evidence that's been coming out."
* Alternative energies are not economical without major government subsidies or a large enough carbon tax. The cap and trade legislation currently being debated is "not enough to do anything," Rice says. "All it does is provide Obama a pass to Copenhagen" where the U.N. is hosting a climate change conference in December.

More government subsidies for alternative energy could be forthcoming but "governments across the world are being stretched" by the economic crisis, Rice notes. "There's not a lot of excess money, excess credit, [and] not as much risk capital willing to go into these sector."

So unless the global warming patterns reverse and go higher again or the global economy makes a major recovery, Rice believes alternative energies like Exxon's algae fuel initiative will remain very much on the fringe, and investors in the space will face further disappointments.
Member Since: April 11, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 12
2452. Orcasystems
1:45 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting ALCoastGambler:
WORK ohh no can't use that word around me I'll melt. I'm just gonna sit here and play poker, drink coffee, and read, the posts all day. I hope


Thats what I do also.. I just change locations from home to work.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
2451. ALCoastGambler
1:43 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting Orcasystems:


So far so good.. watching the Pacific.. watching NZ for after shocks.. reading Drudge and drinking coffee.

Then.. off to work :(
WORK ohh no can't use that word around me I'll melt. I'm just gonna sit here and play poker, drink coffee, and read, the posts all day. I hope
2450. Orcasystems
1:39 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting ALCoastGambler:
Morning Ike, Orca. How are ya'll this beautiful Alabama morning?


So far so good.. watching the Pacific.. watching NZ for after shocks.. reading Drudge and drinking coffee.

Then.. off to work :(
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
2449. Orcasystems
1:37 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting ALCoastGambler:
come on now Orca don't be such a downcaster for August.....lol


ROFL.. just betting with the averages.. mind you..if I had done that with the first half.. I would be broke by now.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
2448. ALCoastGambler
1:37 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Morning Ike, Orca. How are ya'll this beautiful Alabama morning?
2447. ALCoastGambler
1:35 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting Orcasystems:


I'm going to go with 50%, and 100% in August.
come on now Orca don't be such a downcaster for August.....lol
2446. Orcasystems
1:34 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting IKE:


Let me guess...I see very little for the next 7 days. I give it a 20% chance of a system by the end of July.



I'm going to go with 50%, and 100% in August.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
2445. IKE
1:29 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting Orcasystems:
Posted by: JeffMasters, 2:49 PM GMT on July 13, 2009

"Wednesday, I'll take a look at the Atlantic hurricane forecast for the remainder of July. There's currently nothing out there worth discussing--will it stay that way?"

Looking forward to seeing what Jeff has to say today.


Let me guess...I see very little for the next 7 days. I give it a 20% chance of a system by the end of July.

Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
2444. Orcasystems
1:23 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Posted by: JeffMasters, 2:49 PM GMT on July 13, 2009

"Wednesday, I'll take a look at the Atlantic hurricane forecast for the remainder of July. There's currently nothing out there worth discussing--will it stay that way?"

Looking forward to seeing what Jeff has to say today.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
2443. Chicklit
1:23 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting IKE:


Triplets will become one and move to the west...to WNW.



I am finding that hard to believe.
More believable that everything will fall apart and one tiny little LLC will survive from it all. And as we all know, it only takes one spin in the right conditions to create havoc. So let's hope it's just a rainmaker. Darn. This is nasty business. The Islands need the rain, that's all. Batten down the hatches, Mates!
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2442. TheWeatherMan504
1:21 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting DeVryguy:
Let the reader note that Dr. Masters latest blog concerning sea level rise--with it's dramatic graph of a human figure standing next to an awesome and precipitous change in sea level in the closing decades of the 21st century--cites as a reference an article by Rahmstorf. Click on the link provided one notes that the article is entitled "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise." The use of the term "semi-empirical" in much scientific work is quite often little more than a synonym for guess work and reminds the educated reader that the 18th century use of the word empirical was entirely pejorative--as in pulling something from a place where the sun doesn't shine. But more than that, if you click on the second technical comment you will read that Rahmstorf's method doesn't produce a "robust" regression coefficient. The commentators propose a different method similar to what is commonly used in econometrics. The irony here is that, judging by the spectacular failure of the big economic brains to predict the economic collapse that occurred several months ago, one should place any confidence in an econometric method. Perhaps one should but it becomes clear as one "follows the links" on global warming in general, there's a lot of interpretation going on that stretches the limit of the data. I also remind the reader that whatever the quality of today's sea level data, such quality must fall off sharply when one goes back in time even a few decades. According to Dr. Masters, "The authors cautioned that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial." "Statistically substantial uncertainties" are often accompanied by substantial uncertainties in the error bars themselves which means that all of the ranges given may be totally off. The author's work may be consistent with zero change in sea-level in the next 100 years or even negative changes. Indeed, the ranges given by Jevrejeva (0.6 - 1.9 ft) are outside the ranges of Pfeffer (2.6 ft - 6.6ft). Perhaps if Jevrejeva had been a teensy bit more optimistic he might have included 0ft within his range? Not by fudging but compared the quality of physical data one encounters in other branches of the physical sciences (like estimates of the velocity of light, for example), perhaps the author should place less confidence in his model and simply say that we really don't know enough to definitively exclude it? When Dr. Masters says, in reference to Pheffer's results, "Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model" he indavertantly illustrates another problem with climate research: the mixing of modeling and data. Dynamical modeling is fraught with difficult mathematical problems even with today's powerful computers. Much of the modeling involves fluid dynamics and if one looks at other areas where this is used--which aren't freighted with the politics of climate change--one will get a sobering view of just how hard it is. The free admixture of results--now from models, now from "data"--that is so common in the literature of climate change should raise red flags. Such admixture is also common in economics and I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether, given the powerful models and impressive mathematical apparatus they use, they've come close to predicting, say, the business cycle--the ability to do so being something of obvious concern and benefit to all.


That has to be the smartest post on the subject that I have seen on this Blog in the 3 Years I have been here.
Member Since: May 18, 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 1042
2441. IKE
1:16 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting Chicklit:
From Crown Weather:
. . . am closely monitoring the eastern Atlantic, which is dotted by three separate tropical disturbances. One near 40 West Longitude, the second near 27 West Longitude and a third near 18 West Longitude. It appears, based on satellite imagery, that the two disturbances behind the first are moving quicker and I would suspect in the next couple of days that all three of these disturbances will try to congeal into one identifiable tropical disturbance and this seems to be what the GFS model has been trying to say all along.

What?!


Triplets will become one and move to the west...to WNW.

Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
2440. Chicklit
1:12 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
From Crown Weather:
. . . am closely monitoring the eastern Atlantic, which is dotted by three separate tropical disturbances. One near 40 West Longitude, the second near 27 West Longitude and a third near 18 West Longitude. It appears, based on satellite imagery, that the two disturbances behind the first are moving quicker and I would suspect in the next couple of days that all three of these disturbances will try to congeal into one identifiable tropical disturbance and this seems to be what the GFS model has been trying to say all along.

What?!
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
2439. willdunc79
1:12 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Just checking in so how are the 3 tropical waves doing this morning? Gave they *poofed* yet?
Member Since: June 27, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 152
2438. IKE
1:12 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Quoting bdkennedy1:
Wow! Thanks! Would never have known that unless you posted it.



You're welcome.....
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37858
2437. DeVryguy
1:05 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Let the reader note that Dr. Masters latest blog concerning sea level rise--with it's dramatic graph of a human figure standing next to an awesome and precipitous change in sea level in the closing decades of the 21st century--cites as a reference an article by Rahmstorf. Click on the link provided one notes that the article is entitled "A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise." The use of the term "semi-empirical" in much scientific work is quite often little more than a synonym for guess work and reminds the educated reader that the 18th century use of the word empirical was entirely pejorative--as in pulling something from a place where the sun doesn't shine. But more than that, if you click on the second technical comment you will read that Rahmstorf's method doesn't produce a "robust" regression coefficient. The commentators propose a different method similar to what is commonly used in econometrics. The irony here is that, judging by the spectacular failure of the big economic brains to predict the economic collapse that occurred several months ago, one should place any confidence in an econometric method. Perhaps one should but it becomes clear as one "follows the links" on global warming in general, there's a lot of interpretation going on that stretches the limit of the data. I also remind the reader that whatever the quality of today's sea level data, such quality must fall off sharply when one goes back in time even a few decades. According to Dr. Masters, "The authors cautioned that "substantial uncertainties" exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial." "Statistically substantial uncertainties" are often accompanied by substantial uncertainties in the error bars themselves which means that all of the ranges given may be totally off. The author's work may be consistent with zero change in sea-level in the next 100 years or even negative changes. Indeed, the ranges given by Jevrejeva (0.6 - 1.9 ft) are outside the ranges of Pfeffer (2.6 ft - 6.6ft). Perhaps if Jevrejeva had been a teensy bit more optimistic he might have included 0ft within his range? Not by fudging but compared the quality of physical data one encounters in other branches of the physical sciences (like estimates of the velocity of light, for example), perhaps the author should place less confidence in his model and simply say that we really don't know enough to definitively exclude it? When Dr. Masters says, in reference to Pheffer's results, "Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model" he indavertantly illustrates another problem with climate research: the mixing of modeling and data. Dynamical modeling is fraught with difficult mathematical problems even with today's powerful computers. Much of the modeling involves fluid dynamics and if one looks at other areas where this is used--which aren't freighted with the politics of climate change--one will get a sobering view of just how hard it is. The free admixture of results--now from models, now from "data"--that is so common in the literature of climate change should raise red flags. Such admixture is also common in economics and I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether, given the powerful models and impressive mathematical apparatus they use, they've come close to predicting, say, the business cycle--the ability to do so being something of obvious concern and benefit to all.
Member Since: September 19, 2003 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
2436. Orcasystems
1:04 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
2435. Tazmanian
1:04 PM GMT on July 15, 2009
i can thanks EL Nino for this
Member Since: May 21, 2006 Posts: 5089 Comments: 114054

Viewing: 2485 - 2435

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50Blog Index

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.