Reading comprehension

A question:

Under BAU forcing in the 21st century, the sea level rise surely will be dominated by a third term: (3) ice sheet disintegration. This third term was small until the past few years, but it is has at least doubled in the past decade and is now close to 1 mm/year, based on the gravity satellite measurements discussed above. As a quantitative example, let us say that the ice sheet contribution is 1 cm for the decade 2005–15 and that it doubles each decade until the West Antarctic ice sheet is largely depleted. That time constant yields a sea level rise of the order of 5 m this century. Of course I cannot prove that my choice of a ten-year doubling time for nonlinear response is accurate, but I am confident that it provides a far better estimate than a linear response for the ice sheet component of sea level rise under BAU forcing.

Does anyone read the above paragraph as a “published, informed estimate” of sea level rise, rather than as an admittedly unsupported example to be contrasted with the IPCC’s linear BAU response as Jim Hansen explicitly states?

Anyone other than a perpetually misunderstood, non-skeptical heretic of course.

Have a nice weekend.

[UPDATE: It seems Gavin beat me to the punch.]


One response to “Reading comprehension

  1. The exchange on RC with Pielke is entertaining.

    You did a thoughtful (some found it too provacative) analysis of Lomborg. Perhaps you could give your thoughts on the Pielke’s? They are a pair to draw to.

    I do enjoy your blog. Stay with it!


    [I believe it was (someone else quoting) Eli Rabett who best explained RPJr’s preferred tactic- that of the “victim bully”. He takes the position either of a party aggrieved or on their behalf and uses it to attack the other party. It’s well on display in his Prometheus post on this, where he is presuming to speak preemptively for a media hypothetically injured to attack RealClimate and Hansen without any legitimate basis.

    And it doesn’t really seem like engaging him is worth the trouble. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t link to his site directly on this- I didn’t want to get bogged down in the swamp of tangents he normally brings to the table, which inevitably culminate in his direction to those asking for sources to either buy his book or read his recent publications. His distortion of Hansen on this specific topic was both unwarranted and unsubtle given his obvious feelings about RealClimate, and when he couldn’t get a bite at Prometheus, he took it to RC.

    Let me think on it. I don’t necessarily see that he and Lomborg have the same motivations, although there are certainly similarities, and the net effect is often the same. I think at least on some level Lomborg knows he’s full of it when he misrepresents people. I’m not so sure that RPJr doesn’t brush that off in furtherance of “having a discussion” (see his behavior in reaction to the Keenlyside et al. paper). I think he believes he’s performing a public good, despite the obvious evolution of Prometheus into a haven for deniers. -TB]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s