<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Expected Changes from Global Warming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://landshape.org/enm/expected-changes-from-global-warming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://landshape.org/enm/expected-changes-from-global-warming/</link>
	<description>The power of numeracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:48:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: davids99us</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/expected-changes-from-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-179660</link>
		<dc:creator>davids99us</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:49:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3261#comment-179660</guid>
		<description>Aslak,&lt;br&gt;I know there are a number of papers&lt;br&gt;using the same general assumptions,&lt;br&gt;though the details vary.  From my empirical&lt;br&gt;perspective I have noted:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1. There little evidence for &#039;acceleration&#039; of&lt;br&gt;sea level WRT temperature. Plot SL and T and&lt;br&gt;the best fit is a straight line, suggesting&lt;br&gt;empirical support is for SL = aT+c not&lt;br&gt;dSL/dt=aT , the rate related relationship&lt;br&gt;where sea level rises faster when as it gets&lt;br&gt;hotter.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;2. The SL stopped increasing mid century&lt;br&gt;just when temperature stopped increasing.&lt;br&gt;This suggest at most a 10 year lag is&lt;br&gt;justified by the data.  Could it also be that&lt;br&gt;the current low rate of SL increase is&lt;br&gt;because temperature has stopped increasing?&lt;br&gt;So if temperature does not increase much&lt;br&gt;then SL may not increase much either.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;3. The estimates of 1m are based on IPCC&lt;br&gt;projections which are running way too high.&lt;br&gt;Current warming after subtracting out PDO&lt;br&gt;are about 0.5C Century.  Anyway, if IPCC&lt;br&gt; projections are high side, the is sea level&lt;br&gt;will be too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aslak,<br />I know there are a number of papers<br />using the same general assumptions,<br />though the details vary.  From my empirical<br />perspective I have noted:</p>
<p>1. There little evidence for &#39;acceleration&#39; of<br />sea level WRT temperature. Plot SL and T and<br />the best fit is a straight line, suggesting<br />empirical support is for SL = aT+c not<br />dSL/dt=aT , the rate related relationship<br />where sea level rises faster when as it gets<br />hotter.</p>
<p>2. The SL stopped increasing mid century<br />just when temperature stopped increasing.<br />This suggest at most a 10 year lag is<br />justified by the data.  Could it also be that<br />the current low rate of SL increase is<br />because temperature has stopped increasing?<br />So if temperature does not increase much<br />then SL may not increase much either.</p>
<p>3. The estimates of 1m are based on IPCC<br />projections which are running way too high.<br />Current warming after subtracting out PDO<br />are about 0.5C Century.  Anyway, if IPCC<br /> projections are high side, the is sea level<br />will be too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aslak Grinsted</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/expected-changes-from-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-179659</link>
		<dc:creator>Aslak Grinsted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3261#comment-179659</guid>
		<description>There is an error in the Siddall paper.  According to this page a correction is in preparation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So, the projections of ~1m are (in my opinion) still the best. (Papers by Grinsted, Jevrejeva, Rahmstorf, and Vermeer all agree on this).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is an error in the Siddall paper.  According to this page a correction is in preparation.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2.." rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2..</a>.</p>
<p>So, the projections of ~1m are (in my opinion) still the best. (Papers by Grinsted, Jevrejeva, Rahmstorf, and Vermeer all agree on this).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
