Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought

http://m.livescience.com/51990-sea-l...-unknowns.html

Quote:

---

If the Jakobshavn glacier had melted completely, "it contains enough ice to raise global sea level by half a meter — just this one glacier in Greenland," Rignot said. If all the land ice on the planet were to melt, it would raise sea levels about 197 feet (60 m), he added.

---

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bullshit on that claim. 71% of the earths surface is currently covered by water. That is 2.45 times the land surface.

Ice also shrinks by about 10% when it melts.

Doing the math the entire land surface would have to be covered in ice to a depth of 530 feet to raise the sea level 197 feet and that is not even taking into account the surface area of the newly covered land as the oceans rose.

Pfft, climate scientists. Real thinkers like ElNono tell us there's nothing to worry about, or if there is we should just do more research and not actually do anything about it. Ya know, can't do both at the same time, that would be too difficult.

When these "scientists" make outrageous claims like this one it certainly makes you question their credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bullshit on that claim. 71% of the earths surface is currently covered by water. That is 2.45 times the land surface.

Ice also shrinks by about 10$ when it melts.

Doing the math the entire land surface would have to be covered in ice to a depth of 530 feet to raise the sea level 197 feet and that is not even taking into account the surface of the newly covered land as the oceans rose.

---

Phew, thanks for that analysis. I was getting a bit worried but now that you've called bullshit I feel much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

Phew, thanks for that analysis. I was getting a bit worried but now that you've called bullshit I feel much better.

---

Well, it's fifth grade level math. Why don't you do it yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

When these "scientists" make outrageous claims like this one it certainly makes you question their credibility.

---

Totally agree. Who do these people think they are, with their fancy degrees and higher education? Real smart people like you know better, and have a keen knack for breaking it down so laymen such as myself can understand.

Phew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Well, it's fifth grade math. why don't you do it yourself?

---

Considering I used to work for NASA, I already know how much bullshit these "scientists" spew, just trying to keep their jobs living off the government teet. Fucking moochers.

Care to refute the math Mr. Rocket Scientist?

Or were you a janitor?

Yeah, I was a janitor programming the Space Shuttle math model simulator. Dirty work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

Yeah, I was a janitor programming the Space Shuttle math model simulator. Dirty work.

---

In that case the error in his claim should have been painfully obvious to you.

like I said, you are welcome to refute the math.

Its like the director in interstellar with his math equation

what math equation? CC didn't show his sums either.

I'm not opposed to people doing "something about it", or even companies migrating to systems with reduced emissions (which would imply it's not hurting their bottom line). That's silly, who wouldn't want that?

Now, forcing companies to ration their emissions is where I see the problem, as it would have a pretty massive economic impact. That's what the carbon tax/carbon marketplace models are.
For certain industries, like energy, it goes at the core of their business. That translates to loss of competitiveness, increased prices, lost jobs, lost economic output.

And it's debatable it would actually tackle the problem. I mean, China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic competitiveness.

Now, if you want to buy a Leaf instead of a gas guzzler, more power to you.

If I understand correctly, the level of CO2 we are currently releasing globally is too high - it must be reduced significantly, else we cross a tipping point - and we spiral with uncontrolled warming as permafrost thaws, etc....

Getting the developed world to reduce emissions has been nearly impossible, and the best that has been accomplished is a slowing of the increase in emissions....

Add to that China and India's development, and there is a larger demand for fossil fuels as these modernizing economies seek to take their respective places firmly in the first world. Their production of CO2 will continue to rise....we have no control over that.

In addition, there are other countries around the world that are just beginning to emerge, or wish to. We cannot expect those to slow their growth by relying almost exclusively on renewable (expensive) energy sources - we enjoyed cheap energy during our economic ascension; they expect nothing less for themselves.

The net result of this is that we cannot hope to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. It simply will never be lower than it is now, and in all probability - just looking pragmatically at the situation, is going to increase exponentially.

If the models are correct, we better damn well stop worrying about reducing carbon emissions, and start dealing with, what does this guy say, 200 foot higher seas (oh, and tundra we can actually farm!).

What are the ramifications beyond sea levels? With that much more liquid water, can't we expect more rainfall? More plants, wetter rivers and streams? More rain, less snow...

Returning all of that carbon buried in prehistoric plant and animal matter to the atmosphere will make the world, what, more Jurassic? Things grow bigger and differently, but stuff still grows, right?

What the IPCC (sic) is doing now amounts to trying to buy insurance on a house that is already on fire. There is no point....get about dealing with the wreckage; you're wasting our time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

what math equation? CC didn't show his sums either.

---

Agreed. Waiting on his maths....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

Agreed. Waiting on his maths....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

what math equation? CC didn't show his sums either.

---

Seriously? I gave you guys all the essential variables. I do simple stuff like that in my head.

197" claimed water rise
Water area is 2.45 X area of land at current sea levels
Water volume increases by 10% when it freezes

The number of feet of of land ice necessary to increase the sea level 197' feet (at it's current surface area) would be 197 X 2.45 X 1.1= ice would have to be 530.915 feet deep on every square foot of land mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bullshit on that claim. 71% of the earths surface is currently covered by water. That is 2.45 times the land surface.

Ice also shrinks by about 10% when it melts.

Doing the math the entire land surface would have to be covered in ice to a depth of 530 feet to raise the sea level 197 feet and that is not even taking into account the surface area of the newly covered land as the oceans rose.

---

:lol NASA doesn't know how to calculate volume and your napkin math is so definitive over peer review.

Thanks for channelling WC style stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

:lol NASA doesn't know how to calculate volume and your napkin math is so definitive over peer review.

Thanks for channelling WC style stupidity.

---

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic competitiveness.

---

China’s Carbon Count Is Not as High as Feared

Calculations on how much carbon dioxide China produces have been wrong for more than 10 years because the official bodies that calculate it have assumed the country’s power stations burn high-quality coal.

In fact, the world’s biggest polluter uses coal with a lower carbon content than power stations in Europe and the US, and so produces less carbon dioxide per tonne—around 14% less according to experts from 18 research institutions.

Getting the total quantities of CO₂ emitted by each country correct is crucial if the world is going to reach agreement on tackling dangerous climate change at the UN conference in Paris in December. One of the stumbling blocks to agreements in the past has been politicians’ need to have a fair system of sharing the burden of cuts.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...eared_20150821

China, and India, are going into wind and solar very aggressively. As in Africa, solar is bringing electricity to places that have none, esp in India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

---

All you have is incredulity. I do math just fine. What's funny is that you think that NASA doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

---

I'd like to see your equation written out tbh.

NASA actually counts all the ice caps and glaciers. Then there is this thing called a spreadsheet. Amazing!

As for the "expansion of water" theory the real numbers (lets say from 80 degrees F to 85 degrees F or 26.667 C to 29.44 C) are:

The formula:

change in volume = initial volume X volumetric temperature coefficient of water at that temperature X (final temperature minus original temperature)

1 X .000207 X (29.667 - 26.667) = .000621

In other words, with a given volume of water at 26.667 C and the temperature rises to 29.667 C the volume will increase by only .0006 %

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I'd like to see your equation written out tbh.

---

see post #17

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

see post #17

---

That is not a written out equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

NASA actually counts all the ice caps and glaciers. Then there is this thing called a spreadsheet. Amazing!

---

:lmao

refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.

For anyone interested in what they are talking about and tired of CC's WC style stupidity the article raised concerns with changing ocean temperatures and the behavior of glacial collapse.

We here have talked about capillary action, the altitude of the south pole and outlying regions and the survey of the antarctic ice sheet. How entire glaciers are thinning to fall/slide off the continent and float out to sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.

---

You cannot even understand my point.

In latin it's called reductio ad absurdum. Anyway you haven't even come up with a figure you just point out that to you the number looks like its going to be big and call it a day.

I'm not surprised you think it's valid but your scope is just limited, Bubba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That is not a written out equation.

---

R =current ratio of water to land (2.84)
C= claimed rise of oceans in feet (197')
I=Increase in volume from water to ice (10% or 1.1 of water volume)
A= depth of land ice necessary to equal 197' of water rise

C X R X I = A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

As for the "expansion of water" theory the real numbers (lets say from 80 degrees F to 85 degrees F or 26.667 C to 29.44 C) are:

The formula:

change in volume = initial volume X volumetric temperature coefficient of water at that temperature X (final temperature minus original temperature)

1 X .000207 X (29.667 - 26.667) = .000621

In other words, with a given volume of water at 26.667 C and the temperature rises to 29.667 C the volume will increase by only .0006 %

---

Are you WC? Googling furiously to compete with NASA is the WC way. Only comes up with minutiae and thinks its something too.

:lol

whats wrong? You dipshits don't know how to do basic math?

All you have done is throw monkey shit.

explain where you are going to get the volume of water necessary to raise the ocean level 196 feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Are you WC? Googling furiously to compete with NASA is the WC way. Only comes up with minutiae and thinks its something too.

---

As a matter of fact I have an engineering degree and work with water/steam volumes/pressures as they relate to temperature all the time.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag..._Sea_Level.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

As a matter of fact I have an engineering degree and work with water/steam volumes/pressures as they relate to temperature all the time.

---

Uh huh. You don't demonstrate the capacity to make a statistical argument nonetheless. Less self-fellating talk more demonstration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Uh huh. You don't demonstrate the capacity to make a statistical argument nonetheless. Less self-fellating talk more demonstration.

---

:lol at the blowhard talking about self-fellating.

Thats all you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lol at the blowhard talking about self-fellating.

Thats all you do.

---

So now you have devolved completely off topic and gone completely ad hominem. My work is done. You lose.

CC cannot make a valid statistical argument despite having an engineering degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So now you have devolved completely off topic and gone completely ad hominem. My work is done. You lose.

CC cannot make a valid statistical argument despite having an engineering degree.

---

What statistical argument is necessary? The math stands on it's own. If you want to refute it, then get after it and show your work like I did. Otherwise quit throwing monkey shit.

So CC's final arguments were 'here are some of the numbers and it looks like it might be big' and 'I have an engineering degree.'

What an idiot.

I didn't even add this to the equation:

About five percent of Earth's water is frozen solid and exists as glaciers covering about ten percent of the land surface. The glaciers are are generally located in high mountain ranges but there are huge ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

with 10% of the earths land surface covered by glaciers you have to take that 570' of ice sheet and multioly by 10 to get how high/deep those glaciers would have to be to raise the ocean level 196 feet.

in case you cant do that simple math the answer is the glaciers would all need to be 5700' high/deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

So CC's final arguments were 'here are some of the numbers and it looks like it might be big' and 'I have an engineering degree.'

What an idiot.

---

what a fucking ignorant pussy that can't even back up his bluster by doing simple math.

more googling to defeat NASA! FIGHT!

Anyone else want to talk about this? I'm done with stupid.

It is interesting to watch sophistry in action though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

more googling to defeat NASA! FIGHT!

Anyone else want to talk about this? I'm done with stupid.

---

My sentiments exactly, moron.

I noticed you just threw monkey shit and never refuted anything.

typical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I would love to see this guys calculation.

I'm calling bullshit on that claim.

---

CC's sophist call outs to experts in their fields are so good :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

R =current ratio of water to land (2.84)
C= claimed rise of oceans in feet (197')
I=Increase in volume from water to ice (10% or 1.1 of water volume)
A= depth of land ice necessary to equal 197' of water rise

C X R X I = A

---

So ice exists only on land?

And not in permafrost?

I think some water may have been left out of your equation.

Antarctic glaciers terminate on land or in the sea, as floating ice shelves or grounded or floating outlet glaciers. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 25,400,000 km3 of ice, which, if it melted, would be equivalent to a sea level rise of 58 m[1].

http://epic.awi.de/4505/1/Lyt2001a.pdf

No need to fumble around with napkin math and harebrained modeling. That is just Antarctica. 58m = 190 ft btw. You determine the expansion by weight because salinity is involved.

That was tough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Antarctic glaciers terminate on land or in the sea, as floating ice shelves or grounded or floating outlet glaciers. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 25,400,000 km3 of ice, which, if it melted, would be equivalent to a sea level rise of 58 m[1].

http://epic.awi.de/4505/1/Lyt2001a.pdf

No need to fumble around with napkin math and harebrained modeling. That is just Antarctica. 58m = 190 ft btw. You determine the expansion by weight because salinity is involved.

That was tough.

---

About 7/8 of the floating Antarctic ice sheet is already under water. Thus, it has already displaced 7/8 of it's volume of water. You are counting it twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So ice exists only on land?

And not in permafrost?

I think some water may have been left out of your equation.

---

Look again. The equation allowed that every square inch of land in the world was buried in ice. That includes your permafrost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html

---

Quote:

---

The relatively small glaciers that drape the planet's mountains will play an important role in future sea level rise, according to a new study that estimated glaciers' collective size.

Researchers calculated the ice thickness for 171,000 glaciers worldwide, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which hold the bulk of Earth's frozen water. Through a combination of direct satellite observations and modeling, they determined the total volume of ice tied up in the glaciers is nearly 41,000 cubic miles (170,000 cubic kilometers), plus or minus 5,000 cubic miles (21,000 cubic km).

If all the glaciers were to melt, global sea levels would rise almost 17 inches (43 centimeters), the scientists found.

Improved estimate

The study, published in the Oct. 11 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, is an improvement on previous estimates of the global ice volume because it uses a physical approach, said lead study author Matthias Huss, a glaciologist at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.

The glacier count comes from the recently released Randolph Glacier Inventory and global topography from NASA satellite data.

"To date, the volume of glaciers was only estimated using very simple empirical equations with high uncertainties," Huss told OurAmazingPlanet in an email interview. "Our new method not only provides an estimate of the ice volume, but allows calculating local ice thickness on a fine grid for each of the 200,000 glaciers worldwide," he said. [Image Gallery: Glaciers Before and After]

---

Thank you Boutons. 17" I can accept as being realistic in a total melt down.

196 feet?

That number is total hyperbole bullshit even if fuzzy monkey shit believes it.

Would the floating antarctic ice sheet add more? Yeah. some but since 7/8 of it is already displacing water it certainly wouldn't be that much taking into consideration the 10% shrinkage from ice to water of ALL the ice while only 1/8th of the existing ice would be adding to the water level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Thank you Boutons. 17" I can accept as being realistic in a total melt down.

---

Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise

Key points

• An accurately dated, near-continuous, history of sea level variations for the last 150,000 years has been compiled.

• Comparison with ice core data reveals that major global ice volume loss, as implied by sea level rise, has followed relatively quickly after polar warming. The Greenland ice sheet responding virtually straight away (0-100 years lag time), and a 400-700 lag for the Antarctic ice sheet.

• These response times are much faster than was previously commonly suspected, and implies that once sufficient polar warming is underway, future ice sheetcollapse may be unavoidable.

• During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past...evel-Rise.html

From Boos article:

The last few million years of Earth's climate has been dominated by the ice age cycles. These consisted of long cool periods (glacials) where giant icesheets have grown on the continental land masses at, and near, the poles. With the water evaporated off the oceans being locked up as ice on land, this ice sheet build-up substantially lowered global sea level. During the shorter, warmer, intervals (interglacials) the ice sheets have disintegrated, and with their glacial meltwater draining back into the oceans, sea level has risen. From the coldest part of the last ice age (roughly 20,000 years ago) to present, global sea level has risen an astounding 120 metres.

Although all the details are not well understood, the driving force behind these glacial/interglacial cycles are slow variations in Earth's orbit as it circles the sun, which slightly decreased/increased the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface

OK
So the earth gets colder and warmer. Since we weren't around for millions of years they couldn't blame it on us.

Now that humans are here it's all our fault. Got it.

BTW, San Antonio gets a lot of it's electricity from burning dirty coal.

Any of you whiny bitches turned off your AC's this summer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

About 7/8 of the floating Antarctic ice sheet is already under water. Thus, it has already displaced 7/8 of it's volume of water. You are counting it twice.

---

They term it grounded ice and it's not like the concepts of buoyancy and displacement are lost on scientists such as they are with you. They don't count the glacial mass under sea level nor the icebergs, dimwit.

It's a cool paper about the topology of the 2 sheets. The melt conversion they use is 360 gigatons of ice for 1 mm of sea level rise. I'm enjoying your fumbling though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

They term it grounded ice and it's not like the concepts of buoyancy and displacement are lost on scientists such as they are with you. They don't count the glacial mass under sea level nor the icebergs, dimwit.

It's a cool paper about the topology of the 2 sheets. The melt conversion they use is 360 gigatons of ice for 1 mm of sea level rise. I'm enjoying your fumbling though.

---

So did you turn your AC off this summer?

BTW, I did skim the paper but didn't see where they said they specifically excluded the ice sheet ice that was already underwater from their volume calculation. Can you copy and paste your proof since it's your claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Look again. The equation allowed that every square inch of land in the world was buried in ice. That includes your permafrost.

---

OK, misread. Considering parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are over 15,000 feet thick and parts of Greenland's close to 10,000 feet, I'm not sure the OP figure is too far off. I mean, the volume of each has been measured. I suppose we could argue what is above or below water already, but you could do a quick and dirt plug of the volumes into a different equation.

CC wants ABSOLUTE PROOF DOWN TO EVERY DE FUCKING TAIL, else fuck all y'all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

So did you turn your AC off this summer?

BTW, I did skim the paper but didn't see where they said they specifically excluded the ice sheet ice that was already underwater from their volume calculation. Can you copy and paste your proof since it's your claim?

---

Not going to give you intellectual charity. Quite frankly I think you are an idiot for doubting something that basic in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Not going to give you intellectual charity. Quite frankly I think you are an idiot for doubting something that basic in the first place.

---

:lmao

Snarky bitch retreats with tail between his legs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

In latin it's called reductio ad absurdum.

---

:lol needing to point out that you know latin words to act smart
:lol platform of bluster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

OK, misread. Considering parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are over 15,000 feet thick and parts of Greenland's close to 10,000 feet, I'm not sure the OP figure is too far off. I mean, the volume of each has been measured. I suppose we could argue what is above or below water already, but you could do a quick and dirt plug of the volumes into a different equation.

---

I saw where someone had calculated that every human being on the planet could fit in NYC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

Snarky bitch retreats with tail between his legs.

---

yeah that is what it is. . . . read the study or don't. I don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not opposed to people doing "something about it", or even companies migrating to systems with reduced emissions (which would imply it's not hurting their bottom line). That's silly, who wouldn't want that?

Now, forcing companies to ration their emissions is where I see the problem, as it would have a pretty massive economic impact. That's what the carbon tax/carbon marketplace models are.
For certain industries, like energy, it goes at the core of their business. That translates to loss of competitiveness, increased prices, lost jobs, lost economic output.

And it's debatable it would actually tackle the problem. I mean, China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic competitiveness.

Now, if you want to buy a Leaf instead of a gas guzzler, more power to you.

---

The idea of the Fixed price/floating price on carbon is to push companies away from fossil fuels and towards using renewable energy. It will cost, but hasn't done a lot of damage to countries which have put a price on carbon in the past 20-30 years and their renewable energy industries have taken off in this time. China have made strong commitments to cut their carbon intensity by around 65% by 2030.

[asks question before finishing reading]

nevermind. will finish reading first....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'm not opposed to people doing "something about it", or even companies migrating to systems with reduced emissions (which would imply it's not hurting their bottom line). That's silly, who wouldn't want that?

Now, forcing companies to ration their emissions is where I see the problem, as it would have a pretty massive economic impact. That's what the carbon tax/carbon marketplace models are.
For certain industries, like energy, it goes at the core of their business. That translates to loss of competitiveness, increased prices, lost jobs, lost economic output.

And it's debatable it would actually tackle the problem. I mean, China is responsible for almost 25% of the CO2 emissions worldwide. How do you force their hand when it goes directly at their economic competitiveness.

Now, if you want to buy a Leaf instead of a gas guzzler, more power to you.

---

Changing to renewables will end up costing a lot less in the long run than the what the prodigious propaganda of the fossil fuel industry suggests.

The people who make a lot of money from such things have a LOT of very vested interest in exaggerating the impact of switching energy sources.

The important thing to remember for everybody else is that switching energy sources is simply a substitution of goods, i.e. one for another.

Renewables have had a tiny, tiny, fraction of the funds pumped into R & D and infrastructure that fossil fuels have, once that ratio changes, and the downward costs of renewables continues, that will change.

The damage done by fossil fuel extraction and usage will look like a pretty shitty price to pay when the prices reach parity, as they are about to do, even with coal getting cheaper due to falling demand.

Simple economics. Don't believe the doom and gloom economic catastrophe schtick, it is far overblown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

OK, misread. Considering parts of the Antarctic Ice sheet are over 15,000 feet thick and parts of Greenland's close to 10,000 feet, I'm not sure the OP figure is too far off. I mean, the volume of each has been measured. I suppose we could argue what is above or below water already, but you could do a quick and dirt plug of the volumes into a different equation.

---

One thing that one has to bear in mind is how much Greenland will pop up like a slow motion cork after all that weight shifts off of it, which is also part of the calculation, if memory serves. Complex stuff.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/2...pt-when-it-is/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/2...pt-when-it-is/

---

Nice 'there is uncertainty so do nothing' and ignoring the thesis of the 538 piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Nice 'there is uncertainty so do nothing' and ignoring the thesis of the 538 piece.

---

That's what you took away from reading that? Seems like you didn't read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

That's what you took away from reading that? Seems like you didn't read it.

---

The 538 piece addresses peer review extensively and it certainly describes the problem of corporate interference.

Quote:

---

Some studies get published with no peer review at all, as so-called “predatory publishers” flood the scientific literature with journals that are essentially fake, publishing any author who pays. Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado at Denver, has compiled a list of more than 100 so-called “predatory” journal publishers. These journals often have legit-sounding names like the International Journal of Advanced Chemical Research and create opportunities for crackpots to give their unscientific views a veneer of legitimacy. (The fake “get me off your fucking mailing list” and “Simpsons” papers were published in such journals.)

---

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...e-isnt-broken/

Now what role do you think the oil lobby plays in the dynamic in climate science? The 538 piece never mentions weather or climate once. Most of the abuse they talk about is in the chemical and pharmacology industries interference. It also does a very good job showing how the peer review system corrects these issues. Again ignored. The thesis is that it works. WUWT waved its hands at the problem.

As has already been mentioned, your oilco overlords have several watchdog groups that scour the published climate science looking for a reason to discredit. Their work is some of the most heavily scrutinized in the history of science.

I actually imagine that would be your dream job.

Fuzzy still stuck on the 538 intro, which was pretty much only cited for it's title "Science isn't broken". Derp.

Quote:

---

Dr. Nerem’s science does support 3 inches of sea level rise since 1992.

Now for the broken science…

Quote:

---

In 2013, a United Nations panel predicted sea levels would rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meters) by the end of the century. The new research shows that sea level rise most likely will be at the high end of that range, said University of Colorado geophysicist Steve Nerem.

Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago and “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” Nerem said

---

Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 mm per year since the Jason/Topex missions started flying.

The IPCC says that sea level will rise by 300 to 900 mm by the end of this century. Dr. Nerem says that his work indicates that the sea level rise will be at the high end of that range. Since we are 15 years into this century with about 45 mm of sea level rise “in the bank,” sea level would have to rise by 855 mm over the next 85 years to hit the high end. That is 10 mm per year. This caused sea level to rise by ~10 mm/yr for about 10,000 years…

All of the sea level rise since 1700 AD is circled at the right hand side of the graph.

The only way sea level rise could approach the high end of the IPCC range is if it exponentially accelerates…

The rate from 2081-2100 would have to average 20 mm per year, twice that of the Holocene Transgression. This is only possible in bad science fiction movies.

Broken science, part deux…

Quote:

---

Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago…

---

They are rising faster than they were 50 years ago. However, they are rising at the same rate that they were 80, 70 and 60 years ago…

There is nothing abnormal about sea level rising by 3 inches over a 23-yr period. Nor is a 3 mm/yr sea level rise over a multi-decade period unusual. There is simply no anomaly requiring an explanation. The claim that the 3 inches if sea level rise from 1992-2015 is inline with 3 feet of sea level rise in the 21st century is patently false and demonstrably disprovable. The accurate statement that sea level is rising faster now than it was 50 years ago is cherry-picking of the highest order. Warning that “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” is the scientific equivalent of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater because you constructed a model which predicts that the projection system will burst into flames if it malfunctions at some point in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Fuzzy still stuck on the 538 intro, which was pretty much only cited for it's title "Science isn't broken". Derp.

---

Bullshit he used it to take a shot at peer review. He then goes on to complain how the press releases are done and ignores the actual science.

Quote:

---

there are a lot of problems with the peer-review process and a population explosion of journals which will readily publish abject bullschist

---

It then links to something Gore's think tank produced.

It's the typical playbook. You buy it too. Stupid people believe stupid things.

You ignored my point about oilco interference in this particular industry and the meat of the 538 piece almost completely. What one should take from the 538 piece is much like pharmaceutical and chemical companies doctoring results like Silver talks about, oil co lobby plays the same role here.

One benefit of this watchdog group is that there is heavy oversight on the process. Between the oil companies, university groups like PSU and BEST, national organizations and trade groups like NSF and NASA, and the humongous international community including IPCC and all the national academies, you have a level oversight never seen before.

As for the remainder of his piece. The way he took all those running average conflated numbers and then tacking on those two data points from a set to make it appear flat in this graph was shit you would do:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...ng?w=720&h=523

Just skip over a few thousand years and voila its the same tack on yet another data set. SEE!! DERPS!!!

You have avoided discussing this graph all from one set:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/defa...?itok=_d4rwbb-

I'd be interested for your take on that. It was held for months in review and then published a couple months ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/2...pt-when-it-is/

---

Was wondering when you would post a link to wattsup. You were a bit overdue.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/033..._large.png?886

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...ng?w=720&h=523

Just skip over a few thousand years and voila its the same tack on yet another data set. SEE!! DERPS!!!

---

That has to be the most seriously retarded graph I have ever seen. Wow.

"here look at this 300 year period, it shows nothing compared this 8000 year period!"

What the fuck? That is what passes for reasoning here? Seriously? (picks jaw off floor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Fuzzy still stuck on the 538 intro, which was pretty much only cited for it's title "Science isn't broken". Derp.

---

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

Quote:

---

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]

---

In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

I don't think anyone denies that man has some effect on environment/climate. I just don't think it is to the extent claimed by the alarmists. The sea levels have risen and fallen, temperatures have gone up and down for millions of years before man came into the picture. I question that now suddenly any change is mans fault, and I doubt the ability of these scientists to realistically predict the future. Heck, from the 1940's to the 1970's the global temperature dropped and some the smartest climatologist scientists around were predicting an impending ice age. It's long term prognostication on short term trends. They were teaching that impending ice age shit in my high school science classes. That doesn't make me a denier, it makes me an observer of reality.

If all of this global warming keeps up I'm going to have to buy a second stand alone freezer the fish are practically jumping in our boat these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InRareForm

http://m.livescience.com/51990-sea-l...-unknowns.html

---

Well, with the "unabated" part and "worse case scenario..."

I'm more likely to win Powerball!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That has to be the most seriously retarded graph I have ever seen. Wow.

"here look at this 300 year period, it shows nothing compared this 8000 year period!"

What the fuck? That is what passes for reasoning here? Seriously? (picks jaw off floor)

---

Yeah, because looking at current climate change trends in historical context to see if the current trend is "unprecedented" is retarded. :rolleyes

I noticed fuzzy didn't post this graph. I wonder why?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...-1931-2013.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

Considering I used to work for NASA, I already know how much bullshit these "scientists" spew, just trying to keep their jobs living off the government teet. Fucking moochers.

---

I have worked with some pretty damn arrogant egotistic scientists over the years. Once they get the PhD badge... They rationalize anything they have said. they find ways so they are not wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

If all of this global warming keeps up I'm going to have to buy a second stand alone freezer the fish are practically jumping in our boat these days.

---

Same here in Texas. I'm doing another yellow fin tuna trip in October out of Venice. It's freaking awesome. Spend $2000 on an epic fishing trip with your friends and bring back 300-400# of Ahi Tuna that at $12 a pound more than pays for the trip. I'm having seared ahi for dinner tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner


In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

---

Lol, "denier movement" ad hominem bullshit. Denier really means non-alarmist. Judith Curry is considered a denier. Why is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

If I understand correctly, the level of CO2 we are currently releasing globally is too high - it must be reduced significantly, else we cross a tipping point - and we spiral with uncontrolled warming as permafrost thaws, etc....

---

I don't believe there is a "tipping point." nature has this thing called negative feedback. CO2 is good for plants. It wouldn't bother me to see it reach 1,000 ppm. We would have more rain, and probably start reclaiming the deserts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Getting the developed world to reduce emissions has been nearly impossible, and the best that has been accomplished is a slowing of the increase in emissions....

---

It's their pollution that comes along with the CO2 that bothers me. Not the CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Add to that China and India's development, and there is a larger demand for fossil fuels as these modernizing economies seek to take their respective places firmly in the first world. Their production of CO2 will continue to rise....we have no control over that.

---

Don't you see the smog as a larger concern?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

In addition, there are other countries around the world that are just beginning to emerge, or wish to. We cannot expect those to slow their growth by relying almost exclusively on renewable (expensive) energy sources - we enjoyed cheap energy during our economic ascension; they expect nothing less for themselves.

---

Agreed, but the technology we created since the 70's should be emphasized to use, rather than just putting the soot, sulfur, and other polluting aerosols in the air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

The net result of this is that we cannot hope to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. It simply will never be lower than it is now, and in all probability - just looking pragmatically at the situation, is going to increase exponentially.

---

I hope it never gets lower than now.

I hope it builds up, and then never drops below maybe 600 ppm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

If the models are correct, we better damn well stop worrying about reducing carbon emissions, and start dealing with, what does this guy say, 200 foot higher seas (oh, and tundra we can actually farm!).

---

You can be sure, most the models are dead wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

What are the ramifications beyond sea levels? With that much more liquid water, can't we expect more rainfall? More plants, wetter rivers and streams? More rain, less snow...

---

The sea is going to rise anyway. We are just marginally accelerating the rise. If the seas ever stop rising, then that means we have peaked in this interglacial warm period, and we will start a global cooling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Returning all of that carbon buried in prehistoric plant and animal matter to the atmosphere will make the world, what, more Jurassic? Things grow bigger and differently, but stuff still grows, right?

---

We could never return "all" of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

What the IPCC (sic) is doing now amounts to trying to buy insurance on a house that is already on fire. There is no point....get about dealing with the wreckage; you're wasting our time.

---

I disagree. They are truing to sell a product that is worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Thanks for admitting you can't do basic math and just trust what you read on the internet.

---

You have to remember. He doesn't know how to use napkins with pens. He can you crayons on walls, but past that is over his head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

China’s Carbon Count Is Not as High as Feared

Calculations on how much carbon dioxide China produces have been wrong for more than 10 years because the official bodies that calculate it have assumed the country’s power stations burn high-quality coal.

In fact, the world’s biggest polluter uses coal with a lower carbon content than power stations in Europe and the US, and so produces less carbon dioxide per tonne—around 14% less according to experts from 18 research institutions.

Getting the total quantities of CO₂ emitted by each country correct is crucial if the world is going to reach agreement on tackling dangerous climate change at the UN conference in Paris in December. One of the stumbling blocks to agreements in the past has been politicians’ need to have a fair system of sharing the burden of cuts.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...eared_20150821

China, and India, are going into wind and solar very aggressively. As in Africa, solar is bringing electricity to places that have none, esp in India.

---

Maybe so.

Less power, less CO2, but far more pollution!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

refute the math, don't just go on blind faith of what you read on the internet.

---

That's all he know how to do, parroting what other people claim.

Parrots are dumb birds, but some of them can mimic pretty damn good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lol at the blowhard talking about self-fellating.

Thats all you do.

---

I think he eats too many Twinkies to be able to do himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrzT2PcoTjE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Yeah, because looking at current climate change trends in historical context to see if the current trend is "unprecedented" is retarded. :rolleyes

I noticed fuzzy didn't post this graph. I wonder why?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...-1931-2013.png

---

That one isn't much better. It doesn't surprise me that you think it is meaningful or important, although the problem with this is rather obvious to everybody else.

Maybe WC can explain it to you, even he should be able to figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That one isn't much better. It doesn't surprise me that you think it is meaningful or important, although the problem with this is rather obvious to everybody else.

Maybe WC can explain it to you, even he should be able to figure it out.

---

What issue do YOU have with it?

:lol what happened to the 3rd grade math that stared this thread? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I don't think anyone denies that man has some effect on environment/climate. I just don't think it is to the extent claimed by the alarmists. The sea levels have risen and fallen, temperatures have gone up and down for millions of years before man came into the picture. I question that now suddenly any change is mans fault, and I doubt the ability of these scientists to realistically predict the future. Heck, from the 1940's to the 1970's the global temperature dropped and some the smartest climatologist scientists around were predicting an impending ice age. It's long term prognostication on short term trends. They were teaching that impending ice age shit in my high school science classes. That doesn't make me a denier, it makes me an observer of reality.

---

(sigh)

That right there sums up everything wrong with what is going on. I'll get back to it, but you have badly reasoned this out, and accepted some very poor logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What issue do YOU have with it?

---

Tell you what, you give it a good, long look, and an honest try at critical thinking about it and let me know what you come up with.

If you still don't get it, I promise I will explain why it is another poorly reasoned bit of misleading drek.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

What issue do YOU have with it?

---

I think his point is that from the 1930s to the 1970's temperatures were colder than from the 1970's -2000 so the oceans didn't rise so much.

The big question is did man make it colder from the 1930's to the 1970s and did man make it hotter from the 1970's to the 2000's?

The bigger question concerning me is am I fucking up if I buy a beach house in Costa Rica?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The big question is did man make it colder from the 1930's to the 1970s and did man make it hotter from the 1970's to the 2000's?

---

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I think his point is that from the 1930s to the 1970's temperatures were colder than from the 1970's -2000 so the oceans didn't rise so much.

The big question is did man make it colder from the 1930's to the 1970s and did man make it hotter from the 1970's to the 2000's?

---

Yeah, but the point the author was making is that the 1930-1960 sea level trend is very similar to the current trend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

:lol what happened to the 3rd grade math that stared this thread? :lol

---

Sadly, the average poster intelligence in this thread wasn't smart enough to understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Yeah, because looking at current climate change trends in historical context to see if the current trend is "unprecedented" is retarded. :rolleyes

I noticed fuzzy didn't post this graph. I wonder why?

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...-1931-2013.png

---

Because I felt that demonstrating how the author likes to marry different datasets like a lying piece of shit once was enough. He does it there too. Youre an ass for posting it after I just chastised the author for doing it on the last one. Do you realize that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

:lol what happened to the 3rd grade math that stared this thread? :lol

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Tell you what, you give it a good, long look, and an honest try at critical thinking about it and let me know what you come up with.

If you still don't get it, I promise I will explain why it is another poorly reasoned bit of misleading drek.

---

We will wait with baited breath for you to return to show us the error of our ways.