Nasa: rising sea levels more dangerous than previously thought

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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 le 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.

[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 in my high school science classes. That doesn't make me a denier, it makes me an observer of reality.

[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.

[Wild Cobra]

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!

[DarrinS]

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

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

What the ? 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 re ed.

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[DarrinS]

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 bull . Denier really means non-alarmist. Judith Curry is considered a denier. Why is that?

[Wild Cobra]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

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 ins utions.

Getting the total quan ies 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!

[Wild Cobra]

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.

[Wild Cobra]

at the blowhard talking about self-fellating.

Thats all you do.

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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.

[DarrinS]

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?

[hater]

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

[RandomGuy]

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 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.

[RandomGuy]

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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 ing up if I buy a beach house in Costa Rica?

[Splits]

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?

[DarrinS]

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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

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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

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

Because I felt that demonstrating how the author likes to marry different datasets like a lying piece of 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?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

[DarrinS]

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.