Print 77 comment(s) - last by WLee40.. on Oct 9 at 1:08 PM

Emissions up until this point have ensured an irreversible sea-level rise of 1.1 meters by the year 3000

A new study has found that it's too late to reverse the effects that greenhouse gas emissions will have on sea levels over the next thousand years -- but we could lessen the impact of these effects if proper changes are made. 

According to research by scientists at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Manchester Metropolitan University and the Université catholique de Louvain, greenhouse gas emissions produced up to this point has ensured an irreversible sea-level rise of 1.1 meters by the year 3000. This number could increase, they warn, if no action is taken to reduce these levels -- and the effects could extend into thousands of years into the future.  

The research team came to this conclusion by modeling sea-level changes over thousands of years while including all of our planet's ice sheets and warming of the oceans into its projections. This includes glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The team said this has never been done before. 

Using a climate modeling system called LOVECLIM, the team analyzed several scenarios over the next thousand years. It found that there will be a sea-level rise of at least 1.1 meters by the year 3000, but if other certain emissions scenarios were followed, it could increase to 2.1, 4.1 or even 6.8 meters. 

The study also found that the Greenland ice sheet was the cause of over half of the sea-level rises while thermal expansion of the ocean came in second place and glaciers/ice came in third. 

"Ice sheets are very slow components in the climate system; they respond on time scales of thousands of years," said Professor Philippe Huybrechts, co-author of the study. "Together with the long lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, this inertia is the real poison on the climate system; anything we do now that changes the forcing in the climate system will necessarily have long consequences for the ice sheets and sea level.

"Ultimately, the current polar ice sheets store about 65 metres of equivalent sea level and if climatic warming will be severe and long-lasting, all ice will eventually melt. Mankind should limit the concentration of greenhouse gases at the lowest possible level as soon as possible. The only realistic option is a drastic reduction of the emissions. The lower the ultimate warming will be, the less severe the ultimate consequences will be." 

This study was published in Environmental Research Letters

Source: Science Daily

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is good news
By slawless on 10/2/2012 10:45:32 PM , Rating: 5
This is good news. Based on the historical record, oceans have been rising at a rate of 7 inches a century since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. By the year 3000 ( 900 years from now,) the oceans should be 63 inches or 1.6 meters deeper without global warming at all. The 1.1 meters mentioned in this article is LESS than expected. But, let’s not let facts get in the way of some good propaganda.

For all you still worried about global warming. I have great news for you! It stopped 15 years ago.

RE: This is good news
By CZroe on 10/3/2012 1:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
I think you mean "without" anthropogenic global warming at all and that anthropogenic global warming stopped.

RE: This is good news
By Milliamp on 10/3/2012 1:41:38 AM , Rating: 2
Weather != Climate but I know a couple months this summer here were the warmest on record and this summer was pretty warm over all here. Granted I understand that isn't much better than claiming the whole thing is a lie because I happen to see a colder than usual month.

RE: This is good news
By JNo on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By TSS on 10/3/2012 7:12:58 AM , Rating: 5
Even a consensus can be wrong. For example in cases where the raw data is flawed.

The NOAA admits it's decreased in number, but gives a vague reason:

really? 4,500 weatherstations where "no longer accessible in real time"? What does that even mean? Did any human try to come close end up in a temporal loop?

But then again. Let's not allow evidence to get in the way of our "consensus". Especially not any leaked emails that show how fightfully weak that consensus really is.

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 7:28:31 AM , Rating: 2

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 7:30:59 AM , Rating: 3
And don't forget the locations of some of those weather stations.

Under AC system outlet ducts, next to brick walls which absorb and hold heat, on asphalt, etc.

RE: This is good news
By FaaR on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By senecarr on 10/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is good news
By Paj on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By mcnabney on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is good news
By Cluebat on 10/3/2012 10:12:52 AM , Rating: 2

RE: This is good news
By tamalero on 10/3/2012 10:23:28 AM , Rating: 3
Doesnt it work BOTH WAYS?

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 9:45:14 AM , Rating: 4
So I guess the massive droughts in the early 20th century were also caused by man made global warming despite that we were barely producing any emissions by comparison to today back then.

Liberals seem to have a blind eye to history.

RE: This is good news
By FaaR on 10/3/2012 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
Spoken like a true ignoramus on the subject.

Of course both droughts and blizzards too would continue to exist both with and without human-induced climate change. Drought = weather. This is about climate. Apples and oranges, see?

RE: This is good news
By superflex on 10/3/2012 1:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, name calling. Typical tool of the progressive.
You consider 150 years of weather station data but ignore the 400,000 years of climate data from the Vostock ice cores.
Milankovitch cycle anyone?

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 2:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and climates have cycles.

RE: This is good news
By WLee40 on 10/3/2012 1:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
Look, this is my take simplified:
We are just getting out of the last ice age and the temperatures are naturally rising. There is no question that avg. temps are rising. This will likely cause greater fluctuations and increased anomalies and weather pattern changes. The amount of human influence is unknown and likely a small percentage-wise influence. Again, this is UNKNOWN. We don't understand all the complexities of our climate to make an accurate assessment. Nonlinear and chaotic equations that make up weather patterns need a high degree of accuracy and detail in the initial conditions and measurements that we simply don't have yet. I doubt we will know how much human influence has changed or will be able to change the climate until several more decades have passed. In the meantime, it makes sense to try and reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible, but not go into debt or hurt the economy doing it.

RE: This is good news
By FITCamaro on 10/3/2012 3:47:08 PM , Rating: 4
In the meantime, it makes sense to try and reduce, reuse and recycle as much as possible, but not go into debt or hurt the economy doing it.

I agree with this statement absolutely. Is recycling good? Absolutely. Is trying to save energy good? Absolutely. Is trying to use less gas good? Sure.

But if I want a sports car, I should be able to buy one because that's the way a free market economy works. And these days we're building things like appliances that may use less whatever but are less effective at what they're designed to do. Namely toilets and washing machines.

Then you have all this "no lead" crap going on as if people are just sucking on their electronics. What is the result? Things break more. Resulting in even more waste from people largely throwing these things away and then having to go out and buy a new one.

RE: This is good news
By macca007 on 10/4/2012 4:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you,You hit it on the head!
Man I am so annoyed about these so called eco friendly whitegoods. Half flush toilets what a fkn joke,Yes I know that side is for taking a leak but usually they have smaller hole in the toilet bowl as well, So when you take a dump you have to flush 2 or 3 times which cancels out the saving on having the half flush in first place. Secondly front loading washing machines are CRAP, My next one will be a back to a top loader again, Front loader gets crap stuck in window which stinks out your washing if you forget to clean it and secondly I can't fit as many clothes in there so I have to do another load once again cancelling out the water savings from having front loader. Same can be said of many things we have now, Designed obsolescence? Or made so cheap they break after a several uses, Who cares they say as it's so cheap you just go buy another one.

RE: This is good news
By WLee40 on 10/9/2012 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I have a sports car and don't want to see performance or choice go away. I doubt it will though, look at that sweet Tesla S car! Although, we may need to make sure Obama doesn't get a 2nd term...

RE: This is good news
By Arsynic on 10/3/2012 10:56:36 AM , Rating: 4
Consensus is no substitute for actual scientific data and methodology. Government money can make any group of people come to a consensus.

RE: This is good news
By DiscoWade on 10/3/2012 12:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
The consensus was, at one time, that bad air made you sick. Miasma was once the consensus of scientists and anyone who said otherwise were shamed.

I'll believe in man-made global warming when (a) the scientists who talk about make their data and methodologies readily available to everyone as per the scientific method requirement; (b) when these same scientists also follow the Freedom of Information Act and release their data and methodologies when their studies were done at taxpayer funded universities; (c) when these same scientists practice what they preach and do the things they say we should be doing; (d) when these same scientists also have a honest, open, and public debate with someone who does not agree with their position; and (e) when these same scientists also stop denigrating and insulting those who have a different opinion.

RE: This is good news
By Paj on 10/4/2012 8:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
a) they do
b) they do
c) they do
d) they do
e) they do

RE: This is good news
By JPForums on 10/5/2012 9:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
a) Perhaps limited groups have started to do this recently. However, this is not the case with the most damning reports I've read. When asked for the data so that it could be verified, they destroyed original raw climate data and dumped a load of modified data without so much as an equation that could get it back to the original.

b) More recently, groups have in fact been submitting their data and methods. Though it is still common to get modified data and not the raw data. That said, there has also been more contrasting analysis recently. In the most recent reports I've read, the conclusion, rather than the data or method, was called into question.

c) I think he's confusing Al Gore with a scientist. His humble abode consumes 4 time energy of the average household in the U.S., while he preaches global warming. That said, I still haven't seen any climatologists publicly step up to the plate and say "This is how it's done.", while showing off their residence. Interestingly, the "Oil Monger" Bush, who gets railed for his lack of ecologic interest has a nice eco-friendly geothermal heating/cooling system for his house. Of course, his reasons are economic and not ecologic, but that just proves the two need not be mutually exclusive.

d) Honest - doubtful, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
Open - I've never seen them accepting of an alternate viewpoint (at least not in public). In my experience, they tend to play off the opposition as imbeciles too stupid to waste time on with meaningful discussion (again in a public setting).
Public - Sure, they are all over the place.
Debate - See point about openness.

e) In reality, most climatologist are probably not prone to denigrating and insulting others. However, those that represent them and interact with the media are often guilty of it. Unfortunately, the non climatology community (read "The world at large") only ever interact with these. If they want to be taken more seriously, they need to take us more seriously (see point about openness above).

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least given some counter examples to his points. References are even better if you have the time. Simply saying "They don't" or "They do" doesn't make it so.

While we are on the subject of global warming and greenhouse gases, do you know what the most abundant greenhouse gas is? It is the same whether you check by concentration (factually) or by its contribution to the green house effect (debatable). I'll give you a hint: It contains NO CARBON. Of the greenhouse gases, we contribute to, do you know what percentage we contribute? Any effect we can cause is limited to this as an overall percentage. Likewise, any resolution should be limited to this percentage. To go beyond this is to oppose the natural cycle.

I'm all for better power efficiency, cleaner air, and the likes. I'll even spend money into it for the real benefits it brings: long term savings, better health, etc. I'm not opposed to the idea of preserving the environment for our children to enjoy. I just prefer to take a more realistic outlook on what we can realistically affect and prefer to use methods that are well thought out and economically viable. Some of the proposed solutions cause problems worse than the initial problem. As an example, you can force everyone to use electric vehicles and appliances in place of gas and natural gas. But if the power plant puts out more pollution to provide the extra electricity than is saved by removing gas and natural gas, then you've made the problem worse. Even if the plant is marginally better, you have to consider the waste and energy spent building new cars and appliances before the old ones reached the end of their useful life. The better solution would be to instead, continue using gas in the area and work on moving over to a cleaner plant. With improvements in the efficiency and technologies of clean plants, costs go down and people are tempted to move to electric on their own.

RE: This is good news
By maugrimtr on 10/3/2012 8:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
First comment and no link to backup analyses for this historical rise, no realisation that the climate change (from Humans) is its own distinct increase, and no mention of the worst case scenarios in the original article.

Per usual, omissions, lack of facts, and zero logic at work by those who desperate to dispute a theory (in the scientific method sense not the "isn't proven; can't be real" sense) that so far is supported by the vast majority of scientists (granted, these may be in a conspiracy for government money like the Martians who illegally immigrated to Arizona last year).

RE: This is good news
By Cluebat on 10/3/2012 9:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
The Pliestocene ice age didn't end 10,000 years ago. We entered an interglacial period (the Holocene). It was actually closer to 12,000 years ago that the Wisconsonian Glacial period ended and the Holocene began.

The previous interglacial period (the Eemian) lasted ~15,000 years. During the Pliestocene the interglacial periods have been getting shorter. We passed the climatic optimum about 3000 years ago. This signifies the beginning of the next glacial period.

Global warming advocates are ignoring the elephant in the room. When the ice sheets inevitably move in, they will displace millions of people. And the transition to cold is much faster than the transition to a warm period.

There will be chaos. Probably not in my lifetime, but soon.

RE: This is good news
By Denigrate on 10/3/2012 9:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
This reminds me of sports fans of crap teams who say "score board" if they win, then "History" if they don't, but only specific parts of recent history, excluding down recent years.

RE: This is good news
By FaaR on 10/3/2012 12:23:05 PM , Rating: 1
Speaking of ice sheets, arctic ice hit new record lows this summer, clearly signalling the beginning of a new glacial period!

Seriously now... Where do you people come from? Not a place where reason and logic is cherished, that's for sure.

RE: This is good news
By superflex on 10/3/2012 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
...and your degree in geology or climatology is from...

RE: This is good news
By ironargonaut on 10/3/2012 4:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Antartic ice sheets reached a record high this summer.

Seriously... Where do you cherry pickers come from? Not a place where "global" actually means the whole earth, that's for sure.

RE: This is good news
By Cluebat on 10/3/2012 6:45:11 PM , Rating: 3

We are in an ice age now. Core data proves this.

Last post. I give up. This is what public education has done to us.

RE: This is good news
By m51 on 10/3/2012 9:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
To quote a figure like 7 inches a century obscures most of the actual data and gives people a false understanding.
I find a graph gives a much fuller and more accurate picture.

You'll notice the sea level has been relatively constant for the last 4000 years and has not been rising 7 inches a year. It's only in the last 100 years that the 7 inch/year rate is valid. Unless you go back to ending of the last ice age.

RE: This is good news
By ironargonaut on 10/3/2012 4:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link, from it I can clearly see that a rise of 1-2M in a millenia is well within normal boundaries.

Also, I can see from the last 100 year graph that the rising sea levels do not correlate to the rate in rise of CO2 over the same period.

Therefore, I am left to conclude that sea level rise is within natural variability, and while the last 100yr rise may be attributable to the industrial age no such graph is posted for a legible scale of say the last 200yrs. If a graph of last 200yrs or longer was posted it would indicate whether the rise is consistent with a period in which industralization was present but not consistent w/the non idustralized period. Therefore, I can reach no reliable or logical conclusion from the meager graphs shown whether or not sea level rise can be correlated w/AGW.

RE: This is good news
By dgingerich on 10/3/2012 7:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
You'll notice the sea level has been relatively constant for the last 4000 years

um, no, it hasn't. There are ruins of ancient towns all up and down the Mediterranean coast that are inland by hundreds of feet that have docks as if they were coastal towns. There are old maps all over the place that show a far different coast back in 350-500BC. The sea level was higher back then, and has risen and fallen repeatedly over human history. There are ruins of coastal towns and cities both far from the coast and under the water. I've seen evidence of that all over the place since I was old enough to begin to question why, at about age 6.

RE: This is good news
By DiscoWade on 10/3/2012 12:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
And, by the way, sea levels have recently dropped significantly and then rebounded but not to the level it was before the drop.

Garbage In Garbage Out
By Tony Swash on 10/3/2012 6:06:56 AM , Rating: 4
A few points for consideration by those that believe that man made dangerous climate change caused by CO2 emissions is occurring.

Science is not consensus. Science is littered by entrenched theories shattered by evidence.

The number of scientists that are less than convinced that CO2 drives climate change is significant and growing.

The amount of research funding for climate science, a previously esoteric and tiny part of the scientific community, has increased over a thousand fold as the result of just one theory. Hundreds of thousands of political activists, media workers and many important bureaucrats and politicians are enthusiastic supporters of that same theory for reasons other than just the science. Scientists are human and are affected by the same stuff that affects other people, money, careers, fame, status, peer pressure.

The most recent late 20th century warming period that started around 1975 and stopped around 1998 is in no way unusual by the standards of recent climate history.

If you look at the temperature record of the Holocene, the last ten thousand years since the end of the last ice age, you can see that the longer general warming trend from the mid 19th century is in no way anomalous or unusual.

You should also note that the period known as the 'Little Ice Age' (a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries) was the coldest period since the end of the last real ice age and the warming since then has only represented a recovery back to the sort of temperatures seen in the four thousand years.

Also note that the early part of the Holocene, eight to four thousand years before the present, a recent period when humans were starting to farm and starting to build the first permanent settlements, was much warmer than today. Nothing catastrophic happened as a result.

The current case for CO2 driving the recent warming is wholly dependent on climate models which claim to show that only CO2 can explain the recent warming. These models have been tested empirically. Twenty years ago these same models were used to make various projections of what would happen if CO2 continued to rise by various amounts. In fact CO2 rose by the highest amounts projected, and by an amount the models claimed would produce significant and clear warming. That warming never happened and there has in fact been no warming since 1998 even though CO2 has continued to rise. That seems to indicate that the models are flawed in some way.

Sea ice in the Antarctic has in the last couple of weeks reached record levels. The models showed warming in the Antarctic and retreating sea ice around the south pole. This also seems to indicate that the models are flawed in some way.

The sun has ended its highest level of solar activity in the last eight thousand years (which occurred in the 20th century) and appears to be entering some sort of grand minima period. All such previous periods have been marked by cooling.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
John Maynard Keynes

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By xtort107 on 10/3/2012 8:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
I like the explanation shows that scientist are A. not in agreement and B. Do not have enough climate data to prove a theory one way or another. I would like to add a small fact myself that I read once during this whole greenhouse gas caused global warming theory. One average volcano explosion such as Mt. St. Helens expels the CO2 equivalent of every car driven in America in an entire year. Nature still causes a lot of its own greenhouse gases to be put in the atmosphere and where is the data supporting that Nature could be responsible for any climate change since it does seem that alot of the blame is pointed at human industrialization and really no other cause.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By Arsynic on 10/3/2012 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 1
You can't tax the shit out of nature transfer money from nature to poor countries. Plus enviroweenies love nature more than they love themselves and their fellow humans.

Nature is god to them and they must protect their god lest he becomes angry and drowns us all in a flood. Maybe the enviroweenies can just build an ark, put all the animals in it and just let all of us evil capitalists drown. Then they can rebuild their liberal Utopia.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By FaaR on 10/3/2012 12:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
You can't survive by eating money. If for no other reason, that is why we need a functioning environment/biosphere.

Can your miniscule, shallow mind grasp such a concept, I wonder?

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By freedom4556 on 10/3/2012 1:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see you stop a volcano from erupting.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By PaFromFL on 10/3/2012 8:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists all agree that if you find that the sky is not falling, you lose funding. If the sky is falling in a manner that could increase government power and tax revenue, your funding increases by orders of magnitude. Climatology would be a tiny scientific backwater without all the fear mongering.

Change is not always bad. Between Greenland and Antarctica, plenty of real estate will become available, even with rising sea levels. Humans and other hardy species will adapt, like they always have. Where is the research money to explore the opportunities the 10,000 year warming trend will offer?

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By dgingerich on 10/3/2012 11:01:56 AM , Rating: 2
Change is not always bad. Between Greenland and Antarctica, plenty of real estate will become available, even with rising sea levels.

Good point. I have a very Lex Luthor style idea in my head: buy up real estate in Antarctica or even just take it by squatters'/homestead rights, pump out tons of CO2, allow the ice to melt, and voila! Tons of new farmland while everyone else's is heating up and going dry. :) The growing season should be awesome there with half the year in perpetual sunlight.

hehe, just kidding. I don't believe CO2 is the cause of the end of the world any more than Mitt Romney does. That line just sounded like a great setup. I couldn't leave it hanging.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By maugrimtr on 10/3/2012 8:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, a significant and growing proportion of scientists disputing climate change...

95% is well above the level deemed a scientific concensus.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By ironargonaut on 10/3/2012 4:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
may want to check your source. Go to they show the details behind those "surveys" and the extremists who created them.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By Cluebat on 10/3/2012 10:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
It may be a good time to look into some investment property in Florida. When the ice sheets start rolling in I expect the location will be very desirable. Being within driving distance of the Bahamas will also be a plus.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By xtort107 on 10/3/2012 5:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
thats if another ice age starts soon, we are still heating by their data so its going to take a shift towards being cooler first. If the Ice starts coming we won't be around for it for sure.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By Cluebat on 10/3/2012 6:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
As I have pointed out previously, the Pleistocene ice age is the one that we are currently experiencing. This is just a short warm cycle during that ice age and is periodic and evidenced by core data.



Please. This is just sad.

You know how the continental shelf, where the coastal waters are all fairly shallow and go out several miles before dropping off? Well those are lowlands during glacial periods. And the point where they drop off will be the new coastline during a glacial period.

Please. Just check Wikipedia. Expand your knowledge. We are 12,000 years into the Holocene interglacial period. The previous one lasted 15 odd thousand years.

Check it out.

RE: Garbage In Garbage Out
By xtort107 on 10/4/2012 10:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
good job, if your part of the ice age consensus group, useless if your part of the global warming group, pointless if your trying to argue a point. whats sad is the fact you spent all this time trying to out science an unscientific discussion, take your facts and write a paper you make me sleepy.

By soloburrito on 10/3/2012 12:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
That's a funny word to throw in the face of 4.5 billion years of geological history.

RE: Irreversible
By Milliamp on 10/3/2012 1:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to go that far back you can't ignore the 99.9% extinction rate..

RE: Irreversible
By Denigrate on 10/3/2012 9:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
Great point. Many mass extinction events throughout history, but somehow it's only human's who cause extinction events today. We are destroying the earths diversity, and it'll never recover.

RE: Irreversible
By icemansims on 10/3/2012 11:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
Never recover? Good god, you don't understand at all do you? Our environment is changing. With or without us many species die off and develop almost on an annual basis. Most of this happens at the microscopic level so you never even notice. The point, however, is that nothing is EVER recoverable.
Is the planet warming? Yes.
Is there evidence that human influence is accelerating that (solar output accounts for more)? Equivocally, yes.
Does that mean we're "destroying the planet"? No.
Does that mean we could make the planet's environment hostile to humanity's needs? Yes.
At very worst, we'll kill off ourselves. Life will continue. All species die off in their own time, usually around ~10 million years, according to fossil record. More will take their place. Everything changes.

RE: Irreversible
By WLee40 on 10/3/2012 1:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Great points. I wish I could vote you up, but I already made a post and you said many things I was trying to say.

RE: Irreversible
By freedom4556 on 10/3/2012 1:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
This. A thousand times this. Pretty much sums up my whole viewpoint on "climate change". Everybody needs to just accept the bigger picture and move on.

RE: Irreversible
By Saldrin on 10/3/2012 7:05:10 AM , Rating: 1

Did anybody ever ask how all that water got up there in the first place? The water had to be that high to begin with to create the ice in the first place, right?

RE: Irreversible
By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/3/2012 8:14:58 AM , Rating: 2

RE: Irreversible
By Saldrin on 10/3/2012 8:21:01 AM , Rating: 1
Still need water to create snow. The old chicken or the egg question: what came first, water or the ice.

RE: Irreversible
By ironargonaut on 10/3/2012 4:29:43 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Irreversible
By dgingerich on 10/3/2012 7:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
Especially when blaming most of that sea level rise on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which has happened repeatedly during human history.

So many global warming "scientists" push Greenland as an example of what we're doing wrong, but completely ignore the fact that the Vikings had colonies on Greenland long before we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

RE: Irreversible
By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/3/2012 8:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
If they used a model that had an infinite impulse response characteristic (similar to a resistive-capacitive circuit), the effect of the stimulus would persist indefinitely. Of course, the level of the effect would be practically immesurable (below noise level) after only a small number of time constants.

It's a way to generate headlines but may not mean much at all. Simply a characteristic of their model.

Of course, if a different stimulus were applied, the output could be made to go in the other direction.

What If?
By Apone on 10/3/2012 12:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
Honest question here, with the continuous talk about global warming and rising sea levels, would it make sense to create a commercial process to take seawater and convert it to drinkable water for the world's population? I know there are ways to remove salt and impurities from water which we use now for municipal applications (which I'm sure could be adapted) so I think this could help alleviate the rising water levels while also helping countries in need and cities with drought issues.

RE: What If?
By freedom4556 on 10/3/2012 2:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
We have several. It's not cost effective with available fresh water sources for most people at the moment.

Moot Point?
By rickon66 on 10/3/2012 1:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
By the year 3000 the worlds population would be in the 30-50 billion range-sustain that! As a species, humans will have crashed and burned long before 3000, wars, disease, starvation will doom us in the next 100-200 years

RE: Moot Point?
By senecarr on 10/3/2012 2:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably projecting that on 1st derivative trends in population growth. The actual rate of population growth is slowing. Based on the change in standard of living currently happening, and the effect it has on populations, population growth will stop in less than 200 years.

Why do we listen to these people?
By eagle470 on 10/3/2012 11:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
They have been caught lying time and again, so why do we even pay attention to them? They are like the boy who cried wolf, only the towns people in this story are too stupid to figure it out it seems.

I come for the science
By Azethoth on 10/3/2012 3:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
I stay for the delicious denial.

Man made Ice Age
By xtort107 on 10/3/2012 5:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
If everyone thinks that we are causing climate change I have a awesome idea for everyone to try, you can make either a large surface area of the earth white with some kind of floating material on the ocean or whiting out large areas on land so it will reflect heat out of the atmosphere, since what i hear is snow reflects so much heat back into the atmosphere that we should cool quickly as an effect.

By macca007 on 10/4/2012 4:59:12 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know what to believe, But what I do know is the planet is finite yet there are now 7 billion people and growing, WE ARE having some sort of impact on ecosystem what that is exactly I would not have a clue. Pretty sure we will be fighting each other over fresh water instead of oil the way it's going, Unless they can make energy breakthrough to produce clean water,Same goes for food we now rely on crop breakthroughs and such to feed the planet,It's just a matter of time before something fails and we only have ourselves to blame!
The planet just isn't big enough for growing humanity that's the real problem, We can cut down all the trees and make farms, We can build high rises insetad of individual houses but once again it's a just a question of time, 100 years? 1000 year? 100,000 years? I think we should be looking at a second place to call home regardless of this climate stuff.
Almost as if the planet is alive and forces wars or famine or natural disasters to try balance things out,Unfortunately it's doing a shit job as humaity is becoming a little too smart for it's own good!

Your opinion is irrelevant
By Motoman on 10/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By Motoman on 10/3/2012 11:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
Should have provided a direct link to one of Phil Plait's's one.

Follow the links around that he provides there, many of which I've copied in the above posts.

RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By jRaskell on 10/3/2012 4:24:15 PM , Rating: 1
Money is flowing one way - from companies and governments that depend on fossil fuels to purchase opinions of those in positions of influence to be deniers of truth.

So it is your belief that political/financial influence is being exerted in favor of fossil fuels, but no such political/financial influence is being exerted in the other direction? (that is how I interpret the 'flowing one way' anyways)

Let's recall some of the insults you've thrown out yourself...

Abject moron

If you truly believe that there is zero political/financial influence in climate research, then all of the above applies to you.


Feel free to disagree...just remember that if you do, you're wrong.

And, just for the record, don't take this as any claim regarding the state of our climate or the research being done on it. You just appear to believe that the bullshit only flows in one direction. It doesn't.

RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By Motoman on 10/3/2012 5:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
It does, unless you can provide proof otherwise.

Which you can't. Go on. Try. I'll wait.

See the image I posted at the top of my OP. Which spells it out quite nicely.

If you're able to provide evidence that there's payola happening to get essentially all of the world's climate researchers to *pretend* that something is happening when it really isn't, then present it.

RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By PaFromFL on 10/3/2012 5:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you have earned credentials to match those of the many scientists who don't believe that anthropomorphic global warming has been proved, you should tone down your arrogant pronouncements. Many climatologists now depend on the existence AGW to earn a good living, and that is never good for science. Politics always has and always will corrupt science.

RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By Motoman on 10/3/2012 5:21:31 PM , Rating: 2

I *don't* have those credentials. Which is why I'm not stupid enough to declare that they don't know what they're doing, and I "can make up my own mind."

Climatologists do not "depend on the existence of AGW to earn a good living." They're climatologists...they're going to be employed no matter what is going on, making the same amount of money.

See the image I linked at the top of my original post.

RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By ironargonaut on 10/3/2012 5:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
The old appeal to authority arguement. How trite.

Let's see, I was twenty and my old girlfriend was describing the burn she got from a 2M nitric acid spill in the chemlab. She went to the campus doctor. They ran it under water for 15mins, bandaged it and sent her home. She described to me how it was still spreading. I told her to ignore that doctor because something was wrong if days later it was causing problems. I told her to get her parents to take her to a burn specialist in the big city. She took my advice and days after the burn they immediately ran her hand under water for FOUR hrs.

If she had not sought advice from this non-doctor she may suffered longer and lost more use of her fingers. According to you, I was "not qualified to have an opinion".

I've had emergency room nurses rolling their eyes at me when I told them I was sure my niece was bleeding internally. The look of shock on their smug faces when the catheder came out full of blood was enlightening. According to you because I am not a doctor I should have waited in the waiting room like a good sheep instead blowing by the reception desk. I should have patiently waited instead of asking three times to get someone to look at her.

Perhaps my mom shouldn't have listened to the Dr's when they said my brother with spinal bifada would never walk. I guess we shouldn't have taught him. He walks and runs just fine today.

Your analogy is beyond flawed. However, it does show that your opinion is irrelevant and worthless. If my doctor can't figure out how to fix something as simple as my frickin toilet, why the hell would I think he could figure out my internal plumbing which is much more complicated. Let's see heart and toilet both use fluid dynamics, and valves.

Your 97% number is BS and has been shown to be such many times over.

So, how about if I am a qualified scientist(wait a second what exactly is the qualification to be labeled a climate scientist? what degree do I need?) who is peer reviewed in a field where me and my peers make sure we review and ok each others work? How about a field in which my peers and I actively attempt to block out others who may disagree from getting published, and try to punish magazines that publish dissenting opinions, is that ok?

"Scientists" don't have some magically power that endows only them with knowledge or basic logic in a field of study. If they did wouldn't be recalling papers and/or conclusions after smart non-magically empowered people like Steve McIntyre point out that their hockey stick generating models make hockey sticks no matter what garbage data is put in.

RE: Your opinion is irrelevant
By Motoman on 10/3/2012 5:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
The old appeal to authority arguement. How trite.

You lost right there.

Don't try to assign that to actual scientists participating in peer-reviewed research. That's authority gained by actual work, resulting in actual expertise.

You clearly missed my analogy with the heart surgeon and the plumber.

If you think you're having a heart attack, are you going to call a doctor, or will the mechanic at the gas station nearby work for you?

After all, looking to the doctor is just an "appeal to authority." How trite.

Here's your sign.

Your anecdata is irrelevant. One instance of what may or may not have been bad advice from one doctor, vs. the culmination of decades of research by a globe-full of researchers.

Get a grip.

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki