backtop


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


  (Source: climatepedia.org)
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

Your opinion is irrelevant
By Motoman on 10/3/2012 11:54:49 AM , Rating: -1
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh8fhMUmU1r4k4d...

To everyone who isn't a climate researcher and is declaring that they "know" something about whether or not climate change is real and/or driven by mankind: your opinion is worthless. You're not qualified to have an opinion. And the most catastrophically moronic issue at hand is that you think you *are* qualified to have an opinion.

When you want to know whether or not you have heart problems, are you going to seek the advice of a heart surgeon, or will the plumber do? When your water heater needs to be replaced, are you going to ask the heart surgeon to come out and replace it, or are you going to call the plumber? The heart surgeon may be "smarter" than the plumber, but that doesn't mean he knows f%ck all about how to fix a toilet.

Along those same lines, if you, personally, are not an accredited researcher engaged in peer-reviewed work pertaining to the climate, any and all opinions you form or adopt from other non-climate researchers (whether Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore) is utterly irrelevant. Your opinion has no value. And frankly by expressing the notion that you've "come to a conclusion" in any way about it exposes you as an abject moron.

97% of all *actual* climate researchers are in agreement on this issue. That's as great a consensus as you're ever likely to achieve in the scientific world...which is to say, the one and only way there is to attain knowledge about the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

Any and all people who are *not* climate researchers are simply showing themselves to be fools by proclaiming that they know anything one way or another. And of course, the sheer idiocy of declaring that there's some massive conspiracy afoot amongst the world's scientists to manufacture a hoax is likely the most idiotic case of asshattery the world has ever seen. See the image I linked to start this post.

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.

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2012/08/big-oil-ba...

Here's some more links to *actual* studies done by *actual* scientists who are *actually* qualified to have and give opinions on the subject:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWa...

http://amap.no/swipa/SWIPA2011ExecutiveSummaryV2.p...

One of the most popular scientists around, based on his blog on Discover.com that he uses to reach out to laypeople, is Phil Plait. He's an astronomer, and by that notion is in and of himself not someone who should be forming opinions about global warming - but he is passionate about spreading the truth, and he frequently makes posts on the subject with many links, such as the ones above, to information about studies and such that *are* done by actual climate researchers.

His position, which is the one and only correct position, is that the scientific method is the one and only way to gain knowledge, and the scientific method is used by the climate researchers who have come to a 97% consensus on the issue. So he believes them. On the flipside, if a question came up about astronomy, those climate researchers would ask Phil for his opinion...since he's the expert on astronomy, and they're not.

Knowledge cannot be gained by any means other than science. And if you're not a qualified researcher doing peer-reviewed work in a given field, you're simply not qualified to either have nor express an opinion about it.

Period.

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




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 posts...here's one.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/201...

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
quote:
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. http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2012/08/big-oil-ba...


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...

Moronic
Abject moron
Fools
idiotic
asshattery

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

Period.

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
Wrong.

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
quote:
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.


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki