25 Years of Satellite Data Shows Global Warming Is Accelerating Sea Level Rise (usnews.com) 343
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Associated Press: Melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are speeding up the already fast pace of sea level rise, new satellite research shows. At the current rate, the world's oceans on average will be at least 2 feet (61 centimeters) higher by the end of the century compared to today, according to researchers who published in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Sea level rise is caused by warming of the ocean and melting from glaciers and ice sheets. The research, based on 25 years of satellite data, shows that pace has quickened, mainly from the melting of massive ice sheets. It confirms scientists' computer simulations and is in line with predictions from the United Nations, which releases regular climate change reports. Of the 3 inches (7.5 centimeters) of sea level rise in the past quarter century, about 55 percent is from warmer water expanding, and the rest is from melting ice. But the process is accelerating, and more than three-quarters of that acceleration since 1993 is due to melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, the study shows.
It's the Knights Templar! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: It's the Knights Templar! (Score:2, Informative)
Only one of those papers says what you imply. The others either explicitly agree with the posted article or are consistent with it (though the first link is unreadable in my browser so I canâ(TM)t really speak to that).
Hypocrites (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite accurate (Score:4, Informative)
Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
He doesn't say it's a myth, he says it's a hoax [snopes.com].
He agrees that the climate is changing, but believes that it's not due to man-made changes in the environment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
He doesn't say it's a myth, he says it's a hoax [snopes.com].
He agrees that the climate is changing, but believes that it's not due to man-made changes in the environment.
Trump never said climate is changing, Kellyanne Conway claimed he believed that, which is completely in line with their standard practice of spinning Trump's outrageous statements into orthodox GOP doctrine.
Conway tells us nothing about what Trump believes, Trump is absolutely notorious for contradicting his administration's official positions, his spokespeople, and even himself.
Trump only ever has two kinds of comments about climate change, either some variation of "it's a hoax" or "it's cold, therefore no
Re:Not quite accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
To deny that there are clear cut benefits to global warning is asinine. My country for example is looking at massively increased agricultural production and reduced costs associated with extreme cold winters.
Negatives? Weather patterns become more extreme, so more repairs to infrastructure will be needed. Former is huge for nation's GDP. Latter is tiny in comparison. Add to that the fact that like most nations that sat under the ice during ice age, our land is rising out of the sea faster than sea is rising, there are clear benefits even on local level.
And then there's the whole "new paths for maritime travel" aspect which is bound to increase efficiency by a significant margin.
That's why catastrophism folks like you espouse is just as dangerous as "global warning isn't happening" BS. Both are equally wrong, and both turn people from the sane actions that we actually need to take to make our transition to existing in a slowly but surely warming climate and all changes that brings with it.
Instead we get "we should do nothing" and "we should do everything" idiocy on each side. When sanity is off the table at the start, and all you have is crazy partisans on each side debunking each other's idiocy, no actual discussion on what should be done can take place.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, our food harvesting ability has increased massively, and nowadays we're shifting to farmed fish across the Nordic states en masse. Norway, the former giant of fishing now produces more salmon through farming it than through fishing it. And farming is growing explosively.
So instead of being hungry, they're going to be shoving high quality Norwegian salmon down their throats, or they're going to grow their own at their coastal and river fish farms. This is what we call "adaptation".
Re: (Score:3)
The first thing that catastrophists like to do is to argue "but globally!!!"
Overwhelming majority of people don't care about what happens in everyday life of someone on the other side of the planet. The country you cite, US, most of its citizenry would struggle to identify countries on the other side of the globe, much less actually care if they have to invest one percent of GDP more into infrastructure. And for those that live in productive states, increase in infrastructure spending is a trivially absorba
Does it matter ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And in the end it doesn't matter. The climate doesn't care about the whims or opinions of the annoying orange.
Re: (Score:3)
From your own link:
NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?
Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!
Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
Trump really doesn't seem to think that the world is warming, or at least doesn't understand the different between weather and climate. Maybe he has changed his tune since those tweets were posted.
Just more Fake News (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple.
Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
Re: (Score:2)
The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple. Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
No worries. I'm sure they will listen to Reason.
Meh. (Score:5, Funny)
(But I'm thinking that an investment in property on Lake Superior or Hudson Bay may pay off as the next French Riviera. Kashechewan=Monaco?)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change will be the great equalizer where the rich get drowned and you'll have your new sea side resort in Kansas.
Learn to swim! See you down in Arizona bay!
yes, but few care (Score:4, Informative)
If ppl want to stop this, then ALL NATIONS MUST STOP. Not just 1 or 2.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Getting a net CO2 cut would basically require that China stop industrialising. If the Chinese government tried that, they'd be overthrown in a bloody revolution
https://photos.mongabay.com/09... [mongabay.com]
tl;dr - global CO2 emissions will continue to rise until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2.
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions, but there's no way they can fall fast enough to compensate for the enormous CO2
Re:yes, but few care (Score:4, Interesting)
As to cutting coal, far better to simply replace those with AE and Nukes.
And I fully agree with your last bit there.
Right now, the ENTIRE WEST puts out less CO2 than what China is adding JUST IN COAL PLANTS over the next 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
No longer adding NEW COAL plants will not lead to any issues. In fact, it would likely increase the lifespan of more citizens.
Utter horseshit. Their population is not decreasing.
Just over the last year, when they made a promise to reduce coal use to reduce CO2, they had to back off on their promise because people were freezing to death.
Read the newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved his point, which was coal increases Chinese lifespans, for several reasons from simple heating to a powerful economy allowing the leaving of a dirt-floored existence.
Compared to that, worrying about sea rise is a foolish thing, and to hamper growth is murderous.
Few if any will die due to sea rise. Millions continue to die annually from need and want.
I'm ready for my downmod, Mr. DeMille.
Re: (Score:3)
Right now, the ENTIRE WEST puts out less CO2 than what China is adding JUST IN COAL PLANTS over the next 10 years.
Major fucking citation required. The EU+USA emissions alone are higher than that of China. The worst case prediction for China peaking in 2035 shows that the emissions at that time will be only marginally higher than those of the EU+USA and then will fall at a far higher rate than the west will ever achieve as their old coal plants come online.
The rising emissions in China over the next 30 years are predicted to be small compared to the rise between 1995-2010 and China's coal demand is plummeting, something
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you suppose that is?
Do you expect all countries to have the same emissions irregardless of size?
Is it really realistic to expect China to have a lower level of CO2 than America, when they have over a billion more people?
Re: (Score:2)
"tl;dr - global CO2 emissions will continue to rise until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2."
Oh, fucking please. They could've utterly stopped using coal with the pure amount of solar panels they produced and sold in the past ten years with their fucking rigging of the REE market.
Re: (Score:2)
They could've utterly stopped using coal with the pure amount of solar panels they produced and sold in the past ten years with their fucking rigging of the REE market.
China added 3000 TWh of generation capacity from 2000 to 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Meanwhile if you look here at global energy consumption by source renewables are very small percentage. The reason for that is because all the increase is in places like China and India, and people there can only afford fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes. Pretending that China with 4-5 times the population of the United States is the problem, and then ignoring that much of China's pollution comes from producing crap for American consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
If the fascist Chinese government hasn't been overthrown in a bloody revolution by now, I don't think the issue is industrialisation. It's not like the peasants in 1980 were standing around and agreeing not to hurl themselves at the tanks because they'd heard that there might be a new textile sweatshop opening soon.
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, when the question is economy or ecology, I guess we have to buy a new planet.
Re: (Score:3)
That's an interesting graph. Curious that it doesn't show the sudden drop in emissions from China in 2010 that happened due to a mix of economic crisis, lower steel demand and loss of appetite for dirty coal projects. Nor does your graph show that Chinese emissions are growing at almost 1/5th of the rate that they were 10 years ago. Nor do they show that emissions per GDP are plummeting (a sign that dirty industrialization of a 3rd world nation has already peaked).
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do.
Yes because somewhere someone else is produ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes because somewhere someone else is producing 1/5th of the emissions per capita of the people in the USA it is all *their* fault and we can't do anything. ... in emissions per capita".
"America First!
Per capita is meaningless in relation to *TOTAL GLOBAL* levels. But you likely already know that and are simply hoping you can blow it by others because 'muh Party!'.
Australia has a very high CO2 per capita average, but a small total population so the total amount of CO2 Australia contributes is small. China and India have a low per-capita average but enormous populations, so they contribute a large percentage of the total CO2 released. Sort of a CO2 emission "economy of scale'.
China, India, and other devel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions
Cite? The best information I can find shows the US emissions as flat over the last few years (emissions from power generation have fallen a bit, but total emissions have not). Your graph shows that they're expected to keep climbing (albeit slower than China). Yes, China needs to reduce emissions, but everything I see shows that they're working far harder at it than we are. Your graph was based on 2009 data, and in the last 2-3 years China has begun investing extremely heavily in solar and wind, more than an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think China trying to deploy fission plants at the speed they're currently deploying coal is going to lead to Chernobyl type accidents.
Fission needs breeder or thorium (Score:3)
Fission could do that, easily. We've shown them how to do fission adequately. Maybe they could teach the rest of us how to do it well.
Actually, no. If we just use fission, we run out of uranium in a hundred years or so-- it's not a long-term solution. We need fission plus breeder reactors, or else a switch to a thorium-based fuel cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. This report from 2010 - the most recent I can find - shows massive amounts of Chinese coal plants being built.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%... [doe.gov] page 16
https://imgur.com/a/NDlL3 [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's total CO2 emissions that affect the climate, not per capita emissions. Also if China is going to radically increase its CO2 emissions it is impossible for the US or EU to do anything to cause total emissions to fall because, as you point out, China is a big place.
Re: (Score:2)
China already emits more CO2 than America. And the climate, if it cares at all, cares about total emissions not per capita emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Look up some of Kevin Anderson's presentations. To keep below the carbon budget for 2C the industrialized world would have to decarbonize steeply. Not gonna happen. And that's without considering global dimming which is good for about 1C. IOW, 3C are in the pipeline even with an extreme effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up some of Kevin Anderson's presentations. To keep below the carbon budget for 2C the industrialized world would have to decarbonize steeply. Not gonna happen. And that's without considering global dimming which is good for about 1C. IOW, 3C are in the pipeline even with an extreme effort.
So you're saying we're fucked, and we don't have the existential will to un-fuck ourselves?
We deserve to go extinct.
Re: (Score:2)
It WILL lead to a lot of war esp. between nations. I fully expect China to steal Pakistan, India, and South East Asia's water. When that happens, Shit will hit the fans.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm not sure anyone knows right where the line of warming is that enough factors add up to the collapse of our civilization. At that point, extinction is a lot more likely.
It's not hard to imagine the right large bread basket becoming barren, leading to the right set of total wars, pulling in the right set of allied nations for us to tear it all down. And while I'm quite certain whatever is left over will do just fine with its own devices to rebuild... There's simply a smal
Re: (Score:3)
China hit peak coal a few years ago and has been in decline ever since.
http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-... [ieefa.org] (article from a year ago, so 4 years past now)
The new plants are just replacing old ones with cleaner technology and better load following capability to back up wind.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to stop the CO2 is to have ALL NATIONS STOP ADDING COAL and back off rather quickly.
That's far from enough.
Note that the assumptions underlying the Paris accord include the notion that we (soon) not only dramatically reduce the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, but that we actually start removing and sequestering large quantities. We have no real idea how to do that, and while we've begun scaling back emissions (well, slowed the rate of increase) we haven't even started seriously extracting CO2.
We need to look at the problem holistically, as a geoengineering problem, not just as an emiss
Re:yes, but few care (Score:5, Interesting)
If ppl want to stop this, then ALL NATIONS MUST STOP. Not just 1 or 2.
And that will never happen. I see a lot of talk about China in this thread but Russia is the #2 emitter of pollution. The US is reducing emissions, both per-capita and overall. Russia's emissions per GDP are increasing (albeit not as rapidly as China). Here's a nice graph of emissions per capita for the top 3 [google.com]. The difference is that China is seeing a lot of negative effects related to pollution, and politicians are under pressure to fix the problem or risk destabilizing the country. China has incentives to act.
Russia, on the other hand, doesn't have many developed low-lying coastal areas. Weather patterns are becoming more habitable, arable land is increasing, icecaps limiting shipping are melting, more natural resources (fishing, oilfields, etc) are becoming accessible, etc. Climate change may cost Russia's economic competitors in both money and political stability. A decent chunk of the Russian economy is based on oil and natural gas exports. Many other countries have some of these incentives, but Russia is the big winner of climate change, and they have every incentive not to take action. I would not be at all surprised if Russia was actively promoting anti-climate change ideology. They have a strong motive, means, and opportunity.
Disclaimer- I am an engineer in the North American fossil fuel industry
Worst case was wrong (Score:2)
Did anyone see this article in Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
It says the "worst case scenario" is preposterous.
"For example, the most extreme worst-case storyline assumes that by 2100 coal would grow to 94 percent of the world energy supply. In 2015, that figure was about 28 percent."
"One big problem with the amount of coal burning assumed by RCP8.5 is that there’s probably not enough extractable coal to make the scenario possible. “We don’t think it’s going to happen,
So predictions? Chicken little stuff! (Score:2)
Here is my question, When is anyone, a group, a corporation, a government? Going to propose how the human race takes, Over Control of our Planets Climate? And release all the projected Cultural, Economic, Personal/Business/Government Costs, who will profit along with the social ramifications.
I mean it seems the goal here is to save individuals/cities/ports/countries at sea level from seeing any environmental impact or the need
Assumptions? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just read the abstract. As I understand it, they have 25 data years of very noisy data. Based on this data, they have deduced a quadratic equation (think: upward-curving parabola). They then state: "simple extrapolation of the quadratic implies global mean sea level could rise 65 ± 12 cm by 2100".
Of course, extrapolation of a quadratic leads to massive increases in the Y-value. Any kid doing 9th grade geometry learns that. The question is: Why should we believe that this quadratic equation - derived from so few data points - is accurate, and wil continue unabated into the future?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are somewhat right. This is the first study to claim an upward trend in the rate of change.
Meanwhile, in mainstream science, there has been dozens of papers and theories trying to describe how a steady increase of slightly more than three millimeters per year could have happened. This is what the entirety of our precise data, the satellite data set, shows. The stark linearity has made quite a stir.
Either the satellites are miscalibrated in some unknown, novel way, the rate of thermal expansion is increa
Look at all the deniers... (Score:2)
Global Warming deniers sure love to be Anonymous Cowards when they're blathering their anti-science bullshit.
Sea level rise is small compared to biological ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bugs too, are surviving winter. The most ardent climate change denying, conspiracy theory believing, Iowa farmer sees the forsythia blooming in February, tulips emerging in March, crocus in December... Some fields naturalized by daffodils and tulips are going the other way. The bulbs rotting away instead of emerging. These bulbs need six weeks of continuous freezing for them to "sense" the coming and going of winter. Without the frost, they dont emerge and they rot in spring rains.
One of the most productive agricultural belt is protected by annual frost. It has no natural defense against many of the deleterious organisms. All it takes is one fungus, one virus, one weed to afflict the Idaho potato crop or the corn or wheat... By the time we identify and mitigate the threat we would have lost two or even three years of loss of agricultural productivity. Affluent USA will suck the products from rest of the world, prices will shoot up beyond belief. Poor countries with unstable regimes will see societal collapse, mass migrations and refugees...
These consequences are far more dire, far more urgent than sea level rise. Sea level rise is important it will lead to very serious climate changes. But that is very indirect and direct cause - effect relations difficult to deduce, difficult to prove, difficult to explain to public.
Actually ... (Score:2)
Since there were no SUVs or coal plants back then, I'm laying the blame on Native American campfires.
Re: Yawn, This again (Score:2, Offtopic)
Well Iâ(TM)m sure glad random anonymous coward is here to point out how all the scientists are wrong. Thank god for the internet!
Re: Yawn, This again (Score:3, Informative)
Climate does not change during seasons, because climate is the weather average over 30 years. Global warming is defined by the change if the global temperature. While weather is specfic to you region. For example the US had a cold and snow rich winter and we in Europe had a lot if rain and no snow. So in our region it was exceptionally warm weather while you had snow rich weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is a general term. Long range climate, as you say, about a 30 year average. It is also accurate to say the local climate here is Aug is the hottest driest month, Dec is the wettest and Jan is the coldest.
The IPC definition,
Re: (Score:2)
True. However, in context of global warming or climate change the term climate used originates from science. Therefore, the wider definition of climate does not apply. However, I can understand that there is some confusion based on the difference between both the scientific definition and the laymen term used by the public.
Re: Yawn, This again (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?
Because people generally like living above water. Because there are existing places that will become untenable to maintain and/or unsafe with higher water levels and fixing that doesn't seem like a lot of fun.
There are are a whole lot more 'becauses' to add.
Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.
Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society.
...and so on... and finally:
Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.
While the OP is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because you can just up and replace entire ecosystems on a moment's notice with new flora and fauna.
Re: Yawn, This again (Score:5, Insightful)
Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.
Right ... that's why there aren't any European plants growing in the Americas. Because we can't just go ahead and plant them; no, they have to evolve first.
Just because some plants do well in a non-native habitat it doesn't not follow that most plants (particularly crops) can effectively adapt to a very different climate, or equivalent farmland can be found in another region.
Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society. ...and so on... and finally:
Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.
So ... basically a repeat of 2017?
Quelle horreur.
Americans experienced a mild increase in Muslim migration and a drug epidemic and elected a demagogue Trump, one of the major riots leading up to the French Revolution was caused by a flour shortage, German's experienced massive reparations after WWI and elected Hitler, Russians got hammered in WWI and had the October Revolution, etc, etc.
In fact, high food prices were one of the causes of the Arab Spring, and the Arab Spring combined with the Iraq War caused the migrant crisis in Europe which is another factor that elected Trump and scared Britain out of the EU. And the Arab Spring looks a lot like the mass migrations you'll see when Climate Change starts to kick in (and the equivalent South American migration into the US).
It's not a complex formula. When populations are stressed they lash out, they either riot and or elect leaders who raise a ruckus on their behalf. And climate change causes a lot of stress.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point about the Arab Spring, but notice, nobody can predict which stresses will occur and whether they will lead to breakdown, strain, or innovation, or some combination of all three. And multiply that by a million for all the possible scenarios.
Whilst care and compassion are very worthy moral developments, this does not mean we can predict the unpredictable. Climate change is unfortunately just one of the many unpredictable things. The “science” has faked its certainty over this, and latch
Re: (Score:3)
"Right ... that's why there aren't any European plants growing in the Americas. Because we can't just go ahead and plant them; no, they have to evolve first."
So your argument is that because some plants can grow in different regions of the world, every plant can grow in different regions of the world? So like temperature, precipitation, etc. can have no effect because you can grow lettuce in both England and California. That's...brilliant.
Re: Yawn, This again (Score:2)
I thought it was the Chinese.
Re: (Score:3)
You're forgetting to mention the lizard people who control the Club of Rome. And, of course, Soros' ninjas.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! That's what Job said!
Re: (Score:2)
My dear friend, your moniker should be PoeRatzo.
Well played.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it would be funnier if there weren't idiots that actually argue like this...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue but you're having so much fun beating your straw man it seems a bit cruel to stop you.
Re:Science snowflakes (Score:5, Funny)
You're right. WHY ARE THEY HIDING THE SATELLITE DATA FROM 100 YEARS AGO? HUH?
Checkmate, libs.
Re:Known since at least 2006 (Score:5, Informative)
Citation [wiley.com]. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.
It is new in that this article shows the satellite altimetry, while the article you cite, showing similar trends, combines tide-gauge and satellite data to get a much longer data set. Basically, that article is using satellite data to calibrate tide-gauges, and then using that calibration to measure historical sea level rise.
Good article, though.
Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.
Yes, exactly: it is useful when different work by different groups shows the same result. This is reproducability, which is important in science.
Re:Sure, however... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?
The key difference between the two is that the national debt is little more than a pattern of bits on some spinning disks (as the GOP seems to have suddenly realized), whereas the rising sea levels are a serious physical threat (which they have unfortunately not yet realized).
Re: (Score:2)
How's it different? Whether the planet is done by the time I am dead and don't give a fuck or whether the economy is done by the the time I'm dead and don't give a fuck ... care to explain the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, this is a question I can answer. Since you are clearly a narcissist/sociopath, at best, let's focus on you.
Actually, I used to care. Until I noticed that I'm pretty much the only one left and, sorry to say it, I don't feel entitled to save the planet against the collective will of the rest on it.
Re: Sure, however... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you're an idiot. I'm not talking about individuals. This is government debt, and the government itself defines the meaning of those bits arbitrarily.
All across the political spectrum, the American people seem to be convinced that they are entitled to more government services than they are willing to explicitly pay for. If the current "pyramid scheme" strategy ever stops working, there are plenty of other avenues the government can use to simply redefine or restrict what that debt value means.
Meanwhile, the actual physical sea level just keeps rising. Ironically, if the worst case scenarios do pan out, the government would probably take on scores of trillions of dollars in additional debt in futile attempts at keeping our coastal cities habitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Sure, however... (Score:5, Interesting)
Economic rules are not the same as physical laws. Physical laws exist regardless you believe in them. Economic rules are human rules. They can be changed. For example you can lower taxes for the rich or deprive people of healthcare. You can even make up rules to limit the ability what you can dobwithnyour money. And even money itself is just a number or a piece if paper. Its value is based in an agreement. Look I have billions of Reichsmark in my attic. Unfortunately, you cannot buy anything with it. You can also see the artificially of value of currency in context of bitcoin.
Re: Sure, however... (Score:2)
Economic rules are not the same as physical laws. Physical laws exist regardless you believe in them. Economic rules are human rules. They can be changed. For example you can lower taxes for the rich or deprive people of healthcare.
This is the economics equivalent of "look, I can make a snowball, so global warming isn't real". The fact that you were moded +5 "insightful" is truly frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules of supply and demand and how they scale into an economic system ultimately are related to the physical constraints of that supply and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
The government can remove the national debt by inflating the currency or by decree. There's no way to undo the changes to the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't like what you said" does not equal "troll".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you noticed that quite a bit of NYC was underwater not too long ago. This will become more frequent, to the point that part of the infrastructure fails.
Define "quite a bit". NYC is pretty large.
As I recall during a massive storm there was some flooding in lower Manhattan, which is between the Hudson and the East rivers. Also there was some flooding on the southern shore of Long Island and the Jersey shore.
Re: (Score:2)
But most if not all of that was due to human activity, so there is no way to make a valid comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Analyze all of the data (Score:5, Informative)
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall. If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I [postimg.org].
Just for reference, the 25 years of data was not cherry picked. The article being discussed [pnas.org] analyzed satellite altimetry data, and the first of the satellite altimetry missions being discussed was TOPEX/Poseidon, which started giving data 25 years ago. 25 years is all the data that exists.
When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I made this same point [slashdot.org] after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps [slashdot.org] insisting [archive.is] that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".
Ironically, I even gave [slashdot.org] Jane/Lonny R code [dumbscientist.com] which calculates trends and accelerations [dumbscientist.com] of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the re
Re:Sick of the alarmism (Score:5, Informative)
And NYC's elevation is 10m. So it will take 5000 years or so for it to be inundated.
Yeah, no. For one thing the outcrop of Manhattan Schist in the middle of Central Park is not "NYC", and for another a large part of lower Manhattan*, western Brooklyn, and northern Queens was underwater during Hurricane Sandy which had a surge of about 13 feet (4m). Due to rebound of the continental plate since the last glaciation the city is already sinking at a rate of about 1 foot per century, and most of the gravity driven sewers were built more than 100 or 200 years ago when sea level was lower. Most of the subway entrances are staircases down from street level.
NYC has some serious problems. Maybe not as bad as Miami, but there's more infrastructure to deal with.
Stop spreading lies.
* just maybe the financial district has some huge impact on the national GDP, even if it is shut down for one day?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll admit... I'm not an actual climentoligist, but has anybody thought about maybe just making a bunch of ice and hauling it down to Antarctica? I mean if its getting warm, throw some ice on it instead of sitting around poking and measuring it.
It's pretty clear you aren't a climatologist when you can't even spell the word, but it's also clear you aren't a scientist or an engineer. The laws of thermodynamics, let alone the sheer magnitude of the logistical/technological problem, mean that making ice for Antarctica is a non-starter. You need to consume energy in order to move energy around.
Better to stop the Sun's energy from being trapped by greenhouse gasses, and harvesting the same energy (via wind and solar) for our needs, rather than using car
Re: (Score:2)
It is clear as day that my post was a lighthearted joke. You kind sir, concern me.
Re: (Score:2)
no, because he's not a tiny-brained superstitious moron.
Re: Slashdot is Broken! (Score:3)
Slashdot has ads?
Did you get lost and stumble onto this site while looking for AOL?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite simply, implementing enough renewable energy+storage for the planet is logistically impossible.
Wrong. It's politically impossible.
And, even if we DID, we're supposedly beyond The Point Of No Return already.
Wrong again. We may still be able to turn this around, nobody actually knows. The sooner we start actually trying, the more likely it is that the species will continue without having to go all morlock.
So...what then?
We've literally been telling you for decades. Don't pretend you don't know. That's disingenuous douchebaggery.
And the only way to implement it sanely is with the backing of nuclear power on a level we currently just do not see at the moment.
There's nothing sane about selling out the future for the present. That's how we got where we are now. Greenhouse gas was a settled science in the 1800s, and you're s
Re: (Score:2)
1- the old fucks in power have money to mitigate effects upon *them* so they don't care
2- the old fucks in power will not be around to suffer any downstream effects of this so they don't care
Mitigate, yes. Not suffer? No. They will suffer, too. The world will become a crappier place, and they live here.
Re:25 Years (Score:4, Informative)
25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?
Because the earliest data set came from the TOPEX/Poseidon [nasa.gov] satellite altimetry mission, which launched in 1992, and the paper was received for review in 2017. 2017-1996 = 25 years.
Paper under discussion: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... [pnas.org]
The scientists were unable to use satellite data taken before the satellite launched because that data does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?
I'll believe you the moment the faggots in San Francisco drown.
No, because TOPEX/Poseidon was launched into orbit in August 1992. Good luck getting data from it from before it was operational.
Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] (Score:4, Informative)
And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!
That's why satellite altimetry measurements-- what the article being discussed here [pnas.org] is about-- are important. You can measure the entire globe, not just the places that have tide gauges, and you can separate out the local effects from the sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading through it, I see a few things (and I saw them before I posted):
1. No mention of the fit; the paper I linked shows a r^2 value of 0.94; what is it for their fit?
2. Their conclusions are based upon subtracting estimated effects from non-CO2 based changes, and from estimates about how much ice there is. Meaning they are drawing conclusions accurate to 0.1mm, based upon several orders-of-magnitude higher estimates. Not good, statistically
3. They ignore tide-gauge corrections for altitude, on the b
Re: (Score:2)
The possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Where satellite data is referenced to tidal gauges I trust it most, where it isn't I trust it less. Where I trust it most there is no appreciable acceleration.