Scientists Have Reduced the Forecast of Sea Level Rise Seven Times Due To Melting of the Antarctic (maritimeherald.com) 311
The destruction of the Antarctic ice sheet may not lead to such a catastrophic rise in the level of the oceans, as previously thought. In a new study, the authors calculated that instead of growing by a meter or more by 2100, a growth of 14-15 cm is likely, writes N + 1. At the same time, the melting of the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not fully taken into account in modern climate models, as it will lead to even more destabilization of the regional climate. Both studies on this are published in the journal Nature. An anonymous reader shares the report from Maritime Herald: In the first study, Tamzin Edwards from King's College London and her colleagues question this prediction. According to Edwards, who is quoted by the college press service, scientists re-analyzed data on ice loss and ocean level 3 million years ago, 125 thousand years ago and in the last 25 years and estimated the likelihood of rapid destruction of unstable sea areas of Antarctic glaciers, which the authors 2016 was associated with a meter increase in the level of the oceans. The hypothesis of such destruction received the abbreviated name MICI (marine ice cliff instability). They found that MICI does not necessarily explain the dynamics of sea level in the past, and without this the probability that the level will grow by more than 39 centimeters by 2100 is only about 5 percent. Edwards notes that in their model, even if the Antarctic glaciers really will collapse rapidly, the maximum increase in sea level will not exceed half a meter, and the most likely growth will be 14-15 cm. At the same time, scientists cannot completely eliminate the MICI phenomenon: they only talk about that more research is needed in this area.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to "locking" of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes). In addition, according to the authors of the article, the melting of ice in the warming scenario of 3-4 degrees compared with the middle of the XIX century will lead to a less predictable climate and an increase in the scale of extreme weather events.
In the second article, Edwards and Nick Golledge of Queen Victoria University in Wellington and their co-authors write that current climate models do not fully take into account the consequences of the destruction of the ice of Greenland and the Antarctic, which will slow down the Atlantic Ocean and further melt the Antarctic ice due to "locking" of warm water in the Southern Ocean (climatologists call such self-enhancing processes positive feedback processes). In addition, according to the authors of the article, the melting of ice in the warming scenario of 3-4 degrees compared with the middle of the XIX century will lead to a less predictable climate and an increase in the scale of extreme weather events.
The actual summary from Nature (Score:5, Informative)
Check Your Sources! (Score:5, Insightful)
The article that you quote was posted by a marketing manager. It looks to me as if he paraphrased a report he didn't understand. The article was from "The Maritime Herald", which is a on-line magazine mainly about shipping. The origin of the article is stated to be "Maritime News of Russia".
This article looks less reliable than most that are published here, and that's not any kind of praise.
Wildly inaccurate summary of the research. (Score:5, Informative)
This study does NOT say that that the total sea level will rise only 14cm. It's talking about the contribution of one single source of sea level rise: Antarctic Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI).
What happened was in 2016 a widely reported paper suggested that the IPCC's (rather gloomy) 2013 sea level projections needed to be revised upward by about 65-114 cm in the worst case because it didn't take MICI into account. Dr. Edward's paper suggests that MICI contribution would be closer to 45cm in the worst case, and only about 14cm in the most likely case. However this is still on top of the 52-98cm predicted by IPCC, most of which is due to highly predictable thermal expansion and not the chaotic behavior of ice systems.
Contradiction on Contradiction (Score:2)
We were all told that the large majority of the sea level rise would be ice sheets melting. Oops!!
And it turns out they cannot even be sure of the ice shelves collapsing...
Ans who has factored in the greater weight of water causing the ocean floor to be compressed a bit further than it is already? Even a rice of a few inches is a massive pressure increase on the ocean floor.
Re: (Score:2)
. So, yea, more melted ice will pretty clearly cause a lot more of a surface rise.
Didn't say it was a large percentage (in fact the 10% you ended up with is more than I thought it was). I just said, that is not factored in.
But as more and more ice melts into the ocean, that'll become a massive contributing factor maybe thermal expansion>
That seems kind of crazy to me, and also you are not factoring in how much more slowly water will melt if more ice is dumped into the ocean (especially in an area like
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal expansion is predictable if you're confident you can predict the heat accumulation. Heat accumulation in oceanic waters is hard to predict due to multitude of factors, hence chaotic properties of the system.
The heating is due to thermal expansion of deep sea water (past the thermocline) and it IS predictable. The sea water mixing is well studied and we can actually trace it by checking the dispersal of artificial isotopes throughout the water column. What is less predictable is the average sea surface temperature that actually drives the heating, but we can that's why there's a huge uncertainty (50 cm to 1 meter). On the other hand, we know for sure that it's definitely NOT going to be below 50 cm whatever we
More climate denial propaganda (Score:2)
BULL$#1T
Well, fancy that... (Score:2)
An alarmist climate scientific paper turns out to be... nothing but alarmist claptrap. Well, I never.
Re: Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Because one study attempts to challenge an existing notion?
Re: Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:4, Insightful)
When you do something 7 times and get different answers each time, you a probably doing it wrong.
Re: Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, you just need to dump politically motivated science, which like social sciences (again politically motivated) is not actually science at all
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science : Replication.
Re:When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Informative)
Some things science doesn't know: what are the effects of warming? How much warming will result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere? How much warming was there in the past? Of course, we have estimates for that last question, but the error bars are huge.
Re:When it comes to climate science.... (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the hardest elements to predict is the pace of ice-sheet melting. This should be the message here.
It will probably be tolerable in my lifetime, but the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres. And it is melting, it is just a question of how fast.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the hardest elements to predict is the pace of ice-sheet melting. This should be the message here.
Now you're trying to frame the message the way you want it. That may play elsewhere, but I can read data.
Show me the error bars or GTFO, 'cause you ain't doing science.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy boy, you seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I did not make the claims you wish to attack.
I sense a lot of anger in this one.
Re: (Score:2)
This should be the message here.
That's what you said man. Look at the data, not the message.
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you think? I'm skimmed your recent comments and not found it.
Are you denying AGW?
Climate modelling is hard, when there are so many feedback mechanisms, positive and negative.
But I've already seen long-term rainfall decline dramatically here, due to climate shift. We are now dependent on desalination for our water supply. So maybe that makes us a little more open minded to the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
But I've already seen long-term rainfall decline dramatically here, due to climate shift
Oh yeah? The two degrees difference in temperature changed your rainfall? Where is that? It sounds interesting, let's dig deeper into the data, if you have some.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying it did. I just saw you standing over the dead body with a gun. I did not see you shoot.
Can't prove it, but I'm going to be careful.
Re: (Score:2)
the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres.
About 3.2 meters. That's the real figure.
Why are ACs so stupid? The 7m is a simple theoretical number, from dividing the volume of Greenland's ice by the area of the oceans. Hardly controversial.
It is not a forecast.
Re: (Score:2)
the Greenland ice sheet alone holds enough water to raise sea levels 7 metres.
About 3.2 meters. That's the real figure.
Why are ACs so stupid? The 7m is a simple theoretical number, from dividing the volume of Greenland's ice by the area of the oceans. Hardly controversial.
It is not a forecast.
Ice has a lower density than water, and salt water has an even higher density.
Re: (Score:2)
Ice has a lower density than water, and salt water has an even higher density.
About 10% total.
2.9 million cubic km of ice, so 2.6 million of water. Divided by the area of oceans 360 million square kilometres (plus a small amount for inundated areas)
and you get 7.2 metres. Who knows how you get 3.2m? Assuming a flat earth?
Nobody is saying the whole thing will melt soon, but it gives scale to the possibilities.
Antarctica has nearly ten times the ice. So even 1% of that melting would have severe costs.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it very puzzling that civilization can't seem to break out of the false dichotomy in the global warming 'debate'.
The argument that nothing, nor nothing remarkable, is happening with climate is absurd. Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
At the other extreme is a long chain of increasingly dubious inferences, from definite known science, to predictions of varying degrees of certainty, to highly speculative government interventions, finally ending with a theoretically feasi
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between scientists theorizing about anthropomorphic climate change and politicians devising a cap-and-trade system. If cap-and-trade seems stupid then do not blame the scientists for this. However if you trust the scientists then there should be *some* reasonable political proposal put forward other than "it's a hoax!"
Re: (Score:2)
Changes are being directly observed and there is no uncertainty.
It's worth mentioning that strictly speaking, there is uncertainty, but for some of these things it's very very very small.
We need some creative ideas for actions to take besides nothing and the impractical. There have to be more options.
Maybe the right approach is to teach people to look at the error bars. That way they can start to get the concept that some things are very certain, and other things are rather uncertain.
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:2)
It's reasonably well understood because in essence it's just basic thermodynamics. You add energy to a weather system and there's some things could happen
1) thermal: ocean warm up
2) thermal: atmosphere warms up
3) weather and tidal behaviour gets more kinetic.
4) some combination of the above
4 is the correct answer , of course , the question in the air is how that combination plays out. Will we get the 4+ Celsius rise (4 is optimistic but political pressures have tended to force scientists to understate ris
Re: (Score:2)
It's reasonably well understood because in essence it's just basic thermodynamics. You add energy to a weather system and there's some things could happen
1) thermal: ocean warm up
2) thermal: atmosphere warms up
3) weather and tidal behaviour gets more kinetic.
4) some combination of the above
This is a reasonable hypothesis. How would you test that hypothesis? What would you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:2)
Re:When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Informative)
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case
Yeah, this is one is well supported by experiment. See this for a demonstration [youtu.be]. There are equations and references here [wikipedia.org].
Some scientists doubt that there will be a crisis because of AGW, but none doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces a warming effect.
I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to.
Re:When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case
Yeah, this is one is well supported by experiment. See this for a demonstration [youtu.be]. There are equations and references here [wikipedia.org]. Some scientists doubt that there will be a crisis because of AGW, but none doubt that adding CO2 to the atmosphere produces a warming effect. I responded to you, but I admit I think you are ignorant and will not read the things I linked to.
It's not ignorance, so much as an unshakable belief set. There are many very intelligent folks on both sides of the Climate Change argument.
Sadly, political beliefs skewer scientific evidence, because it is one of the pillars in the us vs. them political landscape our democracy has devolved into.
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't think so, but I have an extremely intelligent brother-in-law with whom I argue politics at every Thanksgiving and Christmas, typically spoiling the holiday, at least a little, for the rest of the family members.
This guy built a water well drilling unit with scrap parts he had laying around the farm. He builds his own devices to pull poly pipe thru steel pipe in a relining process for which he is able to charge oilfield companies and municipalities $millions.
More than that, he gets my jokes
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:3)
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He said it right there, the proof that the guy is highly intelligent is that he gets paid millions of dollars by an oil company.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is smart and coming to such bad conclusions, it's because they are missing data. Just need to present it to him in a way he can understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
They are stupid when they don't look at the evidence, or dismiss evidence. I went to a creationist museum once, a lot of stupidity there, not ignorance. Start with the conclusion they want then shuffle the evidence around to fit it, then shove a whole lotta proselytizing in with it. (So not only do they believe in creationism, but a form very specific to a literalist Christian bible reading rather than an Aztec, Nordic, or Zoroastrian view of creation.)
With an intelligent person you can have a debate. Now
Re: (Score:2)
I can haz cargo? I can haz cheeseburder cargo?
What if I wave my hands, can I be a sciencer?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody asks for proof of doubts, they ask for reasons in order to find out if the doubts are reasoned and if enough information is provided they might even start to consider if the doubts are reasonable.
You don't seem to actually have doubts at all, BTW. You seem to have Faith that the result of the experiment is unknown. Even though you could learn to do the experiment at home, yourself. You have access to the results, there is no cause for either Faith or Doubt. If you don't know the answer, it is because
Re: (Score:3)
CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere in the same way insulation doesn't warm your house.
Sunlight comes through the CO2 in the atmosphere, because CO2 is transparent to visible light, which is where sunlight's greatest energy spectral density is. CO2 then blocks its escape because CO2 is opaque in large sections on the IR spectrum, where earth's radiation has greatest energy spectral density.
Insulation in your house doesn't come with an energy imbalance.
Unless you live in a glasshouse, I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Wilful ignorance is still ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think a lot of intelligence comes from the "climate change is a hoax" side. That side relies on politics and religion to drive what they think. Obviously climate change can't be real, because the Bible says so, or it can't be real because it will mean the free market isn't the best solution to all problems, or it can't be real because I saw a Youtube video that said it wasn't.
Granted, there are those who believe in climate change who have not done the science either and are just parroting what the
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you couldn't quantify the number of zealots on both sides of the belief set, as a reasonable person, you'd have to stipulate they exist... blaming one side (or the other) for all the human failures that exist in the World is a recipe for well done, as opposed to medium rare (which is really well done), partisanship.
The powers that be have successfully divided the populace with the minimum of two policy positions.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't care. Just like he said... no one from the left has doubted what is generally accepted. You are not allowed to doubt anything that has been generally accepted. I wonder if they remember reading in history class that it was generally accepted that the earth was flat once upon a time.
This is what makes them a flipping cult. Calling out anyone not accepting the "generally accepted" conclusion has being ignorant or wrong. These folks are the exact same assholes that keep holding science back. M
Re: Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if they remember reading in history class that it was generally accepted that the earth was flat once upon a time.
Not only have we known that the Earth is round since the times of Ancient Greece, but we've had a reliable method for estimating its diameter since that time as well. Which makes me wonder what kind of weird history you were taught...
Re: (Score:2)
There's a problem at the other end of the spectrum of exaggerating or grabbing on the less likely scenarios to claim things are going to be worse then is likely. Claims that all the ice will permanently be gone soon or that an extreme event is proof.
There are error bars in the best models and the good models do have variation and the smart thing is to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, but extreme claims in either direction is unproductive and can be counter-productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the demonstration provides evidence that "carbon" will hold heat.
Good job, you can learn.
Now you need to learn to express yourself concisely. That's a wall of text you wrote, and I'm not sure what you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Get Proof! Simple!
You need to read up on science and how it works.
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold up, you are confusing correlation with causation here. There is yet any scientific proof yet that this is the case.
You mean other than over a century of repeatable lab experiments? And basically our entire understanding of electromagnetism?
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: When it comes to climate science.... (Score:2)
The current rise in temperature around the world is also adequately explained by our constant increase in energy production and consumption.
Anyone capable of producing such bullshit can't be possibly taken seriously. Anyone reasonable can compare ten terawatts with a hundred thousand terawatts and conclude that the additional direct heating caused by the former is ridiculously tiny.
Re: (Score:2)
I want proof, and that is YOUR SIDE's responsibility to provide it.
There's proof a plenty based in theory as well as scientific experimentation at various scales, as well modelling of the effect you find questionable, as well as comparing those models to past events to validate them.
You don't want proof. You want to wallow in your own ignorance.
Re:When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When it comes to climate science.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's true, warmer air is moister which traps more heat, which is a positive feedback. But it can also result in more cloud formation, increasing albedo and reflecting more heat, which is a negative feedback. Yet clouds can reflect heat back down again too, and the amount varies with altitude.
There's a lot we don't know about cloud formation under those conditions, so a lot of uncertainty as to degree. Current thinking is that net feedback is somewhat positive. Bottom line: It's complicated [ametsoc.org].
Re:Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:5, Insightful)
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
This is a dangerous and foolish attitude to take. The threats facing humanity raised by the "greens" -- your chosen term not mine -- are real, quantifiable, and ongoing and will not go away because a particular milestone has not been reached when predicted. There are crystal clear and very worrying trends across a range of domains such as climate, deforestation, availability of fresh water, insect populations, desertification, and pollution. Brushing them aside because the "apocalypse" hasn't happened yet is beyond silly.
Re: (Score:2)
The threats facing humanity raised by the "greens" -- your chosen term not mine -- are real, quantifiable, and ongoing and will not go away
They won't go away with a "carbon tax" either. The problem is too many people, all of which need farming, industry, transport and land. I'm sure when the human population was just a few million we had a negligible effect on the environment. So you think you are "saving the world" when in fact all you are suggesting is another rationing system. Rationing does not solve the problem, it just postpones it. Reducing human population (and thus our environmental footprint) solves the problem. But oh no, God says I
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is too many people, all of which need farming, industry, transport and land.
There's plenty of food for all people on Earth. Why are you proposing a genocide?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, I've never met a person who believed that "the problem is too many people" who thinks that they have a moral obligation to remove themselves from the world.
But a lot of them DO think that OTHER people should be removed from the world....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should just declare war on the polluters, and bomb them? Less people, less pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Rationing does not solve the problem, it just postpones it. Reducing human population (and thus our environmental footprint) solves the problem
You are rationing population. Or you are rationing survival rights, or rights to leave behind progeny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's disgusting, have you ever even been to Crete?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Republican morons can't be educated this reprov (Score:5, Informative)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals found mainly in spray aerosols heavily used by industrialized nations for much of the past 50 years, are the primary culprits in ozone layer breakdown. When CFCs reach the upper atmosphere, they are exposed to ultraviolet rays, which causes them to break down into substances that include chlorine. The chlorine reacts with the oxygen atoms in ozone and rips apart the ozone molecule.
One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The ozone layer above the Antarctic has been particularly impacted by pollution since the mid-1980s. This region’s low temperatures speed up the conversion of CFCs to chlorine. In the southern spring and summer, when the sun shines for long periods of the day, chlorine reacts with ultraviolet rays, destroying ozone on a massive scale, up to 65 percent. This is what some people erroneously refer to as the "ozone hole." In other regions, the ozone layer has deteriorated by about 20 percent.
About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. Scientists had estimated it would take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels. In fact, in November 2018, the UN released a report saying that, based on the latest science, the ozone layer is on track to be fully healed within 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
My god, that's the most idiotic thing I've read all day. And it is a weekend for Pete's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't heal itself while we watched and sat back doing nothing. It healed itself after we restricted use of a large number of ozone depleting chemicals.
It's like Y2K, it didn't happen as predicted not because it was a hoax but because we did something about it. Yet it is not hard to find people who think Y2K was just a hoax to make money.
Re:Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:5, Insightful)
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
So one group publishes a pair of papers that predict a particular bad outcome of climate change will be less severe than previously predicted.... and climate science is terrible now?
You think this one pair of papers by one group is correct and disproves all the existing sea level rise predictions? You don't suppose they made a mistake in their analysis that some other group will find and publish a response?
For sea level rise in particular it's always been accepted that it's really hard to model which is why there's always massive ranges given.
At the same time I suppose you also think that Climate Science is some sort of conspiracy were they don't let any researchers break the party line. Lucky these folks were able to sneak their papers into an obscure little journal like Nature.
This is how science works, usually everyone is in general agreement but sometimes someone publishes an outlier, usually they're wrong but sometimes they're right and they become the new general agreement.
Hopefully this time the dissenting prediction is right because sea level rise is really bad!
Re:Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think it is a conspiracy. What I think is that mass hysteria makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the subject of changing climate. It is all in the open which makes it difficult for anybody to claim conspiracy.
So where's the hysteria here?
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model. And one of the big reasons is they think the ice caps could start sliding into the ocean and cause a huge sea level rise (MICI).
This group is saying they they don't think that even if the MICI happens it won't cause as big a rise as predicted.
All of that seems like reasonable good science. Sure a study that disagrees with the consensus introduces a bit more uncertainty into the field, but no one has ever claimed that sea level rise predictions were completely reliable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water [realclimatescience.com].
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
Re:Well that 9 out of the last 0 apocalypses (Score:5, Informative)
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water [realclimatescience.com].
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
The reason is they're really easy to avoid.
Fake quotes are popular because they contradict the accepted persona of the person, for instance if a person is a Liberal the fake quote will be a Trump endorsement, a famous atheist will endorse religion, and if they're a climate scientist it will be an extreme prediction or admission of malfeasence.
But that also makes them really easy to spot, when you see a quote that's too good to be true all you need to do is check the sources and you'll figure out if it's real.
You got caught by that fake Hanson quote. Why is it?
Is your model of James Hansen and other climate scientists wrong, so you couldn't recognize a prediction they wouldn't give?
Or were you just too eager to use the quote that you didn't want to look too closely?
Re: (Score:2)
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
Re: (Score:2)
But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy. Do you remember water-filled Roosevelt tunnel? I do.
First, this article looks only at Antarctic ice melt contribution, while around 2/3 of the sea rise is caused by simple thermal expansion of deep sea water. It's not going to go away. Even in the absolute best case of 15 centimeter sea rise due to Antarctic ice melt, there's still going to be about 50 centimeter thermal expansion based rise.
The 65 centimeter rise will be enough to put low p
Re: (Score:2)
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy.
Oh, during a hurricane, New York was underwater. You're a real bright spark, what a brilliant argument you've made. Do you really think that's what Hansen was talking about? Go buy yourself a lollipop as a reward for your intelligence, 'cause man, now no one else will for that dumb post you just wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hanson says: "Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."
Reiss says: "When I intervieweÂÂd James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to
Re: (Score:2)
Now the original quote apparently doesn't appear to be on tape. But since both people seem to say it is referring to one highway, in NYC, in 40 years, if CO2 was 560ppm.
It's not going to happen. That is, even if CO2 hit 560ppm (which it will by the end of the century) [ipcc-data.org], sea level won't rise that much. That's far outside the probability range.
Re: (Score:2)
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
Well he did just eat your lunch, I'd say that qualifies as a prize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
Actually the quote said the West Side highway would be underwater by 2028 if CO2 hit 560 ppm (we're currently at 410 [www.co2.earth] and by the trend line it isn't going to get anywhere close).
Now I don't know how many climate scientists would agree with that statement, I don't know if James Hansen would still agree with it.
But I literally gave you a link that you claimed to have read and you still got the quote completely wrong.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
I don't need a participation ribbon for not being gullible.
As I said it's really easy not to ge
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
Yeah because:
a) Sea level rise is the only problem caused by global warming,
and
b) This new paper couldn't possibly be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, there's crackpot papers on both sides.
In the middle though? A whole bunch of sensible people with real data.
Re: Well, no, that's Republican trash-math lies ag (Score:2, Interesting)
Those things you listed aren't climate change. They are pollution, which nobody is in favor of or disputes.
You conflate the two on purpose, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't help but wonder whether all those predictions are really actionable.
It depends on the action.
By far the most effective changes so far have been because of technological progress: Fracking (gas emits half the CO2 as coal), LED lighting, more efficient solar panels, bigger & better wind turbines, electric vehicles, better batteries, etc.
So if the "action" is more scientific progress, then sure, that makes sense.
If the "action" is to spend even more on scientific research, and engineering R&D, that likely makes sense as well.
If the"action" is some enormous and expensi
Re: (Score:2)
It hardly matters since there is no available expertise in the government for any of these things
Most scientific funding decisions are not made at the political level. NSF and NIH funding decisions are made by scientists themselves. DARPA funding is usually goal-directed rather than basic research, but the decisions there are also made by subject matter experts, and they have a good track record.
More spending on science and R&D will bring us more prosperity, better health, and cleaner air. It is something we should be doing regardless of AGW.
Spending on science should be increased by 5-10% per ye
Re:chaotic systems (Score:4, Funny)
The single largest contributor to the 52-98 cm of sea level rise we are expecting is thermal expansion, which is not chaotic at all. The ice is a huge wildcard which is responsible for the 46 cm of uncertainty in that figure.
This represents the most evidence-supported estimate we have to go on; assuming ice will contribute 0 is also making an unnecessarily precise prediction. We should act up on the best estimates we have; it's no different than predicting the track of a hurricane three days in advance. That track prediction is almost certainly somewhat off, but it's certainly actionable.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
If they publish a study you agree with, you think they must be right. If they publish a study you disagree with, they must be paid off. Might want to fix your cognitive biases.
Hint: Try being more skeptical of stuff that you agree with than stuff you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not scientists at all. They must be paid by you-know-who.
Voldemort? Maybe we should call Harry Potter!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was gonna be the Church Lady from SNL.
Re:Those "scientists" are imbecile or what? (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't take into account the possible breakup of Antarctic marine ice cliffs. It's not so simple as "it gets so warm that the ice in Antarctica melts"; we're talking about 2-4 degrees C on average, which is not enough to cause the ice there to melt. We're dealing with the consequences of a 2016 paper suggested that ice around the periphery of Antarctica could destablize. If those ice cliffs destablizied that would unlock ice stuck behind them, allow that ice to flow into the sea.
It's a dynamic process that involves the mechanical migration of still-perfectly-frozen ice from the land. Seriously, if we were talking about all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland actually melting, we'd be screwed on a scale nobody is suggesting likely. Far worse than the additional meter we were worried about on top of the meter we're almost certain to get.
Re: (Score:3)
the melting of the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is not fully taken into account in modern climate models
Emphasis mine. Of course they took Antarctica and Greenland into account. And even that is an extreme simplification of what's actually discussed in the paper.
My understanding is:
- Looking at what happened in the past eras, they noticed a rapid raise in sea level following the melting of polar ice
- Current day observation and historical data don't match, sea levels should rise faster than what is currently happening
- Using the marine ice cliff instability hypothesis, a catastrophic event, they managed to ma
Re: (Score:2)
By scaring people with unfounded horror
Terrorism?