Why Groundwater Use May Not Explain Half of Sea-Level Rise

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Groundwater Use May Not Explain Half of Sea-Level Rise

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday June 13, 2012 @05:52AM from the science-is-complicated dept.

New submitter Sir Realist writes "A recent Slashdot scoop pointed us at a scientific study that claimed 42% of global sea-level rises could be due to groundwater use. It was a good story. But as is often the way with science, there are folks who interpret the data differently. Scott Johnson at Ars Technica has a good writeup which includes two recent studies that came to remarkably different conclusions from mostly the same data, and an explanation of the assumptions the authors were making that led to those differences. Essentially, there is some reason to think that the groundwater estimates used in the first study were too high. However, that's still under debate, so it's worth reading the whole argument. Scientific review in action!"

50 of 244 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Scientific review by x0 · 2012-06-13 05:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

Got it...

m

--
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
1. Re:Scientific review by wisnoskij · 2012-06-13 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or maybe it is simply that all peered reviewed papers get reviewed. And it is simply that climate change is a fact and it is happening ~ like we believe it is so all reviews of those papers turn up no problems.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
2. Re:Scientific review by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-13 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you'd care to have a look at the literature, you'd see constant reviewing of all models, of all parameters, of all proxies. In contrast to just repeating the same old talking points, that would take effort, though, wouldn't it?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
3. Re:Scientific review by girlintraining · 2012-06-13 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.
  
  It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy, there. We've got too many satellites confirming it, along with thousands of ground stations and the upward trend is undeniable.
  It's still up for discussion why it's happening or what it will eventually mean for us. Ethical scientists generally take the side of "Until we can predict with some confidence what will happen, we should do what we can to limit the impact," similar to the ideal behind the Hippocratic oath. Our present models, understanding, and theories point to rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and heating to the point where much of the ariable land along the equator will no longer be able to sustain industrial farming.
  We're already seeing some of the effects of this rapid heating (in geological terms); In Japan, native moss is no longer used at several Zen shrines because it's become too warm for them to survive. Coral reefs are undergoing a mass-extinction event, and we are seeing weather patterns which roughly correspond to modelling predictions for a warmer Earth. If these trends continue, life will become increasingly inhospitable to humans. While long-term predictions aren't reliable, it is almost certain the Earth of 200 years from now will have a radically different climate than the Earth of today; We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age with as much speed and force as the Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event.
  The debate really doesn't center on whether or not these things happen; The choice faced by our generation is not whether or not life after climate change is possible, but what kind of life it will be.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:Scientific review by x0 · 2012-06-13 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  The choice faced by our generation is not whether or not life after climate change is possible, but what kind of life it will be.
  
  QED
  
  m
  
  --
  In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
5. Re:Scientific review by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-06-13 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Any individual study can be reviewed at any time. This rarely has any significant impact on the consensus formed by the weight of all other existing related studies. If there are two interpretations of a study based on two different sets of assumptions, the question can be resolved by testing the assumptions. The fact that a single study is ambiguous does nothing to cast doubt on the remaining vast preponderance of scientific studies which unambiguously indicate that climate change is both real and man made.
  
  'Climate Change' is a done deal
  The scientific community has overwhelmingly agreed that Climate Change is occuring, and that there is a greater than 90% chance it is man-made.
  That this is the consensus is a cold, hard, unambiguous fact. If you want to believe that climate change is not real, or not man-made, the only remaining avenue of rationalisation is that the scientific community a wrong or lying for some reason. This puts climate change deniers on the same ground as creationists.
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
6. Re:Scientific review by C_amiga_fan · 2012-06-13 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy
  How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
7. Re:Scientific review by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's still up for discussion why it's happening or what it will eventually mean for us. Ethical scientists generally take the side of "Until we can predict with some confidence what will happen, we should do what we can to limit the impact," similar to the ideal behind the Hippocratic oath.
  My concern here is that without being able to predict the outcome with confidence it is not possible to determine what action will "limit the impact". What we need to do is to verify the models by predicting a future change and see if it happens as predicted. If so the model used is "good enough" and we can see if limiting carbon emission makes things better or worse.
  We also have to get ridf of the myth that climate is something stable. The earth is on a journey from creation to end. No year will ever be the same as the last one. The distance to the moon changes, the distance to the Sun changes, the solar output changes. The cyclic model is just a model that works well enough. What we need to find is not a state that is "natural". What we need to determine is what kind of climate we want and do whatever it takes to get that climate, even if the this includes increasing gas emissions. Until we are willing to do this we are playing with the planet for the sake of politics rather than doing what is scientifically sound. (Also, it might be a better idea to experiment with Mars rather than to try to fix the production system while we still depends on it.)
8. Re:Scientific review by Bigby · 2012-06-13 06:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I followed and agreed with your first two paragraphs. Even the first couple sentences of the 3rd paragraph. Then you went crazy.
  Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.
  Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned. Not that the earth is warming, but the cause. You conveniently failed to bring that part up in your first two paragraphs. You even say "it's still up for discussion why it's happening". Did you come to the conclusion while writing the paragraphs in between?
  Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???
9. Re:Scientific review by Gaygirlie · 2012-06-13 06:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy
  How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)
  Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.
10. Re:Scientific review by C_amiga_fan · 2012-06-13 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  At one time it was the scientific consensus that light was a wave, and that it traveled through a medium called "ether" that filled the gap between the sun and the earth. 99% of scientists believed this.
  They were wrong.
  Consensus doesn't really mean much..... read "Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Learn about paradigm shift; how an entire generation of scientists can believe with absolute certainty a false fact.
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
11. Re:Scientific review by andy16666 · 2012-06-13 06:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  >>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy
  How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)
  They don't. Global temperatures continue to show a rise, despite certain local climate variations.
12. Re:Scientific review by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-13 06:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The "O-Zone layer", yes? I'd refrain from talking about what constitutes science, if I were you...
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
13. Re:Scientific review by MozeeToby · 2012-06-13 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Define "radical" please.
  The rate of change is important. Toss me a baseball and I'll catch it, whip it at my head and I probably won't.
  We generally don't know the rate of change that previous global climate changes had, but the rates that we're seeing today would be equivilent to the ice age ending in a matter of decades or at most a couple centuries. 1.5 degrees so far might not sound like much but when look at the global scale that is a big change.
14. Re:Scientific review by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-13 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, within a period of 120 years, no one has brought up sufficient empirical data to challenge the hypothesis that the radiative balance of Earth deviates from the expected blackbody values due to greenhouse gases, as put forth by Arrhenius - it gets "touchable" once you provide data instead of talking points.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
15. Re:Scientific review by Grayhand · 2012-06-13 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Wow. That Kool-aid must taste great.
  It's the other side that is chugging Kool-Aide. On one side you have climatologist and environmental scientists that have all agreed for a decade or more that we are seeing a major shift in the climate and we are the cause. On the other side are pundits that have an agenda to avoid changes that will affect lifestyle or corporate profits that have no formal education in climate science that say we can't affect weather no matter what we do to the Earth. Now which side sounds like the Kool-aide drinkers, the scientists or corporate America who are making a fortune off releasing CO2? I've heard claims all my life that we can't seriously affect the environment yet I've seen a massive change in the world over the last 50 years. Cities themselves cause heating because of all the dark roofs and roads so it's obvious we are having an affect on the environment. FYI the pundits are lying about all the experts that deny climate change. There was even a major study by a climate change denial group that had the same results as the climate scientist. Their reaction was to say that there is change but we can't be the cause. There was no proof that we weren't the cause it was their opinion. The carbon we are releasing predates the dinosaurs so it's insane to assume that it can't affect the environment. It took tens of millions of years to store it and we're releasing it in a couple of hundred years. To put it into perspective imagine a 1,000 years worth of your trash, you know those bags you leave out front for the garbage man. Now pile that thousand years of trash bags around your house. The pile would be hundreds of feet high. That's what we are doing when we release 400 million year old stored carbon. Think that ridiculous? Imagine ten million years of your garbage and you are getting closer to the truth. It's not the same thing obviously but it illustrates how extreme the release of CO2 has been over the last 200 years.
16. Re:Scientific review by Ironchew · 2012-06-13 07:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  So where are the reviews that actually challenge the hypothesis - or is that untouchable?
  Reviews don't do that; competing hypotheses do. In the world of science, a competing hypothesis overtakes the consensus if and only if it explains everything the old system could and more that it couldn't. Science demands alternative explanations that solve inconsistencies; finding a problem with the consensus is only the first step, and denialists are stuck there.
17. Re:Scientific review by icensnow · 2012-06-13 07:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The idea that light was a wave moving through the ether was consistent with all available data, especially given the limitations of 19th century measurement, until the Michelson-Morley experiments. Maxwell's equations are still consistent with pre-relativity understanding, and I certainly had to learn how to work with them. The old way of thinking is not so much wrong as limited to a certain level of measurement, just as with Newton's laws and pretty much everything else before relativity and quantum mechanics. The old ways of thinking are still useful and generally correct within their assumptions. I begin to think that we need some kind of Godwin's Law against bringing up Kuhn and paradigms in an actual scientific discussion -- it seldom leads anywhere useful but usually is used just like this post to say "just because everyone who knows something thinks so doesn't mean it's right."
18. Re:Scientific review by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-13 07:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."
  See also: Svante Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
  Now, if you clean up your act and stop simply spouting lies, we might have a discussion.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
19. Re:Scientific review by Ironchew · 2012-06-13 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  These points have been refuted so many times that it honestly isn't worth listing them again.
  I sure as hell hope that no scientist has to work under these ludicrous standards you demand of the climatology field. They've demonstrated on several occasions that they have nothing to hide, and denialists just keep piling on them with more cherry-picked quotes. It's sickening to watch.
20. Re:Scientific review by girlintraining · 2012-06-13 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.
  No, the Earth has NOT had radically different climate change since the end of the last ice age... that's about 20,000 years of a pretty steady and unchanging climate. There have been a few glitches caused by volcanic eruption and the like, but it's always returned to baseline. Climate change has only really accelerated in the past 50--100 years, which is a drop in the bucket compared to that amount of time. Scientists are already pointing to climate changes observable within a single person's lifetime. In geological terms, that's massively fast. I would even say... radically so.
  
  Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned.
  It's the most likely possibility given the facts presently available. But like all new discoveries, it takes time to fully explore and document the relationships between so many complex variables and distill it into a simple truth. I'll start saying we aren't the cause when the body of assembled evidence weighs in the other direction. I can't say it has been settled with certainty, but then I also can't say prove the existance of the higgs-boson, yet I'm not about to discount the entire standard model because of it, anymore than I'm going to discount evolution because we're missing one fossil in a series of 100. Anyone can argue "There's not enough evidence!" for an infinity, but reasonable people draw conclusions based on available evidence, and if it's insufficient to do the responsible thing and gather more. You will never hear a scientist utter the phrase "But we have too much evidence!" If you truly feel there's another explanation then go find the evidence for it. This is the one field of inquiry where its participants are often heard to say "Why that's a very convincing argument. I must have been mistaken." I look forward to reading your peer-reviewed study on how humans have played a minority role in global warming.
  
  Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???
  At least in the United States, the majority of our water supply is derived from ground water sources. Most rivers are too polluted to be drinkable, and the quantity of fresh water existing in lakes is, and will continue, to decrease as a result of global warming. Considering that right now, today, at this moment there are states in the southern United States that are facing major water shortages, it's not hard to see how some areas could become uninhabitable due to a lack of drinkable water -- let alone have enough to farm the land.
  In science, we form conclusions based on the available data. Now I'm only an amateur scientist, and I freely admit I am not a specialist in climate change. If there is a climatologist in the audience I would gladly yield to their authority; But I've read all the data in many journals, and there's two facts about this that are inescapable: First, that climate change is happening, and second that we're the most likely cause of it. At this point, it would take a significant new discovery to reverse that conclusion, and no such discoveries have been forthcoming -- every new piece of data I read about just further confirms that human beings are the cause. So I believe that what I've said is scientifically accurate. As to what to do about it... well, that's a lot more complicated and I'll just leave off by saying I think of all the available options, "do nothing" is the only one I'm firmly against.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
21. Re:Scientific review by tlhIngan · 2012-06-13 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)
  Weather != climate. In fact, global warming has been shown to make weather more extreme - more hurricanes (a nice big hurricane can cool the ocean by a couple of degrees - it is a big heat engine after all). Summers will be hotter, drier, winters will be colder, snowier, etc. In fact, the melting ice cap has an interesting observation that winter wind patterns could push south bringing more cold air down with it.
  So summers get hotter and drier, which makes farming much more difficult. Sure the northern areas get more arable land, but their growing periods are far shorter because of lesser sunlight.
  The only real predictions are colder winters, hotter summers, and more hurricants/tornadoes (which is the natural way the oceans cool off).
22. Re:Scientific review by Lisias · 2012-06-13 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's a scientific fact that global warming is real.
  As the Earth being the center of the Universe was, once, another scientific fact.
  Every single scientific fact is prone to scrutiny and refutal. Every single one.
  We can assume that some scientific facts are insanely unlikely to be refuted (Gravity Law, for the sake of my balls and despair of my girlfriend's boobies, are one of them). But never, ever, assume any "scientific fact" above any controversy or debate.
  Dogmas have no place here.
  
  --
  Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
23. Re:Scientific review by Doc+Ruby · 2012-06-13 08:55 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong. Climate scientists have clearly identified the rising CO2 (and its equivalents: GHGs) concentrations in the atmosphere as the mechanical cause of the climate change, driven by overall average warming. Climate scientists have further clearly identified a reduction in the GHG concentrations produced as industrial waste as a way to cause abatement of the recent changes.
  That is the science. Politicians who scream and legislate mostly legislate based on bribes and threats from global polluters, when the accompanying propaganda is approved by climate deniers. There is far too little legislation in reaction to the science of GHG pollution and efforts to lower it. If there were, the pollution would be too expensive to continue at the rates we have.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
24. Re:Scientific review by Doc+Ruby · 2012-06-13 09:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, the geocentric theory was not science the way we practice it today. It was biblical theology, dressed up to look like what passed for science before science was science.
  Yes, in the future we'll have even better science about climate. It will be more precise, but the accuracy of current climate science saying "human pollution is increasing the Greenhouse Effect, overall warming the Earth and changing the climate" will not be changed. Because current science is good enough to state facts, even if their precision can always be improved. We can tell the difference between -1, 0 and +1, even if we can't always tell the difference between +1 and +1.1 .
  Of course we should also debate and challenge the science, especially science this important. That's how we make both the facts more precise and the science itself better at investigating. But there's not going to be any disproof of climate change science. This isn't 1955, when the science wasn't based in enough data and repeated studies to be reliable. It's reliable.
  Saying that there shouldn't be controversy about whether humans are changing the climate with our pollution isn't dogma. It's merely recognizing scientific fact. And defending it from the people who will say anything to undermine it, though they can't say anything scientific.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
25. Re:Scientific review by Penguinisto · 2012-06-13 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  From the summary of your own cite:
  "Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly
  suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global
  warming,though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a
  potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does
  explicitly suggest this outcome in later work. ... (emphasis mine - the latter to point out a bit of weasel-wording by the summarizer).
  In other words, as stated: No one was putting forth the theory that the Earth was warming due to mankind's actions 120 years ago.
  Meanwhile, you either had to rely on a half-assed out-of-context quote to try and carry your water for you, or your literacy skills are deficient - you pick.
  So, about that "spouting lies" bit... maybe you'd like to stop doing that now? ;)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
26. Re:Scientific review by girlintraining · 2012-06-13 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  But never, ever, assume any "scientific fact" above any controversy or debate. Dogmas have no place here.
  
  There's no assumption, I just get tired of arguing with morons. I mean, yes, I could entertain the 'controversy' of evolution, but I would succeed only in wasting my own time, and adding not a lick of knowledge or wisdom to humanity in the process. Likewise, while there may be a debate to be had with climate change, I grow tired of dealing with morons who wish to argue every single nuance, because they've already made up their minds and now they're off on some big effort to assimilate everyone else into thinking the same way.
  The earth is getting warmer, and it's most likely our fault. Ta-da, the end. I may be a scientist, but I'm also a human being -- when there is compelling evidence in a peer reviewed journal that humans are not the primary source of global warming, I will revisit the matter. And most scientists, amateur and professional, feel similarly: We're tired of arguing with people who refuse to acknowledge the fire even when it's burning their nose.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
27. Re:Scientific review by roky99 · 2012-06-13 11:03 · Score: 2
  
  I think it is your literacy skills that are deficient. Arrhenius identified the mechanism but fossil fuel usage at that time was a fraction of what it is now. Hence the use of the word 'potentially'.
28. Re:Scientific review by riverat1 · 2012-06-13 11:39 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.
  And across the Arctic in the Barents and Kara Seas the ice levels have been extraordinarily low this year. Overall the level of ice in the Arctic has been slightly below average for this time of year. I have my doubts that "the longest it has ever been present." is accurate too.
  
  Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.
  Fourier first noted that carbonic acid gas (CO2) absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's. Tyndall quantified the effect in the 1850's. Arrhenius stated "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." in the 1890's. Ever since then we're just filling in the details.
29. Re:Scientific review by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-13 12:26 · Score: 2
  
  Okay, so you accept the parts where increased temperature cause increased releases in CO2, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes temperature to increase, creating a feedback loop. This, by the way, does mean CO2 and other GHGs are "the mechanical cause of climate change".
  Your issue is that something has to cause some initial warming in order to start this feedback loop, and in the past it wasn't CO2.
  Yet the part where CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, this being the whole idea behind the feedback loop, also means that it could instigate the initial warming if something were to release enough of it. Which matches the current trend. So, where's the issue?
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
30. Re:Scientific review by Chris+Burke · 2012-06-13 12:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How come it's getting colder over the last decade
  
  Whoever told you that was lying to you. They cherry-picked the year 1998 for a two-point comparison because it was anomalously high. If you picked 1997 instead you'd see warming way above predictions. But that would also be a lie. That's why climate scientists don't do that, and instead use rolling averages to find the underlying trends.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
31. Re:Scientific review by Livius · 2012-06-13 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  Because precipitation snow or rain - increases with increasing temperature. And it comes down as snow if the temperature goes up as long as it's still below freezing. If the temperature goes from -10 to -5, it still snows, but the amount of snow goes up.
  But I'm guessing you knew that already and just asked the question in bad faith.
32. Re:Scientific review by rockout · 2012-06-13 14:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Your understanding of the word "theory" in the scientific world gives away your uneducated born-again leanings.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
33. Re:Scientific review by Apuleius · 2012-06-13 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  "1. Controlled tests"
  We do not have spare planets to experiment on. Ergo, controlled tests in climatology are impossible.
  But, by that standard, you can also dismiss meteorology, archaeology, economics, astronomy, and lots of other fields of science.
34. Re:Scientific review by able1234au · 2012-06-13 15:53 · Score: 2
  
  Parts of Antartica are cooling which fits the models correctly. If you are proposing that disproves global warming then you are wrong. Denialists try to cherry pick the one dataset that fits their worldview rather than read widely across the evidence. Cherrypicking would let you "disprove" evolution and gravity.
35. Re:Scientific review by ongelovigehond · 2012-06-13 21:03 · Score: 2
  
  In science, a theory is better than a fact. Theories provide explanations for facts, they bind facts together, and allow us to predict more facts in the future.
Good, let the scientists hash it out by sandytaru · 2012-06-13 05:55 · Score: 5, Funny

As soon as a politician with no scientific qualifications weighs in, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Interesting Theory by Ferretman · 2012-06-13 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

We certainly HAVE pumped a lot of groundwater out and I presume most of it ends up in the atmosphere or the oceans one way or the other.

Glad to see REAL scientists questioning AGW tenets.

Ferret

--
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
1. Re:Interesting Theory by s.petry · 2012-06-13 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  Wow, do people ever think any more? Okay, we pumped ground water out. Did it stop raining? Did the processes for saturation suddenly stop working? Did all of the ground water magically vanish that we were pumping out, rivers all dried up, and shit we all live in a desert now?
  As of about five years ago, you should immediately have known that "Science" no longer means Science. What you read is from an agenda, and not Scientists.
  Honestly, I feel really bad for Scientists that want to do real science. The only way they can seem to make money is to spew garbage that fills someone's agenda, they can't do real science (or at least they can't write papers based on it).
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
2. Re:Interesting Theory by bbecker23 · 2012-06-13 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The issue is actually pretty similar to that with declining returns in oil production. Groundwater replenishment is certainly still happening. Similarly, the processes which produce oil are still occurring. The issue is that we are consuming much faster than we are replenishing. Groundwater, depending on the depth of the aquifer and the material in which it exists, can take years to thousands of years to be replenished. Oil takes millions.
  
  The reason that ocean levels might rise from groundwater is that we are bringing it up faster than it can go back down. All that water has to go somewhere.
  
  --
  cat /dev/random > sig.txt
Re:I could have told you by chispito · 2012-06-13 06:01 · Score: 2

Oops. Well there goes my snarky comment. Meant that 42% =/= 1/2.

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I thought water evaporated by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-06-13 06:34 · Score: 2, Funny

I think a 3rd grader better review all this data, because according to the current grade-school curriculum, water evaporates, condenses into clouds, rains, fills lakes, rivers, aquifers, etc, and then evaporates again in a seemingly recurring cycle.
With global warming, shouldn't the rate of evaporation increase causing more water to evaporate, increasing cloud cover and rain and filling up groundwater reservoirs?
Doesn't more cloud cover block the suns heat thus reducing Global warming?
I know everybody thinks the world is going to sh*t and we are living in Hell and the planet will be destroyed in a matter of decades, but I find it hard to believe that after a few billion years of water evaporating, condensing and raining that suddenly this basic concept of a global ecosystem some-how no longer applies.
If a 3rd grader can just step up figure this sh*t out for us cause obviously the "scientific" community doesn't have a f*cking clue

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:I thought water evaporated by ChromaticDragon · 2012-06-13 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  Is this a troll? Do you actually believe it's reasonable to attempt to refute current scientific studies with 3rd-grade textbooks?
  No matter what folk personally believe (or want to believe), does it not seem inappropriate simply to assume scientists specifically or in bulk are simply stupid? Is it not more productive to maintain an inquisitive approach and ask yourself what you might be lacking in your own understanding?
  Now, to the actual point, your trite reference to elementary school understanding of the water cycle completely ignores all the relevant volumes. How much water is evaporating? How much water is raining/snowing? How much water is being pumped out of aquifers? How much water is draining down to replenish aquifers? How much water is being taken out of rivers for irrigation? How much water is sinking into the ground vs. escaping via run-off?
  It's trivial to explain the water cycle in a simplistic sense. But it is incredibly foolhardy just to assume certain things are or will always be in balance (especially related to FRESH water). Your claim that increased rain is filling up aquifers can be straightforwardly disproved. They call this "fossil water" for a reason. Worldwide, we're exhausting groundwater (much) faster than it's being replenished. And increased precipitation due to increased evaporation isn't going to help if much of that extra rain is simply falling over the oceans - which is what the vast majority of modelling suggests will occur with increased warming. Some areas will get wetter. Many areas will endure droughts. And remember, heavy rain on parched ground just runs off.
2. Re:I thought water evaporated by pk001i · 2012-06-13 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  Strawman much?
  
  Although I do not know these scientists personally, I have a hunch that they understand the water cycle, and still believe that water evaporates. The groundwater is constantly recharging, it is just that we are removing the groundwater faster than it can recharge. This recharge deficiency could be due to a number of things, we could simply taking out too much water, or we could have altered the recharge mechanisms. Calculating how much water we take out is easy, but understanding all the ways that we could be interrupting the recharge mechanism is pretty complex. Off the top of my head we could have asphalted the recharge zone, or altered rainfall/snow-melt patterns, altered the natural drainage system via ditches and canals and sewage systems.
  
  I don't really understand the contempt towards earth scientists these days. The vast majority of these people are highly intelligent, and are honestly attempting to understand these highly complex systems. If I were to ask myself, "Who should I talk to to better understand hydrology?" It would be to talk to a hydrologist, just like if I were to ask myself "Who should I talk to learn about cancer treatments?" I would go talk to an oncologist. Believe it or not, there is a good chance that these scientists, who have spend decades trying to understand these systems know more than you, just like I imagine you know more than them in your given field. (As a geophysicist, I don't know much about biology, and so I choose to trust those who have devoted their lives to it's study, just like those biologists generally trust me when I explain some aspect of geophysics.)
  
  That is all.
  
  --
  Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away.
Re:WE NEED MORE RAINWATER TANKS! by Jeng · 2012-06-13 06:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I know you are joking but cisterns are illegal in many areas.
Here is one of many stories that talk about it.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/40.18/a-good-idea-2013-if-you-can-get-away-with-it

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-06-13 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's one of the problems with many proponents by Sycraft-fu · 2012-06-13 07:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.
However the problem then starts that they make a bunch of other claims, such as that if the warming continues Earth will be inhospitable, and so on, and want to claim that is all scientific fact too. No, not so much. That things will get worse would be an assertion or judgement call that would be based on a bunch of theories and hypothesis about what will happen if the warming continues. It is the kind of thing that is actually up for a lot of debate since you have to evaluate all the different theories of what might happen, how well supported they are, and then pass a judgement call as to if it would be better or worse.
Thing is, they present it as just something you have to accept part and parcel. A situation of "If you deny any of this, you are denying the facts." No, not really. Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is denying facts, unless they can show how the measurements that we use to reach that conclusion are flawed (given the measurements are world wide and spanning a century, it is possible, though unlikely, the conclusion is incorrect). However from that it does not automatically follow that things will be horrible.
Re:Cause by sexconker · 2012-06-13 08:36 · Score: 2

The cause of Global Warming is Simple; Humans.
Because humans took the planet from 0 Kelvin to the temperature it is now, right?
Re:Cause by sexconker · 2012-06-13 08:39 · Score: 3, Funny

My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.
It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).
Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.
Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.
At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.
It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.
The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.
It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.
Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-06-13 13:34 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion