Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts

In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

it can be somebody else's problem!

(I stole the baby boomers generation playbook)

Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:47 · Score: 0, Funny

it can be somebody else's problem!
(I stole the baby boomers generation playbook)
Not so much the baby boomers as much as the neo-cons playbook. They are very different.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:04 · Score: -1, Troll

Yeah, because the Democrats haven't been passing the buck on things like the national debt.

While global climate is a much more dire situation the fact of the matter is that the neo-tards don't have the kind of control over it as the Dumbocrats do over the national debt. Both have effectively looked the other way on things that will impact the nation in future generations with little more than shrugs and excuses.

Get your head out of the sand and stop being a partisan pawn.
Re:In a century... by ganjadude · 2014-05-12 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

in a century we have no idea what might happen. Its possible that the ice may reform there or somewhere else negating the rise. Also the ice has come and gone many many times before. Where I live in NY was at one point under a mile of ice. Climate change is real, we adapted in centuries past, we will adapt in centuries future

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:08 · Score: 1

Reminds of the global cooling and energy crisis of the 70's, 80's. Snap!, oh wait, that never happened either!
Re:In a century... by PRMan · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

You mean like maybe north of Canada or in the Bering Sea where there is so much ice the last few years that boats can't follow their normal schedules and are shut down for months at a time because of the ice? But I never see an alarming article about MORE ice. Always less.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:In a century... by Vintermann · 2014-05-12 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah! Just like we adapted when the dinosaurs died out and we could no longer ride them.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

*cough* *cough*
Re:In a century... by ganjadude · 2014-05-12 08:21 · Score: 1

you joke but yes, we* did adapt when the dinosaurs died

by we I mean mamals

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:In a century... by Layzej · 2014-05-12 08:25 · Score: 4, Informative

we have no idea what might happen. Its possible that the ice may reform there or somewhere else

Actually, thanks to science we do have an idea!
"at this point, a decrease in the melt rate back to earlier levels would be “too little, too late to stabilize the ice sheet,” said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington and lead author of the new paper in Science. “There’s no stabilization mechanism.” The basic problem is that much of the West Antarctic ice sheet sits below sea level in a kind of bowl-shaped depression the earth. As Dr. Mercer outlined in 1978, once the part of the ice sheet sitting on the rim of the bowl melts and the ice retreats into deeper water, it becomes unstable and highly vulnerable to further melting."
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:25 · Score: 0

troll?? what assclown modded this post troll? poster is correct, Climate change is real, and we as a species will adapt.
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-12 08:37 · Score: 0, Troll

You mean like maybe north of Canada or in the Bering Sea where there is so much ice the last few years that boats can't follow their normal schedules and are shut down for months at a time because of the ice? But I never see an alarming article about MORE ice. Always less.
The 70's are calling... Back then the global environmental disaster of the day was "Global Cooling". Seems these things are kind of cyclic, but the real issue is using the spreading of FUD for control and profit. Environmentalists are not about caring for the earth, they are about getting power and using it for profit. The political aspect of this cannot be underestimated. When a politician tells you he cares about some issue, what he's usually saying is that he wants people who care about the issue to vote for him/her.
That is not to say the earth isn't warming up. Evidence is pretty clear that it is. The real question though is if the activities of man are primarily responsible or if we are just seeing natural climate cycles like the ones that gave us the ice age and such.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by houstonbofh · 2014-05-12 08:43 · Score: 0

Well, I have been hearing about this sea level rise for almost half a century, so get with it already!
Re:In a century... by Beavertank · 2014-05-12 08:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Right. Because the national debt is equivalent to climate change.

Also, as has been pointed out, your contention is completely unsupported by reality. But nice try. Maybe you should take your own advice about not being a "partisan pawn"?
Re:In a century... by AaronW · 2014-05-12 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not really in question any more if it is caused by man or not, since most scientists agree that it is, and the whole global cooling thing was never taken seriously. The basic science behind global warming has been understood for nearly a century (i.e carbon dioxide) and it's pretty clear that the vast majority of it comes from burning fossile fuels.
The problem is that we're like a bunch of frogs dumped in a pot with the heat turned on high.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Re:In a century... by rochrist · 2014-05-12 09:06 · Score: 5, Informative

You know this whole 'back in the seventies the scientists we're all about global cooling' has been debunked so many times that it makes you really look moronic to post it yet again.
Re:In a century... by Old97 · 2014-05-12 09:14 · Score: 4, Informative

There was no "global cooling" phenomenon being widely touted in the 1970's. That's a myth. The climate change report recently issued http://nca2014.globalchange.go... addresses that among other things. Global warming and this particular problem of glacier melting in Antarctica were both called out in the 1970's though. According to the NY Time reporting the second case - Antarctica is related to a variety of factors in addition to global warming. There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist. Provide some names of a few folks who became billionaires from pushing environmental protection. There are trillions being made producing fossil fuels.

--
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:19 · Score: -1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/ oops!!
Re:In a century... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-05-12 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative

For your information, "Clinton's surplus" was because of Republican Congress that didn't let him spend much money. It also was only possible because of the DotCom Bubble of the 1990s. Once that burst during Clinton's final year in office, the surplus vanished.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:In a century... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-05-12 09:43 · Score: 1

No, my ancestors were all reptilian. You insensitive clod. :^P

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:In a century... by bigwheel · 2014-05-12 09:49 · Score: 2

You don't even need to click on the TFA to see the glaring text: "The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so"
That's really lame scaremongering. And especially bad timing:
"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID), with the support of the NASA Earth Sciences, just announced that Antarctic sea ice has expanded to all-time record levels for April. " http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P...
Re:In a century... by InsectOverlord · 2014-05-12 09:52 · Score: 1

Even if ice reforms it won't negate the theorized rise. The danger is that chunks of Antarctica may break off. The mere phenomenon of ice on the ocean becoming liquid, by itself, would not cause the oceans to rise.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:02 · Score: 0

Clinton never had a surplus - it was a paper-game only. The last time the national debt fell year-over-year (you know, had an actual surplus of cash so our debt went down) was 1957. Our debt increased every year since then. There's only one way debt increases - you spend more than you take in. The Clinton surpluses were simply a figment of imagination on paper.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:03 · Score: 0

That is not to say the earth isn't warming up. Evidence is pretty clear that it is.
Ah. You've become educated.

The real question though is if the activities of man are primarily responsible
No. That's not the question. On that point too, the evidence is pretty clear that the warming is primarily due to the activities of man.

natural climate cycles like the ones that gave us the ice age and such.
The natural cycles you are likely refering to have a 100 000 year period. Our warming velocity exits that cycle. We're entering hundreds of millions of year cycles, except they're not cycles. Just seemingly random mass exitinction events.
Re:In a century... by mellon · 2014-05-12 10:06 · Score: 2

Back in the seventies, we were trying to figure out whether there was a likelihood of climate change in the near term, and the possibilities of both global warming and global cooling were considered. However, global warming was, even then, considered more likely. We have much more data and much better models now, which is why you aren't hearing about global cooling anymore.
This past winter, in Vermont, we had a pretty good late winter, but early winter was characterized by unseasonable melts. There was a melt in Alaska this winter that caused catastrophic avalanches and flooding. There were periods this winter when the temperature _at the north pole_ was above freezing.
The unusual freezing to the north was only unusual in recent times, and it was largely due to the same effect that brought warm air over the poles: the unusual lack of cohesiveness of the polar vortex this winter. This is something to be concerned about, not an indication that global warming isn't happening.
Re:In a century... by Anguirel · 2014-05-12 10:11 · Score: 2

Sea Ice: Floats in water, doesn't affect sea level when it melts.
Land Ice: Sits on Land, raises sea level when it melts.
There's a difference between these two. The additional sea ice is also caused by the land ice melting, which is raising the freezing point of the sea in the area (review Freezing Point Depression if you don't understand why).

--
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Re:In a century... by mythosaz · 2014-05-12 10:14 · Score: 1

Right. Because the national debt is equivalent to climate change.
The idea that putting off today's problem for 100 years because it won't bite anyone in the ass until after we're dead, however, is equivalent.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:20 · Score: 0

Sea kelp.
Re:In a century... by steelfood · 2014-05-12 10:41 · Score: 1

You mean heat turned on low. If it was on high, we'd be jumping out of the pot right about how. As it's on low, nobody (in power, with money) really feels sufficiently threatened to care.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:In a century... by nadaou · 2014-05-12 10:45 · Score: 2

The problem is that we're like a bunch of frogs dumped in a
pot with the heat turned on high.
"If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
The story from 1869 only worked because he removed the frogs' brains.
now you know! and a bit of a sad commentary about where we are.

--
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Re:In a century... by cusco · 2014-05-12 10:51 · Score: 1

As I have pointed out to you before, the whole "Global Cooling" was never an idea promoted by actual scientists, just reporters. A reporter at Time magazine accidentally learned what Milankovich Cycles were during a slow news month.
Since the amount of two of the three most powerful greenhouse gasses is at the highest level in the last million years (and we can't tell what prior levels of atmospheric H2O were), and those levels are completely attributable to human activity I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that YES, mankind is primarily responsible.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:In a century... by bigwheel · 2014-05-12 11:04 · Score: 1

Good point. I just mentioned it because Antarctic ice extent was one of the measurements that was used for scaremongering in the past.
If we want to talk about actual ocean rice, then we need to look at the NASA data. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
NASA says that the mean sea level has been rising at the rate of 3.2 mm per year trend since 1993. At that rate, it will take 952 years before the ocean rises 10 feet. So, if you decide to hang out on the beach for the rest of your life, be prepared to lift your beer a few inches.
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-12 11:19 · Score: 0, Troll

I think the question is if global warming is essentially man made or mainly just the natural cycle of things. IMHO this is an open question not settled science.
What evidence do I have? Well, the lack of the previously accepted brew-ha-ha from the previous predictions not coming true, at least not with the dire consequences that where used to scare us before. I wasn't born yesterday nor was it 100 years ago, but if you choose to cry wolf and are wrong too often, I get tired of being whipped into a frenzy and start ignoring you. Remember Al Gore? He made some seriously dire claims, of which how many where correct? I dare say some where exaggerations and most where just plane false. So why did he make the movie? To make money, both though the movie as well as by inventing a new market for "Carbon Credits" where he was positioned to be in on the ground floor. There are more examples...
I personally don't believe they understand what exactly is happening so they cannot predict through their models. They invent these scenarios using their models and in order to get research funding they hype the results. In reality, they don't know, and we end up surprised that the model was wrong. So, I've been around this block a few times, I'm not falling for the chicken little FUD campaign about global warming/climate change or what ever the name du jour is.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-12 11:20 · Score: 1

Certainly, people have become millionaires pushing environmental protection (take a look at their houses and methods of travel). I cannot think of a single person who has gotten rich pushing environmental destruction.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:20 · Score: 0

Ya, no money in being an environmentalist but those causes seem to attract a good number of crazy people. Very similar to the type of people that will kill someone else because they don't believe in the same religion. You think they would have a problem fudging things to make it fit their world view?
Re:In a century... by budgenator · 2014-05-12 11:21 · Score: 2

The Gobal cooling "hysertia" of the 1970's was mainly a couple scientists musings getting blown out of proportion by scientifically illiterate reporters reporting on science. At the time it seemed quaint, kind of like reading the cover of the National Enquirer is quaint while wating in line at the grocery store. It got more milage around the water cooler than in the journals.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-12 11:24 · Score: 1

I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that YES, mankind is primarily responsible.
IMHO you are wrong. Both on the attributing the global warming to CO and that it is Man Made, but that's just my opinion. Way to many dire predictions have been made and failed to materialize in my lifetime so I'm pretty skeptical about those who make the claims now, especially when there is big $$ involved in either research grants or politics.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-12 11:24 · Score: 1

That's silly. But Homo Sapiens certainly did adapt to and survive through the wild temperature fluctuations and sea level changes during the last ice age.
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 11:31 · Score: 2

Budget surplus and budget deficits have NOTHING to do with the US national debt. The national debt is the total value in USD of the sum of outstanding treasury securities.
Just because there is a budget surplus (excess unspent reserves sitting with the US treasury) doesn't mean it automatically reduces the US Debt figure. The budget deals with reserve assets, and the National debt deals with securities assets. It's apples and oranges.
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-12 11:31 · Score: 0

The unusual freezing to the north was only unusual in recent times, and it was largely due to the same effect that brought warm air over the poles: the unusual lack of cohesiveness of the polar vortex this winter. This is something to be concerned about, not an indication that global warming isn't happening.
Not so unusual actually, nor will it be unusual when it's hot in August. It's COLD in the winter and HOT in the summer, imagine that...
Look, The earth is warming, why is the open question. But I've heard this "Man Made" claim over and over with some very dire consequences attached over the last few decades. I think it's likely that there are a bunch of folks just echoing the "WOLF!" cry and they are echoing the cries of a few people who are competing for research dollars and those who are trolling for votes. The likes of Al Gore stand behind the crowd yelling "Global Warming" (or what ever name du Joure is) for personal gain, power and profit.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 11:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

The national debt is a misnomer unlike climate change. Climate change involves real consequences. The national debt is a financial residual value that has no economic meaning in real terms. It's not the national debt that is important, it's inflation that we should be monitoring. As it stands we actually need more inflation today as well as more government spending.
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 11:37 · Score: 1

Good lord...*picard facepalm*
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-12 11:40 · Score: 0

You know this whole 'back in the seventies the scientists we're all about global cooling' has been debunked so many times that it makes you really look moronic to post it yet again.
You miss my point. I'm saying that we've had a lot of dire predictions about the climate over the past few decades, most have proven to be outright wrong and the rest have ended up not as dire as originally claimed they'd be. The Global Cooling guys are just an example of this.
Global Warming (or what ever the name du joure is) has a pretty bad track record when you look at the various predictions we've heard. The Sky is falling only works so long before you have to come up with another more dire or different story. So now we are crying "wolf"?

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:41 · Score: 0

Bull $h!t. Carl Sagan and his friends were crying about global cooling int the 70's.
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 11:41 · Score: 1

It's cute that you think millionaires = rich.
The reason you don't hear about the the rich benefitting from environmental distruction is because they are billionaires. Normal people have no idea how different billionaires are in their interactions with society. They are so rich that in fact they are invisible. To be rich today is to be the invisible puppet master. Normal folk are the puppets. Wasn't always this way though.
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 11:45 · Score: 0

Look down...that that little dick or clit between your legs? That's the total global sum of research grants. Now go to an elementary school and compare your clit-dick with the school bus (not the retarded one). The school bus is the fossil fuel industry and energy industry marketing and R&D budgets.
Re: In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-12 11:55 · Score: 1

Ok, name calling and being crude starts... Sticks and stones....
I don't do flame wars..
FULL STOP

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by Old97 · 2014-05-12 12:09 · Score: 1

Koch brothers. Executives of Exxon. Executives of BP. Executives of every major coal company. On and on and on.

--
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 12:15 · Score: 1

It wasn't name calling. It's an accurate analogy (margin of error is Shaquille O'Neil's dick).
Re:In a century... by crunchygranola · 2014-05-12 12:16 · Score: 4, Informative

For your information, "Clinton's surplus" was because of Republican Congress that didn't let him spend much money. It also was only possible because of the DotCom Bubble of the 1990s. Once that burst during Clinton's final year in office, the surplus vanished.
Now if your post had contained actual information, instead of made-up stuff.
CBO analysis shows that despite all the economic events that transpired after Bush's election, the U.S. Federal Budget would have remained in surplus (more than a trillion dollars) right up until the time of the Bush economic meltdown that began in 2007.
Legislative changes - the bills the Republicans passed and Bush signed - spent the entire surplus, and trillions more.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:In a century... by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:22 · Score: 1

If we have a good idea of the temperature then we have a good idea of how much water vapor was in the atmosphere because temperature is the main control of that.
Re:In a century... by mellon · 2014-05-12 12:23 · Score: 2

There was unusual freezing in the northern plains states. Worst we've had in years. Not just "normal" winter cold. I put normal in quotes because of course when I was a kid back in the seventies, it would have been considered less unusual, although still unusual. But your basic point is correct, of course: the fact that it's cold in winter doesn't contradict the theory global warming, any more than an airplane in the sky contradicts the theory of gravity.
Re:In a century... by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:30 · Score: 2

Yes, 3.2 mm/year since 1993 but the rate in the early 20th Century was about 1 mm/year and in the middle of the 20th Century it was around 2 mm/year. That looks like an accelerating trend to me. For comparison from about 6,000 years ago until the start of the 20th Century the rate was less than 0.1 mm/year.
On top of that scientists can't rule out some non-linear reactions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where it collapses like a slow moving landslide into the ocean rather than simply just melting away. That could cause a substantial sea level rise on a scale of a decade or so.
Re:In a century... by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:36 · Score: 1

Here you go:
Clear weather flooding in Miami, FL.
Sea level has risen about 8 inches since 1900.
Re:In a century... by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:37 · Score: 2

And AC can't be bothered to learn the difference between sea ice and ice sheets that are based on land. Oops!!
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:48 · Score: 0

There was no surplus. If you're so certain there was go claim your $500
clintonsurplus.com
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:48 · Score: 0

This is you Cheney, isn't it?
Re: In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-12 13:08 · Score: 1

I saw that movie too.
Re:In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-12 13:09 · Score: 1

I figured that's what you say. Can you give me an example of them selling environmental destruction? I'd also like to know who purchased it.
Re: In a century... by jcr · 2014-05-12 13:09 · Score: 2

The national debt is a misnomer unlike climate change. Climate change involves real consequences. The national debt is a financial residual value that has no economic meaning in real terms. It's not the national debt that is important, it's inflation that we should be monitoring. ...with you so far.
As it stands we actually need more inflation today as well as more government spending. ...and here you go full retard.
You can not improve an economy by sucking even more resources out of the productive sector for the politicians to lavish on their cronies.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 13:12 · Score: 0

On that point too, the evidence is pretty clear that the warming is primarily due to the activities of man.
I'm not convinced that's true, but people keep saying "this is the question", and I don't think it is. Most people agree the Earth is warming and this will Have Consequences. Since it's happening, why does it matter what the cause is? Obviously understanding the cause is desirable, but it's hardly Problem One.
The REAL question is "can we do anything to help preserve human life and lifestyles?", and then the follow-up question is "should we?"
If it's a natural cycle, we need to survive. If it's a human-caused problem, we need to survive. If the truth is actually somewhere in between (as I strongly suspect), we need to survive. But being able to prove that we shouldn't have been doing all that business with coal for the last few hundred years doesn't exactly help.
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 13:15 · Score: 0

George Soros
Re: In a century... by VTBlue · 2014-05-12 13:25 · Score: 1

The fact that you believe that federal government spending comes from tax revenue makes you uninformed....but that's okay because you're in the majority.
Federal Taxes for revenue has been an obsolete concept since 1946. The economic theory that has so influence all of 20th century society is actually wrong in reality. Federal spending is not spending taxpayer money. In fact "the funds used to pay taxes and purchase government securities COMES from [federal] government spending."
In Econ you learn that Y = C+I+G. Furthermore they teach you that if G goes up, I must go do almost always but especially in the long-run. This is only true in a gold-standard economy. The problem is the economics profession never updated their textbooks. It is only if you take a "money and banking" Econ course at the graduate level that you are introduced to this, and that is if you're lucky.
Re:In a century... by Old97 · 2014-05-12 13:32 · Score: 2

Let's see. You might check on the Koch Industries environmental record. http://www.polluterwatch.com/k... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... Perhaps the Exxon Valdez disaster - still not repaired for Exxon or the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico for BP just a couple of years ago. The numerous leaks on the Alaska oil pipeline? These folks make billions (trillions collectively) and leave a trail of destruction. They actively fight most every attempt at regulation and disaster prevention. They fund global warming denial web sites and groups. Mountain top removal for the coal industry? How about strip mining. Do you think that's good for the environment? How about your drinking water? Duke Power and the pollution in the Cape Fear river some weeks ago? The spill in West Virginia weeks before that? The spill in the Tennessee river valley a few years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... Would you say none of that was preventable? Their very business is the destruction of the environment in order to obtain fossil fuels. The use of these fuels is also the primary contributor to the global warming we've been witnessing. What part of this do you not get? Are you an astroturfer? How much are getting paid to pretend to be this dumb?

--
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 13:33 · Score: -1

Dear Homo,
The word "neo-con" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Seriously.
It doesn't
Look it up. The way you use it (obviously incorrectly) serves only to make you look like a semi-educated buffoon. A simpleton. A graduate, perhaps, of a state college or a community college... certainly not one of the finer schools, in other words.
HTH,
Love,
Bruce
Re:In a century... by Ost99 · 2014-05-12 13:41 · Score: 2

All of the claims the past 15 years have been about the expected state in 2050 or later.
If you know none of it came to pass, I'd like to borrow your time machine.

--
---- Sig. gone.
Re:In a century... by cusco · 2014-05-12 14:02 · Score: 1

Of course, and if we know the prevailing temperature we can set an upper bound on water content, but there is no direct measure of that like there is for carbon dioxide and methane, which we can pull directly from analysis of glacial bubbles.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:In a century... by cusco · 2014-05-12 14:11 · Score: 2

Measure insolation in an enclose environment with CO2 content x, and then measure it with CO2 content 2x. Every single time for over a century and a half the environment with the higher CO2 content retains more heat. High school honors students do the experiment, and that is always the result. Why do you think that for some reason carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to somehow defy the laws of physics and act differently?

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:In a century... by rtb61 · 2014-05-12 14:24 · Score: 1

Also increased precipitation reduces the salinity of water at the surface reducing the temperature at which affected seas will freeze. Also that increased precipitation will increase on the surface. Not to forget the story is a distortion, it was actually the largest increase percentage increase in ice cover, not the largest coverage ever. The trick hear being, take a pie cut it in ten pieces and remove 5 pieces, add five pieces back and you have the original pie. Now instead take away 7 pieces and then return 6 pieces, a record return but you are still one piece short.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:In a century... by DigiShaman · 2014-05-12 14:26 · Score: 1

The housing bubble had nothing to do with this? Last I checked, Clinton had a hand in this mandating loans to poor people whom then the banks were all too willing to engage in predatory lending.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:In a century... by Capsaicin · 2014-05-12 14:30 · Score: 1

The 70's are calling... Back then the global environmental disaster of the day was "Global Cooling"
Oh look the tired old 70s Global Cooling Myth rears its idiot head once again. To summarise of the relevant papers located in the peer-reviewed literature between 1965-1979, 42 predicted warming, 7 predicted cooling, and 19 predicted neither.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 14:34 · Score: 0

Put down the crack pipe before you hurt someone.
Re: In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-12 15:23 · Score: -1, Troll

No. Where were they selling environmental destruction and who bought it. I don't care about your fucking progressinazi class warfare bullshit. I want to know when they were selling environmental destruction, and I want to know who bought it.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 15:46 · Score: 0

"Provide some names of a few folks who became billionaires from pushing environmental protection."
There are VERY few billionaires (globally and from ANY income stream) as a portion of global population (and most did not get that rich from "denying" AGW either) so let's go with just "super-rich" which is what people usually mean when tossing-about the sort of accusations you make.
Al Gore is the first, and obvious answer. He has invested in all sorts of "green stuff" including cap-and-trade and used his status to push for adoption of this stuff and government subsidies of it (thereby driving up its value) and in doing so has become richer than Mitt Romney.
Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC has become VERY wealthy. In 2009 he had about $650 million in EU "carbon credits" alone which he could sell at a profit to a polluter who needed them to "offset" their activities (effectively, he was enabled by "green" laws to blackmail companies). The man is probably worth many hundreds of millions by now, but he's VERY good at keeping a lid on the exact numbers; he heads a bunch of organizations, sits on boards, etc like most of these hyper-wealthy self-serving do-gooders.
"Cap-and-Trade", the scheme the guys at Enron (yeah, THAT Enron) invented to make money by selling NOTHING on a new stock market of certificates for nothing, printed in arbitrary quantities and assigned arbitrary values is a modern financial empire. California's first "auction" of allowances generated nearly $300 million in one lump; and similar scams are underway in many "enlightened" (duped) places like the EU. The average person has NO information and NO clue as to who the people are who are getting the allownaces, buying them selling them and profitting from them - But these schemes involve BILLIONS of dollars globally and many super-rich investors that would ALL lose vast sums of money if "faith" in the AGW scam was ever shaken, given that the entire scheme is based on a theory about the climate and not on any actual asset (think 1929 market crash and bank runs). Pets dot com was backed-up by more assets than the cap-and-trade scam. Furthermore, many governments have implemented various "green" tax credits/offsets in response to the AGW propaganda, and most of the super-rich in the world (who have lots of accountants and tax experts to help them keep, grow, and shelter their money) make heavy use of these things to lower their tax burdens (which is how so many super-rich pay very little in taxes). It's nearly impossible that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and their buddies are NOT making (or saving) piles of cash off of AGW.
Re:In a century... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-05-12 16:32 · Score: 1

So in 2001, the CBO was pretending the DotCom Bubble hadn't burst. Big surprise there. The budget surplus was already going down before Bush made any changes, because there was less money going into the system. Because the bubble burst. Which was before Bush was elected.
Hate on Bush all you want for tax cuts. He enacted those because of the recession that was starting. Need I say why the recession started? Or when?

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 19:50 · Score: 0

Shut up pigface.
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 20:13 · Score: 0

Well it makes a nice change from the arbitrary '30 years' usually given to us by these eco-disaster fearmongers...
Re:In a century... by ultranova · 2014-05-12 22:48 · Score: 3, Funny

The story from 1869 only worked because he removed the frogs' brains.

So it's an accurate model of policy making, then? Campaign contributions make for wonderful scalpels.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:In a century... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-12 23:07 · Score: 2

I think the question is if global warming is essentially man made or mainly just the natural cycle of things. IMHO this is an open question not settled science.
And on what do you base your humble opinion. Sure it's not settled to the level of Newton's laws, but it's settled enough for practical purposes.
Remember Al Gore?
You're basing your opinion of the science on the opinions of a politician? Are you utterly nuts?

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:In a century... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-12 23:15 · Score: 0

Look, The earth is warming,
Yep.
why is the open question.
Nope, that's pretty settled too.
But I've heard this "Man Made" claim over and over with some very dire consequences attached over the last few decades
Ah, so you listen to the media (dire consequences) and use that to dismiss the science. Moron.
competing for research dollars
It appears that not only do you not know about the science, you don't even understand the first thing about how science is done in practice. Hint: you don't get research funding to tell people what they already know.
or what ever name du Joure is
Ah you think you're clever because you've identified something important. You're not. Global warming is the increase of the average temperature of the earth. This causes climate change which is a change in the climate.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re: In a century... by ultranova · 2014-05-12 23:28 · Score: 1

You can not improve an economy by sucking even more resources out of the productive sector for the politicians to lavish on their cronies.

So suck them out of the financial "industry" instead. Economy can make do without bubbles, recessions and general chaos.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:In a century... by flyneye · 2014-05-12 23:29 · Score: 1

BWAHAHAHA! I told everyone to use the web-app predicting the new shorelines and invest in real estate. NOBODY LISTENED. Now Im going to be richer than Luthor and Gates combined and you can surf Flyneye Beach while I look down on you from my lair...
Tech investment is a suckers game.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:In a century... by coinreturn · 2014-05-13 01:32 · Score: 1

That's silly. But Homo Sapiens certainly did adapt to and survive through the wild temperature fluctuations and sea level changes during the last ice age.
You mean when we were nomadic tribes? Not exactly how we're living in today's world. I'm sure there won't be any problems as millions of people are forced to migrate due to changes in climate. Yes, Homo Sapiens will survive as a species, but many millions will suffer.
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-13 02:48 · Score: 1

So are you? The FUD with this issue is great and it attracts politicians who are angling for power and votes. That much should raise questions. The claims are wildly out of step with reality, at least the claims that make the news and get talked about are. At least IMHO. Of course there *are* facts to back up this opinion and Al Gore is just an illustration of the kinds of hyper dire, trumped up "facts" that make it into the main stream. I have other facts that are fairly easy to find that don't involve Al Gore directly, but as he is the most easily recognized, I use him as an example of why I'm not buying it.
So, did the climate change folks claim that there would be more extreme weather with this warming thing? More hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts etc? Why is that not happening?

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-13 02:54 · Score: 1

But my point is? I think you missed it....
Maybe it's that the guys making the dire claims about what's going to happen are more often wrong than right?
What do you do when the local weatherman is wrong half the time? You listen to somebody else who's right more often..

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-13 03:03 · Score: 1

...unless we listen to our leader and all make sacrifices for the common good. If we don't the apocalypse will come and we will be cast into hell. Fuck that.
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-13 03:28 · Score: 1

I like your airplane analogy... Climate is something that has trends which are longer than average lifespans, so it is hugely difficult to make objective observations when our experience is subjective and short term. I too remember the cold winters of the 70's in the Midwest, but that does not make global warming truth, because the time scale involved in natural climate cycles can sometimes be much longer than one life...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-13 03:29 · Score: 1

The FUD with this issue is great and it attracts politicians who are angling for power and votes. That much should raise questions
It raises questions about the politicians, not the science.
The claims are wildly out of step with reality, at least the claims that make the news and get talked about are.
So? What's that got to do with the science. The mass media are terrible at science reporting. They're terrible at tech reporting too, as I'm sure you have observed. But yet instead of simply rolling your eyes and shrugging at the mass media reporting, you are actually listening to it and using it to judge the science.
At least IMHO. Of course there *are* facts to back up this opinion and Al Gore is just an illustration of the kinds of hyper dire, trumped up "facts" that make it into the main stream. I have other facts that are fairly easy to find that don't involve Al Gore directly, but as he is the most easily recognized, I use him as an example of why I'm not buying it.
Al Gore is a great example of bad reporting and mass media hype. If you're using that as a reason to not buy the claims of the scientsts then you are making a very poor judgement call.
So, did the climate change folks claim that there would be more extreme weather with this warming thing? More hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts etc? Why is that not happening?
Those are long term predictions. Given those are all rare events, the year on year changes are high, so it will take a lot of data before you see a statistically significant change.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:In a century... by david_thornley · 2014-05-13 03:52 · Score: 1

Speaking as somebody with more money than most of the rest of the world, I'm not really threatened. AGW is likely to make my life less pleasant (in the middle of North America, there's enough temperature variation already), but I'll still be able to get what I want. The people who are threatened are those who, for example, are SOL if food prices double, and they don't have much power.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:In a century... by dcw3 · 2014-05-13 04:06 · Score: 1

You can understand the confusion caused by the media (see link below). The only news we had back then was the daily paper, and a few TV channels. Who even knew what a climatologist was back then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 04:31 · Score: 0

Not at all the case. If you really want to make a case against Clinton here, you can say that he chanced upon the favorable part of the business cycle and that the increase in private consumption which led to higher GDP and government surpluses from taxes also led to the unsustainable amounts of provately-held debt. What you said there, sir, is complete BS
Re: In a century... by tbannist · 2014-05-13 04:57 · Score: 1

You can not improve an economy by sucking even more resources out of the productive sector for the politicians to lavish on their cronies.
Actually, you can. Because surprise, surprise, the "politicians" give it to their "cronies" who give it back to the "productive sector". Spending the money three times increases the total of economic activity more than spending it once. It is pretty crazy, especially if you're a libertarian who believes the government is an evil black hole where money goes to die. The biggest problem for economy isn't who takes or gives the money, it's who holds on to it. If it's not moving, it doesn't get counted.
Furthermore, higher taxes can actually subsidize employment. It's counter-intuitive, I know, but for corporations employees are an expense that reduces profit. Since taxes are only applied to profit, hiring more employees is effectively cheaper for the owners when taxes are high (if they would lose 30% of the profit to taxes, they're only effectively paying 70% of the price of an additional employee out of the profit they would keep, if it were 50%, they'd only be effectively paying half the cost for another employee*). Since capital gains are taxed at a lower rate, when taxes are higher it can be more effective to invest profits into growing the business.
* numbers for example purposes only, I'm not avocating for any particular tax rate here.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:In a century... by tbannist · 2014-05-13 05:06 · Score: 1

You mean like maybe north of Canada or in the Bering Sea where there is so much ice the last few years that boats can't follow their normal schedules and are shut down for months at a time because of the ice? But I never see an alarming article about MORE ice. Always less.
That's because less than "a lot" can still be "a lot". Let's take for example, the difference between now and the 1940s, in 1940s it took 4 years to circumnavigate North America, including 3 years just for the Northwest passage, now it takes less than half a year. Being shut down for just months is a huge improvement over being shut down for years.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:In a century... by tbannist · 2014-05-13 05:11 · Score: 1

So are you? The FUD with this issue is great and it attracts politicians who are angling for power and votes. That much should raise questions.
Everything attracts politicians. That shouldn't be a surprise, it's literally a politician's job to angle for power and votes. After all, a politician who loses an election isn't a politician, he's just an unemployed loudmouth.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-13 05:16 · Score: 1

so it will take a lot of data before you see a statistically significant change.
We go in circles then because *this* is exactly why I'm not jumping on the band wagon from the "science is settled" parade. It's going to take awhile before we see what we predict, yet we are SURE that what our models are saying is true. Actually, we are seeing less of all the significant weather events discussed above, but you tell me to wait, it will come out like they say in the end? OK, I'm taking a wait and see approach, and so far the dire consequences have not panned out to be as dire (Al Gore and all).
I understand your objection to Al Gore being used as an example, but the shoe does fit here, at least in the short term, for the rabid environmentalist lobby who want to play the sheep for fools and sell hype for votes and power. Unfortunately it is this side of the climate change crowd that is controlling the message and what the public believes.
So, with all due respect to statistics, I think this question is not settled, and your response above is a good indication of this. We need more data just to know if our current models are good over tens of years... But climate is about hundreds and thousands of years.. Are our models good enough for that? I think not, surely not with any kind of assurance.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 06:20 · Score: 0

I get your point. But knowing that smoking is a cause of lung cancer is pretty powerful information. If burning coal and deforesting the Amazon are a cause of warming...wouldn't that be powerful as well?
And cheaper because an gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure.
Re:In a century... by Sciath · 2014-05-13 06:50 · Score: 1

Perhaps. But there are some things different today then 20,000 years ago when the last ice age ended. First of all, the world was not populated with 7 or 8 billion people. Secondly, there were far more trees, equatorial jungles, and the like for the people back then to survive off of the natural resources. Then there is the issue of urbanization and our dependence upon refined carbon fuels. There was more wild game for the humans to survive off of. ETC. ETC. It always amazes human beings when a crisis happens as if no one saw it coming. In this case we can see climate change happening. Whether its cause is natural or man-made makes no difference. Just hope that it is not one of your descendants who doesn't make it in the future. I for one would prefer a planned response to climate change as opposed to a hit and miss approach because of sufficient carbon fuels today. The "precautionary principle" is nearly always the best approach. But instead we charge headfirst along with our fingers crossed and damn the naysayers. It is the attitude of the naïve to meekly believe "we'll find a way" [at the last minute]. Our brains give us the capacity "think", "reason", to "plan" and "prepare" but we often fail to do so because of false hope.

--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Re:In a century... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-13 07:04 · Score: 1

We go in circles then because *this* is exactly why I'm not jumping on t
Good on cherry picking what I'm saying. That was specifically about extreme weather. For actual warming, there's plenty of statistically significant data.
It's going to take awhile before we see what we predict, yet we are SURE that what our models are saying is true.
Well, the old models predicting warming are coming true now. We now have better computers able to do the CFD calculations on finer grids, and better measurements of many things earth related. The models are only going to get more accurate.
Basically, when it comes down to it, physics works.
Physics will keep on working regardless of people like Al Gore and whatever.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-13 07:30 · Score: 1

Denial timeline:
Stage 1: It's not happening
Stage 2: It is happening, but it's not us.
Stage 3: It is happening, it is us, but there's nothing we can do because: jobs, economy, freedom
Stage 4: It is happening, it is us, and we can solve it.
You are presently in Stage 2.
You will enter reality upon reaching Stage 4. I urge you to continue your journey.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-13 07:32 · Score: 1

No, most have proven to be pretty much spot on.
You're failure to be educated and not repeat myths is your own problem, not a problem of Climate Science.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:In a century... by bobbied · 2014-05-13 09:27 · Score: 1

I guess it's your right to think so....
Obviously we don't/won't agree on this. So, I think we are done..

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 09:50 · Score: 0

You forgot to add Tom Steyer and Al Gore among those making money from pushing environmental protection
Re:In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-13 10:40 · Score: 1

Al Gore's wealth is particularly delicious, considering CurrentTV was purchased with Middle Eastern oil money. Someone once said, "I'll believe we're in a crisis, when the people who say we're in a crisis, start acting like we're in a crisis." Screw every last one of them.
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 13:03 · Score: 0

> . The national debt is a financial residual value that has no economic meaning in real terms
What the hell are you SMOKING???!!! The "National Debt" is a real debt, with real owners holding real certificates they got when they LOANED that money to the US government. It is tens of thousands of "widows and orphans", as well as millions of others. Sure, we could stiff the Chinese...I'd do that just for fun (and to make sure they don't continue to fund this idiocy) but most of that debt is held by AMERICANS who are depending on it being paid back - mostly for their RETIREMENT. You keep thinking that, Pal, and we'll all be living through the "Road Warrior" when the collapse comes. We have already severely undercut the dollar, if it goes under dozens of other currencies now tied to it will go, too. The result would be a world-wide depression that would make the last 6 years look like a frickin' PICNIC!
LEARN some economics, stupid!
Re:In a century... by Capsaicin · 2014-05-13 13:38 · Score: 1

But my point is ...
... comprehensively undermined by reliance on fake examples. Moreover, even if if were the case that climate scientists at any time in the last 100 years, had unanimously proclaimed an impending climate risk which did not eventuate (as you now know never happened) it would be placing undue reliance on induction to dismiss the best available science on that basis. All swans didn't turn out to be white.
Your position is logically indefensible just as it is factually inaccurate.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Re: In a century... by jcr · 2014-05-13 22:34 · Score: 1

The fact that you believe that federal government spending comes from tax revenue makes you uninformed..
The fact that I didn't go into the details of how the federal government uses the federal reserve to conjure fiat money out of thin air to commandeer resources doesn't mean I'm uninformed, you pedantic twat. The government spending is the problem, whether they "finance" it through taxes, debt, or conscripting labor.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re: In a century... by jcr · 2014-05-13 22:35 · Score: 1

Actually, you can.
Sure. And the German economy got a huge boost from Kristallnacht, what with all the broken windows.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:In a century... by ganjadude · 2014-05-14 00:49 · Score: 1

or we can price our current way of living out of the reach of millions, and they can suffer now!

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:In a century... by coinreturn · 2014-05-14 01:02 · Score: 1

or we can price our current way of living out of the reach of millions, and they can suffer now!
Right, because that's the only alternative.
Re:In a century... by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:12 · Score: 1

There are no big bucks to be made being an environmentalist.
Oh yes there is. Carbon credits, feel good products that sell at premium prices. Grants Grants Grants. So many of my fellow scientist stick in environmental angles into grant proposals because its how you get funded.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-14 04:33 · Score: 1

Certainly, people have become millionaires pushing environmental protection (take a look at their houses and methods of travel).
By that you mean "Al Gore". Al Gore didn't become rich pushing environmentalism. He was already well off : his father (Al Gore, Sr) was a successful Congressman, they had a successful family farm. Even though he worked on that farm, manual labor, they weren't hurting, and were decidely upper middle class or more, as seen by Al Gore, Jr went to prestigious schools, then Harvard. And of course, a successful career in politics, except for his Presidential run.
So basically: no. No he didn't get rich off environmentalism, no one really gets rich off environmentalism.

I cannot think of a single person who has gotten rich pushing environmental destruction.
And of course then you say this.
Which simply means you aren't thinking hard enough, or are just full of it.
Because basically your position, your statements, are the complete and total opposite of reality.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-14 04:34 · Score: 1

they make their money off coal, the dirtiest of all energy sources....
seriously, just how dumb are you?

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-14 04:37 · Score: 1

And thus you prove yourself to be a shill.
If you aren't a shill, then that's your loss, cause you might as well earn some money for acting ignorant and posting BS.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-14 04:41 · Score: 1

the economy does not have the potential to cause the extinction of "life as we know it", the 6th major extinction event of the entire planet, but particularly of our own species.
2ndly, the only one going full retard is you, as you've proven that you actually know nothing of government, and how vital it is to modern life in a free nation. www.governmentisgood.com has several essays that will settle primitive brain free, and begin your transformation into an actual thinking human.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: In a century... by Bartles · 2014-05-14 04:47 · Score: 1

Really, where is this environmental destruction product they sell? They don't sell environmental destruction, they sell legal products, and follow regulations that your fucking EPA makes. I know progressives hate libertarians. Progressives can't call themselves liberal any more because really they are just authoritarian fascists. The Koch brothers just happen to be the Great Satan of the day, that progressives use to project all of their problems onto.
Re:In a century... by dywolf · 2014-05-14 05:15 · Score: 1

you dont even know what you are talking about.
you are spouting BS.
nothing you said is true.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-14 05:28 · Score: 0

They don't sell environmental destruction, they sell legal products, and follow regulations that your fucking EPA makes
Ah, but according to libertarian thought, the "fucking EPA" shouldn't exist and they, being government run, can't get anything right. So having a "legal" rubber stamp doesn't mean it isn't environmental destruction.
Or maybe the government and their scientists are right... but that would mean government can decide for you that you're "selling environmental destruction"
You're screwed either way.

I know progressives hate libertarians.

Nah, progressives love libertarians. Libertarians make for easy punching bags and scapegoats for progressives.
I think you're projecting. As demonstrated above, you're screwed either way. Your ideology is self destructive, and you're filled with self loathing, so you're lashing out at "the Progressives"

Progressives can't call themselves liberal any more because really they are just authoritarian fascists. The Koch brothers just happen to be the Great Satan of the day, that progressives use to project all of their problems onto.
Yes, young padawan. Give in to your hate. It's all the progressives' fault! Take your weapon (that the Constitution protects your right to have!) and strike them down!
Re: In a century... by locke.th · 2014-05-14 09:01 · Score: 1

To be fair, back in the 90's they said we'd see a lot of coastal areas underwater by about 2-4 years ago. I attribute that to scientists just starting to really model the problem.
Re: In a century... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-14 10:00 · Score: 0

That must be very early in the 90's, not the past 15 years. I can't remember seeing anything like that.
Re: In a century... by tbannist · 2014-05-15 05:07 · Score: 1

"The logic of limited resources only applies when the economy is using most of those limited resources. If there are slack resources, we need merely mobilize some of the slack resources".

You are a couple steps behind me.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re: In a century... by jcr · 2014-05-16 03:52 · Score: 1

You are a couple steps behind me.
It's tragic how you Keynesians believe you're right, despite the wreckage of your beliefs that lays all around you.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:In a century... by jwhitener · 2014-05-16 06:19 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, to most people that follow fox news/right wing media, the CBO is apparently a left-wing liberal lie machine....
Re:In a century... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-19 11:39 · Score: 1

The housing bubble had nothing to do with this? Last I checked, Clinton had a hand in this mandating loans to poor people whom then the banks were all too willing to engage in predatory lending.
Although we can place a lot of the blame directly on Barney Frank, and his lead in pushing to "liberalize" Freddie and Fannie policies.

But what amuses me is that GP relies on CBO for a reference, which is part of the same body (the Federal government, including the President and Congress and the bureaucracies they established), to justify government's actions.

Let's face it: it's dumb to expect government to fix problems that government (largely) caused, especially when it is in the best interest of various government factions to not solve the problem.

Well, since it's inevtiable by NotDrWho · 2014-05-12 07:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Fuck all this Prius hippie shit. I'm buying a Hummer.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.

Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by MozeeToby · 2014-05-12 07:26 · Score: 5, Funny

All the cool kids these days are buying amphibious demilitarized "ducks".
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by bunratty · 2014-05-12 07:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Fuckin A, dude! My stupid doctor was telling me to exercise and eat right, and I'm all, well, dying is inevitable, so fuck it!

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by bzipitidoo · 2014-05-12 07:33 · Score: 2

So they're getting ready for rising sea levels?

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:36 · Score: 0

That Hummer better be "amphibious" for all the water that's coming.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 07:49 · Score: 1

Assuming you meant the 4 wheel drive one, I have always thought it was a big mistake to quit making those. Instead, they were IDEAL for GM to turn those into serial hybrids. I suspect that they could have gotten an easy 40-50 MPG with that, and had a vehicle that had the largest torque of any passenger vehicle.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:49 · Score: -1

Protip: If you're pissing in your girlfriend's/boyfriend's mouth, you're doing it wrong.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 07:51 · Score: 1

Why? 10'? That is nothing for MOST nations. The real issue is not the ocean rise, but the massive change in climate the will be coming.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by HideyoshiJP · 2014-05-12 07:53 · Score: 1

Well, there's also the issue of the numerous global financial centers along various coasts.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Mister+Liberty · 2014-05-12 07:55 · Score: 0

There's plastic surgery for small pricks like yours.
Girls probably will see it for what it's worth though, so yes,
maybe the hummer is best for you.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-12 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, there's also the issue of the numerous global financial centers along various coasts.
Yea, not seeing the problem...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by NotDrWho · 2014-05-12 08:00 · Score: 0

Is there surgery to fix pricks like you?

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: -1

1) the change during my life will be minimal, if anything at all.
2) I live more than 10 feet above sea level, so even if all the ice melted tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice (except for the news stories).
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by cultiv8 · 2014-05-12 08:18 · Score: 1

He's not kidding, people, the vikings in Dublin are all over this shit

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by beltsbear · 2014-05-12 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe global warming will be self correcting then.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by stewsters · 2014-05-12 08:31 · Score: 1

Co-locate the server racks and when they flood shut them off?
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by houstonbofh · 2014-05-12 08:40 · Score: 1

Well, there's also the issue of the numerous global financial centers along various coasts.
But I thought Wall Street was to blame for all this?
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by HaZardman27 · 2014-05-12 08:55 · Score: 1

I believe it's called a lobotomy.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by fahrbot-bot · 2014-05-12 08:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Why? 10'?
Only the male scientists say it's 10 feet, the women say it's really about 5-6 feet.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by nblender · 2014-05-12 09:01 · Score: 1

You have to die of _something_...
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by danlip · 2014-05-12 09:03 · Score: 1

Most of humanity lives close to a coastline. 10 feet is a lot for those people. Even if they are not directly flooded by a 10 foot rise it makes the effects of tsunamis or storm surges very different. Also many nuclear power plants are right on the coast (they generally need a source of water for cooling) - so imagine Fukushima many times over.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:24 · Score: 1

If I get to choose, I choose the heat death of the universe kills me.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 10:28 · Score: 1

Fukushima happened over the course of a week. Here you are talking about water rising over 100-200 years period. That is trivial for mankind to adjust to.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:37 · Score: 0

So. They just need to move their data centers. Global financial centers have no real physical facilities that can't be easily relocated elsewhere.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Fubari · 2014-05-12 10:40 · Score: 1

At a certain point it gets less funny; maybe in 50+ to 100+ years once the ice caps are gone. Or maybe in 20+ years after the central United States aquifers are "inevitably" tainted with fracking side effects (Sorry everybody, move away from the former coastline... also, move out of the middle... it was inevitable you know).
So it seems appropriate that this story showed up near thorium-the-wonder-fuel-that-wasnt article trashing thorium (though the comments there are actually pretty informative).
So... I'll just leave this here: https://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel.
*shrug* Our species may evolve some long term planning capability; or it may not.
Then again, the we don't need 100% of humans to be capable of long term planning... just enough to make a difference. Which may not need to be much at all, given that most will be distracted by famine or disease or economic collapse or reality tv. Maybe it only needs to be 0.1% that consider the long term and are worried enough to act. (Maybe, at the risk of being too obvious, we can make a difference.)
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Bartles · 2014-05-12 11:27 · Score: 1

Will they be wiped out by the tidal wave when the sea levels rise?
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Bartles · 2014-05-12 11:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, a 10' rise might be a problem. How about a .050" rise per year? Is that really a problem?
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Will.Woodhull · 2014-05-12 12:04 · Score: 2

Do you really think all that water is going to stay in the oceans?
The rise in sea level has already increased the size of tide flats and salt marshes. Which are evaporation basins. Expect an increase in atmospheric water, some as vapor (which is a potent greenhouse gas) and some as cloud (increasing the Earth's albedo). How those opposing factors will play out is anyone's guess.
But this much is obvious: the increase in atmospheric water is going to increase PRECIPITATION! The worst flood damage from the loss of Antarctic ice is going to be inland, with destruction of cities and infrastructure from flooding rivers.

--
Will
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:44 · Score: 1

If ALL of the ice on the Earth melted including the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets the total sea level rise would be over 200 feet. But don't worry, that would take thousands of years no matter how hot it gets (unless it gets too hot for humans to survive and then it doesn't matter).
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by danbert8 · 2014-05-12 12:45 · Score: 1

Citation needed... In the US only 39% live in a county that borders an ocean. Of course, even the cover picture of this article shows people living on a coast that wouldn't be detrimentally affected by a 10' rise in sea level. Annnnnd, I doubt any of those structures will still be around in 1000 years. Of course that's America for you. Now Europe, those buildings probably will be around for another 1000 years. But I think the people will slowly move away as the coast move inland.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 13:29 · Score: 2

And yet, according to most of the models, the world will be MUCH DRYER, not raining. So, we will see more deserts around the world.
As to floods, well, rivers came about because of floods that cut into the earth and that leads to a constant run-off path. IOW, it will simply create new rivers.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re: Well, since it's inevtiable by wasteoid · 2014-05-12 14:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Death by snu-snu.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Will.Woodhull · 2014-05-12 15:56 · Score: 1

If you count older, simpler models, then yes: probably most climate models suggest more deserts. But if you ignore the models that were running on the limited computers of twenty years ago and look only at models that are still actually being used, then the story is very different.
However we already have seen that those models are too simplistic, this is no longer a matter of comparing one model to another. The reality is that the increase in both the number and severity of storms demonstrates that there is a lot more water in the atmosphere. It is the state changes of this water-- between vapor and droplets and ice-- that drives storms.
Now is there any way that author of parent post can convince me that he is not a shill for the oil interests or some other industry invested in maintaining the status quo? I'm willing to listen to that argument.

--
Will
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 16:49 · Score: 0

exactly!
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 17:29 · Score: 1

So, you think that because I keep suggesting that there should be compromise that leads to REAL gains in dropping CO2, that I must be with the oil companies. eh?
And yet, it is trivial to see that I am not a fan of the status quo.
BUT, the real question is, how will you prove that YOU are not a troll? The fact that you want to keep up with status quo, which is to have the far left doing nothing but protesting issues that solve NOTHING, is similar to the neo-cons/tea* continuing to run up deficits. So, using your logic, I can only conclude that you are an extremists that wants things to remain the same.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by fellip_nectar · 2014-05-12 21:23 · Score: 1

Well, I intend to live forever....
So far, so good.

--
Worst. Signature. Ever.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by fgouget · 2014-05-13 00:01 · Score: 1

Fuck all this Prius hippie shit. I'm buying a Hummer.
Ah! Hummers are only good for little kids. Real men drive a Marauder.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:34 · Score: 0

If the ice melts enough, they can get their ship out that has been stuck all winter :)
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by NotDrWho · 2014-05-13 01:03 · Score: 1

At a certain point it gets less funny; maybe in 50+ to 100+ years once the ice caps are gone. Or maybe in 20+ years after the central United States aquifers are "inevitably" tainted with fracking side effects (Sorry everybody, move away from the former coastline
If it's any consolation, the nuclear war that's coming in 10+ years will alleviate both problems.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 02:05 · Score: 0

Okay Chicken Little.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by argStyopa · 2014-05-13 05:47 · Score: 1

I know you're trying to be all flippant and ironic, but there's a valid point buried there.
What price survival? (Or to be more precise, what price "a little bit more survival"?)
If you run every day, eat a calorie restricted diet, never smoke, never do drugs, never drink more than one alcoholic drink a week, never have unprotected sex with a stranger - it's almost certain you're going to live longer.
But is it living?
As PJ O'Rourke said famously (I could be slightly misquoting) "Fuck that healthy stuff. When I die, I want to skid to a stop over an open grave with a martini in one hand, a cigar in the other, reeking of sex, and say "Man, what a ride!""
Dying IS inevitable. Making yourself miserable to avoid it is pointless and futile.

--
-Styopa
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Sciath · 2014-05-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Assuming that humans have the will to "adjust". So far, humans have molded the environment to suit their purposes. Reshaping the land, modifying water sources, etc. Thus humans have not really adjusted, they've merely made the environment adjust. However, [whatever the cause] the day will come when climate change will be overwhelming. Will humans be prepared? I have my doubts. Look at all the numbskulls who insist upon buying and developing oceanfront, riverfront, lake front properties, etc. Then when their property is destroyed as in the Hurricane Sandy fiasco, they all want everyone else to chip in and rebuild their homes ON THE SAME STRIP OF LAND! because "it's their home". Boo-hoo. That kind of behavior is epidemic among people. They want what they want, even when it makes little sense. Who ever said humans are "rational beings". Being rational requires examining the facts, the odds, etc. There are is huge cohort of humans who don't care until everything they have is gone. That does not bode well for the future of humankind. The fact that humans have been able to stave off slight environmental changes, fight off many historically prevalent diseases, develop techniques to extent lifetimes, etc. is NOT an indicator of how successful the species will be in the future. Life is like playing craps. You can toss a few good hands and it will give you the impression you're on a winning streak. But in the end, if you keep playing against the odds you're going to loose. That is what humankind is doing.

--
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 08:56 · Score: 0

I've mapped it out and 200' makes my home literally beach front property! Bring it on bitches!
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 09:37 · Score: 0

Yes, models that include all, even not-yet-known, chemical, atmospheric, oceanic, ... phenomena in exquisite detail.
Fortunately, weather baloons are of zero effect compared to butterflies, so we know these models will work into the far distant future. Newtonian clockwork universe is the latest understanding of physics, you know.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by DamnOregonian · 2014-05-13 09:59 · Score: 1

Certainly. I don't think anyone rational or sane questions whether or not the Earth will find new equilibrium. The question is if the new equilibrium will support our civilization's population and resource requirements within our adaptive abilities without a massive die-off of humans.

I'm sure some would argue that's not such a bad thing, but ultimately, should the trend continue, the US isn't among the newly minted prime real-estate barons.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:40 · Score: 1

And yet, according to most of the models, the world will be MUCH DRYER, not raining. So, we will see more deserts around the world. As to floods, well, rivers came about because of floods that cut into the earth and that leads to a constant run-off path. IOW, it will simply create new rivers.

And yet, according to most of the models, the world will be MUCH DRYER, not raining. So, we will see more deserts around the world. As to floods, well, rivers came about because of floods that cut into the earth and that leads to a constant run-off path. IOW, it will simply create new rivers.
According to most models, when you warm up a planet whose surface is mostly water, it gets WETTER not much dryer. However, according to most models, the same processes which keep certain parts of the current climate dry, such as being downwind of a mountain range like the US southwest, will continue to exist, and the increased temperature in these areas will dry them out even further.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 17:01 · Score: 1

Well, the actual number is probably closer to 250 feet than 200 feet. My home at 480 feet will be on an island in the middle of Willamette Sound (Willamette Valley, Oregon). Of course I won't live long enough to see that happen and neither will you because it will take several thousand years for all of the ice to melt.
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by SomeoneFromBelgium · 2014-05-13 19:23 · Score: 1

I don't see the contradiction.
Some parts of the world will get hotter which translates into dryer. But if the atmosphere contains more moisture that will have to go somewhere.
This means that precipitation will be more concentrated both in space (regions that are becomming exessively wet) and in time (periods of drought interleaved with massive rains). Both scenario's are quite dramatic. But not nearly as dramatic as your scenario: "simply" new rivers that would come into existence.
That would have an enourmous impact on the region where such a thing would happen.
Think about villages that lie in the path of the new river. Bridges to be build, people being cut off from the rest of the land.
So anyway you look at it there is nothing reassuring about all this (deserts, floods, massive rains & new rivers).
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:16 · Score: 1

I want a new duck.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Well, since it's inevtiable by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:26 · Score: 1

In fact not really. These "massive changes" are not really all that massive as far as the models predict as reported in *peer reviewed* papers. Don't confuse a scientists website to his actual science, or some media claim. By far the most impacting prediction of AGW or even just GW in the next few centuries is sea level rise.

3 meters is nothing for some parts of some nations. It's quite a lot for others. Nothing that can't be handled over the predicted time frame of course. But probably not all that cheap either. You only have to look at various flood protection projects to get an idea of what sort of scale and cost solutions will have. Perhaps scaled up a bit.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

SCIENCE IS A RELIGION! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:22 · Score: -1

I am tired of you science priests deciding that my favorite corporations and CEOs shouldn't have obscene profits because of your SCIENCE RELIGION.

The world in on the back of a turtle and the sun goes around the earth. And you assholes that say the earth is millions of years old are just GAY BUTTFUCKING FREAKS!

Re:SCIENCE IS A RELIGION! by Mister+Liberty · 2014-05-12 07:58 · Score: 1

"Unbelievers" -- the movie, the real thing --> TPB.
NOW.

Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:22 · Score: -1

Here we go again

Re:Chicken Little by MickyTheIdiot · 2014-05-12 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Chicken Little because it isn't going to happen in your lifetime?
I don't get it. This is happening.
Re:Chicken Little by MightyMartian · 2014-05-12 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just remember, short term comfort ALWAYS trumps long term viability. We live in a world dominated by the next few fiscal quarters. It's a breeding ground for sociopaths and the mentally deficient dupes who follow them.
Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall day is literally the motto for so many people.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what do you want to do about it? We live in the real world, most of us in elective democracies where any politician that purposes a reduction in the standard of living will quickly find himself out of a job. Green energy doesn't scale and nuclear is a bad word, so where do you propose we get the gigajoules needed to both run Western civilization and bring the third world out of poverty?
The climate change crowd never has a good answer for this question. Thankfully we're an adaptable species, arguably the most adaptable ever to live on the blue marble. I think we'll manage just fine.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re: Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:34 · Score: 0

Jam tomorrow...
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-12 07:37 · Score: 0

Green energy doesn't scale
In what way does green energy not scale?
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:44 · Score: 1

... so where do you propose we get the gigajoules needed to both run Western civilization and bring the third world out of poverty?
Nuclear and solar, duh. Throw some geothermal and tidal power in there too and we're good.
Re:Chicken Little by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-05-12 07:52 · Score: 1

If short term comfort was all that mattered to people nobody would ever take out mortgages, so, er, yeah.
This article says is that even if we and all of our works vanished tomorrow, it still wouldn't make a difference. Despite which most if not all developed nations have goals to reach in terms of renewable energy generation, and many of them are reaching or exeeding their goals. In a hundred years I'd be surprised if fossil fuels are in use at all to be honest.
The world is changing. I for one am rather glad of past changes as I'd have some difficulty typing under several kilometers of ice. The problem which will arise due to sea level changes are more due to a global assumption that the state of affairs which exists today is somehow "normal" or "in balance". It's not and it never has been, there is no natural balance, and the sooner we adjust our societies to work with rather than try to withstand enormous generational adjustments, the better.
One thing it's not however is the end of the world, far from it.
Re:Chicken Little by SpankiMonki · 2014-05-12 07:53 · Score: 1

Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall day is literally the motto for so many people.
So....carpe diem cras?
Re:Chicken Little by NotDrWho · 2014-05-12 07:58 · Score: 1, Funny

This is happening.
No, it's not. It's always GOING to happen *at some point*.
The same way that nuclear fusion is always GOING to be happening at some point.
The same way that the world is always GOING to be ending soon in every cult.
The same way that Jesus is always GOING to be coming someday.
The same way they by the time these predictions come due, everyone is GOING to have long forgotten them and moved on to the next environmental-disaster-thats-going-to-kill-us-all-this-time.
Chicken....Little.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Chicken Little by Mister+Liberty · 2014-05-12 08:04 · Score: 1

You can't carry it around in a jerrycan, basically.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 08:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Do some reading about base load power, then contemplate the fact that the United States consumed 3,866,000,000,000 kilowatt hours (that's 13,917,600,000,000,000,000 joules, if you were wondering) of electricity in 2012. Since nuclear fission is politically explosive, explain how you propose to generate a sizable fraction of that energy (never mind all of it) without relying on carbon based sources. Limit yourself to technologies that are actually here, not distant fantasies like nuclear fusion.
After you do that, you can further depress yourself with the realization that I'm only talking about electricity. The actual energy budget of the United States is far higher when you account for the transportation sector and other non-electrical needs. And we're only talking about the United States here, one country out of ~190, with 4.5% of the global population. The rest of the World aspires to our standard of living, and they're not going to abandon that goal because of a distant and hard to quantify threat.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:08 · Score: 0

That's presumptuous. Maybe Jerry enjoys having it in his can. Further, did Bruce enjoy putting it there?
Re:Chicken Little by fustakrakich · 2014-05-12 08:12 · Score: 1

I think we'll manage just fine.
Yes, I am truly grateful that the people who built the first skyscraper had such foresight, Even better that they built it 600 feet above sea level.
Maybe, if we pick up on our desalination efforts, we can drain the oceans as fast as they rise. (take caution with that one :-))

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:16 · Score: 0

Right, because we will totally have sustainable amounts of coal, oil, and gas for the next 100 years. Production has definitely not plateaued, even as usage increases.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 08:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

Ocean levels haven't been constant for the miniscule amount of time humanity has been around, never mind on a geologic scale. For that matter, the climate hasn't been static either, not even for our short amount of time on this rock.
If predictions are true, it's going to suck, it's going to be painful, but we'll survive it. Asking people to forgo the benefits of civilization just isn't going to happen, and even if the killer app of energy is discovered tomorrow (fusion?) we're still going to have to adapt to the changes already under way.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by Jmc23 · 2014-05-12 08:19 · Score: 1, Troll

We live in a western capitalistic world dominated by the next few fiscal quarters. It's a breeding ground for sociopaths and the mentally deficient dupes who follow them.
FTFY

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Chicken Little by JimSadler · 2014-05-12 08:21 · Score: 1

We do expect and demand that the public change their lifestyles quite a bit. First we need less babies. Then we need to make certain that energy demands decrease for each individual. But we have large businesses that are corrupt and pay off politicians in order to deny global warming. Wyoming is the latest example. They don't want global warming taught in the schools. Frankly these issues bite deeper than politics and things could get really nasty. Not only are we going to be harmed by the nay sayers but they are putting our children and grandchildren in harms way. At some point this issue could cause violence to break out within our nation and many nations are likely to go to war as their suffering increases.
Re:Chicken Little by brit74 · 2014-05-12 08:22 · Score: 2

Somehow, I imagine you sitting at home chain-smoking cigarettes and complaining about all those "chicken little" idiots who believe smoking causes cancer.
Re:Chicken Little by rogoshen1 · 2014-05-12 08:24 · Score: 1

the part where you have to use it for base load. (nuclear withstanding, because apparently that's not 'green enough')
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 08:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

We do expect and demand that the public change their lifestyles quite a bit.
Which won't change a damned thing, because the third world is not going to meekly sit back and accept their current level of development. The United States could literally cease to exist tomorrow and the freed energy wouldn't be enough to bring the billions in the third world out of poverty. You can't even convince Westerners to waste less, but you think you're going to convince those in the third world to meekly accept their current lot in life?

First we need less babies.
Capping family sizes is antithetical to western notions of freedom. That's literally the most personal decision you can make, it's not something that can be imposed from the top down in our societies. A civilization without our reverence for individual liberty tried it and arguably failed, or at the very least created all manner of unintended consequences with deleterious outcomes that still haven't been fully quantified.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by quantaman · 2014-05-12 08:34 · Score: 1

Politicians can't sell the solution because people keep obfuscating the fact there's a real problem.
Tell someone they have cancer and need to undergo months of nasty chemo or they're likely going to die and they're gonna do it.
Tell someone it might not be cancer, and even if it is it won't cause much harm, and even if it does cause harm they can delay treatment until it does start causing problems without any real consequence. Well it's going to be real tough to sell that person on chemo right off the bat.
The fixes aren't actually that drastic, they will slow economic growth, but the technology is there, and compared to the consequences of not acting it's not a tough decision.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Chicken Little by bussdriver · 2014-05-12 08:34 · Score: 2

Get a house TODAY you don't need to save up your money! Mortgages let you have immediate comfort now.
The cost of a house forces a long term payment plan but you can STILL have short term thinking. Short term thinking is central to the mortgage crisis we are still recovering from. bad planning / rates .... adjustable rates. That'll solve itself somehow you'll probably make more money long term...

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:37 · Score: 1, Informative

I read a reference that said that a 108-mile square of the US Southwest could, if completely covered with solar panels, supply all the US's power needs.
That's barely big enough to show as a dot on a map of the US.
Now, of course, there are certain... realities... we need to face. For instance, we can't pack the panels in without roads and access spaces, and we'd need to store power (how?) for the night time. And so on, etc. But, it is an interesting hypothetical that shows that alternate, 'green', energy is certainly possible. I mean it's not like we'd need more surface area to power the US than the US has, or anything impossible like that.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:38 · Score: 0

You are a fucking idiot. Re-read his original post to discover why yours is so fucking stupid, then give yourself a punch in the face.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:40 · Score: 0

Land occupation for wind power isn't good. You'd need 900000 2MW wind turbines, with a capacity factor of 25%, to provide the 4 billion MWh the US consume every year. The 2MW wind turbine I found on the net is approximately 95 meter tall (tower + wing span). This doesn't take into account variability of wind power so reality is probably even worse.
You have bigger wind turbines now but they are taller, have a larger wing span and have a larger footprint on the ground.
Re:Chicken Little by houstonbofh · 2014-05-12 08:48 · Score: 1

I thought fracking blasted away a lot of that peak oil crap... Remember that as cost goes up, demand goes down. And, other technologies to retrieve that energy become more viable. At some point, even things like solar become feasible, so you should like that part.
Re:Chicken Little by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-12 08:51 · Score: 1

Insightful and disturbing.
If Humanity finds itself severely curtailed by the results of AGW because we collectively refuse to believe anything is wrong, we will get everything we deserve. Time will tell how much we've really contributed to the problem.
Far more upsetting to me is the accompanying loss of diversity in the planet's flora and fauna. A criminal act perhaps significant enough for our hidden alien overlords to step in to straighten things out? A nice fantasy.

--
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Chicken Little by Immerman · 2014-05-12 08:57 · Score: 1

Why stop with electricity? After all we want to replace all other fuel consumption as well, right? If I'm reading it right, wikipedia says primary energy use (before transmission and generating losses) in the US circa 2012 was 25,484TWh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States), or 25e15Wh
In most places decent solar panels average something like ~200W/m^2 for 5 hours a day, or 365kWh/year
So that means going purely solar we'd need at least
25e15Wh/yr / 365e3Wh/m/yr = 68.5e9 m^2 of solar panels to provide 100% of all energy
which is only 68,500 km^2
or the equivalent of 23% of the surface of Arizona, to provide for 100% of the US energy usage.
Face it - renewables are more than sufficient to completely supply all the energy we need, all we're lacking is decent energy storage technology.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Chicken Little by radtea · 2014-05-12 08:57 · Score: 1

I read a reference that said that a 108-mile square of the US Southwest could
That's certainly in the right ballpark. The solar constant is about 1300 W/m**2 (at the top of the atmosphere) so call it 8000 W/m**2 at the surface, cut it by half for night-time and multiply by 0.1 for solar panel efficiency and other losses and you get about 40 W/m**2 or 40 MW/km**2. The GP's big numbers come out to about 400,000 GW, so this comes out to 400,000/40 = 10,000 km**2, which is a square just 100 km on a side (a 108 mile square is about 170 kilometres on a side.)
Now mind you, storing that power and distributing that power are non-trivial, and Greenpeace, the Bulletin of the Atomic Liars, and god knows who else would be mounting protests to "Save Our Desert!" if anyone actually dared build anything anywhere, but the raw numbers aren't at all insane given the scale and success of past human engineering projects.
Unfortunately, with the new "Can't Do!" attitude of the modern US it's very unlikely that this will happen.

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re:Chicken Little by Kielistic · 2014-05-12 08:59 · Score: 1

Storing and transporting that energy are the distant fantasies in your "hypothetical". I'm not sure how that shows that solar providing base load is possible.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:02 · Score: 0

I think we'll manage just fine.
Well, that's a nice friendly quip to start the day, I bet today's example of the last of its species is now triumphantly marching on after hearing that one, ready to repopulate.
Cheers
Re:Chicken Little by Entropius · 2014-05-12 09:03 · Score: 1

Well, we could start with education, and help nuclear not be a bad word. We could start by helping green energy "scale" as best we can, and by doing what we can to help it (i.e. by allowing electricity suppliers to change the price of power on a timescale of minutes and communicate this to consumers, allowing them or their thermostats, etc., to throttle consumption up and down to match the fluctuating supplies of wind and solar).
We could start by seeing just how much of a reduction in the standard of living it would entail if it were done by less disruptive economically sensible means (a carbon tax with the tax rate tuned to create whatever desired reduction you'd like). I imagine it would be less than you'd think.
Re:Chicken Little by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-12 09:05 · Score: 1

The same way that nuclear fusion is always GOING to be happening at some point.
Yes, about 2017 for demonstrable fusion power production and 2027 for full-scale commercial fusion plant operation. Chicken Little indeed.

--
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Chicken Little by Entropius · 2014-05-12 09:06 · Score: 1

Nuclear fission is only politically explosive because people are ignorant. We could perhaps work on fixing that.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 09:07 · Score: 1

or the equivalent of 23% of the surface of Arizona, to provide for 100% of the US energy usage.
You live in a country that can't even build a wind farm or a pipeline without decades of environmental studies and political bickering from all sides.... You think you're going to cover 23% of Arizona in solar panels, completely re-engineer the power distribution grid, and do this quickly enough to make a damned bit of difference if humanity's CO2 emissions really are the tipping point?
I'm sorry, but I'm a realist, and the best course of action for us at this point is to start planning for the changes rather than try to prevent them from happening.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:09 · Score: 0

My computations are 407 sq kilometers assuming 1120W/m^2 of sunlight reaching the ground, no night and 100% efficient solar panels to get 4e9 MWh of electricity used every year in the US. With night and 10% solar panel efficiency, we go to 8000 sq kilometers.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:09 · Score: 0

http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/12/sea-level-rise-is-most-reliable-way-to.html
What is happening? Obama is spending another $1 billion of my money on what again?
Oh yeah, on guys like these making this report/study.
Re:Chicken Little by AaronW · 2014-05-12 09:10 · Score: 1

Storing power is well understood. There are many ways for grid storage, such as molten metal batteries or if building a moltan salt solar plant all that heat can continue to be used at night when the load is typically a lot lower.
Hell, the battery in my car could easily power numerous houses overnight (85KWh) in my area. The problem is that the government has not made any significant investment into green energy or for that matter any new energy generation methods. Other green methods are geothermal and wind, where there are large parts of the US that could supply a significant amount of power and things like gothermal are great for baseline and there are areas of the US that have very steady wind supplies.
We could be building thorium reactors using that U238 they want to bury. We could be investing a lot more in fusion research. The big complaint comes from what about all those jobs for the coal minors and crap like that.
The stupid politicians so in bed with the fossile fuel industry it isn't funny. They'll believe whatever their contributors want them to believe, voters be damned. Look how much the coal and oil industry contribute to campaigns.
As for needing a reference, it takes typing "108 square mile solar" into google to get multiple references.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 09:12 · Score: 1

Far more upsetting to me is the accompanying loss of diversity in the planet's flora and fauna.
We're not the first species on Planet Earth to outcompete other species and we won't be the last....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by AaronW · 2014-05-12 09:12 · Score: 1

Politicians won't sell a solution because their contributors don't want them to. (i.e. coal, natural gas and petroleum industries). Politicians answer to their campaign contributors, not the voters. There, fixed it for you.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:16 · Score: 0

Bombing more countries back to the stone age. Promoting homosexuality in third world countries to reduce their birth rates and propagate AIDS. No longer providing medicine and food to third world countries in order to increase their death rates.
Re:Chicken Little by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-05-12 09:21 · Score: 1

Get a house TODAY you don't need to save up your money! Mortgages let you have immediate comfort now.
So does renting, without decades of debt slavery and possible depreciation of the asset if you ever want to sell it on. In fact mortgages reduce your immediate comfort more than renting if the cost of the interest is greater than the rent.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 09:22 · Score: 1

Well, we could start with education, and help nuclear not be a bad word.
That would be an awesome start, but most of the resistance to nuclear power comes from the same people who believe humanity driven climate change is a pressing problem. Nobody else cares, in fact fossil fuels are cheaper, so it's an apparent win as far as most people are concerned.

i.e. by allowing electricity suppliers to change the price of power on a timescale of minutes
This is a stupid idea. Never mind the disruption to people's household finances by asking them to absorb that much pricing uncertainty.... electricity is a commodity and there will always be futures contracts that allow people to lock in a price. Which is as it should be. More to the point, you think people in the United States are going to accept a situation where regular black/brownouts become the norm, after generations of largely having electricity around the clock? I know such occurrences are "normal" in a lot of countries, but not here.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-12 09:22 · Score: 1

We're not the first species on Planet Earth to outcompete other species and we won't be the last....
I quite agree, however with all the potential for floods, droughts, disease, earthquakes, volcanoes and the ever-present Damocles sword of a meteor strike that comes with life on Earth I'd really rather we weren't responsible for another disaster resulting in the extinction of those lifeforms that had survived until now.

--
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:30 · Score: 0

No one said cap family size in the West (by that I mean USA). But, instead of giving people MORE tax breaks for having more kids, it should be the reverse. The incentive should be on a break for using less resources. You want to have 10 kids, great. But no per child deduction for you.
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:33 · Score: 0

Funny you mention mortgages. The VAST majority of people don't consider the mortgage time when making the decision, the only consider the monthly payments. Which explain 40 year mortgages
In fact, unless some has been taught to think that way, it' almost impossible for someone to internalize that time.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:36 · Score: 1

No. It happen in every civilization. Happening in capitalistic, Communistic, theolistic, communes, and so on.
It's intuitive nature that we need to move beyond.
The only form that has a chance to minimize or stop that type of thinking is democratic socialism..
OMG, he said socialism!!!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:37 · Score: 1

A solar furnace farm, 100 miles to a side, could supply all that energy.
I'm sorry, I think you were saying " blah blah blah WONT WORK!!! blah blah blah."

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:39 · Score: 0

Fracking is pretty much a last ditch effort if anything. Consider how damaging it is to the environment: There is the obvious (and perhaps rightfully contended) possibility of groundwater contamination. But it also *completely* destroys entire mountains sometimes, ruining existing natural structures and parks. It may even be causing minor tremors and quakes. This is not something locals want, and yet they are powerless to stop it because the energy supply MUST remain flowing. It is the same reason we went to Iraq, and one of the main reasons Russia annexed Crimea. Energy production makes the world turn, and they are going to further lengths to make sure of it than ever before, and it IS causing serious strife in the world.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 09:39 · Score: 2

I'd really rather we weren't responsible for another disaster resulting in the extinction of those lifeforms that had survived until now.

Too late.
If it makes you feel any better we're just fulfilling our biological imperative. The most adaptable species have thrown their lot in with us and are tagging along for the ride. Species that aren't as adaptable? Well, nature is a bitch like that.
On a macro scale civilization is always going to displace other species that get in the way. On an individual level people are always going to choose survival. My favorite example of the latter? The Wake Island Rail, hunted to extinction by a starving Japanese garrison during WW2.
Would you voluntarily starve yourself to death to save another species? If the answer is "Yes" you've either never experienced true hunger in your life, or you're the most altruistic person I've ever met.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:41 · Score: 0

You're an idiot.
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:44 · Score: 1

Why would they use solar panels, they would use solar furnaces so they have 24/7 electricity and a baseload supply.
and it would be 100 miles to a side.
"I'm sorry, but I'm a realist, and the best course of action for us at this point is to start planning for the changes rather than try to prevent them from happening."
I'm going to explain to you why that's wrong, and why you are NOT being a realist. Ready?
Planning is great, and need to be done but we have to prevent the end game from happening.
People like you say "eh, it will rise 10 feet' we will just plan for it", but you never seem to realize it wont' stop there. This isn't stop in now, or we end up with a high sea level. It's start fixing it now, or the green house effect will removal habitability for humans, i the long run
What, you think it will stop at 500ppm? 600 ppm? You think the rising and warming of the sea level isn't going to impact food? Impact the ocean ability to change co2 to O?
The sooner we can to prevent and remove CO2 emission, the cheaper, and 'easier' it will be.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-12 09:51 · Score: 1

Great response, I hope it catches the eye of someone with modpoints.

--
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Chicken Little by Jmc23 · 2014-05-12 09:54 · Score: 1

No. It happens in every unsustainable 'fad' civilization. When those collapse, there are plenty of sustainable ones left to throw out of balance by the bad seeds of dominion which can take root to pervert it into the next fad.
A good rule of thumb is to assume that the dominant 'society/civilization' on earth at any given movement is an unsustainable one driven by greed and control, or else it wouldn't be in control... unless proven to be 'true' and we are quite a far ways from that.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:55 · Score: 1

According to this wikipedia article on impervious surfaces, there's approximately 36.6k km**2 of urban rooftop surface area in the contiguous 48 states, so it seems we could just put panels on everyone's roof and accomplish the same thing with fewer transmission losses.
Of course, this doesn't take into account any added maintenance costs, since I imagine it'd be easier to maintain one giant field of panels at ground level than it would to climb up on everyone's roof every couple of years...
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

" but we'll survive it. "
based on..what? what happens at 500 ppm? 600 ppm? 1000 ppm?
What happen when the sea temperature is too warm to support the lowest part of the food chain?
250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level - OOPS past that
350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
Yeah, we kind of need an 'aggressive' plan to deal with this now.
We need to be build large solar furnace, re-engineering the electrical grid, get coastal cities on board with moving inward with time, we need thorium reactors, we need to put tough regulation and taxes on vehicles.
We need to get some sort of solar system on every house. Panels, some sort of shingle what ever. All this take time, so we need to start now. The longer we wait, the more we pay.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-12 10:02 · Score: 1

The rest of the World aspires to our standard of living...
Or at least this is what Americans keep telling themselves, right?

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:02 · Score: 1

since western civilization(specifically one with a liberal education fro everyone, and where women control there own reproduction cycle) the population is declining.
"A civilization without our reverence for individual liberty tried it and arguably failed,"
why do you think ares is not
" or at the very least created all manner of unintended consequences with deleterious outcomes that still haven't been fully quantified."
Which applies to our civilization as well.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:06 · Score: 1

Yes, politician can. If the Rep. said 'well, with this latest evidence, it turns only AGW is real'.
The vast majority of current denier would change. Most of them are deniers becasue their politician say it isn't happening and continues to pander to a belief, instead of facts..
Once that is done, then we can have discussion on a plan to move forward.
But Obama could have the perfect solution tomorrow, one that includes free energy and blow jobs for all and Pub would still vote against because its from Obama.
Just to be clear: He doesn't, not possible, and sorry ladies.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:08 · Score: 1

It IS happening. Just like the vast majority is science prediction are accurate. I'ts cute that you think a few cherry picked and non scientific things did happen.
Grow up.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:15 · Score: 0

It's unfortunate that you decided to inject your Rush Limbaugh infused parrot-speak into the post. It was pretty good otherwise.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:16 · Score: 0

If there's anything the internet can teach us, it's that caps don't work. Congestion control, on the other hand... just add a backoff on the benefits, so for example you'd get 100% for the first child, 50% for the second, 25% the third, etc., and the problem solves itself.
Left unadressed is the potential future issue of baby buffer bloat.
Re:Chicken Little by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-12 10:19 · Score: 1

Capping family sizes is antithetical to western notions of freedom.
And yet families in Western countries are dramatically smaller than than they were a century ago--which some would see as the result of acquiring reproductive freedom, including the freedom *not* to have more kids than you want to or think you can afford, etc.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:21 · Score: 0

psyc 101 protip: If you catch yourself using phrases like "We live in the real world" chances are very strong that your brain is actively rationalizing something away your subconscious knows is wrong but your conscious mind doesn't want to admit.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:23 · Score: 0

As a species sure, we will. I mean, to fix global warming all we need is shed off 5 billion people. 2 billion people is sustainable. 7 billion is not. The drying up of America, Europe and Africa should contribute a lot to reducing population by famine and war, since poor people aren't sensible enough to reduce it some other way (ie: not having children.)
Re:Chicken Little by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-05-12 10:34 · Score: 2

I haven't actually met most people so I can't really say what they consider, although well done on finding the time to post here what with your busy schedule meeting them by the way. From those I've spoken to they generally seem to feel that inflation will eat away at the last decades of their mortgages, which is probably true to an extent. Short term pain, long term gain.
Re:Chicken Little by Shakrai · 2014-05-12 10:41 · Score: 1

Planning is great, and need to be done but we have to prevent the end game from happening.
There is no "end game". That's what I think the climate change crowd doesn't realize. They've based their whole notion of "normal" off an incredibly insignificant slice of Earth's history. It's not even a significant slice of homo saipans history, never mind the history of life on Earth. When has the climate on planet Earth been static? Great Britain used to be in the wine belt. Washington crossed an ice filled Delaware river. The climate changed long before humans started digging carbon out of the ground and it will continue to change long after we're gone.
Climate change is not going to doom human civilization. It will have an impact, a very harsh impact for some (and a benefit for others, which is one of the dirty little secrets nobody will acknowledge...) but we will survive and adapt. Pull up pre industrial age life expectancy charts and tell me we're really not better off. Then tell the third world that they're not allowed to develop any further, and the first world that we have to voluntarily lower our standard of living.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:42 · Score: 0

Easy (well, not politically): institute a tax on carbon, paid back to the people as a progressive negative income tax to minimize the pain to the lower and middle classes. The specific policy I'm thinking of was recommended by Ramez Naam in one of his books (not sure if the policy is his or just one he likes), if you Google his name and "carbon tax" you should find the details (e.g. you have to also add a tariff to account for carbon on imports). The idea is then the government is staying out of the way of picking winners while providing a market incentive for non-fossil-fuel-based energy sources.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:43 · Score: 0

Prove it! I will wait...
Re:Chicken Little by houghi · 2014-05-12 10:53 · Score: 1

You can also look at it from a positive side and already stat with what IS possible. e.g. 30% of Denmarks electrical power comes from windpower.
Also the USofA has 4,5% of the population, but we are talking energy here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
So please don't look at what is not possible, look at what is possible and then trow some money towards finding out how to do the rest. The USofA military is basicaly fighting to get cheap oil. Use some of that money in R&D on alternative energy.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Chicken Little by khallow · 2014-05-12 11:00 · Score: 1

I don't get it. This is happening.
Unless it isn't happening. There's always another choice to such scenarios. It's easy to concoct a disaster scenario today on flismy or no evidence.

While if it really happens, then a 10 foot rise in sea level is a bit hard to deny or hide. So I'm willing to wait to see what happens, especially given that this is claimed to be inevitable.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:10 · Score: 0

Well in the 1800s there were more horses than humans in the northern hemisphere. Contemplate the fact that by the year 2000, we will be neck deep in dead horses!
Oh the horsemanity!
Re:Chicken Little by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-05-12 12:06 · Score: 1

Chicken Little because it isn't going to happen in your lifetime?
I don't get it. This is happening.
If you really thought it was happening - in some crisis-like way, anyway - you'd do something more substantive about it than handwringing and put downs.
I know; have the first lady hold up a hand-lettered sign saying #BringBackOurShore. That seems to be how people "take action" these days.
So, where's the big campaign to switch to nuclear? What's that, no?
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:11 · Score: 0

Storing and transporting that energy are the distant fantasies in your "hypothetical".
Yeah. it's not like we already have a nation-wide power distribution system or anything.
I'm not sure how that shows that solar providing base load is possible.
It only shows that it's not IMpossible. As pointed out, it's not practical to pave 100X100 miles of desert and put up solar panels. But if those panels are put up on all the roofs of new housing construction, I'll bet we could have the same area of panels put up in a few decades.
And, that's ignoring other green energy, like wind. There's no 'one single technology' solution. But by combining solar (works when not storming, and during the day) with wind (works when windy, like when it storms) and hydroelectric (works always, especially after it rains) and nuclear, we can easily produce what the country needs.
Re:Chicken Little by HornWumpus · 2014-05-12 12:49 · Score: 1

Fracking is about 100 years old. The greenies just noticed it recently.
Good thing they didn't notice it when they were doing explosive fracking. The sky would definitely have fallen...than.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Chicken Little by HornWumpus · 2014-05-12 12:53 · Score: 1

WTF? Bullshit!
Idealists need to be fed their own self righteous bullshit until they become pragmatic.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Chicken Little by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-05-12 13:50 · Score: 1

Mortgages are long term thinking in relation to renting. Sure it would be nice to save all your money and buy a house with cash, but unless your alternative to a mortgage is squatting, I don't see how mortgages count as short term thinking.
You can live in a way nicer house by renting than by paying a mortgage, the downside is that after 30 years of renting, you don't have anything to show for it.
Re:Chicken Little by TsuruchiBrian · 2014-05-12 13:56 · Score: 1

Energy is energy. Maybe it's not efficient to use solar power to synthesize hydrocarbons like octane, but you can put liquid hydrogen in a container.
Re: Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 13:57 · Score: 0

My proposal, since you asked: Make "nuclear" not a bad word.
Re:Chicken Little by thegarbz · 2014-05-12 15:29 · Score: 1

But, it is an interesting hypothetical that shows that alternate, 'green', energy is certainly possible.
No it shows that it is theoretically possible, just like it's theoretically possible to get nuclear fusion to work. Taken beyond the hypothetical you'll find a lot of very uncomfortable truths that would make it "certainly" impossible:
1. Energy storage on this scale doesn't economically exist.
2. The power source is still variable, not baseload and (see 1.)
3. It would be an interesting economic exercise to source 108 sq miles of solar panels. What would the sudden spike in demand followed buy the massive crash look like? Do we even have the raw materials to manufacture them? How quickly could the world's capacity actually supply them, and what on earth would the resulting cost be in a scenario of world wide solar panel shortage?
Re:Chicken Little by Antonovich · 2014-05-12 20:02 · Score: 1

Yeah, damned Stanford hippies.
Re:Chicken Little by NotDrWho · 2014-05-13 00:49 · Score: 1

Never gonna happen. But do me a favor. I want you to print out your post, put it in an envelope marked "Open in 2027." And when 2027 rolls around and nuclear fusion is still "Just 30 years away now" (as it always has been), I want you to open said envelope and realize how wrong you were in 2014.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Chicken Little by NotDrWho · 2014-05-13 00:59 · Score: 1

NO IT'S NOT. Do you see any fucking seaports flooded?? Is Charleston, San Francisco, or New York under fucking water? Has a single harbor even had to close or relocate because of these supposed rising sea levels in the last 100 years? They're saying it's GOING TO HAPPEN, just like any futurist can say X, Y, and Z are going to happen.
Look around you. REAL SCIENCE is about actual empirical observations, not just polling your colleagues to see what *they* think. Go down to the beach that has been there for decades and tell me if you see a bunch of houses under water. If it's happening, we should have already seen a rise of a least a few inches in the last 100 years, right? So where is the physical evidence?

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 01:08 · Score: 0

A mortgage is the definition of short term comfort - I need a house now - Here's 200 Grand - go buy a house.
Re:Chicken Little by dywolf · 2014-05-13 01:19 · Score: 1

You're nothing but a troll, for whom the word "logic" represents a foreign language.
Fracking is about 60 years old, but even though it was invented awhile ago, it wasnt used regularly for extraction until recently. It also didnt involve the use of toxic chemicals originally; that's a recent "refinement" that allows higher pressures that pure water would allow for.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-13 02:53 · Score: 1

That wouldn't be scale, that would be portability. Pretty obviously practical EVs are carrying electricity around in their batteries. Range is lower for now, but the technology is improving (scaling).
But you're not the OP that said scaling, so you can;t explain what he meant by it. I think it might have been generation, but it wasn't clear, which is why I asked.
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-13 03:15 · Score: 1

I don't need to read up, I only needed to confirm what you intended by the comment before answering.
First of all, you saying nuclear fission is politically explosive doesn't take it off the menu. There's nothing technological to stop nuclear plants being built. And when you say a technology isn't scalable we do mean the technology.
Additionally America hasn't yet touched the surface of what it can do with existing green tech. The existing wind and solar generation is small beer. There's vast deserts for solar, unused farmland for wind, great mountain ranges that could have hydro dams.
And all of those fade into insignificance compared with the energy available from the sea. Wave technology hasn't been very good, but tidal, but from barrages of the countless bays, to tidal turbines could certainly supply all of America's needs.
What's lacking is the will, not the technology. And the will is lacking because the oil industry are such big lobbyists and donors (what would be called corruption in other countries).
But as a country and a world we have to get past that, because fossil fuels are finite.
Other countries are already on course to having 100% of their electricity produced by green tech. America can too.
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-13 04:11 · Score: 2

Great Britain used to be in the wine belt.
Great Britain used to be able to produce wine, and it still does produce wine. We know the current wine is good enough for modern commercial sale, but we know nothing of the quality wine the Romans made.
We do know that while there aren't vast numbers of vineyards now there's no evidence of there ever being more at any time in the past.
So what's your point? Just repeating a stupid denier myth?
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-13 04:20 · Score: 1

You simply have to provide enough infrastructure to supply the base load you need. There's no reason it can't be green tech.
You use a mixture of green sources, in a variety of geographical locations, such that variability of cloud cover, wind and tides doesn't ever leave you without other forms of power that are still generating.
And you smooth it out to meet the varying demand with hydro and nuclear.
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 04:20 · Score: 0

Unless it isn't happening. There's always another choice to such scenarios. It's easy to concoct a disaster scenario today on flismy or no evidence.
No, it's actually very hard. The disaster scenario market is highly competitive. Your scenario has to compete with other disaster scenarios for people's attention (read: money)
In that respect, the "global warming" disaster scenarios have been highly successful. Disaster with HFT? Disaster with Bitcoins? Disaster with closed-source software? Disaster with loss of privacy in the age of everything about you being online? I don't think any of them have taken as much hold as global warming. The only other competitive ones (in the US) are things like homosexual marriage, abortion, and drugs
Re:Chicken Little by david_thornley · 2014-05-13 04:22 · Score: 1

Yup, about twenty years later than the estimates I heard twenty years ago, and those were twenty years later than the estimates I heard forty years ago. The 2017/2027 estimates might be reasonably accurate this time, and I hope so, but after all these years I'm pretty cynical about it.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 05:06 · Score: 0

Considering that mortgages are cheaper than rent, it does make financial sense to get a mortgage. At least then, in 30 years, you have something to show for it.
Re:Chicken Little by rogoshen1 · 2014-05-13 06:08 · Score: 1

that's hand-waving away some really pretty difficult technical hurdles. Namely the generation capabilities near cities.
The areas with ample sun,wind,wave,geo or whatever are not always near the population centers that need the electricity. For cities like Phoenix or Las Vegas, yeah solar/solar thermal is a slam dunk.
Nuclear, with reprocessing spent fuel seems like the most sane solution -- but sadly to many people that's not 'green'. So we're stuck with coal or natural gas. Or the fringe environmental groups who seem to think the real solution is a drastic reduction in consumption (not going to happen.)
Re:Chicken Little by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-13 07:05 · Score: 1

You think there's any comparison at all between the way a for-profit military contractor develops technology and the appalling, childish debacle that is ITER?
Were ITER the only feasible direction then yeah, I'd be right with you.

--
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Chicken Little by Sardaukar86 · 2014-05-13 07:07 · Score: 1

Don't blame you for a second, especially as we all know the funding has been messed with several times.
Fortunately LM have a track record a great deal more encouraging than the ITER boondoggle.

--
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 07:33 · Score: 0

It only shows that it's not IMpossible. As pointed out, it's not practical to pave 100X100 miles of desert and put up solar panels. But if those panels are put up on all the roofs of new housing construction, I'll bet we could have the same area of panels put up in a few decades.
Your math is a little bit off! The original poster was talking about 108 square miles, that's just over 10x10 miles, a much more doable amount.

But if those panels are put up on all the roofs of new housing construction, I'll bet we could have the same area of panels put up in a few decades
And how will they be maintained? Will the homeowner have to pay for that? The panels aren't just going to sit there, operating fine, decade after decade. If so, you'll get an incredible amount of grumbling about a government mandate to maintain property they never wanted. People who care can already get solar panels. But you'll also have a lot of people who don't care, don't want to pay extra for the panels, and will see it as a great intrusion to be required to.
Re:Chicken Little by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 10:28 · Score: 1

Ocean levels haven't been constant for the miniscule amount of time humanity has been around, never mind on a geologic scale. For that matter, the climate hasn't been static either, not even for our short amount of time on this rock.
For the past 6,000 years, basically the whole of the time it took to develop our modern civilization both sea level and the climate in general have been remarkably stable. I'm not worried about the human species surviving but it's an open question if this complex modern civilization we live in is resilient enough to survive. If the civilization collapses then a lot of people are going to die.
Re:Chicken Little by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 10:41 · Score: 1

The biggest problem for nuclear power is economics. The amount of financing it takes to build the plant, how long it is before any return on your investment and the cost of the power produced are all things that stand in the way of nuclear power far more than anti-nuke activists.
Re:Chicken Little by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:56 · Score: 1

So. .... If I buy a house now, you're telling me my mortgage won't end up underwater?

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Chicken Little by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 15:00 · Score: 1

Two principles apply: when you want to climb out of a hole, stop digging; and a long journey begins with a single step. Alternately, we could just sit here and do nothing.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Chicken Little by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 15:07 · Score: 1

We do expect and demand that the public change their lifestyles quite a bit.
Which won't change a damned thing, because the third world is not going to meekly sit back and accept their current level of development. The United States could literally cease to exist tomorrow and the freed energy wouldn't be enough to bring the billions in the third world out of poverty. You can't even convince Westerners to waste less, but you think you're going to convince those in the third world to meekly accept their current lot in life?

First we need less babies.
Capping family sizes is antithetical to western notions of freedom. That's literally the most personal decision you can make, it's not something that can be imposed from the top down in our societies. A civilization without our reverence for individual liberty tried it and arguably failed, or at the very least created all manner of unintended consequences with deleterious outcomes that still haven't been fully quantified.
That's the spirit! Why should we refrain from our current contribution of 25% of civilization's possible demise, when all those not currently contributing might decide to do so in the future? How dare they! Don't they know the gravity of what they're doing, in our imagination? Serves them right! I'm going to go out right now and burn some coal for no reason, just to show them.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Chicken Little by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 15:10 · Score: 1

I ain't died yet in the past, so obviously the logical conclusion is that I won't die in the future.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-14 01:09 · Score: 1

that's hand-waving away some really pretty difficult technical hurdles. Namely the generation capabilities near cities.
Suburban houses can generate most or all of their own electricity with solar panels. Indeed UK householders that already have solar panels manage to generate power for their EVs and still feed power back into the grid. And the UK has cloud cover most of the time.
The average householder won't do that well, because part of the trick is minimising electricity use. But still, most of their power can come that way.
All of the cities that are near the seaboard could use tidal for much of their power.
And how many cities are there without surrounding rural areas, for either wind or solar or both?

Nuclear, with reprocessing spent fuel seems like the most sane solution -- but sadly to many people that's not 'green'.
Well I don't have to answer for the opinions of others. Plenty of leading green thinkers accept nuclear is part of the answer for controlling carbon emissions. And so do I.

Or the fringe environmental groups who seem to think the real solution is a drastic reduction in consumption (not going to happen.)
If the green infrastructure isn't built up it'll certainly happen. If only because people can't afford the amount of energy they used to use. Again, fossil fuels are finite. As more of the easy sources are used up, the price will continue to go up. There's only so many wars you can fight to ensure the continuation of cheap energy. When you're facing finite fossil fuels, and a global population that's going to rise to about 9 billion, with extreme poverty being rarer, something's got to give.
Continuing as things are now is not an option. It never was.
Re:Chicken Little by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:40 · Score: 1

No sane scientist is even remotely claiming these levels will ever be reached. Hell i doubt there is enough fossil fuels in existence for those kind of level to ever be reached. Most of the predictions are based on 800pm being reached which is assumed to be somewhat possible, but well beyond peak oil.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Chicken Little by rogoshen1 · 2014-05-14 03:18 · Score: 1

there's hundreds of years of coal and natural gas. those will get burned before consumption decreases. particularly in the developing world. Politically, telling the developing world to curb their energy usage is akin to kicking the ladder out from under them -- and is a non starter.
i'd love to see statistics or some kind of citation about solar panels in the UK providing anything remotely approaching self sufficiency. Powering a tiny euro-EV is one thing, but reducing the need for base load generation is totally another.
What you're describing is honestly green-washed fantasy. Any solution needs to minimize distribution losses, must be available 24/7, and must be able to scale, and most importantly cannot try to coerce people to give up their standard of living. (realpolitik and such... a technical solution is not always politically viable in reality.)
If you want consumption of fossil fuels to decrease, carpeting the world in solar farms and windmills isn't going to suffice.
Re:Chicken Little by BasilBrush · 2014-05-14 04:38 · Score: 1

I was hoping to find one of Robert Llewellyn's videos to link for you, but I can't find it as he's done so many, and you can't search in videos!
But here's a recent article about some best in class green homes. One is not only self sufficient but sell half it's electricity to the power companies. The other is quoted as earning the houseowner 3500 UKP per year from selling electricity back to the grid. Which much be far more than half, considering bills for even inefficient houses. Yes, these are exceptions, but ones that show the limit is not just self-sufficiency but you can go far beyond that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pro...

What you're describing is honestly green-washed fantasy. Any solution needs to minimize distribution losses, must be available 24/7, and must be able to scale, and most importantly cannot try to coerce people to give up their standard of living.
Again, if you followed Robert Llewellyn's video blog Fully Charged, you wouldn't have that belief. In and amongst the EV reviews he visits universities, power stations and people with green homes, all who know far more than you or I on the topic. And all of them know this is coming.
One thing we haven't yet mentioned here: The smart grid: Rather than simply generating according to demand, devices which are non-time critical communicate with the grid and switch of and on to help regulate the demand to closer match the supply. Current items like fridges, freezers and AC are obvious candidates. But also EV charging falls into this category. Indeed the power companies talk of EVs as helping them match demand, because they can be charged overnight when demand from everything else is at a minimum. There's even talk of them being used for power smoothing - when you finish with your car for the day, the remaining power in the batteries can be fed into the grid, when electricity is expensive, and then the battery charged up fully when electricity is cheap overnight, ready for the next day.

If you want consumption of fossil fuels to decrease, carpeting the world in solar farms and windmills isn't going to suffice.
OK, you're starting to get annoying. I don't mind discussing this stuff, if we're going to keep it real. But I've already mentioned tidal, hydro and nuclear. Empty assertions which ignore more than have the sources I've already mentioned is not constructive.
And at no stage have I talked about giving up a standard of living. For sure reduction of usage is part of the answer, but things like insulation and more efficient technology does not lower the standard of living it enhances it.
The green movement is not a step back into history, it's progress into the future. It's fossil fuels that are the backward looking technology.
Re:Chicken Little by khallow · 2014-05-15 06:59 · Score: 1

No, it's actually very hard. The disaster scenario market is highly competitive. Your scenario has to compete with other disaster scenarios for people's attention (read: money)
Well, those other disaster scenarios would have to account for the presence of an additional ten feet of sea level rise. I somehow doubt, no doubt due to my incorrigible nature, that a BitCoin disaster would have that aspect.
Re:Chicken Little by jwhitener · 2014-05-16 05:48 · Score: 1

purposes a reduction in the standard of living

Green energy doesn't scale
Those are assumptions. To date, there is no nation or state that has hit a barrier where they cannot install anymore green energy. To date, no state/nation in the world that is pursuing green energy has required their population to reduce their standard of living.
We haven't really tried to "go green" in the US. We have devoted tiny amounts of resources to it. Theoretically we have enough green energy (sun/wind/tidal/geo) to power the country if we are willing to capture it. The only real decisions are how fast to do it, how subsidized does it need to be, etc.. If we start now with a goal of say, 50-75 years, it will be very painless. Of course, if set a date 5 years from now, it would be a disaster.
Re:Chicken Little by Kielistic · 2014-05-16 07:02 · Score: 1

Another fool that thinks power lines are lossless.
Yes, everyone must put $20000+ worth of solar panels on their roofs. Totally feasible at all let alone in the next decade.

BFD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:23 · Score: 0

I'll be dead.

Re: BFD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:36 · Score: 0

Is that you, Mr. Keynes?

But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bunratty · 2014-05-12 07:24 · Score: 5, Informative

Just kidding... the Antarctic ice has been melting for decades. More precisely, the mass of the old, thick land ice is decreasing due to rising temperatures, but the surface area of the short-lived, thin sea ice has been increasing, partly due to decreased salinity in the Southern Ocean because the land ice is melting. Overall, the Antarctic has been losing ice at an accelerating rate as temperatures have continued to increase.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bluefoxlucid · 2014-05-12 07:35 · Score: 2

So global temperature is stable because the heat is going into ice melt?
I can't solve these problems without a dyson sphere; and only a society with a dyson sphere can sustain the economic weight of building a dyson sphere.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bunratty · 2014-05-12 07:41 · Score: 1

If the temperature were stable, I would expect the amount of ice to decrease as it reaches a new equilibrium. But we've seen the temperature rise and the ice melt at an accelerating rate. Most of the increased heat is going into the oceans.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bunratty · 2014-05-12 07:43 · Score: 2

I mean, if the temperature were stable, I would expect the rate of melting of ice to decrease.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 08:09 · Score: 2

Are you saying that melting of ice does not affect temperature?
Do you have a problem with the idea of endothermic reactions?
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bunratty · 2014-05-12 08:20 · Score: 3, Informative

No, melting of ice will cause the temperature rise to be slower than it would otherwise be. What I said, and read this carefully, is that if the temperature remained stable, that the rate of ice melting would decrease until the amount of ice reaches a new stable equilibrium. The fact that the rate of ice melt is accelerating is evidence that the temperature is still increasing. And, of course, we are directly observing this temperature increase as well. It's not that hard to understand, is it? You know, global warming, been in all the papers and on the news for years?

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:03 · Score: 0

Clearly you weren't around this winter at least in the US, where we destroyed cold weather records pretty much everywhere. I also find it entertaining that the last climate change conference they had in Cancun was the coldest on record. The one they had in Europe had record snowfall, etc.. it's like the CIA (who run weather control satellites) had much fun at your expense.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:19 · Score: 0

Revisit your comment.
[1] Temperature is stable.
[2] Ice is melting.
Therefore you are entirely wrong.
[2] should cause a reduction in temperature. But it isn't (see [1]). Which means energy is still being pumped into the system causing [2] to continue.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 09:26 · Score: 1

Think a bit more carefully again.
Get yourself a glass of water.
Put ice cubes in it and wait until the temperature stabilizes.
Watch the ice melt further (the initial stabilization will include some ice melting).
Measure the temperature over that period of time.
Do you believe that the melting ice will continue to cause a reduction in temperature?
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by khallow · 2014-05-12 10:49 · Score: 1

I can't solve these problems without a dyson sphere; and only a society with a dyson sphere can sustain the economic weight of building a dyson sphere.

The Earth already is a billionth of a Dyson sphere. You can use that to bootstrap up to full coverage. Good thing Slashdot is here to solve your weightiest problems.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:57 · Score: 0

Well, in your example the ice would further melt because the glass of ice water is not isolated from the air around it. When ice melts, the phase change requires energy. Putting this energy into the phase transformation will result in A. all the ice is melted or B. Enough ice has melted to bring the entire system into equilibrium at the melting point. There is a third option where very cold ice could cause the entire system to come to equilibrium below the freezing point and the glass would be all ice.
If your glass is in equilibrium and you find the ice is continuing to melt or the temperature is rising, the system is not in equilibrium
The Earth is not a glass of ice water and any comparisons as such are a gross simplification. I'm not even sure what side of this topic you are on, but your knowledge of thermodynamics is weak.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 11:14 · Score: 1

You fail to understand the basic thermodynamics here - melting ice will compensate for increased energy into a system, by melting. The assertion was made that ice melting cannot happen when the temperature is stable - but that's *exactly* what melting ice does.
You can make the argument that melting ice shows that energy is going into the system, but you cannot assert that the temperature must *not be stable* in order for ice to melt - regardless if you insert some sort of lag in reaction time.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bluefoxlucid · 2014-05-13 01:35 · Score: 1

Energy scarcity is the timeless economics problem. On Arrakis, water scarcity; on any sane planet, plants bring sunlight into the system and carbohydrates become the coin. Humans built fire with trees until wood scarcity; then oil, but only shallow drilling; then coal; then anthricite coal; then deep-drill oil; natural gas; radioactive ore; and now solar in its many systemic forms (wind, hydro, etc.). New energy, that's what we need.
Large amounts of energy would let us build a Lofstrom loop to send things into space. We could use energy for asteroid mining, gather material. Extremely large amounts of energy let us fiss and fuse anything: commercial enterprise makes Molybdenum and Cesium today by nuclear fusion in a device you can build in your basement with a coat hanger and a glass jar.
A completely enclosing dyson sphere at any distance experiences over 13,000 TRILLION times the energy consumption of the earth. The earth is less than a billionth of a dyson sphere; it's 1/13,000,000,000,000,000 of a dyson sphere. Building a dyson sphere--even a partial one--requires space mining; a dyson sphere provides the energy for space mining. Terrestrial energy sources can't manage it.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 08:50 · Score: 0

Ice melting is not a reaction
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 10:49 · Score: 1

The amount of heat it takes to melt the ice that is melting is pretty miniscule compared to the total heat we are gaining because of the excess of CO2. Probably less than 1% of the heat goes into melting ice.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 11:09 · Score: 1

Compare the specific heat of water to the specific heat of the atmosphere.
The amount of heat that it takes to melt ice is pretty significant compared to any sort of atmospheric changes.
Ocean vs. atmosphere:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Now, ice is only a fraction of the ocean, but atmosphere is also only a tiny fraction of the ocean. My bet is that back of the napkin, you're looking at the same order of magnitude...
Specific heat capacity, ice: 2.108 kJ/kg-K
Specific heat capacity, water: 4.187 kJ/kg-K
Heat capacity of air: 1.005 kJ/kg/K
The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg
http://nov79.com/gbwm/icemelt....
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:48 · Score: 1

Are you saying that melting of ice does not affect temperature?
Do you have a problem with the idea of endothermic reactions?
Sure, the temperature is stable, at the surface where the solid and liquid phases of H2O meet. That's what you meant, right?

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by dywolf · 2014-05-14 05:02 · Score: 1

its not compensating.
its reacting.
the system as a whole is attempting to reach equillibirum.
at the boundary layer, at the water/ice interface, the ice gets warmer, and the water gets colder.
if the water gets colder enough, it will freeze.
likewise, if the ice gets wamer enough, it will melt.
in actuality, if you split it into fine enough pieces (Finite Element Analysis) you would see both occuring at the same time; but since we dont really care about the individual molecules, but rather than the system as a whole, the fact we see more ice melting than water freezing shows us that the system as a whole is more energetic as represented by temperature than it was previously.
ergo: the ice melts.
left to its own devices, with no further inputs, the system would eventually reach an equillibrium. assuming proper quantities and masses of materials, if I have X amount of 31F ice and X amount of 33F water, and mix them, equilibrium is achieved at 32F. The system is stable; it changes no further. At the molecule level (finite element analysis) yes, some molecules are freezing and others are melting, but on the whole its occuring in equal quantitites and the system is stable. It will not change any further, WITHOUT FURTHER INPUTS. could just as easily say 30F ice + 33F water, stable system at 31.5, expect the whole system freeze, or 32F ice and 34F water, stable at 33F, expect the whole system to melt. the specifics arent the point, the point is the equilibrium point will be achieved and will not change unless further inputs to the system occur (and this is why he sayd your grasp of thermodynamics is weak).
and the other key points that were made was that not only is the ice melting and not reaching equilibrium (the process slows the closer it gets to equilibrium), but the rate at which it is melting is increasing. and we have physically measured the water temperatures and shown that they are increasing. its not a stable system. thermdynamically, the loop we're trying to look at is not closed. we can partition off the system we are trying to look at, but we effectively have an input into the system that is not being compensated for with an equal output. which means the system is steadily increasing in total energy.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-14 08:19 · Score: 1

compensating == reacting
That's just semantics.
A *reaction* that stabilizes temperature to an equilibrium is effectively the same as a *compensation* that stabilizes temperature to an equilibrium -> that is to say, temperature can be stable during the melting of ice...in fact, it is the melting of ice that *keeps* it stable.
Further, rate of ice melting isn't driven solely, or arguably even *primarily* by atmospheric drivers:
http://nov79.com/gbwm/icemelt....
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by khallow · 2014-05-15 06:56 · Score: 1

A completely enclosing dyson sphere at any distance experiences over 13,000 TRILLION times the energy consumption of the earth.
There is no set energy consumption for a Dyson sphere. The original concept by Dyson himself was an orbiting cloud or "Dyson swarm" of objects which intercept all energy from a star. That doesn't inherently need any energy consumption in order to exist. In practice, energy will be needed to be consumed in order to maintain the Dyson swarm's integrity (such as maneuver to avoid collisions, the clearing of debris, and replacement of swarm components). But that would probably be remarkably insignificant compared to the energy intercepted by the swarm.

And as I already noted, the Earth intercepts roughly a billionth (more accurately one in two billion parts) of the Sun's energy.

Building a dyson sphere--even a partial one--requires space mining; a dyson sphere provides the energy for space mining. Terrestrial energy sources can't manage it.

That is not terribly important. Anything which intercepts solar radiation and uses it for productive uses would become part of the growing Dyson swarm, even if it is based on a planet or other body. And Earth-based solar power (and other sources of power) is more than adequate to begin the process of building extraterrestrial solar power.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bluefoxlucid · 2014-05-15 07:53 · Score: 1

The energy consumption of the earth is known. The solar output of the sun is known. A dyson sphere enclosing the sun would collect, at 40% efficiency using our best parabolic collector sterling engine generators, 13,000 trillion times the energy consumption of the earth.
Getting the first useful bits of the dyson sphere up and in operation--hitting the break-even point--would bankrupt the global economy. Actually having a functional Dyson sphere would provide effectively infinite energy and material of all kinds, since we can create any material using arbitrary mass and a fusor.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by khallow · 2014-05-15 09:36 · Score: 1

The energy consumption of the earth is known.

That energy consumption is zero. No energy is required in order for the Earth to intercept energy from the Sun. Many things including human civilization have evolved to use that intercepted energy, but that's a different situation - just like figuring out what to do with the 40% (or more!) of the Sun's output that you captured is a different problem than inveigling to intercept that power in the first place.

Getting the first useful bits of the dyson sphere up and in operation--hitting the break-even point--would bankrupt the global economy.
And as I already noted, it has already happened. The Earth already is that billionth piece of the Dyson sphere.

Actually having a functional Dyson sphere would provide effectively infinite energy and material of all kinds, since we can create any material using arbitrary mass and a fusor.

No, it wouldn't since the energy and mass involved are quite finite. For example, one really obvious and open-ended use of that mass and energy is exponential population growth.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bluefoxlucid · 2014-05-15 12:27 · Score: 1

It's a flow resource that's difficult to store (you can store it as nuclear material). If you're not using 100% of the flow, have no plans to use 100% of the flow, and have no real way to use 100% of the flow, it's effectively infinite.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by khallow · 2014-05-15 12:56 · Score: 1

If you're not using 100% of the flow, have no plans to use 100% of the flow, and have no real way to use 100% of the flow, it's effectively infinite.

And when you do have plans for all of it, it is effectively finite.
Re:But the Antarctic is gaining ice! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:53 · Score: 0

and any attempt at doing:

since we can create any material using arbitrary mass and a fusor.

makes it *not* effectively infinite anymore ...

Should solve water shortage issues... by unixisc · 2014-05-12 07:25 · Score: 0

We keep reading about how ground water tables & other water shortages are coming. Well, this one should make plenty of more water available and since the oceans would presumably be less saline as a result of all that extra water, desalination should be easier. It would solve water problems in higher regions - the ones that don't go the way of Maldives, presumably.

Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, let's find out if that's actually true. Here's a math problem: The salinity of the ocean is 3.5%, and the ocean has an average depth of 3700 meters. If enough fresh water is added to the ocean to increase its depth by 3 meters, what is the new salinity of the ocean?
(Answer: 3.5%, i.e. not significantly different from before.)
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by ChadL · 2014-05-12 07:36 · Score: 1

Reading the wiki on both desalinization via boiling and reverse osmosis indicates the vast majority of the energy in both methods (ether boiling the water under a vacuum or pumping at a high pressure) seem to be independent of how much salt it has to remove; so reducing the salt content by a few percent won't reduce the energy consumption (but will flood most existing plants and require more energy to have them rebuilt).
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:52 · Score: 0

Well, the average depth of the ocean is about 14,000 feet (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html)
So another 10 feet would dilute the salinity of the oceans by a good.... .07%
I don't think that makes an impact that's of any significance to desalination efforts.
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by sosume · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: 1

Exactly. Employ large scale desalinization plants near the coast of western Africa and just keep pumping that water into the Sahara. Africa would have to be recolonized to make it happen in time though.
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:45 · Score: 0

You are incorrectly assuming that the water is mixed to uniformity.
To see how incorrect you are, look at the sea around the mouths of rivers.
Using YOUR system the silt coming from these rivers will make zero difference because it gets spread across the entire sea bed.
Using FACTS, i.e. photos, we can see the silt is more concentrated the closer we get to the river mouth, and the silt make a large difference for miles out to sea.
So your "Answer", based on gross simplification doe not hold water (pun intended)
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:32 · Score: 0

the ocean has an average depth of 3700 meters. If enough fresh water is added to the ocean to increase its depth by 3 meters, what is the new salinity of the ocean?
What you're leaving out is as the ocean rises, the surface area increases enormously, therefore considerably more water will be required for each foot of rise. It's not even close to a linear relationship to the present depth of the oceans.
--fyngyrz / anon due to mod points
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by danbert8 · 2014-05-12 13:38 · Score: 1

Ohh I love math. The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×10^18 kg. Of that 0.039% is CO2. If we burn all the hydrocarbons in known reserves of the top 17 oil producing countries (1.3x10^12 bbl) assuming 443 kg of CO2 per bbl of oil (found online) and let's assume that all the H2O released falls as rain (making the water problem easier too!). Also, let's neglect the loss of oxygen from all that combustion since we have plenty of excess... So we have:
2x10^15 KG current mass of CO2
5.8x10^14 KG additional mass of CO2
So now with all that burned oil we are at 0.05% CO2 an increase of 0.01%. But you just said tiny percent changes aren't significant...

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 14:56 · Score: 1

You're comparing solids (silt) to dissolved minerals (salt) and liquids (fresh water), dumbass
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Xyrus · 2014-05-13 01:00 · Score: 1

Well, let's find out if that's actually true. Here's a math problem: The salinity of the ocean is 3.5%, and the ocean has an average depth of 3700 meters. If enough fresh water is added to the ocean to increase its depth by 3 meters, what is the new salinity of the ocean?
(Answer: 3.5%, i.e. not significantly different from before.)
This isn't a math problem. It's an oceanography problem. Oceans are not well mixed entities. If you add a bunch of freshwater to the ocean it does not become instantly mixed. Reducing salinity in the top 3 meters of the ocean would have significant climatological impacts.

--
~X~
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by Whibla · 2014-05-13 01:11 · Score: 1

So now with all that burned oil we are at 0.05% CO2 an increase of 0.01%. But you just said tiny percent changes aren't significant...
emphasis mine...
His example: Salinity of 3.5% changes to 3.497% with an increase in ocean levels of 3 meters. This is a relative change of -0.08%. As he said, not significantly different from before.
Your example: 0.039% CO2 changes to 0.05% CO2 after burning the majority of our fossil fuel reserves. This is a relative change of 28.20%. Unlike you imply, this is pretty significant.

Ohh I love math.
There was a reason for Disraeli 's comment about lies, damn lies, and statistics and I suspect he was thinking about someone just like you when he said it.
Re:Should solve water shortage issues... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 11:03 · Score: 1

No, the surface area increases somewhat but not enormously. Oceans already cover more than 70% of the Earth's surface.

Speed it up? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:28 · Score: 0

Anything I can do to speed it up? 100 years is too long to wait, I want beachfront now.

Re:Speed it up? by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 11:16 · Score: 1

You could take your fire boat down there and start spraying the front of the glaciers with water. That will speed up the rate of melt.

A crisis? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:28 · Score: 2

I'm a bit puzzled. If it will truly become a crisis, does it not suggest that the ice was frozen for all time and has never in history been running water?

Wouldn't that mean that eons ago, we had a crisis to solve and managed to create the worlds biggest ice-box in the process... who cares if it made some dino-ice cubes?

The world is constantly changing, for better or worse, and people always seem genuinely surprised when it changes.

Re:A crisis? by Noah+Haders · 2014-05-12 08:22 · Score: 1

It's only a crisis from a narrow minded perspective of puny humans
Re:A crisis? by Jmc23 · 2014-05-12 08:26 · Score: 1

No, eons ago we didn't exist, therefore no problem.
You do realize that humans were not as numerous nor did they occupy the same geographic locations in the past as they do now right?
I have to ask because this site is very US centric, and they don't seem to do well with geography and/or earth timelines. (which will probably get me modded down even though both camps complain about the other)

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:A crisis? by Jason+Levine · 2014-05-12 08:31 · Score: 2

The crisis isn't "all life will end on the Earth." If we keep burning fossil fuels like crazy and warm the Earth, we might end up disappearing, but life will adapt. Maybe one day, a million years from now, some intelligent creatures will dig up the remains of our society and wonder just how we killed ourselves off.
The problem is that rising sea levels and rapidly changing global climate patterns will disrupt our lives. Food that was able to be grown in certain locations won't be able to be grown there anymore. Maybe it'll be able to be grown somewhere else (necessitating building a new supply chain to the new growth spot) or maybe it won't be able to be grown at all anymore. Worse storms/rising sea levels will cause more flooding and damage to homes and businesses. This will cost quite a lot economically to deal with. Some economies, especially those that depend on businesses that can't survive due to climate change, won't be able to handle this.
Ignoring the problem or having companies with financial interests counter to conservation lobby Congress to hold "debates" on the subject isn't making it go away. Life will survive and might even thrive as the climate changes. We might not be so lucky though.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:A crisis? by AdamHaun · 2014-05-12 08:35 · Score: 1

Wouldn't that mean that eons ago, we had a crisis to solve and managed to create the worlds biggest ice-box in the process...
There was no "we". That ice sheet formed tens of millions of years ago, which means it is older than hominids (not just humans). The "crisis" involved was a mass extinction event, which did not in any way get "solved".

The world is constantly changing, for better or worse, and people always seem genuinely surprised when it changes.
Yeah, having agriculture and cities will do that to you.

--
Visit the
Re:A crisis? by houstonbofh · 2014-05-12 08:55 · Score: 1

No, eons ago we didn't exist, therefore no problem.
You do realize that humans were not as numerous nor did they occupy the same geographic locations in the past as they do now right?
I have to ask because this site is very US centric, and they don't seem to do well with geography and/or earth timelines. (which will probably get me modded down even though both camps complain about the other)
Humans did not even occupy Florida much until the advent of air conditioning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... And perhaps it will go back to pre 1950 levels...
Re:A crisis? by Sigmon · 2014-05-12 08:56 · Score: 1

Your argument is amusing considering it is generally (historically) GOVERNMENTS that 'disrupt our lives' much more so in the manner you describe.
Re:A crisis? by houstonbofh · 2014-05-12 08:58 · Score: 1

Food that was able to be grown in certain locations won't be able to be grown there anymore. Maybe it'll be able to be grown somewhere else (necessitating building a new supply chain to the new growth spot) or maybe it won't be able to be grown at all anymore.
This is not new. There are very old historical wineries that are too far north to grow grapes. Now...
Re:A crisis? by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:20 · Score: 1

almost none of that is true, and the earth changes over millenniums, not decades.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:A crisis? by volmtech · 2014-05-12 12:24 · Score: 1

I could swear there were a lot people here before that and I didn't have air-conditioning until 1977. It will be rough to do without it but at least we wont freeze to death.
Re:A crisis? by minogully · 2014-05-12 15:48 · Score: 1

Nobody (that I know) thinks the fact that the world changing is the crisis. It's the rate at which the world is changing that is the problem. Sudden changes to the climate in the past have caused extinction events. I would call the possibility of entering another extinction event a crisis for sure.

I imagine that at least some humans would survive an extinction event, but I doubt a planet with a severely damaged ecosystem from such an event would be able to sustain the lives of 7 billion of us.
Re:A crisis? by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:50 · Score: 1

I'm a bit puzzled. If it will truly become a crisis, does it not suggest that the ice was frozen for all time and has never in history been running water?
Wouldn't that mean that eons ago, we had a crisis to solve and managed to create the worlds biggest ice-box in the process... who cares if it made some dino-ice cubes?
The world is constantly changing, for better or worse, and people always seem genuinely surprised when it changes.
Yeah, people didn't have a problem when there was a sea covering the southwestern US.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:A crisis? by dywolf · 2014-05-14 05:07 · Score: 1

people were there before, but there is a nonnegligible population spike in the "sunbelt states" from Arizona to Florida, but particuarly in the inland portions away from the cooling Gulf Coast breezes, that correlates to the advent and widespread adoption of A/C.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:A crisis? by dywolf · 2014-05-14 05:10 · Score: 1

youre conflating "local/regional problems" with "extinction level event facing the entire human race, and most of hte other species as well".
slight difference in scale.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Everybody PANIC! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:29 · Score: 0

You only have a century or more (maybe) to be prepared!

On the plus side think about a whole new industry that will form around managing changing shorelines / levees / seawalls / dikes / etc

Start investing in IJkdijk!

Meteor Impact! by us7892 · 2014-05-12 07:30 · Score: 2

Nothing a good meteor impact can't fix. Apparently, we get buzzed all the time by large rocks (reference to some other article recently here.)

When it hits, we'll have of few months of darkness to fix the problem.

Re:Meteor Impact! by JWW · 2014-05-12 07:59 · Score: 2

This line of reasoning always makes me fee a bit uneasy. What if we do all the hard work of fixing the climate, only to get hit by an asteroid and have it all go to shit anyway?
I mean really, it'd be global scale Murphy's law to fix the climate and then get hit.
But in all seriousness, it does bother me to see near Earth asteroid detection projects loose funding, IMHO they are as important as climate change projects.
Re:Meteor Impact! by Tablizer · 2014-05-12 09:30 · Score: 1

Dinosaurs tried that also. Didn't work the way they thought.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Meteor Impact! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:56 · Score: 0

Well that's the news part, meteorite impact nor anything really can stop this event now. No matter what we do or don't do anymore this ice sheet is going to run into ocean. And its 10% of all antarctic ice, so its kind of new worthy. It is not instant process from our perspective, but blinking fast on geological scale.
Re:Meteor Impact! by citylivin · 2014-05-12 11:21 · Score: 1

"What if we do all the hard work of fixing the climate, only to get hit by an asteroid and have it all go to shit anyway?"
Wouldn't that mean we solved the hard problems and now have the infrastructure and know-how in place to solve the problem again but quicker and easier?
I think its far easier to troubleshoot and solve the same problem the second time. Considering in your theoretical example that we have already solved the problem once.

--
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Re:Meteor Impact! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:51 · Score: 0

I can only imagine it now. People rejoicing for finally fixing the mess the past generation has left them in... then comes Halley's comet whooshing down from the sky.
I can also hear a collective "Motherf-" as well.
Re:Meteor Impact! by Nemyst · 2014-05-12 15:46 · Score: 1

That's the thing: climate change projects are also losing funding. There's no big corporation having interests in either, so they're getting dumped on the wayside. Hooray for capitalism?
Re:Meteor Impact! by JWW · 2014-05-13 03:13 · Score: 1

Except we'd have to solve the OPPOSITE problem.

Awwww not this shit again! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:30 · Score: 0

Awwww not this shit again!

Looking forward to future spin by Frequency+Domain · 2014-05-12 07:31 · Score: 4, Funny

NYC, the new Venice!

Re:Looking forward to future spin by ArcadeMan · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: 1

NYC is underwater now. Welcome to NNY!

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Looking forward to future spin by CanHasDIY · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: 1

Venice, the new Atlantis!

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Looking forward to future spin by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:40 · Score: 0

NYC, the new Venice!
Or perhaps the New Amsterdam. :)
Re:Looking forward to future spin by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:42 · Score: 0

NYC, the new Venice!
Venice, the new Atlantis!

In other words... by PortHaven · 2014-05-12 07:32 · Score: 4, Funny

California should build MASSIVE quantities of desalanization plants along the coast. So that we can keep the oceans properly salined. While extract massive amounts of water to turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region, and keep sea levels in check. Start now!!!

Re:In other words... by RichMan · 2014-05-12 07:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Nobody should build anything along the coast. At least any coast that is not at least 100m above sea level.
Push the button for the interactive map -
http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
Re:In other words... by fustakrakich · 2014-05-12 08:17 · Score: 1

...turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region...
Do that, and see real fast climate change. It could just put half the Midwest under water again.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:25 · Score: 0

100m? The article suggests that we should only expect a 10 ft. rise from Antarctic ice. Given that this is where the bulk of the world's ice is, 100m is not even remotely believable.
Re:In other words... by JimSadler · 2014-05-12 08:26 · Score: 1

Considering the potential earthquake disasters on the west coast perhaps that land should be reserved for farming only and the population moved to a safer area. For example a major quake in San Francisco really has the potential to bankrupt the US. Imagine the billions in insured losses that would have to be covered. But instead of rational behavior they will probably build more nuclear reactors on the beaches.
Re:In other words... by rogoshen1 · 2014-05-12 08:27 · Score: 1

Arizona bay may just become a reality?
Re:In other words... by Mashiki · 2014-05-12 08:31 · Score: 0

Oh...this shit again.
I remember back in grade 3(the '80's), they went on and on and on and fucking on. About how everything under 100m above sea level would be under water by 2010. I should see if I can find the "work books" that were given to us as kids back then. As I sit here, that 100m sea level increase still hasn't happened. This of course went along with the "there won't be any trees here in north america" of course we have more trees now than 300 years ago. That there would be no rain forests, odd they're still there. The sahara desert will cover all of africa, odd it seems to be shrinking. I'm sure I'm forgetting a dozen other things too.
I really need to find those books/texts/worksheets, scan them, and post them online.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:36 · Score: 0

California should build MASSIVE quantities of desalanization plants along the coast. So that we can keep the oceans properly salined. While extract massive amounts of water to turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region, and keep sea levels in check. Start now!!!
This is an idea I have been thinking about myself. I don't know if it can be done on such a large scale -- but the water released from ice melt could turn the Sahara green again. The excess CO2 that has been released would also help increase plant growth as well. Increasing the amount of photosynthesis going on is something governments should be looking at.
Re:In other words... by RichMan · 2014-05-12 08:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Thats 10ft due to the west antarctic ice sheet. There is a lot more ice out there.
10m =~ 30ft
----
The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today. It’s likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions.
----
And there are factors other than ice melt.
---
In China, the Yellow River delta is currently sinking so fast that local sea levels are rising by up to 25 centimeters per year, nearly 100 times the global average. Places that were once covered by kilometers of ice, like northern Canada, are now rebounding upwards — which means local sea levels are actually falling in some parts of Alaska. But that upward-moving land is hinging nearby areas, like the U.S. East Coast, downward by millimeters per year — adding millimeters per year to the local sea level rise there. The U.S. East Coast has another problem too: Climate change is weakening the Gulf Stream current, and that is allowing water to slop back towards shore. Overall, the U.S. East Coast is seeing rates of sea level rise that are 3 to 4 times the global average. The tropics, meanwhile, are seeing extra sea level rise thanks to a strange gravitational effect. As high-latitude ice melts, there is less mass at the poles to pull ocean water towards them; instead, the water slopes more towards the equator.
Re:In other words... by houstonbofh · 2014-05-12 08:53 · Score: 1

They did. Then they closed them... http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:59 · Score: 0

California should build MASSIVE quantities of coal-powered desalanization plants along the coast. So that we can keep the oceans properly salined. While extract massive amounts of water to turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region, and keep sea levels in check. Start now!!!
FTFY
Re:In other words... by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:13 · Score: 1

Build them on platforms that can rise.
And EVERY coastal state should be building desalination plants.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:In other words... by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:18 · Score: 1

"I really need to find those books/texts/worksheets, scan them, and post them online."
yes you should, then we can tell you why you are wrong.
Of course since you don't understand even the most basic science, I doubt you will understand any responses above the ability of a 3rd grader. Irony.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:06 · Score: 1

But he isn't wrong in that his argument is that extreme hyperbole in the past that didn't pan out has caused him to distrust future warnings on the same subject. It is very likely that the books he remembers were wrong. That doesn't make the concept of climate change wrong, but it sure as hell dissuaded this dude from being interested in it.
You are trying to talk to a guy that is basing his thoughts on memories of "work books" from 3rd grade. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that he still has these books from the 3rd grade. Sadly some points cannot be made to some people.
Re:In other words... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 11:13 · Score: 1

The extreme hyperbole is coming from those who don't do science. When you really look at what the scientists are saying and the qualifications they put on what they are saying they are mostly on the conservative side. I have no doubt that if he finds his workbooks he will find that he completely misremembered what was said in them.
Re:In other words... by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:43 · Score: 1

its 10 feet in centuries! Your not going to make desalination plants with expected lifetimes in centuries anyway.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:In other words... by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:47 · Score: 1

Thats 10ft due to the west antarctic ice sheet. There is a lot more ice out there.
Turns out not really, at least in the short term (hundreds of years is short term). Greenland is perhaps the next biggest (thousands to 10s of thousands of years). The western ice sheet is important because it is unstable and has been melting for pretty much since we started studying it. However some of the instability is from isostatic rebound. That is really really slow.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

99.9%+ of the people alive today will not live to see the crisis, or even live long enough to know whether or not the crisis will actually occur.

Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Kind of convenient, since none of the people predicting all this chaos will be around to answer for it if their predictions come out completely wrong.
It's a con artists dream:
"Hey the world is going to end 100 years from now. Give me lots of money and I'll help your descendents deal with it."
[cut to said descendents 100 years later] "That lying sonofabitch..."
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 2

We're already seeing large scale changes. The crisis *is* actually occurring.
Re:Translation... by Noah+Haders · 2014-05-12 08:08 · Score: 1

Agreed, this was an odd statement in the summary. "Waters will rise 10 feet over the next century, and then it will become a crisis." Thanks egon Spengler! I think it's alarming enough that waters will rise 10 feet, let alone what happens after!
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:13 · Score: 1

It's even better that that.
If nothing happens: "Your donations put a stop to it"
If it happens anyways: "Think of how much worse the problem would be without your generous donations, and in spite of our best effort."
Acting like they could be proven wrong is just falling into their trap.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-12 08:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

We're already seeing large scale changes. The crisis *is* actually occurring.
What, specifically, are these "large scale changes" you claim we're already seeing? I am sure many people would be interested to know, since most of us aren't seeing them.

But then, most of us don't see 6-foot rabbits, either. I suppose that isn't proof they don't exist.
Re:Translation... by Vintermann · 2014-05-12 08:22 · Score: 1

The crisis doesn't happen the year the ice sheet is entirely gone and we say "Yup, sea level is 10 ft. higher!"
We will live more than long enough to see bad consequences of sea level rise, let alone global warming in general.
But sure, at every step of the way there will be people saying "we dont know if it will actually get any worse than this", "The rise in the rate of change of temperature appears to have flattened out", etc.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Translation... by Talderas · 2014-05-12 08:23 · Score: 0

I saw a 6 foot rabbit once. It was during a showing of Harvey.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Translation... by Vintermann · 2014-05-12 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

You mostly need to use science to see it, unless you live in unfortunate areas like the arctic. It still happens gradually enough that you can conveniently forget that things were ever different if you go by your trusty, truthy gut feeling.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Translation... by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-05-12 08:30 · Score: 0

Hmmm. I nerver saw a six foot rabbt, I did hear one once during a showing of Harvey.
Re:Translation... by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-05-12 08:46 · Score: 1

Agreed, this was an odd statement in the summary. "Waters will rise 10 feet over the next century, and then it will become a crisis."
Actually, TFS didn't say that. It said that waters will rise 10 feet. And that not much will happen for the next century. But in a few centuries it'll be a crisis....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:00 · Score: -1

But sure, at every step of the way there will be people saying "we dont know if it will actually get any worse than this", "The rise in the rate of change of temperature appears to have flattened out", etc.
Of course we know it will get worse! There is scientific consensus that the IPCC report is correct. The IPCC report says that global sea levels will rise by 1935.6955 feet by 2099.
Go ahead denialists, try to pretend that a 1935.6955 foot sea level rise won't be worse! Pretend you won't notice! Sure SOME of Mt Everest will still be sticking out of the global ocean, but we can't fit 7.77 billion people on Mt Everest!!
Re:Translation... by geekoid · 2014-05-12 09:30 · Score: 1

Maybe you should pull your head out of...the sand.
Warmer and longer summers, warmer winters, winter with a maple syrup isn't happening, beetles that normally die off in the winter aren't, so they are reaping more devastation. hotter fires, more energy in storms in general.
On and on.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-12 09:31 · Score: 0, Troll

You mostly need to use science to see it, unless you live in unfortunate areas like the arctic. It still happens gradually enough that you can conveniently forget that things were ever different if you go by your trusty, truthy gut feeling.
Ah. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet? The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?

Just curious. I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
Re: Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:45 · Score: 0

Sig figs.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:59 · Score: 0

It's not a crisis unless you're the last one trying to sell that beachfront property.
Re:Translation... by westlake · 2014-05-12 10:09 · Score: 1

99.9%+ of the people alive today will not live to see the crisis, or even live long enough to know whether or not the crisis will actually occur.
Investment strategies and estate planning. The ice is melting. The seas will rise. That will have a negative effect on the value of coastal properties long before they are flooded.
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-12 10:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is a list of the 10 warmest years, globally, since 1880. That's 134 years ago.
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012
Do you notice any trend or commonality among those data points?
Re:Translation... by bzipitidoo · 2014-05-12 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do you have any problem with the fact that some time in the distant future, the sun will stop shining? Maybe 5 billion years from now? No problem?
Okay, how about the fact that rivers change course? The Mississippi might have already switched to the Atchafalaya, if not for our meddling. We don't want New Orleans made useless. No problem with that either?
Then, what of the fact that large and powerful corporations lie, and engage in propaganda campaigns? You know, like Big Tobacco did? And like Wall Street did not too long ago with home mortgages? And like Big Oil does now? Big Oil lies about a lot of things, like the safety of offshore oil drilling. An accident like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill wasn't supposed to happen. When it did, they kept right on lying, about the rate of the leak and the amount of damage it was doing. Are we still okay here? Corporations routinely tell self serving lies, agreed? And surely you see that, whether or not Climate Disruption is real, Big Oil is highly motivated to be dismissive of warnings about it. If Climate Disruption is real and a huge problem, and Big Oil knows it, would they attempt to distract and deceive the public with propaganda campaigns? Yes, yes, they would. Still with me, I hope?
Now let's look at the other side. Either a) scientists are right and Climate Disruption is real, happening right now, and will cause huge problems. Or b) scientists are united in a big conspiracy to lie about Climate Disruption because it gets them more grant money, or c) scientists are morons and are getting it all wrong. The trouble with b) and c) is that they are not at all credible. I hope no one seriously credits c), it's just too implausible. As for b), you do realize that the flow of grant money does not much depend on the subject matter. If anything, being forced to study and restudy the climate takes away money that could have been used for other science. The public has turned negative and cut back funding for all science, so I'd have to say the Great Conspiracy, if it exists, is not working and if anything is backfiring. And do you suppose smarties like scientists wouldn't see that? And if their main interest was grant money, wouldn't they change their tune to the nicey nicey good news the public seems to want? Why haven't they done so then? Why haven't they dropped this story of Climate Disruption like a radioactive spud, given the damage it's doing to scientific funding? Could it be because it's real, and scientists are honestly worried about it?
Also, don't you understand how competitive science can be? For the time being we're stuck with anti-competitive oligopolies in oil and banking and several other industries. But not in science. If a few scientists had good evidence that Climate Disruption was wrong, do you suppose they would keep quiet and maintain the front? No way! They'd all be scrambling to publish first. It'd be a bombshell, like figuring out how to build a usable quantum computer and breaking many and perhaps all of our public key encryption schemes.
As for the evidence you demand, the "large scale changes", you have only to open your eyes and admit that what's right in front of your nose is indeed exactly that. Just 180 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm. Now it's 400ppm, certainly higher than it has been in nearly 1 million years, and probably higher than any level in the last 20 million years. That is a very fast change. We're seeing ocean acidification. And we are indeed seeing higher average temperatures. In recent years, we've had far more record highs than record lows. The Arctic Ice Cap is smaller than it has ever been in recorded history. Antarctic ice shelves such as Larson A and B have collapsed. How can you hear of such events and not think they are significant?

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:Translation... by khayman80 · 2014-05-12 10:30 · Score: 4, Informative

You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?
False. Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, and reliable estimates of Antarctic sea ice volume (or mass) aren't available.
Even if you meant to refer to Antarctic sea ice extent (not mass), you already ignored me when I told you that this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: " sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
But maybe you'll listen to the National Academy of Sciences, if you honestly don't think the National Academy of Sciences is "alarmist". Again, their recent report is educational. They address Antarctic sea ice in question 12.

The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Jane and Lonny Eacus have repeatedly ignored me whenever I've told you that there's been no statistically significant change in the surface warming rate. But if you honestly doesn't think the NAS is alarmist, you might learn something from their answers to questions 9 and 10. This point is particularly relevant: "More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2."

I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
No, that's not science the way it's practiced by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, the American Quaternary Association, the American Society of Agronomy, the
Re:Translation... by nadaou · 2014-05-12 10:31 · Score: 1

What, specifically, are these "large scale changes" you claim we're already seeing?
um, the arctic ice cap is almost gone. that's one pretty fucking obvious thing with huge global albedo budget implications.
https://sites.google.com/site/...

--
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Re: Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:33 · Score: 0

So where's 2008 and what made 1998 so warm?
Re:Translation... by khayman80 · 2014-05-12 10:41 · Score: 1

Also, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Re:Translation... by KeensMustard · 2014-05-12 10:42 · Score: 1

Ah. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?
Citation needed.

The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Depending on who you ask?
Has there been a warming trend over the last 15-17 years, or hasn't there - and how, in the name of Zombie Tyndall, is that a 'long term trend'?

Just curious. I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
Which is of course ironic, because you just said "mass" when you meant "surface area", and labelled the last 15 year of slower warming "a long term trend".
Re:Translation... by khayman80 · 2014-05-12 10:46 · Score: 1

Also, I didn't mean to misspell Lonny Eachus. Sorry.
Re:Translation... by tp1024 · 2014-05-12 10:55 · Score: 1

Well, I haven't seen 6-foot rabbits either. But their absence is not for want of trying.
Re:Translation... by tp1024 · 2014-05-12 10:57 · Score: 0

Yes, they are in random order. As you would expect after warming has stopped.
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-12 11:07 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Holy shit. This site is full of idiots.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:43 · Score: 2, Informative

. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?
Yes exactly right.

The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?

Anytime anyone cites 1998 you know they are willfully ignorant. Picking a local maxima as a starting point for measurement may fool the average guy on the street but anyone on slashdot who believes it is meaningful is making a deliberate choice to lie. In your case, the fact that your very next sentence is railing against exactly that kind of deception beggars belief. That level of arrogance deserves a gold medal, so no surprise that the captcha here is "medals.,"
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

You know, that sentiment cuts both ways. None of the people who are blocking action on AGW will be around to be pilloried either if it turns out that they were wrong.
Re:Translation... by danbert8 · 2014-05-12 12:48 · Score: 1

Right, it's even worse... They say it's not very bad now, and it won't get any worse in any of your lifetimes, but it'll get REALLY bad when no one can verify these claims. We SWEAR! The computer models say so!

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Translation... by danbert8 · 2014-05-12 12:53 · Score: 0

Hmm, those seem to all be years where we had digital thermometers...

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-12 12:56 · Score: 2

Has there been a warming trend over the last 15-17 years, or hasn't there - and how, in the name of Zombie Tyndall, is that a 'long term trend'?
In our world of instant gratification 15-17 years seems like forever, especially to the younger ones. But the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years by the World Meteorological Organization for a reason. It's long enough for the decadal and shorter cycles to average out.
BTW, "Zombie Tyndall", I like that.
Re:Translation... by danbert8 · 2014-05-12 13:12 · Score: 1

Here's my problems:
1) I don't find a big oil conspiracy any more convincing than a big science conspiracy.
2) The warming science may be settled, but there is a flaw in the science. It fundamentally cannot be tested. All of these predictions are based on models that are based on research and science, but we don't have a model that has actually produced predictive forecasting. Nor do I think we will ever be able to. The temperature fluctuations on the planet are based on tons of variables and human influence is a part of it, but how much a part changes depending on the other variables.
3) The part that really gets me is all the talk of horrible catastrophes. Humans have adapted to many changes and migrations throughout history. Now we are saying that a 10' ocean rise over 1000 years will be so horrible we must make changes today that will cause demonstrable harm. Also, where are the positives of global warming? It doesn't seem very scientific to research all this ocean depth/acidification/desertification/severe storms/whatever other disasters will happen if the planet gets warmer and leave out potential new farmland, longer growing seasons, increased crop production, new livable areas. It seems to me looking at a globe that there is far more landmass that can't sustain human settlement because it is too cold than there is because it's too hot.
4) 1000 years ago, there were little to no permanent human settlements on the coasts in North and South America. Today the population along the coasts in just the US is probably comparable to the world human population 1000 years ago. (actually I looked it up, looks like around 125 million in the US live in a coastal county and the estimated world population in the year 1000 was around 300 million, but still interesting point)

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Translation... by Illserve · 2014-05-12 14:30 · Score: 2

Also, don't you understand how competitive science can be? For the time being we're stuck with anti-competitive oligopolies in oil and banking and several other industries. But not in science. If a few scientists had good evidence that Climate Disruption was wrong, do you suppose they would keep quiet and maintain the front? No way! They'd all be scrambling to publish first. It'd be a bombshell, like figuring out how to build a usable quantum computer and breaking many and perhaps all of our public key encryption schemes.
Sadly this last point you make isn't true at all. Speaking as a scientist I can point to quite a few cases where a scientist who could clearly prove that the establishment was wrong were ignored and ridiculed.
The best example is Ignaz Semmelweis, who could easily prove that washing his hands prior to surgery or delivering babies led to fewer fatalities. He was mocked by the scientific community, and eventually institutionalized and beaten to death.
I wish that science functioned differently but it doesn't. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a huge incentive to disprove global warming. Such a paper is actually quite hard to publish, and even if published such a finding could easily disappear, silently ignored, into the oblivion of our vast scientific literature.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 15:20 · Score: 0

When the food riots start, I plan to eat their grandchildren.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 15:26 · Score: 0

Here is a list of the 10 warmest years, globally, since 1880. That's 134 years ago.
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012
Do you notice any trend or commonality among those data points?
Wow, a whole 134 years. That's like sticking your hand out the car window for one second and using that "data" to extrapolate the temperature/climate for the next thousand years.
Re:Translation... by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 16:17 · Score: 1

You mostly need to use science to see it
You misspelled "imagination" - since there is no real science that says anything like that.
It still happens gradually enough...
That humans can easily adapt, so why are people like you trying to spread panic?
In really is a shame that you can't be put on trial for disseminating an overage of fear with no basis.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-12 16:51 · Score: 1

I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to authority".
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-12 16:58 · Score: 1

Just 180 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm. Now it's 400ppm, certainly higher than it has been in nearly 1 million years, and probably higher than any level in the last 20 million years.
And about 20000 years ago, global temperatures were several degrees lower, sea levels were hundreds of feet lower, and large parts of the US and Europe were covered in ice. So what? We live on a dynamic planet.
Most of the fossil fuel carbon was in the atmosphere at once during the carboniferous era when we had, when life was lush and abundant. What are you worried about?

The Arctic Ice Cap is smaller than it has ever been in recorded history.
Good. If we're lucky the damned thing will melt away entirely. Mammals and primates were doing just fine without it through most of their existence.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 17:18 · Score: 0

When people talk about 'warmest years, globally", is that an area weighted measure? Is it integrated with respect to time? What about the increase in population centres, weather measuring stations etc since 1880.
Perhaps these are the warmest years observed by satellite imagery since 1830.
Because the boundary and initial conditions are undefined, the statement is complete bullshit.
Re:Translation... by KeensMustard · 2014-05-12 19:49 · Score: 1

Perhaps not the individuals, but the corporations who currently fund fraudulent denialists campaigns will be.
So will the capital which currently belongs to high profile denialists. Thanks to the internet we have an excellent record of who said what, when, who made a claim in contradiction to the science, was corrected, and then made the same claim again.
At the moment these behaviours are mostly tolerated, but as climate change starts to bite and community anger grows, attention will turn to those responsible for blocking action, advocating against action, launching smear campaigns against those advocating action.
Litigation is inevitable, against the corporations, yes, but also I suspect against those in the next tier down, and if they are dead, then their assets and those who hold them.
After all, action will be required no matter how late we start, and the later we start, the more expensive (since the more change, the more must be spent on adaptation in addition to mitigation). That money must be found from somewhere. It seems entirely reasonable to extract some of it from the people chiefly responsible for the mess we are/will be in.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 22:05 · Score: 0

So, then, we should throw our weight behind efforts to extend human life? THEN the fat cats will care?
Re:Translation... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-12 23:27 · Score: 1

And about 20000 years ago, global temperatures were several degrees lower, sea levels were hundreds of feet lower, and large parts of the US and Europe were covered in ice. So what? We live on a dynamic planet.
Yep and it was fine. Although the majority of the world's 7 billion people lived then as now within the region as to be flooded, the ancients fuilt an impressive series of damns and force-fields, the archaeological evidence of which can clearly be seen.
No one sane is claiming that the earth and all life or even humans are going to be wiped out by global warming. No one sane would also claim that there won't be problems associated with it especially as it's changing particularly quickly.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:04 · Score: 0

Yes, more advanced temperature measuring devices.
How accurate do you really think a thermometer made in 1880 is compared to a digital, fully calibrated one made in the last 10 years? Especially when we're talking about less than a single degree difference.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:46 · Score: 0

You seem to be of the opinion that all global warming is a result of man. What percentage of global warming is man made?
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 01:03 · Score: 0

Then it's up to you to show their findings incorrect. They've done the work, have you? Original work only, please, as you seem to take issue with referring to those knowledgeable in their respective fields. Take your time, I'll wait.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-13 01:45 · Score: 1

I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to every authority on the matter".
FTFY
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 01:56 · Score: 1

Almost everybody you listed is not an authority on the matter.
The problem is that you misrepresent an obfuscate what scientists and science says.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-13 02:12 · Score: 1

Almost everybody you listed is not an authority on the matter.
The problem is that you misrepresent an obfuscate what scientists and science says.
First, it wasn't my list. Second, if Atmospheric, Oceanographic, Meteorologic societies aren't authorities, I wonder what you consider an authority. Perhaps Fox News?
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 02:13 · Score: 1

Yep and it was fine. Although the majority of the world's 7 billion people lived then as now within the region as to be flooded, the ancients fuilt an impressive series of damns and force-fields, the archaeological evidence of which can clearly be seen.
Billions of people are going to be flooded by a few feet of sea level rise over a century? How exactly does that work? Do you imagine people as trees, planted in the ground, unable to move, but living for centuries? Or do you imagine some evil villain melting the polar ice caps with his giant laser beams? What kind of bizarre fictional world do you live in?
People live where they do because coastal areas are a good place to live. Sea level rise and climate change by their nature are so slow that people adapt to it without even noticing and without any significant cost: their children simply settle somewhere else than where they grew up, something they already do for many other reasons. New York City may disappear entirely and Barrow may become a megacity, you know, like so many other cities have done. You have to have an extremely childish world view to think that that's a problem.
Re:Translation... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-13 02:21 · Score: 1

Only in crazy loopy stenvar world does having to move a few billion people over the course of a century or so count as "not a problem". You can continue your crazy quest to insist that everything's OK. By all means set up as many straw men as you like.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Translation... by Dixie_Flatline · 2014-05-13 02:26 · Score: 1

1) The big oil conspiracy is out in the open. They're out to make money, and they've relatively little regard for the environment at large and the long-term prospects for it. They only care insofar as the government forces them to. The penalties for violation are fairly minor. Large corporations rarely have a sense of long-term perspective, and the oil companies know that their long-term prospects are inherently limited (oil will eventually run out), so they need to make money now while people are still willing to buy it and they can get to it so easily. Big Oil subsidies in North America are well known. Somehow, they're still getting tax breaks and incentives from governments despite the massive profits.
2) The predictive power of the models isn't exact, but that doesn't mean it's not sufficient to act on. Long term climate analysis is hard, but for our purposes, the problem isn't intractable. Think about it this way: I can already predict the climate with sufficient fidelity to know what clothes I should be putting at the front of my closet in December of 2015. The fact that I won't know the day-to-day temperatures or whether there will be wildly anomalous days where it's freakishly warm aren't relevant: December of 2015 in Canada will be cold, like it always is. (I can't predict what it'll be like in 2050 just yet, but it's almost certainly still the case that it will be colder than July 2050.) The science is better than you think it is, I reckon.
3) Some of the catastrophes are somewhat beyond our ability to fix or adapt to, for a variety of reasons, and most of them have to do with greed or fundamental undermining of the system. If you're talking about ocean acidification, for instance, it's really hard to undo. Jellyfish are taking over the oceans because we've fundamentally overfished them and upended the ecology. We're likely to see the collapse of several fisheries, and those take a long time to recover. With the added pressure of climate change, we might not see those species recover, and that means a huge portion of the world will lose an essential protein source. We're doing incredible violence to a lot of systems, and it may have been possible for them to survive them well enough, but we're hitting them on a lot of levels simultaneously. If climate change due to CO2 emissionswere the ONLY problem, I might be a little less worried--we could plant more trees, or change our farming methods, etc.--but we're in a bad spot where we've given ourselves no room to manoeuvre. Technology and science will help, but only if we sit down and believe in what the science is telling us and move to fix the problem. Deluding ourselves into rejecting the problem out of hand means that it CAN'T be solved.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 03:15 · Score: 0

like this planet?
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 03:20 · Score: 1

Only in crazy loopy stenvar world does having to move a few billion people over the course of a century or so count as "not a problem".
The only place "a few billion people move over the course of a century" is to their grave.

You can continue your crazy quest to insist that everything's OK
The world has many problems. You aren't going to fix them through crazy regulations. In any case, at least half of Americans seem to agree with my position, namely that nothing should be done for now.
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 03:25 · Score: 1

Scientific societies are just groups of people interested in a common subject and maybe with some minimal credentials. What makes you think they have any authority? Have you ever been a member of a scientific society?
Re:Translation... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-13 03:38 · Score: 1

The only place "a few billion people move over the course of a century" is to their grave.
Ah, so you're not going to have to move population centres (i.e. rebuild) for billions within 100-200 years then. Nice to know.
The world has many problems.
Er, yes...?
You aren't going to fix them through crazy regulations.
First sign of the right wing nut job: everyone who disagrees with you must be in favour of big government regulations. A clue: you made that up about me completely. You're the one dragging that into this particular subthread, not me.
In any case, at least half of Americans seem to agree with my position,
So? about 45% of Americans apparently believe in creationism too. That doesn't make them right.
You seem to have some real problems with basic logic here and are consistently confusing several different things. Namely that people who disagree with your claim (that it's all OK) must be sure that "something must be done" and that "something" must be government regulation. You are the one who brought those things into the conversation, not me.
I disagree with your claim that everything will be just fine and global flooding of almost all major current population centres over the course of 100-200 years won't cause problems.
Do you see how that sentence says nothing, not one little tiny thing at all about government regulation? So please, get off your crazy libertarian high horse and actually read what people are saying.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 04:22 · Score: 0

You're just encouraging him...
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-13 04:40 · Score: 1

First off, we've had digital thermometers for decades. And why are analog thermometers always wrong in the negative direction?
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-13 04:41 · Score: 1

The whole point is that I'm *not* talking about the next thousand years. I'm talking about this year, the past 10, and the next 10.
Re:Translation... by GNious · 2014-05-13 04:42 · Score: 1

yes - equipment was clearly not calibrated properly before 1998.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-13 04:46 · Score: 1

Scientific societies are just groups of people interested in a common subject and maybe with some minimal credentials. What makes you think they have any authority? Have you ever been a member of a scientific society?
I doubt that the official position of these societies are formed by "some with minimal credentials." Also, many listed are not "merely" societies, but are research institutes. Do you really think so little of scientists?
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-13 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why were those old thermometers always wrong in the negative direction?
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 04:49 · Score: 0

True, but I am intersted in this topic for my kids, which themselves might make me a grandfather one day. Just want the best life for them.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 05:12 · Score: 1

Digital thermometers are more precise than analog thermometers but aren't necessarily more accurate. Accurate thermometers have existed for over 300 years.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 05:17 · Score: 1

Do you really thing scientists are so stupid they never thought of any of those things? Sheesh!
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 05:21 · Score: 1

Thermometers made in the 1880's were plenty accurate. Accurate thermometers have been available for around 300 years. It doesn't really matter if the new thermometers can measure in tenths of a degree because that level of precision is not necessary for the measurements we're talking about.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 05:32 · Score: 1

Yes and the atmospheric CO2 level was around 180 ppm which was a significant factor in how cold it was.
There have always been ice caps during the time primates have existed on the Earth. That's about 7 million years. The ice caps first started forming something like 30-40 million years ago.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 06:32 · Score: 1

Since all of the known natural factors indicate we should be in a slight cooling trend for the past 40 years it's possible that more than 100% of the warming is due to the increase in CO2, primarily as a result of burning fossil fuels.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 06:34 · Score: 0

winter with a maple syrup isn't happening
What!!!!
NOW this is a crisis.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 06:38 · Score: 1

The real problem is that sea level rise is not something we can stop in any single lifetime. Even if we instantly stopped emitting CO2 today sea levels will continue to rise for several hundred years until the existing ice reaches a new equilibrium. The last time CO2 was 400 ppm sea level was some 70 feet higher than it is today. That much rise may already be baked in and it's just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 07:00 · Score: 0

They weren't until the data was normalized to get the results the researchers want.
Re:Translation... by Reziac · 2014-05-13 07:06 · Score: 1

Also there's the question of just exactly where they measured Arctic ice. Per some studies, the total mass is pretty much constant but it shifts around the pole (I'd bet this could be correlated with El Nino currents, now that I think of it), so you can measure it as increasing or decreasing if only you cherry-pick your locations.
Hell, if I picked this past winter as a trend (one unusually warm month, three with record-setting cold), I could demonstrate that we'll be deep in an ice age in less than five years. In fact, let's just use yesterday... it snowed in Bozeman.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 07:07 · Score: 0

Also, don't you understand how competitive science can be? For the time being we're stuck with anti-competitive oligopolies in oil and banking and several other industries. But not in science. If a few scientists had good evidence that Climate Disruption was wrong, do you suppose they would keep quiet and maintain the front? No way! They'd all be scrambling to publish first. It'd be a bombshell, like figuring out how to build a usable quantum computer and breaking many and perhaps all of our public key encryption schemes.
Climategate emails have shown that anyone trying to publish that sort of study would get rejected and would get their funding eliminated. Hell, at the research facility that I worked at in the early 1990's, the head honchos were telling people the only way to get their projects approved was to tie them to global climate change. So yes, option b was in play then and nothing has changed. If it's "settled science", then cut all the funding for studying it and refocus that money on mitigating the effects of the changes. If that was done, you would see so much backpedaling it would make your head spin.
Re:Translation... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-13 07:15 · Score: 1

Yes, it's all a big shadowy conspiracy for no reason.
Re:Translation... by volmtech · 2014-05-13 10:02 · Score: 1

Six paragraphs, all saying it's going to be bad, really bad. OK,OK, it's going to be bad, so what can we do? Does anyone have a congnizant plan to alleviate the problem? Not some vague "We will just transition to renewables". Has any school or foundation did a study with projections on how much the worlds economic output will fall without fossil fuels? Forcing Americans into compounds with limited, interment power to be fed a vegetarian diet will be difficult.
The talk now is that the West Antarctic ice sheet melt is irreversible so fossil fuel usage has to stop now, no transition. We just suffer until enough renewables are available and we learn to "enjoy" a more limited lifestyle. No doubt we can do it. Look at what Russia did when the Nazis attacked. If no one is actually getting bombed it wont be too bad. Just without a war machine on the horizon most people will see no need to sacrifice that much.
Re:Translation... by Magius_AR · 2014-05-13 10:25 · Score: 1

1) The big oil conspiracy is out in the open. They're out to make money
And you think the solar and wind energy companies aren't out to make money? Are they running non-profit companies?
Re:Translation... by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:42 · Score: 1

If you live in one of the many areas around the globe that flooded this year, you have lived long enough to see the crisis.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Translation... by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:44 · Score: 2

Here is a list of the 10 warmest years, globally, since 1880. That's 134 years ago.
2010 2005 1998 2003 2002 2006 2009 2007 2004 2012
Do you notice any trend or commonality among those data points?
Obviously, the warming stopped after 2012

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Translation... by Alouster · 2014-05-13 17:35 · Score: 1

Yup, your stinking rotten lowlife government is going for world domination and getting ready to tax the living shit out everyone, or kill anyone who argues against them. Bastards!!! Exact same as weapons of mass destruction. And you turds will cheer yourselves on. Piss off!
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 17:49 · Score: 1

There have always been ice caps during the time primates have existed on the Earth. That's about 7 million years.
Sorry, but your numbers are wildly wrong.
Primates evolved at least 65 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The hominid line started about 14 million years ago.

The ice caps first started forming something like 30-40 million years ago.
There was a period of glaciation about 30Ma ago, then thawing for about 15Ma, and slow reglaciation around 12Ma ago. The Quarternary glaciation, when the current permanent ice sheets appeared in the Antarctic, started 2.58Ma ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q...
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 17:58 · Score: 1

Ah, so you're not going to have to move population centres (i.e. rebuild) for billions within 100-200 years then. Nice to know.
No, of course, you don't "have to move them", they move themselves quite naturally and gradually to where they find the best jobs and homes, like they always do.

So? about 45% of Americans apparently believe in creationism too. That doesn't make them right.
No, but they have a right to be wrong.

Do you see how that sentence says nothing, not one little tiny thing at all about government regulation?
Congratulations on your attempt at hair splitting and demagoguery. Now knock it off.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 17:58 · Score: 1

Yes you're right that primates have been around a while, I was thinking of hominids, actually more specifically the genus Homo which goes back less than 4 million years. I failed to put my brain in gear before replying to you.
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-13 17:59 · Score: 1

I doubt that the official position of these societies are formed by "some with minimal credentials."
They are formulated by committees. They are subject to political pressures and peer pressures.
What they are not formulated by is a scientific process.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-13 18:01 · Score: 1

I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to authority".
Thanks for stepping in. You may have better luck with this person than I, because this person has some kind of obsession with me that is quite thoroughly documented and decidedly beyond what most people would call normal.

Even if that were not so, I have ceased arguing with him because he has an (again documented) not just penchant for making but seeming dogged determination to make straw-man and appeal-to-authority arguments against his custom distortions of my own arguments.

Anyway: best of luck. I've beat my head against brick walls that were friendlier and more logical.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-13 18:07 · Score: 1

In our world of instant gratification 15-17 years seems like forever, especially to the younger ones. But the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years by the World Meteorological Organization for a reason. It's long enough for the decadal and shorter cycles to average out.
... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss?

Seriously? You haven't noticed that nearly all the warming "evidence" seems to start around 1979? Have you looked at the actual historical temperature and climate records before then?

I have.

Be careful when you lecture about "long term trends", lest you end up not looking so smart.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-13 18:13 · Score: 1

Anytime anyone cites 1998 you know they are willfully ignorant. Picking a local maxima as a starting point for measurement may fool the average guy on the street but anyone on slashdot who believes it is meaningful is making a deliberate choice to lie. In your case, the fact that your very next sentence is railing against exactly that kind of deception beggars belief. That level of arrogance deserves a gold medal, so no surprise that the captcha here is "medals.,"
Cool! So when people measure from the local MINIMUM, like say 1979, their data is equally questionable?

Yes or no? You can't have it both ways.

If you want to go beyond the local maximum AND the local minimum, you will still see we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly.
Re:Translation... by khayman80 · 2014-05-13 18:45 · Score: 1

“If you want to go beyond the local maximum AND the local minimum, you will still see we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly.” [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

“NOBODY in their right minds has — and I certainly have not — been arguing that the globe has not been getting warmer! That is not the issue and never was. The globe has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years! The data are clear. Someone would have to be an idiot or totally uninformed to make such a claim.” [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-24]
“I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years!” [Jane Q. Public, 2008-06-22]
“Trying to prove to me that the globe is warming was a pretty silly thing to do. I do not dispute that the earth has been getting warmer, and never did! It has been trending warmer for the last 6,000 years!” [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-18]
“We know the earth has been warming. It has been doing so for approximately 6,000 years.” [Lonny Eachus, 2009-07-02]
“First, people with at least half a brain — including in the U.S. — know the climate is getting warmer. It has been trending warmer for roughly 6,000 years, industry or not.” [Jane Q. Public, 2011-07-17]
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 18:53 · Score: 1

The reason 1979 gets used a lot is because that's when the satellite era of geophysical measurement really got launched. The ground based records goes back to the mid to late 1800's and it's basically been warming since the start (and before) of those ground based temperature records.
My main point is that 17 or even 20 years is not long enough to discern the temperature trend and it can be shown statistically that it is not long enough. At this point it's not possible to say whether the warming trend from 1975 has continued or if the trend has flattened in the past 17 years. Uncertain-T
Re:Translation... by khayman80 · 2014-05-13 18:56 · Score: 1

... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss? [Jane Q. Public]

Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

Seriously? You haven't noticed that nearly all the warming "evidence" seems to start around 1979? Have you looked at the actual historical temperature and climate records before then? I have. Be careful when you lecture about "long term trends", lest you end up not looking so smart.
Kinnard et al. 2011 reconstructed Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. Again, the modern decline is quite clear.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 19:45 · Score: 0

Do you noticed that we've added 20,000 more temperature measuring stations since 1970s.
Now, most of them are in urban area.
And urban area are notoriously heat generators.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-13 21:19 · Score: 1

Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

And I can chart (or quote others who have charted) the entire HCN record from pre-1900, and show where this one person is claiming something that the U.S. government's own records don't support.
I could cherry-pick data too, if I wanted to. But I am far past done bothering with yours. You have shown yourself, in more than one dimension, to be not worth answering. Even your citations recently have not been worth my time.

Even where you do not attempt to distort my own arguments, or make straw-man arguments of your own, in my experience your "evidence" has been cherry-picked and based on thin evidence.

I will state this clearly and up-front: this is not a matter of ad-hominem. Even where you have made valid arguments you have generally managed to do it in a manner that has been gratuitously rude. And more, but I won't get into that.

So I say this openly and without prejudice: you have quite literally given me cause to say you aren't worth my time. Except to continue to record what you say, because it has still managed to be worth noting, if for no other reason than my personal records.

I don't need to see cherry picked reports from you. I see them from the original sources already, and I will form my own conclusions as to their bias or lack of.

Have a nice day.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-13 21:30 · Score: 1

Amazing! You show that I, and apparently somebody else, said several years ago (more than 6 years in one case) that it seemed to be getting warmer?

And your point is... what? That new evidence does not arise? That people might not conclude something else when they see more of the existing evidence? That the scientific method means something other than forming your opinion based on the evidence you know, rather than on the point you are trying to prove?

Just what point are you trying to make here? Because I do not see any. It seems to me that more than anything else, you are simply illustrating how I have, over time, become educated about your particular brand of bullshit.
Re:Translation... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-05-13 21:47 · Score: 1

The reason 1979 gets used a lot is because that's when the satellite era of geophysical measurement really got launched.
That may be true, but you also think it's just coincidental that it's also the local minimum? Really? Nobody chooses it just because it's convenient and helps "prove" their point?

Really?

The ground based records goes back to the mid to late 1800's and it's basically been warming since the start (and before) of those ground based temperature records.
You think so? I've looked at them, and I disagree. I don't usually say this, but [citation needed].
Re:Translation... by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-13 22:07 · Score: 1

No, of course, you don't "have to move them", they move themselves quite naturally and gradually to where they find the best jobs and homes, like they always do.
Yep so the largest mass migration ever in history is no problem. Good to know. And good to know that many tens of trillions of infrastructure being written off is no problem either. I assume you know that major infrastructure like bridges and tunnels have projeced lives of centuries and are generally predicted to last until well after they will be flooded.
But that's no problem. Goody.
No, but they have a right to be wrong.
Again, you're arguing against what opinions yuou believe I must hold. Of course they have a right to be wrong: where did I claim otherwise. Doesn't make them right, however.
Congratulations on your attempt at hair splitting and demagoguery. Now knock it off.
So wait, you accusing me of politically modivated things when I made no mention of politics and me calling you out on it is me engaging in hair splitting. Oooookkaaaay. You have a real problem separating what I have written with the views your narrow mind insists I must hold due to me holding other, unrelated viewpoints.
A clue: neither the left nor right have any king of cohesive philosophy. You are quite clearly ascribing classic "left wing" views to me becuase some of the opinions I hold are also held by the left wing. Since neither hte left nor right is logically coherent in any meaningful manner, and I don't claim to be either, your deductions are flawed. You will find this with quite a lot of people over here.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Translation... by khayman80 · 2014-05-13 22:27 · Score: 1

And I can chart (or quote others who have charted) the entire HCN record from pre-1900, and show where this one person is claiming something that the U.S. government's own records don't support.
One person named "Leonid Polyak, Richard B. Alley, John T. Andrews, Julie Brigham-Grette, Thomas M. Cronine, Dennis A. Darby, Arthur S. Dyke, Joan J. Fitzpatrick, Svend Funder, Marika Holland, Anne E. Jennings, Gifford H. Miller, Matt O’Regan, James Savelle, Mark Serreze, Kristen St. John, James W.C. White, Eric Wolff."
That seems like a really long name. Are you sure it's one person?
The HCN records surface temperatures, not Arctic sea ice extent.
Are you implying that the U.S. government's own records are reliable?
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-14 01:03 · Score: 1

I doubt that the official position of these societies are formed by "some with minimal credentials."
They are formulated by committees. They are subject to political pressures and peer pressures.
What they are not formulated by is a scientific process.
So of course the 97% of published papers that agree with their position don't have anything to do with their positions.
Re:Translation... by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:33 · Score: 1

Either a) scientists are right and Climate Disruption is real, happening right now, and will cause huge problems. Or b) scientists are united in a big conspiracy to lie about Climate Disruption because it gets them more grant money, or c) scientists are morons and are getting it all wrong. The trouble with b) and c) is that they are not at all credible. I hope no one seriously credits c), it's just too implausible.
Clearly you don't work in science. C is very plausible. Never ascribe magical powers to the Priests, it never ends well. We (scientists) have all the normal human failings are are no better than anyone else. We have our dogma, our favoritism, our truthiness. There is plenty of precedents for option C. Popularity of models and predictions is not a measure of there certainty.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Translation... by danbert8 · 2014-05-14 03:11 · Score: 1

See, you lost me at your response to 1. You lost any credibility as a rational, unbiased, scientific person. You talk about "big oil" and how they don't care about the environment except for minimal fines. They don't have a long term perspective, oil is running out, blah blah blah. And then you went full idiot and mentioned tax breaks, subsidies, and other bullshit. This argument is done, I can't reason with someone who is indoctrinated.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Translation... by romons · 2014-05-14 07:31 · Score: 1

I wish that science functioned differently but it doesn't. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a huge incentive to disprove global warming. Such a paper is actually quite hard to publish, and even if published such a finding could easily disappear, silently ignored, into the oblivion of our vast scientific literature.
Your assertion is true for theoretical reinterpretations of existing theory. Things like the germ theory, Einstein's changes to mechanics or atomic theory, the quantization hypothesis, continental drift, even the Copernican view were not accepted by contemporary scientists, being too large a jump from their accepted understanding.
On the other hand, what is the theory on climate change? Carbon dioxide causes temperature rise by a greenhouse effect. You can run that experiment in a terrarium. Nobody really disputes it. The Permian extinction was caused by massive increases in C02, due to Siberian volcanic action. We know what large amounts of CO2 do in the atmosphere, and have known for a hundred years.
So, given rising levels of CO2, the only real scientific question is how long it will take before the oceans rise, or storms start getting more severe. Scientists argue about that sort of thing all the time. Estimates change on a monthly basis, models are improved, new data is collected, etc. Science is doing its thing, which is to improve its predictions of the future.
There may well be an Einstein out there, who can take the data, and reinterpret it such that it is no longer necessary to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If he or she exists, it will take a long time before her theoretical reinterpretation of the data is accepted. However, assuming there is no way to reinterpret the data is the safer way to go,
Also, the deniers on /. aren't Einsteins, despite their claims to the contrary.

--
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
Re:Translation... by KeensMustard · 2014-05-14 09:35 · Score: 1

... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss?
The first link I found had observational data from the 1940's.
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-14 13:50 · Score: 1

So of course the 97% of published papers that agree with their position don't have anything to do with their positions.
No, sorry, not true. Check the original paper yourself:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
The majority of papers didn't agree, they took no position. The "consensus" that a subset of papers agree with is simply that human carbon emissions may have contributed to temperature increases in the 20th century, an absolutely trivial fact of no practical relevance by itself.
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-14 13:53 · Score: 1

Yep so the largest mass migration ever in history is no problem. Good to know.

You erroneously believe that this is unprecedented. In fact, "migrations" of this scale and larger are currently happening, for reasons totally unrelated to climate change, and obviously you aren't even aware of them.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-15 00:17 · Score: 1

From your own link:
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So, sorry, but true.
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-15 04:01 · Score: 1

From your own link:
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So, sorry, but true.
Incorrect. You said:

So of course the 97% of published papers that agree with their position don't have anything to do with their positions.
No, read the paper. 97% of published papers do not agree with their position; the great majority of published papers take no position at all.
And that sentence doesn't mean what you think it means, because it refers to terms previously defined in the paper. "The consensus" the authors refer to is not the IPCC consensus or a consensus on AGW; "expressing an opinion" means "the paper is somehow related to AGW"; and "endorse" means "seems consistent with, but may not have actually stated anything". It's misleading and deceptive. But at least the authors didn't have the nerve to commit outright fraud, so you can decode what they are actually saying by reading the entire paper.
What they are actually saying is:

Among abstracts about topics that we believe are related to AGW and might be used to determine a position, 97.1% did not appear to contradict the idea that humans have contributed to some degree to observed warming.
Again, actually read the paper, instead of quoting out of context.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-15 04:36 · Score: 1

So glad to hear that you're the ultimate arbiter of what was said.
Re:Translation... by Dixie_Flatline · 2014-05-15 07:56 · Score: 1

I lived in Alberta most of my life. I've lived with and around oil companies for most of my life. My view is clear. I know how much money goes to those companies, and how significantly my own government bends over backwards for them. The penalties that they face for environmental damage are a pittance, and it's actually the case that they've covered less of the cost than they need to for even a basic recovery. Canadian tax payers are on the hook for significant cleanup costs that can't be recovered from companies for one reason or another.
Your ad hominem attacks and sad cries of 'indoctrination' and 'bias' don't have any particular effect on me; who are you, anyway? :/
Re:Translation... by Dixie_Flatline · 2014-05-15 07:57 · Score: 1

Well done, chopping off the subordinate clause in that sentence. Here's the whole thing again. See if you can get to the end of it all in one go.
"They're out to make money, and they've relatively little regard for the environment at large and the long-term prospects for it."
Re:Translation... by Magius_AR · 2014-05-15 11:29 · Score: 1

Well done, chopping off the subordinate clause in that sentence. Here's the whole thing again. See if you can get to the end of it all in one go. "They're out to make money, and they've relatively little regard for the environment at large and the long-term prospects for it."

The former implies the latter, else you wouldn't have said it. Using your own terminology, I focused on the main clause because it's the main clause. And the solars are out to make money as well: so add a subordinate clause for them. Lemme guess: ", and they want altruism and all good things and peace on earth."
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-15 13:31 · Score: 1

I'm not pretending to be an "arbiter". I told you specifically why and how the sentence you quoted is misleading, in terms of the "methods" section of the paper. If you disagree with my analysis, then the right thing to do is to look at the methods section and explain why you think I'm wrong. That's how scientific discourse works.
If you think that any random sentence you pull out of context out of a scientific paper proves your point and you choose to ignore the actual methods and data that went into the conclusion, then you are simply not scientifically literate; science doesn't work that way.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-15 23:40 · Score: 1

I did not pull out a random sentence from the paper. It is from the fucking abstract - which, if you didn't know, is a summary of the paper. You, on the other hand, wrote your own abstract that I'm sure the writers wouldn't agree with, or they would have put your statement in the abstract. The only "out of context" the statement had, was that it was not in the context of your opinion.
Re:Translation... by danbert8 · 2014-05-16 09:29 · Score: 1

I work for an oil company. An oil company that bends over backwards to comply with government regulators that are morons. A company that spends ridiculous amounts of money to protect against infinitesimal risks. A company that still makes a very fat profit, a profit that is heavily taxed. And subsidies (also known as deductions and credits) are not unique to oil and are general construction and industry tax provisions. We pay for cleanup and related problems long after any environmental damage is present.
You talk about "big oil" like there is some sort of cabal of companies running everything out to milk profits and destroy the environment as part of an evil scheme. You seem pretty biased and indoctrinated to me. Am I biased, sure... But at least I'm informed of how the industry works.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-16 16:58 · Score: 1

I did not pull out a random sentence from the paper. It is from the fucking abstract - which, if you didn't know, is a summary of the paper.
Abstracts, if you didn't know, are not definitive summaries of the paper; they merely exist to help you decide whether it's worth reading the whole paper. You need to read and understand the whole paper in order to even begin to be able to debate what it means and whether its conclusions are valid.

The only "out of context" the statement had, was that it was not in the context of your opinion.
You quoted the sentence in support of a statement you made. Your statement is wrong, and the sentence you quote doesn't support it. In order to understand why it doesn't support it, you need to read the actual paper.
Re:Translation... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 14:57 · Score: 0

Here is a list of the 10 warmest years, globally, since 1880. That's 134 years ago.
2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2006
2009
2007
2004
2012
Do you notice any trend or commonality among those data points?
The problem with this data is that since 1880, the instruments used to collect the data has changed, and so have the location, and the number of locations used for the measurements. The accuracy has improved, but it is not relevant to 1880, or to any point in time before ANY change in instrumentation or location of measurement. Therefore, it is not credible.
Re:Translation... by coinreturn · 2014-05-18 23:30 · Score: 1

Your position is that the abstract contradicts the paper. Brilliant!
Re:Translation... by stenvar · 2014-05-19 14:44 · Score: 1

No, my position is that the technical terms used in an abstract are defined in the paper. You cannot just take a sentence out of an abstract and interpret it in a way that's convenient for an argument you want to make.
Since the paper redefines the meaning of the terms "expressing a position on AGW", "endorse", and "consensus position", the sentence you quoted means something different from what you implied it meant. The error here is yours, not the authors' (the authors can be faulted, however, for being misleading).
(Of course, abstracts quite frequently do contradict the body of a paper; authors try to get away with sensationalizing in the abstract because abstracts tend not to be very carefully checked by reviewers because most scientists, unlike you, understand that the abstract by itself doesn't show anything.)
Re:Translation... by 32771 · 2014-05-19 15:42 · Score: 1

Both statements may turn out to be wrong. The first, because we already see global warming/extreme weather events affecting harvests and people with less money to spend, tend to riot when hungry, which I would call a sign of the beginning chaos (so far people blame oil prices, but this is changing).
The second because lets admit it we will follow the BAU and worst case scenarios regarding CO2 output since nobody will screw up the economy on purpose. Since we will have exponential CO2 growth at ~2% according to the following article:
http://www.heatisonline.org/co...
You can conclude that we have our contribution doubling every ~35years, which means that as the 35year younger you can not complain since your own generations contributions are just as large as the older.
So while the world may only officially end in 2100 (some say 2050, due to feed backs and societies inability to deal with cognitive biases and understanding complex non-linear systems) there is a fat chance that an uncomfortably large number of people will get some raw deal much earlier.

--
Je me souviens.
Re:Translation... by riverat1 · 2014-05-19 18:43 · Score: 1

While saying the world may officially end is rather hyperbolic I think I mostly agree with you. I see our global civilization collapsing toward the middle of this century from not only the effects of global warming but other resource depletion as well. That includes the collapse of ecosystems that humans are dependent on.

An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by phillk6751 · 2014-05-12 07:34 · Score: -1, Flamebait

http://www.science20.com/news_... Apparently the loss of ice in the Antarctic is raising the continent as well. If this is true, how much will the levels really rise as the ice melts? Scientists, I believe are a bit too quick to assume melting ice caps are going to flood several parts of the earth, and likely being pushed to by the global warming crowd to push their BS agendas.

Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by mrvan · 2014-05-12 07:57 · Score: 5, Informative

You're probably trolling, but here goes:
Any continent will rise if the mass on top is reduced, because the mantle acts as a liquid on geological time scales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound)
However, it's not the loss of mass or height of the antartcic that is causing sea levels to rise, but the movement of water from "long term storage" on top of the antarctic continent into the ocean. What the container does after the contents have been released is immaterial.
(for the arctic ice it is different because it is all floating, so melting it won't do anything to sea levels (it will to salinity and hence ocean currents) - and greenland has a lot of land ice, of course)
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by phillk6751 · 2014-05-12 08:06 · Score: 1

Not trolling....My logic is that if the continent rises, then the volume of water it displaces would in-effect decrease, thereby countering the effect of the water rise. The real idea i was putting forth was that they could measure the volume displacement countered to see what the offset really is. 15mm/yr rise doesn't sound significant, but if you consider the area affected, 15mm could make a huge difference in offsetting the purported rise in sea level.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by CreatureComfort · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: 2

From TFA: "The basic problem is that much of the West Antarctic ice sheet sits below sea level in a kind of bowl-shaped depression the earth. As Dr. Mercer outlined in 1978, once the part of the ice sheet sitting on the rim of the bowl melts and the ice retreats into deeper water, it becomes unstable and highly vulnerable to further melting."

So, if the ice is currently sitting in a bowl BELOW sea level, and water uses more volume as ice than as a liquid, when the ice melts, it will fill less of the bowl than it did before. Making a not too farfetched assumption, at some point the ice melt will open a channel from the open sea into the bowl below sea level, which will then fill with sea water. Since water uses more volume as ice than as a liquid, the amount of liquid held in the bowl, should be more than the amount of ice it previously had, before melting.

Seems to me that the net result of this should be lower global sea level...

--
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by phillk6751 · 2014-05-12 08:23 · Score: 1

That's a great quote btw. I was going to suggest a similar issue with the so-called sea level rise from melting ice (if the ice is floating and melts then it doesn't raise the level since ice has more spacial volume than water per)...however there is also suggestion (from the global warming/science community) that some of the ice melt from Antarctica is from ice that is over land and not currently floating or below the sea level, which would, all other variables excluded, raise the sea level.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by oracleofbargth · 2014-05-12 08:37 · Score: 1

You logic may be faulty. An increase in height of a continental shelf relative to the center of mass of the earth should cause decrease in the depth of the nearby ocean basins, and so a localized decrease in the size of the ocean basin surrounding that continental shelf, which would effectively increase the water displacement of the continent.
Disclaimer: I am not a geologist, so my logic may also have faults.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by brit74 · 2014-05-12 08:39 · Score: 1

Do you think that Antarctica is a continent floating on top of water?
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by RichMan · 2014-05-12 08:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Except the ice sheet is not at float eqilibrium.
If the ice was at float equilibrium its melting would then take up less space. But because the ice sheet is stacked so high above sea level the floor of the glacier is grounded there is much more ice there than the float equilibrium point. There is a lot more ice there than the water it displaces. Your argument does not cover that point.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by brit74 · 2014-05-12 08:54 · Score: 1

The only way that ice can be below sea level is if it's pushed down by something. In this case, the ice below sea level is pushed down by ice on top of it. (Which is why an iceberg is 90% below water and 10% above water.)

> "Since water uses more volume as ice than as a liquid, the amount of liquid held in the bowl, should be more than the amount of ice it previously had, before melting."
I think the mistake that you're making is that you think there are icebergs which are below the surface of the water, but they are less dense than the water. Of course, this can't happen. It's like having a helium-filled balloon that falls to the floor, even though helium is less dense than the surrounding atmosphere.

You have to take into account the fact that 10% is above water to begin with. As it turns out, those two things cancel out - i.e. the volume used up by ice which is below sea-level is exactly the volume of water that the a melted iceberg will use-up (after it's melted). This is the same principle used in ship-building: the weight of water which is displaced by a ship is equal to the weight of a ship. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... ) Similarly, the weight of water which is displaced by an iceberg is equal to the weight of an iceberg.

You can test this easily enough with a glass of water. Fill the glass with ice. Now, fill the glass to the brim with water. Some ice will stick out above the top of the glass (because ice is slightly lighter than water, so part of it will float above the surface of the water). Wait for it to melt. The water level will remain constant (it won't go down and it won't overflow).

> "Seems to me that the net result of this should be lower global sea level..."
No. That would only be true if you ignore the fact that some of the ice is located above sea-level. When you calculate all of it together, you'll find that ice in the water won't cause a sea-level change when it melts. (And the sea-level change that global warming people worry about is caused by ice melting which is currently located on top of land.)
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:59 · Score: 0

No, because the continent is not floating in water. The rest of the earth's crust must go down to offset the rise in one continent, but it isn't clear that would happen only in the oceans since the added weight of 10 feet of water wouldn't make a big difference. You might as well argue that adding 10 feet of water to the oceans will cause all continents to rise in that case. In theory it would, but the geological time scales required for that to happen are longer than the cycles of glaciation since the relative imbalance would be very slight.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:06 · Score: 0

That depends on how much of that ice is below sea-level, and how much of it is above the current sea-level. If all of it is at or below current sea-level, your suggestion is valid. If most of it is above sea-level, then that ice melting is going to raise the sea-level. As I read the article, the fact that the ice's base is below sea level means that once the ice on the rim melts, that sea water will start to seep in under the ice, and that as a result the whole ice-pack will undergo runaway breakup and melting (hence the word 'unstable' in tfa). This would ultimately include the portions of the ice that are above the current sea-level.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:07 · Score: 0

The bottom of the ice is below the sea level. The top of the ice is half a mile above the sea level (there's a lot of ice!). Because the bottom is below sea level, water running downhill can infiltrate in between the ice and the ground which causes the ice to crack and melt. Previously the mass of the ice above kept the bottom of the glacier tightly sealed against the ground so it acted like a dam and prevented this from happening. As the mass has been reduced, we now have a trickle of water going through and eroding the bottom, therefore increasing the volume of water getting through. This is a self-reinforcing system that will eventually cause a relatively sudden collapse as the remaining ice lets go of the ground and floats off.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by NemoinSpace · 2014-05-12 09:19 · Score: 1

Do you think that Antarctica is a continent not floating on top of a liquid mantle?
Do you think?
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:15 · Score: 0

Basically, yes. A few details, though. First, the article implies (if not states outright) that it's ice melting around the rim of the basin that allows water to enter the basin under the ice. Secondly, I don't think it's that the ice is going to floating off until most of the above-sea-level ice is gone. Remember, 90% of an iceberg is below the water line, so most of that 1/2 mile of above-sea-level ice will need to melt or otherwise disappear. The problem is that the ice around the edges is no longer protected from the surrounding sea-water, and is going to start to melt and the shelf will start to crack and break up, increasing the surface-area in contact with liquid water.
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by KeensMustard · 2014-05-12 10:31 · Score: 1

Do you think the crust under the ocean is not floating on the the SAME liquid mantle?
Re:An article that suggests a counter-effect.... by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:52 · Score: 1

Over longer time scales rebound is very significant [expected] contributor to sea level rise. For both Antarctica and Greenland.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Hurray by Stumbles · 2014-05-12 07:35 · Score: -1, Flamebait

more fear mongering from pseudo-scientists, climate models that have never been right and other prophecies that have not been even close to reality.

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.

Re:Hurray by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:51 · Score: -1

Propagandists are busy modding down comments like these.
Re:Hurray by Mister+Liberty · 2014-05-12 08:00 · Score: 1

Indeed. They have all been too moderate.
Glad to assist.
Re:Hurray by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-05-12 08:07 · Score: 2

Actually, the models have been too conservative. Things are significantly worse than predicted.
But you're clearly not a "facts oriented" kind of person.
Re:Hurray by HeckRuler · 2014-05-12 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

comments like these.
Well yes, that's how it works. Flamebait gets modded as flamebait. If you find that all the posts like this one are being modded similarly, it just means that the modding isn't some statistical outlier and that the masses have a consensus for what they consider "flamebait".

water shortage and rising sea levels by Wycliffe · 2014-05-12 07:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Two things associated with global warming are a water shortage and rising sea levels.
Seems like if we really wanted to we could use one to help the other.
For instance pumping sea water to death valley and filling it full of water would
create a ton more waterfront property. We have oil pipelines much longer than this.
You could do the same thing by digging a big hole in the sahara desert or any other
desert relatively close to the ocean. Heck, we could even solve the other potential
problem of human overpopulation by creating more farmable land in the process.
There are plenty of solutions to this problem. If this ever really becomes a problem
you would think places like florida, etc.. could easily get together and finance
a "water sequestering" plan that could possibly even make the world a better place.

Re:water shortage and rising sea levels by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:46 · Score: 0

"There are plenty of solutions to this problem." Sure, the problem is none of them are short term economically viable investment opportunities, and businesses with the scale to get this done aren't interested in anything else.
Re:water shortage and rising sea levels by JimSadler · 2014-05-12 08:29 · Score: 2

I have lived in Florida for 55 years. Even a one foot rise in sea levels would be a serious disaster. South Florida in particular is almost at sea level and any spring tide or storm already brings losses. Salt water intrusion threatens our water supply for many millions of people and places like the Everglades would be exterminated by salt water rising just a few inches.
Re:water shortage and rising sea levels by Charliemopps · 2014-05-12 08:30 · Score: 1

So... you realize how big the ocean is right? I don't think death valley is going to cut it.
Re:water shortage and rising sea levels by Wycliffe · 2014-05-12 11:41 · Score: 1

We're not talking about the entire ocean. We just need to divert the amount that melts each year.
Antartica is big but not that big. Also the article mentioned that alot of this ice is in a depression
already and much of the ice is below sea level so we don't really have to worry about that part
melting. If we are talking about an inch a year then we surely have the technology to divert this
much water.
By my calculation to divert 1cm a year you would have to divert 3.6 × 10^15 liters per year.
The trans alaska pipeline can pump 1.18 * 10^11 liters per year so we're talking 10k times
the volume of the trans alaska pipline but the trans alaska pipe is only 4ft in diameter and
spans thousands of miles while the distance required to divert water would be considerable
shorter. It would be a serious undertaking but would still probably be cheaper than relocating
the state of florida.
Re:water shortage and rising sea levels by harvestsun · 2014-05-12 11:57 · Score: 1

Filling the entirety of Death Valley with water would lower the water level by 1-2 millimeters, optimistically.

Even if there were hundreds of Death Valleys, it wouldn't save any cities from being destroyed.
Re:water shortage and rising sea levels by delt0r · 2014-05-14 03:02 · Score: 1

Its like living on flood plains and wondering why it floods. What are the tides like in Florida anyway? From a quick Google its on the order of 3 feet.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

So when this doesn't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:36 · Score: 0, Troll

what should we do with all the fools? Remember in the 70s we were entering an ice age.

Re:So when this doesn't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:46 · Score: 0

Propagandists are out to bury this comment
Re:So when this doesn't happen by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:25 · Score: 0

WOW now the mods have whacked 3 comments on here. I must be on to something! Way to keep it one sided guys! Opposing views will NOT BE TOLERATED.

pfft by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:37 · Score: 1, Informative

Pfft. Math. Science. That stuff is for weaklings.

rising water? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:39 · Score: 0, Insightful

rubbish.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is the segment of the continental ice sheet that covers West (or Lesser) Antarctica, the portion of Antarctica on the side of the Transantarctic Mountains which lies in the Western Hemisphere. The WAIS is classified as a marine-based ice sheet, meaning that its bed lies well below sea level and its edges flow into floating ice shelves.

Marine based ice sheets do not affect sea level.

Re:rising water? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, you're very confused here. It's correct that the rock beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet is below sea level, but the ice sheet is not floating and sea level will certainly rise if the thing melts.
Think of it this way. If you have an ice cube floating in your drink, it is 90% under water and 10% above water. If such an ice cube melts, the level of your drink doesn't change.
Now imagine that instead of a free-floating, 90%-submerged ice cube, you have an ice cube that is suspended by a string so that it is 50% above water and 50% below water. This ice cube "wants" to settle lower in your drink so that it is 90% below water, and if it is allowed to do so, the level of your drink will rise. So if the ice cube is allowed to melt, the level of the drink will also rise, to exactly the same level it would reach if you cut the string.
The WAIS is like a 50% submerged ice cube that wants to be 90% submerged.
Re:rising water? by MobyDisk · 2014-05-12 07:59 · Score: 1

Marine based ice sheets do not affect sea level.
Whhoooah there. Let's not jump to conclusions here...

The melting of these three glaciers alone is contributing an estimated 0.24 millimetres per year to the rise in the worldwide sea level.

Okay, close enough for all practical purposes. :-)
Re:rising water? by gewalker · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 2

While buoyancy works exactly as you state (and I am pretty sure climate scientists understand this too). I do recall from past reading is that scientists are concerned that breakup of the marine sheets leads to accelerated melting of the land sheets.
With intact marine sheets, the land sheets do not flow easily into the ocean (not enough force to displace the marine ice). But if the marine ice is gone, the land ice can flow more freely into the water. In the large, Ice is quite plastic and will flow downhill due to gravity at significant rate.
Re:rising water? by Layzej · 2014-05-12 08:12 · Score: 1

Why do you presume to know more than the scientists that study this? A skeptical mind might suppose that the scientists are considering something that you are failing to see. Perhaps the WAIS acts as a buttress that supports inland ice? Remove the buttress and the inland ice will flow? Just a guess, but probably more accurate than assuming that the experts overlooked something obvious.
Re:rising water? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:14 · Score: 0

So you're saying everyone in the eastern hemisphere is safe then? In that case let's all move to China, problem solved.
Re:rising water? by SpankiMonki · 2014-05-12 08:19 · Score: 1

I know, right?! The fact that the melting of floating ice would have no effect on sea levels must have completely escaped those silly career scientists AND the editors of the journals who are going to publish their research.
Yeah AC, you've got more expertise than Wagner, Joughin, Alley, and (importantly) Mercer when it comes to this sort of thing...prolly more than all of them combined! Thanks for posting.
And thanks for the perceptive moderator who marked parent Insightful. It's another helluva day for science here on slashdot!
Re:rising water? by quantaman · 2014-05-12 08:49 · Score: 1

You clearly don't understand that a global warming skeptic can spot problems in five minutes that an actual scientist wouldn't see in years.
Rumour has it that the theory of gravity wasn't discovered by Issac Newton, but an enlightened fisherman. This fisherman, driven by the profit motive to fully understand the forces that caused the tides, was walking by Newton one day and yelled out:
"I beseech thee Dumbass philosopher! Can thou not see that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them?! Tis clearly a conspiracy by the clergy and lords to keep the populace in line. Now I give you an apple as a gift, perhaps one day myself or one of my entrepreneurial ancestors will bother explain to one of your intellectual ancestors the limitations of the speed of light when we see you're finally worthy of the knowledge!"

--
I stole this Sig
Re:rising water? by Layzej · 2014-05-12 10:03 · Score: 1

:) This needs to be modded up :)

Launch Solar Shade! by poity · 2014-05-12 07:43 · Score: 1

unless Svensgaard vetoes it...

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Monthly /. quota for propaganda exceeded by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:43 · Score: -1

Every few days we get another one of these stories.

Re:Monthly /. quota for propaganda exceeded by Mister+Liberty · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 1

Watch the Insurance Agencies. They'll tell fools like you what
to believe in no time.
Re:Monthly /. quota for propaganda exceeded by JohnNemesh · 2014-05-12 09:00 · Score: 1

Yeah? And every morning I see the weatherman talking...guess what? RECORD rainfall in Western Washington this year. Flooding, snow, tornadoes all through the central US. RECORD drought in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Yeah, it's all unrelated, right?

I actually remember the 70's by publiclurker · 2014-05-12 07:44 · Score: 1

Only one report claimed an ice age, and they didn't have anything to back them up. I know you are desperate to avoid accepting responsibility for your actions and the need to clean things up, but insulting everyone else's intelligence with your usual BS is not going to accomplish anything.

Re:I actually remember the 70's by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 0

There was not ONE report. I laugh at you...even wikipedia pops up 3 names. Go buy your floating house now! And for the 20 year old mod that modded this troll, screw you. You weren't alive to know. Al Gore is running out of time to cash in on his carbon credit scheme.
Re:I actually remember the 70's by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 0

I remember the 70s, and I remember the 'OMG! Ice Age!' scam being so widespread that even Hollywood was making fun of the idea.
Stop trying to pretend it never happened. You just make the 'OMG! Global Warming!' scam look even sillier.
Re:I actually remember the 70's by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:06 · Score: 0

Only one report claimed we were entering an ice age and wasn't a very good one at that, but the media widely reported it. It even propagated through primary school teachers. They were simply wrong, and the act was lamented by the scientific community, but that doesn't matter all that much. And now we have 40 year olds who swear that "the scientists" are completely flip-flopping. Because of what they saw on TV once as a child.
This is why scientific journalism is important and why we can't let them screw up the representation of these issues. This is what makes Fox News so detestable. We have to do better.
Re:I actually remember the 70's by MozeeToby · 2014-05-12 08:10 · Score: 1

OMG not one but THREE papers claiming global cooling!? Why... the existence of those three 50 year old papers completely invalidates every other paper on climate change in the past 60 years, even the ones written about global warning in the 60s and early 70s.
Re:I actually remember the 70's by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:21 · Score: 0

your reading comprehension is poor. It doesn't invalidate anything, except the modern day moral relativist notion that scientists are always right. Keep setting up the ad hom though. And I see the mods are now taking my posts down. Hilarious. Suppress the truth at all costs! Way to go psycho wingnuts!

Dogs and cats! Living together! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:45 · Score: 0

It'll be mass hysteria!

Finally we don't have to care about global climate by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:45 · Score: 0

I love it. It is happening it is unavoidable. Stop whining about it. Strap on and ride it out. Even worst maps show where I am I will be fine so heck lets stop complaining and let it ride.

Well, that settles it by Chris+Mattern · 2014-05-12 07:46 · Score: 1

Time to start buying real estate in the southwest.

Re:Well, that settles it by slashmydots · 2014-05-12 07:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, buy up property in the middle of a drought area that's only going to get worse. Good idea.

I have an idea by slashmydots · 2014-05-12 07:48 · Score: 0

Let's take everyone who thinks climate change isn't real and tie them to a rock 6 inches above the waterline on the ocean shore. Then we can let them go when they admit it's real.

Re:I have an idea by fredrated · 2014-05-12 07:53 · Score: 1

I have a better idea: eat them instead!
Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:55 · Score: 0

After we take all the gays and ship them to an island and see how many generations they last
Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:59 · Score: 0

This is what passes for enlightenment.
"They don't believe us, just because the last 200 models failed to predict anything accurately. Let's torture the heretics!"
I know you want to kill off at least half the population of this planet, but be aware that if you try, it'll be your blood feeding the trees. There are a lot of people who don't want to get violent, but if you genocidal assholes start something, we will finish it.
Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:05 · Score: 0

Which just goes to show that the fanatics are losing the battle. Since you can't convince anyone who disagrees with you, now you just plan to murder them, as Commies always do, sooner or later.
When are you opening the Climate Change Re-Education Camps, Comrade?
Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:06 · Score: 0

Climate change is very real. The earth gets closer and further from the sun as it oribits (seasons). The suns temperature fluctuates (solar cycles). If you think what car you drive changes that to any significant degree your entitled to that opinion. We some how managed to get in to and out of several ice ages sans gas guzzling soccer mom suburbans.
Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:37 · Score: 0

Your mom called, she says she wants you home right after school, young man!
Re:I have an idea by PPH · 2014-05-12 12:23 · Score: 1

Funny. That's how they taught me about tides.
In the meantime, I'm sitting 100 meters above sea level, waiting for my waterfront property.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 17:26 · Score: 0

Communism?? WTF is your brain completely broken? this is nothing like communism, this is pure religious zealotry, much more Spanish Inquisition than Stasi

OMGOMGOMG! by doggo · 2014-05-12 07:51 · Score: 1

"The rise may continue to be relatively slow for at least the next century or so..."

Oh. Okay. I'll be dead by then, and I didn't have any kids.

You young'uns're screwed! Heeheehee!

to hell with your kids, I want my Canyonero! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:51 · Score: 0

because jeebus is gonna rapture me up, and all you sinners are gonna burn.

you could have saved yourselves by going full-on nucklear, but the hippies done screwed everybody on that one!

This is a POLITICAL issue, NOT a scientific one. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:57 · Score: -1

This is all used to push a United Nations backed agenda to de-industrialize the U.S. and Europe, and way too many people have chugged the Kool-Aid.
Climate change is cyclical, folks.

Denver by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 07:57 · Score: 0

Everybody crowd into Denver!

Re:Denver by cogeek · 2014-05-12 08:15 · Score: 1

No, Denver is full, stay in California!

Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 07:58 · Score: -1

...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/

"Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometers."

Funny how facts get in the way of a good scare story.

Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by bunratty · 2014-05-12 08:03 · Score: 5, Informative

That's the surface area of ice, not the amount of ice, which is measured by volume or mass. If you look at the mass of ice in the Antarctic, you can see it's been melting for decades at an accelerating rate. Funny how the real facts get in the way of a good misinformation campaign.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:03 · Score: 0

Funny how a good scare story get headlines whereas facts don't get a look in...
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 08:12 · Score: 0

So your assertion, that decrease in mass means increase in extent, means that eventually, when most of the mass of the ice is melted, the entire world will be covered in ice?
Furthermore, wouldn't the melting of ice mass (without affecting albedo), prove to be a negative feedback, since the ice melt is an endothermic reaction that mitigates heat from any source, natural or otherwise?
Funny how your dodge doesn't really address the issue :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by MightyMartian · 2014-05-12 08:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Ah, nothing like quoting an anti-AGW blog as if it were the equivalent of a published article.
Tell me, do you get your biology information from Answers in Genesis as well?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Charliemopps · 2014-05-12 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Once again, everyone uses their own biased sources. You're both wrong. The only ice that matters is the ice that was ON LAND before and is now IN THE OCEAN and bellow the water line. Does melting ice in a glass of water raise the level of water in the glass? No. Put a new ice cube in, does the water level raise equivalent to the volume of ice? No. It raises equivalent to the volume of ice bellow the water line.
What volume of ice was their on the land 100 years ago? No one knows. There's no way to find out. Probably more than there is now. The truth is probably more on the side of people concerned about climate change and less on the side of the people who deny it. That said, things aren't nearly as bad as the alarmists would have you think. This is something we should address, but stupid knee jerk reactions based on made up science are what alienates people and gives the deniers an excuse to stall and do nothing. Lets have real facts, and common sense so we can address a growing problem that will hurt our great grandchildren.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by zmooc · 2014-05-12 08:40 · Score: 1

That's not what that link says; it says it has been losing mass "since at least 2002". While it is obviously losing mass now, it has most probably not "been melting for decades". We don't have any serious data on that before 2002, when GRACE was launched. Funny how the real facts get in the way of a good misinformation campaign.

--
0x or or snor perron?!
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by asylumx · 2014-05-12 08:48 · Score: 1

What the hell are you talking about? Mass != surface area. It's not a dodge, it's basic understanding.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by DiamondGeezer · 2014-05-12 08:48 · Score: 2, Informative

"Ah, nothing like quoting an anti-AGW blog as if it were the equivalent of a published article"
Ah nothing like quoting Skeptical Science or Real Climate or DeSmogBlog or HughPickensDOTcom, because those are outlets of pure unvarnished truth that no sane man may object to.
In fact the WUWT article points to an article in "The Australian" and quotes the NSIDC.
I assume you get your answers from Genesis because you like things handed down as Holy Writ, probably because its easier than thinking. Climate alarmism is deeply religious and very much creationism without all of the messy stuff about Cain and Abel.
Like "The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is 50 below zero, so how is it melting?"
But that's for people who understand science and critical thinking, something you're not capable of.

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:49 · Score: 0

Source: Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2013GL057782, 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057782/abstract
Title: A 308 year record of climate variability in West Antarctica
Authors: Elizabeth R. Thomas, Thomas J. Bracegirdle and John Turner: British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK; Eric W. Wolff: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract:
We present a new stable isotope record from Ellsworth Land which provides a valuable 308 year record (1702–2009) of climate variability from coastal West Antarctica. Climate variability at this site is strongly forced by sea surface temperatures and atmospheric pressure in the tropical Pacific and related to local sea ice conditions. The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica; however, this warming trend is not unique. More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-nineteenth and eighteenth centuries, suggesting that at present, the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years.

The NYT's agenda is showing. Again.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-12 09:04 · Score: 1

So your assertion, that decrease in mass means increase in extent, means that eventually, when most of the mass of the ice is melted, the entire world will be covered in ice?
Huh? No one asserted anything remotely similar to that. If you're going to go all reductio ad absurdum on him at least reduce to something relevant.

Furthermore, wouldn't the melting of ice mass (without affecting albedo), prove to be a negative feedback, since the ice melt is an endothermic reaction that mitigates heat from any source, natural or otherwise?
Who was talking about the endothermic nature of the reaction? Maybe that's relevant, maybe not, I don't know the energy levels involved (it's actually better for your argument if it's not).
Your original comment was a claim that directly contradicted the central claim of the article, he showed your claim was false, and now you're talking about something unrelated?

Funny how your dodge doesn't really address the issue :)
Except for the part where he directly addressed the issue and you responded with a complete dodge.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by MightyMartian · 2014-05-12 09:08 · Score: 1

I get my information from climatologists, and not from weathermen with an ax to grind.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:18 · Score: 0

Sea ice? This story isn't about see ice. Sea ice is thin stuff that mostly melts every year. We're talking about an ice sheet. Ice that's thousands of years old melting. Get your facts straight before you attack others again. Try reading other places too, because Watts is highly biased and often very misleading.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 09:23 · Score: 2

So, we're supposed to believe that in a warming world, ice sheets melt, but then sea ice will extend to cover the entire planet? :)
Funny how warming produces more ice and less ice at the same time :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 09:24 · Score: 1

No, I ask for a necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement before accepting something as science - neither Genesis nor CAGW manage to provide one, so I don't reflexively believe them :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 09:27 · Score: 1

Of course mass != surface area - but by what miracle do you assert that surface temperature warming will affect only *mass* but not *surface area*?
If the assertion is that surface area increases as mass decreases, the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.
It simply doesn't follow.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 09:29 · Score: 1

Who was talking about the endothermic nature of the reaction?
The assertion that temperature must *not* be stable in order for ice to melt is refutable with the simplest countertop experiment - put ice in water. Let temperature stabilize. Watch the ice continue to melt without changing water temperature. Q.E.D.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-12 09:43 · Score: 1

Who was talking about the endothermic nature of the reaction?
The assertion that temperature must *not* be stable in order for ice to melt is refutable with the simplest countertop experiment - put ice in water. Let temperature stabilize. Watch the ice continue to melt without changing water temperature. Q.E.D.
Huh? That's not what endothermic means.
Endothermic means that the process absorbs energy, it takes energy to transform ice into water.
If you did do an experiment with ice, water, and no other energy transfer, the average temperature of the final system would be less than the initial system because energy was used turning the ice into water.
That still doesn't explain why you were talking about it in the first place. It's a complete non-sequitur.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:34 · Score: 0

the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.
Don't make quantitative deductions from qualitative considerations. Ice falling from the land into the sea could increase surface area as long as land ice falls more rapidly into the sea than sea ice melts. We'd need a quantitative model to verify if it can happen and under which conditions. Even assuming this happens now, without a quantitative model, it would also be impossible to deduce to what extent the ice would extend before the sea ice start meting faster than ice lands falls into the sea.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 11:18 · Score: 1

The trope goes like this:
1) CO2 increases surface temperatures through the greenhouse effect;
2) this increased surface temperature magically *increases* surface ice, but *melts* subsurface ice
If you accept that melting is an endothermic reaction, then it's simple physics that melting ice (and a very little melt, in all actuality) will more than absorb any surface temperature heat - water has a significantly greater specific heat than air.
I'm still interested in hearing what kind of magical heat jump can pass through surface ice, and get to all that ice underneath to melt it :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 11:22 · Score: 1

Here you go:
https://twitter.com/Revkin/sta...
Awful misuse of "Collapse" in headlines on centuries-long ice loss in W. Antarctica. See rates in papers. Same as '09
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 11:23 · Score: 1

So you've chosen authority figures without bothering to ask them for necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements :)
Sounds just like people picking a pope :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-12 11:52 · Score: 1

On the endothermic front you're making a huge assumption that the magnitude of energy absorbed by melting ice is large enough to make a significant difference to the global temperature, and even if it were so what?
As for your talk about magical heat you're obscuring the basic fact that whatever the mechanism decreasing volume and increasing surface area is actually happening. If I make up a stupid theory about magical bunnies driving the moon around the earth that doesn't actually stop the moon in its tracks.
If you're actually interested bunratty posted a relatively short and understandable explanation but I have no interest in debating your magical heat theories.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:58 · Score: 0

I'm still interested in hearing what kind of magical heat jump can pass through surface ice, and get to all that ice underneath to melt it :)
Look at the phase diagramm of water, see the slope of the solid liquid interface below 200 bars, it's negative. It takes less heat to melt pressurized ice than unpressurized ice. You can't go around calling physical phenomenas magical just because you can't come up with reasonable explanations for why they occur. We'd need experiments or quantitative physics to verify if this is the correct explanation and if this property of water is enough to melt subsurface ice before surface ice melts. Quantitative physics is quite hard and quite time consuming so I won't bother with computations. Besides, I'm not a physicist, just a mere mathematician and there might be other phenomenas involved.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 13:05 · Score: 0

No one knows. There's no way to find out....
The truth is probably more on the side of people concerned about climate change and less on the side of the people who deny it....
This is something we should address, but stupid knee jerk reactions based on made up science are what alienates people and gives the deniers an excuse to stall and do nothing. ...

Lets have real facts, and common sense so we can address a growing problem that will hurt our great grandchildren.
How about stop making up facts or assuming facts not in existence are somehow "on your side" as if the fact personally gives a fuck. Stop milking the holocaust for shock value. Stop pushing bipartisan BS while pretending you're going to rise above the shit for your dumbfuck offspring. Just stop already.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 15:37 · Score: 1

It takes less heat to melt pressurized ice than unpressurized ice.
Sure, but asserting the heat *bypasses* the surface ice on its way to the deeper ice is ludicrous, don't you agree?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 15:39 · Score: 1

you're making a huge assumption that the magnitude of energy absorbed by melting ice is large enough to make a significant difference to the global temperature, and even if it were so what?
Not an assumption - pretty simple math when it comes to understanding the mass of water vs. the mass of atmosphere and their specific heats.
As for "so what", if *water* is driving *atmosphere*, wouldn't it be silly to look at *atmosphere* as the driver of the *water*? Causality starts somewhere specific :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-12 16:47 · Score: 1

you're making a huge assumption that the magnitude of energy absorbed by melting ice is large enough to make a significant difference to the global temperature, and even if it were so what?
Not an assumption - pretty simple math when it comes to understanding the mass of water vs. the mass of atmosphere and their specific heats.
As for "so what", if *water* is driving *atmosphere*, wouldn't it be silly to look at *atmosphere* as the driver of the *water*? Causality starts somewhere specific :)
Unless you think the ocean is somehow causes winter I'm not sure what your point is. Yeah the ocean has a lot of stored energy (and that was one theory for the recent subdued warming), that doesn't mean that's where energy is entering the system.
Question: are you claiming your entire point since your original post was a claim that the decreasing volume as opposed to extent is evidence that warming is coming from the ocean or ground and not CO2?

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 17:14 · Score: 1

Winter, of course, is caused by the axial tilt of the planet - and it's regional to boot :)
Global temperature changes, on the other hand, can certainly be driven by ocean temperature fluctuations, as shown by things such as AMO and PDO.
The original claim was that expanding sea ice extent, and decreasing sea ice mass, is somehow a logical result of atmospheric global warming due to CO2. Obviously, it doesn't follow.
At best, decreasing sea ice mass, driven by temperature flows and fluctuations in the ocean, is driven by ocean dynamics, not atmospheric dynamics. From that POV, continued expansion of sea ice extent is *obviously* driven by lower atmospheric temperatures, which are generally precluded by a hypothesis that posits higher atmospheric temperatures.
Now, ask yourself the question - what moderates the transfer of energy from the sun to the oceans? Heat in the atmosphere, or changes in cloud albedo moderating the amount of sunlight that hits the oceans?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-12 17:31 · Score: 1

So it takes you 6 posts to reach the point you claim you were talking about at the start.
And it doesn't even fit the facts. Warmer air temperatures at the poles isn't a theory, it's a well documented fact.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-12 18:03 · Score: 1

And I take it you've got a theory to go with that well documented fact that makes the warmer air temperatures *skip* melting the surface ice, and instead melt the ice beneath :)
Seriously, given warmer air temperatures in antarctica, how do you explain *more* surface ice extent? Is there some magic freeze ray in your theory? :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-12 19:26 · Score: 1

As a matter of fact I do have a theory! This is a bit clearer.
Basically you were right about the heat capacity of the water being important. It sounds like the slightly warmer air and upper ocean means the new sea ice is a lot saltier (cold drives the salt out). Normally salt gets squeezed out by the cold, it makes the water underneath extra salty, that cold salty water sinks and it replaced by new warmer water. This new warmer water accelerates the melting process.
When the air is slightly warmer the salt stays in the ice and the changeover doesn't occur to the same degree. Instead of warmer water to melt the ice all you have is warmer air.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:10 · Score: 0

Lets have real facts, and common sense so we can address a growing problem that will hurt our great grandchildren.
Why? Generation Y's children are bitching about paying for senior's healthcare -- the same seniors who paid for their schools, parks, etc.
So basically, fuck 'em.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by asylumx · 2014-05-13 02:58 · Score: 1

If the assertion is that surface area increases as mass decreases, the logical extension is that as mass further decreases, the entire planet will cover in surface ice.
No, of course that's not the assertion. What the hell kind of assertion would that be?

If you spill a glass of water on the counter, the surface area of that water increases greatly but the mass stays the same. In fact, it evaporates faster that way so while the surface area stays much larger than it was, the mass actually reduces much faster as a result. What is likely happening here is very similar, except with ice instead of liquid water

I feel like I'd have better luck explaining this to a three year old.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 05:20 · Score: 1

So now you're saying that surface ice is *sublimating* to reduce mass as it increases in extent?
By what magic is this happening?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 05:51 · Score: 1

So with salt, you get freezing point depression and boiling point elevation - which means that if, as you posit, the new sea ice is saltier, it requires a *colder* atmosphere in order to form ice...which contraindicates your "slightly warmer air" assertion.
If, as you assert, warmer air means *more* ice extent at the poles, why do the antarctic and arctic behave differently in this respect?
I believe, if you're honest with yourself, you'll note that the melting and extent of ice at the poles has much less to do with any sort of atmospheric temperature effects, and much more to do with storm effects, and ocean effects, neither of which is particularly well modeled by any GCM.
The problem here is that someone is trying to take an observation, and force a world view on it, rather than accepting the true complexity at hand. It's like insisting that you rolled a 7 or 11 on craps because you blew on the dice.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-13 07:54 · Score: 1

It doesn't require a colder temperature to form the ice, if anything the forming temperature would be warmer.
In both conditions the initial ice is the same salinity as the water, but in the colder years the temperature then drives salt out of the ice causing the changeover). If the changeover doesn't occur the upper water might actually have less salinity making ice formation easier.
I don't claim for a second that this effect sounds bizarre and counterintuitive and I'm sure there's other factors at work. I'm honestly not sure how well established the understanding of this particular phenomena is.
Of course whatever the mechanism we know the air temperature is increasing, the ice surface area is growing on the sea, but the total volume is decreasing on land (and in the multiyear regions of the sea). The decreasing volume of on land and the multiyear sea ice is the part that really breaks your theory of water being the driver. It's also the thing to worry about with sea levels. The sea ice extant is an interesting phenomena but doesn't really affect much directly. The multiyear ice is responding as anticipated and that's a problem.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 08:30 · Score: 1

Are you now really arguing that there is no such thing as freezing point depression and boiling point elevation when making water saltier? :)
Really?
Air temperature increasing, ice extent increasing, ice mass decreasing does not lead to "it's the air temperature that dunnit". It speaks to a multitude of drivers, moving in opposite directions, and directly contradicts the idea of a single primary driver.
You're trying to justify a false premise, forcing contradictory observations into a box that won't contain them. The problem isn't that your proposed effect is bizarre - it's that your proposed effect *isn't really what's going on*. The complexity of contradictory observations is obviously coming from multiple drivers, not a single surface air temperature driver.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-13 08:38 · Score: 1

Are you now really arguing that there is no such thing as freezing point depression and boiling point elevation when making water saltier? :)
No. You misunderstood entirely.
In either scenario the salt water freezes. But when it gets colder later on the cold drives the salt out of the ice making the water underneath saltier.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 08:51 · Score: 1

Let's review:

It doesn't require a colder temperature to form the ice
Now, checking with physics, ice is formed at 0C. Checking with chemistry, adding salt to water causes both boiling point elevation, and freezing point depression, making ice form at 0C.
In what world can you have a *warmer* temperature form more ice?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-13 10:19 · Score: 1

and freezing point depression, making ice form at 0C
I assume this was a typo as salt water freezes well below 0.

In what world can you have a *warmer* temperature form more ice?
If the warmer temperatures led to the water having lower salinity that could cause more ice. Also if warmer temperatures or other factors cause higher winds the wind pushes existing ice packs from very cold areas into less cold areas which increases total ice production.
This article seems to make the most sense of what I've seen.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 11:12 · Score: 1

pure water freezes at 0C
salt water freezes If the warmer temperatures led to the water having lower salinity that could cause more ice.
So warmer temperatures will magically cause more ice? :) Really?
http://nov79.com/gbwm/icemelt....
"An increase in air temperature does not heat oceans or melt ice which floats. Anyone who studies science should know this; yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is said to be heating the oceans and melting Arctic ice.
First, air has such a low heat capacity that it doesn't hold enough heat to influence water or the ice within it significantly. Secondly, heat moves upward, not downward, which prevents it from moving from air to water or ice on water.
Why would the tropics be warmer, when air does not absorb much sunshine? The atmosphere is nearly the same in the tropics. It's because the water and land absorb the sunlight and transfer the heat to the atmosphere, not the other way around.
The numbers show the absurdities. Here are calculations for heating Arctic ice and the amount of globally warmed air required to melt it. These simple numbers are found in numerous places on the internet.
The amount of Arctic ice is said to be 12x106 km2 (square kilometers). In the winter of 2010 it is said to be two meters thick, though in some areas it would be thicker. So we will calculate the amount of heat required to melt that much ice when two meters thick.
Converting to meters results in one million square meters per square kilometer; and two meters thick results in 24x1012 m3. The density of ice is slightly less than water, or 917 kg/m3. Multiplying these two numbers yields 22x1015 kg of ice.
The heat required to melt the ice is called heat of fusion. It is 334 kj/kg. That's kilojoules per kilogram. Multiplying this times the number of kilograms yields 7.4x1018 kj.
So how much air would have to be heated 0.6C (the supposed global warming caused by humans, lately sliding up to 0.7C, even though global cooling has been occurring) to provide this amount of heat? The heat capacity of air is about one fourth that of water on a gram basis, which is 1 kj/kg-K for air. That's one kilojoule per kilogram per degree Kelvin or centigrade. For 0.6C, it's 0.6 kj/kg.
To get 7.4x1018 kj would require that many kilograms for one degree and 0.6 times as much for 0.6C, which is 4.4x1018 kg of air.
The density of the atmosphere is 1.2 kg/m3 for the first kilometer of height. So we divide the 4.4x1018 kg by 1.2 kg/m3 to get the number of cubic meters, which is 3.7x1018 m3 of air. There are a billion cubic meters per cubic kilometer, so this number is reduced to 3.7x109 km3.
This is the amount of square surface area of atmosphere, one kilometer thick, which will hold the necessary amount of heat to melt all Arctic ice when two meters thick. It's 3.7 billion square kilometers of atmosphere. That's 61,000 kilometers on each side of a square. The total area of the earth's surface is only 510x106 km2, which is 23,000 kilometers on a side. The required amount of air is 7.25 times the total amount on the earth.
Notice that the surface area of the ice was 12x106 km2, while the surface area of the air for melting it was 3.7x109 km2. The surface area is 308 times as much for the air as for the ice. This means that even if the ice is not all melted, whatever portion is melted requires 308 times as much air per surface area as ice. If one square kilometer of ice is melted, 308 square kilometers of air must be moved over it with all 0.6C of AGW heat removed.
There are an infinite number of complexities stemming from the fact that no one can describe exactly what is happening or produce a consistent theory for what is supposed to happen. For example, where is the heat supposed to be located? The 0.6C is supposed to be near the earth's surface. How much heating is there supposed to be in the higher atmosphere? None can be detected, yet it is supposed to be back-radiatin
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-13 11:29 · Score: 1

pure water freezes at 0C
salt water freezes If the warmer temperatures led to the water having lower salinity that could cause more ice.
So warmer temperatures will magically cause more ice? :) Really?
I posted a mechanism and an article that gave a credible explanation and your response is to ignore it and post a snide remark.
As for the article you posted

First, air has such a low heat capacity that it doesn't hold enough heat to influence water or the ice within it significantly. Secondly, heat moves upward, not downward, which prevents it from moving from air to water or ice on water.
CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere heating up the air, the warmer the air is the less energy is transferred from the water or ground into the air

There are an infinite number of complexities stemming from the fact that no one can describe exactly what is happening or produce a consistent theory for what is supposed to happen. For example, where is the heat supposed to be located? The 0.6C is supposed to be near the earth's surface. How much heating is there supposed to be in the higher atmosphere? None can be detected, yet it is supposed to be back-radiating to heat the surface.
My fuzzy recollection is that the upper atmosphere is cooler or at least not warmed because the heat hasn't radiated up there because of CO2. But that's kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. That the author sees fit to rant about it anyways is telling.

Not all of the Arctic ice has been melted, but alarmists claim that it will. If all of the atmospheric heat caused by humans were circulated to the Arctic and melted ice, there would have to be 7.25 times as much heat, which is 0.6 x 7.25, which is 4.35C. But much of the ice is thicker than two meters, which would require more heat to melt it.
First no one claims the Arctic ice is simply going to melt in place, the ice sheets are going to break up and float into areas where they can melt. But the thing to worry about is the land ice sheets which he ignores. Without the thick sea ice surrounding them the land sheets will flow into the oceans and raise sea levels.
The rest of article is a bunch of calculations based on strawman assumptions. I might as well write an article about how guns can't kill people because the kinetic energy in a bullet is nothing compared to the mass of a human.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 13:19 · Score: 1

CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere heating up the air, the warmer the air is the less energy is transferred from the water or ground into the air
And according to your hypothesis, this warmer air causes more ice to form because salinity is reduced. So, warm air makes ice.

Without the thick sea ice surrounding them the land sheets will flow into the oceans and raise sea levels.
Over a period of hundreds, if not thousands of years :) The changes in sea ice and land ice are driven by forces other than atmospheric temperature.

I might as well write an article about how guns can't kill people because the kinetic energy in a bullet is nothing compared to the mass of a human.
So now you're saying that the heat from the atmosphere magically concentrates and targets a very small portion of the ice to melt it down, the way a bullet transfers its kinetic energy to just one small spot on a human's body? :)
Can you at least admit that the article over hyped the issue?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-13 14:30 · Score: 1

And according to your hypothesis, this warmer air causes more ice to form because salinity is reduced. So, warm air makes ice.
Let me get this. You're trying to get me to agree to a ridiculous sounding oversimplification of my position so you can then turn around and say that sounds ridiculous?

Over a period of hundreds, if not thousands of years :) The changes in sea ice and land ice are driven by forces other than atmospheric temperature.
Like gravity, without the sea ice to hold it in place it starts flowing towards the ocean.

So now you're saying that the heat from the atmosphere magically concentrates and targets a very small portion of the ice to melt it down, the way a bullet transfers its kinetic energy to just one small spot on a human's body? :)
No, I'm saying that comparing numbers from two different things is irrelevant without understanding how those things interact.

Can you at least admit that the article over hyped the issue?
No. They said it's going to be fairly slow for the next century or so and didn't hide the fact. How is that hype?

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by MightyMartian · 2014-05-13 15:16 · Score: 1

You seem to invoke the word 'falsifiable", but appear to have no idea how it applies to science. It is you that is simply repeating mindless mantras.
Complaining about authorities on a subject and not even offering an actual critique suggests you are incapable of doing so.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 15:30 · Score: 1

Of course I understand how "falsifiable" applies to science:
1) a set of observations, which if observed, would cause us to abandon our hypothesis;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those observations leads *only* to our hypothesis.
The fact that you can't understand that doesn't mean that it's a mindless mantra - it means you're incapable of groking some pretty basic features of the scientific method :)
And this is an *actual* critique - you, and your fellow travelers, have *never* been able to come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of CAGW or AGW - and the lack of that makes what you preach *not* science :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-13 15:33 · Score: 1

You're trying to get me to agree to a ridiculous sounding oversimplification of my position
No, that's *literally* your position as stated.
"If the warmer temperatures led to the water having lower salinity that could cause more ice."
You are *literally* asserting that warmer temperatures decrease salinity, and therefore cause a mitigation of the typical freezing point depression, and therefore cause more ice.

They said it's going to be fairly slow for the next century or so and didn't hide the fact. How is that hype?
I'll quote the article I cited:
"As seems to always be the case the climate fear propaganda news media have completely mislead the public once again regarding climate related issues this time by alleging claims of 4 meter high future sea level rise increases supposedly addressed in two recent studies which performed analysis of glacier melt behavior of six large glaciers in West Antarctica.
One study was published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) and titled “Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013“. This study is available here:
http://www.ess.uci.edu/researc...
The second study was published in Science and titled “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Under Way for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica“. This study is available here:
http://sciences.blogs.liberati...
Both studies evaluate the relatively recent melt rate history of these glaciers with one focusing on the use observed satellite data to estimate melt rate behavior while the other uses computer models to estimate melt rate behavior.
Amazingly enough and considering how the press manufactured headlines about sea level rise increases being determined from these studies neither of the studies addresses or make any claims about the impact of their research results on specific future sea level rise projections.
In fact GLC study mentions nothing specific about future sea level rise projections while the Science study clearly notes that their research models “are not coupled to a global climate model to provide forcing nor do they include an ice-shelf cavity-circulation model to derive melt rates. Few if any such fully coupled models presently exist (13). As such, our simulations do not constitute a projection of future sea level in response to projected climate forcing.”
Also unreported by the same climate alarmist propaganda focused media were the significant qualifications, limitations and cautions noted in these studies concerning their glacier melt research findings.
The GRL published study noted for example the following qualifiers regarding its analysis:
“These observations are a possible sign of the progressive collapse of this sector in response to the high melting of its buttressing ice shelves by the ocean.”
“Until numerical ice sheet models coupled with realistic oceanic forcing are able to replicate these observations, projections of the evolution of this sector of West Antarctica should be interpreted with caution.”
The Science published study contained the following similarly related qualifiers regarding its analysis:
“Although our simple melt parameterization suggests that a full-scale collapse of this sector may be inevitable, it leaves large uncertainty in the timing. Thus, ice-sheet models fully coupled to ocean/climate models are required to reduce the uncertainty in the chronology of a collapse.”
Why aren’t these significant research finding qualifiers regarding the preliminary nature of these studies results addressed by the main stream media?
The main stream media manufactured numbers alleging sea level rise projections not addre
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by asylumx · 2014-05-14 06:48 · Score: 1

I'm convinced you are being deliberately dense.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-14 08:22 · Score: 1

The fact that your explanations are logically flawed, and even fanciful, doesn't make the listener of those explanations dense :)
You tried to make an analogy between evaporating water (evaporating from the top) as surface area increases, and magically melting ice (melting from the bottom) as surface area increases, somehow driven by the air *above* the ice. It simply doesn't follow.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by asylumx · 2014-05-15 06:08 · Score: 1

It's not the same piece of ice, you buffoon.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-15 15:28 · Score: 1

lmfao!
So, somehow, the loss in ice mass is on some *different* ice that doesn't actually have a connection to surface ice?
Can you draw a picture showing the path of heat from the atmosphere, bypassing the surface ice, and going to the other "piece of ice" underneath?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-16 15:06 · Score: 1

You are *literally* asserting that warmer temperatures decrease salinity, and therefore cause a mitigation of the typical freezing point depression, and therefore cause more ice.
That's correct (there were other factors too). What I objected to was your insistence on me agreeing to the phrasing "So, warm air makes ice". To me that sounds like you're trying to get to agree to a ridiculous sounding simplification just for the purpose of making me sound ridiculous.
As for the media I'll acknowledge that there was some inappropriate hyping in the fact that the reports underplayed the timeline and overplayed the certainty. The expected rise in the next century timeframe should have been much better communicated, and the fact is that every new paper is reported as fact and uncertainties are overridden.
But that doesn't mean the consistent message given by climate scientists is just hype. They're working in the literature, not the media, the media conversation is fairly irrelevant to their research.
And I'll still come back to the original assertion you made, about the increasing extent, is itself misleading compared to the decreasing volume.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-16 16:12 · Score: 1

To me that sounds like you're trying to get to agree to a ridiculous sounding simplification just for the purpose of making me sound ridiculous.
Sorry, but to be honest, it was ridiculous before the simplification - and you come pretty close to admitting it, acknowledging the spin and overplayed certainty. And *this* is what poisons the well - you're quoting people who are positing a convoluted explanation for observations inconsistent with their original predictions in order to preserve their dubious central conceit, and when you get past the song and dance, the reduction of their position is clearly contradictory.

But that doesn't mean the consistent message given by climate scientists is just hype.
Any "consistent message" is a political one, and you know it. There is broad disagreement on climate sensitivity, impacts, drivers, and the role of natural variation. Science isn't about *messages* - it's about necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statements, and the earnest attempt to find those falsifications.

And I'll still come back to the original assertion you made, about the increasing extent, is itself misleading compared to the decreasing volume.
Okay, so check this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
"For the latter, the issue is reconciling the observed expansion of Antarctic sea-ice extent during the satellite era with robust modelling evidence that the ice should melt as a result of stratospheric ozone depletion (and increases in GHGs)."
So to be clear, the "robust modeling evidence" was what predicted increased antarctic ice extent - but the nature of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, such as AGW, means that even when observations are *opposite* of predictions, ad hoc special pleadings are made. In this case, the ad hoc special pleading "we didn't really mean ice extent, what counts is ice mass".
So, if measuring extent is misleading, let's at least admit that this bad path was the very one mapped out by GCMs :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-16 16:41 · Score: 1

Sorry, but to be honest, it was ridiculous before the simplification - and you come pretty close to admitting it, acknowledging the spin and overplayed certainty. And *this* is what poisons the well - you're quoting people who are positing a convoluted explanation for observations inconsistent with their original predictions in order to preserve their dubious central conceit, and when you get past the song and dance, the reduction of their position is clearly contradictory.
I'll admit the salt layering explanation sounds convoluted, the less salty ice one marginally less so, that doesn't mean either is false, it's actually not an issue I've got a ton of experience with. I do know that part of the ocean is apparently lower salinity than usual, whether that's related to (or the right scale of) the explanation that was posted I don't know. And the wind explanation actually does sound more logical to me.
At the end of the day there's warmer air temperatures, larger ice extents, and lower ice volumes. Whatever the mechanism it's clearly possible to have that combination of factors. And even if your alternative model of water driving the larger extents was accurate why would that help? The effect is clearly not maintaining the ice volume which is the critical factor.

Any "consistent message" is a political one, and you know it. There is broad disagreement on climate sensitivity, impacts, drivers, and the role of natural variation. Science isn't about *messages* - it's about necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statements, and the earnest attempt to find those falsifications.
The fact they're trying to coordinate their message doesn't mean the coordinated message is wrong. Even with all the individual disagreements they can agree on the main story. It's a mild form of the game creationists use when they frame every controversy in biology as evidence that evolution is falling apart.

"For the latter, the issue is reconciling the observed expansion of Antarctic sea-ice extent during the satellite era with robust modelling evidence that the ice should melt as a result of stratospheric ozone depletion (and increases in GHGs)."
So to be clear, the "robust modeling evidence" was what predicted increased antarctic ice extent - but the nature of a non-falsifiable hypothesis, such as AGW, means that even when observations are *opposite* of predictions, ad hoc special pleadings are made. In this case, the ad hoc special pleading "we didn't really mean ice extent, what counts is ice mass".
So, if measuring extent is misleading, let's at least admit that this bad path was the very one mapped out by GCMs :)
There's four main possibilities to the increasing ice extent:
1) Scientists largely expected it and weren't really surprised.
2) Scientists were uncertain but were well able to understand when it happened
3) Scientists were uncertain are don't quite understand why
4) Scientists were surprised and still don't understand why
It's probable something from 2-4. Some stuff I saw suggested 2-3, this paper suggests 3-4.
But what you've shown doesn't suggest any goalpost moving from volume to extent, in fact I can remember years back they were always concerned about the ice caps entering the ocean and causing sea level rise, and to a lesser extend the Greenland ice cap changing the jet stream to Europe. Even if the ice extent is a surprising result it's not changing the thing they were worried about.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-16 17:37 · Score: 1

At the end of the day there's warmer air temperatures, larger ice extents, and lower ice volumes. Whatever the mechanism it's clearly possible to have that combination of factors.
Sure - here's the IPCC AR5 Chapter 10:
"Overall we conclude that there is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due the larger differences between sea-ice simulations from CMIP5 models and to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability."
It's clearly possible that the air temperature has little or nothing to do with larger ice extents and lower ice volumes - they simply *don't understand*.

The fact they're trying to coordinate their message doesn't mean the coordinated message is wrong.

Yes, it does. The purpose of science isn't to put forth a "coordinated message" -> that's *politicks*. The purpose of science is to draw closer to the truth through the application of the scientific method, through the rigorous application of skepticism to ones' own preferred hypotheses. The moment you've decided to coordinate a message, rather than seek the truth, you've exited the realm of science.

Even if the ice extent is a surprising result it's not changing the thing they were worried about.
But the fact that it contradicts their predictions means that their central conceit is wrong...except they won't admit it, and ignore the observations in contrast to their models.
The fact of the matter is this - the earth changes, always has always will. Attributing catastrophe to our sins is a religious impulse, not a scientific one.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-16 19:09 · Score: 1

Yes, it does. The purpose of science isn't to put forth a "coordinated message" -> that's *politicks*. The purpose of science is to draw closer to the truth through the application of the scientific method, through the rigorous application of skepticism to ones' own preferred hypotheses. The moment you've decided to coordinate a message, rather than seek the truth, you've exited the realm of science.
But the coordinated message is just how they're communicating it to the public, internally they're just as rigorous as before. And even then they're only coordinating the message about things they already agree with. The fact that all physicists describe relativity in relatively the same way doesn't mean they're not aggressively questioning other matters.

But the fact that it contradicts their predictions means that their central conceit is wrong...except they won't admit it, and ignore the observations in contrast to their models.
If you're claiming they don't have a complete understanding of every aspect of the climate no one will disagree. But you've failed to explain why this particular gap in knowledge is critical. Temperatures are warmer, that much is certain. Lots of ice is melting, that is expected. More yearly ice is forming on open sea water, that is unexpected but not particularly meaningful.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-16 19:49 · Score: 1

And even then they're only coordinating the message about things they already agree with.
So, are you saying with a straight face that they don't pressure people who don't adhere to the "message"?
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ri...
Here's the thing - say you're coordinating a message about things you "already agree with". What happens to the first guy who re-evaluates the information, and changes his mind? What happens to the guy who goes "off message"?
If physicists had a "coordinated message" about string theory, and blackballed the first guy who thought of loop quantum gravity, would you see a problem?

But you've failed to explain why this particular gap in knowledge is critical.

Here's the point - your retort is applicable for *any* prediction thus made by AGW supporters. Like astrologists, you throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, ignore the failures, and then focus on whatever "hits" you get.
Put another way - what predictions have to be wrong in order for AGW to be wrong? Flat temperatures and continually rising CO2 for over 20 years? What gaps in knowledge *would* be meaningful?
And be honest, if sea ice *extent* had been decreasing, but ice *mass* had been increasing, would you be making the same argument just with different failed predictions?
The problem isn't that we don't know everything about climate - the problem is that we can't tell *when* we don't know something about climate, and people keep insisting that we *do* know something about the climate when and where we don't.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-16 19:59 · Score: 1

So, are you saying with a straight face that they don't pressure people who don't adhere to the "message"?
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ri...
Here's the thing - say you're coordinating a message about things you "already agree with". What happens to the first guy who re-evaluates the information, and changes his mind? What happens to the guy who goes "off message"?
Of course they do, they're human. The difference is they aren't just brainstorming. If someone can justify why he's going off message with good evidence he gets a publication out of it.

Here's the point - your retort is applicable for *any* prediction thus made by AGW supporters. Like astrologists, you throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, ignore the failures, and then focus on whatever "hits" you get.
Put another way - what predictions have to be wrong in order for AGW to be wrong? Flat temperatures and continually rising CO2 for over 20 years? What gaps in knowledge *would* be meaningful?
This is about a predicted consequence of AGW, not a prediction of AGW. If this prediction is wrong is carries consequences for the sea level rise, it doesn't mean the earth isn't getting hotter.
We always say weather != climate, but consider weather as an example. We have science that can predict the weather with surprising accuracy, but we can still be wrong. When the weather network predicted sun and you instead got rain does that mean all their models are completely wrong, or does it mean they just got something wrong.
Multiyear ice is receding all over the planet. There's a few subsystems that don't perform exactly as we expect, single year sea ice extent is one of them, that doesn't mean we're completely wrong, just that we're not completely right.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-17 05:33 · Score: 1

If someone can justify why he's going off message with good evidence he gets a publication out of it.
So you're adding the additional "you need to justify going off message" criteria to the scientific method? Who decides if the going off message is "justified"? The "pal-review" guys from climategate? :)

This is about a predicted consequence of AGW, not a prediction of AGW.
I don't understand the semantics you're trying to assert here - a "consequence" prediction and a "non-consequence" prediction is a distinction without a difference in the scientific method. If your hypothesis predicts that you cannot find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian (for evolution), how do we decide if that is a "consequence" or not?
Further, isn't it possible to have *some* predictions of say, astrology be right, and others be wrong...would astrology become science if we simply said that all wrong predictions weren't "consequential"?
Here's the real problem - without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, you've got no way to tell if some of the "hits" you get with your prediction are just coincidence, or actual support for your hypothesis.

that doesn't mean we're completely wrong, just that we're not completely right.
Astrology isn't "completely right" - are we to consider it a science now?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-17 05:39 · Score: 1

Here's a great article on "going off message":
http://www.rationaloptimist.co...
"Professor Bengtsson’s resignation shows that the alleged “consensus” on dangerous global warming involves suppressing dissent by academic bullying. He emphasises that there is no consensus about how fast and how far greenhouse warming will go, let alone what can be done in response.
Evidence of such bullying emerged in the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, where some climate scientists’ emails revealed them to be ready to threaten and blackball colleagues, reporters and editors who expressed sceptical views. I talk frequently to scientists who are unconvinced that climate change is even close to being the world’s most pressing environmental problem, but who will not put their heads above the parapet for fear of what it would do to their careers."
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-17 06:36 · Score: 1

There was just another story about that very scientist. Turns out his paper was rejected because it sucked, all he did was point out inconsistency in some data that wasn't expected to be consistent, presumably so he could imply the data sets were junk.
Bengtsson also later said "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views".
The narrative I take from this is Bengtsson got the rejection, which he wrongly interpreted as political rather than scientific. He then joined a denialist group, to which some scientists were definitely opposed. It's wrong if some tried to pressure him, but the fact that a minority tried to pressure him doesn't mean that AGW is wrong. Also note a bunch also supported him after the story came out, and his feelings of pressure were likely heightened by the misinterpretation of the paper rejection.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-17 08:04 · Score: 1

I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views
And there's the rub. Whether or not the pressure is systematic and preconceived (which, given the climategate emails, there is *some* evidence of that), the pressure is there and it *stops* science in its tracks.
Science is not about "the message" - that's clearly a political issue. To get back to science, it needs to be about the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and the earnest attempt to falsify even one's own pet theories - being "on message" is a corruption of the scientific method, period.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-17 08:38 · Score: 1

I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views
And there's the rub. Whether or not the pressure is systematic and preconceived (which, given the climategate emails, there is *some* evidence of that), the pressure is there and it *stops* science in its tracks.
Science is not about "the message" - that's clearly a political issue. To get back to science, it needs to be about the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, and the earnest attempt to falsify even one's own pet theories - being "on message" is a corruption of the scientific method, period.
The pressure to conform is a bad thing but it's something you'd expect regardless of the truth of AGW. They're still doing good science, they could do better science, but you can't politically charge an issue, attack the scientists, and then blame them when they start considering political messaging.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-17 13:46 · Score: 1

They're still doing good science, they could do better science, but you can't politically charge an issue, attack the scientists, and then blame them when they start considering political messaging.
Most AGW proponents are doing shoddy science at best, failing to do even basic things like version control data. Some of the best work is done by skeptic scientists, like Curry, or Lindzen - and it makes sense since they need to be completely above board before getting through the gauntlet of "pal-review" that gives a pass to anyone who plays to the party line.
Remember, the political charge on this came *first*, with the insistence that "we must act" and that "it's worse than we thought" - the fact that their predictions have contradicted observations has only caused them to circle the wagons more fervently, and that *increase* in political style messaging, rather than some well deserved humility that would be the proper response, is only exacerbating the issue.
If you want to show me someone doing good science here, find me *any* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from *any* paper at *any* time in history. Just one.
AGW represents science being subservient to politics, and the problem with politics is that you can never admit error (we've got a similar problem with fat and carbohydrates and the past 40 years of 'low-fat' advice from the government).
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-17 17:33 · Score: 1

Most AGW proponents are doing shoddy science at best, failing to do even basic things like version control data. Some of the best work is done by skeptic scientists, like Curry, or Lindzen - and it makes sense since they need to be completely above board before getting through the gauntlet of "pal-review" that gives a pass to anyone who plays to the party line.
This is contradicted by almost every external scientist who starts to investigate the literature.

Remember, the political charge on this came *first*, with the insistence that "we must act" and that "it's worse than we thought" - the fact that their predictions have contradicted observations has only caused them to circle the wagons more fervently, and that *increase* in political style messaging, rather than some well deserved humility that would be the proper response, is only exacerbating the issue.
The insistence that we must act came because the science suggests we might act. What would you prefer, "our study shows that you're driving straight towards a brick wall, but we have no recommendation on whether you should stop or change direction"?
As for the politicization of the message to the public this is justified by the eagerness with which you yourself jump on the different proposed mechanisms for the increasing ice extent. You insist on any sign of inconsistency as proof there's no scientific consensus, then when they try to form a consistent message you indict them for that as well.

If you want to show me someone doing good science here, find me *any* necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW from *any* paper at *any* time in history. Just one.
AGW represents science being subservient to politics, and the problem with politics is that you can never admit error (we've got a similar problem with fat and carbohydrates and the past 40 years of 'low-fat' advice from the government).
Look at the Republican party and tell me the opposition is more politically motivated than the scientists.
As for your 'falsifiable hypothesis' nonsense, almost *every* AGW paper is going to be making falsifiable hypothesis, what the hell do you think they're publishing if they don't have a hypothesis? Hell, that's one of the reasons why Bengtsson got rejected, because he had no hypothesis and was just pointing at numbers.
You're not asking for a falsifiable hypothesis, you're asking them to predict the unpredictable, to give a precise multiyear forecast of a complex system.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-17 18:39 · Score: 1

This is contradicted by almost every external scientist who starts to investigate the literature.
Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.

The insistence that we must act came because the science suggests we might act.
This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
Science does not suggest action - it leads us to truth. We have not been led to the truth by people pursing the AGW message.

You insist on any sign of inconsistency as proof there's no scientific consensus, then when they try to form a consistent message you indict them for that as well.
*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!

As for your 'falsifiable hypothesis' nonsense, almost *every* AGW paper is going to be making falsifiable hypothesis, what the hell do you think they're publishing if they don't have a hypothesis?
Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".
Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong :) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-17 19:50 · Score: 1

Find me a single "external scientist" who investigated the literature, and found a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Just one.
fine

This happened once before with another corrupt scientist - Ancel Keys. His notorious "7 countries study" asserted a link between dietary fat intake and heart disease. As it turned out, his results were only caused by deleting data to "hide the decline" as it were. His ruthless pursuit of power led him to positions at the heart of government that led eventually to our dietary advice for lower-fat, and higher carbohydrate intake. He demanded that we act because the "science suggested" that there was a link between heart disease and dietary fat intake. In fact, he was wrong, and sent our country on an over 40 year path of increasing obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other chronic diseases.
Are you the one of the Taubes followers? It seems that crackpot science follows the same rules as conspiracy theories. (yes, fat was probably overblown, but the science self-corrected)

*EXACTLY THIS*. We've proven there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on AGW (nor is science driven by consensus). So *of course* we're going to indict them when they try to form a "consistent message" when the *FACTS* contradict that message!
So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus, though just in case someone doesn't buy that you'll say science isn't driven by consensus, presumably because that would provide a falsifiable hypothesis you would fail.

Quote a *SINGLE* one. Find me a single AGW paper that says "if we observe this, that, or the other, AGW is false, and if we *fail* to observe this, that, or the other, we must logically conclude AGW is true".
Just for fun, you'll note that I made my hypotheses falsifiable - "there is no AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is falsified by a *single* observation of an AGW paper with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Find just *one*, and I'll admit I'm wrong :) Of course, since this is a simple hypothesis, you can logically see how if you can't even find *one*, then it's very likely that my hypothesis is true - the logical case for AGW would of course have to be more complex in order to show that the lacking observations couldn't also happen with natural climate change.
Here's a bunch. In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-18 14:55 · Score: 1

Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science :)

Are you the one of the Taubes followers?
The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.
The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years :)

So 97% of climate scientists agreeing isn't consensus
That's a political number, not a factual one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
But I again remind you, consensus isn't science :)

In specific "Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation". CO2 trapping more heat in the atmosphere means that there will be less radiation emitted from the atmosphere in the related wavelength. That's a falsifiable hypothesis and it's a hypothesis they tested by looking at the thermal radiation.
That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).
Futhermore, the outgoing longwave radiation hypothesis is, in fact, subject to significant question:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
"We further examine the impact of cloud overlapping assumptions on the results of linear regression of spectral differences with respect to predefined spectral fingerprints. Cloud-relevant regression coefficients are affected more by different cloud overlapping assumptions than regression coefficients of other geophysical variables. These findings highlight the challenges in constructing realistic longwave spectral fingerprints and in detecting climate change using all-sky observations."
So there's a question as to whether or not anyone has constructed a "realistic longwave spectral fingerprint".
But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential" :) It's a very typical astrology trick :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-18 16:02 · Score: 1

Your first cite shows someone changing their mind - it doesn't have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement :)
Heck, people convert to Christianity all the time, but that doesn't make Christianity science :)
He thought the science was of good quality. I'm not going to bother looking for a quote from an external scientist who says "I found a sufficient falsifiable hypothesis" anymore than I'd look for a quote from a philosopher who said "I found an atheist who wasn't a criminal". It's a fact so obvious and innocuous that no one bothers to comment on it.

The insulin hypothesis is backed up by observations - the fat-heart hypothesis is not. Taubes is just reporting the science, he's not making it.
The fact of the matter is that even if we are "correcting", it's taken us over 40 years - by that measure, we'll finally realize the error of AGW in about 20 more years :)
The problem is you take up the contrary revolutionary position on every scientific question, that's a very reliable method for being wrong.

That certainly may be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it's clearly not *sufficient*. Heck, it doesn't even begin to touch on the origins of CO2, or the lack of any sort of relation between human CO2 emissions and measured CO2 levels (CO2 emissions vary widely both seasonally and yearly, but global CO2 levels have been monotonically increasing, as if governed by completely different drivers than simply human input).
So a general hypothesis that the earth will warm in several decades isn't valid because it's not falsifiable for several decades.
And any other hypothesis is insufficient because the only actual thing that will actually prove significant warming in several decades is waiting several decades for significant warming.
What's the point if you've created an impossible standard for a hypothesis or evidence?

But here's the real problem - your SS cite throws a bunch of stuff at the wall, but does not actually specify falsification observations. And if you're honest, you'll admit that when there *are* observations of falsifications, the AGW trope is protected by ad hoc special pleadings asserting that they aren't "consequential" :) It's a very typical astrology trick :)
When an observation clashes with theory you go back and figure out why. Is the observation wrong? Is the theory wrong? Is it wrong in general or is there a special case responsible for this observation. That's not special pleading, that's science. With your model when astronomers found the planetary orbits didn't work out they would have thrown out gravity instead of positing Pluto.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-19 08:18 · Score: 1

It's a fact so obvious and innocuous that no one bothers to comment on it.
Now that's an ingenious defense of a failure to produce evidence :) "Oh, your honor, we don't have the murder weapon, but it's obvious since there was a murder, there was a weapon, so let's just not comment on it!" :)
I'm sure theists believe that God's existence is so obvious and innocuous that nobody should question it either :)

The problem is you take up the contrary revolutionary position on every scientific question, that's a very reliable method for being wrong.
Really? It seems more obvious that contrary revolutionary positions is what has driven science forward :) Germs? What germs? Evolution? What evolution? Relativity? What relativity? :)
Here's the deal - where science has gone wrong has been when falsifiability has been compromised, and a "consistent message" has been the rule for the day, rather than the required skepticism of dogma that every scientist should practice :)

So a general hypothesis that the earth will warm in several decades isn't valid because it's not falsifiable for several decades.
No, it's not valid because it is not *sufficient*. Yes, a warming earth is *necessary* for AGW to be true, but you cannot simply assert that observed warming is not *natural*. That's a horse of a different color.

What's the point if you've created an impossible standard for a hypothesis or evidence?
It's not an impossible standard - there must be a set of observations excluded by the hypothesis, and a logical argument why the lack of those observations must lead *only* to the conclusion of the hypothesis. AGW has neither.

When an observation clashes with theory you go back and figure out why. Is the observation wrong? Is the theory wrong? Is it wrong in general or is there a special case responsible for this observation. That's not special pleading, that's science
AGW is filled with nothing but special pleadings. A theory with nothing but special pleadings isn't science, it's cargo-cult science:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
"There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. ... It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-19 12:33 · Score: 1

Now that's an ingenious defense of a failure to produce evidence :) "Oh, your honor, we don't have the murder weapon, but it's obvious since there was a murder, there was a weapon, so let's just not comment on it!" :)
I'm sure theists believe that God's existence is so obvious and innocuous that nobody should question it either :)
So I assume you were talking about a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, not the entirety of AGW at once.
So no, no one has achieved your impossible standard.

Really? It seems more obvious that contrary revolutionary positions is what has driven science forward :) Germs? What germs? Evolution? What evolution? Relativity? What relativity? :)
How did relativity go?
Einstein proposed it, people looked it over, proposed alternatives, proposed experiments, and eventually all came around to agreeing.
Same with germs, evolution, gravity, etc.
What you're proposing is something quite different. You're saying relativity got proposed, generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and went back to square one.
That's a completely different scenario, it's possible, and happens to slight degrees in fields like nutrition and psychology, but what you're proposing with AGW is fairly unprecedented in science.

It's not an impossible standard - there must be a set of observations excluded by the hypothesis, and a logical argument why the lack of those observations must lead *only* to the conclusion of the hypothesis. AGW has neither.
Except climate isn't a simple enough process for a standard like that to be possible. There's feedbacks, oceans, clouds, multiple layers of atmosphere, ice, people doing unpredictable things to the whole system, etc. There's a fundamental complexity you can't ignore, that's why you need thousands of papers studying every detail and then things like the IPCC report to collect it into a whole.

AGW is filled with nothing but special pleadings. A theory with nothing but special pleadings isn't science, it's cargo-cult science
I know what cargo-cult science is, I've read denialist blogs :P

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-19 12:59 · Score: 1

So I assume you were talking about a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, not the entirety of AGW at once.
So no, no one has achieved your impossible standard.
Aha! An admission at last!
Yes, an astrologist making the claim that Cancers get along with Leos may have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, but of course, even if they're proven wrong, that doesn't prove astrology wrong, correct? :)
This is *exactly* not science. Asserting that AGW is supported by all these lesser hypotheses, and that it survives no matter how many of these lesser hypotheses are disproven, is the textbook definition of unfalsifiable :)

How did relativity go?
Einstein proposed it, people looked it over, proposed alternatives, proposed experiments, and eventually all came around to agreeing.
And just what part of that required that physicists maintain a consistent message? :)

You're saying relativity got proposed, generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and went back to square one.
No, I'm saying newtonian physics got proposed, was generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and accepted relativity :)
But surely you're not asserting that climate science is anywhere near as useful, reliable, or scientific as relativity, are you? :)

There's feedbacks, oceans, clouds, multiple layers of atmosphere, ice, people doing unpredictable things to the whole system, etc.
Very good point. Seems impossible to rule out natural climate change, doesn't it, given those uncertainties :)

There's a fundamental complexity you can't ignore, that's why you need thousands of papers studying every detail and then things like the IPCC report to collect it into a whole.
That's cargo cult science :) Thousands of papers. All of them "consistent with". None of them "consequential" if they're disproven.
Take the ten million people who read their astrological chart today. Take the fundamental complexity of people. Say even a small fraction, just several thousand, had astrological charts that matched *perfectly* with reality.
Is this science? :)
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-19 13:44 · Score: 1

Aha! An admission at last!
Yes, an astrologist making the claim that Cancers get along with Leos may have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for their research, but of course, even if they're proven wrong, that doesn't prove astrology wrong, correct? :)
Correct, that does not prove astrology wrong.
Astrology isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for human interaction. It's a poor model as virtually every astrology related hypothesis is shown to be wrong. Then again your month of birth has a definite and quantifiable influence on your chances of making the NHL. It's the totality of evidence that shows that the model is wrong.

This is *exactly* not science. Asserting that AGW is supported by all these lesser hypotheses, and that it survives no matter how many of these lesser hypotheses are disproven, is the textbook definition of unfalsifiable :)
The lesser hypothesis aren't disproven, they're refined. AGW related theories predicted the ice caps would melt, they are. The ice extent increased which requires refinement, but to say the hypothesis was disproven is imprecise.

And just what part of that required that physicists maintain a consistent message? :)
So do you see biologists trying to create a consistent message as evidence that evolution is faulty science?

No, I'm saying newtonian physics got proposed, was generally accepted, and then decades later everyone threw it away and accepted relativity :)
But surely you're not asserting that climate science is anywhere near as useful, reliable, or scientific as relativity, are you? :)
Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
I suggest a little Asimov on the relativity of wrong.

Very good point. Seems impossible to rule out natural climate change, doesn't it, given those uncertainties :)
Natural climate change is certainly quite possible. That's why the IPCC estimates its probability.

That's cargo cult science :) Thousands of papers. All of them "consistent with". None of them "consequential" if they're disproven.
Take the ten million people who read their astrological chart today. Take the fundamental complexity of people. Say even a small fraction, just several thousand, had astrological charts that matched *perfectly* with reality.
Is this science? :)
That's what you are but what am I?
That's the essence of your argument. A handful of bloggers and scientists are doing real science while a major scientific field has gone cargo-cult.
But you don't even have a consistent model of what you're complaining about. In one instance its cargo cult because they won't allow any contrary information to be published, in the next instance its cargo cult because they're constantly disproving all their theories.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-19 14:12 · Score: 1

Astrology isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for human interaction.
So, what you're saying is AGW isn't a single hypothesis but a general model for weather and climate.
And, even though these models fail, we still believe in AGW :)

AGW related theories predicted the ice caps would melt, they are. The ice extent increased which requires refinement, but to say the hypothesis was disproven is imprecise.
Any natural warming would also predict the ice caps would melt.
Your theory requires more than just refinement, it requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis :)

Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
Certainly not at relativistic speeds, right? :)

Natural climate change is certainly quite possible. That's why the IPCC estimates its probability.
The problem is the probability of their probability estimate :) With no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis, they have no way to validate their estimates at all :)

In one instance its cargo cult because they won't allow any contrary information to be published, in the next instance its cargo cult because they're constantly disproving all their theories.
Both are certainly true - pal review lets specious papers into the published record, keeps out contradictory ones, and whenever a pal reviewed paper is debunked, it's simply derided as "inconsequential" to the larger hypothesis.
My argument, which you've conceded to, is that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Once you've admitted that, how can you insist that AGW is scientific, without opening up the way for accepting astrology and other cargo cult science?
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-19 14:48 · Score: 1

Any natural warming would also predict the ice caps would melt.
Your theory requires more than just refinement, it requires a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis :)
Which brings us back to the fact the only hypothesis you'd accept is impossible to falsify until it happens.

Someone should have my physics 114 prof that Newtonian physics was thrown away because he spent a lot of the course teaching us Newtonian physics.
Certainly not at relativistic speeds, right? :)
Did you miss the point of the Asimov essay? I'd seriously suggest you read it, he's a hell of a writer and it would clear up some misconceptions you're repeating.

Both are certainly true - pal review lets specious papers into the published record, keeps out contradictory ones, and whenever a pal reviewed paper is debunked, it's simply derided as "inconsequential" to the larger hypothesis.
My argument, which you've conceded to, is that there is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Once you've admitted that, how can you insist that AGW is scientific, without opening up the way for accepting astrology and other cargo cult science?
I can insist AGW is scientific because a single "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is not feasible.
You ever wonder why you don't really see a simple, precise, all-encompassing definition of the scientific method? Because there is none. The scientific method is basically a system of critical evidence based reasoning. The specific methods depends on the problem at hand. Sometimes its a double-blind experiment, sometimes a mathematical proof, sometimes an observational study, it depends what you're trying to do.
The basic concept of AGW is simple, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, at a certain point this causes secondary factors to kick in and trap even more heat, this will make the climate as a whole warmer. I think this actually fits the definition of a "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW". The problem is that you can't falsify it unless you wait 50 years, at which point we're experiencing the bad thing we would have like to avoid.
Instead we test it using secondary means. Does CO2 do what we'd expect? Yes. Does the atmosphere emit radiation the way we'd expect? Yes. Is the atmosphere warming as we expect? Yes. Is it warming at the precise rate we expect? Not quite. Is the ice melting as we expect? Mostly. etc
Instead your line of reasoning seems to be. We can't easily test it, therefore all the science is junk, therefore it isn't happening!
I'm sorry, that's a bad line of reasoning.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-19 15:06 · Score: 1

Which brings us back to the fact the only hypothesis you'd accept is impossible to falsify until it happens.
Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).

Did you miss the point of the Asimov essay?
Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist :) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.

I can insist AGW is scientific because a single "necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW" is not feasible.
The fact that such a grand hypothesis is infeasible is a clue that like the grand hypothesis of astrology, it isn't scientific :)

The scientific method is basically a system of critical evidence based reasoning.
And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.
Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.
Popper, again for your reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

The basic concept of AGW is simple, more CO2 in the atmosphere means more trapped heat, at a certain point this causes secondary factors to kick in and trap even more heat,
And exactly what observations would show that in fact, CO2 doesn't drive secondary factors, or that CO2 drivers are overwhelmed by natural variations?
Furthermore, logically explain how the *lack* of those observations leaves us *only* with human CO2 as the culprit.
You've already admitted the complexity and uncertainty of the climate system - the fact that you would believe such a simple formulation is contradictory to the points you've already conceded to.

Does CO2 do what we'd expect? Yes. Does the atmosphere emit radiation the way we'd expect? Yes. Is the atmosphere warming as we expect? Yes. Is it warming at the precise rate we expect? Not quite. Is the ice melting as we expect? Mostly.
I refer you to Feynman again - it isn't about *expectations*. The fact that CO2, and atmospheric emissions of radiation, and warming, and rates of warming, and ice melting could all *also* be due to natural variation means we haven't yet covered our foundational responsibility of the scientific method, falsifiability. Lots of things are "consistent with" or "expected" by astrology - that doesn't make it science.

Instead your line of reasoning seems to be. We can't easily test it, therefore all the science is junk, therefore it isn't happening!
No, my line of reasoning is this - we can't tell through observation whether or not our hypothesis is true or not (because *all* observations are "consistent with" our hypothesis), therefore, the hypothesis isn't scientific.
The tests don't have to be *easy* - they could be horribly complex, requiring all kinds of satellite technology, or radiocarbon dating, or intense data collection. However, the *must* exist.
You'll respond, "well, i've got lots of little tests!", but then make the clever, but unconvincing, claim that any little test that fails isn't enough to invalidate your central conceit. Much like an astrologist making 365 predictions in a year, and claiming that *all 365* must be wrong for his central conceit to be wrong.
Science is science, and it requires falsifiability, regardless of how difficult that bar is. Hunches, gu
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-19 15:37 · Score: 1

Not at all. In fact "it happens" (in terms of the globe warming over any given period of time), could very well be 100% natural, so the trick with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis is that you need to *exclude* the natural explanation (not simply wish it away).
So you're basically stating it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer.

Sadly, though Asimov was a great writer, he wasn't much of a scientist :) Arguably, he was a luddite, but I still love his prose.
Funny how instead of addressing the argument you use an ad hominem against Issac Asimov.

And the first step of science, its very cornerstone, that which it cannot do without, is falsifiability.
Without falsifiability, no amount of critical reasoning can work - the lack of falsifiability *precludes* the discovery of truth, because observations have no meaning - when *any* observation can be "explained" by a hypothesis, it ceases to be science.
Popper, again for your reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org...

Ok.
Explain to me why evolution is science and AGW isn't.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-20 03:58 · Score: 1

So you're basically stating it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth warmer.
Actually, I'm making a more nuanced statement - it's impossible for science to determine whether pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will make the earth *significantly* or *detectably* warmer.
It's like saying, "it's impossible for science to determine whether watching G.I. joe as a child will make someone more likely to murder" - theoretically, with a robust enough measuring network, and enough understanding about they myriad factors that makes someone a murderer, you could tease apart these inputs. We know that, in general, violence on TV correlates with murderous behavior, but separating that from other causal factors is surely beyond any practical scientific measure.
So should we ban violence on TV, and censor the airwaves everywhere, just in case? :)

Funny how instead of addressing the argument you use an ad hominem against Issac Asimov.
Well, let's follow his argument - once upon a time scientists thought humans were causing global cooling. They were wrong. Today, some scientists believe we are causing global warming. They're still wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the scientists who claimed an ice age was upon us. Some day in the future, scientists will isolate other factors that cause climate change, and in some way they'll be wrong too, but certainly not as wrong as those who claimed that our activity would create an ice age, or that our activity would create a runaway greenhouse.
Now here's a challenge to you - by what measure would you decide that someone was wrong on their central conceit, so that you could compare wrongness by some metric?

Explain to me why evolution is science and AGW isn't.
Evolution is falsifiable. Find a modern rabbit in the precambrian, and it's back to the drawing board. At that point, you either need to assert time travel exists, or that the rabbit fossil was placed there by aliens, or some other equivalent to god.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-20 07:39 · Score: 1

It's like saying, "it's impossible for science to determine whether watching G.I. joe as a child will make someone more likely to murder" - theoretically, with a robust enough measuring network, and enough understanding about they myriad factors that makes someone a murderer, you could tease apart these inputs. We know that, in general, violence on TV correlates with murderous behavior, but separating that from other causal factors is surely beyond any practical scientific measure.
So should we ban violence on TV, and censor the airwaves everywhere, just in case? :)
There's no scientific consensus about the effects of violence on TV.

Well, let's follow his argument - once upon a time scientists thought humans were causing global cooling. They were wrong. Today, some scientists believe we are causing global warming. They're still wrong, but certainly not as wrong as the scientists who claimed an ice age was upon us. Some day in the future, scientists will isolate other factors that cause climate change, and in some way they'll be wrong too, but certainly not as wrong as those who claimed that our activity would create an ice age, or that our activity would create a runaway greenhouse.
Now here's a challenge to you - by what measure would you decide that someone was wrong on their central conceit, so that you could compare wrongness by some metric?
Almost no one believe in global cooling, certainly nothing close to the scientific consensus. To add it to the narrative is simply dishonest.
However, even if it had been the consensus for a short period that still works with Asimov's essay. They thought CO2 plus could cover plus a bunch of other anthropogenic factors would affect the planet making it cooler, they were wrong. They improved this to get a basic picture of global warming, they were still wrong. They improved to get a much more complex picture of global warming, they are still wrong, but much closer to the truth. That's how science works.
As for someone being centrally wrong I judge the people and evidence involved. The climate scientists don't strike me as the people to be and spectacularly wrong as you suggest.

Evolution is falsifiable. Find a modern rabbit in the precambrian, and it's back to the drawing board. At that point, you either need to assert time travel exists, or that the rabbit fossil was placed there by aliens, or some other equivalent to god.
Show that CO2 doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere, and it's back to the drawing board. But how do you prove evolution over millions of years? Look at fossils? What about all the gaps? Modern experiments? Well that's just micro-evolution but it doesn't scale up.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-20 08:25 · Score: 1

There's no scientific consensus about the effects of violence on TV.
There's as much consensus with violence on TV as there is with AGW :)

The climate scientists don't strike me as the people to be and spectacularly wrong as you suggest.
That's awfully optimistic of you :) I've got a lot of respect for Judith Curry (a lukewarm), but not so much for Michael Mann. :)

Show that CO2 doesn't trap heat in the atmosphere, and it's back to the drawing board.
That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more :)

But how do you prove evolution over millions of years?
Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.
In terms of AGW, meteorology to explain why it rained last tuesday in Padova is a specific assertion of an evolutionary chain; the whole of "AGW" therefore is the parallel to the whole of evolution by natural selection.
I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history :)
Bottom line is this - the argument isn't that AGW can't possibly be true, the argument is that AGW is thus far lacking the very first step of the scientific method - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-20 09:54 · Score: 1

That's part of it, but not all of it - if CO2 levels are actually moderated by ocean temperatures, rather than the other way around say, then it's also back to the drawing board. And there are certainly others - you've got to add much more :)
Congrats, you've demonstrated that climate is complex, which means you can't really give a one or two line hypothesis, which according to you means climate science doesn't exist.

Let's be precise on what we mean by "evolution" - we're really talking about natural selection moving from simplicity to complexity and other adaptations. Evolution is not the precise claim of a chain of steps from prokaryotes to humans, or any other arbitrary life form, but a specification of how such chains can happen.
So your definition of evolution seems to be moving further from a testable hypothesis.

I'm certain you're not suggesting that in order to make AGW falsifiable you have to have a falsifiable hypothesis for every moment of weather in all history :)
No, just like a surprising adaption showing up in some beetle, or a version of eyes popping up earlier than we'd expect in the fossil record, doesn't mean evolution isn't science.

Not that I agree with everything this guy says, but here's an interesting recent article on hard and soft sciences that touches on this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Climate science is a hard science, it's just that the important questions also happen to be very hard.
The question we're discussing is whether they're right on one of the biggest questions, is AGW happening and is it significant.
Btw, here's another necessary and mostly sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the past 100 years can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-20 15:59 · Score: 1

Congrats, you've demonstrated that climate is complex, which means you can't really give a one or two line hypothesis, which according to you means climate science doesn't exist.
No, I'm happy to have a multiple line hypothesis. Heck, take a few paragraphs if you need to. Pages even! But the hypothesis shall be falsifiable, contain specific observations that would falsify the hypothesis, and a logical argument that the *lack* of those observations can only lead us to conclude the hypothesis is true.

So your definition of evolution seems to be moving further from a testable hypothesis.
It's absolutely testable - finding an anachronistic fossil in the precambrian, such as that of a modern rabbit, would falsify it.
You seem to think that "test" means "lab experiment" - they really aren't the same thing. You can test a hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction, and looking for observations that match - astrophysics is filled with stuff like that, since obviously we can't just setup experiments of solar systems and galaxies.
But you need the falsifiable prediction. No fair going, "if I see more droughts here, or if I see more floods here, AGW is right!" or "if Cancers are sometimes honest, but other times dishonest, astrology is right!"

Btw, here's another necessary and mostly sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. The majority of the warming in the past 100 years can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.
What observations would falsify that hypothesis? You're simply making a blanket assertion, providing no observations which would show that the vast majority of warming in the past 100 years was *not* attributed to human CO2 emissions!
Now, here's one that would be better - given the vast majority of human CO2 emissions happened after 1950, we shall exclude any warming rates *before* 1950 greater or equal to those *after* 1950. If we see any such warming rates before 1950, we shall conclude that human CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of warming since 1950.
Futhermore, the amount of warming from 1914 - 1950 shall be attributed to natural causes, and if it represents a majority of the warming of the past 100 years, our hypothesis shall also fail.
Of course, the problem is, we've already observed the failure of this particular hypothesis - rates of warming pre-1950 and post-1950 are largely similar. The other problem is that even this *better* hypothesis statement doesn't exclude natural warming changing in the same predicted manner (after all, it's perfectly possible for the world naturally to warm in one mode from 1914-1950, and in another mode from 1950-2014, through natural processes we haven't cataloged or been able to model).
Falsifiability is hard, but it is *key*. Your hypothesis statement needs more work - and arguably, more work just might help! But my estimation is, after years of looking at all the experts in the field, none of which has ever put forth a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, is that despite billions upon billions of dollars spent, it just isn't possible. If it was, the IPCC would already have it in their documentation.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-20 16:14 · Score: 1

No, I'm happy to have a multiple line hypothesis. Heck, take a few paragraphs if you need to. Pages even! But the hypothesis shall be falsifiable, contain specific observations that would falsify the hypothesis, and a logical argument that the *lack* of those observations can only lead us to conclude the hypothesis is true.
Yeah, I'm not that motivated.

It's absolutely testable - finding an anachronistic fossil in the precambrian, such as that of a modern rabbit, would falsify it.
You seem to think that "test" means "lab experiment" - they really aren't the same thing. You can test a hypothesis by making a falsifiable prediction, and looking for observations that match - astrophysics is filled with stuff like that, since obviously we can't just setup experiments of solar systems and galaxies.
But you need the falsifiable prediction. No fair going, "if I see more droughts here, or if I see more floods here, AGW is right!" or "if Cancers are sometimes honest, but other times dishonest, astrology is right!"
How about a list of ten things that could prove AGW false?

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-20 16:26 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm not that motivated.
And you know what, that's okay! But I would've expected *someone* to have been this motivated already. Given the billions of dollars of research done in climate science, you would've thought *someone* would've done it already if it was possible.
My bet here is that two things happened:
1) latecomers just assumed it was there;
2) the early proponents were more politically motivated, and glossed over the politically inconvenient fact that their hypothesis wasn't falsifiable.

1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
We've already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.

2. A drop in global sea level for some period of time
Same as #1.

3. A strong rise or decline in the atmospheric CO2 level
Same as #1.

4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks
Argument from ignorance. Just because we can't enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn't mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.

5. Warming of the stratosphere
No reason this cannot happen naturally.

6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing long wave radiation
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.

7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature
Same as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven't happened.

8. A source of heat in the climate system that we do not know yet
Another argument from ignorance.

9. A fundamental flaw in the scientific understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics
Necessary, but certainly not sufficient. You could claim that if the speed of light is wrong, then astrology is debunked, but the speed of light itself, or any other physical constant, does not imply a complex theory must be true.

10. CO2 molecules appear to behave differently in the wild, than they do in a laboratory
Same as #9
VERY good cite though! They're thinking in the right direction, but haven't made a convincing argument yet. They've certainly hit some *necessary* components (like the spectral constants of CO2), but they cannot reverse the burden of proof and insist we must enumerate all other climate influences before giving up on the central conceit that CO2 from humans drives climate.
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by quantaman · 2014-05-20 16:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm not that motivated.
And you know what, that's okay! But I would've expected *someone* to have been this motivated already. Given the billions of dollars of research done in climate science, you would've thought *someone* would've done it already if it was possible.
My bet here is that two things happened:
1) latecomers just assumed it was there;
2) the early proponents were more politically motivated, and glossed over the politically inconvenient fact that their hypothesis wasn't falsifiable.
When the IPCC says there's a 95-100% chance that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010 isn't that a falsifiable hypothesis?

1. A drop in global temperatures for some period of time to the level of 50 years ago or longer, without a clear cause
We've already seen that in the ice core record. Certainly nobody claims they have any sort of climate model that accurately hind casts ice ages.

I don't think that counts for events where we don't have sufficient data.

4. The discovery that climate forcings in the past were much larger, or temperature changes much smaller, than science thinks

Argument from ignorance. Just because we can't enumerate all natural causes of climate change doesn't mean that we must find them to disprove the pet theory that human CO2 emissions overwhelm all natural factors.

That sounds a lot like the god of the gaps, we can't account for every minor natural forcing so we can't make conclusions about the major forcings.

5. Warming of the stratosphere
No reason this cannot happen naturally.

6. Major errors in equipment in satellites, measuring outgoing long wave radiation
Again, no reason why measured outgoing long wave radiation cannot be a natural phenomenon.

7. Evidence of a substantial fall of relative humidity with rising temperature
Same as #5 and 6, but more importantly, this is one of the grand failures of GCMs that assume a feedback effect from CO2 to water vapor. The predicted humidity increases haven't happened.

And every observation with evolution is consistent with ID. AGW is the only good theory that explains all those observations.

They've certainly hit some *necessary* components (like the spectral constants of CO2), but they cannot reverse the burden of proof and insist we must enumerate all other climate influences before giving up on the central conceit that CO2 from humans drives climate.

They're not reversing the burden of proof. They're saying here's a theory backed by a ton of observations and has imperfectly predicted warming for decades. And no one has been able to offer an alternate theory for what's happening.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Meanwhile, in reality world... by hsthompson69 · 2014-05-20 18:10 · Score: 1

When the IPCC says there's a 95-100% chance that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010 isn't that a falsifiable hypothesis?
No. You haven't mentioned any observations that would falsify it. It's an assertion.

I don't think that counts for events where we don't have sufficient data.
You doubt the ice core record and the changes of ice ages?

That sounds a lot like the god of the gaps, we can't account for every minor natural forcing so we can't make conclusions about the major forcings.
You've got it the other way around - the god of the gaps is "unless you account for every minor and major natural forcing, you must believe that it was my god of CO2 that did it". Much like creationists say "unless you account for every step of evolution for every organism, you must believe that it was my god that did it".

And every observation with evolution is consistent with ID. AGW is the only good theory that explains all those observations
Every observation of evolution is consistent with ID because ID has no falsifications - it explains *everything*.
Every observation of global temperature and CO2 is consistent with AGW because AGW has no falsifications - it explains *everything*.

They're saying here's a theory backed by a ton of observations and has imperfectly predicted warming for decades. And no one has been able to offer an alternate theory for what's happening.
Astrology has tons of observations too - what it doesn't have is falsifiability :)
As for the alternate theory, again, you're arguing the god of the gaps - if we can't enumerate all the details, we must believe it's your God :)
Let's not forget the null hypothesis, which to date, has not been excluded - natural climate change.

RTFA, not global warming by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 08:00 · Score: 1

Ice is melting from warm currents in the sea, not global warming. They only said warmer winds from global warming MAY hasten the melting a little.

Global warming itself was only going to raise sea levels about a foot over 100 years... hardly something to get worked up over.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:RTFA, not global warming by Layzej · 2014-05-12 08:18 · Score: 2

What do you suppose is heating the ocean?
Re:RTFA, not global warming by Nyder · 2014-05-12 09:28 · Score: 1

What do you suppose is heating the ocean?
Mammals peeing in it.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:RTFA, not global warming by Layzej · 2014-05-12 09:58 · Score: 1

The answer (global warming) can be found in this recent paper (among others) whose results emphasize "the oceans' role as Earth's primary energy store. Correlation of trends in total system energy (TE time integrated TOA) against trends in OHC suggests that for most models the ocean becomes the dominant term in the planetary energy budget on a timescale of about 12 months." http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
Re:RTFA, not global warming by dywolf · 2014-05-13 07:44 · Score: 1

1- warm currents caused by global warming. the oceans are warming, due to global warming, and it is shifting the paths of some currents, and intensifying others.
2- it's risen 8 inches since hte 1880s, and that alone was enough to allow Lower Manhattan to flood from Sandy's storm surge.
3- its also not "just a foot" over the next 100 years. its closer to 3 feet by 2100, on the conservative side of estimates.
4- these arent even the main point. the main point is that the trend could reacha tipping point, beyond which it is garunteed that the Antarctic, Greenland, all the ice basically, will melt. gradually, over time, maybe 200 years...but still: ALL OF THE ICE SHEETS GONE. That is bad. That is bas because it means a minimum of ~80ft higher sea level. Which means Long Island, NYC, most of the eastern seaboard to about 70 miles inland (at least), California's Central Valley, LA and San Diego, all of the Florida, most of Louisiana, the gulf coast inland about 200 miles, Baja California (minus the mtn ridges), Seatle, Tokyo...the list goes on....will all be underwater.
Which translates into: 50% of the worlds population being displaced, and the worlds largest, most economically important cities, being gone.
Because of global warming
So it is, it REALLY IS, kind of a big deal.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Irrelevant, RTFA. Ice melt not from AGW. by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 0, Troll

Not sure why you are bringing up those tired global warming talking points since (as the article notes) the melting has nothing to do with global warming, but from warmer currents about which we can do nothing.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Seriously? by sirwired · 2014-05-12 08:02 · Score: 5, Informative

It's not "waterfront property" that anybody is worried about. It's the fact that a very large number of the world's current cities happen to be located near the water for historical reasons (major trading hubs built around ports for oceangoing ships.) The utter annihilation of those cities is a huge economic problem.

And flooding Death Valley with seawater doesn't create a single acre of arable land. You can't farm jack $hit out of soil contaminated with salt. The shores of the Persian gulf (nor, for that matter the shores of southern CA) don't support much in the way of farms, despite the large body of water next door.

Re:Seriously? by Wycliffe · 2014-05-12 11:12 · Score: 1

Creating "waterfront property" isn't the primary objective. The objective would be to give the water some place to go
so that it doesn't rise. How much ice per year are we talking about? As the rise is "inevitable", it would probably be
alot cheaper to divert the "extra" water somewhere than to relocate the cities. We could freeze it and stick it back
on antartica but that would require alot more energy than just diverting it to low spots that could use the water.
Re:Seriously? by delt0r · 2014-05-14 02:56 · Score: 1

The utter annihilation of those cities is a huge economic problem.
Oh FFS enough with the chicken little already. 7mm per year *worst case* is the current predictions. There is not going to be any annihilation of anywhere much less utter annihilation.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Unstoppable? by Alomex · 2014-05-12 08:04 · Score: 1

West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable,

The "unstoppable" part is gratuitous and meant to create a sense of urgency. The melting is supposed to take place over hundreds of years, so if by some miracle of science we could reduce C02 production by 50% in 30 years, likely the melting process would stop. If only we had a clean source(s) of energy growing exponentially that could replace fossil fuels. I don't know something powered by either nuclear fusion on Earth or fission high above in outer space where it is safe to store a massive fission reactor from which we could collect energy in the form of radiation.

Re:Unstoppable? by Jason+Levine · 2014-05-12 08:39 · Score: 1

The problem is (to use a car analogy) this:
We're in a car going at 5280 feet per hour (1 mile per hour). We're headed for a cliff that is 100 miles away. Right now, the brakes we have can only reduce our speed by 1 foot per hour for every minute we keep it applied. That's cutting it close enough that we may or may not be able to avoid going over the cliff. We might be able to - on the fly - develop new brakes that can slow us down quicker. Unfortunately, there are people in the car complaining that the cliff is just an illusion and we should hit the gas instead. They are keeping us from even trying out the brakes because they make more money the faster the car goes. Of course, the longer these people make the existence of the cliff a "debate", the closer we get to the cliff.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Unstoppable? by Alomex · 2014-05-12 08:43 · Score: 1

Actually when planes stopped flying during 9/11 the temperature drop noticeably. The short term correlation between C02 and temperature is rather weak (this remains a Nobel prize caliber puzzle for whoever can explain this), which also suggests that rapid decreases could potentially be felt rather early.
Climate change is a reality and scientific consensus, long-into-the-future predictions of gloom and doom are speculations over which little is (yet) known.
Re:Unstoppable? by PPH · 2014-05-12 12:17 · Score: 2

Actually, the effect of the 9/11 grounding was to increase maximum daytime temperatures and decrease minimum nighttime temperatures (see article). Reasons for this are generally accepted as being due to the change in water vapor high in the atmosphere affecting heat absorption (daytime) and radiation (nighttime).

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Unstoppable? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 03:14 · Score: 0

_if by some miracle of science we could reduce C02 production by 50% in 30 years, likely the melting process would stop_
Unstoppable, as in unstoppable, if you initiated nuclear winter today it would still melt. Its like a collapsing house, once the first floor is dust it doesn't matter what you do, the house is coming down. Ice glacier is resting on landmass and slowly pouring into sea, but the speed of movement is not a linear function of temperature, heat the glacier above some trigger temperature and it will start flowing lots faster, emptying to sea in hundreds of years as opposed to millions of years. Once you have passed the trigger there is no turning back.
Re:Unstoppable? by Reziac · 2014-05-13 07:22 · Score: 1

TFA to which you link says "however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period."
When I lived in the desert, I regularly observed that over the course of a day that started off with a completely clear sky (the natural everyday state of the desert sky), by early-afternoon contrails from Burbank and LAX sufficed to create a high-altitude haze that covered most of the sky.
So I'd say rather that the "unusually clear weather" resulted from a lack of contrails.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

New beach front property by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:05 · Score: 0

The thing I love about the warming trend on earth is that all these rich folks who sunk billions upon billions of dollars to acquire all the beach front property they now have will have nothing when the water rises. Come on sea rise. It can't happen fast enough.

Get a horse! by Thud457 · 2014-05-12 08:07 · Score: 1

Why on Earth would anyone want a 3-cylinder "truck"??!!!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Revealing documentary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:09 · Score: 0

Check out Chasing Ice by James Balog. It reveals an disturbing image how the glaciers are vanishing! http://www.chasingice.com/

Re:Irrelevant, RTFA. Ice melt not from AGW. by bunratty · 2014-05-12 08:10 · Score: 2

Which article? The OSS article says the data confirms three factors, the first of which is "Antarctica is warming". That makes sense, if the globe is warming then that will cause Antarctica to warm.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

And for our next act... by jess_wundring · 2014-05-12 08:11 · Score: 0

Oh hey, lets blame this on Global Warming, um, I mean Climate Change. Oh wait, I know, lets call it Earth Changes. Yeah, that covers it.

Its all our fault that there's a volcano melting the ice sheet. We have just too many people on this earth now. Its squishing down the world's insides and making magma pop out of the bottom.

http://www.livescience.com/412...

Time to move by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:12 · Score: 0

Well if the Construction industry gets into this, we could build solar powered Arks with Sail capability. Bring on the new sea highways!

Not our fault by SuperTechnoNerd · 2014-05-12 08:12 · Score: 1

Well im glad that we have nothing to do with this..

Re:Not our fault by retroworks · 2014-05-12 10:31 · Score: 2

Not a denier or Rubio fan, but most of the comments on this page miss these two paragraphs in TFA.
"Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water, which is naturally occurring, from the ocean depths. That water is being pulled upward and toward the ice sheet by intensification of the winds around Antarctica.
Most scientists in the field see a connection between the stronger winds and human-caused global warming, but they say other factors are likely at work, too. Natural variability of climate may be one of them. Another may be the ozone hole over Antarctica, caused by an entirely different environmental problem, the human release of ozone-destroying gases."

--
Gently reply

Re:Irrelevant, RTFA. Ice melt not from AGW. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-05-12 08:15 · Score: 1

the melting has nothing to do with global warming, but from warmer currents about which we can do nothing.

Well, obviously . . . we need to declare a "War on Warm!"

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Water World! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:16 · Score: 0

Can't wait to get my gills!!!

Something that's always bothered me... by Sigmon · 2014-05-12 08:24 · Score: 0

Nobody seems to stop and consider: According to plate tectonics, Antarctica wasn't always at the south pole... presumably, that ice hasn't _always_ been there. Where did it come from? The ocean, duh! In other words... All this ice was previously in the ocean to begin with... The Earth is just slowly cycling back to a state where we've been before. With continued plate tectonic activity the Antarctic continent will (eventually) move away from the south pole again anyway... and the ice will surely melt. What will we do to stem THAT tide? (if you'll pardon the pun) It's just always seemed absurd to me that people display a significant amount of panic over something that is GOING to happen... on its own... whether we like it or not. So what if we are or aren't accelerating it? Even if every ice crystal on Antarctica melts on significantly less than geologic time-scales... it's still only going to happen on a time-scale in which entire civilizations rise and fall. Knowing that the Earth has experienced warm periods and ice ages and at the same time exclaiming that the ocean level today is exactly what it should always be is the epitome of arrogance. Don't be arrogant.

Venice, Italy has been inhabited for well over a thousand years... slowly sinking into the sea... and people still live there. Rest assured, the future inhabitants of the shoreline (where ever it may be) will likely be toiling away, trying to make a living, much as we are today - and have been for thousands of years. Don't panic.

Re:Something that's always bothered me... by JohnNemesh · 2014-05-12 08:52 · Score: 1

So...Antarctica wasn't at the south pole, and had no ice...THEREFORE...there must not have been ice at the south pole! Small problem with your logic, bub.
Re:Something that's always bothered me... by frnic · 2014-05-12 09:41 · Score: 2

You have a serious issue with time frames. In one case you are referring to plate tectonics which move over periods of millions of years. On the other you are referring to our causing changes in the next 100 years that are equivalent. Then you say since they change would have happened anyway in the next million years or so, why is everyone upset at it happening in the next hundred years or so...
Re:Something that's always bothered me... by Sigmon · 2014-05-12 10:04 · Score: 1

Not in the slightest. I didn't say there wouldn't have been ice (or won't be in the future) at the south pole... I said there wouldn't have been (and won't be at some point in the future) on the continent of Antarctica... as plate tectonics shoved the plate toward... and eventually will shove it away from the south pole. The water evaporating from the oceans over the eons... and precipitating it on land above sea-level at the pole -as ice- slowly drew the ocean levels down by some amount. This process will inexorably reverse. Any ice that may have existed at the south pole before Antarctica drifted there would have no effect on ocean levels... much like the north sea presently.
I've read about some scientific theories that postulate a trigger for planetary ice-ages is, in fact, a continent drifting across one of the poles... creating a run-away effect of increasing the albedo of the planet. One possible consequence of these theories is that we are currently smack in the middle of one of these ice-age phases - and that the "normal" state of the globe is, in fact, very little or NO ice... anywhere on the entire planet... with possibly a few seasonal exceptions in extreme locations.
The point is, the Earth will do what the Earth will do - and there is nothing we can do to stop it or change it. As any kind of Earth-science should teach us - change is the only constant in this world... Look at the fossil record! How many thousands of species lived and passed away? I live a thousand miles from the nearest ocean - yet there are fossils of sea-creatures here! Things change. And the factors that govern our climate are HUGELY more complex than than our politicians and their useful idiots are prepared to accept. Yes, we humans could wipe ourselves out someday - but its not going to happen by using the natural resources given unto us by mother nature herself to survive.
Re:Something that's always bothered me... by Sigmon · 2014-05-12 10:10 · Score: 1

The idea that the oceans may rise any civilization-threatening amount in the next century is laughable. If they had said 10,000 years... I might have been interested enough to look into it. Consider the surface temperature in Antarctica year-round and compare that to the melting point of H2O... The temps are going to have to raise a HECKOFALOT to get anywhere close to -32 F.
Re:Something that's always bothered me... by david_thornley · 2014-05-13 04:31 · Score: 1

Except that we can change what is going on on the planet, such as putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. It's risen from about 280ppm to about 400ppm in less than two centuries, and we did that. Also, plate tectonics aren't going to modify the climate fast enough to worry about, unlike global warming. It's mostly the rate of change that is the problem.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Only one link man... by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 08:24 · Score: 3, Informative

How hard can it be when the summary has but a single link:

"Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water"

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Only one link man... by asylumx · 2014-05-12 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I didn't know global warming only affected air temps...?
Re:Only one link man... by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 10:25 · Score: 0

I didn't know global warming only affected air temps...?
It doesn't affect water temps significantly, that has a HUGE mass to change. It's certainly not going to cause warm currents to spring up from nowhere.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Only one link man... by riverat1 · 2014-05-13 10:56 · Score: 1

The problem with your analysis is that over 90% of the heat from global warming is going into the oceans and less than 5% of it is going into the atmosphere so it's not surprising that ocean currents are getting warmer.
Re:Only one link man... by khallow · 2014-05-15 23:29 · Score: 1

The problem with your analysis is that over 90% of the heat from global warming is going into the oceans
Unless, of course, it's not. Do I need to keep reminding people that asserting things without evidence leaves an automatic, huge gaping hole in their argument? Last I heard, they haven't been measuring ocean temperatures for more than a few decades (and deep ocean for more than about a decade). Where's the pre-industrial civilization temperature baseline for the ocean against which you are making this comparison?

I grant that at some point, we actually will have enough observations made over a long enough time at a detailed enough resolution to make scientifically valid claims like the above. I even grant that you may well be right in your assertion. What I don't grant is your false certainty.

Old News by TFlan91 · 2014-05-12 08:25 · Score: 1

Clearly no one watches Vice.

http://www.hbo.com/vice/episod...

The most intelligent comment I've seen yet on this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:25 · Score: 0

...and it's modded 0 because it doesn't fit the paranoid splashdolt paradigm.

RTFA, Ask The Scientists by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 08:27 · Score: 0

What do you suppose is heating the ocean?

Unlike you, real scientists say Not Global Warming:

"Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water"

Did you know the earths core has heat too?

Your name is not unironic in this situation.

I knew when I read this article that it would automatically trigger the Warmists to spread their message of panic and fear.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:RTFA, Ask The Scientists by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:48 · Score: 0

Unlike you, real scientists say Not Global Warming:
As a real scientist, I disagree.

"Scientists said the ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because of the relatively warm water"
You do not consider the oceans part of the globe? The term he used wasn't air warming, it was global warming.

Did you know the earths core has heat too?
Pretty sure it couldn't be absolute zero, so yes.

Your name is not unironic in this situation.
Your name is ironic, you don't need the double negative

I knew when I read this article that it would automatically trigger the Warmists to spread their message of panic and fear.
But who pays you to troll so hard?
Re:RTFA, Ask The Scientists by Layzej · 2014-05-12 09:33 · Score: 2

FTFA: "The collapse of large parts of the ice sheet in West Antarctica appears to have begun and is almost certainly unstoppable, with global warming accelerating the pace of the disintegration, two groups of scientists reported Monday."
Re:RTFA, Ask The Scientists by Layzej · 2014-05-12 09:35 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, what do you suppose 'Layzej' means? I'm curious how that could be 'not unironic'...
Re:RTFA, Ask The Scientists by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 10:33 · Score: 1

As a real scientist, I disagree.
A subject matter expert as are the ones quoted? As in you've done nothing but study glaciers your whole career?
Yeah right.
You do not consider the oceans part of the globe?
The currents in play are, as stated, not caused by global warming so in that sense no.
You need to think more about what is being said instead of living so much in your own head.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:RTFA, Ask The Scientists by WhiteZook · 2014-05-12 19:25 · Score: 1

The heat flux from the earth's core into the oceans is 100mW/m^2. Heat flux from the sun is 1kW/m^2. As far as global climate is concerned, we can safely ignore geothermal effects.

Fear Mongering by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:28 · Score: -1

This will have the effect as placing an ice cube in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:31 · Score: 0

I'll solve the global warming problem right now. All you need to do is get these alarmists to stop spewing their hot air.

Humorous to see the posts here. by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 08:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

So many are blaming the far right and rich ppl. Yet, I would have to say that it is the far right AND THE FAR LEFT. The left deserves a lot of blame for things. For example, they fight using symbolic gestures, rather than items that will make a difference. Take the case of keystone pipeline. Will it stop CO2 emissions or pollution? Nope. Canada currently transports via train all over north America. Will building the pipeline increase the emissions? Nope (might actually lower it slightly since pipelines are far more efficient than the train). What drives the tar oil is money. The fact is, that Canada will continuing mining it as long as it is economically feasible. And that will continue while oil is about 70/bl.
Instead, the far left should be pushing for a COMPROMISE in which keystone is built, BUT,trade for changes that will lower the demand for oil. Best way is to temporarily subsidize NEW NAT. GAS COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, along with stations for CNG and LNG. In addition, modify the subsidies on electric vehicles. Basically, hybrids should not be included, or should have minimal subsidies.

Then we have the far left screaming about America's emissions, while ignoring the fact that China, India, South Africa, Germany, Japan, other nations are building new coal plants. America accounts for less than 15% of emissions, and ours is dropping (both in % as well as in totals). In addition, America will be shutting down a number of coal plants over the next 3 years, and our emissions will likely be 13% or less.
OTOH, China is building loads of new coal plants and accounts for more than 33% of CO2 emissions. In fact, they open up a new one EACH WEEK. And NONE OF THESE WILL BE CLOSED OVER THE NEXT 50 years. And yet, the far left screams that the west, esp. America, is to blame for all of this.
Yet, if America were to stop ALL CO2 emissions, within 10 years, CHina's new additions would equal what America stopped. Yes, they are INCREASING BY an America's worth of CO2 EACH DECADE. That is just insane.
Then add to this the fact that Europe is increasing their emissions as well. They are no longer dropping esp. since Poland and Germany are growing their coal plants.

There are problems, but the real issue is NOT JUST THE WELL KNOWN FAR RIGHT.
It is national leaders that want to cheat and the far left that will allow them to do so.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Humorous to see the posts here. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:45 · Score: 0

Instead, the far left should be pushing for a COMPROMISE
All the left ever does is compromise, because the right absolutely refuses to budge on anything, throwing temper tantrums and shutting down the whole god damned country if they don't get their way, and we end up with disasters like RomneyCare.
No, the left should stop compromising because all that does is push the right even further right because they continue rejecting their own policies simply because they're coming from "the left".
Re:Humorous to see the posts here. by WindBourne · 2014-05-12 10:25 · Score: 1

Well, obviously, you are the one that modded me down and then do not have the courage to even post who you are. Sad (I will in fact, post who I am when I do the same).

Now, with that said, stopping keystone accomplishes NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. Instead, with a smart compromise, you could have stopped the pollution. In kyoto, the far left allowed China to grow their coal plants like there was no tomorrow. That had to be the STUPIDEST compromise that I have ever heard off. All you did was help move manufacturing from relatively clean west, to a nation that pollutes more than the west has EVER done.

It is long past time for you lefties to get smart. And screaming that you will not compromise is a guarantee that we will continue down the same path.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Humorous to see the posts here. by Reziac · 2014-05-13 07:39 · Score: 1

Alt-Keystone: build pipeline to just south of the border, ending at the nearest rail line. Build refineries there. Ship end products same as they'd have been shipped from wherever the original endpoint was to be. I don't know how that would work out economically, but as it stands we'll all die of old age before they make up our minds, so we might as well look at alternatives.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Genesis by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:34 · Score: 0

Genesis is at least as reliable and doesn't take anything away from honest scientific observation.

Re:Genesis by MightyMartian · 2014-05-12 09:11 · Score: 1

By honest, you mean "does not intrude on my ideology".

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

"Cuethedeniers" by DiamondGeezer · 2014-05-12 08:39 · Score: 0

Why bother allowing people to comment if you're going to insult them with reference to Holocaust Denial?

Alternatively, exactly who died that a claim of climate modellers about future events became Holy Writ that may not be challenged or questioned?

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question

I Don't Buy the Consensus on Antarctica by mtrachtenberg · 2014-05-12 08:44 · Score: 4, Funny

I have never even seen Antarctica, and I don't recall anyone talking about it twenty years ago. If 97% of geographers say Antarctica exists, I'd just like to point out that I've driven 50 miles in every direction but up and haven't seen no sign at all. And I'm pretty sure that my brother's boss once heard that geographers are telling us about this mythical Antarctica to take money from people like me and give it to themselves.

No continent I've ever seen is going to make me worry about sea-level rise, so keep yer commeenistic plots off of Slashdot.

Re:I Don't Buy the Consensus on Antarctica by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 14:54 · Score: 1

I have never even seen Antarctica, and I don't recall anyone talking about it twenty years ago. If 97% of geographers say Antarctica exists, I'd just like to point out that I've driven 50 miles in every direction but up and haven't seen no sign at all. And I'm pretty sure that my brother's boss once heard that geographers are telling us about this mythical Antarctica to take money from people like me and give it to themselves.
No continent I've ever seen is going to make me worry about sea-level rise, so keep yer commeenistic plots off of Slashdot.
Antarctica can't exist. It's easy to prove. It's often described as the southernmost continent on the planet. Well, what happens if you go there, then head south? Hmm?

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.

Gumment conspiracy! by JohnNemesh · 2014-05-12 08:46 · Score: 1

Come ON! Everyone who watches Fox News KNOWS that this is nothing more than a conspiracy by the guvment to increase regulation and hurt job creators!

OK by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 08:46 · Score: 0

Just tied the dinghy off to the back porch.

The Crisis is Only for the Little People by Pauldow · 2014-05-12 08:58 · Score: -1, Troll

Like the Blogfather over at Instapundit always says:

I'll believe there's a crisis,
When the people who are saying there's a crisis,
Start acting like there's a crisis.

Until then, I don't want to hear a damn thing about my carbon footprint while the President sends a couple C-5 planes before any trip he makes, along with two 747's, and dozens of ground vehicles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Re:The Crisis is Only for the Little People by geekoid · 2014-05-12 10:25 · Score: 2

And the short sighted continue to not change becasue they need to be led like sheep. How does it feel to be a sheep? Staring blankly at some screen, shoveling food in your mouth. Here is a translation into you native tongue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You think there might be some complex reason on why the president needs to make person appearance?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

100m above sea level? Shut down the Netherlands! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:14 · Score: 0

If everything has to be 100m above sea level, what about the Netherlands? Should all the Dutch people be forced to move to Africa or something?

Re:Irrelevant, RTFA. Ice melt not from AGW. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:22 · Score: 0

Arm the nukes and point them away from Russia (nice and cold!) and nuke the shit out of every desert on the map!
We keep nuking until they agree to cool down.

Re:Irrelevant, RTFA. Ice melt not from AGW. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:26 · Score: 0

The way the US fights its Wars on Abstract Concepts, the "War on Warm" would involve lighting the entire atmosphere on fire.

Put your money where your mouth is by Tablizer · 2014-05-12 09:26 · Score: 1

I keep telling deniers: If you really believe it's BS, then you can currently buy south-eastern* beachfront property at a discount, because half the buyers believe it doomed. If climate change turns out to be BS in a decade or two, you'll be very wealthy. That's gets some of them researching it more because money is involved.

* S.E. US beaches are deemed especially vulnerable due to the patterns of sea currents.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is by hey! · 2014-05-12 10:45 · Score: 1

My civil engineer brother-in-law is currently searching for a cottage across the street from some currently beachfront property.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Put your money where your mouth is by Kernel+Kurtz · 2014-05-12 11:21 · Score: 1

Absolutely.
If you can predict the climate accurately you can be a billionaire easily.
I have no idea why all those climate scientists forgo the Ferraris and Swiss villas. Should be easy money.

Attention Earth: we are in an ice age right now by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:35 · Score: 0

We are actually in an ice age right now. Have been for thousands of years. You can tell by all the icy glaciers and icy ice caps. If we weren't in an ice age, that ice wouldn't be there.

Questions for scientists:

* is this ice age climate stable?

* can we stop the current ice age from ending?

* if we cool down the earth, what is the chance of the glaciers advancing and covering large parts of the planet?

* would humans be better off or worse off with glaciers covering large parts of the planet?

How long since you last watched the HTML of ./ ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:36 · Score: 0

I gave a peek at the HTML source and I found:
- multiple leading / for URLs, like ///beta.slashdot.org etc
- the ads JavaScript source is A LOT, maybe more than functional JavaScript
- DoubleClick is everywhere. thanks to god I block that crap
- invalid HTML

Please, kill it, doesn't deserve anymore to carry the honorable /. name...

All time low or all time high? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:47 · Score: 0

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/12/Antarctic-Sea-Ice-at-All-Time-Record-Levels

P.S. Next week, I'm sure the Times will post about melting glaciers. Just in case it comes up:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/10/melting-by-2035-hardly-new-study-shows-most-himalayan-glaciers-are-stable-and-in-a-steady-state/

Karl Rove and Homer Simpson have the answer to tha by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:57 · Score: 0

you're clearly not a "facts oriented" kind of person.

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true. Facts, schmacts.

But see, guys like you are in what we call the "reality-based" community, which is people who believe that solutions emerge from the judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

In a 1000 years... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 09:57 · Score: 0

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/
Check out the link.
A lot of things could happen in a thousand years.
We could get hit by an asteroid...
We could get wiped out by an epidemic...

More global warming alarmism.

In a related story, antarctic ice is a a record high level sinc3e satellite observations began.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels/

Re:In a 1000 years... by coinreturn · 2014-05-13 01:33 · Score: 1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/the-guardians-suzanne-goldenberg-jumps-the-shark-again-gets-called-out-by-nyt/ Check out the link. A lot of things could happen in a thousand years. We could get hit by an asteroid... We could get wiped out by an epidemic...
More global warming alarmism.
In a related story, antarctic ice is a a record high level sinc3e satellite observations began. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
So your argument against fighting climate change is that we might already be all dead before it matters?

alternative solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:26 · Score: 0

Several years ago I saw an article suggesting that a small nuclear detonation would kick up enough dust to accomplish the same thing. So lets solve two problems at once and nuke the middle east...

Yes, and? by SuperKendall · 2014-05-12 10:31 · Score: 1

An acceleration of something already happening does not make it the cause, or even a problem.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Yes, and? by serviscope_minor · 2014-05-12 23:33 · Score: 1

An acceleration of something already happening does not make it the cause, or even a problem.
Well, you've certainly entertained me today with some more nutbaggery from the denialist camp. So far we now have the options that "global warming doesn't warm the water, and all the heat comes from the core" and "global warming isn't causing this because of semantics".
Well done. That's actually two species of stupidity I've not encountered before.
Anyway, I'm going to try to fix my brain by reading timecube.com again, since that contains more sense than your posts.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

IPCC predicts sea level rise of 7mm/year, at worst by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:38 · Score: 0

The problem is that rising sea levels and rapidly changing global climate patterns will disrupt our lives. Food that was able to be grown in certain locations won't be able to be grown there anymore. Maybe it'll be able to be grown somewhere else (necessitating building a new supply chain to the new growth spot) or maybe it won't be able to be grown at all anymore. Worse storms/rising sea levels will cause more flooding and damage to homes and businesses. This will cost quite a lot economically to deal with.

How much rising sea levels are you talking about? The worst i could find in the IPCC report is a prediction that the sea would rise by 0.6 meters by 2099. That's a rate of rise of less than 7mm per year. Surely 7mm per year isn't going to destroy humanity,

Did i read the IPCC report wrong? Is there a prediction of massive rapid sea level rise in there?

water displacement problems now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:39 · Score: 0

isn't the majority of this ice formed as part of ocean water underneath?

and isn't it physics science that tells us that the ice formations above sea level have already displaced the maximum volume of water displacement possible?

are these massive ice chunks MOSTLY sitting on actual land thereby being unable to displace their volume in the ocean already?

so filling your glass near full with water then the remaining volume with ice sticking above the rim now magically causes the water to overflow the rim when the ice melts?

weird science if so.

Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:39 · Score: 0

No, man. I've *been* to Florida. You don't know the meaning of fear until you see some bagel-barge with a little bit of silver hair sticking up behind the steering wheel enter traffic in complete disregard of trivia like stoplights and signs and other vehicles.

The best thing we can do here is put a REAL high fence between Florida and the rest of the US, and wait until the sea levels come up three or four meters before taking it down and enjoying our new fishing preserve.

How it actually works by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 10:50 · Score: 0

Most of the antarctic ice is in a bowl below sea level; if there is a path from that bowl to the ocean, it is already displacing water. OTOH, if there isn't a path from that bowl to the ocean, then the melt won't get to the ocean and won't cause ocean rise. If there isn't a path now, but one opens after the melt, the ocean will pour IN if there's any room left; which will REDUCE the sea level. Therefore, only ice that is above sea level AND supported by land can contribute to sea level rise.

Take a glass. Fill it about 3/4ths. Put ice in it. Mark the new water level. Let the ice melt. Observe the water level. No change.

Only ice that is *above* sea level can contribute to ocean rise.

--fyngyrz / anon due to mod points.

Zontar The Mindless = "eat your words" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:01 · Score: -1

"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You said MY program's a spyware?

Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!

Now: Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

---

"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You say my program's crapware?

Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...

---

"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.

You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.

APK

P.S.=> You FAIL, sockpuppeteer troll...

... apk

Re:Zontar The Mindless = "eat your words" by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-12 19:24 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, did you have something to say about personal freedoms and reproductive choice? Doesn't seem much like it.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Zontar The Mindless = "eat your words" by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-05-12 19:29 · Score: 1

"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.
Why should anyone bother, when you keep doing such a wonderful job of proving it yourself, just like you do here?
Oh! I almost forgot---How did you like the postcard?

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Zontar The Mindless = "eat your words" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 11:05 · Score: -1

"Your hosts file app is SPYWARE, dude." - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @02:43AM (#46702387) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You said MY program's a spyware?

Ok: CONTRARY PROOF from a REPUTABLE security community source http://slashdot.org/comments.p... who hosts my app (malwarebytes hpHosts) which you are FREE TO VERIFY by email if you like as MY proof!

Now: Is YOUR SOURCE Computer Associates REPUTABLE? See here http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

---

"for a crapware host files app that nobody in his right mind wants to allow anywhere close to his system" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:24PM (#46769393) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

You say my program's crapware?

Disprove 17 points here showing hosts give uses more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity then since YOu say my program's "crapware" http://start64.com/index.php?o...

---

"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Show us a post where I put up material on hosts where it doesn't apply.

You can't, can you? Nope - That makes YOU a liar.

APK

P.S.=> You FAIL, sockpuppeteer troll...

... apk

Your explanation does not improve your plan. by sirwired · 2014-05-12 11:21 · Score: 1

I suspect the volume of the entire world's damable valleys is pretty darn low in relation to the Antarctic and Icelandic ice caps. And the number of sub-sea-level valleys is even lower.

Re:Your explanation does not improve your plan. by Wycliffe · 2014-05-12 13:32 · Score: 1

So I guess we're all screwed. Everyone run for the hills.

Meanwhile In Other News by rssrss · 2014-05-12 11:42 · Score: 0

"Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels" Posted on May 12, 2014 by Anthony Watts

"Antarctic sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres."

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Re:Meanwhile In Other News by bledri · 2014-05-12 13:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?. And more importantly, as one of the commenters point out:

In a place where the temperature is always well below freezing, "global warming" is not going to melt all the ice. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem elsewhere. Even if there were no net ice loss on earth, if we're losing ice in places we need it (such as mountain ranges that supply people with drinking water), and accumulate it in places that have no humans at all (Antarctica), that's an enormous problem.
But hey, let's confuse land ice and sea ice and create doubt about the actual science by cherry picking data, spreading half-truths and general misinformation.

--
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Re:Meanwhile In Other News by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 12:58 · Score: 0

> But hey, let's confuse land ice and sea ice and create doubt about the actual science by cherry picking data, spreading half-truths and general misinformation.
Or we could just admit that the people most often warning about global warming have a proven track record of lying on practically everything else...
"If you like your plan you can keep your plan..."
"It was an internet video, not a failure of broader policy..."
"We can't IMAGINE how all those guns got into Mexico, but we don't want to FIRE anyone for it...even if they WERE used to kill a US agent..."
"I called it terrorism the very next day..."
"The IRS has been targeting conservatives??? That's an OUTRAGE! We will do a full investigation...Oh, there wasn't a SMIDGEON of corruption, Bill!"
It just goes on and on and on. If Rand Paul tells me we need to raise taxes to do something about global warming, maybe I'll reconsider, otherwise it's just more money to pay for more lying.

And don't forget . . . by StefanJ · 2014-05-12 11:50 · Score: 2

Virtually all of the people who have visited "Antarctica" are SCIENTISTS. And the rest are GOVERNMENT WORKERS.

Can we really believe people who have a vested interest in grant money to accurately report on this place?

Pretty soon now we'll find the set in Alaska where "South pole research station" news segments are filmed.

Of course they have a good answer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:33 · Score: 0

Carbon tax. Let the market figure out the details. If we choose to use the same amount of electricity (which we won't), well, we've got a big bucket of money to fund research into carbon-free alternatives.

All of this hand-wringing about no solution assumes constant demand, when in fact conservation is the low-hanging fruit as far as solutions go. Price carbon electricity like it cost the planet to generate, and change will be very fast.

anonymous coward by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 12:37 · Score: 0

If short term comfort was all that mattered to people nobody would ever take out mortgages, so, er, yeah.

Quite the opposite. The existence and popularity of mortgages proves that people are willing to take the easy, short-term solution (debt for years) versus saving up and buying something you can actually afford.

The fact mortgages are accepted and seen as standard is further evidence, that short-term is all that matters.

You can save by buying in cash.

Credit is completely about convenience and GIMME GIMME GIMME NOW!

Having to save up and buy things you can actually afford? That is long-term and responsible.

apply tags by Ost99 · 2014-05-12 13:48 · Score: 2

Again with the claim of big $$.
Do you have any idea how moronic that looks when the "let it burn" crowd is the oil and coal industry?

--
---- Sig. gone.

Re:apply tags by bobbied · 2014-05-13 03:05 · Score: 1

Flame on!
Ok, I'm pretty much done with you on this. You want to stand up on the soap box and yell about how your opponents are wrong, oh so wrong, yet you don't want to engage on the issue and provide evidence of anything. (Not that slashdot is known for that kind of thing...)
So, relationship change for you, just so I can remember that you are more interested in flame wars than discussing anything of substance.
So for you Osi99, it's FULL STOP on all topics,. Wish you the best but I don't have time to deal with such foolishness.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101

But Venice is doing just fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 13:48 · Score: 0

After 1,500 years still at sea level.

apply tags by Ost99 · 2014-05-12 14:25 · Score: 1

There's very few areas where the cost of renting is lower than interest unless there's some form of rent control.

--
---- Sig. gone.

A Collapse Deferred by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 14:54 · Score: 0

The "collapse" will, IF CORRECT, take place over a period as little as 1000 years and as much as 100,000 years according to their 'computer models.'

In 2020, the coast line of West Antarctica will appear as unchanged from today 2014 !

In 2060, the coast line of West Antarctica will appear as unchanged from today 2014 !

Will the United States of America exist in 2614 ?

No one can answer that !

The real purpose of these paper from UW and UCI are to sequester Federal research monies from the NSA and of course NASA for the federal funding cycles FY15 and FY16. FY16 is the most important as it is the LAST FY funding cycle that the President Barak Obama can gerrymander for his own nefarious purposes.

Ha
Ha

Ok, lead by example by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 15:11 · Score: 0

"First we need less babies."

So, you "greenies" should stop having kids.

"Then we need to make certain that energy demands decrease for each individual."

OK, you guys need to stop driving cars, flying on planes, and using all your electronic gadgets which consume HUGE quantities of electrcity. In the 1950's there were NO personal computers, NO smart phones or cell phones, NO iPads, etc and people got along just fine... Their primary electrical loads were for TVs, ovens, refrigerators, and washing machines (all of which are more efficient today) so by dropping all the modern gadgets you are hooked on, you should end up consuming less than people did back then. You want recreation? Go fishing or hiking.

I am always impressed by the "green" activists who live with always-on electronic gadgets nearly grafted to their bodies which are fully-dependent upon a VERY power-hungry internet loaded with millions of servers, routers, WiFi hotspots, etc (gigawatts that previous generations of people did not need) and who think nothing of hopping onto jets to go to meetings/conferences (almost always in nice resort locations rather than in places that make sense). It's also interesting to see all the rich "greenies" who profess their great concern for the climate and the environment and the plant.... but who own multiple huge mansions with heated pools and hot tubs and saunas and 60+ inch TVs and nearly everything automated while owning luxury cars and private planes. Some of these clowns even claim to believe the seas are rising and will soon submerge all low-lying areas..... while they buy/build very expensive homes on exotic beaches.

I put great value on what people DO and not what they SAY. That goes for assigning credit/blame for things, and also is a great sign of whether somebody actually believes the things he claims to believe. It's easy for the super-rich to curry favor with the masses (who would naturally be inclined to dislike them for their wealth) by making the expected statements about the environment - but that's all just an indirect plea of "don't rob me, you poor people!" if it's not accompanied but real action. Oh, and Wyoming is a breath of fresh air - I thought all you left-wingers supported teaching kids "critical thinking skills" over recited propaganda, but apparently the only things you want kids to think critically about are traditional Western Civilization ....

Noooo.... Sagan was warning against nuclear winter by jpellino · 2014-05-12 15:38 · Score: 1

Which is a completely different thing from aerosol-based cooling that was the flash point for the very visible media pieces.

We didn't have a nuclear winter (yet) because we've not set off lots of nuclear bombs in a war (yet).

Your only reliable source of confusion is that Steve Schneider wrote papers about each of them. He retracted the botched calculations of the aerosols.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."

You mean the post-2006 election meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 16:12 · Score: 0

You know, that election where the Democrats took over the House and Senate by HUGE margins and then blocked (by unanimous Democrat support including the votes of Senators Obama and Biden) the Bush administration from regulating the already-known-at-that-time financial shenanigans at the mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? That election that put the chairmanship of the financial regulatory comittee (in the House) into the hands of Barney Frank who insisted that there was NOTHING dangerous happening in those two government-affiliated home mortgage institutions (which were, in fact, ground zero for the 2008 collapse). That election also put the Senate comittee in charge of overseeing the mortgage industry into the hands of Democrat Chris Dodd who, while getting favorable financial benefits from Country Wide, denied there was anyting going wrong in the home mortgage industry. Yup... you're right...it must all be Bush's fault (even though he sent people up to capitol hill in 2007 to beg for legal authority to intervene to stop an impending disaster and the afore-mentioned Democrats insulted, derided, and yelled at those representatives before sending them packing WITHOUT the legal authority to invtervene that they had requested. When the mortgage meltdown hit in 2008, Bush had been deprived of any legal path to stop it.

I don't even like Bush, but blaming him for the 2008 meltdown is a joke; it's a proven-good election tactic that works on an ill-informed public, but it's not completely honest.

Re: You mean the post-2006 election meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 17:24 · Score: 0

The housing bubble would not have been magnified if not for derivitives
Which have not been band blame Clinton bush and Obama For that.
Bush got my 300 rebate of borrowed money. Plus the cost to mail the check. Tax cut not paid for. Two wars on the credit card. No issues then
But spending during a resesition.
Google the Great Depression. See how the government made it last longer.
An the topic is sea level rise.

WEST Antarctica ? by swell · 2014-05-12 16:39 · Score: 1

Help me out here. In my ignorance, I imagine Antarctica as a disk with a pole near its center. How do I find the Western part? Or the Eastern part? Uh, the Northern part??

--
...omphaloskepsis often...

Not happening by Snookie+Gooch · 2014-05-12 17:31 · Score: 1

I live on the U.S. gulf coast, right on the coast. I can throw a rock from my house into the gulf. If the water goes up, I'll know. Al's been saying how much the Arctic has melted, but nothing is happening at my end. So I wouldn't worry. You know what they say, follow the money. And "Che Benefici - Who Benefits?" Don't be bamboozed, all this is coming from scientists who want grant money, they'll say whatever they have to keep it coming. The bottom line is (and that's all that matters), the water is not rising. Also, anyone else in this country who lives on the coast (which are millions of people) can see nothing is happening. I guess their task is to make us afraid of what IS GOING to happen. I'd be more concerned with nuclear war, it's much more likely to happen before man can change the climate globally. If and when the nukes start flying, I don't think anyone will care what Al Gore has to say.

Re:Not happening by AlterEager · 2014-05-15 03:47 · Score: 1

I can't tell. Poe?

Article: "Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER re by Snookie+Gooch · 2014-05-12 17:47 · Score: 1

"Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming." Read more here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... Here's the story of the ship stuck in Antarctic ice which had to be rescued, then the rescue ship got stuck. This article is dated Jan 3, 2014. In the southern hemisphere, IT WAS SUMMER. July 3 is the northern hemisphere equivalent of that date. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

Fusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 18:39 · Score: 0

Wow, we are in luck. Since fusion is only 50 years away, we'll have at least 50 years after that to use this newfound energy source to sequester all the carbon we need.

We are saved! Call off The Gore. Sell your carbon credits! Time to party like its 2099!

Duh. Not even a respectable try. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 20:48 · Score: 0

1. Earth is NOT an isolated enclosed environment.

2. The entire Earth SYSTEM is vastly more complex (including lots of dynamic populations of life forms that die-off if they do not consume CO2) than a stupid plastic box. An enclosed plastic box full of CO2 serves no purpose other than as a tool for progandizing gullible school children into believing a load of horse manure before they get old enough to see through it and become skeptical.

You see, the big problem you chicken-littles have is that you keep trying to sell your theories using models that are so simple they do not produce accurate results/predictions. The Earth is a system, and a VERY complex one at that. No matter HOW complicated you make your models, they will never be complex enough to accurately model the climate; you're never going to be able to accurately model the behavior and responses of every lifeform population right down to the cellular level, including evolutionary changes driven by survival rates driven by climate changes... so you'll never be able to properly model the impact of the life that covers so much of the planet. You'll also never get your climate models to a level of complexity that properly models every aspect of the complete water inventory of the planet (everything from the flow of water in the oceans, lakes, and rivers, to the water vapor in the atmosphere (a MUCH more important "green house gas" than CO2) to the thermal effects of that water on things like the sea bed and its effects on the heat from the planet's core. Even if your models DID become vastly more complex an accurate for the Earth, they still would not include a hyper-accurate model of the sun (the most significant factor in Earth's climate) the effects of the gravitational influences of other bodies in the solar system, cosmic rays, etc (which affect the REAL planet and lack of which make any model less accurate). You do not even understand how a vast array of things within the Earth's ecosystem and and geological systems WORK in the first place, so you cannot make peoper models of them. The very idea that you think that highschool-level propaganda "experiment" you mentioned has ANYTHING serious to contribute to the conversation is the pinnacle of anti-intellectual insanity.

Re:Duh. Not even a respectable try. by DamnOregonian · 2014-05-13 09:49 · Score: 1

No quotes required on green house gas. Water vapor is one, just like carbon dioxide.

While the system itself may be vastly complex, ultimately, it's massive black body encased on a thermally non-conductive substrate. Its only real way to cool down is via radiation emission. Swing it however you like, throwing infrared favoring radiation absorbing agents into the outbound radiation path is going to alter the radiative flux of the system, and it's going to do it by way of increased energy of the system. That is, decreased outward emission. Fundamental physics and thermodynamics require this. Certainly you're correct that we are using some pretty complicated guesses to figure out how the system will react to the increased energy, and how and where it will find new equilibriums, but the overall model used in the experiments is completely correct for showing the Earth's dynamic energy flux.

Wall Street Banker, is that YOU? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-12 21:23 · Score: 0

You guys who pretend that the most basic things like "revenues" and "debts" and "balance sheets" don't matter really take the cake! You can convince the dumbest dopes, like politicians, to go along with your insantiy and they'll unleash you to make whopper profits on the way up.... and then you can convince those same dopes to bail you out on the way down... all by using lots of "$100 words" to obscure the fact that you are denying the most basic LAWS of economics; Laws, which JUST like the basic laws of physics, cannot be broken. Your post was so magnificently delusional, it was like something that guy Krugman (who struts around pretending to have won a Nobel Prize that does not exist) might spew. Allow me to illuminate:

1. You claim that "Federal Taxes for revenue has been an obsolete concept since 1946" .... OK, then WHY do we all still have to file our taxes every April 15th? The simple reason is that the moment we stop paying our taxes, the Federal Government (and state and local governments) go into a "dying patient, rapidly bleeding-out" mode. If all Americans stopped paying taxes today, the Federal government would have no ability to pay for anyting or write any checks to retired people by December. This is PROOF you are wrong. Consult ANY recent "budget crisis" comments by Obama's own treasury secretaries. Even the taxes we currently pay are not enough, which is why Obama keeps having to go back to congress to borrow more and more and more with "debt cieling" increase after "debt cieling" increase. EVERY time we approach one of these limits, he dutifully runs to the press and says he will be unable to pay the bills. Are you insisting that president Obama and all the Democrats in congress are idiots and liars?

2. You claim that "the funds used to pay taxes and purchase government securities COMES from [federal] government spending." ... Ok, I get that Marxists teach drivel like this, but in the civilized world, people generally know better. When people generate wealth by adding value to things (by digging them up, pumping them out of the ground, harvesting them, raising them, manufacturing them, assembling them, etc) THOSE units of productivity are what provide resources to the government in the form of money which is taxed. In the feverish imaginings you referenced, there'd be no need for anybody to work or pay taxes at all... government would simply create money and securites and spend it buying everything it wanted to buy for people... including more money and securities. I am simply stunned that any person sufficiently educated to read and type comments on the web would write such nonsense.

I suspect you skimmed some econ Cliffs Notes at some point and failed to understand the basic concepts. Every single day, the federal government pays money out to vendors and employees and various beneficiaries. That money must come from somewhere. Every single day, the government gets money paid-in in the form of tax payments, fees, etc and it additionally borrows money (by printing various forms of IOU and selling them). When the amount flowing out is greater than the amount flowing in you have a defecit. When the reverse is true you have a surplus. The total sum of all the annual deficits is the total the government is obligated to repay people and is called the debt and is now about $18 TRILLION (about DOUBLE what Obama inherited). The total the government has promised to pay to people in the future without having set aside any resources to provide for that is the "unfunded liabilities" and is well over $100 TRILLION, NOT including the debt. No amount of the sorts of hallucinatory musical chairs games you appear to believe in will deal with ANY of this harsh REALITY. Please go back to your X-Box and remind your mother to wake you up for school.

Re:Wall Street Banker, is that YOU? by dywolf · 2014-05-14 04:43 · Score: 1

your attacks contain no logic, or actual economic theory.
actually your entire long rant containt no facts whatsoever.
you doth say too much, whilst saying nothing.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

And the real reality? by bradley13 · 2014-05-12 21:49 · Score: 1

The thing is: it isn't clear at all. There is no consensus. Here's the abstract from an article in the NASA archives that shows Antarctic ice mass increasing during the same period. Somehow the alarmists don't cite this one...

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.

In fact: the Antarctic is gaining ice! by bradley13 · 2014-05-12 21:51 · Score: 1

The thing is: it isn't clear at all. There is no consensus, only a lot of media hype. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is certainly not PC to doubt - what's the latest term? - "climate disruption.

Here's the abstract from an article in the NASA archives that shows Antarctic ice mass increasing during the same period. Somehow the alarmists don't cite this one...

Which view is correct? Hard to say - I'm no climate expert - but I certainly do have the feeling that coverage of the issue in the mainstream media is driven more by politics than by science.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.

Political statement by Calabacin · 2014-05-12 23:35 · Score: 1

This is all FUD! Climate change is faaaaaaalse and cannot be demonstrated scientifically because... LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU

--
How much wood would a woodchopper chop if a woodchopper would chop wood?

Retarded, ignorant rebuff by allcoolnameswheretak · 2014-05-12 23:49 · Score: 1

Actually, qualified scientists who are expert on this topic are telling us right now what their predictions are of what will happen.

But yes, continue putting your hands to your ears and shouting yaddayaddayadda.... all future is uncertain so just fuck it all. You can go eat at McDonalds every day and stuff yourself full of cheeseburgers. Predictions are you will get fat and possibly die from the causes at some point. But you don't care about that, right? Because we have no idea what might happen.

Or vice versa.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:08 · Score: 0

"Those environmentalist anti-commercialist hippie scum just want to hurt the economy, they must be anti-(insert favorite country)!" "Damn, they were right..."

not such a great task. only education and will pow by radl33t · 2014-05-13 00:14 · Score: 1

1. Deep energy retrofits on can reduce energy on buildings by 50%, most of this will payback and the building sector uses as much energy as the transportation sector
2. New buildings can be designed for 60-70% less energy consumption, often at lower initial cost or else certainly at quick payback
3. Educated and sensible use of electricity can trim residential and commercial plug loads by 50-80%
4. A grid dominated by natural gas, solar, and wind, could reduce ghg from the utility sector by 90% at less than 10 cents a kWh. For ~ .22 $/kWh you get storage and ~ 40 kWh of transportation.

All in all, its relatively trivial to reduce the energy footprint of an American by 60-70%. There are lots of Americans who do this. I would wager in fact, that energy conscious consumers do so while maintaining a higher quality of life than average. There are many examples where our "standard of living" is achieved, actually exceeded, in harsher climates (on average), using less energy. The idea that we need 9 GW scale nuclear reactors in the U.S. to run DVRs when similar and cheaper devices exist at 1% of that power consumption doesn't really put the American standard of living in the best light. Similarly the poorly constructed built environment in the US also ends up costing more through unnecessary energy expenditures. The amount of energy and time and money wasted on gross and often deliberate inefficiency greatly exceeds any and all of the transition costs to a more sustainable environment. That you could replace a DVR with a cell phone, make modest home efficiency improvements at 50%+ ROI and save more than the additional cost of solar energy is embarrassing.

When predictions fail by jarek · 2014-05-13 00:24 · Score: 1

When predictions over decades fail, then the obvious solution is to make predictions over centuries. They are absolutely safe to make.
It is hard to believe that we left the dark ages for this bulshit.

I'm not sure about this by aethelrick · 2014-05-13 00:26 · Score: 1

Having just read the summary for policy makers from the IPCC's fifth assesment report http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... and their estimates for sea-level rise by 2081-2100 were at worst less than a meter including allowances for the antarctic ice sheet going kablewy. Now I'm now expert but I'm fairly certain 10 feet is a long way off a meter and I'm more ready to believe the actual published scientific data than the crap in the new york times has carefully regurgitated in order to sell more copies.

'Scientists' can't be trusted... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:33 · Score: 0

... since their funding depends on ALARMISM.

There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/scientists-recycling-scare-stories/

This had nothing to do with hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:41 · Score: 0

It had everything to do with making you eat your words publicly or to attempt to evade it as you have on both accounts.

It's not polite to talk with your mouth full by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:43 · Score: 0

Zontar the mindless, see subject. Go back to "eating your words" http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and don't talk out loud here with your mouth full of them along with your foot in your mouth to ram those lying words of yours down your throat washed down with the bitter taste of self defeat.

Re: sea ice-- it's fresh meltwater, refreezing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 01:06 · Score: 0

Fresh water melting out from under the edge of the ice cap where the glaciers are exposed goes where? Why, into the ocean. And it floats, as it's less dense than salt water. And what happens to fresh water floating on top when the winter starts? It freezes.

More warm ocean water, melting the glaciers along the edges of Antarctica from the bottom. More seasonal winter ice as that meltwater reaches the surface as winter starts.

D'uh, Anthony Watts.

Doesn't anyone read the entire article? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 02:44 · Score: 0

Have to read from the bottom up to get the real story from the NYT:

"Scientists said the ice sheet ***was NOT melting because of warmer air temperatures***, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica."

There goes that theory.... :)

from TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 03:51 · Score: 0

"But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away". A lot can happen in one century, let alone 10.....

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans... by hunzana · 2014-05-13 04:13 · Score: 0

For crying out loud. You "Alarmers" just never give it up. Give your heads a shake you morons. Climate changes! Get used to it. There is next to nothing man can do about it except to learn to adapt.

Re:Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans... by BravoZuluM · 2014-05-19 07:02 · Score: 1

When I was a kid, early 1970's our government was making plans to cover the ice caps with soot to help alleviate the coming ice age. We are after all, at the end of an inter-glacial warming period. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide constitutes 0.04% of our atmosphere. IF there is a CO2 warming link, we'd have to get the CO2 up to 4% of the atmosphere to stave off the next ice age.
google "Next Ice Age". Man typically does better in a warm climate than a cold climate. Women look better in bikinis than parkas. Choose wisely.

Antarctic Sea Ice Record Growth 2013-2014 ..... by brainchill · 2014-05-13 04:20 · Score: 0

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Re:Antarctic Sea Ice Record Growth 2013-2014 ..... by AlterEager · 2014-05-15 03:45 · Score: 1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Sea ice you moron.

Four or Ten Feet? by dcw3 · 2014-05-13 04:23 · Score: 1

So, this article says ten feet, and on the same day, The Register claims it's four feet. Was there something in the actual study pointing to one or the other? While neither is good, having reports that vary by 2.5 times isn't good, and likely leads to more people claiming that nobody really knows WTF they're talking about.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

--
Just another day in Paradise

For the love of God please make it stop by MooseMiester · 2014-05-13 04:28 · Score: 1

So for the last several years "scientists" have been howling that the Arctic ice caps were melting, a new permanent Northwest passage would open, and it's all due to global warming. It's proof they said, absolute proof.

Well the Arctic ice cap is bigger than EVER! WTF happened there? Well, they were wrong - duh. So now the Antarctic ice cap is melting? And this is a horrible, terrible, OMG crisis?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And yet... as always... it matters not one bit to either side. The same old tired arguments that were shouted at each other YESTERDAY are once again shouted at each other TODAY, with many insults being hurled, and everybody calling everybody else a dumb ass. Can we please find something new to argue about? This has all gotten so ridiculously boring. The comment count = 508 on yesterday's climate click bait, 557 on today's - it's all the same people even....

--
Murphy was an optimist

How long? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 04:47 · Score: 0

The scientific method requires predictions based on your theory to be tested and a feedback loop in place to make sure that your theory can be proven or dis-proven.

So far the prediction that CO2 controls the climate is failing. All the models that rely on it are failing. For some predictions that are accurate check out Dr Libby's prediction from the 1970s (3+ decades of accuracy), Dr Easterbrook's (12 years), Dr Abdussamatov (8 years). They all have correctly called for a cooling period of varying depths and lengths. So far they have been correct and the IPCC models wrong. Their models don't rely on CO2 as the control.

So far the whole "CO2 controls the climate" theory has failed.

So the valid question becomes "How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit that CO2 doesn't control the climate?". 20 years? 30? 50? Never?

For those that don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 05:04 · Score: 0

1. How many feet above sea level do you live, right now?
2. Is there housing higher up?
3. If "yes" to 2, how close is it?
4. If "yes" to 2, is there enough of it to house everyone that lives too low? (clue: not a fucking chance)

And if you think it's just "on the ocean", go find a topographical map of your area, and see just how low you are. For
example, downtown Phila, PA, USA is 10'-15' above sea level, and that's 90mi upriver from Delaware Bay. We won't even mention LA, San Francisco, NYC, Washington, DC, Houston, London, Paris.....

mark "wait till the big freeze comes, any minute now...."

Who remembers the ice-breaker rescue? by Benders · 2014-05-13 06:31 · Score: 1

Didn't we just have an episode where we had to send rescue vessels to the Antarctic to rescue vessels that had gotten trapped in too much ice? Oh, was that on the other side of Antarctica? So, the ice on one side is getting thicker and the ice on the other side is getting thinner? Sounds like a wash to me. We aren't the least bit worried about how our children and grandchildren will deal with the economy we are leaving to them. When did we get to be so arrogant? Even if the findings are correct. What can we (The US Public) do about it? Nothing. We do represent enough of a percentage of the world's population to have more than a minor effect on anything to do with the Climate or atmosphere. Our 10% cannot trump the other 90%. Are we really thinking that we need to do something about this just to set an example? Great example. No outcome, or benefit. OH! Let's go sink Billions into that fix! Or, let's just let everyone in the US pay a "Save the Planet tax" that will satisfy our Administration, briefly. It takes a lot to be this arrogant! (And stupid at the same time)!

normal temp by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 09:46 · Score: 0

i still haven't figured out what is normal for this time in earth's history.

i suppose after the sun goes supernova it will get really really hot and then really really cold but I'm not even sure of that.

and rally what can anyone do about it?

i guess posting on slashdot is a start to make you feel good and take away someone's car because you can't afford one is a start.

It's not too late! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 10:31 · Score: 0

Now is the time, it's not too late! Someone needs to start listing the names of all the climate change deniers such as the Koch brothers and other rich bastards getting richer by hindering the movement for solving the carbon emissions problems. This also should include all the politicians who have been bought off by these idiots. What good is the list you ask? It's so that when the time comes, we know who to send to the guillotine!!! Seriously, these people have put the almighty dollar above the good of mankind just so that they can live in the lap of luxury. If I'm still alive when that time comes, I will revel in the act of crucifying these jerks!

If that is so... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 12:52 · Score: 0

...how did those global warming greenies get their asses stuck in antarctic ice last fall? Had to fly them out. Using fossil fuel, no less, since no one had an electric helicopter waiting for air-sea rescue.

Give it up. "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" is NOT the only lie Democrats tell. They lie about EVERYTHING. It's reflex.

Most of riseing sea level by jbee02 · 2014-05-13 13:06 · Score: 1

Melting antartic wont affect the sea levels nearly as much as simple thermal expansion will, as water warms it expands, a few degrees increase in ocean tempratures from climate change will cause ocean levels to rise much more than melting ice will.

everybody's getting this wrong by gzuckier · 2014-05-13 15:23 · Score: 1

The original paper points out this particular melt is occurring on the scale of centuries. The point is not that this is going to drown New Orleans or New York before we. can cope. The point is that, for all this debate about a tripping point, and is there one, and when do we hit it, the fact odds that there lots of smaller tripping points like this one, and we're passing them all the time, and even if we do get it together at some point to turn off the auxiliary heating element, things aren't going to get back to "normal", ever. And every day we delay means something else changes irreversibly.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.

ok, i got this by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 15:59 · Score: 0

heat has energy, right?

well take that excess heat, use it to power a giant ice making machine in the ocean, ya doofus.

Complexity will render all this irrelevant by fygment · 2014-05-14 00:02 · Score: 1

The TFA isn't talking about next year or even next decade.
This year alone we've heard global warming is accelerating and decelerating. I suppose it depends on the time frame.
The climate continually surprises us because we _do not_ understand it completely, yet we are asked to consider letting someone actually try to _alter_ the climate with no thought given to the repercussions.
All the while we are told that this warming is the cause of the apparently 'extreme' weather events we are apparently observing because it is a 'complex system'.
And yet, complexity apparently tells us that the flapping of butterfly wings in China can cause a thunderstorm in New York.

ALL THIS TELLS ME: all climate predictions are pretty much low quality guesses and assume _nothing_ about possible unforeseen events that could completely change the outcome. The climate will do what it will do, and the best we can do is adapt, and that's what we do best.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.

Slashdot Mirror

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts

784 comments