Slashdot Mirror
In Progress: Fastest Sea Rise In At Least 2800 Years (www.cbc.ca)
Layzej writes: A new study finds that sea levels on Earth are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years and are accelerating. Co-author Stefan Rahmstorf explains that the fact that the rise in the 20th century is so large is a logical physical consequence of man-made global warming. This is melting continental ice and thus adds extra water to the oceans. In addition, as the sea water warms up it expands. The data from the past can also be used for future projections, using a so-called semi-empirical model calibrated with the historically observed relationship between temperature and sea level. With the new data, this results in a projected increase in the 21st century of 24-131 cm, depending on our emissions and thus on the extent of global warming.
All those people buying and living in coastal houses don't seem to believe in climate change I guess. The ocean is rising, yet prices remain sky high for anything near the coast...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Not much else I can do really.
Except maybe eat as much sushi / seafood I can before it all goes tits up.
Maybe they're referring to Noah's flood?
Only a few more orders of magnitude to go to be significant on a 4.5 BILLION year-old planet.
I will sell you.....oh wait.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
-Styopa
The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about climate scientists either. Or whether you "save" the planet, for that matter.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
They could only examine data for the last 3000 years, and the last 200 years of that were inconclusive. It seems that this means the data is less exact the further back in time you look, which is not surprising. And while the sea level has risen and fallen in the past, it was over a much longer time scale.
What is alarming knowledgeable people now is that the rate the sea level is increasing indicates that this phenomenon is influenced by man, and that it is going to cause severe problems in some number of years. How big or small that number is, and what can we do to influence it favorably are really the only things left to debate, unless you're going to cherry pick the set of science and facts that you're willing to believe.
Pretty much this. And, moreover, the universe doesn't give a crap about our continued existence, and won't take any special steps to save us.
The problem is we're an exceedingly short-sighted species, and the near term profits of corporations are pretty much driving this process, and they'd rather have big executive bonuses now than give a fuck if there's a habitable planet down the road.
I figure the only people actively denying climate change stand to make money from the status quo. Pretending it's not happening pretty much has no rational basis in anything else, because it doesn't otherwise benefit anybody.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"rate the sea level is increasing indicates that this phenomenon is influenced by man"
Lost me there. What's the correlation?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So it was rising faster 3000 years ago?
it’s not that seas rose faster before that – they probably didn’t – but merely that the ability to say as much with the same level of confidence declines. - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
this research was actually completed during the Harper Regime in Canada, but was intentionally silenced until now.
It is as bad as people have been telling you.
Oh, and if you're a billionaire, you could snap up all the coal firms in the world right now for $150 million and just sit on the coal, because we need to keep all fossil fuels in the ground, unless you want your waterfront home to be underwater.
Cheap, really.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Global warming? THANKS OBAMA!
Obama President? Global warming!
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The main difference between humans and other animals is that humans have a much greater power to fuck things up for good... which they of course wield.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
it was rising faster than it is now. It was those middle eastern goat herders and their SUVs!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Skeptics should buy up flat beach-front properties if they truly think it's a hoax.
If it is a hoax, the land value will go back up when the hoax is exposed and they'll be jillionaires. If it's not a hoax, the fools get what they deserve.
Table-ized A.I.
I asked 2 years ago, but the offer still stands.
Wonder whether as many would take it as did back then...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Except it isn't a small amount of energy at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ice melts when heated. Water expands when heated. It is not a coincidence that sea level rise is accelerating along with the rise in global mean surface temperature and the decline of the cryosphere. As the summary states, it is a logical physical consequence.
Yeah, about that...
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-s...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
You are welcome on my lawn.
The government is stepping in where insurers have bailed. This is socialism: "As the crisis mounts, hard hit states such as Florida and Louisiana are increasingly stepping up as insurance companies check out, providing coverage for residents dropped by their insurers." http://www.scientificamerican....
There's no penetrating you guys' defense shields.
Cautious prediction == "nothing to worry about, no reason to even put it in the news".
Un-cautious but still quite possible prediction == "alarmism, ignore".
They'd been making the cautious predictions for 25 years when Gore's presentation caught on. The cautious predictions of the 1980's and 1990's have all been exceeded by this point.
Uh, if they drowned, then that'd be ironclad proof that it ISN'T nonsense.
Gotta love that denialist LOLgic.
Exactly. My original comment wasn't naysaying, it was responding to the actuary tables.
When the actuaries say it isn't a good business, then we should be *very* worried. The government support of their communities balances their existence and economic activity against the cost of rebuilding - even though the rebuilding won't last.
To that I ask "small in relation to what?"
Compared to the total solar irradiance it has to be small or we'd be dead already. Although, it probably is large in comparison to our electrical power generation capacity.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Google: Expanding Earth. Peter Woodhead. And all shall be revealed.
What's funny is that this is *Slashdot* -- where I actually come here for the comments, usually because Slashdot is inhabited by geeks, techs, programmers, scientists; i.e; People that should know a thing or two. Usually the discourse here is insightful and thought-provoking...
And then comes a global warming post, and all the science deniers come out of the woodwork. You see posts as dumb as "It's snowing right now out my window -- global warming is a myth!"
This is directed to all the deniers -- what are you people *doing* here on Slashdot? Do you actually work in the technology field and yet deny actual science?
We *KNOW* there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere and we KNOW that it traps heat, so, what precisely are you denying?
Or has Fox News tainted your perception of the world so thoroughly that when something comes up that clashes with your ideology you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LALALALAL I can't HEAR you!" when presented with FACTS?
Seriously, I don't understand why someone who denies science is on Slashdot -- why not also talk about how Black Holes are a myth, why we can't go beyond a 4Ghz CPU speed because God says so, and solving complex math is forbidden by the Bible? Maybe you'd prefer Slashdot articles on Ghosts, Chemtrails, UFOs and Bigfoot?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
From TFS:
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
Perhaps I'm missing something here.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You do realise the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you think about Climate scientists.
People who don't understand science, but do understand politics, disagree. Today, we can take a vote on the laws of physices and repeal them if they aren't convenient.
The effects of CO2 in the atmosphere have been know for over a century, and the physics makes it clear the higher the concentrations, the more energy will be trapped in the lower atmosphere. If you have an explanation as to where that energy is going that doesn't involve heating then be my guest and provide it. Otherwise, quit being a fucking retard.
They never will. Take pity on the deniers. All they have left is cherry picking old and now updated data that is now the equal of declaring a typo the refutation of AGW. Their boat is getting very small indeed, as they approach the credibility level of flat earthers. I've asked for the science that proves the breakdown of the energy storing effects of the so called greenhouse gases at a global level, all I get back is hockey sticks and the satellite versus balloon inconsistencies, which have long been correlated - even by the scientist who brought up the discrepancy.
Otherwise, it's crickets all the way down.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about climate scientists either. Or whether you "save" the planet, for that matter.
That is quite true. You driven off any cliffs lately because you don't believe theere is a cliff there?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution
Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The past century also saw unprecedented increases in general health, wealth, and longevity, amount of calories per person, and per dollar.
More than a fair trade. What went before was no friend of humanity, and any significant effort to trash what brought us these unprecedented benefits should be very carefully thought out.
The difference between, say, North and South Korea shows government's effect can be magnitudes worse than rising seas over 300 years (where we can less predict tech in 100 years than 1900 could today's.)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The Earth is gaining the equivalent of about 4 nuclear bombs a second (or about 7,409,177,820,267,687 kitten sneezes a second if you prefer SI units (or about 2.5 × 10^14 joules per second if you prefer real SI units)). I'm not sure how that compares to electrical power generation capacity...
From TFS:
You might think so. But seawater freezes at a lower temperature than freshwater ice, so, no, the seawater can be liquid while the ice is solid despite the fact that they are both at the same temperature.
and so the net effect would be to reduce the temperature of the water it hits.
Almost right. Added cold water would cool down warmer seawater. On the other hand, the warmer seawater will heat up the added cold water. Since they are at almost the same temperature to start with, the net effect cancels out, and what you get is simply the added volume of the added water.
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
The thermal expansion due to warming and the added glacial melt water are two different effects. The warming isn't due to the added glacial meltwater. The warming occurs globally, even at places thousands of miles away from glaciers. Even if glaciers didn't melt at all, warming would still cause thermal expansion.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
All my mod points would belong to you if I had any left.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
I don't mean to be coy here but this is not a problem for anyone that does even the smallest amount of planning when they are searching for a place to live or work. This whole phenomenon is really only an issue for someone that chooses to live/work at or below sea level up against an ocean. Surely nobody is that stupid right? ;)
Idiots build population centers in places like NYC, New Orleans, and the SF Bay area and then other stupid people decide that it's a good idea to live there despite
the fact that just a large tidal surge could destroy their homes, businesses, livelihoods, etc ....
the minute amount of extra energy won't really matter though, that's the point. The sea won't rise two feet in one day, and those "poor natives" on islands essentially at sea level were going to be under water anyway in 400 years if not the next 75. alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented just hurt the cause of doing anything meaningful about pollution
Tell us - how much is that "minute amount of extra energy"? Whatever handy unit of measurements, and don't spare us the big words.
The best estimate for the current radiative forcing due to anthropogenic trace gasses, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 Watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla...
Whether that is "tiny" or not depends on what you call "tiny". For comparison, the average solar insolation at the top of the Earth's atmosphere 340 Watts per square meter, so it's small compared to the solar radiative forcing. On the other hand, the Earth's surface area is half a quadrillion square meters, so if you want to call that "large", you can do that, too.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What actual scientific proof ? Judging from that graph, sea level wasn't rising all that quickly 4000 years ago. Most of the ice melt stopped 8000 years ago, because all the big ice sheets were gone. This century sea level rise started to accelerate again due to AGW.
This is awesome news. A bigger ocean means more room for fish and assorted sea creatures.
You will notice a large increase over the period. Satellites measure the troposphere though. That isn't really what sea level responds to. Take a look at ocean heat content over the period: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/... .
Logically
Coastal land is lost. How much of the agricultural land of the Earth is coastal? Well, some of it is. But it's not clear that the total effect is large.
Areas heat up = less arable land of the already reduced land.
Not at all clear. Some northern areas that were formerly tundra and taiga may warm up enough to add to the arable land-- Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world! Some areas that were suitable for one type of crop will switch to a different, warmer climate crop. More notably, rainfall patterns may shift, and some farmlands will become deserts.
The net effect is very unclear.
Some areas heat up of the much smaller set of land and become arable.
Right. Except that it's only an assertion that this is "much smaller"
Without doing calculations it appears that yes, there would be less net arable land as much of what is settled and arable is along coasts with a few exceptions.
Without doing calculations, nothing of the sort is obvious, because you have to do the calculations.
In any case, the big wild card is the changes in rainfall patterns. This is much harder to model than the overall temperature. Overall temperature is easy: it's little more than just thermal accounting. Rainfall patterns-- these are hard.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world!
Unlikely. The low angle of the sun means a lot less photosynthesis. Also, a lot of that land will turn into swamps.
All those people buying and living in coastal houses don't seem to believe in climate change I guess. The ocean is rising, yet prices remain sky high for anything near the coast...
It's a matter of time scale. That link in the article about the "Fastest sea rise in at least 2800 years" quotes a rate, since 1993, of 30 centimeters per century.
you know, most people buying beachfront property just aren't worried about the property value a hundred years from now.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
They're always peeing in the ocean!
Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world!
Unlikely. The low angle of the sun means a lot less photosynthesis.
No, crops are mostly grown in the summer, when the sun is high in northern latitudes. The sun angle may be trivially lower than at a more temperate places, but it's still high enough, and the extended day length more than makes up for it.
Also, a lot of that land will turn into swamps.
Some will, some won't.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.
That's the correlation I dispute, but clearly you accept it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It's their emissions output that is on the rise, not the U.S.'s. Any climate agreement that doesn't include them is a bad agreement.
Yep-- that's why climate agreements are international.
If just one country could solve the problem by itself, it wouldn't be a hard problem.
Also, it's pretty amazing the output level of CO2 from airliners traveling to climate conferences. You'd think they'd use teleconferencing.
Airline emissions are a pretty tiny part of the total. Transportation produces about 34% of carbon emissions, and of that, aircraft are about 9%-- overall, just not the big driver.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Ah, good old tone policing. Pity you didn't have anything non-fallacious to say.
Of course they also said that the sea levels were going up to 100ft by now, and haven't seen that either.
Bullsh!t. No one in the world, not even the the very alarmist of alarmists, ever predicted "100 feet of sea level rise by now." Did not happen.
The IPCC predictions are for about 0.5 meters by 2100.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I remember this being said over and over again when I was in grade school decades ago.
Yep, the greenhouse effect has indeed been known and understood for decades.
Exactly how close is New York to being underwater today?
Back when you were in grade school, they were saying that if carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise, the streets of New York would be a meter or so under water sometime around the year 2100.
So how close is New York to being underwater? We are now two decades closer to the 2100s.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Logically
Coastal land is lost. How much of the agricultural land of the Earth is coastal? Well, some of it is. But it's not clear that the total effect is large.
Yes, and new coastal land will be created in some areas, meaning more land lost than merely what goes under water. Salt water inflows will penetrate to some distance inland, greatly affected by soil type and geography. In low-lying areas, like river deltas, that has been shown in the past to have relatively large effects (Nile river delta for instance over the millenniums)
Areas heat up = less arable land of the already reduced land.
Not at all clear. Some northern areas that were formerly tundra and taiga may warm up enough to add to the arable land-- Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world! Some areas that were suitable for one type of crop will switch to a different, warmer climate crop. More notably, rainfall patterns may shift, and some farmlands will become deserts.
The net effect is very unclear.
I'm not mixing effects nor off-setting one effect with other effect(s). My focus is on 1 fact at a time. Will there be less arable land from the current arable land? That answer is "yes". I'll repeat what I said here:
There are studies that indicate large swaths of currently highly arable land in the N American continent will become desert along with the Sahara increasing in size.
Those same studies indicate other deserts will likely increase in size as well, especially in the tropical areas
Some areas heat up of the much smaller set of land and become arable.
Right. Except that it's only an assertion that this is "much smaller"
I'll continue my quote:
I'd say the warming of land in the northern America/Europe/Asian continents won't help much in the short run or long runs, since they are currently relatively dry as well. No, I haven't looked at what the climate change predictions are for rainfall in those areas
Without doing calculations it appears that yes, there would be less net arable land as much of what is settled and arable is along coasts with a few exceptions.
Without doing calculations, nothing of the sort is obvious, because you have to do the calculations.
In any case, the big wild card is the changes in rainfall patterns. This is much harder to model than the overall temperature. Overall temperature is easy: it's little more than just thermal accounting. Rainfall patterns-- these are hard.
That is something we agree on. Predicting rainfall for even the next few days is hard, much less 30+ years in the future with rising temperatures. Even that rise is rather difficult to predict. There is one theory I read a while ago that our greenhouse effect will actually result in a brief and sudden ice age. The rationale is that large portions of the continental ice sheets suddenly (within the space of a few years or a decade or two) all hit the ocean and create large disruptive cooling effects, completely screwing up the weather until a new pattern stabilizes. If we could predict the future, we wouldn't have a lottery.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
What you say is quite true. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it almost certainly causes warming. HOWEVER, if you do a bit of research, you will find that was hashed out by Ahrennius, Angstrom et al about a century ago. After some frank and open discussion, they settled on a value of slightly over 1 degree C per doubling of CO2. That was apparently insufficiently frightening for modern "climate science" which has used much higher values to create elaborate General Circulation Models that predict that we are all gonna die if we do not change our sinning ways. Note that the GCMs have yet to make a single remotely accurate prediction and that a tropospheric hot spot that they confidently predict can't be found either by radiosondes or by orbiting Microwave Sounding Units.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.
It was unwritten by me but you could find it written in the scientific literature. See for instance Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.
In case you think I am only showing articles that support my position you could look to the worlds leading scientific organizations such as the AGU: ("Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." ) or the Royal Society ("There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or you could look to studies on the scientific consensus which find that about 95+% of scientists who have studied this issue agree that humans are largely responsible for warming over the last 50 years (see for example J. Cook, et al 2013, W. R. L. Anderegg 2010, P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman 2009, or N. Oreskes 2004
When I was in the first and second grad there were projections of moving the nations capital to Houston and that Mexico was going to be upset about all the illegals fleeing into their country due to the icecaps migrating south.
It was the early 80's.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It seems to me the hysterics reside on your side of the issue who always take the worst case scenario as an absolute prediction. The rate of sea level rise has consistently outpaced the IPCC predictions/projections since the first report in 1992.
The average lifetime of a particular CO2 molecule in the atmosphere may be only a few years but the effect of increased carbon in the carbon cycle and therefore increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in the thousands of years. That is unless we do something to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere we're stuck with the increased levels of CO2 for thousands of years.
Note that the GCMs have yet to make a single remotely accurate prediction ...
And yet the temperature rise remains within the 95% uncertainty range of the GCMs. I'd like to see you point out some technique that does better than the GCMs.
Do you dispute the infrared radiation absorption characteristics of CO2? If not then how do you propose that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't cause warming?
The 1970s were an interesting times. Yes, yes I can dance like Travolta. Well, no... I'd break a hip these days.
At any rate, to the point!
I dated a girl named Nature. She was not that bright but she sure was handy. She was easily fooled. Also, we did discuss children.
Okay, so it wasn't a very good point. Except, you can fool nature. Given a few more years, some more alcohol or coke, and a little bit more insanity and I'd surely have been able to fool Mother Nature too.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
2+2=4
I'm not so sure about that! I just did 2+2 and got 11!
Then again the last time I went to measure the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, I got exactly 1! But then most of the other quantities I'd been familiar with turned irrational....
I'd better not tell about the time I divided by zero and obtained a meaningful result. Things really got strange! (Not to be confused with surreal numbers!)
No, what your read is that the amount of sea level rise was 22% less than it would have been without the additional land storage. But there's a limit to how much can be stored on land and how long it will stay there.
I have a house in Florida, it's right on the coast and this message is typed to you from there. My *home* is in the NW mountains of Maine. I will always have water, food, energy. Well, always meaning for as long as I am alive. Yes, yes I did give this sort of thing serious consideration when deciding where to retire.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If I could use my mod points in this discussion I'd give you a +1 Funny.
Socialism is the people owning the means of production, not transferring money from the people to capitalists, a goal of many a capitalist. The smart capitalist uses his capital to write or influence the writing of the rules in such a way that he ends up with more capital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Just a comment so that everyone understands that melting ice involves two opposite results.
If the ice was on land, then when it melts the oceans rise in level. Example: A glacier in Alaska or Greenland.
If the ice was on water then when it melts, the oceans fall in level. Example: An iceberg near Newfoundland.
The opposite is also true: if glaciers increase in size (you remove water from the atmosphere, water that cannot fall on the ocean anymore) then ocean levels fall; if icebergs form to a greater extent than they melt (both normally happen in an annual cycle in the North and South polar regions, and are happening today) then ocean levels rise (frozen water contains air which makes it float partly above, not in, the oceans).
And it then should be obvious that a certain combination of warmer temperatures and melting ice causes the two to cancel each other. *
* Note that I'm not saying this is likely, just that it's one of a certain number of possible outcomes.
Since oceans are warming, some of that heat assumes to be in the atmosphere is there instead.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Just saying if we could all walk back the rhetoric it would be better. .6 to 2.4 is a ginormous range.
That's correct. And that is the consensus. The consensus includes large error bars.
Really, that's part of the way you know it's science: science has error bars.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The breitbart blog just links this blog: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/s...
That blog has a transcript. The transcript gives the source of the predictions:
We are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.
...So the producers actually work with those people that send in their ideas into the website. And then we're just hoping that the goal is ultimately get these ideas very soon.
That's it: the "predictions" are whatever some random visitor to the "interactive web game" decides to write about the year 2015.
That's not what I'd call "experts".
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
> And yet the temperature rise remains within the 95% uncertainty range of the GCMs.
You're asserting that one chance in 20 (well OK, one chance in 10 of you consider only the lower sideband) is proof of correctness? Let me ask the Jon Stewart question. "Are you insane?"
> I'd like to see you point out some technique that does better than the GCMs.
Sure. Try Y=mX+b with m around 1.5C per century. Seriously. Try it.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Over 90% of the heat increase from anthropogenic global warming goes into the oceans. Have you checked changes ocean heat content lately? It doesn't take much of a change in the amount going into the oceans to have a drastic effect on atmospheric temperatures. The current El Nino (an ocean phenomenon) is one reasons (but not the only reason) why atmospheric temperatures are so high now.
The 95% confidence range or 2 sigmas of standard deviation is a statistical standard in many sciences. I suspect if you check 2015 (and 2016 once we know what it is) against the GCM ensemble output you'll find them very close to the mean.
Sure. Try Y=mX+b with m around 1.5C per century. Seriously. Try it.
Anyone can do a curve fit. Your technique has no physical basis unlike GCMs.
Obama should never have gne for the extreme dependency on carbon-based fossil fuels in the late 1800s.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
When water and ice are in equilibrium at 0C, adding heat melts some more ice, and there is no overall increase in temperature, it remains at 0C.
As expected, ice in the north and south of the planet is melting, the sea level is rising, but there is relatively little change in sea surface temperatures because the 0C meltwater circulates and slowly mixes with the rest of the water in the oceans, and so keeps the temperatures everywhere from rising too fast. That won't last forever though, since the ice will eventually run out.
If there were no ice on the planet, temperatures would rise roughly 80 times as fast. The latent heat of fusion (that means melting in this context) of water ice is 79.8 calories per gram (334 kJ/kg) , which means that you need about 80 calories to melt 1g of ice at 0C and turn it into 1g of water at 0C. If instead you were to apply those 80 calories to 1g of water at 0C, the water temperature would rise to 80C.
The latent heat of fusion of our planet's ice is (briefly) saving our bacon.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
So how did the alligators do at farming?
Do you think alligators thrive in swamp or wasteland? Why apparently they lived in an ecosystem thriving with plant life, which means they did quite well at farming you brain-dead zombie. Why are you unable to make even the simplest cogent point without thinking through major details of what you are saying?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I wonder what the definition is of the word "Begin". Hmm.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You clearly didn't consider the facts entirely - any tiny loss made up of seaweed making inroads in river deltas (which you can still grow around BTW, there are a number of plants with high salt tolerance).
But even if it killed everything in 30 miles of a river, the vast increase in aria be land with a longer northern growing season makes up for it by several orders of magnitude.
It's only common sense that more energy into a system means more life. That's what life does best.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's OK that you don't understand the science. Clearly that's the case otherwise you wouldn't have thought it wise or prudent to post such an admission of ignorance for the world to see. Hint: There has been warming, and you are repeating nonsense someone told you.
No offense, but you seem to have your test a bit backwards. If you are testing what I think you are -- the mean and standard deviation of results from an ensemble of models -- What you are testing is whether or not to reject reality. And you are (grudgingly) concluding is that there is a small chance that reality is valid so you'll keep it for now. Not an appropriate case for 2 sigma I think.
Note also that there is a BIG difference between the use of an ensemble of models and the use of a bunch of Monte Carlo runs on a single, agreed upon, standard model. The former is what seems to be being used. The latter would be much less problemetic.
If observations do drift outside the 2 sigma for the ensemble of models, is it your plan to formally reject reality?
BTW, the claim that a linear fit has no physical basis isn't right either although I'll give you that it should be a fit to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration and we should look up exactly what dT/dCO2 Arrhenius et.al. settled on. For the relatively short timeframe currently being used the log thing won't make much difference. It will if one projects centuries out.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Riiiight. Now let us all know when you change your religion because the satellites haven't shown warming in 17 years....
Dummy, you've got cherry picking wrong 17 years ago was 1999. You want 1998.
Going with your 1999 date we get: UAH Trend since 1999: 0.166 +/- 0.171 C/decade (2sigma)
It's just possible that there has been no warming since 1999, but it's more likely than not that there has been warming.
Of course this is all nonsense for the reasons you well know -- satellite "temperatures" don't really measure temperature, cherry picked periods and so on.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Bingo. "Sea level rise is like a set of stairs. The 12-inch increase in New York Harbor over the last century means we’ve already gone up one step. When a coastal storm occurs, the surge caused by the storm’s winds already has a step up, literally. For Sandy, that meant greater coastal flooding in New York and the surrounding region than we would have experienced a century ago. Continuing to climb the staircase of sea level rise means we’ll see greater extent and greater frequency of coastal flooding from storms, even if storms don’t get any stronger." - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
figure the only people actively denying climate change stand to make money from the status quo. Pretending it's not happening pretty much has no rational basis in anything else, because it doesn't otherwise benefit anybody.
Plenty of people accept climate change, while at the same time getting the concept that fixing it isn't nearly as simple as you think.
It is quite possible that we're already past the point of no return and nothing we do is going to help. The problem is massive and global and isn't something that a few changes in a few countries are going to fix.
Hundreds of acres is nothing compared to millions of acres GAINED.
Do you truly not understand the size of the Earth, more specifically the size of all continental mass in the northern hemisphere?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Source: http://www.scientificamerican....
Nothing to worry about, unless you live in Australia, but drop bears are probably more worrying than sea level drop anyways.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
The 2 sigma test encompasses the natural variability of the system 95% of the time. If the observations fall out of that range for short periods it's not unexpected.
The reason to use an ensemble of models is that modeling climate is a complex task and different models have different strengths and weaknesses. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project which is the source of the ensembles helps researchers explore those differences and improve the models.
Your linear formula may fit the curve for relatively short periods but it's still just curve fitting.