In Progress: Fastest Sea Rise In At Least 2800 Years (www.cbc.ca)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Progress: Fastest Sea Rise In At Least 2800 Years (www.cbc.ca)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @05:42AM from the fastest-growing-religion-in-the-world dept.

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.

57 of 520 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Non-believers by danbert8 · 2016-02-23 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Non-believers by unimacs · 2016-02-23 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The insurance companies who've been raising premiums in coastal areas sure do.
2. Re:Non-believers by MightyMartian · 2016-02-23 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The actuary tables don't lie. Insurance companies have accepted AGW for years now, no matter how much Big Oil and the Koch's try to deny it.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Non-believers by Kormoran · 2016-02-23 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Humans rarely think long term, even when doing a long term deal. Our reptile brain thinks "if something goes wrong I'll escape", and our mammalian brain thinks "omigosh it's so cool!"... and even if your neocortex is strong enough to win the fight, your wife has already bought that! No match! :-D
4. Re:Non-believers by mtippett · 2016-02-23 06:02 · Score: 3
  
  If they are still issuing policies, then it is accepted as a risk. This matches TFA in that there are a number of scenarios, the "likelihood" of an event due to Climate Change has definitely increased, but not the extent that people are uninsurable.
  In areas where it is a certainty (earthquakes in California, Floods in other parts of the country), the insurance companies step back and don't insure.
5. Re:Non-believers by unimacs · 2016-02-23 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But it's the free market right? If all these insurance are over charging wouldn't other companies swoop in with lower premiums and steel all the business? Why don't they? Because they're genuinely afraid of they big payouts they'll increasingly have to make.
6. Re:Non-believers by Opportunist · 2016-02-23 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  Anything can be insured. If you pay a premium that trumps the value of your home, I insure you a home built in the path of an oncoming tsunami.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Non-believers by rbrander · 2016-02-23 06:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You're thinking "Rising Oceans" are like a bathtub filling up. It's more like a statistical increase in flooding events. Exactly what insurance companies are leery of.
8. Re:Non-believers by gstoddart · 2016-02-23 06:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When the responses are on the order of "how do we know the vase is broken?" or "prove the vase wouldn't have broken on its own" ... there are people who are trying to say "there is no mess, and even if there was a mess you can't prove it was us".
  You don't think those companies paying to fund stuff which says "nope, not happening" want to muddy the waters long enough to keep up profits for a while?
  I mean, when Exxon scientists identified climate change decades ago, and when Exxon spent huge amounts of money denying climate change, you can bet your ass that the denial of this comes entirely from corporate interests who don't want the source of their profits impacted, and they don't really give a crap how it affects everyone else.
  Corporations are, collectively, sociopaths. The longer they can convince you either there is no mess or that they nothing to do with it, the longer they can keep making huge sums of money.
  The people denying it's happening have a vested interest in misdirection and deception for as long as they can. Nobody has any other reason to deny it's happening other than the money they're going to make.
  This is the standard bullshit of the PR game ... keep publicly lying about it to confuse the issue, and pay to discredit the facts to support their own narrative. Complete and utter sociopaths with no regard for anything but themselves.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
9. Re:Non-believers by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-23 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The actuary tables don't lie. Insurance companies have accepted AGW for years now, no matter how much Big Oil and the Koch's try to deny it.
  Around 10 years ago, I sat in on a presentation by an insurance company exec who made an incredibly compelling case for the monetary cost of the global warming. Complete with facts and figures. Oddly enough, I haven't heard a lot of deniers cherry picking those numbers.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
10. Re:Non-believers by phantomfive · 2016-02-23 06:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The actuary tables don't lie
  Asking an insurance company if something might increase risk is like asking a tobacco company if cigarettes prevent cancer. Huge monetary incentive there.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
11. Re:Non-believers by slashping · 2016-02-23 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  Insurance companies care about this kind of shit, which has nothing to do with hurricanes: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
12. Re:Non-believers by ShanghaiBill · 2016-02-23 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  No. They're angling for government swag.
  Government bailouts only happen when the storm/flood/whatever is on TV. Once the problems become common enough, they will no longer be newsworthy, and the handouts will stop. People are always willing to help, until they realize their taxes are going up. Then they realize that apathy and victim blaming is much cheaper. This is known as Compassion Fatigue.
13. Re:Non-believers by turkeyfish · 2016-02-23 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The interesting aspect of this is that so far buyers don't seem to recognize that what each successive buyer will be both accepting more risk, hence paying more and more for insurance, on a property that will be worth less when it comes time to sell. Coastal property is very much now like milk and other perishable items. It has a sell by date stamped on it. Its just that the dates are of relatively longer duration, on the order of a few generations.
  Given human nature, this musical chairs nature of the coastal property business won't make itself evident to most for another 25-50 years or so. By then with higher temperatures and hence more energy and moisture in the air and consequently more violent and more frequent storms this risks will be apparent to most. However, given that the wealthy are the primary buyers of coastal real estate, form them it's more a question of disposable income. Also for them, it is likely that much if not nearly all of these costs will be passed on to taxpayers and consumers generally, as the buy politicians to shift the tax burden from the wealthy onto the poor and the dwindling middle class and they simply pass the costs on in the form of higher prices in the businesses that they own and control.
  The biggest impact will be in cities like Miami and parts of New Jersey, and large stretches of the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf of Mexico, where the elevations are so uniformly low over considerable expanses. There all properties will be effected and both rich and poor will be forced to migrate elsewhere. The rich should be ok as they may already have property elsewhere or resources that they can use to purchase other properties even as their seaside properties become worthless. The poor on the other hand will be forced to face conditions similar to those now faced by indigents in Bangladesh, too poor to stay and too poor to move. This will probably be the big unexpected aspect of sea level rise, the political and economic instability that it creates by making so many to lose it all, with little political or economic recourse. Subsequent generations will suffer disproportionately on the individual level as families that might once have had property that could be passed onto subsequent generations in the form of inheritance will be left with greatly diminished inheritance.
  What few recognize is that given free energy considerations and the consequent fact that once a carbon dioxide molecule is generated from fossil fuels, it stays essentially as a permanent fixture in the atmosphere for on average about 100 years. Given the fact that it thus accumulates, the process is exponential, but the consequences time-lagged so that we have yet to experience the effect of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere over the past 50 years, an amount far greater than the previous 50. If one extrapolates from previous geological periods and looks at rates of sea-level rise at various locations, one sees spurts of rising over very short time periods, several meter rises over a hundred year period in some cases (remember that 5+ inches/100 year is a global average). Consequently, there is far more "coastal property" than most people recognize.
  Unfortunately for those on in the US living on the Western Atlantic, the effects of Greenland ice melt on sea level rise will be greatest there rather than immediately adjacent to Greenland because of the fact that the oceans are in motion and the differential between isostatic adjustment and water mass position forces the maximum peaks southward, but primarily over the Western rather than Eastern Atlantic Ocean. Consequently, those rising tides will be flooding Wall Street within the next few hundred years with near certainty. That's a lot of expensive real estate that will need to be liquidated (in more ways than one) in a relatively short period of time.
14. Re:Non-believers by turkeyfish · 2016-02-23 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Having experienced Katrina I can assure you that insurance companies will simply ignore the law with relative impunity. Remember, it's a lot cheaper to simply buy yourself a few politicians, prosecutors, judges, and regulators than actually pay out massive claims during a major storm event.
15. Re:Non-believers by turkeyfish · 2016-02-23 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes exactly. You're analogy is kind of like the American voter who consistently votes for candidates who don't believe in government and then complain when the government doesn't work. Yes, a lot like putting your head into the cog of a giant machine and having it crushed. Admittedly, one does hear the screams of anguish.
  Too bad that as the heads explode, they fail to recognize that the guy they were counting on to turn the crushing machine off, was really busy speeding it up to benefit the guy who owns the crushing machine and is eager to profit by selling more crushing machines.
  Ironic that with all that freedom, so many choose to use it to be stupid.
16. Re: Non-believers by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-23 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  More supported, or less, than your own?
  I love discussing things with shallow. He can invalidate an entire scientific issue with one sentence.
  Why do so many people who are just plain wrong speak with such great authority?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
17. Re: Non-believers by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-23 10:17 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I love discussing things with shallow. He can invalidate an entire scientific issue with one sentence.
  When something is so painfully wrong that it can be defeated with one sentence, then why use two?
  A wise man once told me, any idea that can be dealt with in a nutshell, belongs in one.
  As well, your circular arguments are not convincing anyone but yourself.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
18. Re:Non-believers by hey! · 2016-02-23 11:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In Tracy Kidder's book House, he interviews a carpenter who talks about stairs. The carpenter claims that if you were to play a slow motion film of people walking up stairs you'd see that the soles of their feet clear the top of each stair tread by a couple of millimeters. They take the first step and then instinctively lift each foot by no more than they absolutely have to clear each step. That's why it's critically important to get the height of the first step right; if it's just a little bit off the stairway will forever after be tripping people up, but they won't know why because the difference is imperceptible.
  There's something like that when it comes to buying land in a floodplain. The past performance of flood control structures is like that first step on the stairway; it sets peoples' expectations to future performance. But those structures introduce a discontinuity into a gradually increasing water level. The water may have come within an inch of the seawall top a half dozen times in the last year, but an inch is as good as a mile. But if the sea level rises an inch, well that doesn't sound like much but a lot of people will notice.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
19. Re:Non-believers by riverat1 · 2016-02-23 11:39 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately for those on in the US living on the Western Atlantic, the effects of Greenland ice melt on sea level rise will be greatest there rather than immediately adjacent to Greenland ...
  
  Oddly enough the effect of Greenland's melting ice will actually be a relative reduction in sea level around Greenland because of the reduction in gravitational attraction from the ice sheet.
20. Re:Non-believers by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-02-23 12:11 · Score: 2
  
  The actuary tables don't lie
  Asking an insurance company if something might increase risk is like asking a tobacco company if cigarettes prevent cancer. Huge monetary incentive there.
  There are a few major problems with this comparison. First, insurance is a competitive marketplace in most areas, so customers do "shop around." If one company has a reputation for offering rates 10-20% lower than every one else in an area, that sort of thing "gets around," and people switch. (If you own a home, you probably receive offers almost weekly in the mail for this sort of thing.)
  Second, home insurance is a product that most people NEVER use for its intended purpose. That's why in many areas you often pay only a few hundred dollars per year to insure a house that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. You don't need to look at actuarial tables to do the math there -- most people will never cash in on home insurance policies, and that's generally a good thing.
  But think about what that means for a second: that means there's no way for customers to evaluate the product except on a cost basis. Just about all home insurance companies have equal (generally trending somewhat negative) reviews, if you go looking online. And most people will never actually use the product, so the only thing they tend to shop for is cost, rather than "quality" or "service" or whatever.
  Which means that home insurance companies have a strong incentive to keep prices somewhat low. And if the market became artificially inflated as you assume, any other company who had actuarial tables that indicated they could still make a profit at significantly lower cost could come in and take those customers away.
  Of course insurance companies make a profit. But as long as there's more than one company willing to offer you a quote on your house, chances are they are somewhat basing it on their actual risk. And if there's only one company willing to offer you insurance, well, that's proof in itself that the risk on your property is probably extremely high.
21. Re:Non-believers by clovis · 2016-02-23 15:32 · Score: 2
  
  The insurance companies who've been raising premiums in coastal areas sure do.
  Insurance companies do not set the flood insurance rates. Flood insurances is subsidized and rates are set by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in other words, the federal government.
  The rates as set by the NFIP and are artificially low.
  My house on a coastal island (hurricanes about every 8 years) was at 11 feet above sea level and 200 feet from the water. This was a house that was guaranteed to be destroyed, and the premiums were set a level that would cover the cost of the house in 400 years.
  The reason for the recent raises have nothing to do with climate change or rising sea levels. It's due the the fact that the rates have historically been set ridiculously low, and congress is attempting to set them closer to reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
22. Re:Non-believers by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-02-23 16:09 · Score: 2
  
  Of course they're not qualified! That's exactly why they ask experts, just as you have recommended.
  And the results of those inquiries are reflected in their rates.
23. Re:Non-believers by khallow · 2016-02-23 19:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In Tracy Kidder's book House, he interviews a carpenter who talks about stairs. The carpenter claims that if you were to play a slow motion film of people walking up stairs you'd see that the soles of their feet clear the top of each stair tread by a couple of millimeters. They take the first step and then instinctively lift each foot by no more than they absolutely have to clear each step. That's why it's critically important to get the height of the first step right; if it's just a little bit off the stairway will forever after be tripping people up, but they won't know why because the difference is imperceptible.
  I heard this before, It's bullshit. There are plenty of examples of stairs which are grossly uneven and off by far more than a couple of millimeters and people don't have trouble climbing them. Classic examples are outdoor stairs which go up hills and mountains (like Mount Fuji in Japan).
  
  There's something like that when it comes to buying land in a floodplain. The past performance of flood control structures is like that first step on the stairway; it sets peoples' expectations to future performance. But those structures introduce a discontinuity into a gradually increasing water level. The water may have come within an inch of the seawall top a half dozen times in the last year, but an inch is as good as a mile. But if the sea level rises an inch, well that doesn't sound like much but a lot of people will notice.
  A floodplain is a river feature. A seawall is an ocean-based structure. You're thinking of a levee which is the corresponding river-based structure to a seawall.
  
  And for a well built seawall, overlapping the wall is not all or nothing. The seawall still reduces flooding and the damaging effects of wave action on whatever is behind the wall even when the wall is overlapped.
24. Re:Non-believers by dave420 · 2016-02-24 00:25 · Score: 2
  
  The insurance companies collate data from many sources, including the scientific literature available. Their very existence hinges on them getting it right. This is not difficult to understand, regardless of how much you might want it to not be true.
25. Re:Non-believers by FlyHelicopters · 2016-02-24 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  Unless we can get past our personal ideologies and personal economic circumstances, whether you sit in the board rooms of Wall Street or live in a home extending out over the ocean in Lagos, Nigeria the outcome is going to be the same, very bad indeed for Homo sapiens everywhere, regardless, of creed, color, religion, nationality, political party, personal wealth, or age.
  I disagree actually... it'll be fine for the top 10% of the people on the planet, it is those on the bottom 50% that'll be totally screwed. But it has always been this way.
  Major climate change is clearly coming. Why might be beside the point now. Stopping it is likely no longer possible, adaptation is what we should be working towards. That, and far fewer people.
  It would help a lot if we could get the world's population to back around 2 billion...
26. Re: Non-believers by khallow · 2016-02-24 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  I see you're not listening. I'll just summarize my views. Let's start once again with your earlier observation:
  
  I just find it amusing how it seems corporations will naturally move towards efficient & effective service to stay competitive, except when they're lying, money-hungry bastards that are only in it for themselves, and the sole criteria for which it will be today is whether their conclusions agree with your own.
  The resolution to this apparent conundrum is that businesses are rather efficient and effective at pursuing their interests, but not at doing anything that isn't relevant (or made relevant, such as via customer or regulatory action) to those interests. For example, spending taxpayer money efficiently usually runs counter to the business's interests since it usually means less revenue for themselves.
  
  In the case of the insurance company example, an officious document supporting the climate change propaganda, which incidentally costs peanuts, allows them access to a huge amount of funds allegedly assigned to "climate change" and related activities - both directly via the private profit, public risk mechanisms of shoving costs and liabilities onto the public, but also via the government creating and supporting risk-free profit opportunities (all insurers are investment companies, let us remember).
  
  What I find particularly bizarre is your insistence that somehow businesses are being inefficient/ineffective to the pursuit of their interests completely counter to real world observation. Lockheed Martin scores $400 billion in revenue, but that somehow can be ignored because they have a lot of revenue and maybe could have done better, if they had sold something low tech and less complicated? What low tech item are they going to get $400 billion for that someone won't undercut? Ball point pens? It's time for you to start thinking here.
yeah by argStyopa · 2016-02-23 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

--
-Styopa
Re:So it was rising faster 3000 years ago? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Re:The situation is indeed dire by gstoddart · 2016-02-23 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

You do realise the universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you think about Climate scientists.
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.
Part of the science CPC buried in Canada by WillAffleckUW · 2016-02-23 06:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

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! --
and 4000 years ago by rubycodez · 2016-02-23 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

it was rising faster than it is now. It was those middle eastern goat herders and their SUVs!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Re:and 4000 years ago by Geoffrey.landis · 2016-02-23 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  it was rising faster than it is now.
  
  I think you mean 14 thousand years ago, not four thousand. The graph you posted shows the sea level rise 4 thousand years ago was about 3 centimeters per century-- a same rate that is pretty much constant for several thousand years. The link in the summary ( http://www.realclimate.org/ind... ) says since 1993 the rate has been 30 centimeters per century.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Put your money where your pie-hole is by Tablizer · 2016-02-23 06:17 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:Put your money where your pie-hole is by phantomfive · 2016-02-23 06:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The land value hasn't gone down at all in response to global warming.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Put your money where your pie-hole is by BradleyUffner · 2016-02-23 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  At 8 cm per century, sea level rise will NEVER directly affect anyone living today that owns a beach-front home.
3. Re:Put your money where your pie-hole is by Tablizer · 2016-02-23 06:54 · Score: 2
  
  It wasn't going down in the first place due to global warming.
  I believe it's because the inequality (growing 1%). Beach front property is a luxury item and a status symbol. Like a Jaguar, it doesn't have to last 20 years to serve that goal.
  I suspect the property values would be much higher if not for GW; it's just been masked by other issues.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
4. Re:Put your money where your pie-hole is by Layzej · 2016-02-23 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  At 8 cm per century, sea level rise will NEVER directly affect anyone living today that owns a beach-front home.
  Seas rose about 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) from 1900 to 2000. The current rate is about 34 centimeters per century. It will be much higher by the end of the century. It's the second derivative that you need to be concerned about. Especially for places like Miami that are already flooding at high tide.
Re:The situation is indeed dire by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-23 06:27 · Score: 4, Informative

alarmist nonsense like the impossible scenarios Al Gore presented
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.
Re:I hope it's true... by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · 2016-02-23 06:38 · Score: 2

Uh, if they drowned, then that'd be ironclad proof that it ISN'T nonsense.
Gotta love that denialist LOLgic.
Re:private insurers jump ship, governments jump in by mtippett · 2016-02-23 06:38 · Score: 2

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.
Science Denial on Slashdot... by tekrat · 2016-02-23 07:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Science Denial on Slashdot... by Mike+Van+Pelt · 2016-02-23 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Personally, I have been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear for over 40 years. The vast majority of people who claim to be oh so very very concerned about CO2, on the other hand, have been among those obstructing nuclear for over 40 years. Warming is their chickens coming home to roost. Unfortunately, those chickens are crapping all over those of us who do not deny arithmetic, too.
  "I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic." -- Stuart Brand
2. Re:Science Denial on Slashdot... by MightyMartian · 2016-02-23 07:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  First off, labeling anyone that disagrees with you as a "science denier" is neither insightful nor thought provoking so you might remove the plank from your eye before criticizing the specks in others.
  
  It is when you're talking to a science denier.
  How would you treat an anti-vaxxer or someone who denies evolution?
  
  We do not *KNOW* there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We are, at this moment in planetary history, at all time lows for atmospheric CO2. Historically we should be around the average of about 1600-1800ppm. Around 280ppm we would see plant life began to die off. We are damn lucky to be rebounding now. Yes, CO2 traps heat. We rarely hear about the way it does that is a logarithmic effect. The impact of going from 500 to 600 ppm is far lass than the effect of going from 300 to 400.
  So what if it is logarithmic. That doesn't mean trapped heat magically doesn't do anything at all. We are observing substantial changes in the ocean, not just sea level rise, but in the actual chemical composition as absorbed CO2 messes up pH levels. And we are also observing higher ocean temperatures, and lower atmospheric temperatures.
  As to planetary history, what the fuck difference does that make? Humans didn't exist in the Jurassic, and human civilization only developed in the last 10,000 years, not in the last 100 million years. Significant changes in climate will have, and are already having significant changes on rain belts.
  Trying to dismiss AGW by appealing to the fallacious view that it only counts when it is big increases is to betray intense ignorance of an entire discipline. What you're arguing is the equivalent of a Creationist saying "yeah well, we can only observe microevolution!"
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Science Denial on Slashdot... by Xyrus · 2016-02-23 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  First off, labeling anyone that disagrees with you as a "science denier" is neither insightful nor thought provoking so you might remove the plank from your eye before criticizing the specks in others.
  What would you call someone who denies thermodynamics? Or relativity? Or evolution? I'm not talking about skeptics or being skeptical. I'm talking about flat out 100% "I don't care how much evidence you have" denial?
  A skeptic is someone who reviews the research and asks insightful relevant questions about that research. Every professional scientist is skeptical by nature. That's why they're scientists. They see something and say, "I wonder how that works?" and proceed to study, observe, model, so on and so forth.
  A science denier is someone who quite simply denies science. They don't care how something works. They don't care about the data, the observations, or anything else. God itself could come down before them, tell them the science is correct, and they would still deny it. They don't provide models or research or analysis. They post graphs, cherry pick information, cook up conspiracy theories, and so on. But actual science, they provide none.
  
  Second, the posts you describe as "dumb" are generally a sarcastic shot at those that carried on about how Katrina was the new norm or every other weather event that was some kind of proof of AGW. It's a sarcastic point so it may not translate well into online fora but if you've been around here much you know it's rather common.
  No they aren't. The tired rhetoric of "the scientists said X was gonna happen and it didn't. LOLWTF Al Gore." is a common oft repeated argument that, of course, is completely unsubstantiated. There's the peer reviewed science. Anything else is speculation, opinion, or in the case of the media, over-hyped nonsense.
  
  I have degrees in chemistry and computer engineering. I work the technology field and consult with many companies and government agencies that revolve around environmental issues. If you want to whip it out and compare, I'm sure I'll stack up.
  We do not *KNOW* there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
  And you're a chemist?
  The rise of humanity took place in climate X. Our modern society depends on climate X. We now have increased insolation by adding addition greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which leads to climate Y.
  The fact that we are changing global climate from X to Y means there is too much CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). All it takes is a slight shift in global climate patterns and our lush arable lands (of which there are very few) become barren dust bowls. Throughout human history, even regional shifts have wiped out civilizations.
  And of course, that says nothing about current life forms going extinct who can't handle the rapid shift in climate.
  
  We are, at this moment in planetary history, at all time lows for atmospheric CO2.
  No we aren't. The paleoclimate record shows that CO2 levels have been lower, and that the rise of humanity occurred during several thousand years where the CO2 level ranged from 250 ppm to 280 ppm. Ice cores going back 800,000 years show a regular fluctuation between 180ppm-300ppm.
  
  Historically we should be around the average of about 1600-1800ppm.
  Where the hell are you getting your information? The only time CO2 levels were even close to that level was the Eocene/Olicene and prior periods some 40-50 million years ago.
  
  Around 280ppm we would see plant life began to die off.
  Well, "chemist", again you are incorrect. Plant life does just fine at 280 ppm. That's what CO2 levels were in the 1850's, and I'm pretty sure humans had been doing agriculture for quite some time before that (and lower CO2 levels).
  
  We are damn lucky to be rebounding now. Yes, CO2 traps heat. We rarely hear about the way it does
  
  --
  ~X~
4. Re:Science Denial on Slashdot... by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-02-23 16:13 · Score: 2
  
  We tried. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, because they have deeply held political and/or ideological beliefs that are directly contradicted by the evidence that we present, and so the evidence gets rejected.
  Also, in the age of the Internet, finding and validating such evidence generally isn't hard, especially for something that is so widely known to begin with. So the default assumption shifts from ignorance to malice. I'm not going to take time explaining a flat-earther why they're wrong, when evidence to the contrary is available on every corner. Same thing here.
5. Re:Science Denial on Slashdot... by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-02-23 16:26 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't try to explain you why you're wrong on this subject. I explained to you why no-one is interested in explaining to you why you're wrong on this subject any more.
  Of course, no-one really owes you an explanation, anyway. I didn't even owe that one; I just did it out of the kindness of my heart.
Re:odd remark by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 07:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe it's this. Salt water remains liquid at lower temperatures than fresh water. So the melted ice water could still be warmer than the ocean it's pouring into.
Warming is all over [Re:odd remark] by Geoffrey.landis · 2016-02-23 07:44 · Score: 2

From TFS:

In addition, as the sea water warms up it expands
... melting ice from continental blocks pours into the sea... I would imagine such water, having recently changed state from ice, is colder than the sea, not warmer than it,
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
1. Re:Warming is all over [Re:odd remark] by phantomfive · 2016-02-23 08:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's worth mentioning also that plate tectonics move faster than the sea-level rise.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:*Grabs Popcorn* by Layzej · 2016-02-23 07:53 · Score: 2

It looks like it depends which path we follow and where we live.
It is found that the total global arable land area is likely to decrease by 0.8–1.7% under scenario A1B and increase by 2.0–4.4% under scenario B1. Regions characterized by relatively high latitudes such as Russia, China and the US may expect an increase of total arable land by 37–67%, 22–36% and 4–17%, respectively, while tropical and sub-tropical regions may suffer different levels of lost arable land. For example, South America may lose 1–21% of its arable land area, Africa 1–18%, Europe 11–17%, and India 2–4%. - http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
Surf's up by WaffleMonster · 2016-02-23 08:06 · Score: 3, Funny

This is awesome news. A bigger ocean means more room for fish and assorted sea creatures.
Re:The problem with this story.... by Layzej · 2016-02-23 08:10 · Score: 2

Here's tropospheric temperature trend as measured by the UAH satellite reconstruction: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
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/... .
Re:odd remark by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2016-02-23 08:37 · Score: 2

It doesn't mix, it "caps" the warmer sea water and totally jacks with ocean currents. The system and the science is very complex; the freshwater can also lead to ocean acidification and dead zones.
Blame the fucking fish by coinreturn · 2016-02-23 08:56 · Score: 2

They're always peeing in the ocean!
Re:It's a matter of time scale [Re:Non-believers] by countach · 2016-02-23 13:58 · Score: 2

You say that, but it's like a 100 year lease. While 100 years might seem a lot, you'll notice when your $100,000 lease is only worth $80,000 in 20 years, instead of $150,000 like most property going up in value.
Re:Fair deal by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-02-24 02:58 · Score: 2

Two have said what you said. It is retreaded 1970s Chicken Little warnings. A religious warning,"But what if we go to hell?!?!?"
In an economically free society, advancement keeps ahead of any downsides. This is the counterintuitive result of Julian Simon's theory that made successful predictions, destroying the 1970s precursor predictions of your statements.
Actual measurements show you are, and will be, wrong. The measurements: actual well being, like calories per person. The context, N vs. S Korea i.e. economically controlled vs. free.
I throw in the bit about today less able to predict 2100 tech than 1900 today's to show what any global ameliorate on effort should not get in the way of.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.