Slashdot Mirror
NASA Scientists Suggest We've Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise (vice.com)
Our current estimate about the global sea level is "way off" according to a new study. The study published in Geophysical Research Letters this month suggests that our historial sea level records have been off by an underestimation of five to 28 percent. From a report on Motherboard: Global sea level, the paper concluded, rose no less than 5.5 inches over the last century, and likely saw an increase of 6.7 inches. The reason for this discrepancy was uncovered by earth scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. By comparing newer climate models with older sea level measurements, the team discovered that readings from coastal tide gauges may not have been as indicative as we thought. These gauges, located at more than a dozen sites across the Northern Hemisphere, have been a primary data source for estimating sea level changes during the last several decades. "It's not that there's something wrong with the instruments or the data, but for a variety of reasons, sea level does not change at the same pace everywhere at the same time," said Philip Thompson, the study's lead author and associate director of the University of Hawa'i Sea Level Center, in a statement. "As it turns out, our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average."
*BLUB*
You evil denialist filth! Off to the gas chambers! The models are always right! The science is settled dammit!
Oh wait, you mean we are saying that we were "wrong" in a direction that happens to be politically convenient for the people running the show and requesting taxpayer money?
In that case, the science isn't settled you denialist scum!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
That;s not true....THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Search your feelings, you know them to be true!
NOOOOOO!!!
And also...as a child...I built C3P0!
NNNNOOOOOOO!!!
...was not disappointed.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Planting sea level monitors on the southern US coast is probably not useful, since the tectonic plate there is sinking. NASA should plant some measuring devices on the Southern Cape coast of Africa. There, I counted 14 ancient beaches on a mountain side and there are probably more, further away that I could not see or were too eroded to distinguish from a distance - easily a kilometer of sea level 'subsiding'.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
and it's very likely the civilization, ocean traders, and ports just so happened to be important enough that that's where the few sea gauges that exist were put precisely there. saves money. allows for flood warnings for millions. why dump an expensive gauge where nobody is and nobody will be?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
It's worse than we thought!!!!!!! Please approve a $5 billion increase in our budget.
Yeah, it is sad that scientists need to fight for funding when we have tax payer dollars going to anyone who waltzes across the border as a hard luck case or bombing another nation in an attempt to wag the dog. But, hey, let's just keep voting Democrat and Republican and see how much more they can keep pointing fingers until they break under the stress of a mismanaged nation... why not?
The headline is quite misleading. What the story actually says is that the previous estimate was 1.6 cm per decade, and the new number is 1.7 cm per decade--with an error range that it might be as low as 1.4.
Really this isn't "We've been wrong!"-- it's more "we have a slightly better estimate now."
The abstract of the article is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Actually, I think your link shows exactly what NASA is saying. They put their measurements in places shown in the NOAA graph to have below average rise. ie in a green arrow area instead of a yellow arrow area
Not sure how that's hard to understand.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
While the oceans are warming and the ice around the world is melting, I just worry that the weight of the water will cause more of it to be pushed down into the soil/sand/bedrock. That is why you aren't seeing more of a rise.
I also think that humans could pump out a lot of water around the world, along with slowing down the rivers emptying into the oceans to offset this. Rain fall might also increase, and that would trap more water in the ground around the world.
But if beaches start going away, the reduction in girls in bikinis might cause some middle age men to start to care.
Really is that your answer to their publication? Have you looked at their contribution and tried to understand it? No. First, NOAA hat not other thoughts. They have measurements from around the globe. Depending on the point of data collection they look at the data from the past (this is the time period which had already happened), e.g., 1915 to 2011 (for Cuxhaven 2 which has an 1.76 mm/y rise). The article claims that rises could be off in some areas by 28% and are 5.5 inches in the last century which are 139.7 mm in 100 years or 1.397 mm per year. And their upper claim 6.7 inches which is 1.708 mm per year.
NASA is once again figuring out how to doctor data to make you panic.
A university study has analyzed data to result in a very minor change (about a 6% correction) in average rate of sea level rise and the media has figured out how to make you panic. By the way, if you look at the "funded by" part of the abstract, the study was funded by NOAA.
NOAA has other thoughts.
Nice link, but I'm not sure why you say that this is "other thoughts"-- that's a link to the raw data. The University of Manoa/Old Dominion University/Caltech study takes these readings as input data to calculate the average.
What a shame that NASA, an organization once devoted to science, has fallen so far to become essentially the national enquirer of climate. sea level rise is the new Bat Boy...
What a shame that even very minor reanalysis papers get politicized. This wasn't even primarily a NASA study: the first author is funded by the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center, which is a NOAA program.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
But I bet you whip out your toxic erection at the mere mention of "perpetual growth" economic models, right?
Have you even compared his NOAA source wit the NASA source? I guess not. Otherwise you would have found out that the NOAA measurements of the past are close to the NASA estimates (of the past).
"As it turns out, our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average."
It's most likely that tide gauges were placed at locations where the economic impact of tides (on shipping, etc.) were most significant. So, even if the bias in sea level measurements is real, factoring in this impact cancels out the higher levels. In other words, who cares? If the sea level in the middle of the ocean is rising more than near the coast, most of us live near the coast.
Have gnu, will travel.
I tend to believe the people who bring evidence versus the people who religiously refuse to look at it.
The error range is not a factor of 1.4, it is no lower than 1.4 cm/decade.
Specifically, the text in the AGU release was: "As a result, the authors place a lower bound on 20th century sea level rise of about 1.4 millimeters per year during the 20th century, and the most likely "true" global rate was closer to 1.7 millimeters per year.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The tip of the iceberg.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Wow, these fuckers really know how to rig the game, don't they. Comparing models to actual reality, deciding reality is wrong? How the fuck did this organisation put a fucking man on the moon?
This is shocking.
You get funding to investigate a certain part of reality. For example, to understand and model sea level development. After X years you provide a final report (and a lot of publications in between now and now-X). Then you try to get the next grant, which will be most likely in a similar area. It does not mapper if the sea level rises or not. It for the research it is sufficient that there is something called sea level. In case your models are good, they get adopted by the state or state based organizations which monitor sea level development. As a scientist you move on to understand the next piece of the puzzle.
For example, we have understood the carbon cycle in land-based plants, air and the sea at large. However, we have only limited understanding what the increase of CO2 in the oceans cause. How do they affect algae production? At which concentration does plankton reduce its O2 production? How far is the CO2 concentration propagated downwards in the water column? What does this mean in context of fish population, food security etc? Therefore, when we find out that a certain topic is well understood there is enough left to be researched next. And research funding is usually not based on the need for knowledge, but how much money a state wants to spend on research in general.
I have no idea how much of this is serious, or how much is flat-affect parody.
If the "I also think that humans could pump out a lot of water around the world" part is serious, 1.7 mm/year corresponds to (360 million square kilometers * 1.7E-3m * 0.001 km/m=) 360 cubic kilometers per year.
I'm not sure we're likely to pump 360 cubic kilometers per year out of the oceans. Where are you going to put it?
The more goods you order from shitty 3rd world countries that pollute the world, the more super ships are kerplunked into the drink to ship it. No need to consume less, just think about the source for once.
These gauges, located at more than a dozen sites across the Northern Hemisphere
That doesn't sound right, surely they can use the data from more stations than that? Canada has 125+ years worth of tide and water level data from thousands of stations, maybe NASA should talk to them? It's free to download per water level station, or you can submit a request for the full dataset. (Disclosure: I worked for a time with the team that processes incoming marine data and digitizes historical log books.)
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
It's a 6% correction/adjustment.
That's negligible. They've made their estimates more accurate but the big picture hasn't changed at all, no matter which side you choose to stand on.
Trust our data models.
I buy that. Sure.
All models have a built in error. Nobody's predicting exact values for anything.
What a correction does (this is a correction) does is narrow the best/worse case scenarios a bit, that's simple to understand even for nincompoops.
Problem is: The corrections aren't ever going to make it point downwards, which is where it needs to go.
No sig today...
List them and where they were published.
It's normal for sea levels to rise and fall. It's silly/naive to think sea levels would remain constant over several decades.
By JPL leftists
WTF, I'm neck deep in water now.
If the sea level in the middle of the ocean is rising more than near the coast, most of us live near the coast.
Conversely, if the sea level in the middle of the ocean is rising less than near the coast, then most of us live away from the coast.
Ignoring evidence and hoping it will go away doesn't even work in your broken court model, why should it work in reality?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just do what I'm doing, grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the fight.
It's amazing. And much like the evolution vs. creationism battle. Nowhere but in the US this battle could take place, 'cause everyone else in the real world has already chosen his side. So please, don't take away our international amusement park, we need a vacation from reality from time to time and enjoy that there are actually people who are allowed to live in a make believe world while we have to face hard reality.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Deniers and skeptics are different people.
You can tell a denier from a skeptic from the fact that a skeptic would be equally critical of both sides of a question. Deniers, on the other hand, already have the opinion that they are advocating: they are saying the science is wrong regardless of the facts; in fact, they aren't even interested in the facts.
Deniers aren't skeptics-- they are, in fact, the exact opposite of skeptics. They are completely credulous: they repeat any argument saying that the science is wrong, no matter how silly, with no trace of skepticism or analysis.
In a real sense, deniers are the enemies of skeptics, since by continuously attacking the science regardless of whether the attacks have even a trace of merit, they end up discrediting any analysis that might have actual merit by burying it under garbage.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You're just imagining that, and brainwashed by all the scientists that want more grant money. Just wish away the water and everything's gonna be fine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Problem is: The corrections aren't ever going to make it point downwards, which is where it needs to go.
That's not a problem but a feature. The Progressive ratchet goes only one way. In this case to proselytize skeptics into their AGW religion.
" It's a form of addiction"
Climate Denial appears to be a religious obligation for many; and many Xtians who blithely overlook all the Bible's pesky warnings about greed.
For example, 1 Timothy 6:10
"For the love of money is the root of all evil; and while some have coveted after it, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows"
There may even be something in Two Corinthians that gives away the whole ballgame.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Science sucks that way.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Yes, the sea levels rise and yes, we'll all drown, but rest assured, nothing you do now will change that. We're fucked. So kick back, relax and enjoy, fill up that SUV a last time and drive into the sunset of humanity.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"which will cost trillions of dollars for a net temperature reduction of 0.3C if fully implemented"
America alone has spent trillions on things of far less importance than global warming.
But I don't think the Paris agreement will reduce the rise, only hold it below 1.5C which is well above where we are now.
We simply waited too long, despite decades of warnings
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Got to love the folk who attempt to make the case against science and scientific methods... by typing on the modern day equivalent of a super-computer that sends their rants at near the speed of light to another super-computer complex located halfway across the continent.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The StormFront newsletter ...
Mein Kampf
Fox News
Wow, that's some major BS there. While is it widely known that CO2 levels were higher in the Jurassic era an average temperature swing of 3 degrees C would put a whole lot of land under water today. Nevermind that O2 in the atmosphere would be significantly lower with the higher CO2 now because we've cut down most of the jungles of the world, most of the oxygen producing plantlife is gone.
It scares me that people are this ignorant of the situation. They are the same people complaining about the algae choking Florida and even having the balls to ask for federal funds to clean up a mess they caused.
If CO2 levels returned to the Jurassic era the ocean would be largely dead or dying. You need a whole lot of trees and vegetation to soak up that much CO2. Plants will die if they have too much.
Fortunately I think this particular person is a troll. There are actually people that believe this though and that is quite scary!
There are also countless studies with evidence showing that race is a determinant of intelligence, but everyone seems to be happy to aggressively ignore those. :)
And they all ignore Socio-economic status. When you take that into account it shows no statistically significant difference between the races.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
exactly what part of this concerns panic, dogma, and heretics?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
yes.
Reporting a finding from a group of scientists concerning previous scientific readings is "alarmism".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This year we went on holiday to the same beach we went to two years ago. Looking at the old photos, it used to come up to my kid's waist. Now it's barely up to his knees.
So if anything, sea levels are falling.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
so youre advocating that science should go backwards??
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
How else are AGW nutjobs going to get free money?
climate change ? Jeebus wouldn't allow it !
"These gauges, located at more than a dozen sites across the Northern Hemisphere"
Are you freaking kidding me?
A dozen data points?
This B.S. should make real scientists, viz. physicists, gag.
It's simple, more ships carrying chinese crap displacing water.
And besides that they're pummeling the ocean with carbon pollution, one boat spews more than a country worth of cars for a year!
What is this "race" of which you speak?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
What does Bible has to do with Climate Change advocacy or skepticism? Devout Christians are on both sides.
Jesus fucking Christ. Any idiot denier knows the answer to that one -- it's the sun you moron. There was a whole lot more CO2, true, but the sun was a whole lot less bright.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Wow, that's some major BS there. While is it widely known that CO2 levels were higher in the Jurassic era an average temperature swing of 3 degrees C would put a whole lot of land under water today.
Well, the location where my home is located was underwater during most of the Jurassic.
What he seems to be saying here is that climate models are accurate-- there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the Jurassic, and as expected from the greenhouse effect, it was about 3 degrees C warmer.
True, the world would adapt. Eventually. The world adapted to mass extinctions, too (including the one that kicked off the Jurassic, the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event
well, then they show a link between socio-economic status and race. Having three variables that are definitely linked should not be a reason to claim that no two of them are related.
And no, just because they are related to and correlate with race, does not require them to be genetically determined. It can very well be the case that people are forced to or choose to divide based on race and then that leads to a whole host of differences as well.
F1, NASCAR, to the bottom, to the top, 100 meters, 26.2 miles, there are many to choose from.
Unfortunately, the church of "The Science is Settled" has excommunicated the heretics, so no "more science" is possible. Without tenure, I sure as hell can't publish anything that doesn't match the dogma, nor would I ever be employable if I were to attempt to.
I continue to see articles explaining why for various plausible sounding reasons we need to adjust our raw data to show more climate change than the raw data contains. Can anyone point out any significant examples where the raw data was adjusted to show less climate change? The statistician in me is curious...
well, then they show a link between socio-economic status and race.
Yes, it's the lingering effect first of slavery, and then later segregation. We're less than 60 years from when the civil rights act was passed, there have not been enough generations for the socio-econonomic situation to stabalise between races.
Also, in the US, and the rest of the west, many minorities who are immigrants come from less affluent nations with lower standards of education.
Yes, there is a link between socio-economic status and race but it is not caused by race.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Without a doubt, we'll still be debugging our 20th century climate models when the clock strikes 2200.
Sometime in the 23rd century, there will be a Holospace Science-Officer conference (conducted through a Holoreality subspace linkup) to thrash out a few lingering points of disagreement—adjust six inches here, six inches there and we're all good.
I've read them. They are all about correlations, and have deep flaws.
A black child raised by a rich white family from birth has about 80-90% of the mobility of a white. But a black child raised in a poor black family is down at 10-20%. The studies seem to indicate that neighborhood and schools have more impact than race.
Race may play a part, but the identifiable part is 0% so far, as the confounds overwhelm that hypothesis.
Learn to love Alaska
Does anyone else see a problem with this sample size?
Thanks for reminding us of the heavy financial motivations for pro-AGW climate research! I agree, it is indeed sinful.
Really? What?
Thanks for reminding us of the heavy financial motivations for pro-AGW climate research! I agree, it is indeed sinful.
Um, facepalm. Just facepalm.
Climate-change scientists are not living large. But the well-heeled supporters of the denialist movement certainly are.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Iraq.
OK. How do you measure sea level then? Be specific.
What you find with datasets like this is that you get contradictory results -- some places will show more rise than others, others may even show sea level dropping. Now you can choose to ignore these discrepancies -- say by just averaging the measurements you have in your dataset. But that assumes an implicit model of what's going on; and an implicit assumption isn't really any better than an explicit one.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
+1 informative
I am honestly completely confused by this topic. The only conclusion I can come to is that C02 is a greenhouse gas and that may or may not be a good thing and that may or may not be statistically significant. Half the people say we're doomed the other half that it is complete bunk and now today I see this story claiming we are entering a little ice age: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Nuke the moon. No more moon, no more tide and the water level goes down.
No, no, no. What happens is that the effect is exaggerated in the harbors because of all the water displaced by an elevated concentration of ships. The more ships, the higher the surrounding water level appears to be. Out at sea, they ships are so spread out that the effect is barely noticeable.
That is why they put the tide-gauges there, because they know they can get a false-high reading and blow it out of proportion, to support their cause, like they always do. That's how these liberal scientist-types try to pull the wool over your eyes and sucker you into thinking AGW is real.
They think we're stupid.
Trump 2016.
3 points:
1. You know my family lives on an very small island, which is only about 1 foot above sea level.
The dock has been there for generations, no houses are getting washed to sea. There is no difference.
2. Recently a lot of these news reports have used "erosion" as pointing to sea level, which is not the same.
3. A lot of other islands that say they need help, used to have banking businesses that are now closed due to corruption (Tuvalu), need another source of money. So they want money to "save" the island, but technically there is no change in water level other then erosion.
4. MM and Inch are very different.
I think they mean 5.5 mm NOT 5.5 inch
Yes. If the observed data does not match the models the observed data must be wrong.
A little correction will fix that.
We don't know the value of getting the Sunnis and Shia fighting again.
It could have been brilliant. Our grandchildren will be in a position to know, but likely won't care if it turns out well (towel heads keep fighting for a century or so).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
lol
Only I can judge you.
I've actually read that we are in a little ice age and (I think) have never left it the whole time we've existed as humans.
Only I can judge you.
You're just imagining that, and brainwashed by all the scientists that want more grant money. Just pray away the water and everything's gonna be fine.
FTFY
Only I can judge you.
No, denialism would be the equivalent of atheism.
They may not be living large, but their AGW research is funded.
There's a difference between discovering natural laws and engineering products that either do or do not work, versus trying to measure and model climate history, present, and future in a highly political environment.
In other words, success in one area of science (and engineering) does not guarantee success in another.
Too much on the military; too much on healthcare for the outcomes; too much on oil & gas
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
We don't know the value of getting the Sunnis and Shia fighting again.
It could have been brilliant. Our grandchildren will be in a position to know, but likely won't care if it turns out well (towel heads keep fighting for a century or so).
For the 4 yrs before 9/11, the Federal deficit was running a SURPLUS of $100+ million annually.
In 1999, the Federal debt was $5.5 trillion, population of 278 million so $19,780 per person. In 2006, when the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq were 5 yrs & 3 yrs respectively, it had grown to $28, 359 per person.
It's now sitting a bit over $60k per person which is more than the household income of 55% of the population.
I think the grandkids will be too busy slaving away in their Indian & Chinese-run labor camps to give a rat's ass about what the towelheads are up to - and if they're fortunate enough to get any holidays, they'll spend them pissing on our graves.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
But how are those of less importance than global warming, which is completely normal (as is global cooling)?
I disagree. Atheism is an absence of belief in phenomena that have been shown to exist at all.
Climate denialism is a refusal to acknowledge an increasing preponderance of facts based on an accumulating body of research.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
But how are those of less importance than global warming, which is completely normal (as is global cooling)?
Disease, starvation & death are also completely normal yet look at the effort we've put into avoiding those things.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
But global warming has no demonstrated ill effects. Only predicted ones. Predictions based on dubious results from demonstrably unreliable climate models.
Climate-change is a term somewhat coined by This Guy to denounce the effect of the impact this was having on the planet. He was against the science.
I believe in the science, I refuse to use the term "climate-change", instead, "Global-Climate-Disaster" & "Global-Climate-Initiative" & "Global-Climate-Scientist" have a better, more meaningful, ring to it all. Just to stick it to that "other" guy.
I do find it so ironic that we DO use the term climate-change, who'd have thunk?
If I'm a sientist believing "A" is true, I do want to have anti-"A" research funded, because finding flaws in accepted truths is scientific progress.
(I said funding research, not funding FUD propaganda.)
On which planet are you living?
I think the rest of us are talking about global warming on planet Earth.
So, I compare a theoretical model, that I have created, against historical data, and decide that what everyone else has been using as evidence was wrong.
Enough said.
So, I compare a theoretical model, that I have created, against historical data, and decide that what everyone else has been using as evidence was wrong.
Enough said.
No. You took a data set that consisted of spotty records at irregularly spaced points, and asked the question "how do I derive the average sea level rise from irregularly spaced data points?" You answered this question by saying "we will fit the theoretical model to the data points, and derive the best fit."
This is what scientists do: fit theory to data. Really. This is how science works.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There was never a federal surplus. You are repeating a big fat lie.
Go check the national debt graph. It never went down.
There was one year with a projected surplus (if you include the SS trust fund accounting tricks), it went pop with the .com bubble.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I will add that the grave of FDR will, no doubt, be used as a public toilet when his debt bubble finally goes pop. It falls on all presidents and congress people sense that bastard was in charge. None of them even tried to stop the train headed for the cliff.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, but the funding doesn't go where the scientists want it to go, it goes to the research the grant give wants it to go to.
Just try to get funding in a university for research that is anti-AGW and see how you fair.
Do you mean models when you say facts, or do you mean measurement data that is now being adjusted to bring it in line with those models? Those facts?
If we need less water in the ocean, that means we need more water on land. So why don't we move it there?
We have many deserts. Sahara, Gobi, Southwest US, etc.
We pipe oil all over the world, why not water. The Great Salt Lake in Utah (I am from Utah) is extremely low and depleted. Why not pipe salt water to it. It might not seem to make a dent at first, because filling the Great Salt Lake wouldn't change the Ocean levels. But remember, the Great Salt Lake only losses water to evaporation that fills the Rocky Mountains with snow. The glacier/snow packs in the Rocky Mountains are depleting, too, partially because of lack of precipitation, which is partially because of a decreasing Great Salt Lake. So the more water in the Great Salt Lake, the greater the snow packs. Over the next 20 years, the difference would be noticeable.
Now, why can't we make more Great Salt Lakes. Why not put an Ocean in Death Valley. Death Valley is 200+ feet below see level, just build a pipe. Now you can pipe from Death Valley to the Great Salt Lake as it is closer than the Ocean. Now their is more rainfall in the entire southwest.
Now do the same in the Sahara desert. Add an ocean lake on the west side of the Sahara. How much more rain will that provide to the Sahara? Instead of a desert that soaks up heat and does't contribute to our atmosphere, we would have more rainfall and more plants, which would lead to more transfer of green house gasses to oxygen. We could make the Sahara inhabital, even farmable.
Next the Gobi.
Obviously I am talking about major world projects that are expensive and could take twenty years to implement. But so, what? Should we not start just because it will take a long time?
By investing in beach front property in Arizona, but choosing the wrong method of deployment.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Are they completely sure no one is playing with underwater nuclears? What about cold nuclears? You get it? COLD NUCLEARS! In Antarctica but you have to say it is cold nukes! Or like in cold calls, cold visits... Wet nukes also sounds sexy, doesnt it?
Think of the proposals. What arguments are you going to make for your anti-AGW research project? Unless it's got some ingenious new explanation for things, it's going to be going against the evidence. If you use similarly thin arguments for your pro-AGW project, it won't get funded either.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's no good objective argument for the existence of God, so atheism is a perfectly consistent belief or lack of same. It's not necessary to explain away any scientific evidence to become an atheist. To be a denialist, it's necessary to explain away tons of data and other science, typically by believing that climate scientists are almost all part of a global conspiracy. It's more like creationism.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The deficit was close to zero near the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency, much less than it has been since.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm going to nominate some Republican Presidents for toilet use. Typically, in my lifetime, Republicans have made major increases in the deficit, and Democrats have reduced it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Global temperature changes are normal, and there isn't one "right" temperature. However, temperature changes like we're seeing now are much faster than what has apparently went on in the past, and it's moving the global temperature enough to create effects that are not good for our civilization, which developed in mostly more stable temperatures.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What we're seeing is a case of data being re-examined and found to have been faulty, which is probably going to mess up the models, which were constructed around smaller rises in sea level.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yesterday's religion is today's science. In the field of climate science all the same elements are there. Money, status, belief, faith, priests who interpret God's will, the flock, excommunication, stifling of dissent. It's all there.
Go have a look at the data, methods & conclusion of the Berkeley Earth project, that decided to redo the work of climate & temp data analysis and look at more data from further back than ANYONE has yet done.
While their lead researcher had some harsh things to say about the methods of some studies, in the end the conclusions are the same.
The Earth is warming, has been for over a hundred years and humans are largely responsible for the warming, especially in recent decades, volcanoes for any cooling and the impact of solar variation is negligible
http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Errr....I mean yesterday's science is today's religion. Oops.
So we slowed the rate of digging deeper for a little while. Clinton did not actually spend less.
Bush 43 spent like mad then Obama spent like crazy insane. And remember the several times they have recently raised the debt ceiling? Don't go claiming your partisan politics, either. If there are any parties it us Them vs Us, Demopublicans and Republicrats vs the Sheeple.
Other than that statement about a surplus, you are right on.
As are the denialist people. Well, not there science because they have none.
global warming (GW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
At this point your basically a flat earther.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You forgot the fact the AGW is based on testable science that actually makes predictions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Too much is a bad thing for humans. It traps heat, this causes warming, that causes melting and more severe weather extremes.
For humans we want it back down to 300 ppm or so.
GLobal warming is a factor ontop of other long term acquirer trends.
IT's far more simple then deniers make it out to be.
1) We keep create CO2, and other, greenhouse gasses.
2) It's a fact those gases trap energy(heat)
3) it's a fact that about half of CO2 emitted by humans is NOT reabsorbed into the environment.
4) So the question is, how fast will ice melt with the increasing temperature. turns out: faster.
Maybe this will help:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
AGW is based on science, the models are about the impact of that testable science.
global warming (GW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There as, and you have no clue about nation debt. How it works, how it compare to the deficit,, how it compares to assets. clearly you have no clue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Do you realize you are basically a flat earther at this point?
the climate change natural, but we are out of those bounds, bu a long way.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Below is posted n the slim chance you will realize how much of an idiot you sound like to anyone who actual understand GW science and stop spouting nonsense.
global warming (GW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The climate models are some of the best models every devise. they have done really well at forecasting.
So no, not dubious at all.
Global does have demonstrable ill effects. look at the oceans, the melting glaciers, reduced ice mass.
Are you seriously suggesting we wait until it too late to do anything to act?
It's like waiting for a asteroid to impact before doing anything about it.
stupid, myopic, bullshit.
We are way out of bounds from 'normal' global temperature deviations.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
observed data DOES MATCH THE MODELS. Who is telling you otherwise?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
OK. If CO2 concentration goes up 20ppm next year, how much warmer will it get?
And how will you verify it?
If it may have been as much as 6.7 inches/century, that's over 60 inches per millennium. Nearly as much as I am tall! More than the height of an average American woman!
I'm heading for high ground now, before it's too late.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
IPCC-accepted modelers caution that they produce scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are stories constructed from a collection of assumptions, not necessarily from observed historic climate dats. Climate scenarios can seem convincing, in the same way that a well-written novel is, but they are not forecasts, and don't pretend to be. Scenarios don't use validated forecasting methods, which is a point of contention among scientists using mathematical modeling in other disciplines.
Other concerns include too-small sample sizes, the lack of homogeneity of sampling methods, data cherry picking, and rejection of negative results. The IPCC-favored models also have no formal methodology to eliminate confirmation bias, and are unscientific in the sense that they are not falsifiable. Any difference between modeled scenarios and actual future climate measurements (witness the infamous "pause") are explained away as resolution errors.
An audit of computational procedures used by IPCC-selected models found that they ignore 80% of established scientific forecasting principles. But the IPCC promotes these scenarios as if they were forecasts.
Even the IPCC admits that there is no certainty that global warming is man-made. It only says there is "consensus". But science is not a consensus enterprise. 100 scientists can believe in some theory, but a single objecting scientist with non-conforming results is supposed to send everyone back to the drawing board. That hasn't happened with climate "science".
Here's a list of credentialed scientists that take issue with the IPCC's "consensus":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
We have good measurements from Venice Italy. Use them to tell how it's gone up or down. They have definitive measurements over the past 1000 years.
Not hard people.
Hint - it's what they said it was in the past. Not the new revisionist say now. Harder to change historical records, like NASA has done with their measurements. So called "adjustments" that happen to put this year in record hot months every month. Just wait a few days, I'm sure a /. article will be saying once again - October was a record hot month. Surprised they haven't already announced November 2016.
First, it's not going up that much next year, so current models aren't set up to predict that. Second, most of us don't have direct access to the models. Third, they do have predictions for the next several years (changes from one year to the next are largely statistical noise, but the trends show up over more time), and you can look at them in various places, like the IPCC executive summary. Predictions and models that are published will be followed, and the degree of accuracy will be noted.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thanks for reinforcing my poiny, David.
So, what is the empirical evidence that shows that?
So, now we're Standard solar model skeptics, are we?
(Oh my god, I said model!)
Watch this Heartland Institute video
When the model fails to explain reality only morons believe the model is true.
So, enlighten us, what's your beef with the standard solar model? What's your proposed replacement model?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
In particular the coronal heating problem, but also the faint early sun problem. The electric sun model shows great promise, but I do not pretend to have perfect knowledge about our universe like your ilk.
The electric sun model shows great promise,
What a bore, I've been wasting my time talking to a grade-A lunatic.
Bye bye.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You have a point? Other than establishing that models don't do well modeling what they were never intended to model?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
pointing out an individuals very real opportunistic hypocrisy does not make one a "troll".
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.