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."
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!!!
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.
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
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
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).
Different organizations have different sensors all over the world. Furthermore, people use satellite measurements. Have a look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g...
They show similar data to the NASA estimate.
"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.
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.
You evil denialist filth! Off to the gas chambers! The models are always right! The science is settled dammit!
Science is never "settled". In fact that's what makes it "science", that it's always open to revision in the fact of new data, or new theories that provide a better explanation of the old data.
Science proceeds by a method that produces a long series of successive approximations, asymptotically approaching "truth". This doesn't mean you can just ignore the current values, even though they're known to be wrong in some degree, because they're also closer to right than what we had before -- and almost certainly much closer to the truth than whatever you wish to believe.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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 always open to revision in the fact of new data
s/fact/face/, of course.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Have Comey look into this immediately!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Mitt had terrible overseas relations. He visited 10 countries on an election tour, and offended 20 in the process. Enough of these rich-children candidates and presidents.
Table-ized A.I.
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...
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.
" 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
But who gives a shit about Africa, the US are sinking!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The way you ask that question I have to return a question: In what medium?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Science sucks that way.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Valid point. Reminds me of how the Japanese tsunami of 2011 over-topped sea walls because the ground elevation dropped significantly during the earthquake.
"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
I think it's a reading comprehension test.
Rain fall might also increase, and that would trap more water in the ground around the world.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
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.
so youre advocating that science should go backwards??
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No it isn't. I ripped the hands off one last week and it hasn't been right since.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What is this "race" of which you speak?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I'm fine with trying that experiment on Mitt also.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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
Statisticians.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Citation please? I can't find any evidence Clinton said that.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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?
Really? What?
Are you freaking kidding me?
A dozen data points?
No, a dozen sites. Each of which delivers many, many data-points during the lifetime of its mission.
This B.S. should make real scientists, viz. physicists, gag.
Are scientists and physicists who send spacecraft to the outer planets "real" enough for you? Because they often need to rely on just one "site" for their measurements, specifically the single spacecraft that conducts the mission. And such missions have yielded treasure-troves of results.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
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.
O said a mild version of that several years ago, and H is usually said to have mostly the same policy stances, although it's a stretch to put the (exaggerated) quote in her mouth. It's kind of ironic, though, since T is the one buddying-up to the ruskies of late.
Table-ized A.I.
BTW, you can see the ancient beaches on the mountain profile from Kleinmond, looking towards Hermanus. All the Cape mountains, including Table Mountain was under the sea long ago and hefted up.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Global Tectonicking will doom us all! Run for the hills!
Table-ized A.I.
+1 informative
I did use Google, and it did not yield any links with the GGP's alleged quote.
I looked at your link. It does not contain the quote either. An indirect remark that Romney's view is "dated" does not cut it.
So, Clinton did not say that Romney was an "out-of-touch idiot." Thanks for debunking GGP's claim.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Nuke the moon. No more moon, no more tide and the water level goes down.
Whoosh!
Have gnu, will travel.
In fact that's what makes it "science"
s/fact/face/
In face that's what makes it "science"
What? Your regexp needs work.
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'
I knew there had to be a logical explanation. I can totally see them going to all that effort to add a quarter of a toddler - a whole nine or so inches. That'd stop a tsunami!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Actually, I would already do it if I had the chance. But try to find anything domestic made. Clothing? Hardly possible. Electronics? Absolutely impossible. Like George Carlin once said when he went on stage flying a Chinese flag. "I fly this flag proudly, because this flag, unlike any US flag I could find, was made in the U.S.A."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In fact that's what makes it "science"
s/fact/face/
In face that's what makes it "science"
What? Your regexp needs work.
My regexp was applied only to the selection, which you conveniently did not quote :-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
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.
Her statement also suggests that ranking enemies by enemy-ness levels (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) is perhaps futile. Russia has helped us with the Iran deal, and terrorism in the relatively recent past. They don't like terrorists either, for they've had problems with them also. Our relationship with them is thus largely situational. It's been rough lately, but could change, depending on world events. Her response was nuanced because our relationship with the country is nuanced.
Table-ized A.I.
Climate models can only be accurate for the period that they have been calibrated to give the most accurate results.
The more accurate the models seem to 'predict' the past, the more the tendency to be less accurate with respect to future results.
Just try it. Set up a polynomial model that fits some limited data series of some physical phenomenon that's not too deterministic or simple.
Start with order 1 and increase the order while fitting the parameters.
Look how it deviates from a future data sample of the same system as the order increases.
Results from the past are no accurate prediction of results in the future.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
What weights more - a pound of ice or a pound of water?
The correct question is how much mass of ice versus water does it take to weigh a pound.
The answer depends on its altitude and its latitude.
Someone had to do it.
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.
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'
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
Ah yes I see my error, now.
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.
Some science is settled, and is just assumed to be true by other scientists. The difference between settled truth in science and settled truth in (say) theology, is that what's settled truth in science today may be unsettled tomorrow.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
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
Like all the attacks on her, it's pretty much made up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Which in no way backs the original quote.
More out of context baseless attack on Hillary.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, and people can't handle nuance. She is smarter, more experienced, pretty much invented modern ways how to minimize conflict with economics,
But all of that isn't a sound bite. And if one thing was proven during Gore run, is that the people on Slashdot are also mostly slow witted people who just believe headlines and not facts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You're wage will go up becasue there will be a demand for workers.
So it will balance.
ANd it won't be triples, in fact most of what you ahve herd isn't anywhere near reality. It's scaremongering by corporations.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
George Carlin was a comedian. Almost all his statement were fact less. How about you read economic papers? IS that too hard for you?
Your whole statement smacks of cowardice. You want to complain but you won't sacrifice to make it happen. What a fuck.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I always knew you were a coward and a quitter.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Thank you for that.
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.
Actually, it was 0bama that said (something like) that. https://youtu.be/T1409sXBleg