Slashdot Mirror
New Science Suggests the Ocean Could Rise More -- and Faster -- Than We Thought (washingtonpost.com)
Chris Mooney, writing for the Washington Post: Climate change could lead to sea level rises that are larger, and happen more rapidly, than previously thought, according to a trio of new studies that reflect mounting concerns about the stability of polar ice. In one case, the research suggests that previous high end projections (PDF) for sea level rise by the year 2100 -- a little over three feet -- could be too low, substituting numbers as high as six feet at the extreme if the world continues to burn large volumes of fossil fuels throughout the century (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled). "We have the potential to have much more sea level rise under high emissions scenarios," said Alexander Nauels, a researcher at the University of Melbourne in Australia who led one of the three studies. His work, co-authored with researchers at institutions in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany, was published Thursday in Environmental Research Letters. The results comprise both novel scientific observations -- based on high resolution seafloor imaging techniques that give a new window on past sea level events -- and new modeling techniques based on a better understanding of Antarctic ice. Further reading: Sea levels to rise 1.3m unless coal power ends by 2050, report says (The Guardian).
Goodbye Florida. I will miss you.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
New Science Suggests the Ocean Could Rise More -- and Faster -- Than We Thought
Maybe. Possibly.
But aren't we already suppose to be under ten feet of water?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I'm pretty damn sure that the world ended in 2015 just like they predicted.
https://www.mrctv.org/videos/f...
If you don't believe that New York was underwater 24/7/365 BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE they clearly you are a science denier.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Wake me up when ANY of their predictions actually comes true.
Due to a typical but very strange bit of human psychology, I both have difficulty believing the world will actually change significantly in my lifetime while simultaneously wanting to see some kind of apocalypse (under the assumption I somehow manage to survive and thrive post-apocalypse).
I mean, it's worth the end of the world as we know it just to be able to gloat to the survivors that I was right, isn't it?
...it's overpriced, it's over-hyped. Beach property, near the sea, near the beach, near a pond - and cost 3-10 times as much as a normal property. You're investing badly, and you're gonna find out the hard way.
I already knew this when I moved from Denmark to another country (several Danish cities is suffering from the ocean eating up the ground, and houses are constantly falling into the sea when the ground gets eaten up by the sea). I now live 80m above sea level - and 10 times cheaper, with the same solid building.
To quote Nelson from the Simpsons -> "Ha haa!".
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
The free market is on track to switch to largely renewable energy within 10-20 years in wealthy western nations, and within a few more decades in the rest of the world.
The only way that could fail is if ill-conceived government climate change policies create a long-lasting global recession. Fortunately, with the failure of left wing governments in both the US and Europe, that doesn’t seem likely.
Answer this:
Where is the science that says the current global average temperature is optimal?
...climatology would be the ghetto.
Except the price has only gone up. Yes, longterm, like say, the year 2100, beachfront property will have been a bad investment. But for now, you can buy it, enjoy the beach, then sell in ten years for a nice profit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And none of those were mainstream positions that had scientific consensus. You've confused yourself by taking many different views and bundling them together as a single mind. It's entirely possible for there to be 10 different wrong views on climate change but still end up with climate change being real.
The stupidity never ends with you guys does it?
Russians DO play a lot of hockey, comrade!
I don't respond to AC's.
Seriously, man: there are actual climate changes that we have to seriously cope with. That isn't being helped by alarmist bullshittery like this.
Then why are you posting alarmist bullshittery links?
I don't respond to AC's.
Al Gore In 2005: "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." Kilimanjaro In 2015
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
nt
You are one to talk about FUD, you Fudmucker.
That "great video link" is a bunch of snippets from unidentified people, one of whom looks like his Parents should have had him tested, and soon. No Scientists, no Policy Makers, nobody identified at all.
As for that "Global Cooling" bit from the John Birch Society hit piece; that was hatched up by a Reporter for Newsweek, and was debunked promptly. Peter Gwynne, the Reporter, has since apologized, and admitted that he bullshitted:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/12/_1975_newsweek_article_on_global_cooling_how_climate_change_deniers_use.html
"Here I must admit mea culpa. In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it."
Now to quote you, and toss that shit right back in your face:
"Seriously, man: there are actual climate changes that we have to seriously cope with. That isn't being helped by alarmist bullshittery like this."
Take your John Birch, and cram it, you bloviating baboon.
Not to mention the water.
If you've ever owned anything big like a house or a car or even a boat you know that water is bad, especially salt water.
And here folks is an exhibit of the failure of our modern education system.
Answer this:
Where is the science that says the current global average temperature is optimal?
It isn't "optimal". It is, however, what we have built our society's infrastructure around, and what the Earth's ecology has adapted to.
We could rebuild our infrastructure to a different temperature. It will have a cost. The Earth's ecology can adapt to a different set of climates. It will take time, and result in some amount of species loss, but inside of ten thousand years or so, they'd adapt.
It's only the short term-- the next few centuries-- that would be hard.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
TFA reports on new science: "...a trio of new studies". You've already refuted their findings? Please share a link to your article. You must be awesome.
Yeah, now if the world will just embrace the idea of inland ports.....
Optimal for what? If you're saying "optimal for large scale civilization heavily reliant on specific climactic conditions for large-scale land-based agriculture and complimentary ocean food sources", then I'd say the post-Glacial epoch is pretty damned optimal. Yes, bacterial mats and Archae populations and cockroaches may have a wider window of optimal conditions, but the capacity to support large concentrations of humans is a good deal narrower.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And I live by the river
How many different studies will we have that don't agree about what's happening before we realize that we don't really know?
Somebody needs to make a study about how many *different* conclusions have been made in the last 20 years and how those studies have faired when compared to reality. I'm just going to guess that two things are true. 1. The ones the press cover and are most often cited by activists are the most inaccurate over time. And 2. Not one study, if old enough to verify, shows the dire consequences we are routinely told about.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
People with money and power really do.
I think you are confusing the pursuit of short term gains with long term value. They are not the same.
And none of those were mainstream positions that had scientific consensus. You've confused yourself by taking many different views and bundling them together as a single mind. It's entirely possible for there to be 10 different wrong views on climate change but still end up with climate change being real.
You want him to obey the consensus because it's a consensus but ignore the consensus because the people contributing to it are routinely proven to be hilariously incorrect?
If people with power and money REALLY THOUGHT anything like this sea level alarmism was true, you would absolutely see this priced into seafront real estate prices. But they just continue to climb.
We also WOULDN'T see pro-natalist policies.
For instance: importing large numbers low-income people from countries with cultures that encourage large families and giving them jobs and child support which enables them to have LARGER families and an income sufficient for all the kids to drive gas-guzzlers and otherwise consume more goods that are produced by carbon dioxide emitting processes and/or processes powered by carbon dioxide emitting utilities.
If the politicians REALLY believed the climate-change hype, they'd close the borders. Since they don't, it looks more like they think it's a convenient excuse to increase their power (by writing laws and regulations) and wealth (by rent-seeking schemes like carbon-credit exchanges).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Idiot, go fucking read the old science papers or shut the fuck up about how you feel they must be wrong.
And that's why I keep all my money in tulip bulbs, internet companies that had IPOs in 1999, and real estate I purchased in 2007.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Here it is more recently, just about free of snow.
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
I'm not sure when the image is from, but right now it's spring in Africa with summer coming up. It will probably be snow free at some point during their summer.
And missing the date by a couple of years for something like that, that's rather accurate in my opinion.
BlameBillCosby.com
The '97% of scientists agree' thing has been debunked so many times that only the ignorant and the trolls still repeat that.
It's entirely possible for there to be 10 different wrong views on climate change...
You want him to... ignore the consensus because the people contributing to it are routinely proven to be hilariously incorrect?
10 different wrong views do not make a consensus. This does.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Why does it have to be "optimal." Really the standard should be are we going to be worse off it it gets warmer? If so we should do our best to forestall that.
Note to all who will troll me. I never said people caused it.
New Science Suggests the Ocean Could Rise More -- and Faster -- Than We Thought
Maybe. Possibly.
But aren't we already suppose to be under ten feet of water?
Huh? Where did you get that? Nobody predicted ten feet-- over three meters!-- of sea level rise by 2017.
The very first IPCC report-- back in 1990--predicted "an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3 – 10 cm per decade), mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of some land ice. The predicted rise is about 20 cm ... by 2030, and 65 cm by the end of the next century."
The most recent (5th, 2014) report (here https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess... ) says 25 cm to 70 cm by 2100. (That's the one that this news item is reacting to).
Nobody predicted 10 feet by 2017-- you should look back and find who told you that had been the prediction and never believe them again.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That phrase "as early as"--what does it mean, exactly? If you call this a "prediction"-- what did it predict, and how can you tell whether it is accurate?
Here's a good discussion: https://www.carbonbrief.org/gu...
And here's a nice one with a pretty graphic visualization: http://sciencenordic.com/when-...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And none of those were mainstream positions that had scientific consensus. You've confused yourself by taking many different views and bundling them together as a single mind. It's entirely possible for there to be 10 different wrong views on climate change but still end up with climate change being real.
You want him to obey the consensus because it's a consensus but ignore the consensus because the people contributing to it are routinely proven to be hilariously incorrect?
I would call "scientific consensus" as incorporating "stuff that is said by actual scientists." So, yes, I'd indeed say "ignore the consensus" when by that you mean stuff not said by actual scientists in actual scientific publications. Not because it is "hilariously incorrect" but because it's not the scientific consensus, it's the result of people trolling the internet to find the most-wrong thing ever said by non-scientists so they can say "look at how wrong they were".
The IPCC reports are a good place to look for a summary of the actual consensus (with references to the actual scientific literature)-- try this one: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
ah, but there is always the other peak!
I only hear about the changes and not whether now is optimal. I could do with warmer winters.
That's why we invented Agriculture and greenhouses. We will adapt and it will get easier as it gets harder.
That's the problem. Neither question is being asked. Instead, it is being assumed that any change is bad.
I'll rent you a few square feet of my ocean front South Dakota property.
Yeah, anyone who buys overpriced beach front property is a sucker.
Didn't anyone watch Superman 4? The real trick is to buy cheap land along the San Andreas Fault and then start a nuclear war so you can have about a thousand miles of brand new beach front property!
p.s. And the way you pay for all of that cheap land is to use the rounding error trick from Superman 3 / Office Space.
We know for a fact now that warming runaway is simply not a valid theory
On what basis do you claim that?
You have no idea if/when the perma frost is thawing and if that releases enough CH4 to cause a runaway effect.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So Al Gore was wrong by 5 or 10 years?
So you completely missed his point?
turp182 posted this as answer to you: https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
Hint: look at the damn picture. When the ice cap is gone ... all the green area around the mountain will be desert.
Kilimanjaro is watering (via aqueducts thousands of years old) areas 100ds of km away. Everything there will simply be dead
Wo the funk cares if Al Gore missed the date by 5 or 10 years?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
To worry about. Temperature over 110F and 90% humidity can kill the seniors especially if the power goes out.
The "optimal" question need not be asked, its irrelevant.
The other question should be asked, and really it has. Warmer environments will increase the ability to grow in countries like Canada and Russia, but will impact the current breadbasket of the world the mid-west US.
The US is being stupid in this regard handwaving away the threat, when the US has quite a lot to loose.
Wow! Full Court Press on the narrative today. (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26, 2017 @05:05PM (#55440085)
Further fomenting stress and discord as distraction? What's different about this week than last? Is it that Hillary and the DNC have been outed as funding the Trump dossier and the Russian narrative has flipped so Congress is investigating the establishment now? How about the increasing inferno of details on what is the Hollywood pedophilia/rape culture, with details that have been coming out for the last two weeks? Nah, probably not. Global Warming, we're all all going to die!!
Seriously, you do realize life is a fatal condition for anyone living it.
Please provide a reference. Seriously. I'd like to see 97% debunked, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal.
Can we get back to doing real science again?
The word you want is "trawling".
And you're committing the same error. You're appealing to authority and claiming a consensus while selectively choosing who is an authority or not and rejecting predictions as not being part of the consensus in order to construct the imagined authority and consensus.
It's like flipping a coin after collecting 10 guesses, then claiming the 5 incorrect guesses weren't part of the consensus and weren't from approved guessers.
Show me one single model that has predicted temperature changes accurately for 5 or more years.
We invented agriculture because the conditions were right to do so. We couldn't have invented agriculture in Eurasia a few thousand years earlier because, well, you know, a mile of fucking ice on top of much of what we would call arable land is not conducive to growing things.
And I'm sure we will adapt, it's just going to cost vast amounts of money and resources, whereas if we can actually stop puking greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, well, you know what, it will cost a lot less money. It depends on how you feel about it. If you despise your grandchildren and want to kick them in the crotch as hard as possible, just keep defending the way we produce energy today. If you actually give a rats fuck about your grandchildren, then advocate for solutions that get us away from the hydrocarbon economy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I am fairly certain that Gore meant that Kilimajaro would be snow free year round. Of course, when you make specious claims about the near future, you can always clarify them to match the reality once that future date arrives.
Poor guy. They twisted his arm so hard his shoulder snapped off. Typical lefty conform-or-die abuse.
The goal of the "central committees" you are trying to demonize WAS to obviate their own existence by solving this problem 20 fucking years ago. Stupid shit free market Republican assholes have been fighting it ever since, and now you and gp are trying to claim that efficient electric is a libertarian win? Fuck that.
I'm quite certain that people said the same thing about the U.S. housing market pre-2007 (if smart people were worried, everyone would be bailing already) and the tulip mania of 1636 as well. Just because a market isn't responding rationally doesn't mean necessarily mean there isn't a problem.
You are a lying shitweasel trying to distract from your complicity in treason. Die in a fire.
Sorry, but this isn't a science. Don't call it a science in the title when the article calls it a study.
Something is science ONLY when it is testable. A study is just a guess, and since a study isn't testable you can't prove it or disprove it. I don't have to even look to see who pays for the study, it clearly says in the article that the reason for the study is to be anti-coal.
How long will have to put up with crap like this?
The preceding comment was brought to you by:
"I'm not gonna be alive in fifty years, so fuck it"
Many nuclear plants are quite close to the shore, and will have trouble operating during storms with an ocean level 1.8 meters higher than today.
If operators do not understand when the plant should be shut down for safety, we will have more Fukushima-style episodes.
I agree.
You can add this one too. Its just basically the light blue line on the Nasa graph.
You can thank me later.
https://suyts.files.wordpress....
cultures that encourage large families and giving them jobs and child support which enables them to have LARGER families
Doesn't work that way. Immigrants from large-family cultures have much smaller families when they're here. Actually, if they had the level of wealth and medical care in their countries of origin that they have here, they'd have smaller families there, too. It's high child death rates and poverty that encourage large families. People who are confident their children are going to live and who have the means to invest in them have fewer kids, on average, and spend more on them.
The common Malthusian error that humans are like most other species and have more offspring when they can support more offspring not only isn't true, it's almost exactly the reverse of what really happens.
Heck we are already in a runaway warming situation, GISS temp data already proves it.
https://suyts.files.wordpress....
Even if global warming is real, who cares? There is no objective way to estimate the economic impact. All these fear-mongering climate warriors tell us Al Gore-like stories about massive natural disasters killing us all; thankfully hardly anyone believes that trash anymore.
Global warming = more CO2 = more photosynthesis = more food
Why do climate warriors hate starving people so much? Global warming is good for agriculture. Hooray for global warming!
Inland ports aren't quite as silly as they sound. West Sacramento built a channel to become a deep water ship port.
This space intentionally left blank
At the current rate that prices of solar power and other renewables are going down, I don't see anyone wanting to burn anything to produce electricity by the end of the next decade. Couple that with self driving electric taxis, trucks and other vehicles and you will see a much smaller carbon footprint per capita. It will not be international agreements but simple economics that will put an end to greenhouse gas emissions much faster than Trump and his Oil/Coal extracting buddies are prepared to deal with.
sigo ergo sum
The word you want is "trawling".
OK, you don't appreciate wordplay. Got it.
And you're committing the same error. You're appealing to authority and claiming a consensus while selectively choosing who is an authority or not and rejecting predictions as not being part of the consensus in order to construct the imagined authority and consensus.
In discussing a post about scientific consensus, I said that scientific consensus should be restricted to actual scientists, and you say that is "appealing to authority,"
Yeah, right.
It's like flipping a coin after collecting 10 guesses, then claiming the 5 incorrect guesses weren't part of the consensus and weren't from approved guessers.
Scientific consensus is consensus among scientists. I don't know why you think that's hard.
Show me one single model that has predicted temperature changes accurately for 5 or more years.
OK: Manabe and Wetherald 1967, the very first numerical model. Now show me one that is not accurate. Include the error bars, please.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
AC due to moderation.
It doesn't need a peer-reviewed journal. I'm a "skeptic" as much as this blogger, and I'd (like him) count myself in the 97%. It was due to the nature of the survey.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyo...
Pull your head from your ass you ignorant American. He said people not 1 China 2 India's and five Africa's. American people produce far far more than other people.
I think it really has gone by you, you have completely missed it. Nobody is trying to stop climate change, nobody is trying to stop sea level rise, nobody is trying to stop weather extremes driven by higher temperatures. That is a done deal, to late coastal regions are fucked already, too late to stop it, now they are just trying to gauge how bad it will be and well, pretty much that is it. No preparation, just let it happen and they will say, I told you so over and over again for as long as you live. They are at the stop being fuck wits trying to make it worse, when there is no sane reason to do so beyond one tiny segment of the economy, that can quite readily be replaced. You really do not understand, it is too fucking late already, low lying coastal cities are fucked, welcome to the party. We are just trying to warn people to avoid shyster trying to sell doomed underwater properties, not just residential but also commercial. It's like time to forget the carbon dioxide and start investing in water wings.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Doesn't work that way. Immigrants from large-family cultures have much smaller families when they're here.
Not so.
The migrants and sometimes the first generation of their offspring tend to have even larger families than in "the old country", as I described. Later generations MAY tend to smaller families - IF they assimilate. But ghettoization, public schools taught in non-English languages, social programs and their operators, identity politics, media-anointed "community leaders", and race-based urban gangs, all tend to maintain the old country culture (or a parody of it), including the birth rate.
By the way: My wife and I live in, and have been politically active in, a Silicon Valley city where more than half of the residents speak a non-English language at home. (That's predominantly Spanish, though there are a number of others.) We deal with this up-close-and-personal all the time.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Where is the science that says the current global average temperature is optimal?
Literally in every agricultural study ever made. Oh wait you said optimal without defining optimal? Optimal for whom?
Our choices of where to live, how to survive there, where to grow food, how to get it around was based on the assumption that the climate is what it is, without plans to move population centres, production centres or anything elsewhere.
Where's the research that the current temperature is optimal? In every test, study and example conducted since humans stopped being nomads.
if its a report by a journalist (most have an agenda) then i ignore, if its by a scientist who can interpret the data correctly then i'll take notice
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
That's the wrong reply. You're supposed to point out that Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, etc. I can't help but notice the emotional nature of your "argument" and I see this a lot. When you see evidence that contradicts your position, you get angry because I'm violating the Holy scriptures of your secular religion. Like most believers, you can't deal with the fact that your high priest might be in error and react emotionally. Besides, doesn't your religion also say that humans are evil and the cause of all problems? It is suitable they should be punished by loss of their cropland. See? I can quote your Holy book chapter and verse.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
And in its furthest prediction, it would be 2019. Is it 2019 yet? No? I thought you'd said it was already wrong? Apparently not.
Oh, and didn't you say that it would be 10 feet under water? Based on the ice caps on Antarctica melting. Since this is not land ice, not Antarctica, in what way was ANY scientist predicting what you claimed?
Given your prediction scientists said what they clearly did not has failed, we can then know that AGW is real.
So clearly you were lying.
I don't have children and I can't stand most people, so no, I don't give a fuck. I'll happily roast the tires of my 800 tire horsepower hotrod getting shit poor mileage and dripping oil, just to give the rest of you worthless meatsacks a head start in to the hellscape this wretched rock will become.
We get it, you use Alex Jones as your sole source of information about the world. How's that Super Male Vitality treating you? How does it feel to pad the pockets of a literal con artist?
China is using less and less coal even with more newer plants. They are replacing less efficient more polluting ones as well.
Even your own link shows that America produces a bit more than 1/2 as much CO2 as China. But America has only a quarter the number of people. So that means Americans are all twice as polluting as Chinese people.
I think we can safely discount aspie sociopaths like yourself. You really don't matter at the end of the day.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Mining data reviewed by The Associated Press show that production through May is up by at least 121 million tons, or 6%, for the three countries compared to the same period last year. The change is most dramatic in the US, where coal mining rose 19% in the first five months of the year, according to US Department of Energy data.
Careful dismissing people like that AC as an aspie that doesn't matter. While not an aspie myself, a quick check of your post about moving up from your role in to more management back in 2014, along with all your personal hints in your sentence structures and references in your quite lengthy list of posts would easily out your real identity. And that's just from 5m of link clicking by someone non techy.
Or perhaps they directed research money to non-fossil fuel research endeavours and thus laid the groundwork for the current adoption of such, the actual antithesis of the libertarian way? It isn't magic, technology depends on research.
Of course he is not a climate scientist.
He just repeated what he got told by other non climate scientist.
Everyone who takes a prediction with a concrete date, especially so short term, is a complete idiot.
No idea what your religion talk is about, I'm an atheist.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In my 1st grade Weekly Reader they said "Michigan would be the new Florida within 30 years" in 1980. Let me do the math, 2017-1980=37 years. Looks like they missed that prediction by atleast a decade now. What do you think? I think the narrative is getting old and people are tuning out. What say you?
We're already way below what Al Gore claimed would happen by now. In fact I'd argue NOTHING has risen from 1985 on. It's a big wealth redistribution scheme and Al is making billions on people.
How is letting people who produce much less emissions than you do, produce a bit more, but still much less than you do "Giving them a free pass" ?
Aren't you just trying to grandfather in your free pass, by saying those people shouldn't be allowed to emit as much as you yourself already do?
You trolling coal shill