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).
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.
Early projections had wide uncertainties, which means that the upper limits based on some projection technique could be quite eye popping. However so far as I know there was never any widely held scientific opinion that there would be a 3m rise by 2020. More typical projections from about 20 years ago were talking about maybe 12 cm against an 1800s baseline, which turn out to be pretty accurate. However the upper range was on the order of 30 cm and the lower showed an actual decline to pre-20th century levels by 2020 -- which goes to show there was still considerable uncertainty.
Estimates from back in the mid 90s were for a 40cm to 65cm rise by 2100, mainly based on thermal expansion. That's a fairly safe assumption: warmer atmosphere = warmer ocean = more ocean volume.
Now there have been hypothetical scenarios proposed in which sea level could rise rapidly. Obviously those have not happened ... yet. But as they are based on certain discrete and unpredictable events that they haven't happened is not evidence that they won't happen. These events are not particularly exotic in terms of the Earth's climate history, but would be unprecedented in recorded human history.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
So these predictions are based on events that haven't happened. Got it...
That is rather entailed in the world "prediction".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Yeah! And didn't science say that man could never fly or go in space? Because science never gets better and past theories will always be right forever!
I don't think anyone with a brain ever said those things. We saw birds flying all the time. It was just a matter of weight and power.
We saw the moon and later were able to measure its distance. It was just a matter of escape velocity.
What next? Flat Earth? Sound barrier? People like to make false attributions about claims that were never seriously made. They do well in shitty chain emails.
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
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.
"New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in summer as early as 2014, Al Gore said today at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen."
Predictability and reproducible are required for "Science". This is prophecy, and it belongs in the Religion section of Barnes and Noble. Inconvenient that the Truth isn't what has been prophesied by the likes of Al Gore.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's the problem. Neither question is being asked. Instead, it is being assumed that any change is bad.
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.
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.