25 Years of Satellite Data Shows Global Warming Is Accelerating Sea Level Rise (usnews.com)

It's the Knights Templar! by KeensMustard · 2018-02-12 15:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Clearly, this is yet more evidence that the whole thing is just a massive Chinese time travelling zombie conspiracy! They've teamed with the Knights Templar and the Masons to litter the sea floor with cheap, Chinese hair dryers, which are blowing on the ice and melting it! And the fairies, loyal to the Maoist regime, are taking our good western made CO2 from the atmosphere and replacing it with cheap Chinese made CO2! Wake up sheeple!

Re: It's the Knights Templar! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 23:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Only one of those papers says what you imply. The others either explicitly agree with the posted article or are consistent with it (though the first link is unreadable in my browser so I canâ(TM)t really speak to that).
Re:It's the Knights Templar! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 23:50 · Score: 1

The first paper looks like describe global sea level change, which rises, which means, that land sinks. It is just about finding that level, which can be used as base for global sea level.
Second paper describes situation 3500 year ago in Hawaii. I suppose it has nothing to do with sea level changes, but with local tectonics. I used to live in area, that is slowly sinking(3500 years ago or maybe a bit more it might have been under water), while some neighbouring parts are rising(but not fast enough as sea level rise), because water in bay is bending lower parts down, while rising higher parts around bay, but sea level changes were still making erosions to the peninsula that was rising.
Third paper does say nothing against sea level rise. It only argues about data that is manipulated to make it look like sea level rises faster, accordingly earlier models that predicted faster sea level rise.
Fourth paper is basically about the same as third.
In some places sea level rises more rapidly and that is rising on global scale not because of global warming, but because locals have cut away mangrove forests or did something stupid, that eroded shores and washed earth away.
Sea level rise globally. There is no question about it. Unfortunately it will hit more Netherlands which will go under water and Europe and Netherlands will have to think about relocating their citizens, but not Africa or Asia, which are producing economical migrants, that has nothing to do with global warming or sea level change, and they don't need any more $$$ injections. That's what is all about.
Global warming also exists - and I for one agree that it is good thing for agriculture, as global warming means more CO2, that makes things green and moist.
Re:It's the Knights Templar! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 00:29 · Score: 1

That first paper you linked isn't about what you think it's about - it's about HOW things have been measured, (how the overall values are reconstructed from individual readings) not WHAT the measurements are, and how their new method agrees with the overall trend - which it possibly OVERSTATES - i.e. it's WORSE not better!
The second paper is too local to have any real global ramifications, which it itself admits, talking only about local relative sea levels.
The third doesn't mean much in isolation. More evidence required - and feeds into the first paper you linked.
The fourth is ten years old and cannot therefore factor in the latest data and evidence.
Re: It's the Knights Templar! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 08:52 · Score: 0

The others either explicitly agree with the posted article or are consistent with it (though the first link is unreadable in my browser so I can't really speak to that).
The first paper also explicitly agrees with the posted article. It notes a "positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm/y^2" over the study period of 1958-2014. This is consistent with the satellite data in TFA which finds "acceleration of global mean sea level over the last 25 years to be 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y^2".
Jane Q. Public's strategy is to lie with confidence and hope no one will follow his links.
Re:It's the Knights Templar! by ananamouse · 2018-02-16 00:55 · Score: 1

Go look at something like this https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/mcfaddin/index.html#sealevel and pay attention to https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/mcfaddin/images/SeaLevel1.html and you can see real sea level rise. There were people living there when the sea level rose meters at a time.
In the last 100 or so years we have burnt half of the planets liquids, god only knows how much coal, and run atmospheric CO2 from .280% to over 0.4%. I actually looked at TFA and three measely inches is all there is? (heard that from my wife on our honeymoon)
Industrial age humans really suck at climate change. Un-deniable.
Re: It's the Knights Templar! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-18 08:08 · Score: 1

No, they don't.

Try actually reading what they say, not just the abstract and/or conclusion.
Re:It's the Knights Templar! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-18 08:10 · Score: 1

You folks aren't very good at reading papers.

Try looking at more than just the abstracts and the conclusions.

Then toss in some simple logical deduction.

It works, bitches.

Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 15:42 · Score: 0

Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?

Re:Sure, however... by Waffle+Iron · 2018-02-12 16:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?
The key difference between the two is that the national debt is little more than a pattern of bits on some spinning disks (as the GOP seems to have suddenly realized), whereas the rising sea levels are a serious physical threat (which they have unfortunately not yet realized).
Re: Sure, however... by c6gunner · 2018-02-12 18:11 · Score: 0

The key difference between the two is that the national debt is little more than a pattern of bits on some spinning disks
Cool story bro. Tell the tax man you don't care about his spinning bits, and see what happens.
I'll take sea level rise any day.
Re: Sure, however... by Waffle+Iron · 2018-02-12 18:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then you're an idiot. I'm not talking about individuals. This is government debt, and the government itself defines the meaning of those bits arbitrarily.
All across the political spectrum, the American people seem to be convinced that they are entitled to more government services than they are willing to explicitly pay for. If the current "pyramid scheme" strategy ever stops working, there are plenty of other avenues the government can use to simply redefine or restrict what that debt value means.
Meanwhile, the actual physical sea level just keeps rising. Ironically, if the worst case scenarios do pan out, the government would probably take on scores of trillions of dollars in additional debt in futile attempts at keeping our coastal cities habitable.
Re: Sure, however... by c6gunner · 2018-02-12 19:00 · Score: 0, Troll

Then you're an idiot. I'm not talking about individuals. This is government debt, and the government itself defines the meaning of those bits arbitrarily.
Never met an economics textook you couldn't eat, eh?
Re: Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:36 · Score: 0

c6gunner is a fucking moron and will never be in charge of humanity, thanks God! -- faith
Re: Sure, however... by prefec2 · 2018-02-12 20:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Economic rules are not the same as physical laws. Physical laws exist regardless you believe in them. Economic rules are human rules. They can be changed. For example you can lower taxes for the rich or deprive people of healthcare. You can even make up rules to limit the ability what you can dobwithnyour money. And even money itself is just a number or a piece if paper. Its value is based in an agreement. Look I have billions of Reichsmark in my attic. Unfortunately, you cannot buy anything with it. You can also see the artificially of value of currency in context of bitcoin.
Re:Sure, however... by Opportunist · 2018-02-12 21:01 · Score: 1

How's it different? Whether the planet is done by the time I am dead and don't give a fuck or whether the economy is done by the the time I'm dead and don't give a fuck ... care to explain the difference?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 22:40 · Score: 0

If you live in places like Florida, it's already effecting you.
Re:Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 01:05 · Score: 0

How's it different? Whether the planet is done by the time I am dead and don't give a fuck or whether the economy is done by the the time I'm dead and don't give a fuck ... care to explain the difference?
Ok, this is a question I can answer. Since you are clearly a narcissist/sociopath, at best, let's focus on you.
The planet will be fine. Making things on the planet worse for the other people on it means they are a little more likely to accept suicide bomber jobs to feed THEIR kids, possibly killing you, loved ones or at least making vacation travel more annoying. Plus if international shipping of gadgets is impacted, your next PC/phone might cost more.
More locally, a coal ash spill at a plant upriver from YOU (or just transported in a way that accidentally does the same thing) could contaminate the water you drink, killing you sooner, or maybe just ruining the quality of your clearly bitter, angry life even further.
Glad to be of help, and say "Hi" to St. Peter for me on your way down!
Re:Sure, however... by Opportunist · 2018-02-13 02:08 · Score: 1

Ok, this is a question I can answer. Since you are clearly a narcissist/sociopath, at best, let's focus on you.
Actually, I used to care. Until I noticed that I'm pretty much the only one left and, sorry to say it, I don't feel entitled to save the planet against the collective will of the rest on it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Sure, however... by c6gunner · 2018-02-13 03:54 · Score: 1

Economic rules are not the same as physical laws. Physical laws exist regardless you believe in them. Economic rules are human rules. They can be changed. For example you can lower taxes for the rich or deprive people of healthcare.
This is the economics equivalent of "look, I can make a snowball, so global warming isn't real". The fact that you were moded +5 "insightful" is truly frightening.
Re: Sure, however... by Khashishi · 2018-02-13 04:23 · Score: 1

The government can remove the national debt by inflating the currency or by decree. There's no way to undo the changes to the environment.
Re: Sure, however... by rot26 · 2018-02-13 04:33 · Score: 1

There's no way to undo the changes to the environment.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say, even for a 7th grader.

--

To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Re:Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:38 · Score: 0

"Actually, I used to care. Until I noticed that I'm pretty much the only one left and"
Yeah, you're a narcissist. Plenty of people not only care but are fighting hard to prevent the worst from happening. Get out of the slashdot bubble, it's all libertarian freaks and pasty cunts who have never touched a woman here anyway.
Re: Sure, however... by iamhassi · 2018-02-13 05:12 · Score: 2

But we are suppose to be underwater now if you believed what we were told in 2000. You can only cry "the sky is falling!" so many times until people stop believing you. Besides, even if this is 100% true, high polluting countries like China with 1/5th of the world's population are the countries that need to do something about it. US makes up 4% of the world's population, even if those 4% made drastic changes to save the environment it would not help if the other 96% does nothing.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re: Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:15 · Score: 0

You added nothing of value, nor even attempted to refute the person you're replying to.
Perhaps if you provided a coherent argument or evidence or well just about anything more than ad hominem then you too might get that +5 mod you so crave but you'll have to do better. You're lucky you weren't down modded for wasting precious bits.
Re: Sure, however... by bigpat · 2018-02-13 06:01 · Score: 1

The rules of supply and demand and how they scale into an economic system ultimately are related to the physical constraints of that supply and demand.
Re:Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:14 · Score: 0

At least you're being honest about it
Re: Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:23 · Score: 0

Nah idiot, he's right. You can try to counteract changes to the environment, but you can't simply undo what's been done
Re:Sure, however... by swillden · 2018-02-13 12:17 · Score: 1

Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?
The key difference between the two is that the national debt is little more than a pattern of bits on some spinning disks (as the GOP seems to have suddenly realized), whereas the rising sea levels are a serious physical threat (which they have unfortunately not yet realized).
Both are very real, and serious. Roughly the same level of real and serious, and even the same kind of real and serious, mostly, since rising sea levels will primarily be an economic catastrophe, not generally a threat to life and limb (with the exception of a few people who refuse to get out of the path of storms).
The representation of the national debt is little more than patterns of bits, but the debts those bits represent are extremely real, not least to the people to whom the money is owed, and who will be very unhappy if they're suddenly discarded, or inflated away. Who are those people? Well, they fall into two main categories: Americans and foreigners. Americans are owed most of it, and the majority of American-held debt consists of the retirement savings of individual Americans. A little under 20% of it is owed to Social Security.
So if the US decides to renege on its debt, lots of retirees and those who are getting close to retire are going to be seriously screwed. Even those who have their 401k accounts invested in non-government securities are going to get shafted when lots of institutional investors get shafted and the resulting stock market tumble. If you're thinking that the US can just invent a bunch more bits to feed and house and care for all of the retirees (including many who saved their whole lives and are seriously pissed that their government just screwed them), you create a whole new set of problems. I could go into them, but that's a subject for another post.
What about the 47% of national debt that is owed to foreigners? What would be the impact of telling them "Ha ha fooled you, suckers!"? Lots and lots of things. First, it would very likely trigger a global depression (which would hurt America). Second, it's not inconceivable that it could provoke a war, at a moment when, third, we'd lose the ability to borrow at non-insane rates. This, in turn, would also mean that either the flow of international goods into the US would cease, or we'd have to start selling lots of America in exchange for the foreign stuff we want to buy, since we have been and will for the foreseeable future run current account deficits (the net difference between imports and exports). Those current account deficits are in large part facilitated by the countries with current account surpluses, who are collecting large piles of dollars, loaning those dollars back to us.
In addition, Americans owe foreigners almost as much money as foreigners owe Americans. Refusing to make good on our debts to them will cause them to refuse to make good on their debts to us. So if the US government won't honor its obligations to foreign banks and investors, they won't honor their obligations to US banks and investors. Oops, there's Joe Sixpack's retirement taking it in the shorts yet again. Plus maybe his employer suddenly finding itself insolvent and laying him off.
There's a lot more, but the bottom line is that the US cannot simply decide that its debts don't matter. The result would be economic catastrophe... probably not terribly different from the economic catastrophe caused by trillions of dollars of prime real estate gradually becoming marine life habitat. Not because bits really matter, but because the obligations those bits represent, obligations to real people, who have made real plans based on the assumption that the debts will be made good, matter.
Money is not real. It's a fiction. But the goods, services and labor that money stands for and is used to trade are very

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re: Sure, however... by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 06:43 · Score: 1

Exactly what the supply-demand constraints are doesn't matter. The rules work just fine with artificial scarcity through copyright, which is not particularly related to physics.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re: Sure, however... by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 06:44 · Score: 1

First, who told us we'd all be underwater? I don't remember reading that. Second, the US produces a lot of CO2, not much behind China, and it's probably easier to reduce CO2 emissions from a society with very high per capita emissions.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Sure, however... by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:07 · Score: 1

Money represents a valid claim on existing goods and newly produced goods and services. (The GOP remembers that these are just bits every time a Republican President is elected and forgets it when a Democrat is elected. This has been true since the "voodoo economics" introduced by Reagan in 1981.) If my government bonds become useless because the government has renounced them, then they've destroyed my claim on some goods and services. People, especially people of my age, who vote, take a very dim view of being made arbitrarily poorer by government action.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re: Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 09:38 · Score: 0

Which are you?
Re: Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-17 07:22 · Score: 0

But we are suppose to be underwater now if you believed what we were told in 2000. You can only cry "the sky is falling!" so many times until people stop believing you.
I find it interesting myself now that the deniers know they can't refute the science, that they've moved onto refuting what the media says. As if a bunch of journalism majors know anything about the climate.
Re: Sure, however... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:05 · Score: 0

All across the political spectrum, the American people seem to be convinced that they are entitled to more government services than they are willing to explicitly pay for. If the current "pyramid scheme" strategy ever stops working, there are plenty of other avenues the government can use to simply redefine or restrict what that debt value means.
No, just one political arm of the country. The left are for tax and spend policies, while the right are for no taxes and spending a lot policies. They also differ in what they are willing to spend on. Social safety net on one side, corporate welfare on the other. Neither of them are very good at prioritizing infrastructure (beyond using it as a distraction) anymore.

Hypocrites by Locke2005 · 2018-02-12 15:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.

Re:Hypocrites by Tablizer · 2018-02-12 16:34 · Score: 0

"Fake news! Beliebe me, I know sea levels better than Captain Ahab and his Moby dick. What luuuzer names their dick Moby anyhow? Sounds ghetto; So sad. I'll fire them both and make Al Gore pay for it. #MEGA! That's the name of my dick, by the way. Rubio's is #MEAGER, but my MEGA makes MAGA!"

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 22:20 · Score: 0

Yeah, sure thing there sparky. Seawalls have been in use for centuries.
Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 22:52 · Score: 0

Don't forget Al Gore keeps buying sea-side real estate despite his claims that they'll all be lost to innodation due to sea level rise.
Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:56 · Score: 0

Don't forget Al Gore keeps buying sea-side real estate despite his claims that they'll all be lost to innodation due to sea level rise.
That's a common claim by deniers. In fact, googlemaps shows that Gore's house in California is 180 feet above sea level. Deniers apparently don't know that California is hilly.
In any case, however, Al Gore is not a scientist, and no part of our current understanding of climate relies in any way on what he says. Climate deniers seem obsessed with Gore. I've never heard an actual climate scientists ever mention his name, he's just not important.
Re:Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:36 · Score: 0

In any case, however, Al Gore is not a scientist... he's just not important.
But he's been very good at getting useful idiots on the Progressive bandwagon.

Science snowflakes by PopeRatzo · 2018-02-12 15:48 · Score: 0, Troll

You libs, with your data and your science. It's a religion, I tell you! You believe all that stuff just because it's been peer-reviewed. It shows just how gullible you really are.

If there really was global warming, don't you think it would have been predicted in the Bible? I'm pretty sure God would have mentioned it.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Science snowflakes by Aighearach · 2018-02-12 16:32 · Score: 1

Ha! That's what Job said!
Re:Science snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:36 · Score: 0

Oh c'mon PopeCrapso... you'd think they'd have figured out there was a terrifying exponential rise last year? the year before? 10 years before?
Naah, naah, they just figured it out "now" with TWENTY FIVE years of data.
And you have the audacity to think this is "science". They looked at the last 25 years of data and have proclaimed that if the curve continues for the next SEVENTY FIVE YEARS then the world is DOOMED - DOOMED!
No - this is what religion is like dude, chicken little announcements and fire and brimstone sermons about the wrong doings of the peoples that need to get right with the authority du jour. Oh you don't think you believe in a god... but you certainly do in all but word.
Re:Science snowflakes by ClickOnThis · 2018-02-12 16:49 · Score: 1

My dear friend, your moniker should be PoeRatzo.
Well played.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Science snowflakes by PopeRatzo · 2018-02-12 18:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Naah, naah, they just figured it out "now" with TWENTY FIVE years of data.
You're right. WHY ARE THEY HIDING THE SATELLITE DATA FROM 100 YEARS AGO? HUH?
Checkmate, libs.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Science snowflakes by Opportunist · 2018-02-12 21:04 · Score: 1

You know, it would be funnier if there weren't idiots that actually argue like this...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Science snowflakes by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-12 23:51 · Score: 1

I'd argue but you're having so much fun beating your straw man it seems a bit cruel to stop you.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Oh good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 15:54 · Score: 1

What shocking news. 82 years from now things will be 0.05% worse than we previously doomsaid. I'd be way more scared if Slashdot hadn't run an article only last week about how Tuvalu, the first island "victim" of climate change, is actually RISING. So that's another prediction down the drain. And considering you can't get it right with predictions on a 10 year scale. pardon me if I don't clench my ass over your pie in the sky random-yet-always-apocalyptic vagaries for a century from now.

Re: Oh good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:05 · Score: 0

Right. So as long as all island nations have enough sediment deposited to outrun sea level rises everything will be fine. Oh what, that won't happen? Well, don't let that intrude on your brainwashing.
Re:Oh good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 17:09 · Score: 1

What shocking news. 82 years from now things will be 0.05% worse than we previously doomsaid. I'd be way more scared if Slashdot hadn't run an article only last week about how Tuvalu, the first island "victim" of climate change, is actually RISING. So that's another prediction down the drain. And considering you can't get it right with predictions on a 10 year scale. pardon me if I don't clench my ass over your pie in the sky random-yet-always-apocalyptic vagaries for a century from now.
Tuvalu is not rising, and the article did not say that it is rising.
Tuvalu is not the name of an island. It is a country that contains a group of islands and atolls. The group as a whole is increasing in land area due to changes in local currents and wave action pushing sand onto the existing beaches onto some of the islands. Some of the islands in Tuvalu are getting smaller due to the waves and currents washing sand away from them. One has completely disappeared.
Seasonal effects such as storms, trade winds pushing up water, El Nino induced rise and fall have a much greater range than the present sea level rise.
Tuvalu's biggest problem isn't so much gradual rise submerging the islands as is warming-induced bigger storms and waves washing over the islands making them uninhabitable. Several of the islands have had had all their vegetation stripped off and become sandbars.
But ultimately a country that has an average elevation of 4 feet and a max of 16 feet at its highest sand dune is going to be eventually submerged due to warming induced sea-level rise if the rate of deposition cannot keep up with the rate of sea level rising.
Re:Oh good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:33 · Score: 0

What shocking dumbfucks you denialist trolls are.
Re:Oh good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 01:23 · Score: 0

And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!
Re:Oh good by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 17:04 · Score: 0

And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!
Idiot.
Those currents (wind and wave) and their effect on local sea levels are indeed discussed in the journal article that you obviously have not read, and they are also discussed in many other studies regarding sea levels in other locations.
Sea levels are NOT measured in reference to the height of any of Tuvalu islands, so your babbling is meaningless.

Re:Who cares. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 15:55 · Score: 0

Not if you drive a flying DeLorean, you FLYING DOUCHEBAG!!!

Re: Who cares. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 15:56 · Score: 0

Spoken like a true Apple user.

Re: Yawn, This again by sg_oneill · 2018-02-12 16:00 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Well Iâ(TM)m sure glad random anonymous coward is here to point out how all the scientists are wrong. Thank god for the internet!

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.

Re: Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:00 · Score: 0

Because people generally like living above water. Because there are existing places that will become untenable to maintain and/or unsafe with higher water levels and fixing that doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

Just more Fake News by cosmicl · 2018-02-12 16:07 · Score: 2

Satellites? Show me the guy with a beard, surrounded by pairs of animals, and building a big wood boat. Hell, it's not even raining yet.

Re:Just more Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:17 · Score: 0

Satellites?
Show me the guy with a beard, surrounded by pairs of animals, and building a big wood boat.
Hell, it's not even raining yet.
I just looked out the window, and it is indeed raining right now.
Re:Just more Fake News by Aighearach · 2018-02-12 16:34 · Score: 1

The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple.
Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
Re:Just more Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 00:57 · Score: 0

Isn't that what evolution is supposed to do? Let species adapt given change in environment?
So, yes. Poor people evolve such that they can float.
What is that you say? That's ridiculous and not how it works?
Congratulations, and welcome to the club. That's what some of us have been saying about evolution for quite some time.
Re:Just more Fake News by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 03:06 · Score: 1

The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple. Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
No worries. I'm sure they will listen to Reason.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:Satellite Data by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:09 · Score: 0

Is this the same denialist lie you usually rollout? Oh wait, of course it is. Fucking idiot.

Sick of the alarmism by fatwilbur · 2018-02-12 16:15 · Score: 0, Troll

Going by NASA's own data, sea level has grown a massive 29 centimeters in the last 150 years, and at a pretty steady clip. Let's assume this is accelerating, although the last 150 years have seen quite a massive amount of forest loss/burning and fossil fuel use. What exactly is the coming disaster here? I know people claiming NYC will be underwater and labelling those who disagree as deniers.

None of the climate change data points to anything close to unmanageable disaster. People can easily engineer solutions to deal with such slow change.

Re:Sick of the alarmism by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-12 16:31 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Having spent some time in LA and NYC honestly them being underwater isn't all bad. You'd be able to drive a speedboat to work from your home on a giant civilian version of an aircraft carrier to another giant ship. Or you could evolve into a Gill Man.
And NYC's elevation is 10m. So it will take 5000 years or so for it to be inundated. I think it's fair to assume that even with NYC's Gotham City levels of corruption, graft and incompetence government would be able to build 10m of sea wall. That's 1.9mm per year. Even 3mm per year - what the UK apparently uses when planning sea defences - shouldn't be a problem.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Sick of the alarmism by dumuzi · 2018-02-12 16:43 · Score: 1

Going by your own link, the rate of change is increasing. This is called acceleration.#youdenyyouself
Re:Sick of the alarmism by rrohbeck · 2018-02-12 16:45 · Score: 0

I don't know if you noticed that quite a bit of NYC was underwater not too long ago. This will become more frequent, to the point that part of the infrastructure fails.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Sick of the alarmism by magzteel · 2018-02-12 17:11 · Score: 1

I don't know if you noticed that quite a bit of NYC was underwater not too long ago. This will become more frequent, to the point that part of the infrastructure fails.
Define "quite a bit". NYC is pretty large.
As I recall during a massive storm there was some flooding in lower Manhattan, which is between the Hudson and the East rivers. Also there was some flooding on the southern shore of Long Island and the Jersey shore.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-12 18:40 · Score: 2

Modding this guy "troll" when he simply stated some demonstrable facts is not kosher, folks.

"I don't like what you said" does not equal "troll".
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-12 18:54 · Score: 0

Going by your own link, the rate of change is increasing. This is called acceleration.#youdenyyouself
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall.

If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I. You can see for yourself sea level was rising just as fast from 1930-1950, when CO2 was around 305-310 ppm. I just rough-fit the dashed lines but you can do your own and no matter how you do it, if you're honest, SLR rate was greater 1930-1950.

It also showed a comparable rate between about 1880-1905.

Explain those.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-12 18:55 · Score: 1

Actually significantly faster, 1930-1950. Not "just as fast".
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-12 18:58 · Score: 1

Manhattan has significantly INCREASED in land area, pretty steadily, over the last 150 years.

But most if not all of that was due to human activity, so there is no way to make a valid comparison.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by nadaou · 2018-02-12 19:11 · Score: 4, Informative

And NYC's elevation is 10m. So it will take 5000 years or so for it to be inundated.
Yeah, no. For one thing the outcrop of Manhattan Schist in the middle of Central Park is not "NYC", and for another a large part of lower Manhattan*, western Brooklyn, and northern Queens was underwater during Hurricane Sandy which had a surge of about 13 feet (4m). Due to rebound of the continental plate since the last glaciation the city is already sinking at a rate of about 1 foot per century, and most of the gravity driven sewers were built more than 100 or 200 years ago when sea level was lower. Most of the subway entrances are staircases down from street level.
NYC has some serious problems. Maybe not as bad as Miami, but there's more infrastructure to deal with.
Stop spreading lies.
* just maybe the financial district has some huge impact on the national GDP, even if it is shut down for one day?

--
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:48 · Score: 0

Thats the way the right wing cunts roll around these parts, anything that points out facts is modded down, whilst their fanatsies get modded up.
Re: Sick of the alarmism by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 22:33 · Score: 0

But at least he posts under his own name. Youâ(TM)re just a coward.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by 110010001000 · 2018-02-13 01:53 · Score: 1

The storm surge entering Manhattan was caused by the elimination of buffer coast line which prevents water from coming in. Think about marshlands, etc. Once you get rid of those, nothing is going to stop the water. Climate change in this case isn't going to make a difference.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:12 · Score: 0

How could you possibly know this when your graph excludes the last 25 years? For the record, here is all data from 1900 - 2016
Pretty clear accelleration over the whole period. No period with as steep a slope as the last 25 years.
Re:Sick of the alarmism by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:31 · Score: 0

How is this modded as a troll?
Re:Sick of the alarmism by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:24 · Score: 1

It really doesn't matter why the storm surge was of a certain height. It was a certain height above sea level. If sea level had been lower, the surge would have been lower.
And, contrary to your statement, the water did stop. It was stopped by higher ground, which had to be maybe a foot higher to stop it because of CO2 emissions. Depending on the ground slope, this covered a lot more area than just one foot farther.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Sick of the alarmism by khayman80 · 2018-02-14 22:20 · Score: 1

A lowess smooth filter can help analyze trends at various points in the Church and White global sea level dataset. The trend from 1930-1950 is significantly slower than the post-2000 trend: the error bars don't overlap.

Meh. by msauve · 2018-02-12 16:15 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't (can't afford to) live that close to an ocean, you insensitive clod.

(But I'm thinking that an investment in property on Lake Superior or Hudson Bay may pay off as the next French Riviera. Kashechewan=Monaco?)

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Re:Meh. by Opportunist · 2018-02-12 21:07 · Score: 0

Then you're in luck. Climate change will be the great equalizer where the rich get drowned and you'll have your new sea side resort in Kansas.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Meh. by drinkypoo · 2018-02-13 00:21 · Score: 1

Climate change will be the great equalizer where the rich get drowned and you'll have your new sea side resort in Kansas.
Learn to swim! See you down in Arizona bay!

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Meh. by Opportunist · 2018-02-13 00:51 · Score: 0

I'm living on a hill top.
And yes, I have a gun.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

yes, but few care by WindBourne · 2018-02-12 16:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Seriously. The only way to stop the CO2 is to have ALL NATIONS STOP ADDING COAL and back off rather quickly. This is ESP TRUE for China. Yet, there will be many here (including a chinese troll that follows me) that will actually DEFEND China's adding 750+ GW of new coal plants over the next 11 years. And that is just CHINA. That does not include the large number of extra coal going in, nor does it include the massive number of ICE vehicles being sold.
If ppl want to stop this, then ALL NATIONS MUST STOP. Not just 1 or 2.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:yes, but few care by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-12 16:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Getting a net CO2 cut would basically require that China stop industrialising. If the Chinese government tried that, they'd be overthrown in a bloody revolution
https://photos.mongabay.com/09...
tl;dr - global CO2 emissions will continue to rise until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2.
Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions, but there's no way they can fall fast enough to compensate for the enormous CO2 increases from China.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:yes, but few care by WindBourne · 2018-02-12 16:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

No longer adding NEW COAL plants will not lead to any issues. In fact, it would likely increase the lifespan of more citizens.
As to cutting coal, far better to simply replace those with AE and Nukes.
And I fully agree with your last bit there.
Right now, the ENTIRE WEST puts out less CO2 than what China is adding JUST IN COAL PLANTS over the next 10 years.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:yes, but few care by rrohbeck · 2018-02-12 16:49 · Score: 1

Look up some of Kevin Anderson's presentations. To keep below the carbon budget for 2C the industrialized world would have to decarbonize steeply. Not gonna happen. And that's without considering global dimming which is good for about 1C. IOW, 3C are in the pipeline even with an extreme effort.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re: yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:56 · Score: 0

Fission could do that, easily. We've shown them how to do fission adequately. Maybe they could teach the rest of us how to do it well.
Re:yes, but few care by ClickOnThis · 2018-02-12 17:08 · Score: 1

Look up some of Kevin Anderson's presentations. To keep below the carbon budget for 2C the industrialized world would have to decarbonize steeply. Not gonna happen. And that's without considering global dimming which is good for about 1C. IOW, 3C are in the pipeline even with an extreme effort.
So you're saying we're fucked, and we don't have the existential will to un-fuck ourselves?
We deserve to go extinct.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re: yes, but few care by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-12 17:25 · Score: 1

I think China trying to deploy fission plants at the speed they're currently deploying coal is going to lead to Chernobyl type accidents.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:yes, but few care by WindBourne · 2018-02-12 17:52 · Score: 1

look, there is little chance that going up 3C will lead to Human extinction.
It WILL lead to a lot of war esp. between nations. I fully expect China to steal Pakistan, India, and South East Asia's water. When that happens, Shit will hit the fans.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:yes, but few care by Khyber · 2018-02-12 18:33 · Score: 1

"tl;dr - global CO2 emissions will continue to rise until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2."
Oh, fucking please. They could've utterly stopped using coal with the pure amount of solar panels they produced and sold in the past ten years with their fucking rigging of the REE market.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:yes, but few care by DamnOregonian · 2018-02-12 19:00 · Score: 1

Generally, I agree with you.
But I'm not sure anyone knows right where the line of warming is that enough factors add up to the collapse of our civilization. At that point, extinction is a lot more likely.
It's not hard to imagine the right large bread basket becoming barren, leading to the right set of total wars, pulling in the right set of allied nations for us to tear it all down. And while I'm quite certain whatever is left over will do just fine with its own devices to rebuild... There's simply a smaller chance of survival for smaller groups.
Re:yes, but few care by Jane+Q.+Public · 2018-02-12 19:00 · Score: 1

No longer adding NEW COAL plants will not lead to any issues. In fact, it would likely increase the lifespan of more citizens.
Utter horseshit. Their population is not decreasing.

Just over the last year, when they made a promise to reduce coal use to reduce CO2, they had to back off on their promise because people were freezing to death.

Read the newspapers.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:06 · Score: 0

Lib'rul wawawa..ers deserve to go extinct with their whining, bitchy, unproductive nibberizing nancyboi SJW drooling ... while the republican yeomanry will fuck bitch-GAIA in the Azzwhole and get about their business butchering Bambi, polluting queerosphere puta and and slaughtering sea-otters ... above 300 ft !
Re:yes, but few care by Uberbah · 2018-02-12 19:41 · Score: 2

Getting a net CO2 cut would basically require that China stop industrialising. If the Chinese government tried that, they'd be overthrown in a bloody revolution
Ah, yes. Pretending that China with 4-5 times the population of the United States is the problem, and then ignoring that much of China's pollution comes from producing crap for American consumers.
Re:yes, but few care by nagora · 2018-02-12 19:43 · Score: 1

If the fascist Chinese government hasn't been overthrown in a bloody revolution by now, I don't think the issue is industrialisation. It's not like the peasants in 1980 were standing around and agreeing not to hurl themselves at the tanks because they'd heard that there might be a new textile sweatshop opening soon.

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:50 · Score: 0

The chinese have closed or modernised their oalfired power stations - Ameria is still pretending there isnt a problem because the exxon lobbyist says so.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:22 · Score: 0

You're so full of shit Windbourne. Every topic that remotely looks bad for the US. For example your countries more than double CO2 pollution, you try to deflect onto China, and bring up coal.
Facts are If everyone used as much CO2 as China the world would be a better place. If everyone used as much CO2 as America, the world would be destroyed. Not an exaggeration, if everyone was as wasteful and pumped out as much CO2 as an American, the world would not be able to sustain it.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:30 · Score: 0

You're so full of shit Windbourne. Every topic that remotely looks bad for the US. For example your countries more than double CO2 pollution, you try to deflect onto China, and bring up coal.
Facts are If everyone used as much CO2 as China the world would be a better place. If everyone used as much CO2 as America, the world would be destroyed. Not an exaggeration, if everyone was as wasteful and pumped out as much CO2 as an American, the world would not be able to sustain it.
How about the nations that pollute the most, and benefited the most start to show some responsibility for the problem they have caused and are still causing. If you can get your CO2 levels down to that of China (less than half yours) then you may be able to start lecturing all the other countries, but when you are the worst, you just look like an entitled asshole, trying to stop other countries from being as extravagant and wasteful as you.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:33 · Score: 0

You must be as stupid as Windbourne above and below you. You think if China catches up to the west and puts out as much CO2 as you already do it will be a problem? But are too stupid to realise that you yourself are already doing it. You have slightly falling emissions because you have such waste to cut. Americans put out more than twice a Chinese person, nine times an Indian, but if they start to become like you, somehow it's their problem and not yours?
Re:yes, but few care by Opportunist · 2018-02-12 21:09 · Score: 1

In a nutshell, when the question is economy or ecology, I guess we have to buy a new planet.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:yes, but few care by thegarbz · 2018-02-12 21:57 · Score: 2

That's an interesting graph. Curious that it doesn't show the sudden drop in emissions from China in 2010 that happened due to a mix of economic crisis, lower steel demand and loss of appetite for dirty coal projects. Nor does your graph show that Chinese emissions are growing at almost 1/5th of the rate that they were 10 years ago. Nor do they show that emissions per GDP are plummeting (a sign that dirty industrialization of a 3rd world nation has already peaked).

Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do.
Yes because somewhere someone else is producing 1/5th of the emissions per capita of the people in the USA it is all *their* fault and we can't do anything.
"America First! ... in emissions per capita".
Re:yes, but few care by thegarbz · 2018-02-12 22:23 · Score: 2

Right now, the ENTIRE WEST puts out less CO2 than what China is adding JUST IN COAL PLANTS over the next 10 years.
Major fucking citation required. The EU+USA emissions alone are higher than that of China. The worst case prediction for China peaking in 2035 shows that the emissions at that time will be only marginally higher than those of the EU+USA and then will fall at a far higher rate than the west will ever achieve as their old coal plants come online.
The rising emissions in China over the next 30 years are predicted to be small compared to the rise between 1995-2010 and China's coal demand is plummeting, something that if you don't believe the emissions charts, then believe the many export miners who's share prices are struggling due to poor demand.
Cite> Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, World Bank, and the stock market.
Re:yes, but few care by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-12 22:56 · Score: 1

That's not true. This report from 2010 - the most recent I can find - shows massive amounts of Chinese coal plants being built.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%... page 16
https://imgur.com/a/NDlL3

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:yes, but few care by r0kk3rz · 2018-02-12 23:10 · Score: 1

Unfortunately the planet doesn't care for per-capita emissions, only global total emissions.
Per-capita Australia is one of the worst emitters around, but because we only have 26 million people we are only a drop in the bucket of total global emissions
Re:yes, but few care by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-13 00:27 · Score: 1

They could've utterly stopped using coal with the pure amount of solar panels they produced and sold in the past ten years with their fucking rigging of the REE market.
China added 3000 TWh of generation capacity from 2000 to 2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Meanwhile if you look here at global energy consumption by source renewables are very small percentage. The reason for that is because all the increase is in places like China and India, and people there can only afford fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:yes, but few care by AmiMoJo · 2018-02-13 00:30 · Score: 2

China hit peak coal a few years ago and has been in decline ever since.
http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-... (article from a year ago, so 4 years past now)
The new plants are just replacing old ones with cleaner technology and better load following capability to back up wind.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:yes, but few care by swillden · 2018-02-13 00:37 · Score: 1

The only way to stop the CO2 is to have ALL NATIONS STOP ADDING COAL and back off rather quickly.
That's far from enough.
Note that the assumptions underlying the Paris accord include the notion that we (soon) not only dramatically reduce the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, but that we actually start removing and sequestering large quantities. We have no real idea how to do that, and while we've begun scaling back emissions (well, slowed the rate of increase) we haven't even started seriously extracting CO2.
We need to look at the problem holistically, as a geoengineering problem, not just as an emissions problem. Of course, cutting emissions is almost certainly cheaper than recapturing CO2, or reducing insolation, but we need to be looking at all parts, because no single approach is going to be sufficient.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:yes, but few care by BlueStrat · 2018-02-13 00:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes because somewhere someone else is producing 1/5th of the emissions per capita of the people in the USA it is all *their* fault and we can't do anything.
"America First! ... in emissions per capita".
Per capita is meaningless in relation to *TOTAL GLOBAL* levels. But you likely already know that and are simply hoping you can blow it by others because 'muh Party!'.
Australia has a very high CO2 per capita average, but a small total population so the total amount of CO2 Australia contributes is small. China and India have a low per-capita average but enormous populations, so they contribute a large percentage of the total CO2 released. Sort of a CO2 emission "economy of scale'.
China, India, and other developing nations are producing more total CO2. The US cannot make up for their increases even if the US reduced CO2 emissions to zero. If the US stops trading heavily for consumer goods with china then their economy goes in the crapper, their budget for infrastructure will shrink, and new power plants will be coal and CO2 emissions will then begin to increase even more rapidly.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:yes, but few care by JoshuaZ · 2018-02-13 00:58 · Score: 1

This is wrong. In fact, China's CO2 production has gone down https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28022017/chinas-co2-reduction-clean-energy-trump-us, and this is in part because they've managed to do exactly what you think would trigger a revolution, namely by reducing their coal burning amount http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china%E2%80%99s-decline-coal-consumption-drives-global-slowdown-emissions.
Re:yes, but few care by swillden · 2018-02-13 01:02 · Score: 1

Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions
Cite? The best information I can find shows the US emissions as flat over the last few years (emissions from power generation have fallen a bit, but total emissions have not). Your graph shows that they're expected to keep climbing (albeit slower than China). Yes, China needs to reduce emissions, but everything I see shows that they're working far harder at it than we are. Your graph was based on 2009 data, and in the last 2-3 years China has begun investing extremely heavily in solar and wind, more than any other country in the world. China has also recognized that they can't abandon coal entirely, because they don't have a lot of natural gas. So instead, they're building out renewable generation capacity as fast as they can (China generates more electricity from solar than any other country already, and has 70% of the world's solar thermal capacity), while executing a plan to maximize the efficiency of their coal generation. Lots of those new coal power plants they're building are replacements, enabling them to shut down older, less-efficient plants.
The bottom line is that in the last few years, China has turned over a new leaf and is working really hard to address their CO2 emissions. Much harder than we are. Their emissions are going to continue climbing for a few years yet, but then they're going to start falling rapidly as they hit their stride and renewable deployment significantly outpaces increase in demand.
China will never reach US per-capita emission rates. They're on track to peak at just over half of our rates, then start to fall. Meanwhile, we're doing almost nothing.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 01:06 · Score: 0

Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions, but there's no way they can fall fast enough to compensate for the enormous CO2 increases from China.
China already emits more greenhouse gases than the US, UK, EU and India (the next-largest contributor) combined (ref). And its still industrialising. Western countries could all reduce their emissions to absolutely zero, and it wouldn't compensate for the increases from China.
Re:yes, but few care by houghi · 2018-02-13 01:19 · Score: 2

But DOES matter what the rest does.
1) If you ask 5 people to stop pouring buckets of water in a bath, because it will overflow. Even if 1 does not stop, the difference will still be significant and the 4 that do will be able to stop the fifth one if they want to.
2) We can forbid import from countries that fail the emission targets.
Why will the second part fail? Because we care more about cheap shoes and tv screens than we care about the world for out kids and grand kids. And we use childish excuses like "but HE is doing it." as if we are 6 year old. Yes it will increase prices, just like having a sewer will increase the price of living. At this moment we ARE shitting in our own backyard and try to find excuses so we can keep doing it.
Because if we where willing to block trade, you will see how fast China and every other country will change.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 01:25 · Score: 0

Hang on a moment. Those figures on Wikipedia are baloney. The "Percentage of the global total" for the US doesn't match the percentage calculated from the absolute figures!
Here is a better source. Per the latest figures (from 2012), China still emits more than the US and the 28-member extended EU (which includes the UK), but doesn't emit more than US+EU+India combined.
Re:yes, but few care by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-13 01:39 · Score: 1

Exactly.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:14 · Score: 0

Well seeing that the American right wants to move that manufacturing back onto US soil, does that mean that the right is actually pushing for a greener world while the left, pushing for globalism, is actually working against the environment?
Oh how I love the irony that often accompanies unintended consequences.
Re:yes, but few care by dj245 · 2018-02-13 02:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

If ppl want to stop this, then ALL NATIONS MUST STOP. Not just 1 or 2.
And that will never happen. I see a lot of talk about China in this thread but Russia is the #2 emitter of pollution. The US is reducing emissions, both per-capita and overall. Russia's emissions per GDP are increasing (albeit not as rapidly as China). Here's a nice graph of emissions per capita for the top 3. The difference is that China is seeing a lot of negative effects related to pollution, and politicians are under pressure to fix the problem or risk destabilizing the country. China has incentives to act.

Russia, on the other hand, doesn't have many developed low-lying coastal areas. Weather patterns are becoming more habitable, arable land is increasing, icecaps limiting shipping are melting, more natural resources (fishing, oilfields, etc) are becoming accessible, etc. Climate change may cost Russia's economic competitors in both money and political stability. A decent chunk of the Russian economy is based on oil and natural gas exports. Many other countries have some of these incentives, but Russia is the big winner of climate change, and they have every incentive not to take action. I would not be at all surprised if Russia was actively promoting anti-climate change ideology. They have a strong motive, means, and opportunity.

Disclaimer- I am an engineer in the North American fossil fuel industry

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:44 · Score: 0

Another complete imbecile. So we split China into as many 'countries' as you like. What happens to CO2? Thats right not a fucking thing. It's not per country thats the problem, it's per person. If you expect China to only use as much as Australia, laughable, or America, also absurd then you are as stupid as windbourne with his tired old rant about China.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:49 · Score: 0

And every single one of them is much less polluting and efficient than any coal plant in America. Chinese people also use way less electricity than Americans. You have been sucking on windbournes cock far too long to be reliably informed about this topic.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:20 · Score: 0

Yes, the US is decreasing CO2 from extremely high levels to just very very high.
An American still pumps pumps out more than as much as two Chinese people added together.
You still have a long long way to fall to reach Chinese levels. America has much less incentive to do anything because of idiots like Windbourne and BlueStrat who are in denial that America is even a problem. Add in all the others with their heads up their arse who modded them up and you basically have no hope of getting down to Chinese levels.
Re:yes, but few care by kanweg · 2018-02-13 03:31 · Score: 1

Aussies are quickly adopting solar energy and Powerwalls, hitting three flies with one slap: Lower energy bills, backup power in case of a blackout, and the net is stabilized, making price gauging harder. Go Aussies!
Bert
Re:yes, but few care by crimson+tsunami · 2018-02-13 04:25 · Score: 1

Seems the only people who don't care about per-capita emissions, are people from high per-capita emission countries...
Why do you suppose that is?
Do you expect all countries to have the same emissions irregardless of size?
Is it really realistic to expect China to have a lower level of CO2 than America, when they have over a billion more people?
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:26 · Score: 0

Australia puts out 1.3% of the total global CO2. So how much should they spend and sacrifice? They could all die tomorrow and there would be NO global difference in CO2 levels. CO2 witchhunters, look elsewhere.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:42 · Score: 0

You forget to tell us that America uses the same amount of electricity as China, with only a 1/4 of the population and no country wide electric high speed rail network. Plus China make all your stuff. What are you doing with all that electricity? No wonder you are leading the world in CO2 production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re:yes, but few care by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-02-13 04:48 · Score: 1

You just proved his point, which was coal increases Chinese lifespans, for several reasons from simple heating to a powerful economy allowing the leaving of a dirt-floored existence.
Compared to that, worrying about sea rise is a foolish thing, and to hamper growth is murderous.
Few if any will die due to sea rise. Millions continue to die annually from need and want.
I'm ready for my downmod, Mr. DeMille.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:03 · Score: 0

Per-capita is only meaningless to people from high per-capita countries who feel they are somehow entitled to keep producing high levels of CO2.
To all the other people of the world using less CO2 (pretty much the rest of the planet bar a few tiny places). You just look like the entitled asshole that you are. You've got your fancy high polluting lifestyle and fuck anyone else who tries to come even close to your levels of waste.
You would need to cut from 16 down to 5 to meet the world average. Patting yourself on the back for droping from 16.1 down to 16 isn't going to cut it. If it's really the total level you care about why are you 3 times the world average and how are you going to cut 2/3's of your emissions?
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:14 · Score: 0

And every group of 30 million Chinese citizens feel the same way, except they only put out 0.6%. Bit less than half what you do...
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:26 · Score: 0

"Major fucking citation required" yourself chum. What you gave were not cites, especially #3.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:33 · Score: 0

If the US and their CO2 emissions magically disappeared tomorrow, the difference in temperature rise would only amount to 0.1C to 0.2C in 100 years. Why should the US cripple itself when doing so won't have any significant effect on average global temperature rise?
Or is crippling the US and the West the true goal here?
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:41 · Score: 0

So why should the average Chinese person who puts out less than half the level that you do care either? Why aren't they perfectly justified doubling their CO2 output to match yours? If it's not a problem when you do it, why is it a problem if they do it too?
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:47 · Score: 0

China also has a bigger population than the EU and US added together too. Did you have some point?
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:55 · Score: 0

But America is the one tipping in 2 buckets of water to China's one. It's really 2 Chinese people tipping in 1 bucket of water and 1 American tipping in a bucket of water and blaming the Chinese for the bath getting full.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:56 · Score: 0

You want to stop CO2, then stop breathing!!!!
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:20 · Score: 0

the other issue is that per capita is a joke. The idea that we all get the same amount makes for a nice communist ride, but even in China, that is a joke.
Since it is Govs and Businesses that produce the majority of large CO2 and they make the real choice, then nomralization needs to be emissions / $ GDP. Yeah, with inflation, the yearly chart simply needs to be adjusted. That is not hard to do.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:25 · Score: 0

It IS realistic to expect them to STOP adding new coal plants. Idiots like you continue to back your nation saying that you have the RIGHT to emit huge volumes of it. That is stupid and criminal.
The difference between me and you, is that I want all nations to stop this, you simply want one nation to stop. Hell, if your argument is about CO2 per capitia, then you lose since America is around #11, and dropping. OTOH, many nations like Australia and Canada emit more per capita and yet, you do not gripe about them.
Look, just because your gov pays you to troll here does not mean that you have to be stupid about this.
Windbourne.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:40 · Score: 0

"China added 3000 TWh of generation capacity from 2000 to 2014"
Not exactly. What the wikipedia chart shows is that China produced 3000 TWh more electricity in 2014 than in 2000. 3000 TWh/year, the amount of added used capacity, comes to about 114 MW. So, it would be more accurate to say that China added an average of 114 MW of used capacity between 2000 and 2014. That means adding an average of 8MW per year in that time period. I don't know what their solar panel production was, but most likely comparable.
Re:yes, but few care by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-13 06:44 · Score: 1

It's total CO2 emissions that affect the climate, not per capita emissions. Also if China is going to radically increase its CO2 emissions it is impossible for the US or EU to do anything to cause total emissions to fall because, as you point out, China is a big place.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:yes, but few care by BlueStrat · 2018-02-13 07:46 · Score: 1

So why should the average Chinese person who puts out less than half the level that you do care either?
They shouldn't, beyond common-sense and pragmatic/realistic/economically-feasible steps to not shit where we eat, as should all people including the US.
It isn't about "caring", it's about math. The point is that in order for CO2 emissions to be reduced enough to have any meaningful effect on global average temperature rise, the US would have to almost eliminate it's emissions and China, India, et al would have to stop developing or even possibly DE-develop in some areas.
Trying to halt or significantly alter the rate of global average temperature increase, especially in the face of a booming global population and industrialization, is pissing into the wind. Adaptation should be where the focus and emphasis is, not trying to halt or reverse a planet's global climate trends by artificially impeding development.
That's a fool's errand only suitable as a political propaganda scare tactic to advance political/ideological goals unrelated to climate or science.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 08:58 · Score: 0

The Chinese are updating their generators. They're building new coal-fired plants - at the same time as unparalleled amounts of renewable generation - that are significantly more efficient than anything that currently exists in the USA, and at the same time they're retiring older, polluting coal plants. The actual amount of coal they burn is not increasing - ask the Australians, their coal industry has been in a slump these 5 years or so because the Chinese have slashed their imports.
Re:yes, but few care by MattskEE · 2018-02-13 09:17 · Score: 1

Yes China emits a lot of CO2, but your assertion

Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do.
is simply wrong, for two reasons.
1) The US and EU/UK together emitted 80% as China in 2015 (I haven't checked more recent years). This is not surprising as China has more people that the US + EU. Therefore US and EU are not negligible and their CO2 output absolutely matters.
2) It takes time to change infrastructure. China is making massive investments in renewable energy, though they have a long way to go. All of the major CO2 emitting nations must make investments starting today so that over time the energy portfolio shifts, it's not possible to change all once. The US also has a long way ahead because its per-capita emission is one of the highest in the world, about double that of China.
Re:yes, but few care by Nikkos · 2018-02-13 09:30 · Score: 1

The point is, you can turn America OFF and not do a damn thing for the environment because India and China.
Re:yes, but few care by Nikkos · 2018-02-13 09:34 · Score: 1

Bullshit. China's pollution comes from producing crap for Chinese people, cooking for Chinese people, and keeping Chinese people warm. Just their middle class is larger than the entire population of North America.
Re:yes, but few care by thegarbz · 2018-02-13 09:49 · Score: 1

er capita is meaningless in relation to *TOTAL GLOBAL* levels.
Per capita is the ONLY meaningful metric in a global world where we each need to do out bit.
Do remember us little people when you look down from your high horse and expect us to clean up your shit.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 10:08 · Score: 0

Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do. All of those having falling CO2 emissions, but there's no way they can fall fast enough to compensate for the enormous CO2 increases from China.
Once China settles, It will be Brazil's turn to catch up.
Re:yes, but few care by WindBourne · 2018-02-13 13:56 · Score: 1

1) all of the west combined emitted less than China in 2012, on forward.
2) China is now over 1.1TW of just coal plants.
3) China is adding another 650 GW of just coal plants while shutting down a fraction of that (less than 100 GW will be shutdown over the next 15 years).
4) it DOES take time to change the infrastructure. BUT, China could stop adding new coal plants in China and elsewhere TODAY. They refuse to do that.
5) worst of all, are those that defend china adding these coal plants. Basically, they believe that it is their god given right to add them not just in China, but all around the world. America, along with most of the west (exception is S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Poland), have stopped adding coal, and are actually dropping ours. Yeah, Trump is speaking about adding more, but there is ZERO chance of more than 1-2 plants being added under him, unless he gets massive subsidies out there.And that is not happening.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:yes, but few care by crimson+tsunami · 2018-02-13 16:15 · Score: 1

The point is you could turn OFF the same amount of people in China, and it would have even less than half the impact on the environment.
You could turn OFF India and then somehow turn it OFF again, thats 2 billion plus people turned OFF, and it would still have less impact than turning OFF America.
Re:yes, but few care by crimson+tsunami · 2018-02-13 16:29 · Score: 1

You still fail to explain why China should be cutting faster and more than America when America is over twice as polluting? Facts are facts, China has over a billion more people than the US.
China has 4 times the population, but only twice the CO2. Even if China went further than your prediction and doubled it's coal use, it would still be less polluting per person than America.
But the fact is China's coal use has already peaked.
It peaked a few years ago, and the coal that is being used now is also being used much more efficiently.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 16:47 · Score: 0

All of the west is still less people than China. And you are just trying to be sneaky adding in less polluting countries to spread the shame around. America stands out as highly polluting when compared even to similar 'western countries'. Their cleanliness is still not enough to compensate for America's high levels.
Per person, the only measure that matters, China is quite similar to 'the west' It is America that is the highly polluting outlier.
America would need to halve its CO2 output to be as clean as China, even with China's coal use. That or dump 170 million Americans into the sea, and let the rest keep on polluting. Your choice.
Re:yes, but few care by Uberbah · 2018-02-13 16:49 · Score: 1

Your bullshit. Personal energy use is a fraction of industry, and a Chinese person uses a fraction of the amount of resources that an entitled western ass such as your self consumes.
Re:yes, but few care by Uberbah · 2018-02-13 16:53 · Score: 1

I love people who wouldn't know what left is if the entire North Korean army bit them on the ass. Globalism is something pushed by right-wing neoliberals, not leftists.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 16:55 · Score: 0

Why should they stop? Because you tell them too? You are already twice as dirt as them, why would they listen to you?
Even with all their coal, they are still cleaner than America and Australia and Canada. Drop down to their levels and then you can start to lecture them. Better still drop down to the world average and then you will be just average, nothing special just average. Good luck though, with your entitled attitude and denial of the problem, it won't be easy to convince you fellow wasters to cut their use by two thirds.
If you want the CO2 to stay the same, not even drop, just stay the same. You need to explain why America is (and all the other high polluters are) entitled to use so much more of it than everybody else.
The difference is you want to stop countries developing, because you already got yours and for some reason, they shouldn't be allowed to have what you have.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 17:04 · Score: 0

The idea that rich countries just get to produce more CO2 because money. Is even more of a joke. It's people deciding every day what they do that uses CO2. Buy a car a house a steak, go on a holiday run the ac too high etc etc. Buy all the crap you don't need, throw it all away and them buy more crap you don't need. That all adds up.
If consumers don'y buy, the business won't sell, the CO2 won't be produced. If the Govt is somehow making more CO2, vote for a different government that will make less. It's not like you're in China and have no choice what the government does.
You're just a whiny entitled brat who refuses to face facts. It's your lifestyle that makes you a highly polluting country, nothing else.
Re: yes, but few care by WindBourne · 2018-02-13 17:13 · Score: 1

Why do u continue to lie about what I said? I said to stop growing your emissions by simply stop adding new coal plants. Otoh, you accuse me of saying that China has to cut. China does have to stop coal, just as most of the west is doing, but, simply getting China to quit growing their emissions and emissions in other nations would be a smart start. Why are you so opposed to helping to solve the co2 issue? America continues to lower our emissions, but even I will say that it is not fast enough. And with china being one of worst nations wrt emissions /$ GDP, it makes good sense to stop adding new coal plants.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:yes, but few care by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 21:57 · Score: 0

And every group of 30 million Chinese citizens feel the same way, except they only put out 0.6%. Bit less than half what you do...
Nobody who understands math and is not pursuing a political/ideological agenda is asking or expecting them to reduce their CO2 emissions. Unless you plan to unleash some massive catastrophe to cause a major extinction event among humans, the population will grow and so will industrialization and modernization among less well developed nations and regions. and thus also CO2 emissions are going to rise. It can't be stopped this side of a global catastrophe or total thermonuclear war.
The sensible thing is to prepare as much as practically, reasonably, and realistically possible, and adapt to the changes. It's what humans do best besides kill each other.
And stop the Chicken Little-ing. It doesn't help your arguments. People smell the BS. Treating them like idiots insults their intelligence and their anger hardens their positions against you.
Re: yes, but few care by crimson+tsunami · 2018-02-14 02:43 · Score: 1

You're focusing on coal which is prety much irrelevant. It's going down already as you have been repeatedly shown. Even now you are still claiming China is one of the worst, but they are twice as clean as the US and a few other western countries (you're right, it's not just America). If the US is producing twice as much, they have much more slack to cut than China. Energy isn't even the biggest producer of CO2 in the US anymore, thats transport, and it's increasing.
Per capita is not a perfect measure, but it's a much better one than GDP. China's emissions / $ GDP are also falling fast, so I've no idea why you are telling them to do that. They already are.
Seems you just hate coal, and China. You should be applauding them for doing so much more than the US with much less money. They are unlikely to ever reach the per capita emissions that America is at. China's coal use is just temporary, no one sensible thinks China will just use more and more coal forever until they run out of coal.
Re:yes, but few care by crimson+tsunami · 2018-02-14 03:13 · Score: 1

So whats the problem troll? Why should you be allowed to cook and keep warm but not China? They have 4 times the people to feed and keep warm, and consume crap.
But they do it much more efficiently than you do, and only use twice the CO2 and not four times.
Re:yes, but few care by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:30 · Score: 1

until China has a way to generate energy which is cheaper than coal and doesn't emit CO2.

They're working hard on that, it would appear.

Until then it doesn't matter what the US, UK and EU do.

Sure it does. If we cut CO2 emissions further, then there will be less CO2 in the atmosphere. The total amount matters, not whee it came from. The US and EU have higher per-capita emissions, and those are going to be easier to reduce.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:yes, but few care by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:33 · Score: 1

Leftists are globalists in a sense, but we don't take the same approach. To make a very sweeping generalization, our reaction to poor people abroad ts to want to help them, not exploit them.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:yes, but few care by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:40 · Score: 1

All CO2 matters.
To cut it, we have to look at where it's easiest to cut. It's probably easier to cut from high per capita emissions than low per capita emissions.
And, right now, it's not about stopping or reversing temperature rises. It's about limiting them as much as we can, because every tenth of a degree warmer is likely to make adaptation much more expensive. We've almost certainly lost the struggle to keep warming below 2C, but 2.5C will be a lot better than 3C.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:yes, but few care by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:44 · Score: 1

If China were to split up into different countries the population of the US, then the US would have much higher emissions than any of those chunks of China, but that wouldn't affect total emissions. Conversely, if the developed countries of the world would unite into one country, its emissions would be a lot higher than those of any individual constituent country. What matters is per capita emission times number of people.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Yet, some islands are growing. Odd that.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:18 · Score: 0

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

Re:Yet, some islands are growing. Odd that.. by dumuzi · 2018-02-12 16:59 · Score: 1

Odd that you didn't read the article you are posting. It explains that changes in climate patterns are the cause....

Re:Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:20 · Score: 0

Sure, climate fluctuates. In this case, it's in the process of fluctuating enough in the coming decades and centuries to kill off a large fraction of the humans on the planet.

The Earth, itself, will survive; also, as with previous mass-extinctions, niches will open up for suitable species. The problem is that we humans live on the edge of survival, depending on a large fraction of the land to grow enough food to avoid, ya know, starvation. As the world gets short of food, water and tolerable places to live, hundreds of millions of desperate people will make life miserable for the more fortunate

This reply was written for those who might have been duped by the parent; the parent, of course, is just a stupid asshat who can't see past the end of his own dick.

Solutions???? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:20 · Score: 0

Time to argue about the solutions.

I'm finally playing through Mass Effect 3 by rsilvergun · 2018-02-12 16:24 · Score: 0, Troll

and the silliest thing about the plot is that nobody believes your character when he says the big baddies (reapers) are coming even though he's got a _mountain_ of evidence. Well, at least I _thought_ it was silly until I took a good look at America's response to Global Warming...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:I'm finally playing through Mass Effect 3 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 16:30 · Score: 0

God is going to judge you and me and the entire the world. Do you believe that?
Re:I'm finally playing through Mass Effect 3 by pezpunk · 2018-02-12 17:38 · Score: 1

no, because he's not a tiny-brained superstitious moron.

--
i could live a little longer in this prison

Re: Yawn, This again by ClickOnThis · 2018-02-12 16:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?

Because people generally like living above water. Because there are existing places that will become untenable to maintain and/or unsafe with higher water levels and fixing that doesn't seem like a lot of fun.

There are are a whole lot more 'becauses' to add.

Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.

Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society.

...and so on... and finally:

Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.

Use Science by kaoshin · 2018-02-12 16:53 · Score: 0

I'll admit... I'm not an actual climentoligist, but has anybody thought about maybe just making a bunch of ice and hauling it down to Antarctica? I mean if its getting warm, throw some ice on it instead of sitting around poking and measuring it.

Re:Use Science by ClickOnThis · 2018-02-12 17:25 · Score: 2, Informative

I'll admit... I'm not an actual climentoligist, but has anybody thought about maybe just making a bunch of ice and hauling it down to Antarctica? I mean if its getting warm, throw some ice on it instead of sitting around poking and measuring it.
It's pretty clear you aren't a climatologist when you can't even spell the word, but it's also clear you aren't a scientist or an engineer. The laws of thermodynamics, let alone the sheer magnitude of the logistical/technological problem, mean that making ice for Antarctica is a non-starter. You need to consume energy in order to move energy around.
Better to stop the Sun's energy from being trapped by greenhouse gasses, and harvesting the same energy (via wind and solar) for our needs, rather than using carbon-based fuels. But if you want to make ice for Antarctica with renewables, by all means knock yourself out.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Use Science by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 17:39 · Score: 0

Woosh
Re:Use Science by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 22:09 · Score: 0

Good idea, ClickOnThis. The wind chill from the joke flying over your head can mitigate the warming.
Re:Use Science by kaoshin · 2018-02-13 02:56 · Score: 1

So basically what I'm hearing is excuses... :)
It is clear as day that my post was a lighthearted joke. You kind sir, concern me.

Not quite accurate by Okian+Warrior · 2018-02-12 16:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!

He doesn't say it's a myth, he says it's a hoax.

He agrees that the climate is changing, but believes that it's not due to man-made changes in the environment.

Re:Not quite accurate by quantaman · 2018-02-12 17:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Donald Trump claims global warming is a myth... and yet he's building sea walls for his golf resort in Ireland to protect it against the sea level rising!
He doesn't say it's a myth, he says it's a hoax.
He agrees that the climate is changing, but believes that it's not due to man-made changes in the environment.
Trump never said climate is changing, Kellyanne Conway claimed he believed that, which is completely in line with their standard practice of spinning Trump's outrageous statements into orthodox GOP doctrine.
Conway tells us nothing about what Trump believes, Trump is absolutely notorious for contradicting his administration's official positions, his spokespeople, and even himself.
Trump only ever has two kinds of comments about climate change, either some variation of "it's a hoax" or "it's cold, therefore no global warming!". The position you give Trump is something far more nuanced than he's ever expressed himself.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 18:47 · Score: 0

WRONG! You forgot #3 "We could use more global warming." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/12/28/trump-climate-change-tweet/989118001/ what a stable genius!
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:47 · Score: 0

Your positions change so fast, let me see if this is right:
If someone near Trump claims something about him that doesn't align with your views of him, you criticize him as being two-faced and actually lying or that it never happened.
If someone near Trump claims something about him that does align with your views of him, it's obviously true regardless of evidence, reason, or critical thought.
Is that right?
Re:Not quite accurate by Opportunist · 2018-02-12 21:03 · Score: 1

And in the end it doesn't matter. The climate doesn't care about the whims or opinions of the annoying orange.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Not quite accurate by AmiMoJo · 2018-02-13 00:32 · Score: 2

From your own link:

NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!

Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!
Trump really doesn't seem to think that the world is warming, or at least doesn't understand the different between weather and climate. Maybe he has changed his tune since those tweets were posted.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-13 00:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

To deny that there are clear cut benefits to global warning is asinine. My country for example is looking at massively increased agricultural production and reduced costs associated with extreme cold winters.
Negatives? Weather patterns become more extreme, so more repairs to infrastructure will be needed. Former is huge for nation's GDP. Latter is tiny in comparison. Add to that the fact that like most nations that sat under the ice during ice age, our land is rising out of the sea faster than sea is rising, there are clear benefits even on local level.
And then there's the whole "new paths for maritime travel" aspect which is bound to increase efficiency by a significant margin.
That's why catastrophism folks like you espouse is just as dangerous as "global warning isn't happening" BS. Both are equally wrong, and both turn people from the sane actions that we actually need to take to make our transition to existing in a slowly but surely warming climate and all changes that brings with it.
Instead we get "we should do nothing" and "we should do everything" idiocy on each side. When sanity is off the table at the start, and all you have is crazy partisans on each side debunking each other's idiocy, no actual discussion on what should be done can take place.
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 00:52 · Score: 0

Climate is always changing, ever since the Earth was made. It is a hoax to say Humans have an impact on it.
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:30 · Score: 0

Trump is correct, global warming and melting glaciers began 20,000 years ago and has zero to do with the Industrial Revolution or present day human activity. NOAA measurements of tide gauges shows zero increase in sea levels.
Re: Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:32 · Score: 0

This is the best note on this topic. Seriously
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:51 · Score: 0

Warmer ocean is more acidic and has larger dead zones where fish cannot live
Much of the global population depends on ocean harvested fish for food
When these people get really hungry, then they will go to war for more resources
YAY!
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-13 05:04 · Score: 1

At the same time, our food harvesting ability has increased massively, and nowadays we're shifting to farmed fish across the Nordic states en masse. Norway, the former giant of fishing now produces more salmon through farming it than through fishing it. And farming is growing explosively.
So instead of being hungry, they're going to be shoving high quality Norwegian salmon down their throats, or they're going to grow their own at their coastal and river fish farms. This is what we call "adaptation".
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:55 · Score: 0

I'm sure you'll be happy to welcome refugees who are fleeing too-hot areas of the world to your country, which by your own admission is going to be nice place to live as the world warms. Yup, nothing but positives here, just tell us which country you live in.
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:28 · Score: 0

You forgot the biggest negative. Refugees. Millions and millions of refugees from places that are no longer habitable. Like the middle east. Are you ready to take them in?
Re:Not quite accurate by MattskEE · 2018-02-13 09:03 · Score: 1

The increased prevalence of extreme weather events, the loss of trillions of dollars in infrastructure in coastal regions (where most people live in the US and around the world), the changing weather patterns obviating current highly optimized and productive agricultural regions and technology/practices are all a heavy human price to pay for warming up regions that are currently cooler.
Humans, and natural life, can probably adapt to a new warmer world, but the massive infrastructure investments necessary and ecological changes necessary suggest that extremely slowly is the best speed for this change.
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:26 · Score: 0

Former is huge for nation's GDP. Latter is tiny in comparison.
The grammar in this post makes me think it was originally in Russian.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-13 11:31 · Score: 1

Guns have in fact been invented, as have transport ships. Food can be shipped to those in need, and those who invade regardless can be forcibly ejected or killed, as was the case with every single such effort in history of humanity.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-13 11:35 · Score: 1

My country is in fact militarized enough, and has enough experience with invaders that yes, we are ready if threat becomes existential. We have enough weapons to repel invasion over our border with Russia, which is longer than rest of EU's border with Russia in total.
Additionally we're so cold and inhospitable that we have folks from Middle East literally run away from the weather. Not a joke. One of the most common cited reasons for Iraqis returning was "weather". Apparently Middle Easterners and Africans by far and large really can't take the climate.
Most people in general tend to forget that modern "refugees" are an invention of age of overabundance and lack of warfare. The moment either one ends, sympathies for refugees will end with them. We're already seeing this in Southern Europe.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-13 11:38 · Score: 2

The first thing that catastrophists like to do is to argue "but globally!!!"
Overwhelming majority of people don't care about what happens in everyday life of someone on the other side of the planet. The country you cite, US, most of its citizenry would struggle to identify countries on the other side of the globe, much less actually care if they have to invest one percent of GDP more into infrastructure. And for those that live in productive states, increase in infrastructure spending is a trivially absorbable cost if threat is actually judged to be significant enough. Refer to what US did to itself during WW2 as example of what can be done when people feel that it is needed for survival.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-13 11:45 · Score: 1

Out of interest, is there any idea that goes against far left narrative that far left trolls won't use Red Scare to try to ad hominem with?
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:10 · Score: 1

those who invade regardless can be forcibly ejected or killed, as was the case with every single such effort in history of humanity.

Um, I've got a long line here of historical emperors who'd like to have a word with you.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:12 · Score: 1

I understand English isn't your first language, but I fail to understand what you wrote.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:17 · Score: 1

You're Finnish, right?
The last time Russians came over your borders, they won. You attempted to reverse that in the Continuation War, but when your German co-belligerents were losing you were forced to sign an unfavorable peace treaty that resulted in fighting with the Germans in northern Finland. Not long before that, you were a semi-independent Russian province or something. History doesn't really make me confident in your ability to repel Russians.
We had a wave of Somali refugees come in quite a few years ago. Three-quarters of them settled in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metro area. Don't count on the weather to keep desperate people from your land.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Not quite accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 09:49 · Score: 0

Human influence over climate must be greatly exagerated in order to be useful as a economic and geostrategic policy tool that will hurt the normal people.
Polution is bad. CO2 is not pollution. Except for the fools who somehow believe that plants need "pollution" to survive.
But of course using water vapour, the real greenhouse gas, is more problematic as it can't be really used as a manipulation tool.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-14 13:48 · Score: 1

I didn't say they were always successful at it. I merely said that this was an option.
Measuring success of such efforts is a completely different discussion, with variables that are completely outside this discussion.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-14 13:57 · Score: 1

If history doesn't make you confident in our ability to repeal overwhelming forces, you have serious problems with history and historians. Alternatively you lack even basic understanding of military strategy. Take it up with historians or generals, depending on where your failure lies.
As for the rest, you appear to think I'm talking imaginary things here, rather than reality. I'm quoting actual figures from migrant crisis from 2016. We got mostly Iraqis, because this migrant crisis is very much a manufactured crisis, with migrants having active smuggler networks advertising specific states for specific ethnicities. We were primarily advertised to Iraqis.
After they arrived, we had amazing demonstrations from them. They did things like show the kind of porrige that is commonly fed to kindergarten children around here, and stating to the state broadcaster camera "How can we eat this? This food isn't even fit for dogs!" It went down about as well with the middle class who's children are in said kindergartens as you would expect.
And most popular reason for returning to Iraq was "climate".
Now somalis are a whole different breed. We had our batch of this problem culture penetrate our society in 1990s. Like everyone else, we didn't have much luck getting them to even show up at arranged meetings on time, much less actually be productive at rates anywhere near natives. But we weren't marketed to somalis, and Finnish somalis are famous enough in Somalia to counteract misinformation that comes down the smuggler networks. One of them even stood for high tier political post in Somalia some time ago if I remember correctly. They're not likely to be the next wave coming here any time soon.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-14 14:00 · Score: 1

Being intentionally obtuse has nothing to do with command of English language.
P.S. Hilariously I have a certificate from an accredited university that my command of both written and spoken English is significantly better than that of average native speaker. But thanks for playing.
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-14 14:02 · Score: 1

It doesn't. Ecosystem is essentially a closed circuit. You don't need a significant influence over specific aspect of the circuit to get it to slowly shift. You just need a small influence that exceeds systems self-correcting capability.
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-15 04:26 · Score: 1

I'm reasonably familiar with the military history of WWII, the general history of the period, and military strategy. What I don't know is a case of the Finns successfully repelling overwhelming forces.
Finland faced unrest after the Russian Revolution, but was not, to my knowledge, attacked by overwhelming forces. Finland lost the Winter War, and had to give up territory. In this war, the Soviet Union wasn't trying to conquer Finland, and suffered from extreme military problems, leading to the Timoshenko reforms. Finland was on the losing side in the Continuation War, and had to accept unfavorable peace terms. I'm not saying Finns are bad fighters; their performance in the Winter War was very impressive. I'm saying it's a fairly small country and couldn't stop much larger neighbors.
For the rest, I was talking about the experience of my own metro area, whose climate is very different from Somalia. I'm not sure what problems you had with them. Our biggest was that some Somali cab drivers refused to drive passengers who had liquor, and those Somali drivers were denied airport privileges. There had to be other issues (the logistical impact on the school system was noticeable) but they didn't generate nearly the news coverage.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-15 04:31 · Score: 1

First, what do you mean by "Red Scare"? Historically, that's been fear of Communists, so you're apparently trying to redefine it on the fly. The "try to ad hominem with" is certainly not standard English usage, which casts a little doubt on your certificate, but it is understandable. I don't know what you mean by "far left" in this case. Your English grammar is shaky enough that you'd be better advised not to try anything fancy. Your English is quite good, don't mistake me, but it's hardly native quality.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-15 04:34 · Score: 1

Except that what you said is that repelling invaders was always successful. Invaders can be forcibly ejected or killed, yes, that's happened quite a few times. That they are opposed is much more universal.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Not quite accurate by Luckyo · 2018-02-15 05:17 · Score: 1

Your last six replies to my posts have been characterised by the following traits:
1. Intentional/unintentional obtuseness.
2. Denigration of my english.
3. Denigration of my intelligence.
4. Demonstration of utter lack of understanding of the topic, while pretending really hard to have expertise in it.
5. Borderline dyslexic interpretations of my texts where some understanding can be seen.
You have problems. I cannot help you with them. Seek professional help for them please.
Re:Not quite accurate by david_thornley · 2018-02-16 04:22 · Score: 1

You do not write English like a native. I don't care what certificate you've got. I know how English speakers use the language and it's not like you do. Your English is good, but you are exaggerating it and doing things that you're not quite capable of doing clearly. If a highly competent native English speaker like me gets confused by something you wrote, guess what. It's probably not my problem. Try using simpler grammatical constructs, and you'll get your points across.
I never said anything about your intelligence. I pointed out that your history is wrong. I do not pretend to have expertise. When I say something about an issue of fact, I at least have good reason to believe it, and I have read a lot about WWII. I'm not as familiar with the history of Finland before the Twentieth Century, so if you would like to correct me there I'd appreciate it.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re: Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 17:09 · Score: 0

Of course everything is linear when we need alarmism, except non-compliant data, which gets a hockey stick added.

Oh great. Another climate change article by mnemotronic · 2018-02-12 17:13 · Score: 0

Climate change articles on slashdot is ringing the dinner bell for the extremeophiles. Such a shame.

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.

Worst case was wrong by magzteel · 2018-02-12 17:16 · Score: 1

Did anyone see this article in Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

It says the "worst case scenario" is preposterous.

"For example, the most extreme worst-case storyline assumes that by 2100 coal would grow to 94 percent of the world energy supply. In 2015, that figure was about 28 percent."

"One big problem with the amount of coal burning assumed by RCP8.5 is that there’s probably not enough extractable coal to make the scenario possible. “We don’t think it’s going to happen,” said Justin Ritchie, lead author of the University of British Columbia study and a Ph.D. candidate. “That’s extremely unlikely and also inconsistent with every year since the late 19th century.”

Re:Worst case was wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:10 · Score: 0

"lead author of the University of British Columbia study and a Ph.D. candidate"
A serious and important study would not have a student as a lead author.
We've been pretty solidly following RCP8.5 so far. Hopefully as other sources of energy become more competitive, coal use will fall, though.

SHOCKING! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 17:18 · Score: 0

It's worse than we thought. I am shocked, SHOCKED by this news.

Meanwhile I sincerely wish you diseased creatures would stop wasting time pretending you actually care. If you did care -- I mean really, truly care -- then we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

But you don't care. So stop pretending. It's somebody else's problem and you know it. All your claims of caring about children, caring about the future, it was all just an protracted lie spanning 1000's of years.

You aren't that noble. You're just an evolutionary blip, hyped up big brained virus, a dead-ender species that has 500 years left to live, at the most.

Good riddance.

Known since at least 2006 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 17:40 · Score: 1

Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.

Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.

Re:Known since at least 2006 by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 03:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.
It is new in that this article shows the satellite altimetry, while the article you cite, showing similar trends, combines tide-gauge and satellite data to get a much longer data set. Basically, that article is using satellite data to calibrate tide-gauges, and then using that calibration to measure historical sea level rise.
Good article, though.

Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.
Yes, exactly: it is useful when different work by different groups shows the same result. This is reproducability, which is important in science.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re:Known since at least 2006 by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-13 07:58 · Score: 1

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm yr-1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 +/- 0.006 mm yr-2. This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.
So we expect a rise of 1.7mm +/- 0.3 mm per year . In the UK the government tells the people building sea defences to plan for a worst case rise of 3mm per year when planning sea defences.
So long as they do that, what's the problem? Also a 28 to 34 cm rise over 110 years isn't all that much to deal with.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Re:Satellite Data by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 17:55 · Score: 0, Insightful

It's not a lie if they admit to it. And it's not denialist if it's science. "Science based" isn't "OMG the satellite data doesn't fit the theory, let's change the satellite data". "Science based" means, lets find a model that fits the data and doesn't ignore inconvenient truths. But instead there's idiots like you that scream DENIALIST at the slightest suggestion that the 'cooked' data isn't necessarily being cooked correctly.

So let's recap:
On the one hand, FACT: land based temp measurements have been altered, and the original data lost/destroyed.
FACT: satellite sea temperature measurements don't jive up with measurements at sea on a heat-retaining boats, so some people have decided to change the satellite data, not the data most likely to be wrong.

Just a day ago there was a story about one island getting bigger instead of sinking. Even though the possible explanation (bad weather, you know like the kind of thing global warming might cause, bringing extra sediment to the shore) but I noticed how quickly some idiots like you jumped to call it a denialist story.

There are real factors that need to be taken into account into temperature readings. Like for example, temperature shifts being affected by things like Global Dimming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming. So maybe global warming has been going on for a while, but global dimming was hiding the effects, and now all of a sudden that we're cleaning up the cause of global dimming, and it's putting an artificial slope on the temperature rise.

But it seems like the narrative of 'Things are Bad Bad Bad' is too important to factor in any diminishing factors, or question that the data wasn't cooked 100% the right way. You've joined a religion, I'm going to stick to science.

Slashdot is Broken! by zoid.com · 2018-02-12 17:57 · Score: 0

Slashdot has been broken for months due to the add on the right side. I can't possibly be only me due to using different browsers causes the same effect. The ads make it unscrollable. Fix the site.

--
Zoid.com

Re: Slashdot is Broken! by c6gunner · 2018-02-12 18:29 · Score: 2

Slashdot has ads?
Did you get lost and stumble onto this site while looking for AOL?

Re: Yawn, This again by c6gunner · 2018-02-12 18:19 · Score: 1

Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.

Right ... that's why there aren't any European plants growing in the Americas. Because we can't just go ahead and plant them; no, they have to evolve first.

Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society. ...and so on... and finally:

Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.

So ... basically a repeat of 2017?

Quelle horreur.

Level of Comment by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 18:23 · Score: 0

Good to see /. has its usual sophisticated level of comment. The depth of discussion is just breathtaking. Am I new here? No. Been reading the site for over a decade and its disappointing to see the decline.

So predictions? Chicken little stuff! by oldgraybeard · 2018-02-12 18:36 · Score: 1

Now! I am a true believer in climate change and for the most part man caused!

Here is my question, When is anyone, a group, a corporation, a government? Going to propose how the human race takes, Over Control of our Planets Climate? And release all the projected Cultural, Economic, Personal/Business/Government Costs, who will profit along with the social ramifications.
I mean it seems the goal here is to save individuals/cities/ports/countries at sea level from seeing any environmental impact or the need to move. And of course save humanity as a whole. And I have an interest in that!

I want to see workable solutions, not more and more chicken little predictions.

First, puts on flame suit ;)

Just my 2 cents

Re:So predictions? Chicken little stuff! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 18:53 · Score: 0

I, too, believe in an ever increasing energy source from a measurably declining fuel stack, a transparent material that lets through more energy the more of it there is, rain that only raises sea levels and doesn't restore water tables, a water system that completely violates the second law of thermodynamics by being a closed system decreasing in entropy, and political power plays that sacrifice the truth to move money from one energy broker to the other.
Re:So predictions? Chicken little stuff! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 21:49 · Score: 0

>more and more chicken little predictions
you must identify, research and understand the problem in order to fix it
Re:So predictions? Chicken little stuff! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:32 · Score: 0

A closed system? If you pull your head from your ass you may just notice the big yellow ball in the sky giving you lots of free energy.
Re:So predictions? Chicken little stuff! by david_thornley · 2018-02-14 07:54 · Score: 1

The first step is to admit there is a problem. Too many people in the US deny there is a problem. Without some sort of commitment, not much will be done. Hence, the predictions, which show we're in deep trouble.
There's a lot of debate going on about solutions, none of which are all that promising. The most cost-effective thing to do right now is almost certainly to cut CO2 emissions.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re: Who cares. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 18:40 · Score: 0

Auspie to the rescue.

chase the riff-raff by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:01 · Score: 0

Two feet eh ? Some say ya can drown in a cup of milk hehehe ... Certainly will chase the riff-raff off beaches. Kinda helps lots pushing-out (homeless) campers on Malibu strand ... but DemoRat starlets didn't like stinky HIV+ bums intruding anyway.

Only solution is global communism!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:22 · Score: 0

Call me when the only proposed solution is not centrally planned global communism and I will pay attention.

Assumptions? by bradley13 · 2018-02-12 19:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

I just read the abstract. As I understand it, they have 25 data years of very noisy data. Based on this data, they have deduced a quadratic equation (think: upward-curving parabola). They then state: "simple extrapolation of the quadratic implies global mean sea level could rise 65 ± 12 cm by 2100".

Of course, extrapolation of a quadratic leads to massive increases in the Y-value. Any kid doing 9th grade geometry learns that. The question is: Why should we believe that this quadratic equation - derived from so few data points - is accurate, and wil continue unabated into the future?

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.

Re:Assumptions? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:59 · Score: 2, Informative

You are somewhat right. This is the first study to claim an upward trend in the rate of change.
Meanwhile, in mainstream science, there has been dozens of papers and theories trying to describe how a steady increase of slightly more than three millimeters per year could have happened. This is what the entirety of our precise data, the satellite data set, shows. The stark linearity has made quite a stir.
Either the satellites are miscalibrated in some unknown, novel way, the rate of thermal expansion is increasing over time at an absurd rate, the amount of thermal expansion reduction over time is offset by meltwater, or some other unknown mechanism. All the settled science shows, until we have new data stating otherwise, we should have an increase in sea level just over 24 cm by 2100 and no more than 25 cm.
This paper might be a hard-science pseudo case of "p-value hacking", where they threw everything they could think of at the problem until they coaxed out a plausible formula that they wanted all along.
Re:Assumptions? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 05:48 · Score: 0

1. The quadratic confirms climate change model predictions.
2. The authors do not say that you should trust the quadratic will hold unabated in to the future. They say, "If sea level continues
to change at this rate and acceleration, sea-level rise by 2100 (65 cm) will be more than double the amount if the rate was constant at 3 mm/y." Do you see that "if" in there at the beginning?

Does it matter ? by aepervius · 2018-02-12 19:27 · Score: 2

I mean if a pyroman set a barn is on fire, and a denier pretend the warmth is due to hot summer time the other pretend barn on fire is a natural occurrence, does it matter ? They are both wrong, and in the end you gotta stop the fire anyway.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re: Does it matter ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 00:58 · Score: 0

Thanks, oh most benevolent dictator, for saving us from the fire and from ourselves. Is there any reason why ALL leftist ideals must be enforced by dictatorship? Might help explain why theyâ(TM)re all fawning over the sister of the North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un.

While the OP is wrong by aepervius · 2018-02-12 19:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is a gran of truth in what he says. The grain of truth is that shifting climate will make arable terrain less arable, and will open to potential moderate climate terrain which was not arable or is poor. So shifting climate may actually reduce globally the amount of field which are good for agriculture. Nothing to do with evolution.... Just with simply top earth quality for what we currently grow. As for your kip about a repeat of 2017: actually 2017 and the last 3 or 4 decade are decades where there was the LEAST amount of war, compared to last centuries... As for population upheaval , the same can be said qualitatively. 2017 forced mirgation is nothing to compare if whole frigging region decide to go north or south because their agriculture is in the shitter , in say 75 or 100 years.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:While the OP is wrong by dcw3 · 2018-02-14 00:41 · Score: 1

actually 2017 and the last 3 or 4 decade are decades where there was the LEAST amount of war, compared to last centuries
What is your criteria for "amount"? The number of fatalities?...number of conflicts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re: Yawn, This again by Uberbah · 2018-02-12 19:43 · Score: 1

Right ... that's why there aren't any European plants growing in the Americas. Because we can't just go ahead and plant them; no, they have to evolve first.

Yes, because you can just up and replace entire ecosystems on a moment's notice with new flora and fauna.

Re: Yawn, This again by quantaman · 2018-02-12 19:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.

Right ... that's why there aren't any European plants growing in the Americas. Because we can't just go ahead and plant them; no, they have to evolve first.

Just because some plants do well in a non-native habitat it doesn't not follow that most plants (particularly crops) can effectively adapt to a very different climate, or equivalent farmland can be found in another region.

Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society. ...and so on... and finally:

Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.

So ... basically a repeat of 2017?

Quelle horreur.

Americans experienced a mild increase in Muslim migration and a drug epidemic and elected a demagogue Trump, one of the major riots leading up to the French Revolution was caused by a flour shortage, German's experienced massive reparations after WWI and elected Hitler, Russians got hammered in WWI and had the October Revolution, etc, etc.

In fact, high food prices were one of the causes of the Arab Spring, and the Arab Spring combined with the Iraq War caused the migrant crisis in Europe which is another factor that elected Trump and scared Britain out of the EU. And the Arab Spring looks a lot like the mass migrations you'll see when Climate Change starts to kick in (and the equivalent South American migration into the US).

It's not a complex formula. When populations are stressed they lash out, they either riot and or elect leaders who raise a ruckus on their behalf. And climate change causes a lot of stress.

--
I stole this Sig

Re:Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 19:58 · Score: 0

any mention in that article about the trillion dollar petrol industry ?

Re: Yawn, This again by prefec2 · 2018-02-12 20:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Climate does not change during seasons, because climate is the weather average over 30 years. Global warming is defined by the change if the global temperature. While weather is specfic to you region. For example the US had a cold and snow rich winter and we in Europe had a lot if rain and no snow. So in our region it was exceptionally warm weather while you had snow rich weather.

Re: Yawn, This again by prefec2 · 2018-02-12 20:05 · Score: 1

I thought it was the Chinese.

Enough already by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:36 · Score: 0

We don't give a fuck about climate change

Re:Satellite Data by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:36 · Score: 0

Except the science disagrees with you, facts are so inconvenient for RWNJ. SAD.

We're all gonna DIE!!! by Chas · 2018-02-12 20:37 · Score: 0, Troll

Okay. If we accept the "The Sky Is Falling" scenario.

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

Quite simply, implementing enough renewable energy+storage for the planet is logistically impossible.
And, even if we DID, we're supposedly beyond The Point Of No Return already.
So...what then? Do we simply harangue ourselves with "How Screwed We Are" every couple weeks while shit goes to Hell in handbasket?
What's the point?

Honestly, carbon capture is probably our best bet.
The main problem is that it's extremely power intensive.
And the only way to implement it sanely is with the backing of nuclear power on a level we currently just do not see at the moment.

People scream about waste. Yet almost every other form of power dumps their waste into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner.
People scream about nuclear being expensive power. Yet Obama was looking to make ALL power prohibitively expensive with no actual environmental plan to justify it. Just "Because Global Warming, GIVE US MONEYS!".

Yeah, I accept that nuclear can be an expensive power option due to the regulation environment and the decommissioning pipeline.
But, if building the infrastructure for power-based gigaton-scale carbon capture and worldwide ocean desalination results in our power bills going double, treble, or quadruple of our current level, it's WORTH IT.

Toss on financial incentives for individuals and corporations to cut their energy (and thus, carbon) footprint (as if higher power bills wouldn't achieve this already).

Will it be the largest geoengineering project humanity's ever undertaken?
Nope. Because the project to fuck the planet up to it's current state has been running apace for a couple hundred thousand years now.

But, in lieu of other, nasty options, it's probably our best bet.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:We're all gonna DIE!!! by drinkypoo · 2018-02-13 00:26 · Score: 1

Quite simply, implementing enough renewable energy+storage for the planet is logistically impossible.
Wrong. It's politically impossible.

And, even if we DID, we're supposedly beyond The Point Of No Return already.
Wrong again. We may still be able to turn this around, nobody actually knows. The sooner we start actually trying, the more likely it is that the species will continue without having to go all morlock.

So...what then?
We've literally been telling you for decades. Don't pretend you don't know. That's disingenuous douchebaggery.

And the only way to implement it sanely is with the backing of nuclear power on a level we currently just do not see at the moment.
There's nothing sane about selling out the future for the present. That's how we got where we are now. Greenhouse gas was a settled science in the 1800s, and you're still ignoring it.
Plant trees. Switch to regenerative agriculture. Switch to carbon-negative biofuel. Switch to bioplastics. Install solar. Install wind. Make less unnecessary shit. Insulate houses more. We've been explaining this to you for decades, you've been ignoring it and saying "what do we do?" Well, we told you already. Your ignorance is willful. Stop pretending we haven't given you literally all of the answers.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:We're all gonna DIE!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 11:27 · Score: 0

Chas, seriously, you're touting political ideology and complaining whilst nuclear got more funding. Stop now before it's too late to recover any semblance of reality.

Who the hell cares by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 20:59 · Score: 0

Let it rise ffs!

Re: Who cares. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 21:01 · Score: 0

Wut?

Floaters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 22:20 · Score: 0

Luckily, all rocky islands and continents are raising at the exact same rate as the oceans, or we'd see costal cities like New York City, Hong Kong, and Rio de Janeiro abandoned due to permanently flooded streets.

Re: Yawn, This again by Bongo · 2018-02-12 22:27 · Score: 1

Good point about the Arab Spring, but notice, nobody can predict which stresses will occur and whether they will lead to breakdown, strain, or innovation, or some combination of all three. And multiply that by a million for all the possible scenarios.

Whilst care and compassion are very worthy moral developments, this does not mean we can predict the unpredictable. Climate change is unfortunately just one of the many unpredictable things. The “science” has faked its certainty over this, and latches onto tiny trends to pretend it understands the whole system. It is not denialism to point out trumped up claims.

Postmodern thought is party to blame, in that it does not think facts matter, all that matters is the narrative and dismantling the systems of oppression, so in environmental movements there’s often people who don’t care whether carbon is a problem, they only care that everyone be made to believe it is a problem, and use “science” as the narrative.

Meanwhile clouds are still a huge area of uncertainty. They just are.

But yes please let’s encourage humanity towards more care and compassion, regardless of situations. Science is NOT ethics.

25 Years of Sat Data Doesn't Show Shit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-12 23:54 · Score: 0

25 years is not enough data to make a meaningful conclusion about climate.

Erosion? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 00:20 · Score: 0

I live on the gulf, and have not seen any difference in sea levels.... But erosion is a real thing that I have seen.

Re:Erosion? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:27 · Score: 0

Not sure if by "gulf" you mean Gulf of Mexico or Persian Gulf or some other Gulf. But since the internet and /. are both accessible worldwide, it would help if your post specifically mentions which "gulf" you're referring to.

But... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 00:32 · Score: 0

The sea level is always changing.
This is just part of the natural tidal cycle.
It was higher in the past!
It's the Moon stupid!
Oceanographers can't even predict the height of the next few waves.
Not that long ago scientists were predicting the oceans would eventually dry up!
In some places sea levels are falling.
I went to the beach yesterday and the sea was miles out, fake news!

Re: Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 01:06 · Score: 0

It's probably a waste of my time to write this, but you need to understand that there are dozens, maybe hundreds, or independent sources of data supporting the general consensus that we're getting dangerously warm (for humans).

In order for you to be correct, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people involved in research and analysis of data would have to be 100% compliant with a gigantic conspiracy. And that's just batshit crazy.

But then, that's too much for your simple-minded brain. You might have enough intelligence to understand this: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/...

Your sanity vs. their sanity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 01:18 · Score: 0

> There's nothing sane about selling out the future for the present.

Sanity is relative. You have failed to take into account that:

1- the old fucks in power have money to mitigate effects upon *them* so they don't care
2- the old fucks in power will not be around to suffer any downstream effects of this so they don't care
3- the old fucks in power are making bank hand over fist so they don't care
4- the old fucks in power aren't going to spend money to make life better for *you*

Re:Your sanity vs. their sanity by drinkypoo · 2018-02-13 01:26 · Score: 1

1- the old fucks in power have money to mitigate effects upon *them* so they don't care
2- the old fucks in power will not be around to suffer any downstream effects of this so they don't care
Mitigate, yes. Not suffer? No. They will suffer, too. The world will become a crappier place, and they live here.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Look at all the deniers... by hyades1 · 2018-02-13 02:03 · Score: 1

Global Warming deniers sure love to be Anonymous Cowards when they're blathering their anti-science bullshit.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.

Re:Look at all the deniers... by careysub · 2018-02-13 08:45 · Score: 1

You are correct. It would be best if everyone just filters out and ignores the ACs when this topic comes up.
Want to post a denial claim? Then show us your Slashdot identity. What the cowardice?

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Look at all the deniers... by hyades1 · 2018-02-13 09:03 · Score: 1

Anybody who quotes Walt Kelly is a worthy person.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.

Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:14 · Score: 0

Oh and all you rich first world hypocrites, who jetset around, use coal fired power and fossil fuels and yet demand everyone else stop emitting CO2, yes you know who you are, stop trying to keep third world people in abject poverty and starvation, give up using fossil fuels yourself.

Fake news! China must have hacked those satellites by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:17 · Score: 0

Ice caps are at record levels! Democrats and China make up facts and decades of data to hurt the US. Look over there! *disappears*

Sea level rise is small compared to biological ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-02-13 02:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

The annual deep frost would kill so much of the weeds and the bugs. As the climate changes, the USDA agricultural zones are changing. What used to be 3 is now 4 etc. Weeds that were killed every winter and start from the scratch, survive the winter, start early and spread fast. They even get two or three more generations per season.

The bugs too, are surviving winter. The most ardent climate change denying, conspiracy theory believing, Iowa farmer sees the forsythia blooming in February, tulips emerging in March, crocus in December... Some fields naturalized by daffodils and tulips are going the other way. The bulbs rotting away instead of emerging. These bulbs need six weeks of continuous freezing for them to "sense" the coming and going of winter. Without the frost, they dont emerge and they rot in spring rains.

One of the most productive agricultural belt is protected by annual frost. It has no natural defense against many of the deleterious organisms. All it takes is one fungus, one virus, one weed to afflict the Idaho potato crop or the corn or wheat... By the time we identify and mitigate the threat we would have lost two or even three years of loss of agricultural productivity. Affluent USA will suck the products from rest of the world, prices will shoot up beyond belief. Poor countries with unstable regimes will see societal collapse, mass migrations and refugees...

These consequences are far more dire, far more urgent than sea level rise. Sea level rise is important it will lead to very serious climate changes. But that is very indirect and direct cause - effect relations difficult to deduce, difficult to prove, difficult to explain to public.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:45 · Score: 0

And here you are contributing by reading this article on an electronic device.

Re:25 Years by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 02:48 · Score: 3, Informative

25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?

Because the earliest data set came from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimetry mission, which launched in 1992, and the paper was received for review in 2017. 2017-1996 = 25 years.

Paper under discussion: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

The scientists were unable to use satellite data taken before the satellite launched because that data does not exist.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:25 Years by Muros · 2018-02-13 02:50 · Score: 1

25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?

...because we cherry picked just the right amount to support our claims.

I'll believe you the moment the faggots in San Francisco drown.

No, because TOPEX/Poseidon was launched into orbit in August 1992. Good luck getting data from it from before it was operational.

How is that interesting, it's complete bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 02:55 · Score: 1

Wow another windbourne clone. So tell us genius, how many pieces do we need to cut China into to have each piece have the population as Australia? How about America? Do you think the 4 new North South East and West China's pollution will be the same as all 4 are now added together? But by the magic of winbourne 'thinking' there will be less CO2, because all those new countries will be polluting less than America.

Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 03:05 · Score: 3, Informative

And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!

That's why satellite altimetry measurements-- what the article being discussed here is about-- are important. You can measure the entire globe, not just the places that have tide gauges, and you can separate out the local effects from the sea level rise.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-02-13 05:30 · Score: 1

And when we do that, and look at more than a straight line, we see that the global sea level rise is decelerating, not accelerating. Hard to get people worked up about things slowing down, though, so we'll stick with straight-line approximations for things that are best fit with non-straight-lines and be done with it!

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by Pinky's+Brain · 2018-02-13 07:22 · Score: 1

The possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Where satellite data is referenced to tidal gauges I trust it most, where it isn't I trust it less. Where I trust it most there is no appreciable acceleration.
Re:Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 07:51 · Score: 1

The possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Not even close. The satellite measurements are vastly more accurate than single-position tidal gauges. Among other reasons, this is because they look at the whole globe, which allows you to distinguish local effects from global sea level rise.
OH, and satellites are "GPS corrected" too, you know.

Where satellite data is referenced to tidal gauges I trust it most,

You have that backwards. When tidal gauges are referenced to satellite data, you can start trusting it. But the tidal gauges will still be single location measurements.

where it isn't I trust it less. Where I trust it most there is no appreciable acceleration.
I will say that acceleration is the hardest thing to measure, since it's a derivative of a noisy measurement, and a 25 year baseline is a little short for a good acceleration measurement. The data so far looks good, but I'd like to see another 25 years of satellite data before agreeing to a firm number.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re:Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by Pinky's+Brain · 2018-02-13 08:33 · Score: 1

Let me rephrase that, since I seem to have been misinterpreted. At the position of the actual tidal gauge the possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Together with lakes and land features (though trusting either of those too much is obviously not a good idea, behave fundamentally differently from the ocean) the tidal gauges are what the satellites are calibrated against after all. Not the other way around.
Re:Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:05 · Score: 0

You could've just said "I have no idea what I'm talking about" and we would've believed you. There's no need to definitively prove it by posting one of the most easily debunked "scientific" graphs on the internet.
Re:Satellite measurements [Re:Oh good] by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 09:31 · Score: 1

Let me rephrase that, since I seem to have been misinterpreted. At the position of the actual tidal gauge the possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Yes, you do always want to ground-truth space measurements. Even when the space measurement is more accurate, you still want to ground-truth it. So, basically, you're saying that in your opinion ground measurements are more accurate... at individual geographic points. Nevertheless, for global sea-level measurements-- which is what we're looking for-- the satellite altimeter is vastly accurate.
OK, close enough that we can claim to agree. Good enough for me.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

total bullshit not informative by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:11 · Score: 0

Or alternatively America could drop down to Chinese per capita levels of pollution. But since you got there first, you must be entitled to pump out twice as much as them.

Stupid people like you tend to forget China is more than 4 times bigger than the US. But you're rich and entitled so pullute away you special snowflake.

Analyze all of the data by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 03:13 · Score: 5, Informative

No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall. If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I.

Just for reference, the 25 years of data was not cherry picked. The article being discussed analyzed satellite altimetry data, and the first of the satellite altimetry missions being discussed was TOPEX/Poseidon, which started giving data 25 years ago. 25 years is all the data that exists.

When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:Analyze all of the data by khayman80 · 2018-02-13 06:30 · Score: 2

When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking. [Geoffrey Landis]
Indeed. I made this same point after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps insisting that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".
Ironically, I even gave Jane/Lonny R code which calculates trends and accelerations of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5. The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets.
Again, note that this approach avoids cherry-picking by using the entire dataset. Also note that all the best-fit accelerations are positive.
Once again, that's consistent with this NOAA article:
"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate ... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."
And once again, that's consistent with the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:
"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."
That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades".

Fission needs breeder or thorium by Geoffrey.landis · 2018-02-13 03:16 · Score: 2

Fission could do that, easily. We've shown them how to do fission adequately. Maybe they could teach the rest of us how to do it well.

Actually, no. If we just use fission, we run out of uranium in a hundred years or so-- it's not a long-term solution. We need fission plus breeder reactors, or else a switch to a thorium-based fuel cycle.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re: Yawn, This again by nomadic · 2018-02-13 03:16 · Score: 2

"Right ... that's why there aren't any European plants growing in the Americas. Because we can't just go ahead and plant them; no, they have to evolve first."

So your argument is that because some plants can grow in different regions of the world, every plant can grow in different regions of the world? So like temperature, precipitation, etc. can have no effect because you can grow lettuce in both England and California. That's...brilliant.

Re:Yawn, This again by nomadic · 2018-02-13 03:17 · Score: 2

You're forgetting to mention the lizard people who control the Club of Rome. And, of course, Soros' ninjas.

Suspect Studies by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:35 · Score: 0

The Climate Science community has shown itself to be rather untrustworthy when it comes to data.

From "hide the decline" to the wholesale guesstimation of temperatures over the vast majority of the globe, to their explicit political activism, any statement about fact from these people should be looked at with a ton of salt.

Methodologies, original data, modifications to data, all need to be disclosed and justified...explicitly. Unfortunately, scientists seem loath to do this.

Re:Suspect Studies by sg_oneill · 2018-02-13 12:28 · Score: 1

The Climate Science community has shown itself to be rather untrustworthy when it comes to data.
Luckilly we have conspiracy theorist anonymous cowards to show those pesky scientists the truth

From "hide the decline"
A conservative talking-point discredited a long time ago. The "hide the decline" was a reference to a well understood flaw in arctic treeline tree ring data where Carbon isotope ratios go out of whack sometime in the 1980s, roughly around the time of cheynobyl. The "hide the decline" is a reference to removing faulty data. Scientists cleaning out errors is a stupid reason to distrust scientists

to the wholesale guesstimation of temperatures over the vast majority of the globe
A thing that doesnt actually happen.

, to their explicit political activism, any statement about fact from these people should be looked at with a ton of salt.
Methodologies, original data, modifications to data, all need to be disclosed and justified...explicitly. Unfortunately, scientists seem loath to do this.
Oh put a sock in it, crazy person.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re: Suspect Studies by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 00:37 · Score: 0

Removing âoefaulty data.â How cute and very helpful of them. Of course, they get to define which data points are faulty, according to their obvious nonâ"scientific biases. How about just the facts, maâ(TM)am? And please do disclose the error-removing data corrections, thank you.

Re:Sea level rise is small compared to biological by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 03:35 · Score: 0

Any farmer that knows what they are doing simply uses a greenhouse to start all crops. Zero problems. It may be bad for people in Africa that still shit in holes in the ground and shower by dumping a bucket of water over their head while standing in a pot, but for America this is nothing to worry about.

Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:08 · Score: 0

...it was cold the other day near my house. How do you explain that, climatards?

You are clueless. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:13 · Score: 0

Even your scary made up graph shows Chinas CO2 rising to only half the level of America !
You do know China is 4 times bigger than the US right? Surely you must know at least one tiny relevant fact amongst all your complete bullshit and lies? As per your own graph America will be over 6,000 and China will be less than 12,000. Yet China is four times bigger than the US.

Re:You are clueless. by Hal_Porter · 2018-02-13 06:42 · Score: 1

China already emits more CO2 than America. And the climate, if it cares at all, cares about total emissions not per capita emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Actually ... by PPH · 2018-02-13 04:14 · Score: 1

... it's been rising since Beringia. And the rate of change was much higher then than now. So we're just getting back to the norm.

Since there were no SUVs or coal plants back then, I'm laying the blame on Native American campfires.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:25 Years by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:31 · Score: 0

No, because TOPEX/Poseidon was launched into orbit in August 1992. Good luck getting data from it from before it was operational.

So a gnat-fart when compared to the existence of the earth? Yet people will scream 'global warming' anyways.

Why do warmists always exaggerate? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:44 · Score: 0

3 inches in 25 years, but it'll be 2 feet in the next 75??

Re:Why do warmists always exaggerate? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:19 · Score: 0

Sea level rise depends on location and you're mixing up two very different things. An average rise of 3 inches is different than a vulnerable location getting a 2 feet increase. The first (3 inch average) is a verifiable fact. The second is a prediction by models for what will happen at a certain location, and is very likely to come true.
The average number is 7.6 inches of rise over the next 75 years[1]. Which still should give you pause, but should be less surprising given that the 3x difference in duration didn't lead to a greater than 3x change in sea levels. Nice linear progression that shouldn't make your head spin. Of course these are very conservative estimates and don't take into account acceleration due to released ice methane, etc.

Pure shit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 04:48 · Score: 0

It's a hoax! The data is being manipulated and the populace is too stupid or uninterested to actually confirm the findings. This world is truly fucked.

what a long time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:06 · Score: 0

25 years of data........... and the earth is HOW old? it's been tropical and ice covered well before man came into the picture

Re:25 Years by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:15 · Score: 0

25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?

Because the earliest data set came from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimetry mission, which launched in 1992, and the paper was received for review in 2017. 2017-1996 = 25 years.

No, because 25 years of data means this is Science Fact! Don't be a denier! This surely proves it once and for all!

WRONG: CO2 and temp is beneficial to plants! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:40 · Score: 0

There is a gran of truth in what he says. The grain of truth is that shifting climate will make arable terrain less arable, and will open to potential moderate climate terrain which was not arable or is poor. So shifting climate may actually reduce globally the amount of field which are good for agriculture.

There are certainly risks with the greenhouse effect, but decreasing crop yield and arable land is probably not one of them. There is *tons* of data to support this. Higher temperature and higher CO2 is positive for plant growth. Here's some scientific research on the topic. The abstracts should give you the info you need to confirm this is the current scientific thinking.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=plant+growth+temperature+co2&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr1dapt6PZAhXGmVkKHTWOBMoQgQMIJzAA

Re: Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 05:48 · Score: 0

Crops grow most readily at the same or similar latitude. That whole seasonal change thing is quite the big deal in the plant world. Plants don't have to evolve to go east or west, but n/s is different, and the GP damn well knows it.

BAD Data by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:04 · Score: 0

Satellite data...
That is the same satellite data that scientist said that was bad data a few years ago in front of congress.

read the title at least dipshit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:09 · Score: 0

If you had bothered to read instead of just posting talking points, you would have noticed that they didn't use a straight line but an increasing curve ie accelerating. It's in the fucking title you idiot! Please at least read and understand the titles of the stories you comment on.

Ha ha, more denialist nonsense from a denialist nonsense site known to cherry pick data to get the conclusion it wants. From a denialist who does exactly the same.

Re:read the title at least dipshit by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-02-13 07:22 · Score: 1

Reading through it, I see a few things (and I saw them before I posted):
1. No mention of the fit; the paper I linked shows a r^2 value of 0.94; what is it for their fit?
2. Their conclusions are based upon subtracting estimated effects from non-CO2 based changes, and from estimates about how much ice there is. Meaning they are drawing conclusions accurate to 0.1mm, based upon several orders-of-magnitude higher estimates. Not good, statistically
3. They ignore tide-gauge corrections for altitude, on the basis that tidal gauges are too sensitive to decadal changes. They even mention that doing so increases the acceleration; if they left the tide-gauge corrections in, the acceleration would be lower.
4. There are several other papers (in the page to which I linked) which shows just the opposite of what is happening here, and it uses tidal gauges, satellite, or both for the results. In all cases, sea level changes are decelerating on a decadal basis. So at best this is a result that runs counter to many others, meaning "we're not sure".
So, does realizing there are errors in this study - which runs counter to many other studies - make me a denialist? I'd say it makes me a realist. Which can be offensive to people who take AGW as a religious basis for their life...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:read the title at least dipshit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 15:11 · Score: 0

Continuously posting junk links to know junk sites makes you a denialist. I'm sure they did link to many other denialist sites. I'm sure they did pick and choose tidal guages or satelite or both, depending on the answers they are trying to give you.
And just so you know, a slower acceleration is still an acceleration and not a straight line.
Re:read the title at least dipshit by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-02-13 16:06 · Score: 1

The papers cited at my link are in peer reviewed journals. And TFA was about an increasing acceleration of sea level, not a decreasing acceleration as you now admit is happening. Your attitude is about as anti-science as can be. But that's pretty common around here for ACs, isn't it?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:read the title at least dipshit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 16:20 · Score: 0

Did you actually read any of those links from WUWT? As usual, what that blog claims and what the papers really say are often quite different. Here, let me list them for you, along with quotes from their abstracts:
Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, and Woodworth 2008:

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr^2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century... the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.
Thomas Frederikse 2017:

Over the same period [1958-2014], the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr^2
Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac, Ablain 2017:

An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.
Chen, Zhang, Church, Watson, King, Monselesan, Legresy & Harig 2017:

Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 2014. This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2mmyr1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3mmyr1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift.
The single cited paper that didn't solidly confirm the accelerating rise of global mean sea level was Holgate 2007, who merely found "high variability in the rates of sea level change", and suggested that the first half of the 20th century rose a little faster than the second half. But that study was based solely on just nine "carefully selected" tide level gauges (where the selection criteria are thinly described at best).
Re:read the title at least dipshit by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 03:34 · Score: 0

Fucking stupid troll, you didn't link to any peer reviewed journals. You linked to a denier site with a graph they made themselves from cherry picked data.
Exactly like you were told. You are a denier linking to denier sites. Why didn't they use the whole 25 years?
And lets not even bother about your bold face lie regarding acceleration, it's plain for all to see you are just making shit up now.

Re:Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:12 · Score: 0

Why are "they" whining about this all the time?

Open a fucking book numbnuts.

And the data says!! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:19 · Score: 0

And the data says, they faked most of the data. sigh, this board is so lowIQ now.

Too bad it's mostly non anthropogenic. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:21 · Score: 0

Given the fact we now know, despite some agenga's best tampering efforts, real data has shown climate change largely do to non anthropogenic.

So, too bad; we're along for the ride, boys and girls.

Re: Yawn, This again by dryeo · 2018-02-13 06:43 · Score: 1

Climate is a general term. Long range climate, as you say, about a 30 year average. It is also accurate to say the local climate here is Aug is the hottest driest month, Dec is the wettest and Jan is the coldest.
The IPC definition,

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.[9]

Note climate can be measured from months to aeons.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Just Alarmist Fudging And Crying To AAAS by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 07:09 · Score: 0

Typical of Alarmists to fudge the numbers and cry to MSM a few days before the AAAS Alarm Spectacle.

Ha ha

Re: Yawn, This again by prefec2 · 2018-02-13 07:35 · Score: 1

True. However, in context of global warming or climate change the term climate used originates from science. Therefore, the wider definition of climate does not apply. However, I can understand that there is some confusion based on the difference between both the scientific definition and the laymen term used by the public.

Averaged against by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 07:57 · Score: 0

50 years though, it shows no increase....

because... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:32 · Score: 0

CLEARLY a sample of 25/5000000000 is TOTALLY legit and such a valid indicator that we should happily upend entire economies and destroy the careers (and therefore the incomes and possibly the families) of many mllions of people. That's like saying that you gan make solid judgements about Zuckerberg's finances because you've seen two dollar bills he owns.

25 years is only a significantly long time period to people who are younger than about 30 and who still percieve time as a fraction of their miniscule time on Earth.

People who are 60 or older can tell you just how fast 25 years seems to go by, amd anybody who has studied history will tell you that 25 years is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.

Let's apply a liberal solution.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:40 · Score: 0

New York city was built on wetlands, and Manhattan (where that flooding you mentioned occurred DURING A SEVERE STORM) was actually "reclaimed" land (it used to be underwater, but people piled lots of junk and rubble there to get it above sea level, thus artificially creating that real estate.

Solution?

Tear down all the buildings and have a President declare it a National Monument or get congress to make it a wildlife preserve or a park. "restore" it to its original condition and re-classify the place as "wetlands". Libs would have no problem with such a solution if the land was in a Western state like Nevada, California, or Alaska.

What I've gathered from this is... by Kevin108 · 2018-02-13 17:27 · Score: 1

Satellites are causing global warming.

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"

Re: Yawn, This again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 00:31 · Score: 0

As the world gets short of food, water and tolerable places to live, hundreds of millions of desperate people will make life miserable for the more fortunate

And who are these âoethe more fortunate?â Those whose lands are becoming less arable or those whose lands are becoming more arable and therefore more valuable? They might not be whom you think they would be.

you are just a troll. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 02:54 · Score: 0

Why is it impossible? If china can put out 7 tons per person, why does an American have to put out 15?
China isn't radically increasing by the way, they are still half your level. How about a compromise, they rise to 8 and you drop to 8. A win for the planet, but 'impossible' as far as your concerned. You can't even imagine dropping that much.
If you really cared, you would be wanting both to drop to the world average of 5...Who do you think would have more chance?

You are clueless. by crimson+tsunami · 2018-02-14 03:04 · Score: 1

Yes it cares about total emissions and not lines on a map. Cut China into 4 countries if you like. North China, East China, South China and West China. Nothing else needs to change, same people same pollution. Each new China though is now only producing half the level of the US. So how much are you going ask America to cut, now that it's the most polluting country?
Any way you look at it, Each person in America emit far more than a Chinese person. More than just about everyone in the world in fact.

You were only supposed to be underwater by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 03:13 · Score: 0

if you listened to denier blogrolls.

If you'd listened to the weather forecasters and climatologists and NOT BS about AIT from denier idiots who don't care about reality or truth (it gets in the way of their ideology), you'd know you weren't supposed to be underwater.
For example, the AIT claim of being underwater NEVER HAPPENED. Go look up the quotes. They all run back to some reporter saying it was in there. No recording will show it, though. No transcript, no record, no word outside the claims "it has been said elsewhere he did!".

Rising Sea Levels? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 05:14 · Score: 0

Regarding sea levels: Rather than rely on satellite data and computer simulations, why not wait for for "Harbor Masters" reports?

Beach Bikini a Go-Go in Qeqertarsuaq by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 08:38 · Score: 0

Oh, come on, look at the advantages! The tropical beachfront resorts in Greenland will be amazing. We'll all be sipping strawberry maragaritas in the cabanas of Qeqertarsuaq and strolling through the orange groves of Nuuk. :)

Photos please by kattisch · 2018-02-15 05:38 · Score: 1

If this is satellite data, where are the photos showing proof of shrinking ice caps? The 25 years ago pictures vs. today? Oh and it should show summer vs summer pictures or winter vs winter pictures not winter vs. summer. Show me.

4 years ago they predicted 3 meter rise by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-15 13:23 · Score: 0

Just 2 feet? That's a vast improvement from what was preached just 4 years ago! THREE METERS was predicted in 2014.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-u-s-look-like-after-3-meters-of-sea-level-rise/

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-17428

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-sea-metres.html

We need to stop this now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-16 14:30 · Score: 0

As a white racist, I can't stand the thought of my home town of Madison Wisconsin warming up and allowing all the darkies to move into my carefully cultivated liberal white utopia. Keep the blacks in Louisiana where they belong with all the warn adapted races. If the climate continues to warm up white liberals will be driven to extinction because we can not compete against the more virile and better endowed but cold blooded dark races.

Support liberal racism and fight climate change by forcing dark skinned people to pay more to white liberal owned carbon neutral renewable energy while keeping the northern latitudes white and free of black people.

I'll start worrying when... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-17 07:54 · Score: 0

...the world's population starts dramatically *decreasing*, rather than increasing, which it still is.

And even then, I don't have a problem with seeing the world population decreasing to well under a single billion.

Slashdot Mirror

25 Years of Satellite Data Shows Global Warming Is Accelerating Sea Level Rise (usnews.com)

343 comments