Rise in sea level can't be stopped: scientists

Jul 1, 2012 Full story: The Republic 110

Rising sea levels cannot be stopped over the next several hundred years, even if deep emissions cuts lower global average temperatures, but they can be slowed down, climate scientists said in a study on Sunday.

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#62 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia needs to update their list. I saw several that have already reverse position after the 2008 findings. And several others like the IPCC who are now not considered to be all that reliable now. The Chinese are no longer on board either.
It it just me or does it seem that this list is filled with government agencies relying on government funding. Not to mention the Nigerian and Carrabean Academy of Sciences. Sounds like part of the list could be brought cheap as well.
Really, why don't you make a list of the above who have changed their minds. That would be informative.
PHD

Overton, TX

#63 Jan 23, 2013
They want a list but can only provide the usual cut and paste scientific science fiction.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#64 Jan 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, why don't you make a list of the above who have changed their minds. That would be informative.
I could but so many others have already made such lists. Of course none of them a really up to date since more climate scientist are changing their minds every day and declaring that they consider AGW wrong.

Maybe we should make a list of those who still believe in AGW. After all, it must be only a couple dozen of the thousands.

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Rep...
PHD

Overton, TX

#65 Jan 25, 2013
You would only get a list of scientific science fiction members.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#67 Jan 25, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you keep your eyes tightly closed. The fact that those same people once published similar documents making similar claimse about an approaching ice age in the seventies only proves that they publish what ever support to political climate.
Wow. I've rebutted this before to you, and you ignored it.
Happened to keep it. Try being honest next time.

In 1971, Rasool and Schneider wrote a scientific paper that was focused on entitled Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138-141).

--The paper never actually predicted an ice age. Instead, it projected a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it could trigger an ice age.

--Carbon dioxide was assumed to play a minor role.

--Shortly after, Schneider realized he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. Also he found most aerosols had natural causes, which would not be affected by human activities (i.e., smog).

In 1974, he published a retraction of his earlier paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneide...

Climate modeling was just starting. There was no consensus on global warming back then.

-- In fact in 1975, the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report, when asked to comment on climate projections concluded

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."

--It was recognized climate was a MULTI-variant analysis - including solar radiation and deforestation; and that aerosols (such as from volcanic eruptions and smog) played a role in climate.
But there was not enough scientific studies and test to form an opinion.

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

See your gross distortion?????
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the real issue is all it takes is one proxy measurement to be off and the whole thing is wrong. Notice that they relied on ice cores which means much of the evidence has since melted since the end of the last ice age. They ignore ocean cores which of course show an entirely different story.
If they had ice cores, they hadn't melted. What are "ocean cores"???
LOL -- What an absolute airhead!!!! Are you senile or something. Something is really missing upstairs.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#68 Jan 25, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I could but so many others have already made such lists. Of course none of them a really up to date since more climate scientist are changing their minds every day and declaring that they consider AGW wrong.
Maybe we should make a list of those who still believe in AGW. After all, it must be only a couple dozen of the thousands.
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Rep...
Your citation is from Climate Depot.
I think most of your right wing crap comes from there.

Climatedepot is written and put out by Marc Moreno.

Marc Moreno is the former Inhofe staffer who was behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Kerry? The one who was a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show from 92-96? He's a paid lobbyist and a hack.

" ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

About Marc Moreno:
"Marc Morano runs the climate website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative environmental think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center. CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."[1]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

So, not only is Marc Moreno not a climate scientist - he's actually the media savvy hit man who executed the Swift Boat character assassination campaign.

Moreno's work, particularly on Senator Inhofe's web site, is marked by quote mining hundreds of quotes, most from legitimate scientists, out of context (and without proper attribution) which make it appear that they oppose AGW theory. Many of these scientists have vocally complained about being quoted in this way.

http://www.grist.org/article/the-inhofe-400-s...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/inhof...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_...

Bottom line, Marc Moreno is a professional liar who specializes in spinning the media for a living. I would say this is the perfect picture of an unreliable source. And this is the first source you post.
See Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#69 Jan 25, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia needs to update their list. I saw several that have already reverse position after the 2008 findings. And several others like the IPCC who are now not considered to be all that reliable now. The Chinese are no longer on board either.
It it just me or does it seem that this list is filled with government agencies relying on government funding. Not to mention the Nigerian and Carrabean Academy of Sciences. Sounds like part of the list could be brought cheap as well.
I don't trust what you "see", especially since you are a Climate Depot follower.

I do trust a solid sitation, say from a mainstream source.
PHD

Overton, TX

#70 Jan 26, 2013
What you don't like is getting walloped again and again. You don't trust? And all should trust what you post? You easily forget that this is the GREAT USA a FREE COUNTRY. You are entitled to your scientific science fiction opinion as all are. To make a false and bold statement like I don't trust because someone chooses to follow their beliefs of information is tragic. You want to dictate what someone chooses to believe go to that third world country where dictators are welcomed.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#71 Jan 29, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. I've rebutted this before to you, and you ignored it.
Happened to keep it. Try being honest next time.
In 1971, Rasool and Schneider wrote a scientific paper that was focused on entitled Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138-141).
--The paper never actually predicted an ice age. Instead, it projected a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it could trigger an ice age.
--Carbon dioxide was assumed to play a minor role.
--Shortly after, Schneider realized he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. Also he found most aerosols had natural causes, which would not be affected by human activities (i.e., smog).
In 1974, he published a retraction of his earlier paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneide...
Climate modeling was just starting. There was no consensus on global warming back then.
-- In fact in 1975, the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report, when asked to comment on climate projections concluded
"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."
--It was recognized climate was a MULTI-variant analysis - including solar radiation and deforestation; and that aerosols (such as from volcanic eruptions and smog) played a role in climate.
But there was not enough scientific studies and test to form an opinion.
Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.
See your gross distortion?????
<quoted text>
If they had ice cores, they hadn't melted. What are "ocean cores"???
LOL -- What an absolute airhead!!!! Are you senile or something. Something is really missing upstairs.
As I have rebutted your claims as well. Even the post I am replying to is proof that you have been repeatedly wrong.

The scenario that Rasool and Schneider had when they predicted a possible cooling is just like what existed when others predicted global warming. A rush to publish while it was the in thing.

Another quote form your own post is equally telling. In it you quoted the NAS as saying

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."

Yet the NAS understanding of climate isn't much better than it was in 1975. The fact is that we are now just starting to understand the basics of short term climate and still have problems predicting climate more than a year out. In fact that the Old Farmer's almanac has just as much success using a model that is two centuries old and the NAS has.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#72 Jan 29, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your citation is from Climate Depot.
I think most of your right wing crap comes from there.
Climatedepot is written and put out by Marc Moreno.
Marc Moreno is the former Inhofe staffer who was behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Kerry? The one who was a producer on Rush Limbaugh's show from 92-96? He's a paid lobbyist and a hack.
" ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
About Marc Moreno:
"Marc Morano runs the climate website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative environmental think tank. Until spring of 2009, Morano served as communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics.
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (CNS), which is owned by the conservative Media Research Center. CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine."[1]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
So, not only is Marc Moreno not a climate scientist - he's actually the media savvy hit man who executed the Swift Boat character assassination campaign.
Moreno's work, particularly on Senator Inhofe's web site, is marked by quote mining hundreds of quotes, most from legitimate scientists, out of context (and without proper attribution) which make it appear that they oppose AGW theory. Many of these scientists have vocally complained about being quoted in this way.
http://www.grist.org/article/the-inhofe-400-s...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/inhof...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_...
Bottom line, Marc Moreno is a professional liar who specializes in spinning the media for a living. I would say this is the perfect picture of an unreliable source. And this is the first source you post.
See Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
Paid lobbist and hack, funny but that would also describe the AAAS. Which makes Climatedepot just as scientific as the AAAS and Realclimate and less than skepticalscience. Just on different sides using the same methods.

I also notice that you have never mentioned who funds realclimate? Can anyone say Buffit, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. No bias or agenda there in your mind.

This is another post of yours that proves that this is all about politics and nothing about science. Why else would you feel the need to bring up the politics if it was about the science.
PHD

Overton, TX

#73 Jan 29, 2013
There you have it folks wallop10 gets walloped again and again.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#74 Jan 30, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Paid lobbist and hack, funny but that would also describe the AAAS. Which makes Climatedepot just as scientific as the AAAS and Realclimate and less than skepticalscience. Just on different sides using the same methods.
I also notice that you have never mentioned who funds realclimate? Can anyone say Buffit, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. No bias or agenda there in your mind.
This is another post of yours that proves that this is all about politics and nothing about science. Why else would you feel the need to bring up the politics if it was about the science.
If you believe that, you have been brainwashed. Of course, it would only take a thimble full of water to wash yours.
PHD

Overton, TX

#75 Jan 30, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that, you have been brainwashed. Of course, it would only take a thimble full of water to wash yours.
Than it would take less than a thimble of water to wash yours.Actally they haven't found a negative number at this time to measure yours.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#76 Jan 31, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Than it would take less than a thimble of water to wash yours.Actally they haven't found a negative number at this time to measure yours.
Did you just bark?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#79 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that, you have been brainwashed. Of course, it would only take a thimble full of water to wash yours.
Care to prove that you have not been "brainwashed"? Or as it called mentally reconditioned/programmed? So far your posts would argue that you have been program to believe dispite the facts.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#80 Jan 31, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to prove that you have not been "brainwashed"? Or as it called mentally reconditioned/programmed? So far your posts would argue that you have been program to believe dispite the facts.
I am not the one who rejects the scientific findings. The Earth is warming. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. CO2 is a GHG. DO you deny this?
PHD

Overton, TX

#81 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you just bark?
No, again I passed gass in your general direction. Did you enjoy it as in the past?

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#82 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not the one who rejects the scientific findings. The Earth is warming. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. CO2 is a GHG. DO you deny this?
Actually, you are the one who is rejecting science. Yes, the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age. The fact is that CO2 level only rose after the temperatures rose. This is a fact that anyone can check. They now have linked the increase to thawing permifrost.

As for the rest, the claims that CO2 is a GHG, that it is the cause of climate change is also disputed and the evidence is that it is an effect and not a cause of climate change.
PHD

Overton, TX

#84 Feb 1, 2013
Sorry the Patriot AKA Bozo wanted another dose of gas. Gee more climate change.

Since: Mar 09

San Marcos, TX

#85 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you are the one who is rejecting science. Yes, the earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age. The fact is that CO2 level only rose after the temperatures rose. This is a fact that anyone can check. They now have linked the increase to thawing permifrost.
As for the rest, the claims that CO2 is a GHG, that it is the cause of climate change is also disputed and the evidence is that it is an effect and not a cause of climate change.
Not in the present....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nothing Warm About the Arctic 20 min Earthling-1 34
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 22 min Earthling-1 3,684
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 26 min Opinion Equals Fact 34,000
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr femiguy 51,578
Most Americans see combating climate change as ... 7 hr Walnut 5
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 7 hr Quantummist 4,370
Nuclear energy causes global warming (Jul '10) 7 hr IBdaMann 114
More from around the web