Sea level rise: It's worse than we th...

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

There are 3768 comments on the New Scientist story from Jul 2, 2009, titled Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought. In it, New Scientist reports that:

FOR a few minutes David Holland forgets about his work and screams like a kid on a roller coaster.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New Scientist.

sun

Longview, WA

#2617 Feb 13, 2013
about 10 million spieces today,99.9% of all spieces that have lived on earth gone.are odds are not good no matter how you think about what man is doing to the earth,get over it i like driving my gas hog jeep ,love cuttig my trees down an making fire wood,just in case we get a direct cme hit,lites out,wouldn't have to think about globewarming then or money the globelwarming crowd wants to suck out of us.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2618 Feb 13, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>17-20 correct "predictions" out of how many? It’s like throwing stuff on the wall and counting how many stick and calling it a prediction. I would argue that scientific science fiction allows predictions not science. Thanks for the link.
If you think there are incorrect predictions (in peer reviewed scientific journals, not what some reporter SAYS a scientist said), post them. In fact, since the IPCC made its corrections for aerosols in 1995, their mid-range predictions have been very close to what we've seen in measured temperatures. OTOH, doubters like Lindzen have been WAY off.

In fact, the "incorrect" predictions have been taken out of context by lies & distortions. The LIAR Michael Crichton, who was a very good writer of fiction, wasn't so good with analysis.

In the 1980s, James Hansen offered 3 possible scenarios for future temps: low, medium & high. The LIAD Crichton threw out the low & medium temps & called the high range Hansen's "prediction."

What happened in reality was close to Hansen's mid range projections, but Crichton managed to say his "predictions" didn't come true.

Similarly, a reporter SAID Hansen said in ~1990 that the West Side Highway would be awash in 20 or 40 years (the interval was in some dispute). That didn't happen after 20 years, unless you count Sandy, during which much of southern Manhattan experienced flooding.

What this reporter left out was that Hansen also said "ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED." When CO2 levels have doubled, you'd better believe the West Side Highway, & most of the rest of NYC, will be flooded. With doubled CO2, temps will eventually be ~3-4.5º C higher, & sea level will eventually be at least 25 meters higher. Bye bye NYC.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2619 Feb 13, 2013
Errata:

Obviously I meant the "LIAR" Michael Crichton in the 3rd paragraph.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2620 Feb 13, 2013
sun wrote:
about 10 million spieces today,99.9% of all spieces that have lived on earth gone.are odds are not good no matter how you think about what man is doing to the earth,get over it i like driving my gas hog jeep ,love cuttig my trees down an making fire wood,just in case we get a direct cme hit,lites out,wouldn't have to think about globewarming then or money the globelwarming crowd wants to suck out of us.
It's very nice you're preparing for a CME.

However, nobody is advocating anything but a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax. That would remove ZERO money from the people & add ZERO to the cost of government. The only thing is does is take money from high carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.

You can think of it like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, collected either during production or sale. 100% of that tax money is then returned, presumably monthly, equally to every citizen or legal resident (& a half share for children) in the country.

It would stimulate entrepreneurs to develop ways to harness renewable energy. The true cost of burning fossil fuels would FINALLY be part of its price.

For the 1st time EVER, we'd have a truly free market for energy, unburdened from the horrendously distorting government policy of the lack of a carbon tax. No need for the government to choose a Solyndra over another renewable energy company because they'd finally be competing on a level playing field.

The idea that emitting carbon into the atmosphere is "free" is a psychotic delusion shared by far too many people & their governments. It is NOT free. We are incurring a debt, potentially of almost incalculable size (orders of magnitude larger than our national debt), that will have to be paid by our progeny.

The fossil fuels companies of course want to perpetuate this psychosis. They're pursuing their financial interests. It's just that those interests will kill horrendously large numbers of our children, & potentially cost us staggering amounts of money.
sun

Longview, WA

#2621 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
It's very nice you're preparing for a CME.
However, nobody is advocating anything but a REVENUE NEUTRAL carbon tax. That would remove ZERO money from the people & add ZERO to the cost of government. The only thing is does is take money from high carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters.
You can think of it like a stiff tax on fossil fuels, collected either during production or sale. 100% of that tax money is then returned, presumably monthly, equally to every citizen or legal resident (& a half share for children) in the country.
It would stimulate entrepreneurs to develop ways to harness renewable energy. The true cost of burning fossil fuels would FINALLY be part of its price.
For the 1st time EVER, we'd have a truly free market for energy, unburdened from the horrendously distorting government policy of the lack of a carbon tax. No need for the government to choose a Solyndra over another renewable energy company because they'd finally be competing on a level playing field.
The idea that emitting carbon into the atmosphere is "free" is a psychotic delusion shared by far too many people & their governments. It is NOT free. We are incurring a debt, potentially of almost incalculable size (orders of magnitude larger than our national debt), that will have to be paid by our progeny.
The fossil fuels companies of course want to perpetuate this psychosis. They're pursuing their financial interests. It's just that those interests will kill horrendously large numbers of our children, & potentially cost us staggering amounts of money.
just an oldman that worked his ass of for 45 years ,can;t spell an a low teck.guy in high teck world,made it to 4 grade im real sorry i just dont get what your talking about .but you sound like a smart guy hope your right.i just know where all the wood comes from for houses for people to live in and all ass wipe comes from an it take a lot trees an oil to do them things but i cant say your wrong because it sounds real good i don't think i can real read what everbody talks about on these place,i think you guys are all nice people but you talk real bad to each other,but that the way it is in high tec.world i think .hope ya figure it out lol
litesong

Everett, WA

#2622 Feb 13, 2013
sun wrote:
.....i think you guys are all nice people but you talk real bad to each other,
There are members posting here that are members of related organizations. Being Native Tribe members, my wife & I have been been racially smeared & threatened with gun death, torture, & rape. Others, also, have been threatened. A good percentage of toxic topix AGW deniers are racists, whether they belong to the kkk(always small letters), threaten or not.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2623 Feb 13, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
There are members posting here that are members of related organizations. Being Native Tribe members, my wife & I have been been racially smeared & threatened with gun death, torture, & rape. Others, also, have been threatened. A good percentage of toxic topix AGW deniers are racists, whether they belong to the kkk(always small letters), threaten or not.
Some of the foulest racism I've ever seen is right here on topix. The worst ones evidently figure they can hide behind their computers. Luckily they're a small minority & they tend to get creamed by the rest of us. I'll skip the links.

Also, some AGW/CC deniers here are in fact paid shills, supported by oil money directly or indirectly. Sometimes you can tell pretty easily, but lots of times they're subtle.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2624 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think there are incorrect predictions (in peer reviewed scientific journals, not what some reporter SAYS a scientist said), post them. In fact, since the IPCC made its corrections for aerosols in 1995, their mid-range predictions have been very close to what we've seen in measured temperatures. OTOH, doubters like Lindzen have been WAY off.
In fact, the "incorrect" predictions have been taken out of context by lies & distortions. The LIAR Michael Crichton, who was a very good writer of fiction, wasn't so good with analysis.
In the 1980s, James Hansen offered 3 possible scenarios for future temps: low, medium & high. The LIAD Crichton threw out the low & medium temps & called the high range Hansen's "prediction."
What happened in reality was close to Hansen's mid range projections, but Crichton managed to say his "predictions" didn't come true.
Similarly, a reporter SAID Hansen said in ~1990 that the West Side Highway would be awash in 20 or 40 years (the interval was in some dispute). That didn't happen after 20 years, unless you count Sandy, during which much of southern Manhattan experienced flooding.
What this reporter left out was that Hansen also said "ASSUMING CO2 LEVELS HAD DOUBLED." When CO2 levels have doubled, you'd better believe the West Side Highway, & most of the rest of NYC, will be flooded. With doubled CO2, temps will eventually be ~3-4.5º C higher, & sea level will eventually be at least 25 meters higher. Bye bye NYC.
You answered the question. They use predictions, projections, opinion,Assuming and so on. There is equal argument on both sides of the fence. Therefore, what you are saying if posted on the internet it must be true.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2625 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You answered the question. They use predictions, projections, opinion,Assuming and so on. There is equal argument on both sides of the fence. Therefore, what you are saying if posted on the internet it must be true.
A theory is true if it makes predictions that turn out to be correct. The confirmations of AGW/CC have proven that although there are imperfections, it's clearly a very good approximation of what is going on in the real world.

You appear to repeatedly imply that scientists are just monkey-with-a-dartboarding it with their predictions, making random guesses. They're not. Over time they've proven to be more & more correct.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2626 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Errata:
Obviously I meant the "LIAR" Michael Crichton in the 3rd paragraph.
He is too ignorant to be a liar. He probably believes his own propaganda. And he is arrogant enough to comment on this he is nearly totally ignorant of.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2627 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
A theory is true if it makes predictions that turn out to be correct. The confirmations of AGW/CC have proven that although there are imperfections, it's clearly a very good approximation of what is going on in the real world.
You appear to repeatedly imply that scientists are just monkey-with-a-dartboarding it with their predictions, making random guesses. They're not. Over time they've proven to be more & more correct.
Never said monkey with dart boarding. I said wall. As you have said, they are more and more correct which implies that when they make corrections to their errors they discover more errors to their corrections. If they were correct with their corrections, all issues solved.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2628 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text> Never said monkey with dart boarding. I said wall. As you have said, they are more and more correct which implies that when they make corrections to their errors they discover more errors to their corrections. If they were correct with their corrections, all issues solved.
Yes, & over time, those projections get closer & closer to the truth. That's what's been happening for the past 117 years, when AGW/CC was 1st proposed, scientists have been getting better & better at understanding the system.

That's not to say that scientists don't make mistakes; of course they do, they're human. But the process of science works over time to progressively reduce error. At the point, the outline of AGW/CC theory is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2629 Feb 14, 2013
Erratum:

In the 1st paragraph, I meant "...years, SINCE AGW/CC was 1st proposed..."
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2630 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, & over time, those projections get closer & closer to the truth. That's what's been happening for the past 117 years, when AGW/CC was 1st proposed, scientists have been getting better & better at understanding the system.
That's not to say that scientists don't make mistakes; of course they do, they're human. But the process of science works over time to progressively reduce error. At the point, the outline of AGW/CC theory is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt.
Agreed, but proven beyond a reasonable doubt does not make it a fact. Many people have gone to jail on a beyond a reasonable doubt and later found innocent.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2631 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed, but proven beyond a reasonable doubt does not make it a fact. Many people have gone to jail on a beyond a reasonable doubt and later found innocent.
Yes, that's true, lots of innocent people have gone to prison, & some have been executed.

Remember, though, most of the people who have been proven innocent have been found so by DNA science. People put them behind bars but SCIENCE freed them.

We should trust atmospheric science. Difficult as it is, it makes slow, halting progress.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2632 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that's true, lots of innocent people have gone to prison, & some have been executed.
Remember, though, most of the people who have been proven innocent have been found so by DNA science. People put them behind bars but SCIENCE freed them.
We should trust atmospheric science. Difficult as it is, it makes slow, halting progress.
Yes DNA Science 99%+- correct. Atmospheric at this time is scientific science fiction slow halting and takes another step behind.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2633 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Yes DNA Science 99%+- correct. Atmospheric at this time is scientific science fiction slow halting and takes another step behind.
Nope. Like all "hard" science, climatology DOES make progress. The outlines of AGW/CC have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The issues are quantitative, not qualitative. PLENTY is known to take action.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2634 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Like all "hard" science, climatology DOES make progress. The outlines of AGW/CC have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The issues are quantitative, not qualitative. PLENTY is known to take action.
Do agree they make progress. They do have an issue with fact.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2635 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>They do have an issue with fact.
There are very, very powerful disincentives to lying. Science (especially "hard" science) must be repeatable. If one scientist reports something, others around the world will try the same thing.

Outright deception is ALWAYS detected, & if it's a major result, it's detected right away, because others will try to duplicate the work right away, but will fail. It's OK to be wrong, then perhaps we'll all learn something, but outright deception usually ends a scientist's academic career.

That's why climatologists simply canNOT have "an issue with fact" as you allege. Any outright distortion or slant will be picked up by others & found false if it's significant. That doesn't mean there can't be disagreements or subtle differences. It just means that on the basic facts, you simply can't lie.

Scientists above all want to be right. When they say "it'll be 3º C warmer in 2100" they know they'll all be dead by then. But they want people to look back & say "by golly, Dr So-&-so was right. It's 3º C warmer" or whatever.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2636 Feb 15, 2013
So now, its ego involved. No science is fact and scientific science fiction is errors in science. If scientist were, correct than there would be no issues to deal with problem solved.

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.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Scientists Beg for Climate Action (Dec '07) Dec 1 indict EXXON 1,863
Lost in the sea Sep '16 clement 1
News The world's clouds are in different places than... Jul '16 Too Easy 14
News With La Nina around the corner, dry weather in ... Jun '16 Kev 1
News new Scientists find minivan-sized sponge, world... (May '16) May '16 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... (Apr '16) Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
News El Nino, La Nina patterns may be keys to predic... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
More from around the web