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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2637 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
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.
No, obviously scientists are human, they can be wrong. I just said that they can't deliberately lie. It'll be detected.

The facts that can be verified by observing, & experimenting with, the world canNOT be deliberately distorted. They reflect the real world.

Yours is a position a bit like moral relativism that most conservatives despise. You think scientists can just say whatever they want.

No, they can't. They can only say what's consistent with what's known about the real world.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2638 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
No, obviously scientists are human, they can be wrong. I just said that they can't deliberately lie. It'll be detected.
The facts that can be verified by observing, & experimenting with, the world canNOT be deliberately distorted. They reflect the real world.
Yours is a position a bit like moral relativism that most conservatives despise. You think scientists can just say whatever they want.
No, they can't. They can only say what's consistent with what's known about the real world.
Sorry wrong again. They use words like my opinion, could be, and should be, prediction and so on. They will never make a firm commitment to any statements. What is known about the real world is not necessary correct.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2639 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry wrong again. They use words like my opinion, could be, and should be, prediction and so on. They will never make a firm commitment to any statements. What is known about the real world is not necessary correct.
Have you ever actually read NASA's site on the evidence for AGW/CC? There ARE facts we know for certain about it; we've been learning about it for more than 150 years.

Greenhouse gases absorb & re-emit infrared radiation, some of it back toward the earth. These are FACTS, not opinions. Temperatures are rising now. Coral reefs are dying. The oceans are becoming warmer & more acidic. CO2 is rising, & we know (from isotope ratios) that it's entirely due to burning fossil fuels.

Again, these are FACTS, not opinions. Certainly, there is room for disagreement & opinion in AGW/CC theory. But there are also FACTS that simply can't be challenged:

1. The earth is warming & will warm further in the future.
2. This warming is due to human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels.
3. This warming will cause climate to change in somewhat unpredictable ways.
4. There will be potentially very severe adverse effects on human civilization.

These things are not really challengeable. They're proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2640 Feb 16, 2013
NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since
2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
AND THEY SAID THE ABOVE THREE YEARS WERE HOTTEST
The GISS temperature record is one of several global temperature analyses, along with those produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. These three primary records use slightly different methods, but overall,
their trends show close agreement.
CLOSE AGREEMENT BUT NOT AGREED.Have you read anything from NASA?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2641 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
NASA scientists say 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since
2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
AND THEY SAID THE ABOVE THREE YEARS WERE HOTTEST
The GISS temperature record is one of several global temperature analyses, along with those produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. These three primary records use slightly different methods, but overall,
their trends show close agreement.
CLOSE AGREEMENT BUT NOT AGREED.Have you read anything from NASA?
Yes, I've read lots of stuff from NASA.

The above is remarkable. I'm shocked that you actually posted some of it. Thank you.

You think because there are small disagreements here & there that that invalidates ALL of the science? That's like saying that because we haven't discovered the fossils of ONE "missing link," ALL of evolution is invalidated. It's simply not true.

2012 was the warmest in the US, but not world-wide. 2010, 2005 & 1998 were very warm world-wide. 2012-2013 has been very warm in Australia. There is a lot of "noise" in the signal from year to year, & there are longer-term oscillations like the ENSO & the ADO. There are various methods to try to "smooth out" some of these variations in the records.

None of the things you say invalidates what I said: we are warming rapidly & significantly, & it is due to human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. We are doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2642 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I've read lots of stuff from NASA.
The above is remarkable. I'm shocked that you actually posted some of it. Thank you.
You think because there are small disagreements here & there that that invalidates ALL of the science? That's like saying that because we haven't discovered the fossils of ONE "missing link," ALL of evolution is invalidated. It's simply not true.
2012 was the warmest in the US, but not world-wide. 2010, 2005 & 1998 were very warm world-wide. 2012-2013 has been very warm in Australia. There is a lot of "noise" in the signal from year to year, & there are longer-term oscillations like the ENSO & the ADO. There are various methods to
"try"
to "smooth out" some of these variations in the records.
None of the things you say invalidates what I said: we are warming rapidly & significantly, & it is due to human activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. We are doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have.
Never said it invalidates what you said. You said "try".It does show a potential for error so that would make it scientific science fiction. I like click and clack, funny scientific science fiction…

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2643 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Never said it invalidates what you said. You said "try".It does show a potential for error so that would make it scientific science fiction. I like click and clack, funny scientific science fiction…
So 99% correct is EXACTLY the same as 0% correct? Hmmm...

I like Click & Clack too, but they do more than just guess. They make educated guesses that are right a large percentage of the time.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2644 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So 99% correct is EXACTLY the same as 0% correct? Hmmm...
I like Click & Clack too, but they do more than just guess. They make educated guesses that are right a large percentage of the time.
They don't guess they have a staff looking up the answers on a prerecorded show a large percentage of the time. No, 0% correct is EXACTLY the same as 99% Hmmm....

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2645 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>They don't guess they have a staff looking up the answers on a prerecorded show a large percentage of the time. No, 0% correct is EXACTLY the same as 99% Hmmm....
So, if it's "only" 99% certain that AGW/CC will kill billions of people, raise sea level 50 or 60 meters & cost quadrillions of dollars, you STILL won't accept it? You'll demand "100% proof" before changing?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2646 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if it's "only" 99% certain that AGW/CC will kill billions of people, raise sea level 50 or 60 meters & cost quadrillions of dollars, you STILL won't accept it? You'll demand "100% proof" before changing?
Foo, foo doesn't understand statistics any better than he understands science.
Poor old foo, foo!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2647 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if it's "only" 99% certain that AGW/CC will kill billions of people, raise sea level 50 or 60 meters & cost quadrillions of dollars, you STILL won't accept it? You'll demand "100% proof" before changing?
Conversley,if your 100% incorrect you STILL won't accept it.You will also demand 1005 proff.
SpaceBlues

Cypress, TX

#2648 Feb 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo, foo doesn't understand statistics any better than he understands science.
Poor old foo, foo!
No spelling skills, either.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2649 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Conversley,if your 100% incorrect you STILL won't accept it.You will also demand 1005 proff.
Wow, Penny, you may want to use your spellchecker before posting. Also, review the difference between "your" & "you're" - not to mention knowing what the shift key does to the 5 key - eh? ya think?

Of course I'm not 100% wrong because I understand some of the undeniable scientific facts. Obviously I could be wrong, even to a large percentage, but it couldn't reach 100% because there are facts about AGW/CC that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2650 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, Penny, you may want to use your spellchecker before posting. Also, review the difference between "your" & "you're" - not to mention knowing what the shift key does to the 5 key - eh? ya think?
Of course I'm not 100% wrong because I understand some of the undeniable scientific facts. Obviously I could be wrong, even to a large percentage, but it couldn't reach 100% because there are facts about AGW/CC that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
There you have it more insults. You just can't answer any response without calling names and having a high concern for typos and grammar. You can't be that ignorant that a spelling or grammar error confuses you. As I mentioned before you’re in most of your response are 100 % correct with your scientific science fiction. You again display the rodent effect when your back is against the wall.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2651 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you have it more insults. You just can't answer any response without calling names and having a high concern for typos and grammar. You can't be that ignorant that a spelling or grammar error confuses you. As I mentioned before you’re in most of your response are 100 % correct with your scientific science fiction. You again display the rodent effect when your back is against the wall.
Calling names? Huh? What name did I call you? You did call me a rodent in your response, however.

I said you could be more careful with typos (as we all could be...). I admit it's my fetish to object to the "your-you're" confusion; it's incredibly common today, but should be VERY easy to figure out. Just substitute "you are" & if the sentence still makes sense, use "you're."

Again, science makes progress, things really do become known about the world. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's science fiction.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2652 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Calling names? Huh? What name did I call you? You did call me a rodent in your response, however.
I said you could be more careful with typos (as we all could be...). I admit it's my fetish to object to the "your-you're" confusion; it's incredibly common today, but should be VERY easy to figure out. Just substitute "you are" & if the sentence still makes sense, use "you're."
Again, science makes progress, things really do become known about the world. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it's science fiction.
Your incorrect again, I did not call you a rodent. I said your displayed the rodent effect. Again science makes progress until an error is discovered and then it becomes scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2653 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Your incorrect again, I did not call you a rodent. I said your displayed the rodent effect. Again science makes progress until an error is discovered and then it becomes scientific science fiction.
Accusing someone of displaying the rodent effect & calling someone a rodent aren't that much different, now, are they? I'd say not. You could have just said the "Bruce effect."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2654 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Accusing someone of displaying the rodent effect & calling someone a rodent aren't that much different, now, are they? I'd say not. You could have just said the "Bruce effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect
Not much different but they are different. Much like science and scientific science fiction. I'd say so!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2655 Feb 16, 2013
Don't know much about the Bruce effect but do know about the Foo, Foo effect.

Way to go Foo, Foo.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2656 Feb 16, 2013
Yes ,I do know the dumbass affect. You display it daily bozo wanna be a clown.

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 4 Patriot 1,864
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) 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