Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Jul 2, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: New Scientist

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

Comments
2,521 - 2,540 of 3,119 Comments Last updated Jun 23, 2014
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2632
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2634
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 3║ 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 3║ C warmer" or whatever.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2636
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2638
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2641
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2642
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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 fictionů

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 fictionů
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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2645
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2647
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2648
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2649
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••