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

Fairfax, VA

#2657 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Not much different but they are different. Much like science and scientific science fiction. I'd say so!!
There she goes again.

Except PennyHD has admitted several things today.

#1 She has NO college degrees
PROOF:
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it’s true I don't have a degree like you do. I will make an effort to learn BS so I could be just like you. Then I could post cut and paste useless scientific science fiction babble. Can you tell me what school you attended so I can be just like you?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin ...
#2 She also said the 100x she’s put out posts on scientific science fiction. That doesn’t mean she disagrees with it.

PROOF:
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said anybody’s statement was wrong ,,,. I do say its scientific science fiction.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

CONCLUSION: So that explains why PennHD has a tizzy when anyone posts science links.

She probably doesn't understand it...
and to her... it really is the same as "scientific science fiction

I am NOT joking!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2658 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
There she goes again.
Except PennyHD has admitted several things today.
#1 She has NO college degrees
PROOF:
<quoted text>
#2 She also said the 100x she’s put out posts on scientific science fiction. That doesn’t mean she disagrees with it.
PROOF:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
CONCLUSION: So that explains why PennHD has a tizzy when anyone posts science links.
She probably doesn't understand it...
and to her... it really is the same as "scientific science fiction
I am NOT joking!
Again, no I don’t have a degree in BULL S. only you qualify for that type of degree. So do to your limited mental capacity let me repeat. No I don't have that degree in Bull S. only you could qualify fort that type of degree. You do show all that you are the best and was top of your class. I bet they gave you that Bull S. Medal of Honor.
sun

Longview, WA

#2659 Feb 18, 2013
you guys an your name calling,the only rodent i can think of is rabbit down the hole thing,hope ya can get out
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2660 Feb 18, 2013
No its rodent effect.
KeXueKuangRen123

Columbia, MO

#2661 Feb 20, 2013
I've been reading all the comments, and thank all of you taking your time to actually think about this topic. There were some long and thoughtful comments, although for the most part it was just people fighting…

There’re definitely two ways to approach this topic:
1) The majority of people believe that sea level rising equals polar ice melting, and that polar ice melting equals global warming.
2) The people arguing against this might say there are not really enough scientific facts out there to prove that these three things are equivalent to each other.

One note is that the ice in the water does not affect sea level rising; only the ice on the land does. If you ever feel like you have nothing to do, try the following experiment: take a cup and fill it with water. Add a piece of ice into it. After the ice melts, you’ll notice the water level didn’t change, in other words, your cup didn’t overflow. It’s the same thing with the earth: the ice that’s already in the ocean that’s melting doesn’t affect anything, it’s the ice on land that might side down into the water that scientists are concerned about.

Although the topic is “Sea level rising: it’s worse than we thought”, I think it goes down to the question: Does a rise in sea level really equal global warming? I really can’t think of any other reasons it might rise, but who knows? Scientists are always arguing~

And I wanted to add in my opinion on some of the previous posts on which countries should be in charge of global warming moderating. If you didn’t know already, countries around the world already got together to discuss. We know that developed countries are producing way less carbon dioxide than developing countries. The argument for developing countries is that developed countries have already been through the development process, thus the amount of total carbon dioxide that has been produced is way more than the amount produced by developing countries.

My thought on this is we really aren't the government or something, in other words, we really can’t control anybody but ourselves, so why not start out with ourselves?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2663 Feb 21, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
I've been reading all the comments, and thank all of you taking your time to actually think about this topic. There were some long and thoughtful comments, although for the most part it was just people fighting…
There’re definitely two ways to approach this topic:
1) The majority of people believe that sea level rising equals polar ice melting, and that polar ice melting equals global warming.
2) The people arguing against this might say there are not really enough scientific facts out there to prove that these three things are equivalent to each other.
One note is that the ice in the water does not affect sea level rising; only the ice on the land does. If you ever feel like you have nothing to do, try the following experiment: take a cup and fill it with water. Add a piece of ice into it. After the ice melts, you’ll notice the water level didn’t change, in other words, your cup didn’t overflow. It’s the same thing with the earth: the ice that’s already in the ocean that’s melting doesn’t affect anything, it’s the ice on land that might side down into the water that scientists are concerned about.
Although the topic is “Sea level rising: it’s worse than we thought”, I think it goes down to the question: Does a rise in sea level really equal global warming? I really can’t think of any other reasons it might rise, but who knows? Scientists are always arguing~
And I wanted to add in my opinion on some of the previous posts on which countries should be in charge of global warming moderating. If you didn’t know already, countries around the world already got together to discuss. We know that developed countries are producing way less carbon dioxide than developing countries. The argument for developing countries is that developed countries have already been through the development process, thus the amount of total carbon dioxide that has been produced is way more than the amount produced by developing countries.
My thought on this is we really aren't the government or something, in other words, we really can’t control anybody but ourselves, so why not start out with ourselves?
A couple of thoughts, thermal expansion is also a factor in sea level rise. Also when ice reaches the bottom of the sea and builds on the sea bed ice can stack up higher than that which would float. Then ice that melts would contribute to sea level rise because it is not buoyed by the sea.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2664 Feb 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of thoughts, thermal expansion is also a factor in sea level rise. Also when ice reaches the bottom of the sea and builds on the sea bed ice can stack up higher than that which would float. Then ice that melts would contribute to sea level rise because it is not buoyed by the sea.
We don't have enough pressure, even at the bottom of our oceans, to get high-pressure, "hot" ice, so all our (natural) water ice floats. It's been hypothesized on extrasolar planets if they have very deep oceans, which would develop enough pressure to have "hot" ice at their bottoms.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2665 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
I've been reading all the comments, and thank all of you taking your time to actually think about this topic. There were some long and thoughtful comments, although for the most part it was just people fighting…
Trolls and Spammers do tend to do a lot of the posting. That is the problem with free speech. The people with the least to say say the most.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
There’re definitely two ways to approach this topic:
1) The majority of people believe that sea level rising equals polar ice melting, and that polar ice melting equals global warming.
Untrue. The real factor is that arctic ice melting is a sign of the level of warming in the arctic. And this has a connection to the melting rate over Greenland which is most vulnerable to ice sheet retreat. And there is the problem with tipping points. As the arctic become ice free or reduced ice more and more of the season, solar capture increases (adding to temperature rises) and the danger of major methane release from the permafrost is enhanced. You missed these points in reducing the conversation to a 'talking point' summary.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
2) The people arguing against this might say there are not really enough scientific facts out there to prove that these three things are equivalent to each other.
But the conversation is not about AGW causing arctic ice melt but that the reduced ice cover is clue to climate change (warming of 4C or so in the norther polar region) CAUSED by AGW.
The discussion ALSO mentions Antarctic ice cover which is slightly increased (due to stronger and colder winds reaching out from Antarctic continental landmass) so the discussion is NOT as 'simplistic' as you present.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2666 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
One note is that the ice in the water does not affect sea level rising; only the ice on the land does.
Wrong again. A large portion of our current sea level trend is due to thermal expansion of the oceans. As well, even melting sea ice has SOME effect on sea level (a minor one caused by fresh water vs saline)
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
If you ever feel like you have nothing to do, try the following experiment: take a cup and fill it with water. Add a piece of ice into it. After the ice melts, you’ll notice the water level didn’t change, in other words, your cup didn’t overflow. It’s the same thing with the earth: the ice that’s already in the ocean that’s melting doesn’t affect anything, it’s the ice on land that might side down into the water that scientists are concerned about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And experiments are only as valid as they are relevant. Since you are not melting the ice into brine, the experiment is invalid to your argument.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
Although the topic is “Sea level rising: it’s worse than we thought”, I think it goes down to the question: Does a rise in sea level really equal global warming? I really can’t think of any other reasons it might rise, but who knows? Scientists are always arguing~
No. Nobody has said that the two are equal. In fact,the rate of sea level rise may be much greater than the change in global temperatures. It may not affect the arctic, etc etc. And yes, scientists have open minds and discuss many points. You may feel it is a sign of conflict or weak confidence but the scientists will tell you it is just the open discussion about minor points and future events while the AGW theory is well constructed and backed by 97%+ of the climate scientists that actually know what the climate is about.
Oh, and you get a small number of 'cranks' and 'tobacco scientists' that you are apparently listening to with equal weight. Try learning a few things about the subject yourself and you will find it easy to week out these.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2667 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
And I wanted to add in my opinion on some of the previous posts on which countries should be in charge of global warming moderating. If you didn’t know already, countries around the world already got together to discuss. We know that developed countries are producing way less carbon dioxide than developing countries.
Your knowledge is crap. Only in the last few years has ANY country exceeded US totals and that was because China has FOUR TIMES the population. On a per capital basis, the emissions from the developed world are almost an order of magnitude larger than the developing world. And fair allocation of the 'common sewer' MUST be based on equal opportunity and equal restraint. Not on smaller countries trying to equal the output of larger ones.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
The argument for developing countries is that developed countries have already been through the development process, thus the amount of total carbon dioxide that has been produced is way more than the amount produced by developing countries.
An internationally mandated carbon tax that is set per country relative to their total output to date would be the best way to allow smaller countries to catch up. The funds collected can be rebated to the consumer to prevent damage to the economy. The higher PRICE of energy at the moment of use will do much to reduce energy consumption independent of overall growth.
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
My thought on this is we really aren't the government or something, in other words, we really can’t control anybody but ourselves, so why not start out with ourselves?
Certainly individual efforts are needed but there is also a need for common ground and common effort. I cannot, by myself, choose a car with high gas mileage if car companies don't make them. So CAFE standards are needed to push car companies towards lower fuel usage. Etc. The individual is not king.
KeXueKuangRen123

Columbia, MO

#2673 Feb 23, 2013
Thank-you, people who replied to me. I agree that I don't know a lot about this topic, but I definitely care about this topic. I just wanted to point out true you cannot buy a car with high gas mileage if they didn't make it, but you certainly could pick the car with the higher gas mileage out of all the cars already made. This is what I meant by starting out individually.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2674 Feb 23, 2013
KeXueKuangRen123 wrote:
Thank-you, people who replied to me. I agree that I don't know a lot about this topic, but I definitely care about this topic. I just wanted to point out true you cannot buy a car with high gas mileage if they didn't make it, but you certainly could pick the car with the higher gas mileage out of all the cars already made. This is what I meant by starting out individually.
They have to exist at SOME level before you can buy them. i.e try buying a car with safety glass in 1960. Or a car with 30+mpg in 1960. It has taken COLLECTIVE (i.e government) action to create the conditions where the companies even CAN build such cars without putting themselves at disadvantage. As long as EVERYONE is required to produce such changes, it is not a major risk to the individual companies.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2675 Feb 23, 2013
"KeXueKuangRen123"

Note. I am not trying to be negative about your post. I am 'rebutting' it in classic debating form. I hope you can take a few points from it.

Cheers.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2676 Feb 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
They have to exist at SOME level before you can buy them. i.e try buying a car with safety glass in 1960. Or a car with 30+mpg in 1960. It has taken COLLECTIVE (i.e government) action to create the conditions where the companies even CAN build such cars without putting themselves at disadvantage. As long as EVERYONE is required to produce such changes, it is not a major risk to the individual companies.
OMG, LessHype, you're actually suggesting that government can be USEFUL, & benefit ALL of us! Oh, the horror, the HORROR!

The radical righties on this thread will all be apoplectic. After all, ANY law or government regulation is EXACTLY the same as a fascist-communist-socialist government takeover (which are all the same, of course...). I mean, obviously.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2678 Feb 24, 2013
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward.“There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
SpaceBlues

United States

#2679 Feb 24, 2013
Our future is melting before our very eyes.

Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns

.. if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2680 Feb 24, 2013
PHD wrote:
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”

Yes. Let them show evidence if they can find some. Even astronauts with no background in climate should be listened to if they can provide facts. But the anti-science rejection of what is clearly solid theory on the basis that it is 'unproven' just shows that the letter is NOT about the science. Science is established by the evidence, not theoretical 'proofs'.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2681 Feb 24, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”
Yes. Let them show evidence if they can find some. Even astronauts with no background in climate should be listened to if they can provide facts. But the anti-science rejection of what is clearly solid theory on the basis that it is 'unproven' just shows that the letter is NOT about the science. Science is established by the evidence, not theoretical 'proofs'.
They are confused between science and scientific science fiction. They use terms like opinion,forecast,unproven and prediction.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2682 Feb 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Our future is melting before our very eyes.
Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns
.. if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.
Actually, many scientist disagree that humans are the cause of global warming. Thousands of scientist disagree including some of the leading climate researchers. It is reflected in scientific journals.

Of course what you are referring to is not science but politics. People like you define scientific journals and researchers as those who support your point of view and those who disagree as funded by fossil fuel think tanks. Of course you ignore who funds those who you agree with and how many of those have been caught in lies over the subjects or claim that is an attempt to silence the truth.

The truth is that yes the earth has been warming. It has been warming since the end of the last ice age. Evidence also proves that the earth has been far warmer in it's past, the CO2 levels have been far higher. During those times man did not exist or even mammals for that matter.

What you suffer from is mental issues. Issues that you feel like you have control of the world around you like you can control the temperature in your room. It upsets you that you cannot.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#2683 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, many scientist disagree that humans are the cause of global warming. Thousands of scientist disagree including some of the leading climate researchers. It is reflected in scientific journals.
It sure is.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/...

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
Lost in the sea Sep 9 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 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
News El Nino, La Nina patterns may be keys to predic... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Sewage in the CRD: Scientists question need for... (Mar '16) Mar '16 crazy 1
More from around the web