Quote :

"There are very real feedback effects out there, and obviously it won't be the absolute bottom of the range"

There's that word again.

Quote :

"If I had to put my money on something, it would be 2 to 3 degrees. Which is plenty."

Plenty for what? To render the planet unenhabitable? What do you think we are talking about here?

6/29/2008 5:24:01 PM

It's probably plenty to justify saving trillions of dollars by making as little impact as possible.

6/29/2008 5:29:56 PM

Saving trillions? Or spending trillions? The economics of climate change is quite complex, but the costs of proposed "solutions" all far outweigh the losses we might avoid in the short term.

Long term is a different story, but by then we'll be living on asteroids and shit.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 5:38 PM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2008 5:35:07 PM

How damage did Katrina cause? A hundred billion dollars at least, right? I'm not saying that Katrina wouldn't have happened anyway, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that coastal devastation, property loss, and insurance costs could easily run into the tens of trillions of dollars in the next 30 years or so if global warming prophecy comes to fruition.

Think of all the coastal cities that would be susceptible to flooding/storms. New York, San Francisco, Miami, San Diego, Los Angeles, the Outer Banks, Washington DC, Boston, Tampa... That's just in the US and not even counting regular coastal properties in non-major cities which is still some of the most valuable real estate in the country. Around the world, countries like Bangladesh, Japan, China, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Portugal, Spain... All these countries could experience massive flooding/storm destruction/loss of land. Have you actually stopped to think about how much economic loss would really take place if global warming predictions turn out to be true?

That's not even talking about the humanitarian crises that would also result from millions of people being displaced from their homes. I just think it's stupid to bet on it not happening when there is a lot of evidence that suggests it is happening.

6/29/2008 5:56:43 PM

Whoa, take a deep breath.

New Orleans is at the mouth of a river delta, and large parts of it are below sea level. It is in the path of typical atlantic hurricanes, and it was protected by inferior, aging, under-engineered levees.

Now tell me which of the other cities you named have those characteristics. Flooding, storm damage and loss of land? In Los Angeles and San Diego? What are you talking about?

It's easy to blame natural disasters on global warming, but it's also somewhat of a red herring at times. There have always been natural disasters. Regardless of what Al Gore thinks, scientists have not conclusively linked warmer ocean temperatures to increased hurricane activity. And sea levels are not rising at an alarming pace. They might go up about 1 foot over the next century (IPCC estimates), which is in line with their historical rise. That is not something we need to worry about in light of all the real problems in the world.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2008 6:10:59 PM

Basically any coastal city would be susceptible to flooding if the ice caps suddenly started to melt. Any city built around a bay would be in danger of losing a lot of land or being damaged pretty bad economically if shit gets out of hand.

6/29/2008 6:15:15 PM

What is this nonsense? The Arctic is all sea ice. Whether it is frozen or not really doesn't have any impact on sea levels. The Antarctic, which is actually a land mass, has been increasing it's ice cover over the last few decades.

Sea levels have been rising at a consistent, but slow pace for the last several thousand years.

6/29/2008 6:20:19 PM

Quote :

"Ten percent of the world's population lives in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level"

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0517-columbia.html

Now, I don't think that significant sea level rise is imminent, and I don't think it will be very drastic. But, with what we know, it would be an extremely credible claim to say that by 2060, sea levels may rise by 10 meters.

It may be hard for you to wrap your brain around this, but imagine moving. And you can't sell your house. Oh, and there's a rush on homes in the area that you're moving too at the time. Think about how much that would cost, and multiply it by a billion. And then think about how ports, and most critical infrastructure was disproportionately sited in the area getting flooded.

Like I said, I don't strongly think this is going to happen, but now in 2008, many people propose this with a disturbing level of nonchalantness. If we think it is highly likely that this 'modest' scenario will occur with no action, spending equal to the entire world GDP a few times over would be completely justified.

In terms of petroleum at least, I don't think we actually can physically burn enough fuel to keep the 'business-as-usual' scenario of emissions. As crazy as this might make you think I am, I also largely believe the peakists. I also think we should start seriously looking into geo-engineering solutions right now, because the politicians are going to implement something when NYC starts flooding, weather it's a good idea or not.

But I digress now.

6/29/2008 6:21:24 PM

We might not have enough oil, but we definitely have enough coal to keep emissions up. Especially if we can turn it into fuel for cars or something.

6/29/2008 6:25:29 PM

Quote :

"But, with what we know, it would be an extremely credible claim to say that by 2060, sea levels may rise by 10 meters."

Nonsense. Where the fuck do you people get this shit?

I get my information from the International Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report (2007):

Quote :

"it is estimated that sea level rise will be: in a low scenario: 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches) in a high scenario: 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches) "

How do you go from 59 cm rise over 100 years (highest estimate from IPCC) to 1000 cm rise in about 50 years? Explain that one to me.



[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2008 6:28:10 PM

Even a 7-23 inch rise would create a lot more problems than you might think.

6/29/2008 6:30:02 PM

So was that low scenario for 2050 or for RIGHT NOW?



And no, this is not the "consistent, but slow pace for the last several thousand years" you were referring to. That's a few order of magnitudes slower.

6/29/2008 6:30:21 PM

So according to that graph, sea levels have risen approximately 20 cm in a little over 100 years.

You are gonna tell me with a straight face that they are suddenly going to rise 1000 cm over the next 52 years? Really?

Quote :

"So was that low scenario for 2050 or for RIGHT NOW?"

The scenarios from the IPCC are all estimates for the next 100 years or so.

Quote :

"And no, this is not the "consistent, but slow pace for the last several thousand years" you were referring to. That's a few order of magnitudes slower."

This is absolutely false. 15,000 years ago, sea levels were 100 meters lower than they are now. They have risen an average of .67 cm per year, compared to the most recent average (from your graph) of about .2 cm per year over the last century.

To summarize, .2 is not a few orders of magnitude greater than .67. In fact it's less

Around 8,000 years ago, the pace of the sea level rise slowed, but it has still been consistent and in line with the rise we've recorded this century.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2008 6:32:52 PM

I said 10 m because that's what the quote was for. I've heard fairly varied positions on the sea level rise. Wikipedia was giving 110 to 770 mm, for the third report, but I'm trying to track that down, as I think it's likely wrong, and it was probably closer to your numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#cite_note-409.htm-20

All the IPCC things were 1990 to 2100 numbers I think.

Still, it's HARD to find stuff in those reports! I just want the score, I don't want to watch the game!

--
How on Earth could the 4th report have given 18 to 54 cm? I'm just baffled by that. If the rise in the last century was ~20 cm, then it seems obvious that the next century, which we have a near consensus will be much hotter, should be much greater, like a few times more.

I don't know, I'm still trying to hunt down the 3rd report numbers, but from the talks I've heard, they didn't stop at any measly 54 cm for worst case.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2008 6:47:36 PM

Quote :

"I've heard fairly varied positions on the sea level rise."

You and me both. I've done a lot of research on the topic over the last few years, ever since I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" with it's animations of NYC under water.

In each assessment, the IPCC has lowered it's projections for sea level rise.

Read this (it's slightly biased but informative) and you'll be an expert on the topic:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=427

Quote :

"The main conclusion of this analysis is that sea level uncertainty is not smaller now than it was at the time of the TAR, and that quoting the 18-59 cm range of sea level rise, as many media articles have done, is not telling the full story. 59 cm is unfortunately not the “worst case”. It does not include the full ice sheet uncertainty, which could add 20 cm or even more. It does not cover the full “likely” temperature range given in the AR4 (up to 6.4 ºC) – correcting for that could again roughly add 15 cm. It does not account for the fact that past sea level rise is underestimated by the models for reasons that are unclear. Considering these issues, a sea level rise exceeding one metre can in my view by no means ruled out. In a completely different analysis, based only on a simple correlation of observed sea level rise and temperature, I came to a similar conclusion. As stated in that paper, my point here is not that I predict that sea level rise will be higher than IPCC suggests, or that the IPCC estimates for sea level are wrong in any way. My point is that in terms of a risk assessment, the uncertainty range that one needs to consider is in my view substantially larger than 18-59 cm."

So according to this guy's analysis, a rise of up to 1 meter is possible by 2100. I'll buy that.

10 meters is absurd, however.

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2008 6:53:36 PM

I would just like to say I appreciate Prawn Star's open-mindedness and reasonable arguments in his criticism of global warming. It's nice to be able to actually debate this rather than have some people just spouting off their own stupid opinions.

6/29/2008 6:58:50 PM

Thanks, appreciate it.

I've argued with both sides in this thread. I tend to think that the theory and data is there, and there is no doubt that we are causing what could be potentially catastropic warming. I usually object to fearmongering techniques such as those employed by Gore, however, and I think it's unfortunate that his absurd projections of global sea rise have caught on. If I recall correctly, he talked about 80 feet of sea level rise, which won't happen for a few thousand years.

6/29/2008 7:05:19 PM

yeah, okay, 10 m is absurd. But

310 mm claimed, large pdf:
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf

but that was by 'acceleration' and experimental data, not something I'd believe.

Here's something that I think is directly a summary of the 3rd report:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

It sure is 110 to 770 mm increase for 2100. I don't believe this either, but it was sort of the 'official' consensus for a time (I think). That would be a little uncomfortable mind changing if this really was the 3rd report stuff. In fact, 770 mm in general, looks pretty uncomfortable.

if 10 m is absurd, then the 3rd report may well have had some pretty absurd data itself. 80 m is not absurd, it's ridiculous. But there are some really big problems for humanity even if it doesn't change that fast. If temperature stays consistently high, ocean rise is only a matter of rate before Greenland melts. Plus, Greenland is in that area is super high temperature increase due to the N. Pole extreme feedback.

6/29/2008 7:11:15 PM

Now I'm confused. We're talking about millimeters, not decimeters, right?

110 mm - 770 mm = .11 to .77 meters, which is pretty close to the 4th assessment projection of .18-.59 meters.

Where are you referencing 80 meters?

[Edited on June 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM. Reason : 2]

6/29/2008 7:16:23 PM

ooooh, I did mess up the use of cm. It should be 11 to 77 cm.

6/29/2008 7:32:55 PM

Quote :

"I also think we should start seriously looking into geo-engineering solutions right now, because the politicians are going to implement something when NYC starts flooding, weather it's a good idea or not."

I hope you don't seriously think that will happen, especially b/c of "manmade climate problems". what a joke.

6/30/2008 12:42:27 AM

Quote :

"Still, it's HARD to find stuff in those reports! I just want the score, I don't want to watch the game!"

HA!!! And you accuse ME of not thinking for myself!

BTW, the graph that I so vociferously attacked that you claimed showed I don't think for myself... I've seen that graph before. And I know all about that graphs flaws. I don't need to sit back and analyze bullshit before I call it bullshit when I see the fucking bull hunched over top of it.

6/30/2008 5:21:06 PM

You still never gave any reason the graph was irrelevant to my claim. Which it still isn't.

And you still can't even present so much as a representitive guess as to the short list of parameters that affect the validity of global warming. Let's say you had said "I think century-wise averaged world temperatures normally vary a few degrees Celsius, meaning AGW probably won't significantly disrupt life on Earth", then that would have actually refuted something.

No, you have no answers, and your only commentary on the subject is parroting criticism that was randomly shotgunned wherever convenient for the sole purpose of discrediting regardless of reality, which is far more destructive than even ignorance.

6/30/2008 9:11:46 PM

^ agreed.

There is skepticism, and then there is blatant ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. aaronburro is clearly in the latter category. Don't be That Guy.

But hell, who am I talking about here? The same guy that threw a flag at our football team during the Walk of Champions. He takes pride in being a douche.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 9:27 PM. Reason : 2]

6/30/2008 9:25:44 PM

I thought I remembered having good discussions with aaronburro before. Honestly, I was kind of surprised here.

But anyway, content takes president.

I'll admit, I don't know this stuff as well as a lot of people. But on this issue, knowledge is about as equally distributed as equally as wealth. Those who really think that nothing serious could or probably happen from this (I don't even think anyone posting here would take that stance) are despotically knowledge poor. And then not helping the issue, politicians will bold face lie on both sides of the issue when it fits their agenda.

Bioengineering, we need you fast to save the world from resource depletion and climate destruction. No joke.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2008 12:48:48 AM

Quote :

"content takes president"

7/1/2008 10:02:52 AM

Pointing out spelling errors is the new Hitler comparison.

7/1/2008 10:54:49 AM

clearly we can take his word on the ins and outs of climate change when he doesnt know the difference in president and precedent...i think he's a teacher as well? speaks volumes

btw we've all been waiting 51 pages now for you to make one post thats relevant to climate change instead of just trolling this thread like a fucking faggot who likes to politicize science since he understands politics but not science...maybe finally take the hint and GTFO of this thread?

7/1/2008 10:57:54 AM

Unreal, I go away from the site for nearly 7 months, and in this thread of 51 pages (extending back almost 2 years now), you're still bagging on Boone for being a teacher.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM. Reason : thats all Im gonna say]

7/1/2008 11:06:00 AM

Shhhhh...

It makes him feel good about himself.

7/1/2008 11:07:47 AM

at least i bag on him for his actual profession instead of inventing a fake profession to make me feel good about myself...

oh yeah, and on top of that, at least i actually understand science and don't treat it like a political issue...funny how that works

7/1/2008 11:12:55 AM

Quote :

"You still never gave any reason the graph was irrelevant to my claim. Which it still isn't."

I never claimed it wasn't relevant. I said that the information depicted in your graph has already been discredited. Discredited information is useless, no matter how "relevant" it might be.

Look, if you really want to learn something about the global warming "debate," then read up on it.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf

Please, go learn how the "studies" which spearheaded the current AGW effort and which Gore based practically his entire movie on, were complete shams. And then learn how much of the supposed "independent review" of those studies was done by people who were actually a part of the original studies.

I'm not one to normally be condescending, but when you run around saying that you can "use your calculator" to predict what the effect of CO2 concentrations will be, I can't help but laugh, because you are basing all of that on studies that were proven to be fraudulent.

But, you want me to give you a short list of factors in our climate? I'll give you a few: GHG's (yes, I'll throw them in there), THE FUCKING SUN, cloud cover, solar activity and cycles. Hell, the earth's magnetic field ought to be considered as well, especially since some scientists are claiming that we might be in the middle of a field reversal (although I think this is more alarmism to generate ratings for tv shows, but still). The point is, there is a hell of a lot more to consider than CO2, especially when there are other, more obvious factors that are being ignored, namely the sun's effect on the earth. That there is such a clear correlation between temperatures and sun spot cycles ought to give even the most novice of scientist pause to consider "maybe there's more to it than just CO2." But no, we continue on, hell bent to fuck around and ignore the questions that science should be asking, making political policy on discredited frauds of "scientific work."

7/1/2008 11:32:28 PM

Quote :

"discredited frauds of "scientific work.""

This is a neat find:

Quote :

"Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05's arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise. From this, Wegman concluded that more statisticians should be consulted in paleo-climate work. Actually, on this point most people would agree - both fields benefit from examining the different kinds of problems that arise in climate data than in standard statistical problems and coming up with novel solutions, and like most good ideas it has already been thought of. For instance, NCAR has run a program on statistical climatology for years and the head of that program (Doug Nychka) was directly consulted for the Wahl and Ammann (2006) paper for instance. But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction - that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let's face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone's attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right - it would make no practical difference at all. This is what MBH would have looked like using centered PC analysis: Red is the original MBH emulation and green is the calculation using centered PC analysis (and additionally removing one of the less well replicated tree ring series). (Calculations are from Wahl and Amman (2006), after their fig. 5d). Pretty much the same variability and the same 'hockey stick'. We'd be very surprised if anyone thought that this would have made any difference to either the conclusions or the subsequent use of the MBH results."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/


So even though the researchers' conclusions weren't necessarily wrong, the fact that their statistical methodology was slightly off is enough for you to label their work (and all subsequent scientific work on the subject) a "fraud?"


[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 12:01:12 AM

I love it. Their methodology was completely wrong, but we can still trust their conclusions. Really?

REALLY!!!?

It's fucking obvious that you are a history teacher.

Generally, at least in science that is worth a damn, when you find out that your methodology is wrong, you automatically throw out your conclusions. That's why in high school chemistry class, when the teacher found out you added the wrong chemicals together, she ignored the rest of your lab and told you to do it again. Either that, or she gave you an F.

7/2/2008 12:18:10 AM

Quote :

"Their methodology was completely wrong"

Wait, what?

I don't see that anywhere. A congressman commissioned some statisticians to nit-pick the study, and they found things to nit-pick.

WHAT FRAUDS

Quote :

"but we can still trust their conclusions. Really?"

If you had actually read what I posted, you'd see why I can. Using the statistical methodology recommended by the congressional study didn't yield significantly different results.

But sure, whatever-- throw out the study if you want. What difference does it make? There's been plenty of equally scrutinized research in the past 9 years.


[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 12:32:17 AM

Quote :

"I never claimed it wasn't relevant. I said that the information depicted in your graph has already been discredited. Discredited information is useless, no matter how "relevant" it might be."

The problem with everything you say is that it's lacking a "Therefore..."

...

...

So tell me; what do you think the reconstructed temperature of the Earth should look like? No matter what you think of Al Gore, he does not have a monopoly on science. Otherwise this is all a mute point. The temperature of the Earth has stayed within a set range or it hasn't.

Quote :

"I'm not one to normally be condescending, but when you run around saying that you can "use your calculator" to predict what the effect of CO2 concentrations will be, I can't help but laugh, because you are basing all of that on studies that were proven to be fraudulent."

That statement is completely and thoroughly wrong. Instead of invoking the Al Gore card, why don't you say what's wrong with some simple calculations?

Quote :

"I can show you that 1.46 W/m2 forcing --> 0.28 deg C first level temperature increase. That graph, btw, is using about a 100 ppm increase in CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases predictions going up to 2100 give increases to around 740 ppm assuming no action is taken. That's using historical carbon emission trends. With the rate at which China, India, and the like are developing, I don't think they overestimated, and we're not hitting peak coal either. For 740 ppm, if you use the IPCC most simple first order approximation, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm You get 5.2 W/m2 --> 1.0 deg C."

What are these scientists doing trying to describe in detail the methodology they use!? RAWR RAWR it makes it so hard to advance my agenda. Who do they think they are, scientists or something?

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 9:04 AM. Reason : ]

7/2/2008 9:01:30 AM

http://www.charlotte.com/news/story/695929.html

7/2/2008 10:09:51 AM

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTimeMachine/climateTimeMachine.cfm

Pfft! NASA.

What do they know about real science?

7/2/2008 10:11:24 AM

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/368892_weather30.html

7/2/2008 10:15:39 AM

^my article is from today, yours is from 3 days ago...clearly global warming has stopped in the last 3 days as is evidence by my article

7/2/2008 10:21:43 AM

I lol'd

7/2/2008 10:35:21 AM

Quote :

"Using the statistical methodology recommended by the congressional study didn't yield significantly different results."

Except that, if you bothered to read any more, you'd see that the statisticians raised serious questions over whether the reconstructive methodologies being used by any of the "researches" were valid. I accept that it's a long read, but do yourself a favour: read it. Further more, it's hard to call their methodology "slightly off" when there were numerous questionable parts of it, including altering some data points when they didn't fell below the trend line, get this, by REVERSING THEM OVER THE TREND LINE. Hmmm, wonder if that would cause a general increase... Hmmm... FURTHERMORE, I find any methodology which yields the same result 99% of the time, regardless of the actual data entered, to be seriously flawed.

Quote :

"So tell me; what do you think the reconstructed temperature of the Earth should look like?"

I have no clue, but you also won't see me running around creating models whose sole purpose is to affirm my pre-formed conclusions. I would expect the temperatures, though, to be cyclical, though what the periods might be, I have no clue.

Quote :

"That statement is completely and thoroughly wrong. Instead of invoking the Al Gore card, why don't you say what's wrong with some simple calculations? "

If you have no valid basis for the calculations, then what good are the calculations?

Quote :

"What do they know about real science?"

Clearly not, given that some of their top scientists have openly refused to divulge the details of their work, despite the fact that they are obligated by law to do so. Really, seems to me that a "scientist" should be more than willing to allow scrutiny of his work.

7/2/2008 6:22:38 PM

Quote :

"I have no clue, but you also won't see me running around creating models whose sole purpose is to affirm my pre-formed conclusions. I would expect the temperatures, though, to be cyclical, though what the periods might be, I have no clue."

I would myself say that it has a large number of frequencies, nearly close to random noise, but still a distinct shape in terms of 5-year or greater averages.

But I'll treat the behavior as a sin graph here. Imagine a sin graph, imagine that same graph with the Heaviside function. And we don't know where we are in the Earth's cycle, sure, so:

[natural avg temp] + [magnitude of natural shift] * sin(f/2*Pi*t) + [AWG magnitude] * H(f/2*Pi*(t-a0) )

Would be a rough image of the temperature of the Earth through time as mankind induces GW. Of course, we know neither the frequency, f, or the starting point, a0.

Problem is: those two DO NOT MATTER. The Earth goes through much more drastic shifts than natural long term swings or the global warming contribution on a day-night basis. Why would it matter for a global warming discussion weather natural long term temperature shifts are quick or fast, except for interpreting the historic data? If you wanted to prove that we have already seen a detectable onset of global warming, then it would matter. Some may argue this, I would not.

The natural average temperature of the Earth is not exact, but known. Other than that, the following two terms matter:

[magnitude of natural shift]
[AWG magnitude]

The latter term will be over 1 degree C. That is a fact unless we change our use of fossil fuels or we introduce other things to decrease the temperature of the Earth. Of course, a very good indicator of the magnitude of damage to the environment is weather:

[magnitude of natural shift] << [AWG magnitude]
[magnitude of natural shift] >> [AWG magnitude]

Or somewhere in between. What is your opinion on the matter? And can you please not phrase your answer in the form of a criticism of science and/or the IPCC? Thx.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 9:37 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2008 9:34:18 PM

apparently sea level rise is a little more complicated

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14264-greenland-meltwater-will-take-slow-wave-around-globe.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn14264

7/8/2008 10:56:07 AM

Quote :

"In the past five years, research has suggested that sea levels could rise by more than a metre in the coming century, as rising temperatures cause Greenland's ice to slide into the oceans and melt. This would be enough to entirely engulf coral-island nations like Kiribati and Tuvalu. But now Detlaf Stammer of Hamburg University, Germany, says that most of the melted water will stay in the Atlantic for at least 50 years, where sea levels will rise much faster as a result. Only small amounts will make it into the Pacific Ocean in that time."

research in the past 5 years suggested one thing, and now they're coming up with new ideas? but the consensus!

7/8/2008 11:01:31 AM

I was thinking about making a sarcastic comment to that effect, but I figured it'd be too asinine.

7/8/2008 11:09:58 AM

hasnt stopped you in the past, especially not in this thread

7/8/2008 11:11:38 AM

So, this development did not affect the previous position of the last 5-years other than specifying how it will happen, and yet somehow it further justifies the position that AGW is a crock?

how?


Oh no, they're improving the detail of their predictions... this surely must invalidate something, right?

7/8/2008 2:06:46 PM

they just reevaluated some data and figured they might be off by 50 years in their pacific sea level predictions

yet people continue to take this week's hypothesis as absolute fact?

7/8/2008 2:09:13 PM

but yet the shittyness of the consequences remains the same. Tuvalu's complete and utter sinking is staved off a few decades (I doubt it will be any 50 years from what I've heard of their current situation), but in return the Atlantic coasts get ass-raped earlier than planned.

The net amount of water we expect to see dumped into the ocean remains the same. As long as that's constant, the human cost remains the same. A general evaluation of the human cost of AGW has never changed significantly with new reports.

7/8/2008 2:32:44 PM