13-Foot Sea Level Rise Now 'Inevitable'

[Angella]

I threw away a laptop once. The Environment Police had me waterboarded for days.

Getting more to the point: I've run my AC maybe 5 times in the last 5 years, I walk for most things (I can because I live in a city), I coordinate with friends so that we don't have to all drive separately when we go to more distant places, I keep all of the lights in my house off except whatever room I'm in.

I don't do this because I'm an environmental nutjob, btw.

Waste not, want not. Powerful financial motivator. Good thing it helps the environment too.

[Deleted]

keep paraphrasing the latest HuffPo fourth-hand scare article of the day

I'm not American. Since you brought it up, though, you wouldn't happen to watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh or something like that?

confusing their "it might happen" scenarios with confirmed facts

Confirmed facts, huh?

What, like the Thwaites ice shelf collapsing into the sea in our lifetime, nay, in the near future, instead of thousands of years?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...a-ice-warming/

Confirmed facts like the ones on EPA's site? "But EPA and Obama and herpy derpy Illuminati and lizard people" or some shit like that.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

Confirmed facts like the evidence on NASA's site? (Remember NASA? The source you just a few posts back confirmed as a source you'd believe?)

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

You, nor your ilk, don't care about confirmed facts. It doesn't matter which site or file we link here, or which paragraph we quote, you'll throw some asinine spin on it and dismiss it as conspiracy. That's why I'm wondering why people in this thread, people who actually seem to know something, are still wasting their time on people like you.

[belfpala]

Ah this reports always amaze me. So precise, they should be put right next to Nostradamus. In next 1000 years, or maybe 200, could be 500. The sea level will rise by 4m, maybe 5, but just so we dont get it wrong add a +/- of 0,5 to 1,5m.

/headdesk.

That's how things are measured. Ask 100 people to measure the length of an object, one single object, and you'll get a distribution of measurements. With a simple ruler. That's why the object is 24.5cm +/- 0.3cm, or however the distribution works out.

This is no different, it's just a more complex ruler.

[Angella]

Truthfully the climate change folks are missing the mark. They should not be talking about climate change. At all. They should be talking about the poisoning of our air, water and food supplies. Much harder hitting issue that could institute some obvious fixes that address climate change at the same time.

But then the environmental lobby has sucked for a long time.

- - - Updated - - -

/headdesk.

That's how things are measured. Ask 100 people to measure the length of an object, one single object, and you'll get a distribution of measurements. With a simple ruler. That's why the object is 24.5cm +/- 0.3cm, or however the distribution works out.

This is no different, it's just a more complex ruler.

That's why you ask the engineer and not 100 laypeople.

[Endus]

Truthfully the climate change folks are missing the mark. They should not be talking about climate change. At all. They should be talking about the poisoning of our air, water and food supplies. Much harder hitting issue that could institute some obvious fixes that address climate change at the same time.

But then the environmental lobby has sucked for a long time.

You say that like you can only have a stance on one issue at a time, or something.

- - - Updated - - -

Because democracy.

Science isn't a democracy.

[Gilian]

How much will it take for people to finally get it.

Yet you are here on the internet using up electricity. Go do something about it then.

People know about it, some care about it and most don't do anything about it.

[Itakas]

/headdesk.

That's how things are measured. Ask 100 people to measure the length of an object, one single object, and you'll get a distribution of measurements. With a simple ruler. That's why the object is 24.5cm +/- 0.3cm, or however the distribution works out.

This is no different, it's just a more complex ruler.

Good thing i finished engneering uni and there we measure in micrometers or even lower, depending on what is required. So when people come to me and say things like this, i dont know what to say really. Just because someone finds it acceptable to have a 0,3cm mistake, it doesnt mean everyone finds that mistake acceptable.

[belfpala]

That's why you ask the engineer and not 100 laypeople.

The engineer will then tell you about design tolerances.

[May90]

What formulas, exactly, are you looking for? Because that paper had an appendix that listed off all the formula models they were using for various measures.

If you want to computer models themselves, you could've tried going to this part of the ICC report, evaluating the models, and on page 7 (of the section, 747 in the full paper by page number), there's a chart listing the models. You can take the names of those, like the GDML-CM3, and punch those into Google yourself. Which, when I did it, led me here;
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/coupled-physical-model-cm3

The information's there. You're not making the effort to locate it, and I'm tired of doing your homework for you.

First of all, I don't care if you are a moderator, but drop your condescending attitude. Now.

I think I need to clarify what I am looking for. I can find all these separate models all over the Internet, it is no problem. Like I said, what I want to find is one or a few related papers that present the methodology of the process. What you presented is two appendixes with two oversimplified (as they themselves say) evaluations linking to other models without actual source and a short summary of what CM3 is. This is what I find strange: I find a lot of papers referring to other papers that refer to other papers that refer to other papers - and nowhere can I find actual models description and methodology of using these models.

Now, I understand that climate is a tough beast and it is not easy to summarize it all in one or a few papers. However, you people here seem to believe in "global warming" as an apparent fact not even eligible for questioning. So, either you've studied 1000+ papers and finally found some actual mathematics behind all this, or you found such a paper that I am looking for and refuse to post it here for some reason. If you haven't done either, there is no way "global warming" is clear for you. You know, I can read that paper I posted above about the influence of Sun radiation upon Venus' atmosphere - and understand the whole process, it is clear for me that the author actually produced the study. All I see in "global warming" topic, one of the most popular topics nowadays, is an array of isolated models (with strangely lacking mathematical formulation) and effects that nowhere seem to have been put together and studied.

Take a look at our official paper, for example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0841
You get the whole experiment's description, all the methods used for the calculations, all the supporting formulas, graphs with all statistical and systematical errors presented. Everything in one paper. Links only to the previous versions of analysis, to similar analyses in other studies and to certain equations' derivations (not to equations themselves). Basically the paper is self-sufficient. There are such papers for, basically, any scientific topic I've ever been curious about, not a single exception. Where are similar (self-sufficient) papers for global warming? All I see is paper A referring to paper B which refers to paper C which refers to paper A - you know, not a very trustworthy chain of commands. And, strangely, non of those articles seem to be on sites like ArXiv, only on some sites of commercial magazines where you need to be subscriber to get access to them.

[belfpala]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's a good thing that in Democracy science doesn't get to directly dictate policy. Otherwise, we'd have a pseudo-scientific community getting paid to produce flawed results for every special interest, not just the one that is currently most well-known and being "debated" in this thread.

Which special interest do climatologists represent?

[Waniou]

It still doesn't change the fact that it's a fixed cycle that happens every 100000-240000 years.

And it's not happening far far faster. It's a little bit faster, not a lot.

Anyway mankind will adapt, I don't see it causing too many issues.

I hate replying to stuff when the thread has well and truly moved past it, but nobody seems to have properly commented on this, so I feel obliged to.

The problem is, because of critics of AGW theory, mankind isn't adapting. Yes, mankind can, and most likely, will adapt. Unfortunately, some people are either too ignorant, or too selfish, to actually let us adapt and are trying to push us away from adapting.

[May90]

Science isn't a democracy.

And yet you seem to take it as one, by proclaiming that "the overwhelming majority agrees with global warming => it is true".

[Waniou]

That's why you ask the engineer and not 100 laypeople.

A good engineer (Or at least one who went to the same uni I did, and I assume others) would measure it and add half an increment as error. If the smallest increment is 1mm, for example, they'd say it's 24.5cm +/- 0.05cm, because they can't measure more accurately than that.

[Deleted]

Umm, the Green Lobby.

Mind naming a few corporations so we understand what this "Green Lobby" is? Or does the green in "Green Lobby" refer to their skin color?

[Deleted]

Which special interest do climatologists represent?

The special interest of getting a few thousand dollars rich beyond your wildest dreams in order to leave our children a sustainable planet and society and big government spending, of course. Thank Big Oil that some college dropout weathermen experts are willing to say anything for the right price still have the integrity to tell the truth according to companies who makes a fortune causing climate change. Good thing that in our market-failure experiencing free market, established business interests can spend tens of millions of dollars a modest, necessary sum on helping these bought and paid for real voices of propaganda reason reach the public with their falsehoods and half truths meticulously researched information.

[Endus]

I think I need to clarify what I am looking for. I can find all these separate models all over the Internet, it is no problem. Like I said, what I want to find is one or a few related papers that present the methodology of the process. What you presented is two appendixes with two oversimplified (as they themselves say) evaluations linking to other models without actual source and a short summary of what CM3 is. This is what I find strange: I find a lot of papers referring to other papers that refer to other papers that refer to other papers - and nowhere can I find actual models description and methodology of using these models.

Then you aren't looking. Because I have linked that.

You're just, for some godforsaken reason, not bothering to click through and look at the links. The GDML-CM3 link, for instance; that link has pretty much everything you could want. The data they used. The modeling system they used, including the code thereof.

And, strangely, non of those articles seem to be on sites like ArXiv, only on some sites of commercial magazines where you need to be subscriber to get access to them.

Because that's how academia works.

You can't seriously tell me you're a Ph.D. student and you're only now discovering how the world of academic journals works. They are all subscriber-access. Some might offer certain papers for free, and some of that stuff ends up on sites like ArXiv, but that database is not a complete index. You can't get any paper you might want on it. Nor are sites like that the academic norm to begin with.

You seem to have only ever used ArXiv for research. That isn't how research is done, in any academic setting that I know of, and I've worked with people from across North America, the EU, and the Caribbean.

[Deleted]

Umm, the Green Lobby. I guess Al Gore got all that money from his good looks. He's clearly advocating only for the Earth and not just his bank account.

If only Al Gore hadn't trust expert scientists thought of this devious scheme, then nobody other than scientists, and rational people who look at science objectively would have ever heard of this global warming thing.

[Endus]

And yet you seem to take it as one, by proclaiming that "the overwhelming majority agrees with global warming => it is true".

That was never the argument.

The point of a scientific consensus isn't that "lots of people think this is how it works". It's that there is no other competing theory that does even a comparable job of explaining the data that we have. Consensus exists because there are no other valid options, not because the scientific community had a vote and the anthropogenic climate changer party 'won'. That's ridiculous.

[Deleted]

I hate replying to stuff when the thread has well and truly moved past it, but nobody seems to have properly commented on this, so I feel obliged to.

The problem is, because of critics of AGW theory, mankind isn't adapting. Yes, mankind can, and most likely, will adapt. Unfortunately, some people are either too ignorant, or too selfish, to actually let us adapt and are trying to push us away from adapting.

Not to mention that the cost of adapting to catastrophic changes to the environment would be way more than just mitigating the changes in the first place.

[Deleted]

And, strangely, non of those articles seem to be on sites like ArXiv, only on some sites of commercial magazines where you need to be subscriber to get access to them.

As much as I like ArXiv and understand its utility to the maths and physics discplines, it's not even a peer reviewed journal. I think the strangest part is that your argument against actual, reviewed and published papers appears to be "but why isn't there a draft so people who don't have even rudimentary academic resources and yet claim to be in academia can read it?"