13-Foot Sea Level Rise Now 'Inevitable'

[Flutterguy]

Nobody will read this far into the thread but Neil DeGrasse Tyson said something I'd like to quote, regarding Global Warming.

"Don't worry, the planet will be fine. It's the human race that will go extinct" or something along those lines. We're putting our race in an early grave but it doesn't matter on the grand scale.

Take solace in the fact that Neil DeGrasse Tyson will be long rotted in the ground before it ever happens.

[Elegiac]

Exactly how am I doing that by asking, *whats the next step then, once you've convinced 100% of the population climate change is real?*

If 100% of the population were convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a fact then we wouldn't have to desperately try to convince idiots in government and business to start investing in alternative energy sources and the like.

- - - Updated - - -

And how is this any different? I've heard sea levels rising anywhere from 5 inches to 100ft. That's a pretty damn big variance if you ask me and the predictions seem to change every couple years. So which one is it?

"I've heard" - really? Then you won't mind providing sources for these predictions.

Once again, if you actually make an effort to immerse yourself in the science it becomes vastly clearer. But considering how many people are apparently scientifically illiterate, I'm not holding my breath.

[Flutterguy]

If 100% of the population were convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a fact then we wouldn't have to desperately try to convince idiots in government and business to start investing in alternative energy sources and the like.

- - - Updated - - -



"I've heard" - really? Then you won't mind providing sources for these predictions.

Once again, if you actually make an effort to immerse yourself in the science it becomes vastly clearer. But considering how many people are apparently scientifically illiterate, I'm not holding my breath.

Oh I've done this before..

First I provide sources.

Then when source contradict you, you immediately go on legitimacy crusade and announce the only source you accept are the source you have which conveniently support what you believe.

I'll skip to the end where I shrug and say "I got nothing to worry about. Feel free deindustrialize yourself to save humanity because you're sure as hell not doing it while sitting at an energy consuming computer talking on a website dedicated to online gaming, a very environmentally unfriendly form of entertainment."

[Elegiac]

Oh I've done this before..

First I provide sources.

Then when source contradict you, you immediately go on legitimacy crusade and announce the only source you accept are the source you have which conveniently support what you believe.

I'll skip to the end where I shrug and say "I got nothing to worry about. Feel free deindustrialize yourself to save humanity because you're sure as hell not doing it while sitting at an energy consuming computer talking on a website dedicated to online gaming, a very environmentally unfriendly form of entertainment."

Then why do you bother posting your ignorant statements here?

Nobody is calling for deindustrialization.

[High Marshal Sigismund]

America and Europe are too busy shoving transexuals, gays, lesbians, and PoC in our faces 24/7 to actually care about real issues.

This world is doomed.

[Dazu]

Then why do you bother posting your ignorant statements here?

Nobody is calling for deindustrialization.

Climate scientists predicted the arctic would be completely melted like 50 years ago, and sea levels meters above where they are now. Never happened.

Biggest problem ive seen was that idiot Al Gore and his sensationalist movie which had a lot of rubbish included and doctored data.

Thing I haven't heard any mention of as a cause is urban sprawl. Earths natural cooling is evaporation, cities/towns prevent this, which creates hotspots around those locations. it changes thermal currents etc, reduces surface moisture and stops/redirects and alters water runoff. Considering so much of temp is recorded in the urban regions, and they can be many degrees hotter than the country around them, easy to see higher temp ruses in those regions, but sea temps are moving much slower.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Climate scientists predicted the arctic would be completely melted like 50 years ago, and sea levels meters above where they are now. Never happened.

Biggest problem ive seen was that idiot Al Gore and his sensationalist movie which had a lot of rubbish included and doctored data.

Thing I haven't heard any mention of as a cause is urban sprawl. Earths natural cooling is evaporation, cities/towns prevent this, which creates hotspots around those locations. it changes thermal currents etc, reduces surface moisture and stops/redirects and alters water runoff. Considering so much of temp is recorded in the urban regions, and they can be many degrees hotter than the country around them, easy to see higher temp ruses in those regions, but sea temps are moving much slower.

SO MANY PEOPLE are confusing hype with the actual scientists. The same way that denial articles deliberately misrepresent the data to say it isn't happening, so too do the hype websites overhype things. Climate change is still an imminent threat in many areas, more indirect than direct for many people, but is a leading contributor to why many things within agriculture are becoming significantly more expensive.

The science showed us that our ozone would be gone at its rate of decay if we kept using CFCs. We stopped using CFCs and holy fuck, the ozone is coming back now. Everyone just switched to alternative aerosols that ended up being cheaper to manufacture anyway. Now if only we could do the same thing with carbon emissions we'd be golden.

[Spectral]

Climate scientists predicted the arctic would be completely melted like 50 years ago, and sea levels meters above where they are now. Never happened.

[citation needed]

Biggest problem ive seen was that idiot Al Gore and his sensationalist movie which had a lot of rubbish included and doctored data.

Yeah, they should stop letting Al Gore be a scientist! Oh... that's right.

Thing I haven't heard any mention of as a cause is urban sprawl. Earths natural cooling is evaporation, cities/towns prevent this, which creates hotspots around those locations. it changes thermal currents etc, reduces surface moisture and stops/redirects and alters water runoff. Considering so much of temp is recorded in the urban regions, and they can be many degrees hotter than the country around them, easy to see higher temp ruses in those regions, but sea temps are moving much slower.

Urban heat islands are a not a mystery to climatologists. They also would do a pretty piss poor job accounting for rise in ocean temperatures and satellite data more generally.

[Endus]

I don't care. If you tell me the oceans are rising because of mankind... "Ok great. Wonderful. Then what?"
Stop being so busy talking about the oceans rising and repetitively saying Climate Change really is happening! and how deniers are ignorant whatever else talking points no one cares about.

Start talking about REAL steps and procedures to undo and repair damage, AND how much it'll cost. Take another step forward in solving the stated problem, please. Grassroots me up some cheap and easy solar power links. DIY wind turbines links, shit like that.

If instead of predicting the doom and gloom of rising oceans, ALL these (97% of the community was it?) scientists got together to come up with solar cells that are 1/100th the price of today, how fast would people ease up on burning coal then?

First, you're confusing research scientists with practical engineers. They're two completely different things.

Second, you're acting like nobody's working on adaptation. And that's simply not true. It's a significant part of the field.

Heck, my grad program next year is in Planning. My thesis topic is fundamentally based on the existing adaptation methods. I'm looking at doing additional research in the field.

And how is this any different? I've heard sea levels rising anywhere from 5 inches to 100ft. That's a pretty damn big variance if you ask me and the predictions seem to change every couple years. So which one is it?

That's because you're ignoring the time scale for each prediction.

The "100 feet" numbers are centuries away. They're provided as long-term demonstrations that it's a problem that isn't going to "cap off" at a couple feet and stabilize. If you're taking those as if they were predicting the next 10 years, then you weren't actually reading the scientific papers in question, because they never claimed that.

- - - Updated - - -

Thing I haven't heard any mention of as a cause is urban sprawl. Earths natural cooling is evaporation, cities/towns prevent this, which creates hotspots around those locations. it changes thermal currents etc, reduces surface moisture and stops/redirects and alters water runoff. Considering so much of temp is recorded in the urban regions, and they can be many degrees hotter than the country around them, easy to see higher temp ruses in those regions, but sea temps are moving much slower.

Heat islands like that are a factor analyzed and controlled for in the IPCC AR5. Section 8.2.2, in particular; http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploa...ap8_FGDall.pdf

It isn't a new idea that scientists aren't studying.

[Orlong]

If 100% of the population were convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a fact then we wouldn't have to desperately try to convince idiots in government and business to start investing in alternative energy sources and the like.

Lets say everyone is now convinced and let assume man is accelerating it. Whats it really matter in the end? If we do nothing and the climate gets out of control and kills us all in 2000 years, or if we fight it and slow it down and it gets out of control and kills us all in 3000 years instead, we still end up with the same result, so why even try. We might as well just enjoy ourselves while we are here. From what I can tell, the scientists that believe in man made climate change still say we cant stop it even if we started putting out 0 CO2 emissions tomorrow

[Spectral]

It isn't a new idea that scientists aren't studying.

This statement bears repeating - if you're an interested layperson that thinks, "hey, but what about X?", you may well have brought up an entirely relevant point, but it's wildly unlikely that you just thought of something that climatologists are completely unfamiliar with and would revolutionize the field if only they'd looked at it from your angle. This applies across science more broadly as well - no, guy who doesn't work in science, you probably aren't suggesting something that's entirely new and field-changing.

[Endus]

Lets say everyone is now convinced and let assume man is accelerating it. Whats it really matter in the end? If we do nothing and the climate gets out of control and kills us all in 2000 years, or if we fight it and slow it down and it gets out of control and kills us all in 3000 years instead, we still end up with the same result, so why even try. We might as well just enjoy ourselves while we are here. From what I can tell, the scientists that believe in man made climate change still say we cant stop it even if we started putting out 0 CO2 emissions tomorrow

Because we can adapt to it. The risk is that it might occur too rapidly for us to adapt, which could cause massive economic collapse, as coastal cities flood and we lack the resources to move them effectively, bankrupting those nations as they try and cope.

Or we can slow it down, and have time to pull new construction back, and adapt.

It isn't a case where we're all dead in 2000 years anyway. It's like we're in an out-of-control car. The scientists are saying "it's out of control, and going downhill". What we're saying that means is we should apply the brakes, and steer. What you've said, here, is effectively like realizing the car is out of control, and instead of trying to get it under control you take your hands off the wheel and scream until you smash into the back end of the 18 wheeler ahead of you.

The latter really isn't a reasonable option to root for.

- - - Updated - - -

This statement bears repeating - if you're an interested layperson that thinks, "hey, but what about X?", you may well have brought up an entirely relevant point, but it's wildly unlikely that you just thought of something that climatologists are completely unfamiliar with and would revolutionize the field if only they'd looked at it from your angle. This applies across science more broadly as well - no, guy who doesn't work in science, you probably aren't suggesting something that's entirely new and field-changing.

It's not impossible. My grad research next year is based on just such a gap in methodology that I've noticed; there's a little specific research on specific locations, but no overarching policy or framework type theory in place, which is what I'm proposing to develop.

But that's a gap in adaptation methodology, which is still developing, not the actual climate change science itself. And I ran a pretty thorough literature review before I noticed the gap I'm going to address. My working bibliography is at something like 3500 source documents (by "working bibliography", I mean the collection of climate change documents I've needed for use in my paid research, they don't all apply to my thesis).

[Cthulhu 2020]

Lets say everyone is now convinced and let assume man is accelerating it. Whats it really matter in the end? If we do nothing and the climate gets out of control and kills us all in 2000 years, or if we fight it and slow it down and it gets out of control and kills us all in 3000 years instead, we still end up with the same result, so why even try. We might as well just enjoy ourselves while we are here. From what I can tell, the scientists that believe in man made climate change still say we cant stop it even if we started putting out 0 CO2 emissions tomorrow

We could stop it, or drastically slow it. The ozone hole thing that people love to refer to as a big hippie hoax? Wasn't a hoax. We removed CFCs from our products for cheaper alternatives. There was some mild resistance as people thought it was "unAmerican" to not be allowed to use CFCs. Now the ozone hole has been repairing itself for many years and is almost gone.

Nature CAN revert back to its natural state. The estimated carbon totals show nature netting more sequestered than being given off, but when you factor in humans the total out vastly overwhelms the 4 gigatons nature would be taking in on its own.

The Tesla? Is the most badass car ever. 260 miles on a charge that can be plugged into an outlet and charge in 20 minutes. Solar panels can drastically reduce your energy bill, meaning those nasty energy bills can go down significantly or go away all together. Those two things alone carry far more personal fiscal responsibility than just lazily staying the status quo.

[Spectral]

It's not impossible. My grad research next year is based on just such a gap in methodology that I've noticed; there's a little specific research on specific locations, but no overarching policy or framework type theory in place, which is what I'm proposing to develop.

But that's a gap in adaptation methodology, which is still developing, not the actual climate change science itself. And I ran a pretty thorough literature review before I noticed the gap I'm going to address. My working bibliography is at something like 3500 source documents (by "working bibliography", I mean the collection of climate change documents I've needed for use in my paid research, they don't all apply to my thesis).

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everything is sorted. I'm also not saying that someone from outside a field can't have massively important contributions to it; outside perspectives are often incredibly valuable when they're coming from an informed place. I work in a lab that does some work with aerosolized bacteria, and we've gotten some fantastic input from engineers and chemists - obviously bacterial genetics isn't up their alley at all, but they're able to point out some really important technical problems with modeling what happens when those bugs get aerosolized.

What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that someone who has no expertise in a given field can read the very basics, think on it for ten minutes, and come up with a problem that hasn't even been considered by a large field of researchers. I don't doubt that this theoretically could happen, but I just want people to stop and think to themselves, "does this seem like something that no climatologist would ever have thought of before?". If it's something as trite as cities being warmer than rural areas, well, it shouldn't even bear mentioning unless someone's just curious about how they control for it.

[Daelak]

The pollution from the volcanic activity on Iceland(2010) to our atmosphere, was greater than the estimated human pollution over the last 10 years.

It's not pollution, it was aersols, particulates in the atmosphere that reflect incoming sunlight, thereby decreasing temperatures temporarily.

[belfpala]

It's not pollution, it was aersols, particulates in the atmosphere that reflect incoming sunlight, thereby decreasing temperatures temporarily.

Aerosols are pollution, so his statement was probably correct. I don't feel like looking up the numbers, though. Regardless, it was clearly misleading.

Related: Someone brought up the 1970's "Global Cooling" thing a few posts back. Nonsense. There were 7 scientific papers in the 1970's that mentioned it. They were looking at a cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's, and suggested that it might have been caused by increased soot and aerosols due to human activity (anthropomorphic global climate change, surprise surprise) along with a natural cycle in Earth's orbit (something nobody disputes, natural cycles). Some of those 7 papers also suggested that increasing CO2 levels could reverse the trend (AGCC again).

The media reported it and left out that last part.

[Tyrgannus]

Irrigation and deforestation have a far, FAR greater impact on the climate. I am not diminishing CO2 so much as I am bringing attention to the fact that we can, and totally have, permanently desert-ified parts of the world because of this. Humans can affect the soil, which kills the plants, which affects rainfall, which increases temperature volatility (moisture and humidity reduce temperature volatility. Dry places like the Sahara have far more drastic temperatures between night and day).

[belfpala]

Irrigation and deforestation have a far, FAR greater impact on the climate.

That's all part of the same problem, and things accounted for in the models. I don't think anybody is saying, "derp co2 buy hybrid car and problem solved."

Edit: Sorry, that was a strawman. I'm having a bad morning. Anger not directed at you, just general bad feelings.

[Herecius]

Remember how a few days ago, I was posting in here about how one of the oh-so-dangerous effects of climate change is how it's having a dramatic effect on global weather patterns, about how we'd be seeing hurricanes smashing NYC become a yearly-occurance, instead of a once-in-a-decade freak event?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0514133432.htm

Just try to imagine the damage if a hurricane with the power of Andrew or Katrina hit NYC. Whatever dollar amount popped into your head, whatever you think the death toll could be, it's higher.

While all the exact mechanics are difficult to pinpoint, the reasoning behind it is pretty clear; ocean currents are moving warmer waters more and more northward, away from the tropics, and allowing powerful storms to cruise up along the coastline instead of just slamming into tropic landmasses and dissipating.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Remember how a few days ago, I was posting in here about how one of the oh-so-dangerous effects of climate change is how it's having a dramatic effect on global weather patterns, about how we'd be seeing hurricanes smashing NYC become a yearly-occurance, instead of a once-in-a-decade freak event?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0514133432.htm

Just try to imagine the damage if a hurricane with the power of Andrew or Katrina hit NYC. Whatever dollar amount popped into your head, whatever you think the death toll could be, it's higher.

While all the exact mechanics are difficult to pinpoint, the reasoning behind it is pretty clear; ocean currents are moving warmer waters more and more northward, away from the tropics, and allowing powerful storms to cruise up along the coastline instead of just slamming into tropic landmasses and dissipating.

In before "We can't measure it, we don't know how to!"
"What, temperature?"