If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Homo Sapiens, 195,000 BC-2100 AD. RIP   (io9.com) divider line 116
    More: Scary, University of New South Wales, cloud cover  
•       •       •

8835 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2014 at 11:33 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-01 10:49:42 AM
So, we won't even be around in the year 4545, when you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes... You won't find a thing to chewwwwww... Nobody's gonna look at you?
 
2014-01-01 11:23:05 AM
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube
 
2014-01-01 11:28:45 AM

shanrick: Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube


Woah, woah.
 
2014-01-01 11:37:58 AM
And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.
 
2014-01-01 11:45:37 AM
Given a problem, someone has come to fix it, so long as the problem was not caused by entire neglect. This will be no different.

/DNRTFA
//Confident I could fix it.
///New years!!
 
2014-01-01 11:46:29 AM
 
2014-01-01 11:46:40 AM
Now this is the smart way to make a doomsday prediction. Far enough out that you'll be dead, but not so far in the future that people don't care about it.
 
2014-01-01 11:48:07 AM
I thought the SOP here is that subby clicks on the source of the Gawker article and submit THAT link instead?
 
2014-01-01 11:48:17 AM

FirstNationalBastard: So, we won't even be around in the year 4545, when you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes... You won't find a thing to chewwwwww... Nobody's gonna look at you?


shanrick: Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube


Well you geriatric bastards win't be around to see it, will you
 
2014-01-01 11:50:23 AM

BigBooper: Now this is the smart way to make a doomsday prediction. Far enough out that you'll be dead, but not so far in the future that people don't care about it.


But the last 20 years proves that people don't care (enough to change their lives in any way)

"I'm not currently on fire, so why should I GAF?"
 
2014-01-01 11:51:08 AM

FirstNationalBastard: So, we won't even be around in the year 4545, when you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes... You won't find a thing to chewwwwww... Nobody's gonna look at you?


I'm more interested in what happens in 2525

webspace.webring.com

/So bad, it was terrible.
 
2014-01-01 11:52:42 AM
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2014-01-01 11:54:47 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: So my darling and I
Make love in the sand
To salute the last moment 
Ever on dry land
Our machine has done its work
Played its part well
Without a scratch on our bodies
And we bid it farewell


But still it's farewell
 
2014-01-01 11:58:35 AM
Fermi Paradox.  Could global warming be the answer?
 
2014-01-01 11:59:16 AM

LewDux: Because People in power are Stupid: So my darling and I
Make love in the sand
To salute the last moment 
Ever on dry land
Our machine has done its work
Played its part well
Without a scratch on our bodies
And we bid it farewell

But still it's farewell


I can hear that man he's full of cheer.
 
2014-01-01 12:03:49 PM

Reverend J: FirstNationalBastard: So, we won't even be around in the year 4545, when you ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes... You won't find a thing to chewwwwww... Nobody's gonna look at you?

I'm more interested in what happens in 2525



/So bad, it was terrible.


It's a party, and everybody's coming.
 
2014-01-01 12:05:10 PM
Is this like those predictions back in the late 80s that said Wisconsin would be ocean-front property by the year 2000?
 
2014-01-01 12:08:55 PM

Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.


That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~upload.wikimedia.org

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
 
2014-01-01 12:09:40 PM

BigBooper: Now this is the smart way to make a doomsday prediction. Far enough out that you'll be dead, but not so far in the future that people don't care about it.


"Well I predict that the world will end at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve."
"This year?"
"MmHmm."
"Well that's cutting it a little bit close, isn't it? I mean, just from a sales point of view, I mean your book is just coming out, you're not gonna see any paperback sales for at least a year. It'll be at least another year before you know whether you've got that mini-series or movie of the week kind of possibilities. I mean just Devil's Advocate Milty! I mean shouldn't you have said: Hey the worlds going to end in 1992! Or better yet 1994!"
"This is not just some money-making scheme! Alright! I have a strong psychic belief that the world will end on New Year's Eve."
"Well, for your sake, I hope you're right."

www.i-mockery.com
 
2014-01-01 12:11:25 PM
Damn, I'd need the oceans to rise 100 meters before I get oceanfront property on a lovely little inlet in a nice protected bay.
 
2014-01-01 12:15:28 PM
Even IF the sea levels rose 100 feet in the next 100 years, it certainly wouldn't wipe out humanity. Humans are survivors.

Bad headline is bad.
 
2014-01-01 12:17:03 PM

Stone Meadow: Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.

That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x359]

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise


...Which is still bad, but TFA's pic was acting like Minneapolis is going to be under 30+ feet of water.  Not gonna happen.

Here's the thing, climate change is a real and serious problem that we need to deal with as best as possible to mitigate the possible effects.  But lying about it doesn't help anything....we can't afford to lose credibility on this.
 
2014-01-01 12:18:30 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Stone Meadow: Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.

That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x359]

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

...Which is still bad, but TFA's pic was acting like Minneapolis is going to be under 30+ feet of water.  Not gonna happen.

Here's the thing, climate change is a real and serious problem that we need to deal with as best as possible to mitigate the possible effects.  But lying about it doesn't help anything....we can't afford to lose credibility on this.


This. Lying about it and exaggerating it does more harm than good
 
2014-01-01 12:21:52 PM
What, is that when the first holodecks come online?
 
2014-01-01 12:33:35 PM
New year. Same bullsh*t stories on fark meant to invoke an emotional response where we devolve into is to, is not, is to, is not.... What a surprise.
 
2014-01-01 12:35:22 PM

machoprogrammer: This. Lying about it and exaggerating it does more harm than good



Ya, but that climate research ship got stuck in ice, so global warming isn't real.  Your argument is invalid.
 
2014-01-01 01:03:38 PM

indarwinsshadow: New year. Same bullsh*t stories on fark meant to invoke an emotional response where we devolve into is to, is not, is to, is not.... What a surprise.


Right? Because the first day of a new year should be completely different from the day before.
 
2014-01-01 01:04:19 PM
For some reason, I read the headline to mean we'd all be gay by then.
 
das
2014-01-01 01:23:47 PM
Damn. I shoulda' voted for Al Gore!!!!!
 
2014-01-01 01:26:25 PM
I've looked at clouds from both sides now.
 
2014-01-01 01:26:35 PM
From the documentaries I have watched and the articles I have read, warming is a snowball effect.  Thaw out the permafrost and then it starts releasing methane.  Then things get really bad and all the warming releases more stored CO2 and so on.
 
2014-01-01 01:44:12 PM

Virtuoso80: For some reason, I read the headline to mean we'd all be gay by then.


Well that or humanity develops the holo-deck, matrix, or some other form of reality much better than real life. Or we all get super realistic perfect robot mates. Whatever the cause, enough of us stop reproducing that everything falls apart.
 
2014-01-01 01:55:44 PM
I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?
 
2014-01-01 02:13:33 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmm................looks like it's that time of year when scientists need to appeal for my grant money. Time to scare the masses sh*tless about global catastrophes again!
 
2014-01-01 02:17:17 PM

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Short answer? Because good news doesn't get eyeballs on webpages, TV ads sold and research grants and social engineering programs funded. Okay, that's a bit cynical, but it's also true.

BTW, nearly all of the readily accessible glacier water is already in the ocean, so both its contribution to sea level rise as well as the prospects for land rebound have largely already played out. For large-scale melting of Greenland and the Antarctic West to happen (and raise global sea level by more than another 2-3 feet), a credible mechanism has to be identified, which doesn't currently exist. Even IPCC (the most aggressive "credible" sea level rise alarmists) don't predict more than another 2' of rise, and that's at the top end of their range for the foreseeable future.
 
2014-01-01 02:27:53 PM

Stone Meadow: Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?

Short answer? Because good news doesn't get eyeballs on webpages, TV ads sold and research grants and social engineering programs funded. Okay, that's a bit cynical, but it's also true.

BTW, nearly all of the readily accessible glacier water is already in the ocean, so both its contribution to sea level rise as well as the prospects for land rebound have largely already played out. For large-scale melting of Greenland and the Antarctic West to happen (and raise global sea level by more than another 2-3 feet), a credible mechanism has to be identified, which doesn't currently exist. Even IPCC (the most aggressive "credible" sea level rise alarmists) don't predict more than another 2' of rise, and that's at the top end of their range for the foreseeable future.


A voice of rational and reason? On FARK, where everyone is supposed to follow the crowd?

/I agree with you completely. If you frighten people they will demand to be saved, whether the fear is rational or not, immediate or 100 years down the road.
 
2014-01-01 02:28:14 PM
Good?
 
2014-01-01 02:39:24 PM

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Nobody's going to panic and beg government on their knees to save them whatever the cost in money and liberty if the problem (assuming there actually is one) is seen as anything but apocalyptic.
 
2014-01-01 02:46:17 PM

Lee451: Stone Meadow: Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?

Short answer? Because good news doesn't get eyeballs on webpages, TV ads sold and research grants and social engineering programs funded. Okay, that's a bit cynical, but it's also true.

BTW, nearly all of the readily accessible glacier water is already in the ocean, so both its contribution to sea level rise as well as the prospects for land rebound have largely already played out. For large-scale melting of Greenland and the Antarctic West to happen (and raise global sea level by more than another 2-3 feet), a credible mechanism has to be identified, which doesn't currently exist. Even IPCC (the most aggressive "credible" sea level rise alarmists) don't predict more than another 2' of rise, and that's at the top end of their range for the foreseeable future.

A voice of rational and reason? On FARK, where everyone is supposed to follow the crowd?

/I agree with you completely. If you frighten people they will demand to be saved, whether the fear is rational or not, immediate or 100 years down the road.


Oops...sorry. I promise to do better in future! ;)
 
2014-01-01 03:01:24 PM

jjorsett: Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?

Nobody's going to panic and beg government on their knees to save them whatever the cost in money and liberty if the problem (assuming there actually is one) is seen as anything but apocalyptic.


You underestimate how many people actually crave the apocalypse. It explains a great deal of foreign policy.
 
2014-01-01 03:08:31 PM

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Depends where you live. My country, Norway, is unlikely to be affected by most of the negative effects of global warming. We'll have a warmer and more fertile climate. We already have trees growing far higher up than they did before. On the other hand, our cold winters protect us from malaria, and we might find ourselves inundated by people who can no longer survive in their countries of origin.
 
2014-01-01 04:00:37 PM
Sea level rises?

*taps microphone*

WALK UPHILL YOU FARKING IDIOTS!!!

There, global warming dealt with
 
2014-01-01 04:17:52 PM
Pff, I'll be dead in about 20 years anyway.

Not my problem.
 
2014-01-01 04:20:14 PM

INeedAName: indarwinsshadow: New year. Same bullsh*t stories on fark meant to invoke an emotional response where we devolve into is to, is not, is to, is not.... What a surprise.

Right? Because the first day of a new year should be completely different from the day before.


No, no. Fark should continue to recycle the same story day, after day, week after week, year after year.

......idiot.
 
2014-01-01 04:27:00 PM

JRoo: Pff, I'll be dead in about 20 years anyway.

Not my problem.


Dad of the Year?

I am slightly shocked to realize that my son could, in actuarial terms, live to see 2100. He'd be old, but not over 100 old.

Me, less likely, particularly after last night.
 
2014-01-01 04:39:55 PM
I predict that the universe will collapse and vanish on July 16th, 1974.

Oh, at 6:37pm....
 
2014-01-01 05:17:41 PM
www.superman1978.com

Still saving his pennies.
 
2014-01-01 06:21:52 PM
The Guardian = Daily Mail for champagne socialists.
 
2014-01-01 06:22:41 PM
so there will be more warming, but LESS CLOUDS? REALLY?? LOL

wait, couldnt we fix this problem with more clouds?
and get rid of some of your nuclear stock pile ???
 
2014-01-01 06:33:07 PM

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Habitats will move with the changing climate, and people will have to move as well. The most pressing issue will be year round supplies of fresh water, but that's not a show stopper. I don't believe WE will cause a run away green house effect and make the Earth look like Venus. That's pure fear mongering bullshiat.
 
2014-01-01 06:34:29 PM

Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?


Siberia and most of Canada turning into breadbaskets doesn't fit anyone in power's narrative.
 
2014-01-01 06:35:15 PM

SpdrJay: I predict that the universe will collapse and vanish on July 16th, 1974.

Oh, at 6:37pm....


In some universe it probably did, or will, or something.
 
2014-01-01 06:38:19 PM

RedVentrue: I don't believe WE will cause a run away green house effect and make the Earth look like Venus


I'm still having some lingering doubts. Could you re-post it in green font?
 
2014-01-01 06:39:37 PM

thrasherrr: Lee451: I don't understand why only doom, defeat and despair can come from global warming. Could there be NO positive effects? Such as a longer growing season, less energy used in heating homes and a more moderate climate? If and when the glaciers melt, won't the land under them spring back up and mitigate the rising seas?

Siberia and most of Canada turning into breadbaskets doesn't fit anyone in power's narrative.


Great theory!
 
2014-01-01 07:30:49 PM
stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com
We should start warming anytime now, right?
 
2014-01-01 07:39:01 PM
I love how they show a picture of a submerged Minneapolis, when the Great Lakes are several hundred feet above sea level!

Worst case scenario is like 20-odd meters of sea level rise. We'd need to be hit with a comet the size of Charon to add that much ocean.
 
2014-01-01 07:42:42 PM

rev. dave: From the documentaries I have watched and the articles I have read, warming is a snowball effect.  Thaw out the permafrost and then it starts releasing methane.  Then things get really bad and all the warming releases more stored CO2 and so on.


and then the cloud cover gets so bad that we get another ice age ... 
TADA

they always leave that part out. do you notice that?
 
2014-01-01 07:48:59 PM
so
will this happen over night?
Or will there be 50 years of relatively slow rising water? with some fits and spurts?
I ask because, They have different results.

Slowly rising, and different places will deal with the water problem as it become a big problem for them.
New Orleans for example is already under water.
They would probably need to start worrying about slowly rising water faster than anyone else.
Have they started? Are there studies and projects?
Or has the rising water not been a problem yet?

NYC has a bit of time left, when do they need to start building dikes and levees?

BUT, if it will happen all at once, say in a 2-10 year period, well, NOTHING WILL BE DONE until the flood actually hits.

So which is it?

/yes, I know, some islands in the pacific. remind me about the islands which are sinking through erosion and not being increased? Aren't the hawaiian island shrinking , except for the big isle?
 
2014-01-01 08:04:56 PM
new orleans
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130517-louisiana-sin ki ng-climate-change-sea-level-rise-levees-science/?rptregcta=reg_free_np &rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_us_se_w#

OK - their bigger problem is that they are SINKING, not the rising water.
So they have a double problem.
50 year and $50 billion plan ... maybe it will help ....

NYC
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130612-sea-level-ris e- new-york-bloomberg-sandy-climate-change-science/

$20B and multi-decade


so pretty much as you would expect
people and governments are starting to move now. slowly.
and if things get worse quicker, then they will move faster.

Ocean Fronts
I just dont care.
These people have always lived on the front. which moves.
I dont really see a need to save their houses in floriduh, etc, etc, etc.

People will move or pay to build walls.
nothing new

/the netherlands laugh at our "new" problems.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20689966/#.UsS6L_RDuok
"dutch to draft 200-year plan against warming"
"The country also spends $680 million annually on maintaining its intricate existing system of sea and river dikes that have been built and improved for a millennium. "

so yah, things will be harder to FIX.
whatever.
Not like there is a choice. 
Runaway???
fark THAT!
They will figure something out.
And if they are SMART, they are already selling their know-how to other nations.
 
2014-01-01 08:20:33 PM
sea levels are now set to rise anywhere from around 8 inches to 7 feet within 100 years, and around 5 yards to 10 yards within 2,000 years.

8 inches to 80 inches.
That is a pretty big range. Not saying that we dont need to panic, but still.

2000 years???
BWHAHAHA HAH HAH AH HAHAH AHAH HAHA

Look farktards, we barely can plan 5 years, let alone 50 years.
Get back to me when we have a comprehensive plan for the next 20 years.
THEN we can talk about planning for 1-2000 years.
 
2014-01-01 08:25:41 PM

DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?



Might as well get this out of the way.

www.skepticalscience.net
 
2014-01-01 09:08:13 PM

Stone Meadow: Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.

That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x359]

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise


Uh, the "worst case scenario" would be recreating a climate that guarantees the loss of the GrIS, WAIS, and EAIS, combined with all interior ice, plus thermal expansion of the oceans. That's on the order of 60-80 meters of sea level rise, or several hundred feet.

Can we do that in 100 years? No, but we can sure as hell lock in a lot more than "13-20 feet" a hell of a lot sooner than "a millennium" if we don't curb our emissions.

Assume a semi-empirical model for temp vs. SLR, and an unchecked emissions scenario like RCP8.5 (i.e. increasing the radiaitve forcing at the top of the atmosphere 8.5 W/m^2 above preindustrial), and you're in the 2 meter neighborhood in 100 or so years, much less 1,000.

So, no. Literally nothing you wrote is remotely correct. Hell, not even the part about RSL stabilizing ~6,000 years ago. It's more like 2,000.
 
2014-01-01 09:27:19 PM

HMS_Blinkin: Here's the thing, climate change is a real and serious problem that we need to deal with as best as possible to mitigate the possible effects.  But lying about it doesn't help anything....we can't afford to lose credibility on this.


machoprogrammer: This. Lying about it and exaggerating it does more harm than good


Who, exactly, are you accusing of "lying" in this situation?

Stone Meadow: Short answer? Because good news doesn't get eyeballs on webpages, TV ads sold and research grants and social engineering programs funded. Okay, that's a bit cynical, but it's also true.


No, it's not true. It's because the context of the issue is predicated on our ideal outcome being seeing continued future warming of a moderate amount even with Herculean efforts to reshape our global energy infrastructure.

In other words, there are some benefits that we might expect from a moderate amount of warming. And we're already factoring those in when we talk about "limiting global warming to X". The best climate-ecosystem-economic integrated modeling we can do strongly suggests that there are modest benefits to seeing a small increase in temperature, but that these benefits become dramatically outweighed by the costs with warming exceeding ~2C.

Recall, the current intergovernmental goal is to stabilize CO2 at ~500 ppm. That means more warming.

On the other hand, talking about "unchecked emissions" means blowing way past that, way past 2C, and that's why the focus is on negative consequences. It's dramatically net negative consequences if we warm beyond a certain amount.

Will there still be some winners even under wildly aggressive emissions? Sure, plants like Kudzu and poison ivy will probably benefit. And there are stories about that to be read.

But if you want to know why people aren't exactly "looking on the bright side" of warming on the order of ~5-8C, look at the End Permian, or the Triassic-Jurassic.

BTW, nearly all of the readily accessible glacier water is already in the ocean, so both its contribution to sea level rise as well as the prospects for land rebound have largely already played out. For large-scale melting of Greenland and the Antarctic West to happen (and raise global sea level by more than another 2-3 feet), a credible mechanism has to be identified, which doesn't currently exist. Even IPCC (the most aggressive "credible" sea level rise alarmists) don't predict more than another 2' of rise, and that's at the top end of their range for the foreseeable future.

This is absolute nonsense. On every point.

Mechanism? Loss of grounding lines and thus buttressing shelves.

"Top end?" The IPCC doesn't talk about the impacts of warming beyond a certain timeframe. So while there may be an "upper limit" of ice sheet melt enumerated by 2100, even if you freeze emissions at that level, the ice sheet doesn't just stop. It keeps melting.

All one has to do is look at the paleoclimatic record to see episodes of multimeter/century SLR in response to ice sheet decay. In fact, greater than 1m/century loss was the norm during melt events, not some "worst case".

thrasherrr: Siberia and most of Canada turning into breadbaskets doesn't fit anyone in power's narrative.


Really? So the soil, precipitation regimes, and background ecosystems of the current breadbaskets are going to magically get teleported northward as it warms by who, exactly?
 
2014-01-01 09:31:40 PM

namatad: So which is it?


If we don't rein in emissions, SLR will resemble a logistic rather than linear or exponential curve. We will see a slow initial melt until we lose grounding lines and the like, after which we will see highly nonlinear loss, and then after all of the easily collapsible stuff has been dumped, a return to a slower decay based on melt rather than stability loss.
 
2014-01-01 09:34:39 PM

namatad: and then the cloud cover gets so bad that we get another ice age ... 
TADA

they always leave that part out. do you notice that?


Because that's literally never happened in the history of the planet.

There is no cloud feedback that is both strongly negative and yet incredibly slow to react that would allow for rapid warming and then magically kick in and then plunge us into a glacial maximum.

There are plenty of negative feedbacks in the climate system, operating at all different timescales. But hyper reflective clouds on magic a time delay aren't one of them.
 
2014-01-01 09:54:53 PM

DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?


yawn.
 
2014-01-01 10:28:25 PM

Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.

That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x359]

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Uh, the "worst case scenario" would be recreating a climate that guarantees the loss of the GrIS, WAIS, and EAIS, combined with all interior ice, plus thermal expansion of the oceans. That's on the order of 60-80 meters of sea level rise, or several hundred feet.


I guess you overlooked my comment that there is no current credible mechanism for that happening, eh?

Can we do that in 100 years? No, but we can sure as hell lock in a lot more than "13-20 feet" a hell of a lot sooner than "a millennium" if we don't curb our emissions.

We (collectively) are going to curb our emissions, because not even the Chinese like living in their own shiat.

Assume a semi-empirical model for temp vs. SLR, and an unchecked emissions scenario like RCP8.5 (i.e. increasing the radiaitve forcing at the top of the atmosphere 8.5 W/m^2 above preindustrial), and you're in the 2 meter neighborhood in 100 or so years, much less 1,000.

Unchecked emissions scenario? Lemme guess...you just finish reading Club of Rome for the first time, right?

So, no. Literally nothing you wrote is remotely correct. Hell, not even the part about RSL stabilizing ~6,000 years ago. It's more like 2,000.

When are you going to stop being an ass? 98% of the SLR that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age had occurred by 5k-6k years ago, so quit stretching to score cheap points.
 
2014-01-01 10:30:45 PM
 
2014-01-01 11:00:47 PM

Stone Meadow: I guess you overlooked my comment that there is no current credible mechanism for that happening, eh?


Er, no:

Jon Snow: Mechanism? Loss of grounding lines and thus buttressing shelves.


Talk about being an ass.

Stone Meadow: We (collectively) are going to curb our emissions, because not even the Chinese like living in their own shiat.


Well, curbing our emissions is hardly a farking "worst case" now is it?

Stone Meadow: Lemme guess...you just finish reading Club of Rome for the first time, right?


Nope. But I have read about planned hydrocarbon extraction in the Arctic, people eagerly exploring hydrates as a source of fuel, etc.
 
2014-01-01 11:53:26 PM
My grandkids are screwed.
 
2014-01-02 12:48:58 AM

tacchimonster: My grandkids are screwed.


Choosing your sister to be their mother didn't get the ball rolling in the right direction...


/i keed
 
2014-01-02 02:44:39 AM

DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?


A 10 year sample? Seriously?
 
2014-01-02 03:53:19 AM

HMS_Blinkin: we can't afford to lose credibility on this.


There has been some remaining credibility? When did that come back?

The libtards are hysterical about this. There's Al "The Science is Settled" Gore, who launches a website whose intent is to threadshiat every thread in the world with talking points propaganda (truthdrop). Is it settled, or is it not settled, Mr. Vice-President?

And all of you farkers with your relentless apologetics over the climategate emails. You have Phil Jones saying outright "I hope the lack of warming doesn't continue". What lack of warming, Phil?

The cognitive dissonance is awe-inspiring. Sure, all the time you hear about people deleting the raw data so that all that remains is the "corrected" data...hiding from information requests, stifling dissent like a cabal, and all the other things that are obvious in the climategate emails in other fields, like analytical chemistry, amirite?

You libtards are so voracious in your defense of Chicken Little you'd think it was the Killian Memo.
 
2014-01-02 06:32:13 AM
OH MY farkING GOD people are stupid.


There's not enough frozen water on the planet to do that.  Even if we pumped out all the great lakes and drove 100% of the atmospheric water to the ocean there still isn't enough.

 
2014-01-02 08:17:53 AM

prjindigo: OH MY farkING GOD people are stupid.

There's not enough frozen water on the planet to do that.


What is the "that" you're complaining about? Because there's a hell of a lot of potential SLR available in the form of ice sheets and thermal expansion.
 
2014-01-02 08:29:28 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Stone Meadow: Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.

That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x359]

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

...Which is still bad, but TFA's pic was acting like Minneapolis is going to be under 30+ feet of water.  Not gonna happen.

Here's the thing, climate change is a real and serious problem that we need to deal with as best as possible to mitigate the possible effects.  But lying about it doesn't help anything....we can't afford to lose credibility on this.


I`ve been saying that the only hope for the climate change movement is complete honesty. State things exactly as they will happen to protect yourselves from the dishonest people who wish to attack you.

All I have had in response is ad-hominem attacks.

No hyperbole. Rely on the facts. If you claim the little red line is rising, show a graph where the little red line rises. Don`t show one where it has flattened out and call people who point this out liars. If you say a certain time is a minimum period for deciding a trend then that means that is the time for deciding up, down and flat. Not 15 years (1973-1988)  to decide if the trend is up and 20 it seems (1998-?) to decide if it is down or even flat.

Actually have criteria for re-evaluation of the theory. Have stated criteria for failure. Currently there are none stated. State them if this is not true. Without them you are as valid as a religion.

All the double standards are not helping.

Remember, if you react in the way sevenizgud wants they have already won, like the terrorists. Also, on the flipside, don`t let yourself be browbeaten by the zealots either. They will just rant at you until you give up.

At no point in this post have I claimed anything sciency or shown a graph or attacked science or scientists. I have not named anyone individually. I am addressing the words, attitude, and manner of the climate change movement.
 
2014-01-02 08:36:13 AM
Oh, and just because.
i.imgur.com
This is meant as a joke but I know it is likely you have no sense of humour.
 
2014-01-02 09:17:40 AM

SevenizGud: The libtards are hysterical about this.

There's Al "The Science is Settled" Gore

You libtards are so voracious in your defense of Chicken Little


LOL.

There has been some remaining credibility?

You mean like endorsing positions from the relevant scientific organizations on the subject matter, like the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geophysical Union[1][2][3]? Or perhaps the National Academy of Sciences[4]? Or the national science academies of the largest economies in the world[5]? Or the relevant scientific agencies like NASA, NOAA, etc.[6][7]? Or an overwhelming majority of experts in the field and the peer-reviewed scientific literature[8][9][10][11]?

[1]  https://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
[2]  http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
[3]  http://news.agu.org/press-release/american-geophysical-union-releases - revised-position-statement-on-climate-change/
[4]  http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14674
[5]  http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
[6]  http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
[7]  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq15.html
[8] Oreskes, N. (2004), The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686, doi:10.1126/science.1103618.
[9] Doran, P. T., and M. K. Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
[10] Anderegg, W. R. L., J. W. Prall, J. Harold, and S. H. Schneider (2010), Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 107(27), 12107-12109, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
[11] Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce (2013), Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett., 8(2), 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
 
2014-01-02 09:37:27 AM

dready zim: I`ve been saying that the only hope for the climate change movement is complete honesty. State things exactly as they will happen to protect yourselves from the dishonest people who wish to attack you.

All I have had in response is ad-hominem attacks.

No hyperbole. Rely on the facts. If you claim the little red line is rising, show a graph where the little red line rises. Don`t show one where it has flattened out and call people who point this out liars. If you say a certain time is a minimum period for deciding a trend then that means that is the time for deciding up, down and flat. Not 15 years (1973-1988)  to decide if the trend is up and 20 it seems (1998-?) to decide if it is down or even flat.

Actually have criteria for re-evaluation of the theory. Have stated criteria for failure. Currently there are none stated. State them if this is not true. Without them you are as valid as a religion.

All the double standards are not helping.

Remember, if you react in the way sevenizgud wants they have already won, like the terrorists. Also, on the flipside, don`t let yourself be browbeaten by the zealots either. They will just rant at you until you give up.

At no point in this post have I claimed anything sciency or shown a graph or attacked science or scientists. I have not named anyone individually. I am addressing the words, attitude, and manner of the climate change movement.


Here's the problem with this.

It's faux reasonable. It's faux middle ground, pox on both their houses. And it doesn't come across as particularly sincere or persuasive, and here's why:

I have seen you post in literally dozens and dozens of threads about climate change, and you don't really understand it very well.

You might, incorrectly, call that an "ad hominem". It's not. It's an observation.

And in the course of you writing things that are incorrect about climate, your errors and misunderstandings are unidirectional. They are without fail coming from the denialist/contrarian memes and talking points. You may in fact fully accept the reality of anthropogenic warming via the imposition of an energy imbalance due to our increases of GHGs. I'm not saying you personally deny this. I am saying that say a lot about climate that is ignorant and/or wrong, and the errors are always based on denialist misunderstandings or misdirections.

You might, incorrectly, call that an "ad hominem". It's not. It's an observation.

So, and this is (freely admitted) my own interpretation of these observations: your comment above comes across as textbook concern trolling rather than a genuinely stated belief. I may be wrong about that. But this is the perception I have given the history of your posts.

Now, what I've written might come across as a little unpleasant. But I am not attacking you for being stupid, or for being a bad person, much less accusing you of being a shill or whatever.

You comment on this topic a lot. Like, a lot. As in, I'll see my name mentioned in a climate thread but only get to it after it's been closed and you're in almost every one, a lot.

So you're interested, clearly. Interested enough to post about it a whole bunch. But you don't seem to be interested enough about it to learn about it. I mean actually obtain knowledge, rather than talking points or memes.

Why is that? It can't be an issue of investment of time, because you're investing quite a bit of time already. So, what prevents someone like you, who clearly cares about this topic, from learning about it in a more rigorous way?

Actually have criteria for re-evaluation of the theory. Have stated criteria for failure. Currently there are none stated.

This is silly. The attribution of warming to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases arises from several different well established theories, relating to radiative physics, moist atmospheric thermodynamics, etc. The criteria for "reevaluating" anthropogenic warming are the same criteria for changing our understanding of atmospheric chemistry and physics.

Specific example? Demonstrate that our understanding of the absorption and reradiation of infrared radiation by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. are wrong.
 
2014-01-02 10:01:54 AM

Jon Snow: What is the "that" you're complaining about? Because there's a hell of a lot of potential SLR available in the form of ice sheets and thermal expansion.


Did you even look at the "article"? It showed a picture of Minneapolis, which is currently ~400m above sea level, under several meters of liquid water.

Which is of course sensationalist nonsense that only serves to discredit the issue for one set of people and serve as a cause of alarm for others.
 
2014-01-02 10:13:31 AM
And here is another ridiculous claim on Gawker:

We might have Fish-Men if the world were to become inundated. "Man's looks wouldn't be improved any with fish gills," Thevenin admitted, but adds that they'd be handy at the bottom of the sea.
 
2014-01-02 10:28:40 AM

Feepit: Did you even look at the "article"?


I read the iO9 article, yes.

Feepit: It showed a picture of Minneapolis


I couldn't read the label of the image when I read the article.

The name of the city is mentioned nowhere in the article itself, no claim in the article is made about SLR sufficient to drown Minneapolis, and none of that is mentioned in the linked Guardian article that the iO9 story is based on, nor the scientific paper itself that both stories are based on.

It could be that the editors of iO9 intentionally selected that image to give the impression that people were predicting hundreds of meters of SLR even though none of that is mentioned anywhere in the article.

Or it could be that the editors chose a random picture of an inundated city and weren't particularly discriminating about it.

I know which scenario sounds more plausible to me. In order to designate it as "sensationalism" and "cause for alarm", you're assigning motive and saying it was deliberate.

Do you really think that's the case?
 
2014-01-02 10:32:40 AM

Jon Snow: I know which scenario sounds more plausible to me. In order to designate it as "sensationalism" and "cause for alarm", you're assigning motive and saying it was deliberate.

Do you really think that's the case?


This is i09 we're talking about. It is practically the Internet equivalent of  The Staror  The National Enquirer. I think they deliberately selected that picture because they are a bunch of trolls.
 
2014-01-02 10:34:58 AM

Feepit: And here is another ridiculous claim on Gawker:

We might have Fish-Men if the world were to become inundated. "Man's looks wouldn't be improved any with fish gills," Thevenin admitted, but adds that they'd be handy at the bottom of the sea.


That article also talks about Firefly-Men. And Insect-Men. Do you think that these things are "claims" being made by anyone?

The article has nothing to do with climate change, or climate science. It's about a 1938 artist-scientist collaboration to produce "what-if" hybrids. You could make a much more justified (though equally wrong) case that these were "ridiculous claims" undermining the validity of biology than you could about climate change.
 
2014-01-02 10:36:58 AM

Feepit: I think they deliberately selected that picture


Well, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that's the case. For parsimony's sake, given the material in the article itself, I'm not making that assumption.
 
2014-01-02 10:37:02 AM

Jon Snow: It could be that the editors of iO9 intentionally selected that image to give the impression that people were predicting hundreds of meters of SLR even though none of that is mentioned anywhere in the article.

Or it could be that the editors chose a random picture of an inundated city and weren't particularly discriminating about it.


You are welcome to believe that the linked article, all four sentences of it and the three stolen paragraphs, was put together with the best of intentions and something other than a pathetic attention grab.
 
2014-01-02 10:47:24 AM

Jon Snow: Feepit: I think they deliberately selected that picture

Well, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that's the case. For parsimony's sake, given the material in the article itself, I'm not making that assumption.


I would only need to prove that if we assume an intelligent process wasn't being the selection of that image.

Is that honestly your claim? That they just randomly selected the article's content?

That's some denialist logic.

Jon Snow: That article also talks about Firefly-Men. And Insect-Men. Do you think that these things are "claims" being made by anyone?

The article has nothing to do with climate change, or climate science. It's about a 1938 artist-scientist collaboration to produce "what-if" hybrids. You could make a much more justified (though equally wrong) case that these were "ridiculous claims" undermining the validity of biology than you could about climate change.


On one hand, you suggest I stop jumping to conclusions about the motives behind Gawker's articles, then you turn around and assume I'm trying to use a ridiculous human-hybrid article to refute global warming. Think about that says about your thought processes for a moment.
 
2014-01-02 10:53:52 AM
For what it is worth, I think you are the first person I've seen on Fark stoop to white knighting Gawker in defense of their agenda.
 
2014-01-02 10:55:49 AM

dready zim: I`ve been saying that the only hope for the climate change movement is complete honesty.


"Sceptics"?
 
2014-01-02 11:04:14 AM

Feepit: hen you turn around and assume I'm trying to use a ridiculous human-hybrid article to refute global warming.


I'm not assuming anything, which is why I asked. I have no idea what you think or believe about global warming. Perhaps substitute "one could" for "you could" in my previous comment to understand my meaning in a way that might avoid the potential for defensiveness.

You demonstrably grouped the animal-hybrid article in with TFA from this thread:

Feepit: And here is another ridiculous claim


That you grouped the two things together is unequivocal.

If you want to clarify that you actually in no way intended for one to be associated with the other, that's fine by me!

Feepit: You are welcome to believe that the linked article, all four sentences of it and the three stolen paragraphs, was put together with the best of intentions and something other than a pathetic attention grab.


I have no illusions that online sites like iO9 aren't trying to generate page views.

I am skeptical that the image was deliberately chosen to give the readers of the iO9 article the impression that we are facing enough sea level rise to inundate Minneapolis. My skepticism is based on the facts that this is mentioned nowhere in the article itself, that the city name itself does not appear as text anywhere within the article, that the city name was so small that I did not even see it on my phone or tablet and only noticed it when it was pointed out explicitly.

For a website that has no trouble trolling for eyeballs, that's an incredibly subtle way to attempt "sensationalism".

Feepit: That's some denialist logic.


Uh, okay. I think we're at an impasse.
 
2014-01-02 11:20:39 AM

Jon Snow: That you grouped the two things together is unequivocal.


The claim that people turning into fish-human hybrids is as ridiculous as the claim that sea level rise will cover Minneapolis with water, as asserted by the graphic. I made no other equivocation.

So I guess my point is that Gawker reports on fantasy, not reality, and its contents are not news.

The image is from the DrownYourTown app being advertised in the article, not some random stock graphic. I did a GIS search for DrownYourTown and didn't see a graphic with that particular city anywhere at a glance. To me, the most likely scenario is that the author was trying out the program and generated the graphic.

What their motive was of using Minneapolis, I don't know, but you would think an editor-in-chief with a PhD would at least take a moment to reflect on the message they are conveying to their readers; yes? On the other hand, perhaps she is a total idiot.
 
2014-01-02 11:31:01 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Stone Meadow: Gosling: And the hell of it is the doomsday preppers won't have an answer for it. Most of them are prepping for Mad Max, not Waterworld.

That's because "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~[upload.wikimedia.org image 526x359]

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet, per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

...Which is still bad, but TFA's pic was acting like Minneapolis is going to be under 30+ feet of water.  Not gonna happen.

Here's the thing, climate change is a real and serious problem that we need to deal with as best as possible to mitigate the possible effects.  But lying about it doesn't help anything....we can't afford to lose credibility on this.


Too late.

As per tradition, the non-stop stream of "we're all going to die!" Headlines that continually fAil to come true leave the general populace nonplused.
 
2014-01-02 11:38:46 AM

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?


Might as well get this out of the way.


That would be scary if I couldn't see those numbers on the left or if you moved those decimals to the right some.
 
2014-01-02 11:43:54 AM

Feepit: So I guess my point is that Gawker reports on fantasy, not reality, and its contents are not news.


So if that's the point, and they have no trouble printing wildly fantastic things, why be so subtle about it?

It looked like any old random CGI image of inundated city to me.  I didn't give it a second glance.

Sure, that's anecdotal, but FFS look at the size and clarity of the label of the city. For someone skimming the article, as most do, who is going to pick up on that? Hell, I don't know how the people in this thread picked up on it, unless they have ridiculously big monitors or recognized the skyline.

Feepit: What their motive was of using Minneapolis, I don't know, but you would think an editor-in-chief with a PhD would at least take a moment to reflect on the message they are conveying to their readers; yes? On the other hand, perhaps she is a total idiot.


Hanlon's razor applies.
 
2014-01-02 11:45:10 AM

jaybeezey: That would be scary if I couldn't see those numbers on the left or if you moved those decimals to the right some.


Texas or Alabama?
 
2014-01-02 11:58:12 AM

Jon Snow: Sure, that's anecdotal, but FFS look at the size and clarity of the label of the city. For someone skimming the article, as most do, who is going to pick up on that? Hell, I don't know how the people in this thread picked up on it, unless they have ridiculously big monitors or recognized the skyline.


It is an Instagram and BuzzFeed culture. Kids these days look at the pictures and ignore the text.
 
2014-01-02 12:11:10 PM

Feepit: Jon Snow: Sure, that's anecdotal, but FFS look at the size and clarity of the label of the city. For someone skimming the article, as most do, who is going to pick up on that? Hell, I don't know how the people in this thread picked up on it, unless they have ridiculously big monitors or recognized the skyline.

It is an Instagram and BuzzFeed culture. Kids these days look at the pictures and ignore the text.


I emailed the author and asked her to change the picture. We'll see if she does...
 
2014-01-02 12:44:02 PM
That pesky ball of fire in the sky going into another Maunder Minimum for this cycle and predicted to continue into the next cycle will have everyone wishing these predictions were true. Sadly we're in for some nasty cooling over the next 10-15 years globally. I for one don't welcome the coming famine, but it will be nice to laugh at all these morons while I eat my ration of rice.
 
2014-01-02 12:47:32 PM
This is the prediction for the sun's activity for the next 80 years. Welcome to your next mini-ice age people.

nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-02 12:54:38 PM

Baelz: This is the prediction for the sun's activity for the next 80 years. Welcome to your next mini-ice age people.

[nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com image 572x388]


Gotta linkable webpage for that image?
 
2014-01-02 01:04:05 PM

Stone Meadow: Baelz: This is the prediction for the sun's activity for the next 80 years. Welcome to your next mini-ice age people.

[nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com image 572x388]

Gotta linkable webpage for that image?


Sure knock yourself out, lots of info here about the sun's activity and predictions.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/
 
2014-01-02 01:37:09 PM

Baelz: Stone Meadow: Baelz: This is the prediction for the sun's activity for the next 80 years. Welcome to your next mini-ice age people.

[nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com image 572x388]

Gotta linkable webpage for that image?

Sure knock yourself out, lots of info here about the sun's activity and predictions.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/


Thanks...I think. ;^)

/getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks
 
2014-01-02 01:48:20 PM

Baelz: That pesky ball of fire in the sky going into another Maunder Minimum for this cycle and predicted to continue into the next cycle will have everyone wishing these predictions were true. Sadly we're in for some nasty cooling over the next 10-15 years globally. I for one don't welcome the coming famine, but it will be nice to laugh at all these morons while I eat my ration of rice.


The impact of entering a new Maunder-like minimum will be swamped by the increase in radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic emissions, which are an order of magnitude greater:

i.imgur.com

This is something that has been studied by several different groups over the last few years, all reaching similar conclusions (Lockwood, 2010;Feulner and Rahmstorf, 2010; Meehl et al., 2013; Anet et al., 2013).

Baelz: Sure knock yourself out, lots of info here about the sun's activity and predictions.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/


A wordpress blog reprinting crap from Tony Watts and Steve Goddard? Gee, hard to argue with that!

References:

Anet, J. G. et al. (2013), Impact of a potential 21st century "grand solar minimum" on surface temperatures and stratospheric ozone, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/grl.50806.

Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2010), On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 5 PP., doi:201010.1029/2010GL042710.

Lockwood, M. (2010), Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum, Proc. R. Soc. A, 466(2114), 303-329, doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0519.

Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, and D. R. Marsh (2013), Could a future "Grand Solar Minimum" like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?, Geophysical Research Letters, 40(9), 1789-1793, doi:10.1002/grl.50361.
 
2014-01-02 02:07:04 PM

DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?


i.imgur.com

This is what it looks like when you don't cherry pick a decade. The instrumental record is well within the range necessary to get us to 4°C above preindustrial.
 
2014-01-02 02:07:44 PM

Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks


Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?
 
2014-01-02 02:25:16 PM

Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?


Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?
 
2014-01-02 02:35:13 PM

Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?

[i.imgur.com image 600x427]

This is what it looks like when you don't cherry pick a decade. The instrumental record is well within the range necessary to get us to 4°C above preindustrial.


farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-02 02:44:36 PM

Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: [stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com image 519x470]
We should start warming anytime now, right?

[i.imgur.com image 600x427]

This is what it looks like when you don't cherry pick a decade. The instrumental record is well within the range necessary to get us to 4°C above preindustrial.


Oh look, more scary model projections that will fail miserably.
Back in the real world, RSS observations show no warming at all for a full 17 years now, despite nearly a 15% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same time period.

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2014-01-02 03:02:38 PM

Stone Meadow: Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise.

Worst case scenario

is the context you're missing there. You know, the context you introduced originally?

Before you took it completely off the table by saying we'd solve the problem?

That's like asking what the "worst case scenario" for driving headlong through fog of a cliff would be, and then saying "not that bad, because the driver will brake way before it's too late."
 
2014-01-02 03:36:31 PM

DesertDemonWY: Back in the real world, RSS observations show no warming at all for a full 17 years now, despite nearly a 15% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same time period.


What is the significance of "15 years" other than to cherrypick the 1998 El Niño event?

We have data for more than the past 15 years.

i.imgur.com

And of course if you extend it to the entire instrumental record, or the ice core record, the correlation gets tighter and tighter because the importance of non-GHGs diminishes.

But of course the relationship is not based on naive correlation. Rather we have demonstrable causal relationship. Of course there are other things that affect surface temperature besides CO2, notably the behavior of the tropical Pacific, most notably ENSO events. That's why in climate models, you can see apparent "pauses" of 10-15 years or longer even as greenhouse gases climb and the temperature does so in the long run.

i.imgur.com

But let's be honest. You don't care about, let alone understand, concepts of energy balance, or the role of the tropical Pacific in the redistribution of energy through the system. No matter how patiently and slowly someone explains to you that you can't cheat physics, you'll find a way to ignore, play down, or distract from the reality of the situation. It's what you do.
 
2014-01-02 03:43:05 PM
Should have been"17 years". Point remains.
 
2014-01-02 04:30:35 PM

Stone Meadow: Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?

Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?



A better approach would be to present a counter-argument rather than just incredulity.
 
2014-01-02 05:19:35 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Stone Meadow: Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?

Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?

A better approach would be to present a counter-argument rather than just incredulity.


You may not have noticed, but I LED with a credible argument, namely that natural SLR of another couple of meters is going to happen, that IPCC forecasts a couple of feet additional, and that the worst case consensus is 13-20 feet. Then Snow strung together a series of increasingly unlikely outcomes to stretch that to "several hundred feet"; denigrated "deniers" and 'skeptics" as fools, and tried to pretend TFA was not stupidly alarmist.

If you wish to spend your time arguing with him, have at it.
 
2014-01-02 07:43:59 PM

Stone Meadow: You may not have noticed, but I LED with a credible argument


Except, that's not at all what happened. You made a bare assertion backed by absolutely zero scientific literature that

Stone Meadow: "Waterworld" can't happen. There simply isn't enough water.

The seas essentially quit rising about 5000-6000 years ago, with another meter or two to go over the next several millennia. With human additions to the equation that rise could happen in a millennium or less, possibly, but it's going to happen anyway.

~

Worst case scenario? 13-20 feet


Literally none of which is true.

Stone Meadow: natural SLR of another couple of meters is going to happen


Why?

The reason Holocene sea levels rose, and indeed the river of eustatic sea level variability over the Pleistocene, is directly tied to orbitally-paced glaciation cycling. In the absence of human activity, we'd be seeing orbitally-driven cooling, not warming.

So why would there be "another couple of meters" of "natural" sea level rise in the absence of anthropogenic warming? Magic?

If we froze emissions at roughly today's levels, we should expect something like 14m of SLR over long timescales due to the relatively modest amount of CO2 increase we're already responsible for.

Stone Meadow: IPCC forecasts a couple of feet additional


By the end of the century or so. Not total.

the worst case consensus is 13-20 feet

"Worst case consensus"? LOL! That was a conservative estimate for SLR associated with a modest warming above preindustrial (~0.2-3C above preindustrial). We've almost already guaranteed that amount of warming in the very long run even if we stabilize emissions in the near future. It sure as shiat isn't a "worst case consensus".

Hell, the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period had sea levels higher by 10-20m and CO2 was only around 400ppm.

Stone Meadow: Then Snow strung together a series of increasingly unlikely outcomes to stretch that to "several hundred feet"


Lower probability outcomes on the pessimistic end  are what normal people mean when they talk about the "worst case scenarios", otherwise they would talk about the "most likely scenario".

There is a relationship between CO2 and sea level over the geological record. Will we likely hit 1200-1400ppm ppm CO2? No, I don't think we will. I think we will not be so suicidal.

But I might be wrong. And it's well within the realm of possibility if we exhaust the commercially attractive conventionals, heavily exploit unconventionals (as many energy corporations are seeking to do), and engage a strong carbon cycle feedback, putting us there in a hundred years or so.

And if that were to happen, something that is a credible worst case scenario, but not the most probable outcome, we would expect to see an essentially ice free state, with hundreds of feet of sea level rise over equilibrium timescales.

i.imgur.com

Source:  Foster, G. L., and E. J. Rohling (2013), Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales, PNAS, 110(4), 1209-1214, doi:10.1073/pnas.1216073110.
 
2014-01-02 08:42:27 PM

Stone Meadow: Damnhippyfreak: Stone Meadow: Jon Snow: Stone Meadow: /getting kicks watching Jon Snow shiat bricks

Is shiatting bricks new slang for "chuckling bemusedly to oneself" at the gross incompetence of the "skeptics" in this thread?

Sure you are...by claiming that we could see "several hundred feet" of sea rise. Fark yeah...that'll convince 'em...farking skeptics!

What's your favorite color?

A better approach would be to present a counter-argument rather than just incredulity.

You may not have noticed, but I LED with a credible argument,


Yes, you did lead with a credible argument (if not strictly accurate), but are now ignoring what has been presented since. Probably not a good thing. However, I can flesh it out a bit more if you don't like what was said.


Stone Meadow: namely that natural SLR of another couple of meters is going to happen, that IPCC forecasts a couple of feet additional,


I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers from, but what you may be missing here is some idea of time.

If you're considering centuries for both, your latter number may be wrong (at least where the IPCC forecasts are concerned):

img.fark.net
IPCC AR5 WGI Ch.13

If you mean centuries for natural sea level rise, and just until 2100 for anthropogenic sea level rise, you probably shouldstate the large differences in time involved.


Stone Meadow: and that the worst case consensus is 13-20 feet


It looks like you're basing this on a wikipedia entry. Let's follow where the information goes. From said entry:

On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in even higher sea level rise. Partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, could contribute 4 to 6 m (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.

Contrary to your claim, this isn't necessarily the worst case scenario. We can get more information by following the citation to the IPCC AR4 WGII SPM:

There is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the West Antarctic ice sheet, would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1-4°C (relative to 1990-2000), causing a contribution to sea-level rise of 4-6 m or more. The complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a contribution to sea-level rise of up to 7 m and about 5 m, respectively [Working Group I Fourth Assessment 6.4, 10.7; Working Group II Fourth Assessment 19.3].

So this isn't the worst case scenario (again, contrary to your claim).


Stone Meadow: Then Snow strung together a series of increasingly unlikely outcomes to stretch that to "several hundred feet"; denigrated "deniers" and 'skeptics" as fools, and tried to pretend TFA was not stupidly alarmist.

If you wish to spend your time arguing with him, have at it.


Perhaps there are differences in ways you consider what is a 'worst-case scenario'. Jon Snow's perspective (as a physical scientist) isn't necessarily to state what is likely (as you're stating here)but what is possible. Frankly, the term 'worst-case scenario', at least to me, tends to favor the latter rather than the former.

As for tone, what you have to keep in mind is that, if it hasn't been made abundantly clear by now, that Jon Snow knows what he's talking about, working as he does in this field. It's harsh, but come on now - do you really know what you're talking about here? You didn't even accurately relay information from wikipedia.

If it makes you feel better, I think there's a general principle at work - there is a tendency to be abrupt with people who state with an undue amount of certainty somewhat shaky opinions about fields they aren't as familiar with. It'll happen in places like this if you talk about stuff like cars, laws, or guns as well without knowing exactly what you're talking about.
 
2014-01-02 09:00:24 PM

Jon Snow: and indeed the river of eustatic sea level variability


Should be "driver", jesus that would have been confusing.
 
Displayed 116 of 116 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report