Sciencescience

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:01 PM

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling



The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Sea level rise

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase

Warming oceans

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Shrinking ice sheets

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Glacial retreat

Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa

Extreme events

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

Ocean acidification

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year

Decreased snow cover

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/?utm_content=buffer0da94&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

49 replies, 3882 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling (Original post)
orson Dec 2015 OP
762Justice Dec 2015 #1
orson Dec 2015 #3
stupidicus2 Dec 2015 #2
Jack Burton Dec 2015 #4
magdrop Dec 2015 #17
akaConcernedCanuk Dec 2015 #5
Jack Burton Dec 2015 #6
magdrop Dec 2015 #18
Da Mannn Dec 2015 #7
orson Dec 2015 #8
Da Mannn Dec 2015 #9
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #10
maximumbrainusage Dec 2015 #11
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #12
maximumbrainusage Dec 2015 #13
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #15
maximumbrainusage Dec 2015 #19
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #21
maximumbrainusage Dec 2015 #22
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 #27
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #28
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 #30
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #37
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #38
MeatSandwich Jan 2016 #40
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #42
MeatSandwich Jan 2016 #44
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #45
MeatSandwich Jan 2016 #46
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #47
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 #26
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #29
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 #31
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #35
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #39
MeatSandwich Jan 2016 #41
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #43
southernwriter Jan 2016 #48
sentient_simian Dec 2015 #14
LeeCPTINF Dec 2015 #16
Transcendence Dec 2015 #20
orson Dec 2015 #23
ibtruthin Dec 2015 #34
Argentina Dec 2015 #24
orson Dec 2015 #25
MeatSandwich Dec 2015 #36
Verle Mann Dec 2015 #32
Jack Burton Dec 2015 #33
Letmypeoplevote Jan 2016 #49

Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:06 PM

1. Interesting post.

I will read the article, and look more into each item a bit.

Thank you for a good and sensible post concerning this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 762Justice (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:27 PM

3. As the lawyers say

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. Thanks for reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:11 PM

2. it has been for a long time now

which is why the flat earthers are either dumb or dispicable for ignoring it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:28 PM

4. Another way of looking at the history of atmospheric CO2



Based on the scale in this pie chart, it is accurate for the same time period discussed in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:23 PM

17. This post is wrong on so many levels that I wonder what you're actually trying to say.

First, the PPM for CO2 has increased by 33% since 1950. If your chart is showing today's level, then it would have been 0.03% in 1950, or contrarily, if it is showing the 1950 level then it should be more than 0.05% today. That's just simple arithmetic, no need for any woo or religion is involved in seeing how wrong your statement is.

Second, if you are arguing that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other elements, then that's true. That's the whole science behind the "greenhouse effect" that was discovered by Fourier over 200 years ago. It's science, not woo or religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:38 PM

5. Having been an avid traveler/camper for decades, I pay attention to the weather.

And

it is changing.

Just in my lifetime!

It only took us white men less than a century to pollute the Great Lakes by dumping our shit into it, thinking we could still DRINK it? Heck - I remember back in the 50's warning signs on the shores of Lake Ontario that it was not even safe to swim in . . .

Didn't take us long to wipe out the Buffalo/Bison herds to near extinction . . .

and now we are polluting the air we breathe (and every other creature and plant) with our emissions from our vehicles, factories and so on.

I've noticed a distinct change in the weather patterns, especially in the last 10 - 15 years.

warming, cooling - whatever - I see it as just "unstable".

Seasons are not as clearly defined as I view them from 20 years ago - even 10 years ago.

Even with all our satellites and high-tech shit to monitor weather patterns, I find our weather forecasts much more unreliable than decades ago.

I get the impression that we have no idea what the fuck we are doing!

CC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to akaConcernedCanuk (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:43 PM

6. What makes you think that the

weather patterns from your youth were the norm? Why is that 20 year period significant? What makes the 20th century global mean temperature more important than any other century's mean temperature in the last 4.5 billion years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:24 PM

18. How about the "greenhouse effect?"

Do you even know what it is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:46 PM

7. More likely evidence of climatologists fudging the numbers

as they have been caught at so many times before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:07 PM

8. Keep telling yourself that

and every thing will be just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 07:11 PM

9. I'll just keep reading it in the news.

It is not like your side keeps it a secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:21 PM

10. Except when it's true.

This happened recently when NOAA discounted ARGOS readings because they didn't show an increase in temp for the last 18 years. Instead they used the much less accurate shipboard readings and adjusted the much more accurate ARGOS readings to match the latter. Of course, this little (and often used) exercise in adjusting to fit their agenda never appeared in any of the press releases about the 2014 being the hottest year in history. But not to worry, some folks *did* catch it and report.

“The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”

The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 09:52 AM

11. Nope. Confused and incorrect, sandwich

You can read what the study actually involved...

One of the new adjustments we are applying is extending the corrections to ship data, based on information derived from night marine air temperatures, up to the present (we had previously stopped in the 1940s). As we write in the article's on-line supplement, "This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1. This close agreement in the trend of the corrected ship data indicates that these time dependent ship adjustments did indeed correct an artifact in ship data impacting the trend over this hiatus period."

The second example I will pose as a question. We tested the difference between buoys and ships by comparing all the co-located ship and buoy data available in the entire world. The result was that buoy data averaged 0.12 degrees C colder than the ships. We also know that the number of buoys has dramatically increased over the last several decades. Adding more colder observations in recent years can't help but add a cool bias to the raw data. What would you recommend we do about it? Leave a known bias in the data or correct the data for the bias? The resulting trend would be the same whether we added 0.12 C to all buoy data or subtracted 0.12 C from all ship data.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maximumbrainusage (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:58 AM

12. As I read it, more BULLSHIT adjustments that don't align with their theory.

Why would you adjust very accurate readings in favor of less accurate readings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 06:43 PM

13. I'm sorry you're unable to understand

A straight-forward explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maximumbrainusage (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:24 AM

15. Not even close to a sraight forward expanation.

But here is one that takes them to task for their "adjustments" that are *always* upward.

Comments from Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry:

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

I am also unconvinced by NOAA’s gap filling in the Arctic, and in my opinion this introduces substantial error into their analysis. I addressed the issue of gap filling in the Arctic in this recent publication: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:10 PM

19. How can you even debate this?

All due respect but you are way out of your depth, sandwich.

You want them to use Argos data going back 25 years, when it wasn't even in existence that long ago.

Learn some fundamental facts and get back to me.

Curry is a completely discredited hack. Is anyone still touting the stadium wave hypothesis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maximumbrainusage (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:29 AM

21. You "doomers" are all the same. Anyone that disagrees with you is a "hack" and any evidence

to the contrary (ARGOS) is invalid because it doesn't date back to a specific time period. I seriously doubt you read any of the linked material. Because, if you had, you would have serious doubts as to the validity of the NOAA data set and conclusions. Specifically because it strongly discounts the ARGOS data in favor of the much less accurate and manipulated shipboard data. Feel free to swallow what is hand fed to you hook, line, and sinker. As for me, I'm always skeptical when data is manipulated for *any* reason.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 07:45 PM

22. Learn something about the science please

What's most amusing is that you don't realize that the very thing you are touting also uses 'corrected' data.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 02:36 AM

27. The satellite data do indeed demonstrate warming

You're just looking at the wrong data.

Let's look at the satellite data for specific humidity (SH):


That graph is from Remote Sensing Systems. You might know them from their temperature data set, RSS TLT, which deniers love to tout. However, it's obvious that something is wrong somewhere in the satellite data as specific humidity cannot increase unless the temperature increases.

So, how to resolve the discrepancy? Let's compare the SH to temperature data sets and see if there is any match. When this is done, we find that the satellite data for SH matches ground-based thermometers pretty well. Those ground-based thermometers show significant warming at Earth's surface, btw.
?w=500&h=325

That is probably why Carl Mears, a physicist and senior scientist at Remote Sensing Systems said, "In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset."

The data clearly demonstrate warming. No pause, no hiatus, no bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 12, 2015, 05:57 AM

28. Here's the problem which doomers never like to discuss.

Why do the doomers need to ALWAYS adjust data, and ALWAYS upward? Simple question, correct? Any answers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 01:45 AM

30. You don't know that satellite data are much more heavily processed...

...than land data, do you? Well, they are. Satellites, in fact, do not measure the temperature at all. They measure microwaves which is then processed into temperature. That is anything but a straightforward process. I should also point out that the satellite data isn't for the surface at all. Satellite temperature is for the lower troposphere, over five miles above the surface on average. So applying it to the surface would require yet another less-than-accurate adjustment.

The idea that ground-based temperature data is always adjusted upward is both wrong...and largely irrelevant. There is no legitimate reason to doubt the temperature trend is up and up steeply.

A little more on the satellite data, UAH in this case, but many of the observations apply likewise to RSS>

Just keep bangin' those rocks together!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 05:27 PM

37. You do understand that the data was adjusted up from sea based bouys,

which showed no warming at all, right? The ones that NOAA claims are super accurate. They took the less accurate shipboard data and manipulated the more accurate buoy data (upward).

The idea that ground-based temperature data is always adjusted upward is both wrong...and largely irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:46 PM

38. It makes zero difference to the trend. None at all.

They adjusted the buoy data simply because there was a lot less of it than ship data, therefore it could be done more quickly. Since it makes no difference to the trend, it was a pragmatic, cost-saving, and time-saving decision. It was a good call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 02:40 PM

40. They adjusted the Bouy data to match the erroneous shipboard data.

They should have done the opposite. Bad call, and blatantly obvious what they were trying to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 03:00 PM

42. Um, you don't seem to understand what you are talking about.

If they adjusted the buoy data up...then they adjusted all the data upward. That means that the trend is exactly the same as it was in the unadjusted data. Sheesh!

In any event, the adjustments were trivial in terms of temperature. You are merely sounding the plaintive cry of the denialist. It's a bit early for that, mating season isn't for another three months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 01:56 PM

44. And you are pathetically trying to explain away the obvious.

Even a fifth grader could pick up on this trick.

The buoy data did *not* show an increase in temps, the shipboard data did. Since NOAA considers the buoy data to be more accurate, they should have adjusted the shipboard data down to more closely match it. Not the other way around. They did the same thing with the satellite data.

In any event, the adjustments were trivial in terms of temperature.

Of course, you Doomers always have an "answer" for anything that sheds doubt on your blessed religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 02:05 PM

45. In reality, there is nothing to answer

The adjustments that have so distressed A) made absolutely no difference to the temperature trend -none-, and B) were trivial in terms of temperature adjustment.

You are dead wrong on the buoy data. They did indeed show an increase. They showed the exact same trend for the buoy before and after the adjustment. That only makes sense since they adjusted the entire buoy data and not just the most recent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:30 AM

46. Clearly we have read different articles. I'll try to find the one I Iooked at that showed that the

buoy data did not show a warming trend, but the shipboard data did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 10:26 AM

47. I don't read a lot of "articles"

However, there is this from the scientific paper which did the adjusting:



That is the difference the "adjustments" made to the temperature record.

Now, if you want to see a big adjustment to the data, I can show you one:


The figure shows that the impact of the adjustment to remove the cold bias from bucket sea surface temperature measurements warms the historical data, decreasing the amount of global warming the data indicate. From Smith and Reynolds, 2002

You'll note that the effect of that adjustment is a massive decrease in the warming trend of the ocean temperatures. Maybe NOAA just didn't get the memo.

Or maybe, just maybe, there is no conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 02:24 AM

26. No, they haven't

You're thinking of denialists, assuming that you're thinking at all about this topic. The data unequivocally support rapid warming of the Earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 12, 2015, 05:59 AM

29. This is correct, as has been done many times in the past.

This is just another example of them "adjusting" data that doesn't show what they want it to show. In this case, they took the very accurate ARGOS data and adjusted it to conform with much less accurate shipboard data, which had shown warming. Same game, different date.

More likely evidence of climatologists fudging the numbers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 05:20 AM

31. Zero evidence of climatologists "fudging the numbers"

However, denialists making vacuous and incorrect claims are a common place.

As for ARGO, they're pretty up front about what they've done and why. Feel free to point out exactly where and how the data were "fudged." I suspect I'll be having a snowball fight in Hell before that happens, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 05:18 PM

35. Direct evidence of NOAA fudging the numbers.

I guess you were too busy writing your talking points to notice. Why would an agency take more accurate numbers and adjust them to less accurate numbers?

Answer: it was the only way to show that the pause in warming did not happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:47 PM

39. An adjustment to homogenize different data from different sources...

...is NOT fudging. Claiming it is fudging is disingenuous desperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 02:42 PM

41. I'd be fired if I tried this for a project.

... to homogenize different data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MeatSandwich (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 03:02 PM

43. Then my advice is don't try it...unless you want a vacation

But if you hate that sort of homogenization, then you must absolutely loathe the satellite-derived temperature data. They have to do that sort of thing constantly as different satellites lose functionality, or lose altitude, or as new satellites come on-line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Da Mannn (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 21, 2016, 01:32 AM

48. Are the majority of scientists fudging with numbers?

If so, can you prove it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:36 AM

14. good then I will get to see it before I get too old

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 08:13 AM

16. Who gives a shit? Needs to get a hellova lot hotter. Especially in a few spots in the ME

Like, instant sunshine in a can hot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:35 PM

20. Rapid Change

The word 'rapid' is not a precise scientific term, and it's use is sadly typical of those that believe that science is on their side. I could easily categorize the changes we've seen with the equally ambiguous term 'slow' and it would be hard for anyone to argue.

That aside, let's consider this fact from the link:

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century

Whether or not this type of change is 'rapid' or 'slow' is really irrelevant. The question that we should be asking is whether or not this problem is more or less serious than the host of other problems we face. There is no doubt that unless action is taken, rising sea levels will complete eliminate certain low lying countries like the Maldives. While that is certainly tragic to those involved, let us be brutally honest. We live on a planet of 7+ billion people. Should we really consider the fact that 500,000 people might have to pick up and leave their country over the course of 50+ years a catastrophic threat? When you consider the fact that AIDS kills more than a million people in Africa every single year, clearly the answer is no. Even when you add in all the people in the world whose homes are threatened by sea level rise, the fact that the effects are spread out over decades means there are numerous ways to prevent any actual loss of life. Unlike a bullet fired at a person who has the bad luck to live in one of the numerous war torn areas of the globe, an ocean rising a few millimeters a year is not exactly hard to dodge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:33 PM

23. Sea level rise is something humans have been dealing with

for thousands of years. The ability to feed ourselves is what gets problematic as temperatures rise. Deserts spread. Weather becomes less reliably predictable, putting crops at risk. Acidification and warming water hits fish stocks that are already under heavy pressure. And as you say, there are 7.5 billion of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 06:48 PM

34. Actually some of the earths most productive ages were when it was warmer than now....

...It's cold and glacial maximums that are a bigger danger to our species. Look at the Carboniferous period....then look at what happened when the got colder......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:30 PM

24. According to the forecast the high here in central Illinois on Saturday will be 60 degrees. That's

warm for December. It makes it easy to believe that 2015 is on track to be the hottest year on record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Argentina (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:01 PM

25. We hit 60 here on Puget Sound today

Way too warm for this time of year. The month so far is well above normal. Tides have been 1.5 feet higher than the tide tables say they should be. Thirty foot swells along Pacific beaches and rain, lots of rain..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Argentina (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 05:21 PM

36. You're confusng weather for climate change again.

No great shock though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 07:47 AM

32. When the breadbasket becomes the dustbowl, the deniers will claim it's a liberal plot ...

... to starve people, which will somehow make Al Gore's friends rich.




Yeah, that's it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Verle Mann (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 01:39 PM

33. That would be a good thing don't you know?

That would take us back to the climate from 1934 when CO2 concentrations were only about 300 ppm. The climate was better back then before all those nasty SUVs started polluting everything with CO2. A 1930s type dust bowl would be proof of a blinding success of CO2 mitigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:52 AM

49. Flat earthers are sad people

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience