@newuser… I believe the IPCC also doesn’t include these figures because reliable data is just now becoming available. They are just now learning how ice sheet lakes crevasse and drain and how that affects the viscosity and flow of the ice sheet at lower levels. It’s very new stuff.
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF – March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
mine 2005 did for both and Fleming did but never included the Greenland ice sheet into his figures because he referenced other articles showing inland Greenland ice sheet will last another 300 years and that was past his projections.
There are numerous papers on the likelihood if breakdown of the GIS and antarctic sheet and most of them predict that they will be around for another several hundred years.
“Please check out Church 2008 as well.”
- sorry, could I get the journal name or DOI. Because church is both a common name and word i’m getting several hundred hits.
Also, even if the sea level rate rise where to double to 6mm per year the impact would only be minimum. worse case flood projection automatically assumes areas below sea level will be flooded which is almost never the case.
In addition, I don’t believe any of these papers is taking into account accelerated rates of melting for glaciers, polar ice caps or the Greenland ice sheet. When you throw these into the mix the “geological timescale” turns into “human timescale.”
@newuser… You’re quoting dated materials. Topex and Poseidon only paint a partial picture. It’s newer studies that are all showing accelerating sea level rise. Please check out Church 2008 as well.
“sea level rise is accelerating. ”
- That’s nice, here’s a contradicting study
Leuliette et al. (2004). Figures measured by the Topex and Poseidon sats show a linear progression from 1993 – 2009. On a geological timescale the rise is actually slowing down. Fleming 1998 and 2000, Milne 2005
At the current rate of 3mm a year the ocean rise is slower than the shift of tectonic plates.
“Sea level rising is a serious issue and it’s tied to global warming.”
- Please refer to the last sentence of my post… Ok, done that yet? The sea is rising at about 3mm a year… given that fact in 100 years the sea should rise about 30cm or 12 inches. Even if the cities do go below sea level that won’t be a big deal, just look at Holland.
@doubtingbob… Slow down. Take a deep breath. The effects of watching Glenn Beck will slowly subside over the next hour or so, then you’ll be back to normal.
I’ll bet you’re just licking your chops to invest in the “Sub-Prime Carbon Market”……Right potholer54??
The billionaires are already making “shitloads” of money just buying “land” and “resources” and not doing a damn thing with it!
Work….For doing do work!
Sucking us all dry!
Work for your evil slave master!
But there’s no work for you.
These billionaires simply own all the carbon that the Government say is carbon.
Fuck you potholer54.
It’s not a secret anymore.
Google it retards!
PS: To disagree with something you said, I think scientists can and should claim 100% certainty for some things, if it’s understood that that means “to the nearest per cent”. If someone is 199.9 centimetres tall, then it’s fair to say they are two metres tall: to deny that is false precision. Likewise when we have so much evidence for a theory that the probability of the alternative is minuscule, it’s fair to say that it’s 100% certain, but still not that it’s irrevocably certain.
I’m amazed that deniers use cite this “no warming” pseudo-quote when a minute on Google will refute it. They complain about “politicised” science, yet cite an extremely politicised tabloid paper (which has a long history of distorting and misrepresenting science stories). They want us to believe they are skeptics who use critical thinking, this sort of stunt refutes that. Thanks for spelling out the fallacy so elegantly in this video.
You say potholer justifies global warming “nonsense”. The you say “And I’m not saying that “climate change” isn’t a reality” but that you are “saying the “enforced taxes” will do nothing to clean-up the amount of carbon in the air, or change the way industries work.”
Where does potholer disagree with you. He doesn’t mention carbon taxes at all, and so from your own words it would appear you agree with potholer.
@doubtingBob do you actually have a criticism of Potholer’s work, or are you going to make unsubstantiated assertions and accuse every one who disagrees as being “in on it”.
usually this sort of behavior can be limited to creationists.
Nice job in justifying Global Warming nonsense potholer54.
Now justify the nonsense for a few more years.
Just long enough for the “corrupt politicians” to enforce a “carbon tax” on all fuels.
How much do you stand to pocket yourself, for the disinformation?
And I’m not saying that “climate change” isn’t a reality.
I’m saying the “enforced taxes” will do nothing to clean-up the amount of carbon in the air, or change the way industries work.
It’s a “money grab” scam, and you’re in on it.
Funny thing about the phrase “the science is settled” is that it comes from a 1997 presentation by the well known anti-science propogandist Fred S Singer (heartland institute), who falsely attributed it to Tim Worth.
Scum like Singer, Monckton, ect and their allies at the Daily Fail, Fox, WSJ, ect, are nothing less than the enemies of reason. They should be all be left to rot in Gitmo for their deliberately seditious propoganda.
There is no such thing as totally “settled” science, science with no debate or ambiguity whatsoever. With all scientific principles, even seemingly obvious things like gravity, there’ll always be room for questions.
But that doesn’t mean that the scientists don’t believe there is STRONG EVIDENCE of global warming, that it isn’t very likely that is occuring and is manmade.
Try 60 minutes retard!
But don’t investigate it yourself?
Keep drinking the fucking Koolaid!
@newuser… I believe the IPCC also doesn’t include these figures because reliable data is just now becoming available. They are just now learning how ice sheet lakes crevasse and drain and how that affects the viscosity and flow of the ice sheet at lower levels. It’s very new stuff.
google Church 2008 sea level rise.
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF – March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
lol
mine 2005 did for both and Fleming did but never included the Greenland ice sheet into his figures because he referenced other articles showing inland Greenland ice sheet will last another 300 years and that was past his projections.
There are numerous papers on the likelihood if breakdown of the GIS and antarctic sheet and most of them predict that they will be around for another several hundred years.
“Please check out Church 2008 as well.”
- sorry, could I get the journal name or DOI. Because church is both a common name and word i’m getting several hundred hits.
Also, even if the sea level rate rise where to double to 6mm per year the impact would only be minimum. worse case flood projection automatically assumes areas below sea level will be flooded which is almost never the case.
In addition, I don’t believe any of these papers is taking into account accelerated rates of melting for glaciers, polar ice caps or the Greenland ice sheet. When you throw these into the mix the “geological timescale” turns into “human timescale.”
@newuser… You’re quoting dated materials. Topex and Poseidon only paint a partial picture. It’s newer studies that are all showing accelerating sea level rise. Please check out Church 2008 as well.
“sea level rise is accelerating. ”
- That’s nice, here’s a contradicting study
Leuliette et al. (2004). Figures measured by the Topex and Poseidon sats show a linear progression from 1993 – 2009. On a geological timescale the rise is actually slowing down. Fleming 1998 and 2000, Milne 2005
At the current rate of 3mm a year the ocean rise is slower than the shift of tectonic plates.
@newuser… Right. If it were a linear trend. In fact, sea level rise is accelerating.
Jevrejeva 2008
Merrifield 2009
Vermeer 2009
Humanity needs a change of heart
Check out William Tarkovsky’s youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation.
Share something important with those who care
“Sea level rising is a serious issue and it’s tied to global warming.”
- Please refer to the last sentence of my post… Ok, done that yet? The sea is rising at about 3mm a year… given that fact in 100 years the sea should rise about 30cm or 12 inches. Even if the cities do go below sea level that won’t be a big deal, just look at Holland.
@doubtingbob… Slow down. Take a deep breath. The effects of watching Glenn Beck will slowly subside over the next hour or so, then you’ll be back to normal.
I’ll bet you’re just licking your chops to invest in the “Sub-Prime Carbon Market”……Right potholer54??
The billionaires are already making “shitloads” of money just buying “land” and “resources” and not doing a damn thing with it!
Work….For doing do work!
Sucking us all dry!
Work for your evil slave master!
But there’s no work for you.
These billionaires simply own all the carbon that the Government say is carbon.
Fuck you potholer54.
It’s not a secret anymore.
Google it retards!
PS: To disagree with something you said, I think scientists can and should claim 100% certainty for some things, if it’s understood that that means “to the nearest per cent”. If someone is 199.9 centimetres tall, then it’s fair to say they are two metres tall: to deny that is false precision. Likewise when we have so much evidence for a theory that the probability of the alternative is minuscule, it’s fair to say that it’s 100% certain, but still not that it’s irrevocably certain.
I’m amazed that deniers use cite this “no warming” pseudo-quote when a minute on Google will refute it. They complain about “politicised” science, yet cite an extremely politicised tabloid paper (which has a long history of distorting and misrepresenting science stories). They want us to believe they are skeptics who use critical thinking, this sort of stunt refutes that. Thanks for spelling out the fallacy so elegantly in this video.
doubtingBob,
You say potholer justifies global warming “nonsense”. The you say “And I’m not saying that “climate change” isn’t a reality” but that you are “saying the “enforced taxes” will do nothing to clean-up the amount of carbon in the air, or change the way industries work.”
Where does potholer disagree with you. He doesn’t mention carbon taxes at all, and so from your own words it would appear you agree with potholer.
@doubtingBob do you actually have a criticism of Potholer’s work, or are you going to make unsubstantiated assertions and accuse every one who disagrees as being “in on it”.
usually this sort of behavior can be limited to creationists.
Exactly!
There will always be shortcomings in our understanding of climate change.
But there is strong evidence that it is real, manmade, and will lead to catastrophe if we don’t stop it.
Nice job in justifying Global Warming nonsense potholer54.
Now justify the nonsense for a few more years.
Just long enough for the “corrupt politicians” to enforce a “carbon tax” on all fuels.
How much do you stand to pocket yourself, for the disinformation?
And I’m not saying that “climate change” isn’t a reality.
I’m saying the “enforced taxes” will do nothing to clean-up the amount of carbon in the air, or change the way industries work.
It’s a “money grab” scam, and you’re in on it.
Something important is happening
Take a look at William Tarkovsky’s youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation.
Share with like-minded concerned and green!
Exactly! – Imperfect does not mean useless.
Funny thing about the phrase “the science is settled” is that it comes from a 1997 presentation by the well known anti-science propogandist Fred S Singer (heartland institute), who falsely attributed it to Tim Worth.
Scum like Singer, Monckton, ect and their allies at the Daily Fail, Fox, WSJ, ect, are nothing less than the enemies of reason. They should be all be left to rot in Gitmo for their deliberately seditious propoganda.
Oooooh, Ooooooh, OOooooooooooh! the sky is falling!
There is no such thing as totally “settled” science, science with no debate or ambiguity whatsoever. With all scientific principles, even seemingly obvious things like gravity, there’ll always be room for questions.
But that doesn’t mean that the scientists don’t believe there is STRONG EVIDENCE of global warming, that it isn’t very likely that is occuring and is manmade.