The oceans are rising!

[doubtingmerle]

I do not understand why people deny climate change. We have known for a century that increased levels of carbon dioxide cause planets to warm. We have shown conclusively that burning fossil fuels has raised the carbon dioxide levels of our atmosphere (from 280 ppm to 400 ppm). Based on that we would predict that temperatures would rise, and sure enough, they have. Attempts to attribute this temperature rise to natural causes have repeatedly found those causes inadequate, while the effects expected from increases in carbon dioxide closely match what we observe.

Deniers will make a big deal that the temperature has been largely on a plateau for the last decade, while ignoring the fact that this plateau is very high--9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. Yes, the global temperature has changed little this decade--while still making 2014 the hottest year on record--but the total heat content of the earth has continued to rise rapidly. Where is that heat going? Much of it is melting the polar ice caps. A recent study in Antarctica indicates the ice is melting at an alarming rate, which could cause much of the ice cover to destabilize and slowly flow into the sea. See, for instance, https://news.vice.com/article/the-w...at-a-much-higher-rate-than-previously-thought. This could lead to disastrous sea level rises.

Climate change, global warming, and rising sea levels could have a devastating effect in the lives of our grandchildren. I don't write this for me. I don't expect to be here for the worst of the effects. But for the sake of those we love, shouldn't we all be concerned?

The world's major science organizations have issued strong warnings about the dangers of climate change. So why ignore the science, and persist in denial of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels?

 

[MachZer0]

That's bad news for the Obama's who apparently just bought a home on one of the Hawaiian islands unconcerned about the rising sea levels

 

[Steve Petersen]

Step back and get a little perspective on planetary history.

 

[Audacious]

Because instead of science, people would rather accept bizarre conspiracy theories based upon the idea that scientists are more likely to be corrupt than pundits and oil companies.

 

[MachZer0]

Because instead of science, people would rather accept bizarre conspiracy theories based upon the idea that scientists are more likely to be corrupt than pundits and oil companies.

From the link:

"Historically, there's been a lot of uncertainty in measurements of Antarctic melting because the continent is so remote and difficult to study. That makes it tough to predict future ice loss, which is necessary to help coastal communities around the world prepare for sea level rise. Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University geoscientist who was not involved in the study, said that the new research provides important clues to how Antarctica will change in the future"

That isn't science. That's pseudoscience

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I do not understand why people deny climate change. We have known for a century that increased levels of carbon dioxide cause planets to warm. We have shown conclusively that burning fossil fuels has raised the carbon dioxide levels of our atmosphere (from 280 ppm to 400 ppm). Based on that we would predict that temperatures would rise, and sure enough, they have. Attempts to attribute this temperature rise to natural causes have repeatedly found those causes inadequate, while the effects expected from increases in carbon dioxide closely match what we observe.

Deniers will make a big deal that the temperature has been largely on a plateau for the last decade, while ignoring the fact that this plateau is very high--9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. Yes, the global temperature has changed little this decade--while still making 2014 the hottest year on record--but the total heat content of the earth has continued to rise rapidly. Where is that heat going? Much of it is melting the polar ice caps. A recent study in Antarctica indicates the ice is melting at an alarming rate, which could cause much of the ice cover to destabilize and slowly flow into the sea. See, for instance, https://news.vice.com/article/the-w...at-a-much-higher-rate-than-previously-thought. This could lead to disastrous sea level rises.

Climate change, global warming, and rising sea levels could have a devastating effect in the lives of our grandchildren. I don't write this for me. I don't expect to be here for the worst of the effects. But for the sake of those we love, shouldn't we all be concerned?

The world's major science organizations have issued strong warnings about the dangers of climate change. So why ignore the science, and persist in denial of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels?

At the beginning of the first grade class the teacher instructed her students, "If you have to go to the bathroom, just raise your hand."

Little Johnny, after thinking for a few seconds asked, "What good will that do?"

 

[nightflight]

That's bad news for the Obama's who apparently just bought a home on one of the Hawaiian islands unconcerned about the rising sea levels

Got to admit that is a strange thing to do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Got to admit that is a strange thing to do.

The steepness of the islands mitigates the effect of sea level rise. A five foot rise would do little damage compared to what would happen to Florida.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I do not understand why people deny climate change. We have known for a century that increased levels of carbon dioxide cause planets to warm. We have shown conclusively that burning fossil fuels has raised the carbon dioxide levels of our atmosphere (from 280 ppm to 400 ppm). Based on that we would predict that temperatures would rise, and sure enough, they have. Attempts to attribute this temperature rise to natural causes have repeatedly found those causes inadequate, while the effects expected from increases in carbon dioxide closely match what we observe.

Deniers will make a big deal that the temperature has been largely on a plateau for the last decade, while ignoring the fact that this plateau is very high--9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. Yes, the global temperature has changed little this decade--while still making 2014 the hottest year on record--but the total heat content of the earth has continued to rise rapidly. Where is that heat going? Much of it is melting the polar ice caps. A recent study in Antarctica indicates the ice is melting at an alarming rate, which could cause much of the ice cover to destabilize and slowly flow into the sea. See, for instance, https://news.vice.com/article/the-w...at-a-much-higher-rate-than-previously-thought. This could lead to disastrous sea level rises.

Climate change, global warming, and rising sea levels could have a devastating effect in the lives of our grandchildren. I don't write this for me. I don't expect to be here for the worst of the effects. But for the sake of those we love, shouldn't we all be concerned?

The world's major science organizations have issued strong warnings about the dangers of climate change. So why ignore the science, and persist in denial of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels?

Calling people names is not likely to succeed in changing their minds. Actually presenting some concrete evidence that something is the case is much more likely to work than saying if you don't believe what I believe in exactly the way I believe it then you are a denier. Part of the problem with global warming zealots is that if you disagree with even the smallest part of their overall global warming hysteria belief system they pull out the denier card. It is up to those that insist that carbon actually causes global warming that will bring about an apocalyptic catastrophe to prove that there is not only a cause and effect relationship( when all I have seen so far is sure evidence of correlation not actual evidence of causation) but also that the computer models used for prediction are so sophisticated and correct they cannot possibly be in any way mistaken. IMO it is simply irrelavant whether man made carbon emissions are a cause of global warming or even the only cause of global warming ( something that is highly unlikely) , an effect of global warming, or both are effects of something else. There is no reasonable way for us to deter the climate changes that are going to occur even should they beyond reason turn out to be what I consider the flawed computer models claim they will be. Rather than pretending some ridiculous tax scheme or other such nonsense will change the inevitable, we would all do well to simply adapt to the new environment as life on this planet has and humans in particular have shown are very capable of doing.

 

[GarfieldJL]

The steepness of the islands mitigates the effect of sea level rise. A five foot rise would do little damage compared to what would happen to Florida.

I doubt the seas would rise 5 ft overnight, I'm also wondering if you have taken into account a major factor called beach erosion...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I doubt the seas would rise 5 ft overnight, I'm also wondering if you have taken into account a major factor called beach erosion...

Hawaii would lose beaches, Florida would lose cities.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

..... we would all do well to simply adapt to the new environment as life on this planet has and humans in particular have shown are very capable of doing.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Hawaii would lose beaches, Florida would lose cities.

I'm suggesting the numbers might not be accurate because it is well known that Florida is losing its' beaches already, not to rising sea levels, but to coastal erosion...

 

[doubtingmerle]

That isn't science. That's pseudoscience

So saying we know X but don't know Y is not science? Why not? The article is clear on what we do know--that the Antarctic is losing ice at an alarming rate today. And yes, the article admits that we don't fully understand future ice losses. There are so many factors involved. But scientists can view things and predict what is likely to happen. And in the Antarctic, that is not pretty.

Do you also claim that weather forecasters who issue a storm warning based on a perceived likely event are engaging in pseudoscience? It would seem to me that when the best available science predicts a disaster is extremely likely,
one would want to pay attention.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Step back and get a little perspective on planetary history.

This for instance? Is that what you are referring to?

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[doubtingmerle]

At the beginning of the first grade class the teacher instructed her students, "If you have to go to the bathroom, just raise your hand."

Little Johnny, after thinking for a few seconds asked, "What good will that do?"

At least you won't get your hand wet!

 

[DaisyDay]

That's bad news for the Obama's who apparently just bought a home on one of the Hawaiian islands unconcerned about the rising sea levels

Or not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Calling people names is not likely to succeed in changing their minds. Actually presenting some concrete evidence that something is the case is much more likely to work than saying if you don't believe what I believe in exactly the way I believe it then you are a denier. Part of the problem with global warming zealots is that if you disagree with even the smallest part of their overall global warming hysteria belief system they pull out the denier card.

Did you not see my screen name--doubtingmerle? I call myself a doubter. Wen I say that somebody denies or doubts, that is not an insult. It is a compliment if the person has good reason to doubt.

So I ask why you doubt. I do not get upset that, like me, you doubt some things. I only ask if you have a reason for those doubts.

It is up to those that insist that carbon actually causes global warming that will bring about an apocalyptic catastrophe to prove that there is not only a cause and effect relationship( when all I have seen so far is sure evidence of correlation not actual evidence of causation)

Are you not aware that scientists have presented that evidence? See, for instance:

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies

Is that what you were looking for?

but also that the computer models used for prediction are so sophisticated and correct they cannot possibly be in any way mistaken.

Excuse me, but you are aware that nobody says this, yes? So why make up something that nobody says?

"Computer models" was only one of the 4 points in the OP. The issue is that multiple computer models all show consistently that carbon dioxide is the problem. That is important.

If multiple computer models show that a large hurricane is heading toward your location on the beach, you would not bring up the straw man that the forecasters should not claim their forecasts are infallible, would you?

IMO it is simply irrelavant whether man made carbon emissions are a cause of global warming or even the only cause of global warming ( something that is highly unlikely) , an effect of global warming, or both are effects of something else. There is no reasonable way for us to deter the climate changes that are going to occur even should they beyond reason turn out to be what I consider the flawed computer models claim they will be. Rather than pretending some ridiculous tax scheme or other such nonsense will change the inevitable, we would all do well to simply adapt to the new environment as life on this planet has and humans in particular have shown are very capable of doing.

You have a point there. Even if humans respond in an overwhelming way, it is still likely that eventually all the fossil fuels that can economically be burnt will be burnt, and that most of the rain forests will eventually be cut down. Global warming is based on the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the rate at which we add it. So if we burn it all eventually but at a slower rate, then all we would be doing is delaying the inevitable, with slightly less environmental damage. Is that worth doing? That is an important question to ask.

But ignoring the question is not, in my opinion, a good idea.

 

[JustOneWay]

You guys let somebody take over this thread and make it about Obama. Please don't make this about Obama.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...So why ignore the science, and persist in denial of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels?

Accepting climate change would mean changing habits, such as exchanging SUVs for smaller cars.

Those who can't fit their fat butts into anything smaller than an SUV don't want this to happen.