# At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 20, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473 "2013-03-20T17:52:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/41 "2013-03-26T02:36:39Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> So, a quick tally makes it 250 million dollars for about 100 institution in ten years for a grand total of 250,000 per institution per year, not exactly the Manhattan Project.
> “An inconvenient Truth” made 50 mill.
> NOAA’s budget is over 5 billion a year.
> C’mon
>
> What bugs ME is the warmists insistence that septics can only be motivated by oil money, evil , or ignorance.
Ignorance will do in many cases. In any case the idea that scientists are just doing it for the money is the same flawed logic of the ones opposing evolution, the take home lesson should be that while one can find evidence of science being twisted by ideology, the reality is that eventually science overcomes ideology as years of research give us evidence that tell us what side \*\*was \*\*correct.
> **[Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong](https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong)**
>
> Richard Muller, who directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity.
> [@](#):
>
> This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkely, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
>
> The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago, but the difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
> [@](#):
>
> Some leading climate scientists said Muller’s comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully.
>
> Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said Muller’s conversion might help shape the thinking of the “reasonable middle” of the population “who are genuinely confused and have been honestly taken in” by attacks on climate science.
>
> On his Facebook page, Mann wrote: “There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers — the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet — demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions.”
It may take time, but there is another ignorant card being played here, the one that does not recognize the march of time and history. Just like in the case of evolution, biologists and researchers that accept the fact of evolution are the ones that get funding, not the creationists.
There is a lot of evidence and history that shows why the current state of funding in scientific circles is what it is now.
In reality the fake skeptical side would be just as appealing as creationists (many would see them as a fringe ideology when policy is on the line) if they did not have funding to keep their false request for equality going. It does not matter that they have no good evidence left, **that is not the point of why they exist**. And in other fronts there is the money used to elect denier politicians and to fund stink tanks, all that money is there not to make this fair among scientific circles, but to give the false impression that there is a controversy going on there and so, by golly, there should be a controversy.
There is then also an appeal to ignorance in the attempt to ignore all previous history and experiments made before; again, that funding argument just works on fumes only if we are willing to ignore history and the research that was made during almost more than 100 years of climate science.
[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>
> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future
.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/42 "2013-03-26T19:40:23Z")
> [@Greg\_Charles](#):
>
> Septics, heh. What we “warmists” see is world temperatures by year plotted on a graph showing a consistent upward trend, and what we hear is, “No it’s not there.” “The data has been faked.” “1998 was the peak and it’s been cooler since then.” All these observations are based on ignorance, willful or genuine, so what do you suggest that we insist is motivating you?
It’s not there = I’ve never said it.
The data has been faked = I’ve never said it (I imagine that some data has been faked because simple probability dictates it, not a conspiracy)
1998 is the peak = The MetOffice says it.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Ignorance will do in many cases. In any case the idea that scientists are just doing it for the money is the same flawed logic of the ones opposing evolution, the take home lesson should be that while one can find evidence of science being twisted by ideology, the reality is that eventually science overcomes ideology as years of research give us evidence that tell us what side \*\*was \*\*correct.
>
> [Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong - CSMonitor.com](http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video)
>
> It may take time, but there is another ignorant card being played here, the one that does not recognize the march of time and history. Just like in the case of evolution, biologists and researchers that accept the fact of evolution are the ones that get funding, not the creationists.
>
> There is a lot of evidence and history that shows why the current state of funding in scientific circles is what it is now.
>
> In reality the fake skeptical side would be just as appealing as creationists (many would see them as a fringe ideology when policy is on the line) if they did not have funding to keep their false request for equality going. It does not matter that they have no good evidence left, **that is not the point of why they exist**. And in other fronts there is the money used to elect denier politicians and to fund stink tanks, all that money is there not to make this fair among scientific circles, but to give the false impression that there is a controversy going on there and so, by golly, there should be a controversy.
>
> There is then also an appeal to ignorance in the attempt to ignore all previous history and experiments made before; again, that funding argument just works on fumes only if we are willing to ignore history and the research that was made during almost more than 100 years of climate science.
>
> [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm)
> .
I’ve never said "scientists are just doing it for the money " so I won’t comment.
One scientist changing side is not relevant.
" Just like in the case of evolution, biologists and researchers that accept the fact of evolution are the ones that get funding, not the creationists. " that means you agree with me that warmists are getting more money; thanks.
---
### Author:  [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/43 "2013-03-26T20:13:08Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> NOAA’s budget is over 5 billion a year.
Why would NOAA be biased? Why would that bias persist throughout a very conservative, climate-science-denying administration lasting 8 years?
Why would US National Academy of Science be biased?
I admit that the UN IPCC had an institutional bias: it was set up for the purpose of spreading the AGW story. While that can explain bias in the IPCC’s report, it doesn’t explain bias in the two US institutions mentioned above.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/44 "2013-03-26T20:54:07Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> It’s not there = I’ve never said it.
> The data has been faked = I’ve never said it (I imagine that some data has been faked because simple probability dictates it, not a conspiracy)
> 1998 is the peak = The MetOffice says it.
Misleading, the Met office clarifies that the warming continues.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> I’ve never said "scientists are just doing it for the money " so I won’t comment.
After bringing money into the discussion.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> One scientist changing side is not relevant.
Once again ignoring history and simple logic, remember the main history on how increases on human made CO2 are harmful was not considered by scientists at large to be a problem, after more than 100 years of research we arrived to this:
> **[Scientific consensus on climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)**
>
> There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,: 8 : 11 and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,: 10–11 with a signif Nearly...
> [@](#):
>
> No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
\*\*Simple logic should tell one that from originally not minding this issue at all to having most scientists being in favor shows that the vast majority of scientists changed sides already. \*\*
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> " Just like in the case of evolution, biologists and researchers that accept the fact of evolution are the ones that get funding, not the creationists. " that means you agree with me that warmists are getting more money; thanks.
And once this reply assumes that we should stay misleadingly just on that, no thanks. Once again, evidence supports one side, the side with no evidence is being artificially kept up in the headlines for reasons other than science.
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/45 "2013-03-26T21:04:24Z")
At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
Probably the point at which the waters reach Everest’s South Base Camp…
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/46 "2013-03-26T21:37:05Z")
> [@Learjeff](#):
>
> Why would NOAA be biased? Why would that bias persist throughout a very conservative, climate-science-denying administration lasting 8 years?
>
> Why would US National Academy of Science be biased?
>
> I admit that the UN IPCC had an institutional bias: it was set up for the purpose of spreading the AGW story. While that can explain bias in the IPCC’s report, it doesn’t explain bias in the two US institutions mentioned above.
At no point did I intend to imply that NAS or NOAA has bias (maybe they do in the same way of every large institution in the wolrd), I compared funding.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Misleading, the Met office clarifies that the warming continues.
At no point did I claim otherwise.
> [@](#):
>
> After bringing money into the discussion.
SOme other guy did it.
Even if I did, it doesn’t mean that every mention of money is correctly atributed to me or that I must comment on it.
> [@](#):
>
> Once again ignoring history and simple logic, remember the main history on how increases on human made CO2 are harmful was not considered by scientists at large to be a problem, after more than 100 years of research we arrived to this:
>
> [Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
You post “a scpetic turns warmist”
I post “ok, it’s only one”
You post “CO2 is harmful”, I don’t follow.
\*\*Simple logic should tell one that from originally not minding this issue at all to having most scientists being in favor shows that the vast majority of scientists changed sides already. \*\*
I completely agree that my position is not sanctioned by most/all scientific bodies. I still think I’m right.
And once this reply assumes that we should stay misleadingly just on that, no thanks. Once again, evidence supports one side, the side with no evidence is being artificially kept up in the headlines for reasons other than science.
[/QUOTE]
The reply doesn’t assume anyhting. It clearly states.
> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
>
> Probably the point at which the waters reach Everest’s South Base Camp…
When it reaches Katmandu most of us will start having second thoughts about our scepticism.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/47 "2013-03-26T21:51:25Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> I completely agree that my position is not sanctioned by most/all scientific bodies. I still think I’m right.
And that is just your opinion, as pointed many times before: you are not entitled to the facts.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> The reply doesn’t assume anyhting. It clearly states.
Clearly it states just a misleading conclusion, there is really no trouble when the evidence supports something after 100 years: a subject that has been supported with evidence by that long is expected to get more funding. The side that does not should not get any nor it should exist as a movement. [History reports that it exists because of some powerful interests](http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/). It is not important that some could say that the fake skeptics are getting less economical support, the point that was missed is that scientifically speaking they should get virtually nothing if science was the basis or reason for that funding.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/48 "2013-03-26T22:04:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> And that is just your opinion, as pointed many times before: you are not entitled to the facts.
Agreed, but I’ll still be shown right.
> [@](#):
>
> Clearly it states just a misleading conclusion, there is really no trouble when the evidence supports something after 100 years: a subject that has been supported with evidence by that long is expected to get more funding. The side that does not should not get any nor it should exist as a movement. [History reports that it exists because of some powerful interests](http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/). It is not important that some could say that the fake skeptics are getting less economical support, the point that was missed is that scientifically speaking they should get virtually nothing if science was the basis or reason for that funding.
AGW gets more money that sceptics, you are not entitled to your facts.
I agree that because AGW is the mainstream postion that it logically and rationally gets more funding.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/49 "2013-03-26T22:31:50Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Agreed, but I’ll still be shown right.
After 100 years of research convincing virtually all researchers agree now on the reality of AGW you need to point at a changing scientific consensus in science that changed back again, not very likely as history shows that many times when scientific movements arrive to a new modern understanding changing requires even more extraordinary evidence to change back again to the old ways.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> AGW gets more money that sceptics, you are not entitled to your facts.
You do not have them. I only say that on some situations that is the case, but the misleading point is to assume that that is the case always.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/50 "2013-03-27T15:44:38Z")
Look, **Aji,** you do understand [what this fuss is all about](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_Warming#What.27s_so_bad_about_global_warming.3F), don’t you?
> [@](#):
>
> **What’s so bad about global warming?**
>
> _See the main article on this topic: Effects of global warming_
>
> Global warming is “bad” for a number of reasons.
>
> - A dramatic rise in sea level. Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. This small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft).
> - More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms.
> - Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others.
> - Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 - carbonic acid, causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[14]
> - Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming.
> - Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas.
> - Disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude.
> - Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go.
> - Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer.
>
> Not all of these consequences are certain, and some may be mitigated. For example, whilst global warming might tend to promote the spread of tropical diseases, advances in medicine or control measures (insect spraying, swamp draining) could well counteract this, as has already happened during the industrial era for a number of previously common diseases.
>
> Equally though, there will probably be many unanticipated additional — probably negative — consequences.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/51 "2013-03-27T16:24:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> After 100 years of research convincing virtually all researchers agree now on the reality of AGW you need to point at a changing scientific consensus in science that changed back again, not very likely as history shows that many times when scientific movements arrive to a new modern understanding changing requires even more extraordinary evidence to change back again to the old ways.
> You do not have them. I only say that on some situations that is the case, but the misleading point is to assume that that is the case always.
With you, even if I agree with you, everything is misleading.
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Look, **Aji,** you do understand [what this fuss is all about](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_Warming#What.27s_so_bad_about_global_warming.3F), don’t you?
I do.
I’ll go point by point but I won’t go on a lot after that. My position on AGW is clear. My points are in red.
- A dramatic rise in sea level. Global warming will cause a continuing sea level rise of an uncertain amount. The IPCC reports a range of 9 – 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches) up to 2100, but further contributions are possible from glacier and ice sheet discharge from Greenland and Antarctica. This small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft). Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years. The melting of the whole Greenland ice sheet is impossible
- More active weather systems. More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms. If the last 100 years are any proof, it is false. aggregated cyclone enegry has been flat for decades.
- Disturbed rainfall patterns. Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others. No evidence of major rain pattern changes in the last 100 years
- Acidification of the oceans. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 - carbonic acid, causing great damage to fish stocks and coral reefs. Note this is not a consequence of warming: it is a consequence of the forcing agent, CO2. To make matters worse, this acidification appears to have been an important factor in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event — the most severe extinction Earth has ever known — and possibly every extinction other than the Cretaceous.[14] No important effect have been shown so far.
- Tipping points/feedback loops. Multiple possibilities here. As glaciers disappear, the planet will not reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. When northern permafrost melts, the organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if ever reach a certain temperature, the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporize, leading to (you guessed it) more warming. tpping points cannot exist in any reasonable temp rise. temperatures and CO2 have been higher and no tipping point was reached.
- Spread of tropical diseases. As northern latitudes become warmer, vectors that spread tropical diseases (such as mosquitoes or other organisms) will begin to encroach into new areas. Even with the last 100 years of warming this hasn’t been shown to be true.
- Disruption of ocean currents. For example, the disruption of ocean currents could reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Drift that keeps Europe relatively warm for its latitude. “Could”, c’mon, they can do better than that. The drift is due mostly to the earths rotation. Salt concentration differences are minor.
- Habitat loss or change faster than plants or animals can adapt. Mechanism such as species migration or changes in ecosystem boundaries often are slow, and in some cases could be slower than the speed of climate change. Some habitats may disappear completely: the loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go. Polar bears have at least quadrupled their numbers in the last 40 years.
- Loss of mountain glaciers and snowpack exacerbating summer droughts. Glaciers and snowpack act as natural reservoirs, for example releasing water that had fallen as snow several months later when summer arrives and snow melts. The loss of this natural storage mechanism will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer. This hasn’t been shown to be true. More temprerature could also mean more rain is deposited in glaciers.
Not all of these consequences are certain, and some may be mitigated. For example, whilst global warming might tend to promote the spread of tropical diseases, advances in medicine or control measures (insect spraying, swamp draining) could well counteract this, as has already happened during the industrial era for a number of previously common diseases.
Equally though, there will probably be many unanticipated additional — probably negative — consequences. Or maybe longer growing seasons will increase production
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/52 "2013-03-27T17:32:58Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> With you, even if I agree with you, everything is misleading.
Because it is, just for starters it is misleading to imply that NOAA just has that budget for climate change issues alone.
But the whole red replies show also why, you need a big fat cite and not just “because I say so” to take those points seriously, because it has already been acknowledged that it does not matter what most scientists are reporting, just for starters:
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years. The melting of the whole Greenland ice sheet is impossible
That is not accurate at all.
> **[File:Trends in global average absolute sea level, 1870-2008 (US EPA).png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png)**
>
> Original file (670 × 717 pixels, file size: 61 KB, MIME type: image/png)
> Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
> You cannot overwrite this file. There are no pages that use this file.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/53 "2013-03-27T17:45:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Because it is, just for starters it is misleading to imply that NOAA just has that budget for climate change issues alone.
>
> But the whole red replies show also why, you need a big fat cite and not just “because I say so” to take those points seriously, because it has already been acknowledged that it does not matter what most scientists are reporting, just for starters:
I don’t need squat, sorry. Feel free to dismiss me.
> [@](#):
>
> That is not accurate at all.
>
> [File:Trends in global average absolute sea level, 1870-2008 (US EPA).png - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png)
[/QUOTE]
Comparing a 15-years trend with a 130-year one? The 1870 1880 trend was even faster, 1 inch in a decade.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/54 "2013-03-27T17:59:06Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> I don’t need squat, sorry. Feel free to dismiss me.
That is not my problem, when there is no cite coming everyone else will do it too.
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Comparing a 15-years trend with a 130-year one? The 1870 1880 trend was even faster, 1 inch in a decade.
Your claim was that the “Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years” now you report that it was, I only need to show that even on simple items you are really clueless.
> **[How much is sea level rising?](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)**
>
> \Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.\
> [@](#):
>
> As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while ignoring an obvious trend, that’s a clue you’re being steered as opposed to informed. Don’t be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed.
>
> Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there’s a real problem here it’s underestimation of future sea level rise. The IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ).
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/55 "2013-03-27T18:55:08Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> At what point will the Global Warming Debate be resolved?
>
> Probably the point at which the waters reach Everest’s South Base Camp…
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> When it reaches Katmandu most of us will start having second thoughts about our scepticism.
Optimist. 😛
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/56 "2013-03-27T20:01:28Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> That is not my problem, when there is no cite coming everyone else will do it too.
Of course, we agree completely on that part. I’m still right, but we completely agree on the rest.
> [@](#):
>
> Your claim was that the “Sea level rise has not changed in the last 200 years” now you report that it was, I only need to show that even on simple items you are really clueless.
Ok, I’ll give you that. I will alter my original phrasing it using your own graph (which will be turned into a misleading one soon enough, somehow)
Sea level rise has been, for the last 15 years, about 1/2 of what it was from 1875 to 1880.
> **[How much is sea level rising?](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)**
>
> \Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.\
[/QUOTE]
> [@kaylasdad99](#):
>
> Optimist. 😛
There will still be some demanding a couple of more meters, just in case.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/57 "2013-03-27T20:38:03Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> The melting of the whole Greenland ice sheet is impossible
Why is it impossible?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/58 "2013-03-27T23:44:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Of course, we agree completely on that part. I’m still right, but we completely agree on the rest.
Fighting with yourself then seems to be the end game 🙂
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#):
>
> Ok, I’ll give you that. I will alter my original phrasing it using your own graph (which will be turned into a misleading one soon enough, somehow)
> Sea level rise has been, for the last 15 years, about 1/2 of what it was from 1875 to 1880.
>
> [How much is sea level rising?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm)
Repeating the point that you are using just comparing single steps in the upward escalator (That in context demonstrated that you were wrong, so at least I have to grant you points for finally learning something) does not make it sound like a smart point.
---
### Author:  [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)
#### Post date: [March 27, 2013, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/59 "2013-03-27T23:55:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Why is it impossible?
Impossible in the sense of “within any even remotely expectable parameters and less than 400 years” not impossible in the absolute sense.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 28, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473/60 "2013-03-28T00:41:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Why is it impossible?
One can grant him that point, but he misses that even if not all ice will melt, that is not a sign that we should not worry.
[http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/30/icy-greenland-melting-at-accelerating-rate-study-finds/](http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/30/icy-greenland-melting-at-accelerating-rate-study-finds/)
> [@](#):
>
> Ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland has contributed nearly half an inch to the rise in sea levels in the past 20 years, according to an assessment of polar ice sheet melting that researchers are calling the most reliable yet.
>
> What’s more, ice loss is rapidly speeding up in the north, while the rate in Antarctica has been fairly constant, the researchers report Friday, Nov. 29, in the journal Science.
>
> Ice loss has been notoriously difficult to measure, and different studies have produced wildly different results, but the new study combines their methods to determine that the ice lost from Antarctica and Greenland accounts for 0.44 inches, or a fifth, of the 2.2 inches that the seas have risen on average since 1992, said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who collaborated on the study.
>
> The rest of the sea level rise has been caused by melting of other ice around the world and by thermal expansion of ocean waters, which take up more space as they get warmer. Sea-level rise is not distributed evenly over the globe; some areas, such as off the U.S. Northeast, are disproportionately affected.
>
> “ **Greenland is losing mass at about five times the rate today as it was in the early 1990s** ,” study researcher Erik Ivins, an earth scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in a press conference about the results. “In some contrast, Antarctica appears to be more or less constant, although for the last decade we appear to see about a 50 percent increase in ice-loss rate.”
>
> Measuring melt
>
> Climate and Earth scientists have long been concerned about the melting of the polar ice sheets, which has the potential to contribute to massive sea-level rise as the planet warms. Current projections range from somewhere between 8 inches and 6.6 feet of total sea-level rise over the course of this century.
And, to clarify, those projections were based on the conservative estimates that omitted any acceleration from melted ice from places like Greenland, the fact that the loss is accelerating is indeed evidence that the conservative estimates are indeed that, conservative.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-will-the-global-warming-debate-be-resolved/653473.md?page=4)