Story here.
That would put it a lot closer than previously thought – IIRC, up to now scientists have been talking about a time scale of 50 to 100 years before the sea levels rise noticeably, etc.
How seriously should we take this study?
What can/should we do about the problem?
I think we should give it serious study.
Lots of serious study.
At least eleven more years’ worth.
I don’t think NASA is saying there is going to be noticeable sea level rising after ten years, but rather, ten more years like we’re going now and no matter what we do afterwards the effect will be so significant that down the road we can’t avoid some dramatic changes.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, though.
I love NASA but I have real problems with them making predictions. Their track record is pretty crappy: probes crash or lose communication, rockets can’t be launched on a reliable schedule, shuttles explode, the space station is falling apart, a space telescope is sent into orbit with a bad main mirror, etc. Sometimes they get things right but overall they suck. They are at the mercy of government funding and now are looking to the private sector to help them get back to the moon to stay.
If NASA predicted that the sun would come up tomorrow, I’d wait for confirmation from the Psychic Friends Network.
This is clever. 10 years is a short period, and gets people all panicky. However, they merely say it’s a tipping point, meaning if nothing happens after a decade, their claims still aren’t disproved.
OK, so some of the stuff they build doesn’t work. The question here is, what’s the quality of their science?? I can’t see that there’s a connection.
You’re right - there’s clearly no way scientists can evaluate the validity of their case without a cataclysm of some sort occurring.
This is an ad hominem of the worst order. Criticise their science, not their reputation. Besides, the study is a joint one with Columbia.
Well, it’s pretty obvious we’re not going to alleviate the hypothetical consequences by anything we’re doing now. We may as well start planning for the effects. Besides, change is good, right? I mean, I was getting tired of the normal outlines of the continents and it’ll be fun to mix up the major agricultural centers.
You do not recall correctly.
Hansen has been saying “ten years” for over a year now.
Others have been saying it longer.
Of course some only give five years
I expect a year from now, we’ll be hearing we only have six months.
NASA isn’t the authority on global warming.
Fantastic insight.
Who is, then - the IPCC?
Who would that be, then?
Yes.
Is not the Earth Institute at Columbia University also an authority in the field?
Not even close, compared to the massive cooperation and consensus reached by meteorologists and climate experts from across the entire world.
I don’t see a reason to expect that anything they’ve told us is wrong, or that we’re on a different schedule.
It also lends a bit of credibility to me that the IPCC doesn’t use alarmist predictions like “act now or all is lost by X deadline” using terms like “critical tipping points” (doesn’t an exclamation point belong there?).
It gave us clear, accurate (so far) predictions of exactly how we would be effected over a long period of time.
No deadlines. No agendas. Just science. That’s the authority I’ll be trusting.
I seriously doubt that we could do anything within 10 years to aviod the actual tipping point in the U.S. let alone the whole world if this is true. What would that mean anyway? It sounds like it would take more than a radical (to us) yet still modest reduction in the amount and type of our energy usage. They may as well just tell us to sit back and enjoy it. I for one look forward to the day when we can just be carefree about this stuff and have fun. As Janis Joplin said: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”.
Except that there isn’t any reason to think that we will get to a point where we really “have nothing left to lose”, even if we do cross a tipping point that makes it inevitable that we’ll lose a whole lot.
AFAIK, continuing to raise the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will continue to raise global temperatures which will continue to affect climate. There isn’t any theoretical maximum of greenhouse-gas levels (well, not one realistically achievable in the next few centuries, at any rate) at which point things just won’t be able to get any worse.
The anti-environmental movement PR has managed to segue almost seamlessly over the past decade or so from “There’s no evidence the earth is warming” to “There’s no evidence that humans are causing the warming” to “There’s no evidence that the warming will be seriously bad for us” to “There’s nothing we can do about it so we shouldn’t bother trying”. But that doesn’t mean that they’ve found a scientifically wise policy for us to follow.
Well, it takes 5-10 years to construct a nuclear power plant. Let’s get to work, America!
crickets
So who is the authority you have in mind?
Or might we have to take a view based on a variety of opinions?