I’m not suggesting otherwise. I just want them to show their work. So it can vetted. And we can see how they arrived at numbers that are so different. And to build confidence in the global warming debate, of course.
Since credible scientific work is expected to be published in peer reviewed journals, I’m pretty confident these people are showing their work.
There’s this great new thing called the Internet, doorhinge. You *could *go find out easily enough, if you wanted to know.
No, I offered Baxter, you are the one that is still confused. You said:
“What’s-his-name said that 1 to 2 meters was the expected max if the ice caps melted.”
You are wrong, period.
To that I offered Baxter:
“A very ignorant thing to say as the science writer you are insulting pointed before at what would happen if the ice caps melted. Just as NASA recently reported and Dr Baxter (already cited) told us in the 1950s:”
What I mean is that indeed Hadfield has agreed before with scientists like like Baxter will happen if the polar caps melted and in 200-400 years, Hadfield, not Baxter reports on the likely 1-2 meter increase by the end of the century.
But you don’t know. It appears that you don’t need to know. I feel pretty confident when the side that is trying to change the status quo can actually prove their work and are willing to submit it for public review. Otherwise, they have a credibility problem.
I do know because I have a basic understanding of how science works and can use Google. I don’t read scientific journals very much because I’m not a scientist and wouldn’t get much out of it. On the other hand you appear to have chosen to assume the evidence doesn’t exist because nobody’s knocked on your door and showed it to you personally. And it looks like you think that’s some kind of victory for you. Problem is, it isn’t.
And the cites are that information available to the public, it is clear that you are even denying that that was done by the scientists.
(post shortened)
What are the chances that I’ll ever receive an actual answer from the global warming zealots about what would be the max sea rise level if the pole ice were to melt/disappear?
If the global warming zealots want to convince people that they know what they’re talking about, or that their other predictions are correct, providing this simple math, that could be verified by others, would build their credibility.
You *could *go learn the answers to all your questions very easily. Insisting that people who aren’t bothering to force-feed it to you must therefore be making it all up is a bit foolish, though.
WE already saw on the record that you were mistaken so you need to be careful about the credibility issue.
As Baxter reported and inland sea in the Mississippi delta and the loss of Florida would be expected, and the number has been reported before:
Of course a complete melt is not likely, and hence reports of more “modest” rises in the ocean on the long run, again thanks to the emissions already made we will most likely see still see a rise in the oceans by the end of the century of 1 to 2 meters, but again that is the conservative estimate; and again, no deniers out there will get any kudos by jumping up and down claiming that scientists were wrong if the now more likely rises by the end of the century will be higher than 1-2 meters because of the observed acceleration loss.
Remember, the talking point of the deniers also told us that even that conservative 1-2 meter rise is not going to happen, seeing the accelerated rate of ice loss will not make all people to magically agree that the deniers were correct, the deniers are more wrong now. Everyone will just remember them like the doctors that denied that vaccines are not effective.
Not fondly.
(post shortened)
200ft. Is that your final answer or would you like to phone a friend?
I couldn’t help but notice that no less an authority than the “HowStuffWorks” climatologists claim that the loss of all ice at the northern pole will have no effect on sea level rise. Is that true? Is that the belief of all global warming zealots? That there isn’t enough ice to up north to make a difference?
From your link -
At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted, sea levels would not be affected.
Whew, that’s a relief, ain’t it.
I also found it interesting that the HowStuffWorks climatologists claim that most of the Southern pole will never melt. Because it’s toooooo cold. Brrrrrr.
If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact, in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.
Considering that the friends of the IPCC base their CO2-is-evil campaign on increasing global warming, how do they justify the assumption that global warming will stop and the Antarctic won’t, in fact, melt?
Are they assuming that some natural phenomenon will end global warming before it can melt the Antarctic, as it has in the past global warming/global cooling cycles? A massive volcano? Continued continental drift changing wind and weather patterns? Another change to the Earth’s axial tilt? An earthquake that allows California to slide into the Pacific Ocean? A magic slowing to the increase of tectonic and volcanic mountains?
What are you talking about? Is it your belief that the science supporting climate change supports some sort of infinite rise in temperature, past the point that every spot on earth is as hot as the core of the sun?
Of COURSE warming will stop at some point. Asking how they justify the assumption that global warming will stop is ridiculous, and you should be embarrassed.
Of course it will? The global warming zealots are suggesting that global warming will destroy the planet AND that global warming will eventually stop by itself.
And that global warming is caused by man-made CO2.
If you don’t regulate man-made CO2, global warming will stop. If you do regulate man-made CO2, global warming will stop.
Your object to my ASKING how they justify their position. It couldn’t be that you are afraid of their answer, would it?
That was a reply to your silly question that you claim was the point, “what would happen if the polar ice caps melted?” I thought then pointing at a kids site would explain it at an easier level, but some can not take it. It was not really the point but as it clear in context the idea is to find any straw to grasp in an attempt to make the scientists sound ridiculous. The point stands, deniers fooled many by telling us that the ice will not melt, and now they are more wrong as the evidence shows that the melt is accelerating.
And you ignore greenland on that.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/greenland.asp
Something that I made notice with my comment that of course it will not all melt, but thanks for making more evidence to show that you do not pay attention.
As Left Hand of Dorkness pointed out, you are making less sense, and only giving more evidence that you only want to keep pushing the ignorance.
That is like saying that forest service people are dumb for suggesting a fire will destroy an unpopulated forest and then it will stop by itself.
Yes as even former sceptics like Muller and the BEST climate team confirmed by going over the so called controversial data.
Again this is as dumb as claiming that it is stupid to not assume a fire will eventually stop, unfortunately the issue here affects populated areas.
And the answer here is that when you start with a flawed premise you only end up with an even sillier conclusion.
(I’m not sure how to punctuate the adjective phrase “capitalist future destroying”, but would probably have added 1 or 2 hyphens.).
Anyway, I hope Dopers watch the new Robert Greenwald documentary if they haven’t already.
Rockefeller was a self-made man. So was Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Bill Gates, etc. What about the Koch Brothers?
I think it’s odd to say the Koch Brothers made their fortune in applied science. Their father was a multi-billionaire. The most successful piece of business they ever did was their litigation against their own brothers, who are now mere billionaires as a result.
Orville and Wilbur Wright are often combined as a single “person” for lists, e.g. “28th most influential person in history.” Extending David and Charles Koch the same courtesy, they are the richest person in the world, ahead of Bill and Melinda Gates. The Koch Brothers person is a new arrival to the title World’s Richest Person, adding $12 billion to its fortune last year by Forbes estimate. That’s $1 billion per month, or, normalized to ordinary workday, more than $3 million per hour for each brother. Is it a coincidence that this hugely profitable Koch Industries is also perhaps the nation’s biggest polluter?
And boy do they use their wealth! They are major financeer for many right-wing “think tanks”, political campaigns, strings-attached grants to schools, etc. etc. For them an occasional no-strings-attached grant is pocket change publicity.
Unlike their father, who was a shrill John Birch voice that would almost make Ron Paul look like a centrist, the brothers are smarter than Romney and wouldn’t say certain things on microphone.
However, they have certainly advocated for segregation in North Carolina’s Wake County. (Even in N.C., school district voters fought back and removed the segregationist directors.) And one ran for President on a campaign to abolish public schools, which is clear code for “our children don’t have to go school with yours.”
See the film.
[QUOTE=septimus]
Unlike their father, who was a shrill John Birch voice that would almost make Ron Paul look like a centrist, the brothers are smarter than Romney and wouldn’t say certain things on microphone.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, IIRC he was the co-founder of the John Birch Society. I might be misremembering though.
You must be referring to the IPCC’s flawed premise that man-made CO2 is evil. It’s too bad that they can’t prove it. Better luck next millennium.
You chose to bring up whats-his-name, that blogger who complains about other bloggers and warns his public not to listen to bloggers who complain about bloggers. What was it that he proved again? Not to listen to bloggers???
The HowStuffWorks climatologists, on the other hand, claims a 200ft sea level increase AND that the loss of all ice at the northern pole will have no effect on sea level rise. Interesting stuff. They didn’t show the math for either the 200ft claim or the no-effect claim but that seems to be SOP for the CO2-is-evil side.
So what do think about their Arctic-ice-melt-won’t-have-any-effect-on-sea-rise claim?
No, wrong again, And I pointed to the science article about the 1-2 meters rise of the oceans by the end of the century, with maths indeed. Your flawed theory that is getting even more dumb as you double down on it was that they are not talking about the ice from glaciers, but they are. The north pole ice is over the ocean, so indeed not much of change coming from there, but here you again wilfully ignore the reported increase just the loss of the ice over Greenland will do to the ocean rise. So, even more evidence for all to see that you do not pay attention.
What I can see is a very dumb idea of pretending that there is no time line between the 1-2 meters by the end of the century and much more to come in 200-400 years.
Greenland still ain’t the Arctic. So what do think about the Arctic-ice-melt-won’t-have-any-effect-on-sea-rise claim?