Antarctic ice really is collapsing, oceans' rise unstoppable

Shhhh! You’re ringing the dinner bell for the moon landing denialists*.

*I’m am curious to learn if there’s much overlap between the two groups, though.

2 Likes

Do you mean this WaPo article? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

That’s actually a good question.

Is there an ideal sea level? Is it the 1980 level? 1930? 1881?

How do we select it, and how do we get there from here??

I think there are a lot of us who do not deny: (1) that the planet is warming and (2) that human activity has played a role in that.

But we do question that (3) the effects are going to be cataclysmic and (4) passing laws is a realistic strategy to prevent those effects.

It’s not binary, you know.

1 Like

The ideal sea level is the plainly the one where all the coast-related stuff is. If nothing lived on land with an altitude below 5 metres, and all the ports and mangrove forest were sitting that far up with no water reaching them, we would want that the sea level to rise that much higher. But strangely civilizations and ecosystems are all adapted to where it is now, so we would prefer changes within the range they can handle, or on a scale much slower than we expect those to last.

Sure, it’s not binary. Some people would rather reject the overwhelming scientific evidence wholesale, and others don’t want to question more than they absolutely must to ensure nothing gets done about the problem. But there’s a failure to listen to evidence either way.

2 Likes

Oooh…Steven Goddard. Say no more.

1 Like

How does what you wrote relate to a potential overlap between two groups of conspiracy theory adherents?

1 Like

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

That cracked me up like an antarctic shelf.

3 Likes

That’s actually a good question.

Thank you.

Is there an ideal sea level? Is it the 1980 level? 1930? 1881? How do we select it, and how do we get there from here??

But that wasn’t my question.

My question to @waetherman is how to make the chart in my post more accurate. That would be because the height above sea level of the chart was apparently wrong and I’d like to know how to correct it. For me, it’s good to admit doing something wrong, so I can learn from my mistakes and progress.

1 Like

Sorry - it was a joke. Y’know, how climate change skeptics are always pointing to some random data point and saying that it’s wrong and how the whole thing is therefore a hoax? And because the Antarctica height above sea level chart has this peak that is much higher than the median altitude… a statistician looking at that as data would discard that peak as an outlier, and then a climate skeptic would claim that the whole thing was bunk because the underlying data are bad… funny, see?

I guess if I have to explain the joke, it isn’t funny :frowning:

4 Likes

Regarding tipping points I’ve heard that the tipping points for both collapse of the “Great Conveyor” current and for runaway escape of methane clathrates have both already happened. No references for either nor am I going to provide any as this is just over heard conversations in my family who have been world ecologists and conservationists for a few generations now.

1 Like

Sorry - it was a joke.

My fault, I should’ve realized it. I suspected that’s what you meant but after your post, I dug into it further and did find this:

From here:

Granted, it doesn’t dispute any of the concepts and the conclusions are basically the same (sorry, climate change impact deniers!), but if I’m reading it right, the numbers are different from the other chart in my previous post and I don’t know which one is correct or if I’m just reading this stuff wrong.

I was replying to a post about sea ice.

I believe they’re both correct. One set of numbers refers primarily to glacial melt-water running into the ocean, the other refers to land ice sliding into the ocean. But both add to the total volume of ocean water.

2 Likes

Thank you for the insight!

White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, informed that the White House tells that we only have 500 DAYS to avoid the Climate Change impact. Aren’t we all appropriately scared and worried? The End is near.

I’m a little tired of the blood red skies in Colorado nearly every summer now. Then again, I’m one of those nutty people that likes to go outdoors, so YMMV.

2 Likes

others don’t want to question more than they absolutely must to ensure nothing gets done about the problem

Call me just an out of the mainstream weirdo, and maybe even a borderline denier, but before I sign on to an expensive and intrusive solution to a problem, I like to have some reasonably sound data showing me how much of the problem it will actually solve.

If that were all there were to it, I would respect that. But you said that as if nobody has touched that, whereas there has been lots of work done on varying levels of emissions and their expected effects. And instead of looking at this, you just said you haven’t even figured out how much damage is expected.

In fact so far as I can tell you haven’t expressed much concern about expected damages at all. Even an inevitable change in sea level would require mitigation, and Cowicide describes some others. And instead you only talk about intrusive solutions, whether you get to run your grill, and take a shot at activists who might dare to describe the risks here as large.

That position isn’t caution. It’s not waiting for people to come up with good data, it’s ignoring the data that has been provided in spades. Sure, you pat yourself on the back for admitting some of it is real, just ignoring all the details that might suggest there’s a real problem. But that’s still denial of evidence, nothing borderline about it.

Meanwhile those of us who have been following the evidence have gotten to see billions of dollars of damages, and civil wars exacerbated by droughts and the like, with the expectation of things getting worse even if we cut emissions and much worse if we don’t. It makes it really tiring to see people still pretending “just asking questions”, as if they weren’t answered with ever-increasing confidence years ago, is reasonable.

In short: if you honestly would like to have that data, why haven’t you looked it up yet?

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.