Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 20 Jul '15 23:39
    I normally do not like publicly announcing pre-peer-reviewed research, for obvious reasons.

    However I agree with the reasons this for why this has been released early.
    Although that means it comes with more then the usual caveats.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

    In what may prove to be a turning point for political action on climate change, a breathtaking new study casts extreme doubt about the near-term stability of global sea levels.

    The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.


    We conclude that continued high emissions will make multi-meter sea level rise practically unavoidable and likely to occur this century. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.


    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/20/climate-seer-james-hansen-issues-his-direst-forecast-yet.html?utm_content=buffer1b0f4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    This apocalyptic scenario illustrates why the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius is not the safe “guardrail” most politicians and media coverage imply it is, argue Hansen and 16 colleagues in a blockbuster study they are publishing this week in the peer-reviewed journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry. On the contrary, a 2 C future would be “highly dangerous.”

    If Hansen is right—and he has been right, sooner, about the big issues in climate science longer than anyone—the implications are vast and profound.


    Hansen has long suspected that computer models underestimated how sensitive Earth’s ice sheets were to rising temperatures. Indeed, the IPCC excluded ice sheet melt altogether from its calculations of sea level rise. For their study, Hansen and his colleagues combined ancient paleo-climate data with new satellite readings and an improved model of the climate system to demonstrate that ice sheets can melt at a “non-linear” rate: rather than an incremental melting as Earth’s poles inexorably warm, ice sheets might melt at exponential rates, shedding dangerous amounts of mass in a matter of decades, not millennia. In fact, current observations indicate that some ice sheets already are melting this rapidly.


    It doesn't appear to be on

    http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/

    yet, I will post a link when it posted there.
  2. 21 Jul '15 00:48
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I normally do not like publicly announcing pre-peer-reviewed research, for obvious reasons.

    However I agree with the reasons this for why this has been released early.
    Although that means it comes with more then the usual caveats.[b]

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

    ...[text shortened]... /www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/

    yet, I will post a link when it posted there.[/b]
    James Hansen and his computer models have been discredited. He is nothing more than a propagandist whoring for funding to continue climate model bunk that alarmists are completely dependent on for their bunk predictions.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

    Not surprisingly you cling to discredited morons like Hansen.....again. No matter how many times I show you he has been wrong you still cling to him. You should be embarrassed.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    21 Jul '15 12:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    James Hansen and his computer models have been discredited. He is nothing more than a propagandist whoring for funding to continue climate model bunk that alarmists are completely dependent on for their bunk predictions.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

    Not surprisingly you cling to discredited morons like Hansen.....again. No matter how many times I show you he has been wrong you still cling to him. You should be embarrassed.
    Of course, for you, living in the north of the country, away from seashores, could care less if you are wrong. Which you are, because you are an avowed Singerite. BTW, where is YOUR link to show Hansen is a moron?
  4. 21 Jul '15 13:39
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Of course, for you, living in the north of the country, away from seashores, could care less if you are wrong. Which you are, because you are an avowed Singerite. BTW, where is YOUR link to show Hansen is a moron?
    Climate model predictions are not proof. They have been proven wrong too many times to be relied on. They are about as reliable as tarot cards.
    Sea levels are rising very slowly in the long term. Certain years they are falling. They don't even rise every year. The amount they have risen over the long term is so small it is barely enough to be noticed. 4 cm over 100 years is nothing to be concerned about. I told you that before and just because you know someone that bought or built a home too close to the shore is not proof people are losing homes to sea level rise. Some people are just too stupid to build homes in the logical place.
    Hansen is a moron for making false predictions and continuing to push his false false predictions. It is just common sense. If you will not accept that common sense you might be a moron too, or insane. You are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results by clinging to the discredited Hansen who is also doing the same. When are you and gfudge going to try something different?
  5. 21 Jul '15 15:16
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    James Hansen and his computer models have been discredited.
    Wrong. Climate models are not discredited.
    Only ignorant denier sh**s like yourself think otherwise.

    I have no interest in continuing to 'discuss' this issue with you.
    I don't care what your opinion is, I will not be reading any of your links or posts.
    My opinion of you personally cannot be written here for decencies sake.

    You spam this forum with your ignorant stupid and false lies about climate change and
    I have had enough.

    Shut the F up.

    Get the F out of my thread.

    Go crawl back into the hole you came from.

    I would like to discuss this with reasonable adults on this forum, not pathetic little morons
    like you.
  6. 21 Jul '15 15:26
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I have no interest in continuing to 'discuss' this issue with you.
    I don't care what your opinion is, I will not be reading any of your links or posts.
    My opinion of you personally cannot be written here for decencies sake.
    I've given up long time ago. Doesn't give anything.

    My interest of reading his word is pure psychological. What makes him tick? Why is he so OCD into science he doesn't understand...?
  7. 22 Jul '15 01:13
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Wrong. Climate models are not discredited.
    Only ignorant denier sh**s like yourself think otherwise.

    I have no interest in continuing to 'discuss' this issue with you.
    I don't care what your opinion is, I will not be reading any of your links or posts.
    My opinion of you personally cannot be written here for decencies sake.

    You spam this forum wi ...[text shortened]... ike to discuss this with reasonable adults on this forum, not pathetic little morons
    like you.
    Did I touch a nerve?
  8. 22 Jul '15 01:16
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I've given up long time ago. Doesn't give anything.

    My interest of reading his word is pure psychological. What makes him tick? Why is he so OCD into science he doesn't understand...?
    http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

    I understand it too well, that is why insults are all he has. He resorts to them out of frustration he can't prove me wrong. So funny!
  9. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    22 Jul '15 01:28
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

    I understand it too well, that is why insults are all he has. He resorts to them out of frustration he can't prove me wrong. So funny!
    You seem to have a lot in common with that crank-science whack-job Robert Felix.

    Do you have his book too?
  10. 22 Jul '15 03:41
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    You seem to have a lot in common with that crank-science whack-job Robert Felix.

    Do you have his book too?
    You seem to reject facts that don't support your opinion. Do you actually believe climate models are reliable? They are not.
  11. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    22 Jul '15 05:24
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    You seem to reject facts that don't support your opinion. Do you actually believe climate models are reliable? They are not.
    You're like a broken LP record stuck on a very annoying mazurka playing at 78 RPM.
  12. 22 Jul '15 06:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    You're like a broken LP record stuck on a very annoying mazurka playing at 78 RPM.
    A mindless crap stuck record is a good analogy; he endlessly moronically and mindlessly repeats the same crap over and over again that none of us with any intelligence could possibly take seriously.
  13. 23 Jul '15 00:43
    Originally posted by humy
    A mindless crap stuck record is a good analogy; he endlessly moronically and mindlessly repeats the same crap over and over again that none of us with any intelligence could possibly take seriously.
    Sorry to confuse you with facts.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
  14. 23 Jul '15 05:02
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Sorry to confuse you with facts.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
    May I quote from the link you gave us:

    "The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."

    May I also quote you: "Sorry to confuse you with facts."

    You do read the articles you present us, don't you?
  15. 23 Jul '15 06:53 / 12 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    May I quote from the link you gave us:

    "The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."

    May I also quote you: "Sorry to confuse you with facts."

    You do read the articles you present us, don't you?
    lol

    He often idiotically doesn't even bother to actually read the links he presents to us.

    I guess he may just read only the title "Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013" and ignorantly didn't realize they were only talking about sea ice, which you would expect to have highly variable cover area from one year to the next regardless of global warming, and not glacier ice, which not only makes up the vast bulk (in both volume and mass ) of ice in the Arctic but is the only ice that, if melted, would directly result in sea level rise.

    He should read;

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-can-bounce-back-during-cooler-summers-1.3163741
    "...
    Arctic sea ice volume can bounce back during cooler summers
    But declining sea ice still the long-term trend
    .."

    -and educate himself to learn that the fact that Arctic sea ice volume can bounce back during cooler summers is extremely unsurprising and doesn't in any way contradict a long term global warming trend regardless of the causes of global warming.
    But I guess he won't educate himself because he obviously doesn't want to learn anything that might contradict his many arrogant opinions; arrogant opinionated ignorant stupidity by choice.