Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #509287 > unrolled thread

New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 21:20 -0600
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 10:23 -0600
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Fritz Köhler <fritzk@notrenetwork.net> - 2015-07-25 16:59 +0000
        Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Fritz Köhler <fritzk@notrenetwork.net> - 2015-07-25 17:01 +0000
        Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will   rise much faster than predicted Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-26 09:06 +0200
          Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will   rise much faster than predicted R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-07-26 07:53 +0000
            Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will     rise much faster than predicted Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-29 03:47 +0200
              Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will       rise much faster than predicted Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-08-01 05:24 +0200
          Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 23:03 +0200
            Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-28 21:22 +0000
              Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 14:54 -0700
                Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-28 22:09 +0000
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-25 17:02 +0000
        Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:51 -0600
          les trois lettres noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:01 -0700
          Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-25 20:07 +0000
          Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 00:05 -0400
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 11:23 -0700
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 16:11 -0400
        Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 14:27 -0600
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 16:32 -0400
      Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-07-25 13:40 -0700
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:37 -0700
    Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-08-01 15:36 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#509287 — New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much 
faster than predicted
> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html

> A group of 17 scientists with varied backgrounds, including noted
> climatologist James Hansen has written a paper describing a scenario
> where the world's oceans rise much faster than other models have
> predicted—they have uploaded it to Atmospheric Chemistry and
> Physics—an open access site created to allow for public peer review
> of researcher ideas.
>
> At issue is the degree to which the world's ocean levels will rise if
> global atmospheric temperatures rise by 2 C, a standard that has been
> set as a seemingly acceptable level. The authors argue that such a
> rise will result in much faster ice melting than other models have
> suggested, resulting in a rise of the world's oceans to dangerous
> levels. They suggest it likely will occur even if atmospheric levels
> are somehow kept below that benchmark.
>
> To come to these conclusions, the team looked at what happened
> before—back during the Eemian period (prior to the last Ice Age),
> when atmospheric temperatures were approximately 1 C warmer than they
> are now. They found that ocean levels were higher than they should
> have been based on modern models. That finding sent them looking for
> an explanation—after much work they came up with the idea that a
> small amount of atmospheric warming led to a small amount of sheet
> ice melt, which led to a change in ocean current patterns, which
> created a feedback loop—the more the ice sheet melted the faster it
> began to melt due to trapped warm water below. They conclude that
> adhering to the 2 C rise will lead to a very dangerous situation,
> where coastal areas and island countries will face dire
> consequences.
>
> The paper has already been met with some criticism by other
> climatologists, though most appear to agree that politicians voting
> on an acceptable degree of atmospheric rise is likely not in the
> world's best interest. Also, it appears, because the paper is
> addressed to policymakers, that the researchers are hoping their work
> will cause more than just a change in the standards that have been
> set—that it might also wake the human race to the cataclysmic changes
> that really are coming and cause us to change our ways before it is
> too late—if it is not already.
>

   OK jimp, my faithful Pavlov's dog, we wait your name calling.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#509362

On 7/25/15 12:34 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> New arm waving speculates doom and gloom; yet more off topic FUD from
> the ass hole.
>

   Hey jimp, try eating some of your wife's makeup so's you can be more
   pretty on the inside.

   New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
   much faster than predicted
> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html


 > A group of 17 scientists with varied backgrounds, including noted
 > climatologist James Hansen has written a paper describing a scenario
 > where the world's oceans rise much faster than other models have
 > predicted—they have uploaded it to Atmospheric Chemistry and
 > Physics—an open access site created to allow for public peer review
 > of researcher ideas.
 >
 > At issue is the degree to which the world's ocean levels will rise if
 > global atmospheric temperatures rise by 2 C, a standard that has been
 > set as a seemingly acceptable level. The authors argue that such a
 > rise will result in much faster ice melting than other models have
 > suggested, resulting in a rise of the world's oceans to dangerous
 > levels. They suggest it likely will occur even if atmospheric levels
 > are somehow kept below that benchmark.
 >
 > To come to these conclusions, the team looked at what happened
 > before—back during the Eemian period (prior to the last Ice Age),
 > when atmospheric temperatures were approximately 1 C warmer than they
 > are now. They found that ocean levels were higher than they should
 > have been based on modern models. That finding sent them looking for
 > an explanation—after much work they came up with the idea that a
 > small amount of atmospheric warming led to a small amount of sheet
 > ice melt, which led to a change in ocean current patterns, which
 > created a feedback loop—the more the ice sheet melted the faster it
 > began to melt due to trapped warm water below. They conclude that
 > adhering to the 2 C rise will lead to a very dangerous situation,
 > where coastal areas and island countries will face dire
 > consequences.
 >
 > The paper has already been met with some criticism by other
 > climatologists, though most appear to agree that politicians voting
 > on an acceptable degree of atmospheric rise is likely not in the
 > world's best interest. Also, it appears, because the paper is
 > addressed to policymakers, that the researchers are hoping their work
 > will cause more than just a change in the standards that have been
 > set—that it might also wake the human race to the cataclysmic changes
 > that really are coming and cause us to change our ways before it is
 > too late—if it is not already.
 >




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509372

Sam Wormley wrote:

>    New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>    much faster than predicted
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
faster.html

So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish 
taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270071.php

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509376

Fritz Köhler wrote:

> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
>>    New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>>    much faster than predicted
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
> faster.html
> 
> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish.
> Fish taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
> 
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/270071.php

Cod liver oil - the forgotten food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqr_XekPts4

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509533 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Am 25.07.2015 18:59, schrieb Fritz Köhler:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>     New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>>     much faster than predicted
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
> faster.html
>
> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish
> taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
>

Well, that's not true: higher sea levels do not give more fish.

Reason: the level of water above the sea floor is (on average) very 
large. If this distance would increase a few centimetre, this wouldn't 
extend the living space for fish significantly.

But the sea levels are falling (on average), by a rate of about 4m per 
millennium.

This could be estimated from the current lake near the Airport 
Fiomicino. The Lake Tiberius was formerly the harbour of Rome, but is 
now 8m above sea level.

Since the harbour had sea-level at the time of ancient Rome (roughly 
2000 years ago), the sea-level has fallen by 8 m in 2000 years or 4 m in 
a millennium.

Other ways to estimate the same results would be:
- analysing the age of corals on the current land of atolls
- determine the age of marine fossils on mountains
- hight of ancient harbours above the sea
- age of ocean-related human artefacts in current mountains


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509545 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 25.07.2015 18:59, schrieb Fritz K?hler:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>     New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
>>>     much faster than predicted
>>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-
>> faster.html
>> So what, is this bad too?? More water can't be bad. Gives more fish. Fish
>> taste good, cod liver oil enough to everybody.
> Well, that's not true: higher sea levels do not give more fish.
> Reason: the level of water above the sea floor is (on average) very 
> large. If this distance would increase a few centimetre, this wouldn't 
> extend the living space for fish significantly.
> But the sea levels are falling (on average), by a rate of about 4m per 
> millennium.
> This could be estimated from the current lake near the Airport 
> Fiomicino. The Lake Tiberius was formerly the harbour of Rome, but is 
> now 8m above sea level.

Unfortunately your musing don't correlate well with regognised
publications. E.g. the Med SLR reconstruction for the past 150ky is 
<http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/nature11593RapidCoupling.jpg>
(the blue line in lower panel)

This seems to show SL in the Med rose by 4m over the past 25k
years and within the last 1k seems to have flat-lined.

Fimicino is still on the coastline and the city fathers record it
as 1m above sea level.

The port of Hobart, Tasmania, is 10-40m above sea level yet ships 
reach it from the sea every day.

The upper reaches of the Mississippi are 100m above sea level, yet
it could be reached by ship from the sea before various straightening
and lock-building exercises were carried out in the 19th and 20th cent.


> Since the harbour had sea-level at the time of ancient Rome (roughly 
> 2000 years ago), the sea-level has fallen by 8 m in 2000 years or 4 m in 
> a millennium.
> Other ways to estimate the same results would be:
> - analysing the age of corals on the current land of atolls
> - determine the age of marine fossils on mountains
> - hight of ancient harbours above the sea
> - age of ocean-related human artefacts in current mountains


--
Homes Under Threat As Wildfires Rage In West
Sky News, 24 Jul 2015 12:14Z 
Holidaymakers flee and houses are at risk after separate wildfires threaten 
communities in Washington, Montana and California.

Investors could lose $4.2tn because of climate change, report warns ...
The Guardian, 24 Jul 2015 18:12Z 
Investors could lose $4.2tn due to impact of climate change, report warns. 
Investments in fossil fuel companies face serious risk from global warming, 
research by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows. The future is grim for 
private holdings in fossil ...

Witness Talks Huron Tornado
KELOLAND TV, 24 Jul 2015 23:14Z
From funnel cloud to touch down, a Huron woman says she will not forget 
seeing an actual tornado. Thursday night's twister south of Huron near State 
Highway 37 damaged buildings as well as power lines.

'Brain-Eating' Amoeba Reappears in Louisiana Parish's Water Supply
ABC News, 24 Jul 2015 23:16Z 
A potentially deadly amoeba has been found in the water supply of a parish 
outside New Orleans for the second time in two years, officials said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510138 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Am 26.07.2015 18:33, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> This seems to show SL in the Med rose by 4m over the past 25k
>> years and within the last 1k seems to have flat-lined.
>>
>> Fimicino is still on the coastline and the city fathers record it
>> as 1m above sea level.
>>
>> The port of Hobart, Tasmania, is 10-40m above sea level yet ships
>> reach it from the sea every day.
>
> Maybe Tasmanian ships can fly, but Roman ships could not.
>
> Their vessels used to sail upon the surface of the oceans and that's why
> the clever Romans build their ports near water.
>
> Romans didn't like the use of cranes to bring the ships to the moorings,
> hence those had been build sufficiently low.
>
>  From this we can estimate sea-levels at the times, when Portus Romae
> was still in use. Now that level is above the current Mediterranean Sea,
> what is also a few kilometers away from the former harbour.
>
> Now the question: how did that happen?
>
> My assumption. 'Growing Earth' is in fact true, despite otherwise
> accepted believes. This would make sea-levels fall at a slow but
> constant rate (currently: 4m /1000 years).
>
> This is in accordance with observations (of that lake), while other
> explanations (like Plate tectonics) require assumptions about some sort
> of 'lift' (of Italy). This could be the case, but is actually 'out of
> the blue'.
>

Plate tectonics assumes a mechanism called 'subduction'. This would be 
the cause of an uplift of the area, where that harbour is located 
('Eurasian plate') because the African plate is pushing underneath.

But is this a plausible assumption? An uplift of 8m is required, but 
would such a rising landmass leave the area exactly levelled?

The problem is this: the harbour was build horizontal. That was easy for 
the Roman builders, since they could use the Mediterranean Sea as 
reference surface.

But the African plate is certainly not using the sea-levels as guidance 
for its dive into inner Earth, hence would make the lift of Italy 
slightly uneven.

Only this did not happen, as we can see at this lake. The very large 
harbour is still exactly horizontal, (as we can see at the surface of 
that lake).


The idea of 'Growing Earth' is, that spreading causes rifts and valley, 
in which the water flows. This would make sea-levels drop in large 
periods of time.

The harbour of Rome would be one hint in this direction, but not the 
only one. Other harbours of ancient towns have similar characteristics, 
like the harbour of Troy. This harbour is now 30 m above sea-level and 
the water is about 5 km away.

Haitabu is another ancient harbour, were they have found wrecks of 
Viking ships - on land!

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510608 — Re: New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much faster than predicted

Am 29.07.2015 03:47, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>> From this we can estimate sea-levels at the times, when Portus Romae
>> was still in use. Now that level is above the current Mediterranean Sea,
>> what is also a few kilometers away from the former harbour.
>>
>> Now the question: how did that happen?
>>
>> My assumption. 'Growing Earth' is in fact true, despite otherwise
>> accepted believes. This would make sea-levels fall at a slow but
>> constant rate (currently: 4m /1000 years).
>>
>> This is in accordance with observations (of that lake), while other
>> explanations (like Plate tectonics) require assumptions about some sort
>> of 'lift' (of Italy). This could be the case, but is actually 'out of
>> the blue'.
>>
>
> Plate tectonics assumes a mechanism called 'subduction'. This would be
> the cause of an uplift of the area, where that harbour is located
> ('Eurasian plate') because the African plate is pushing underneath.
>
> But is this a plausible assumption? An uplift of 8m is required, but
> would such a rising landmass leave the area exactly levelled?
>
> The problem is this: the harbour was build horizontal. That was easy for
> the Roman builders, since they could use the Mediterranean Sea as
> reference surface.
>
> But the African plate is certainly not using the sea-levels as guidance
> for its dive into inner Earth, hence would make the lift of Italy
> slightly uneven.
>
> Only this did not happen, as we can see at this lake. The very large
> harbour is still exactly horizontal, (as we can see at the surface of
> that lake).
>


Other former sea-floors are also very horizontal. This would be - at 
least- unusual, if the area is lifted out of the sea by uplift of 
tectonic plates, caused by subduction of another plate.

E.g. the Atacama desert was formerly the bottom of a sea. This is known 
from remains of marine origin.

So the current desert as assumed to be lifted out of the water by 
subduction of the plate underneath the Pacific, what is (according to 
PT) pushing underneath South America.

But wouldn't that make the area tilt.

Actually the desert is not exactly horizontal, but has an angle into the 
opposite direction, since it's higher on the eastern side near the Andes.

The Atacama desert is a good example, because the desert is very dry and 
is so for about 15 million years. So the water went away and the desert 
is what remains. This is almost completely undisturbed by rain for such 
a long time.

This is  know from the analysis of gypsum, what is still there. If it 
had rained at any time more than a few drops, the gypsum would be gone. 
since it's there, the current form of the landscape is not caused by 
erosion.

It looks as if someone pulled out the plug of a (large) bath-tub and let 
the water out.

This would require cracks, where the water can flow out and deeper 
sea-levels, where the water can possibly flow to.

> The idea of 'Growing Earth' is, that spreading causes rifts and valley,
> in which the water flows. This would make sea-levels drop in large
> periods of time.
>
> The harbour of Rome would be one hint in this direction, but not the
> only one. Other harbours of ancient towns have similar characteristics,
> like the harbour of Troy. This harbour is now 30 m above sea-level and
> the water is about 5 km away.
>
> Haitabu is another ancient harbour, were they have found wrecks of
> Viking ships - on land!
>

Best example is actually Troy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

 From the kind of buildings it is easy to see, that Troy was once a port.

Troy was build several times at the same location. This make the ruins 
look like 'onion shells'.

The City looks like being initially built upon a small island. Then the 
water sank and new land could be used to extend the city. Also new 
harbour facilities have been build - slightly deeper and more outside.

Now the city sits on top of a hill and the Mediterranean Sea is a few 
kilometres away. But if it once was a harbour, the sea-level 
four-thousand years ago must have been much higher than today.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510066

Dne 26/07/2015 v 18:49 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com napsal(a):
>>>
>> Poor people cannot do it so easily.
>> For rich people any climate change will never be an issue.
> 
> Sounds backwards to me.
> 
> Poor people generally have little to lose and can't afford to live near
> a beach while rich people have huge investments in beach houses.

Think more before such a shallow conclusion.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510088

In sci.physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dne 26/07/2015 v 18:49 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com napsal(a):
>>>>
>>> Poor people cannot do it so easily.
>>> For rich people any climate change will never be an issue.
>> 
>> Sounds backwards to me.
>> 
>> Poor people generally have little to lose and can't afford to live near
>> a beach while rich people have huge investments in beach houses.
> 
> Think more before such a shallow conclusion.

Think about what, exactly?

Check house prices along Newport and Malibu beaches.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510093

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dne 26/07/2015 v 18:49 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com napsal(a):
> >>>>
> >>> Poor people cannot do it so easily.
> >>> For rich people any climate change will never be an issue.
> >> 
> >> Sounds backwards to me.

It is backwards. Rich people might visit their empty beach houses one
week every couple of years. If that much. Nice curtains though...

> >> Poor people generally have little to lose and can't afford to live near
> >> a beach while rich people have huge investments in beach houses.
> > 
> > Think more before such a shallow conclusion.

Poutnik is, hopefully, my fingers and legs crossed, might be
attempting to be funny. Not likely. Tread lightly in shallow waters,
it may be knee deep.

> Think about what, exactly?
> 
> Check house prices along Newport and Malibu beaches.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

-- Mahipal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510104

Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dne 26/07/2015 v 18:49 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com napsal(a):
>> >>>>
>> >>> Poor people cannot do it so easily.
>> >>> For rich people any climate change will never be an issue.
>> >> 
>> >> Sounds backwards to me.
> 
> It is backwards. Rich people might visit their empty beach houses one
> week every couple of years. If that much. Nice curtains though...

Not around here they don't.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509386

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/25/15 12:34 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> New arm waving speculates doom and gloom; yet more off topic FUD from
>> the ass hole.
>>
> 
>   Hey jimp, try eating some of your wife's makeup so's you can be more
>   pretty on the inside.

Hey shit head, take your mindless copies of off topic speculation to
a group where they belong or start your own blog, you spamming ass 
hole.

<snip repaste of snipped, off topic, speculative FUDD>



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509421

On 7/25/15 11:02 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Hey shit head, take your mindless copies of off topic speculation to
> a group where they belong or start your own blog, you spamming ass
> hole.


   Hey jimp, did you find anything scientifically incorrect in the linked
   paper? Try not to be so nasty jimp.

   New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise
   much faster than predicted
> http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html

 > A group of 17 scientists with varied backgrounds, including noted
 > climatologist James Hansen has written a paper describing a scenario
 > where the world's oceans rise much faster than other models have
 > predicted—they have uploaded it to Atmospheric Chemistry and
 > Physics—an open access site created to allow for public peer review
 > of researcher ideas.
 >
 > At issue is the degree to which the world's ocean levels will rise if
 > global atmospheric temperatures rise by 2 C, a standard that has been
 > set as a seemingly acceptable level. The authors argue that such a
 > rise will result in much faster ice melting than other models have
 > suggested, resulting in a rise of the world's oceans to dangerous
 > levels. They suggest it likely will occur even if atmospheric levels
 > are somehow kept below that benchmark.
 >
 > To come to these conclusions, the team looked at what happened
 > before—back during the Eemian period (prior to the last Ice Age),
 > when atmospheric temperatures were approximately 1 C warmer than they
 > are now. They found that ocean levels were higher than they should
 > have been based on modern models. That finding sent them looking for
 > an explanation—after much work they came up with the idea that a
 > small amount of atmospheric warming led to a small amount of sheet
 > ice melt, which led to a change in ocean current patterns, which
 > created a feedback loop—the more the ice sheet melted the faster it
 > began to melt due to trapped warm water below. They conclude that
 > adhering to the 2 C rise will lead to a very dangerous situation,
 > where coastal areas and island countries will face dire
 > consequences.
 >
 > The paper has already been met with some criticism by other
 > climatologists, though most appear to agree that politicians voting
 > on an acceptable degree of atmospheric rise is likely not in the
 > world's best interest. Also, it appears, because the paper is
 > addressed to policymakers, that the researchers are hoping their work
 > will cause more than just a change in the standards that have been
 > set—that it might also wake the human race to the cataclysmic changes
 > that really are coming and cause us to change our ways before it is
 > too late—if it is not already.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509424 — les trois lettres

why is that guy such an a-head?...  anyway,
I'll bet there's no mention of a)
subsidence/erosion, and b)
u.h.i

>  > The paper has already been met with some criticism by other
>  > climatologists, though most appear to agree that politicians voting
>  > on an acceptable degree of atmospheric rise is likely not in the
>  > world's best interest. Also, it appears, because the paper is
>  > addressed to policymakers, that the researchers are hoping their work
>  > will cause more than just a change in the standards that have been
>  > set--that it might also wake the human race to the cataclysmic changes
>  > that really are coming and cause us to change our ways before it is
>  > too late--if it is not already.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509433

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/25/15 11:02 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Hey shit head, take your mindless copies of off topic speculation to
>> a group where they belong or start your own blog, you spamming ass
>> hole.
> 
> 
>   Hey jimp, did you find anything scientifically incorrect in the linked
>   paper? Try not to be so nasty jimp.

Hey shit head, who gives a fuck if an off topic copy of some web site
is scientifically accurate?

It is still off topic, ass hole.

Take your copying of web sites to a group suitable for the topic or
your own blog and you will never hear from me again, ass hole.


<snip yet another repaste of off topic shit>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#510143

On 07/28/2015 01:35 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 12:51:26 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 7/25/15 11:02 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Hey shit head, take your mindless copies of off topic speculation to
>>> a group where they belong or start your own blog, you spamming ass
>>> hole.
>>
>>
>>     Hey jimp, did you find anything scientifically incorrect in the linked
>>     paper?
>>
>
>>   > noted climatologist James Hansen
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson

It seems that Dr. Hansen...excuse me MILLIONAIRE Hansen (who is 
suspected of getting that money violating government rules) has been 
wrong about ALL his predictions. The most famous being the roasting 
death of the planet by "global warming" He is the godfather of global 
warming. And ALL his papers and breathless predictions have all been 
totally WRONG. It's even worse than that. The proof of his errors is 
found right in his own "improved" GISS system of temperature 
measurement. All the kings horses and all the kings men have not been 
able to fudge his Giss data enough to prove his predictions right.

Yep, that is what is scientifically incorrect!

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509407

On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 8:20:53 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> New paper by prominent scientists suggests ocean levels will rise much 
> faster than predicted
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html
> 
> > A group of 17 scientists with varied backgrounds, including noted
> > climatologist James Hansen has written a paper describing a scenario
> > where the world's oceans rise much faster than other models have
> > predicted--they have uploaded it to Atmospheric Chemistry and
> > Physics--an open access site created to allow for public peer review
> > of researcher ideas.
> >
> > At issue is the degree to which the world's ocean levels will rise if
> > global atmospheric temperatures rise by 2 C, a standard that has been
> > set as a seemingly acceptable level. The authors argue that such a
> > rise will result in much faster ice melting than other models have
> > suggested, resulting in a rise of the world's oceans to dangerous
> > levels. They suggest it likely will occur even if atmospheric levels
> > are somehow kept below that benchmark.
> >
> > To come to these conclusions, the team looked at what happened
> > before--back during the Eemian period (prior to the last Ice Age),
> > when atmospheric temperatures were approximately 1 C warmer than they
> > are now. They found that ocean levels were higher than they should
> > have been based on modern models. That finding sent them looking for
> > an explanation--after much work they came up with the idea that a
> > small amount of atmospheric warming led to a small amount of sheet
> > ice melt, which led to a change in ocean current patterns, which
> > created a feedback loop--the more the ice sheet melted the faster it
> > began to melt due to trapped warm water below. They conclude that
> > adhering to the 2 C rise will lead to a very dangerous situation,
> > where coastal areas and island countries will face dire
> > consequences.
> >
> > The paper has already been met with some criticism by other
> > climatologists, though most appear to agree that politicians voting
> > on an acceptable degree of atmospheric rise is likely not in the
> > world's best interest. Also, it appears, because the paper is
> > addressed to policymakers, that the researchers are hoping their work
> > will cause more than just a change in the standards that have been
> > set--that it might also wake the human race to the cataclysmic changes
> > that really are coming and cause us to change our ways before it is
> > too late--if it is not already.
> >
> 
>    OK jimp, my faithful Pavlov's dog, we wait your name calling.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Jim Why so nasty? A bad mouth is only goes with low life wits that need a life. Get the picture. Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509429

On 7/25/2015 2:23 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
>>     OK jimp, my faithful Pavlov's dog, we wait your name calling.
>>
>>
>
> Jim Why so nasty? A bad mouth is only goes with low life wits that need a life. Get the picture. Bert


So Bert says that Jimp is a 'low life wit' for calling someone a name?
What's wrong with this picture?



-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#509439

On 7/25/15 2:11 PM, HVAC wrote:
> So Bert says that Jimp is a 'low life wit' for calling someone a name?
> What's wrong with this picture?


   It's hard to keep from laughing!

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web