Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level rise

September 11, 2015, Carnegie Institution for Science
This chart shows how Antarctic ice would be affected by different emissions scenarios. (GtC stands for gigatons of carbon.) Credit: Ken Caldeira and Ricarda Winkelmann

New work from an international team including Carnegie's Ken Caldeira demonstrates that the planet's remaining fossil fuel resources would be sufficient to melt nearly all of Antarctica if burned, leading to a 50- or 60-meter (160 to 200 foot) rise in sea level. Because so many major cities are at or near sea level, this would put many highly populated areas where more than a billion people live under water, including New York City and Washington, DC. It is published in Science Advances.

"Our findings show that if we do not want to melt Antarctica, we can't keep taking fossil fuel carbon out of the ground and just dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 like we've been doing," Caldeira said. "Most previous studies of Antarctic have focused on loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our study demonstrates that burning coal, oil, and gas also risks loss of the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet."

Caldeira initiated this project with lead author Ricarda Winkelmann while she was a Visiting Investigator at the Carnegie Institution for Science. Winkelmann and co-author Anders Levermann are at the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; co-author Andy Ridgwell is at the University of California Riverside.

Although Antarctica has already begun to lose ice, a complex array of factors will determine the 's future, including greenhouse gas-caused atmospheric warming, additional oceanic warming perpetuated by the atmospheric warming, and the possible counteracting effects of additional snowfall.

"It is much easier to predict that an ice cube in a warming room is going to melt eventually than it is to say precisely how quickly it will vanish," Winkelmann said, explaining all the contributing factors for which the team's models had to account.

The team used modeling to study the ice sheet's evolution over the next 10,000 years, because carbon persists in the atmosphere millennia after it is released. They found that the West Antarctic ice sheet becomes unstable if carbon emissions continue at current levels for 60 to 80 years, representing only 6 to 8 percent of the 10,000 billion tons of carbon that could be released if we use all accessible .

"The West Antarctic ice sheet may already have tipped into a state of unstoppable ice loss, whether as a result of human activity or not. But if we want to pass on cities like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Calcutta, Hamburg and New York as our future heritage, we need to avoid a tipping in East Antarctica," Levermann said.

The team found that if global warming did not exceed the 2 degree Celsius target often cited by climate policymakers, Antarctic melting would cause sea levels to rise only a few meters and remain manageable. But greater warming could reshape the East and West ice sheets irreparably, with every additional tenth of a degree increasing the risk of total and irreversible Antarctic ice loss.

This is the first study to model the effects of unrestrained fossil-fuel burning on the entirety of the Antarctic ice sheet. The study does not predict greatly increased rates of ice loss for this century, but found that average rates of sea level rise over the next 1,000 years could be about 3 centimeters per year (more than 1 inch per year) leading to about 30 m (100 feet) of rise by the end of this millennium. Over several thousand years, total from all sources could reach up to 60 meters (200 feet).

"If we don't stop dumping our waste CO2 into the sky, land that is now home to more than a billion people will one day be underwater," Caldeira said.

Explore further: New method relates Greenland ice sheet changes to sea-level rise

More information: Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589

Related Stories

Ice sheets may be more resilient than thought

September 3, 2015

Sea level rise poses one of the biggest threats to human systems in a globally warming world, potentially causing trillions of dollars' worth of damages to flooded cities around the world. As surface temperatures rise, ice ...

More ice loss through snowfall on Antarctica

December 12, 2012

Stronger snowfall increases future ice discharge from Antarctica. Global warming leads to more precipitation as warmer air holds more moisture – hence earlier research suggested the Antarctic ice sheet might grow under ...

The threat of global sea level rise

September 30, 2014

Changes taking place in the oceans around Antarctica could result in an abrupt rise in global sea level, according to a Victoria University of Wellington led study.

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

October 9, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Recommended for you

Oceans of garbage prompt war on plastics

December 15, 2018

Faced with images of turtles smothered by plastic bags, beaches carpeted with garbage and islands of trash floating in the oceans, environmentalists say the world is waking up to the need to tackle plastic pollution at the ...

A damming trend

December 14, 2018

Hundreds of dams are being proposed for Mekong River basin in Southeast Asia. The negative social and environmental consequences—affecting everything from food security to the environment—greatly outweigh the positive ...

Data from Kilauea suggests the eruption was unprecedented

December 14, 2018

A very large team of researchers from multiple institutions in the U.S. has concluded that the Kilauea volcanic eruption that occurred over this past summer represented an unprecedented volcanic event. In their paper published ...

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

96 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottish Sceptic
1.7 / 5 (29) Sep 11, 2015
I think the little green men will come and get us all first ... come one who believes in this climate non-science any longer?
plasmasrevenge
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 11, 2015
They want to project bigger numbers since nobody blinked at the smaller numbers, but the models become increasingly questionable the further the projections go out. If they honestly stated the uncertainty of the projection alongside the conclusions, the absurdity of the research would be more obvious.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (23) Sep 11, 2015
". come one who believes in this climate non-science any longer?"
-------------------------------

People make rash statements like this one above because of prejudice, not science.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (21) Sep 11, 2015
whether as a result of human activity or NOT

Whoaa....how could they let the truth slip like that.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (21) Sep 11, 2015
The shaman speculators again foretell near future with crystal ball as usual.
Mirtlie
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2015
I really doubt we will burn through all the reserves, tbh. Especially considering the other energy forms coming to the table. World would be a lot different if we did for sure.
antonima
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2015
There are constantly prospectors looking for new oil and natural gas sources. Do they include this in their calculation? Obviously, they cannot foresee how much more fossil fuels will be uncovered.
Also, what percentage of this is coal? What percentage of this is economically viable fossil fuel? Saying 'world reserves' is completely meaningless without these being defined. For all we know 90% of world coal reserves won't be mined because they are the lowest grade of coal, for which demand is much lower.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2015
This is an open source study.

http://advances.s...589.full
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (21) Sep 11, 2015
Chicken Little, seeing that the other animals are not listening to his doom and gloom, has a loud speaker to make them listen. The sky is no longer just falling. Pieces of it are killing right and left.

Whenever the predictions of the end of the world fail, there are immediately new predictions of the end. It never stops and the predictions get more dire all the time.

Yawn ...
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2015
You have your stories mixed up.

Chicken Little went around screaming "WMD!".
docile
Sep 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
philstacy9
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 11, 2015
Burning the remaining fossil fuel would expose tin foil hat doomsday scenario scientists as liars so lets burn it up as soon as possible and cancel the liars science credentials.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 11, 2015
If we have oil for future fifty years only and its yearly consumption cannot rise very much already due to crossing of oil peak - then I don't understand, how this could yield to 60 meters sea level rise, it the sea level increased only by eight inches during last two hundred years. These numbers just don't fit each other by factor of two orders..

Well, they didn't specify where and how it's burnt. Now, what if they pumped it all onto the ice and set it ablaze. Yeah, I know silly, but remember if reality defies the doom and gloom, then just make up your own "reality".
Eddy Courant
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 11, 2015
I think if everyone were to sneeze East, at the same time, we can stop the planet turning.
SamB
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 11, 2015
I have read hundreds of alarmist sinking articles now for the past 20 years and I have checked back on the Maldives periodically during this time period and even it has not yet sunk or even abandoned! (In fact there is a building boom there right now)
I almost wish SOMETHING would sink so I could see with my own eyes what all the hullabaloo is about...
Egleton
3.9 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2015
So how are things in California? Peachy? I hear that the snow pack is not so deep this year. Out in the back paddock doing our naked rain dance are we?
Evidence? Not the evidence of your own eyes, surely.
Perhaps you could build a deniers model and attack that.
I take it that the Maldives are much more to your tastes than Greenland. Nude rain dances are all the rage in Greenland. Now that it is much warmer.
Egleton
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2015
Good links mytwocts.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 12, 2015
If one of you Chicken Littles really know where I can signup to be paid for my posts, please be so kind and forward me that information. Thanks.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2015
"So how are things in California? Peachy? I hear that the snow pack is not so deep this year. Out in the back paddock doing our naked rain dance are we?"
--------------------------------------

California will survive. We have to do so, we feed you goobers.

I suggest you deniers do the Cheney, a rather brutal form of autocoitus.

We gettired of you trolls here,
jackjump
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2015
It will take 500 years to burn up all the coal, gas and oil. By then we will be well into the next glaciation and the problem will be in finding a way to slow down the encroaching glaciers (sending out priests with crucifixes to pray them to a halt worked last time). However with all the CO2 in the air, wherever it is green it will be very, very green.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2015
Anyone seeking to understand how ocean warming is presented in different ways (standard deviations vs actual temperature anomalies) and how what is happening today fits into what is normal from the Earth's point of view, will find this study interesting:

http://wattsupwit...at-rope/

Sea level rise ostensibly being the loss of ice, one may be interested to see how sea-ice oscillates in winter and summer:

http://www.climat...Area.gif

From the article:
The team found that if global warming did not exceed the 2 degree Celsius target often cited by climate policymakers

We have already found that the predictions being used by policy makers are not emerging.

The earth goes through normal cycles of up and down. Aside from those who seek to profit from it, we are lucky for it.

runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2015
It will take 500 years to burn up all the coal, gas and oil. By then we will be well into the next glaciation and the problem will be in finding a way to slow down the encroaching glaciers (sending out priests with crucifixes to pray them to a halt worked last time). However with all the CO2 in the air, wherever it is green it will be very, very green.

FYI: You are several millenia out my friend.
The next "glaciation" due via the Milankovitch cycles will see out this current incarnation of humankind and many many more.
Even if it did CO2 forcing will easily be enough to stop it.
Nothing to see folks - just another ignorant science denier/liar.
FFS
denglish
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2015
Nothing to see folks - just another ignorant science denier/liar.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect. Reference to holocaust and accusation of dishonesty as a key component of dialogue is reprehensible.

denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2015
It may also help to understand how dramatic sea level rises can be. What is happening now is nothing compared to what the Earth can *really* do (without our help).

https://en.wikipe...evel.png
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2015
Average rate of sea level rise in the 20th century is 1.8mm. or .07 inches per year.

Miami is an average of 6 feet above sea level. At 20th century average rise, it will take 1,028 years to put Miami under water.

Another indicator that nothing unusual is happening...unless you have a warm place in your heart for furries and naked apes. Sea level over time spans geologically significant:
https://en.wikipe...evel.png

Nothing to see here folks...unless you enjoy spying on the earth bathing.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2015
Thinking about this further, a 60m is 197 feet. That's a lot.

From wikipedia:
"If this acceleration would stay constant, the 1990 to 2100 sea level rise would range from 280 to 340 mm."
.91 feet over 110 years: .28 meters.

What can the earth really do? It is thought that perhaps the earth can make the oceans rise 1-2.5 m per century.

http://noc.ac.uk/...-ice-age

In other words, what is happening, and even what is projected (as man's worst influence, not to mention failings of past predictions) can't touch what the Earth can really do.

This article is looking more and more like fear-mongering.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 12, 2015
The usual paid troll crowd. Don't believe in oil trolls? Read this:
https://hopegirl2...ndustry/
@Mytwocts
articles and blogs are all fine and dandy... but there is better scientific information out there you can use.... check out this STUDY:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

taking the study and combining it with your blogs and links would be far better as an impact, IMHO

... the blogs might have great info, but a study has constraints that are limited to factual statements that can be validated through research...

enjoy!

grondilu
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2015
Most fossil fuel underground is coal. There is no way we would extract and burn it all.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2015
Capt;
A quote from your link...
"The CCCM efforts focus on maintaining a
field frame that justifies unlimited use of fossil fuels by attempting to delegitmate the science that
supports the necessity of mandatory limits on carbon emissions. To accomplish this goal in the
face of massive scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change has meant the development
of an active campaign to manipulate and mislead the public over the nature of climate science and
the threat posed by climate change. This counter-movement involves a large number of organizations,
including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative
foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians."

As someone once said... "I weep for the human race"
richard_f_cronin
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2015
Ken Caldeira is one of the lunatics who suggested geoengineering. Spray aerosols and coal fly ash into the stratosphere to mimic the ash from major volcanoes, reflect sunlight and cool the planet. Anders Levermann hails from the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Home of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. The Pope's climate change encyclical writer. Schellnhuber invented the 2 degree "tipping point" out of whole cloth. See his interview with Der Speigel, April, 2010. Schellnhuber is also an advocate for restricting industrial development in the Third World, severe population control measures, and reducing the world's population (particularly yellow, brown, black and olive-skinned people) from 7 billion back to 1 billion. In so doing, we will maintain the dominion of the white Euro-centric elites. The Nazi is strong in this one.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2015
I weep for the human race

Awww....
Your cult does need all the help it can muster, to meet those exaggerated rise in sea level. So start crying.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2015
We gettired of you trolls here
We get tired of lying cheating psychopaths who are only deep enough to speak in mindless t shirt slogans and make up fables about their imaginary pasts because they dont have the guts to be who they actually are.
Eddy Courant
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2015
Gurgle gurgle gurgle. We're under water here in the Maldives! Oh wait. That's just my bong.
PhotonX
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2015
Average rate of sea level rise in the 20th century is 1.8mm. or .07 inches per year.
A rate which doubled in the last twenty years of that period. So your figures are already off by half. And will continue to become more inaccurate if the rate continues to increase.
.
.
ikihi
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 13, 2015
climate change has little to do with human activity. It is a natural process that can't be stopped.
ikihi
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 13, 2015
climate change has very little to do with human activity. It is a natural process that can't be stopped.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2015
Well, gosh, ikihi, I guess we will just have to give up and die.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2015
I woke up with a very troubling thought, perhaps PTSD from having to face California Senate Bill 350.

What if the AGWs won flat out? What would they do? According to them, we must shut down a large portion of our energy sources. What would happen to the people? To our society?

Further troubling...human life expectancy has gone up as emissions of carbon have gone up. Reduce carbon emissions, reduce life expectancy.

I would weep for the human race, but Mother Nature could'nt care less what happens to us, and we deserve it anyway.
dogbert
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2015
Well, gosh, ikihi, I guess we will just have to give up and die.


I suppose we could, but why? Climate changes. Nothing new there. Our ancestors did not "give up and die". They prospered with the changing conditions.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2015
Well, gosh, ikihi, I guess we will just have to give up and die.

This sums up the anthropocentric world view (religion?) nicely. They are terrified of dying.

They think we're important, but from the viewpoint of the cosmos, we are nothing.

"Comment posted by a person you have ignored"
Let me guess. Lots of CAPS, poor formatting, and exaggerated punctuation.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2015
denglish,
I woke up with a very troubling thought ...
What if the AGWs won flat out?


They would decimate a large percentage of the world population. Right now, they are confined to impoverishing and preventing third world nations from becoming prosperous, but the end of their policies would destroy a large portion of the developing world.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 13, 2015
They would decimate a large percentage of the world population. Right now, they are confined to impoverishing and preventing third world nations from becoming prosperous, but the end of their policies would destroy a large portion of the developing world.

When I first started looking into this whole subject, I read some people that thought destroying a large segment of the population is the end-game of AGW.

I thought they were lunatics.

Not so much anymore.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2015
"Our ancestors did not "give up and die". They prospered with the changing conditions."
-----------------------------------

Oh, yeah, I forgot how in the Younger Dryas, all that ice was used to make ice cream! Then, the people just chose to die.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2015
Well, gosh, ikihi, I guess we will just have to give up and die.


I suppose we could, but why? Climate changes. Nothing new there. Our ancestors did not "give up and die". They prospered with the changing conditions.

I would say they mitigated the problem ie found a way around it.

Mmmmm - might that include preventing the cause?
Heck that sounds like the sort of thing modern man should do.
But then I'm just thinking logically, based on evidence and not reacting like a dinosaur that learns nothing, that the advance of time and tech has given to us.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2015
I would say they mitigated the problem ie found a way around it.

Wrong. They adapted.

Mmmmm - might that include preventing the cause?
Heck that sounds like the sort of thing modern man should do.
But then I'm just thinking logically, based on evidence and not reacting like a dinosaur that learns nothing, that the advance of time and tech has given to us.

This is another excellent insight into anthropocentric psychology.

A discerning reader will note that from the logic presented above presenting the position that 60m rise is a most extreme (and perhaps even worthy of ridiculous) prediction, no mention has been made of it; instead admonition increases.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2015
A rate which doubled in the last twenty years of that period. So your figures are already off by half. And will continue to become more inaccurate if the rate continues to increase.

Yep. I went there too. See above.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2015
What if the AGWs won flat out? What would they do?
@d
they would invest in tech like that which is being worked on by Thermodynamics as well as reduce the emissions while also trying to re-educate the public about waste (kinda like a LOT of states are already doing... like MY state), then they would plan ahead and work towards reachable goals based on SCIENCE and knowledge, not propaganda and stupidity
They prospered with the changing conditions
past changing conditions are not the same as the current changing conditions... you are assuming that we will survive because of the past, but the conditions are vastly different
as well as similar of past mass extinctions from rapid climate change
(if you want to compare the past to now, you must compare similar situations -not random dissimilar events)

you can start here: http://adsabs.har...27..459V
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2015
Wrong. They adapted
@d
personal conjecture not supported by evidence
the situations are dissimilar so cannot be compared: see above
(if you want to compare the past to now, you must compare similar situations -not random dissimilar events)

you can start here: http://adsabs.har...27..459V
given that you don't understand the math or the science, as you've admitted previously... why would you comment with sweeping accusations and conjecture as though it was relevant to the topic?
insight into anthropocentric psychology
again, this is not true
you are posting personal conjecture based upon conspiracy ideation
not scientific evidence... feel free to support your claims if you can

your conspiracy ideation will not allow you to see facts
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2015
Ken Caldeira is ... an advocate for restricting industrial development in the Third World, severe population control measures, and reducing the world's population (particularly yellow, brown, black and olive-skinned people) from 7 billion back to 1 billion. In so doing, we will maintain the dominion of the white Euro-centric elites. The Nazi is strong in this one.

This is called character assassination, one of the preferred weapons of the paid troll.
You should be prosecuted. See if you can prove this in court.

mytwocts, all I had to do was glance at the original post to see that you DELIBERATELY altered it. Of course the rest of the Chicken Little cult would up vote your blatant deceit.
You are nothing but an ignorant fraud. Forget the courts, see if you can prove otherwise, right here on this forum.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2015
@antigoracle
Nothing meaningful was ever posted by you.
"prove otherwise" than what ?

Well, that confirms your ignorance.
So, that just leaves your fraud.
Burnerjack
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2015
"By 2015 New York City will be under water..."
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2015
All the carbon that is in the ground, except perhaps some diamonds and graphite, was once 500,000,000 years ago, in the atmosphere. It wasn't until the advent of the carboniferous that it started to become sequestered. All the petroleum, coal, natural gas and limestone was carbon floating harmlessly in the atmosphere.

Was the seal level 60 meters higher then? And if it were, does it matter?
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 13, 2015
Quick, burning fossil fuel releases both heat and water. How much of each?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2015
Quick, burning fossil fuel releases both heat and water. How much of each?
@ALCHIE/profitTROLL
finally back from being banned?

are you going to start obfuscating the issue and pushing irrelevant math without actually being able to show connection or correlation again, even though furlong and Thermodynamics proved you incapable of actually doing it?

you would think you would learn...
you do know they also release other stuff too, right?
you do know how WV and CO2 interact now, right? you read those studies right?

tell you what...lets skip the part where you lie or misconstrue some issue or start throwing around irrelevant minutia without context or make claims without validation ...
and get to the part where i simply ask you to actually prove where the studies i historically linked to you were falsified, retracted or proven wrong by empirical evidence as well as other studies

that will save a lot of time from your continued TROLLING
betterexists
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
That way we can beat pyramids; We can meet God up there & Shake hands. Great!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 14, 2015
I really doubt we will burn through all the reserves, tbh. Especially considering the other energy forms coming to the table.

It's not an either/or situation. 60 meters is certainly the top end of what could be a worst case scenario. However, even a much lower sea level rise will cause large parts of e.g. Florida to simply vanish off the map - and even a miniscule rise (sub 1 meter) will mean dramatically increased flood chances (with ancillary costs for taxpayers in cleanup).

While one may contemplate securing an individual city against high water levels given umpteen billion dollars there is no amount of money that will secure entire states/coastlines.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Because you don't know that correlation does not equal causation - and you comment on a science site!

Do you believe that cutting carbon emissions by 50% (right now) would allow the human race to prosper as it currently does, enabling a maintenance of current life expectancy values?

If yes, why?

they come right back for more.

Please give specific examples where you disagree with my position (as stated above re: sea level rise, and if you like, the effect on humanity re: overall prosperity increasing, decreasing, or remaining stagnant upon immediate cessation of carbon emission to an arbitrary specific degree that you may choose), and why.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored.

Lots of personal attack, CAPS, exaggerated punctuation and poor formatting I presume?
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2015
If one of you Chicken Littles really know where I can signup to be paid for my posts, please be so kind and forward me that information. Thanks.


AAAhhhh... so only the dumbest of trolls here.....
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2015
Captain
you would think you would learn...


I keep thinking that about several commenters (Ryggy, and denglish roll off the tongue). It seems like a compulsion they have to keep hitting themselves in the head. No matter how many times they draw blood - they come right back for more.


It is a compulsion that will not be denied. If your fragile semi-state of sanity depends on the vigorous defense of a self delusion, you live to defend it - or submit to the abyss.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2015
Some interesting opinions have been shared by a guy with Dr. in front of his name.

Did you know that the following are not used in models?

El Nino/La Nina (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Dansgaard-Oeschger Oscillation (D-O), Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), Milankovitch Effect, & The Cosmic Theory.

Did you know the IPCC says:
In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

The IPCC says this. I wonder how we can point to this prediction of 60m sea level rise and curse the guy who thinks the claim may need to be questioned.

antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
I keep thinking that about several commenters (Ryggy, and denglish roll off the tongue). It seems like a compulsion they have to keep hitting themselves in the head. No matter how many times they draw blood - they come right back for more.

Unlike you, who don't even need to touch your head and the sh!te just oozes right out.
willy5722
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
60 meter sea rise? Where is all this water going to come from? The best estimates of landlocked ice I have found state there are (adjusted for specific gravity) 156,711 km3. It seems to be accepted that it takes 9137 km3 to raise the ocean level 1 inch. I am going out on a limb here but these figures lead me to believe that if all the landlocked ice melted it would raise the oceans a staggering 17 inches. If the ice in Antarctica has been given the magical properties as CO then maybe they haven't missed the estimated rise by 59.5 meters
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
I don't know the answer to that question denglish.

Well, let's think it out a bit.

Limit the number of semi-trucks that carry food and water to population centers. What would be the result of a 50% decrease in food supplied to a population? We would be cutting carbon emissions, but would also create a deadly famine, thus lowering overall life expectancy.

Limit the amount of electricity created? How many people would freeze or overheat to death? people unprotected from the elements would also affect average life expectancy.

Limit the number of tractors on farms. We would lower the amount of carbon expelled, but would re-introduce back-breaking labor that would affect average life expectancy.

Etc. Ad infinitum.

I'm surprised you don't/won't draw these effects out of the removal of carbon emissions.

blatant lack of understanding

Yes.

denglish
2 / 5 (8) Sep 14, 2015
Because it is not accurate.

Ok, fair enough. Back to my first question:

Do you believe that cutting carbon emissions by 50% (right now) would allow the human race to prosper as it currently does, enabling a maintenance of current life expectancy values?

Trains can carry cargo you know.

To supply them at the point of purchase? C'mon.

you will not stop spamming

Fair questions are now spam.


"The guy" is not predicting climate. He is predicting that the land ice will melt.

You missed the point of the post completely, George. "The guy" would be the evil denier, and the IPCC quote comes from an IPCC report.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Sep 14, 2015
The point is still the same. Correlation is not causation. You demonstrated that you do not understand that very simple principle - yet you will not stop spamming a science site.

Sorry, I told myself I wasn't going to point out basics anymore, but for some reason I feel compelled to help.

Logical fallacies are not proven by assertion. They are proven by examining conclusions made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship.

MikPetter
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
Extract from "Relative Sea Level Changes in Maldives.." MARINE GEODESY 25(1-2):133-143 · FEBRUARY 2002 "Trend analysis is also performed on the corresponding air temperature data of both stations. The results show that Maldives coastal sea level is rising in the same way (rising trend) as the global sea level. The mean tidal level at Male has shown an increasing trend of about 4.1 mm/year.Similarly at Gan, near the equator,it has registered a positive trend of about 3.9 mm/year."
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
Going way off topic now, but re: C02 emissions and life being good, check this out:

http://www.global...2009.jpg

From this article. 2012, evidently the link to the actual paper has timed-out.
http://www.global...y-stick/

Tough to argue logical fallacy against that.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2015
Hay @denglish, how does it feel being the pond scum of climate change. Let me point you to a site that actually has facts.

http://www.skepti...nce.com/
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2015
It seems like a compulsion
@Greenonions
it IS a compulsion (or paid for)
dung is not just a troll, but he is a fanatic with a belief that is not supported by evidence. all he has is repetition and dogma
when that is all you have, then it comes down to getting the last word & repeating it

.

Comment...ignored
@d
ROTFLMFAO
too late, we already caught you lying about who you ignore... playing this card now after i pointed it out to you only makes you look worse
especially since the one i posted to you above has nothing but facts
Some interesting opinions have been shared by a guy with Dr. in front of his name
is this the same Dr. that you tried to use who was proven to post fraudulent misleading "papers" that were never published nor peer reviewed?
this is like your argument: "will it allow the human race" above
the human race will adapt. your argument is from a desire to maintain comfort while hoarding which is greed & fear based, not logic/science
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2015
would allow the human race to prosper as it currently does, enabling a maintenance of current life expectancy values?
@green
this is a conspiracist fear based argument that isn't supported by evidence: this means he is trying to push a fear based approach that making small changes will kill off the planet (whereas we know that not making any changes has the definite potential to do that based upon past mass extinctions)

the argument is a strawman and intentionally uses only extremes: it doesn't account for smaller changes, nor does it account for modern research or technological advancement

point this out, then add:
why does it require huge reductions? especially considering the levels of waste already known
and it IS spam/trolling when it is an oft repeated strawman, not a fair question: if he actually sought information, he would use discourse and accept valid facts over conjecture; science over fear/belief

he's proven he can't accept either
denglish
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2015
You don't even understand that correlation does not equal causation - and you are going to school others? Stupid is one thing - but arrogance mixed with stupid goes to the next level.

Logical fallacies are not proven by assertion. They are proven by examining conclusions made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship.

You get caught over and over saying really dumb stuff.

I have asked you to point it out, and then to support your argument, but you won't. I wish you would produce something worth reading; you've definitely gotten plenty of opportunities.

Comment posted by a person you have ignored
Let me guess: Personal attack, exaggerated punctuation, poor formatting and lots of CAPS.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2015
Logical fallacies are not proven by assertion
this is not only intellectual dishonesty, but blatant trolling, now
in the past, the only evidence dung has provided has been assertion, not actual scientific evidence or validated studies... but now he wants to somehow push the evidence angle?
WTF????
They are proven by examining conclusions made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause-and-effect relationship
@furlong and @Thermo have both demonstrated you don't comprehend statistics, and that you don't understand the science... dung even admitted as much... but now he is going to use his interpretations of evidence descriptions to push a known fallacy and argue it is logical conclusions based upon his personal observations?
WTF?????
and i thought zephir or jvk was delusional!
this is a whole new level of trolling, spamming and pseudoscience!

i wonder if he is taking a class on this?
these are uba tactics mixed with alchie, cd, jk & zeph
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
explored the nature of that relationship

Actually, I have, and I offered you the opportunity to engage in intelligent dialogue on the subject.

For your convenience, here is the paper again:
http://object.cat...a715.pdf

Figure 1 from the paper is quite interesting:
http://www.global...2009.jpg

I would be very interested in what you make of this.

But - if we had to cut carbon emissions to 0 tmrw - I think that we could do it - and all survive.

I would be very interested to see you support this position. To me, it looks like unfounded speculation.

no matter how many times others point out your idiocy

Practicing intellect other than insult does not make much sense to me.

Comment posted by a person you have ignored
Don't worry, if onions can't produce anything, he'll join you.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2015
I have, and I offered you the opportunity to engage in intelligent dialogue on the subject
@d
no, you offered to allow people to listed to your unsubstantiated claims. previously, you were conversing with furlong & thermo, but you completely ignored the evidence to continue to post the same argument: that is not intelligent dialogue, that is fanaticism and religious like tenacity clinging to your delusional beliefs
here is the paper
1- linking a "paper" or "study" from a political biased site is like linking articles, blogs or opinion
2- it is not a peer reviewed Science journal- it's "facts" are opinion biased by it's political perspective: https://en.wikipe..._Journal

3-this goes back to your inability to comprehend the difference between evidence and opinion

linking a poli site with biased perspective to support arguments against science is like claiming you can prove you're a bird because you have a picture of you in a tree
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored.
Let me guess: personal attack, poor formatting, CAPS, and exaggerated punctuation.

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2015
@Green... to make your point about
Correlation does not equal causation
post this link to dung: http://tylervigen...n?id=983

then ask if, based upon that graph, it justifies cutting US spending on science, space, and technology to save people who die falling down stairs!

Then make a specific note of this re: his paper & questions
1- linking a "paper" or "study" from a political biased site is like linking articles, blogs or opinion
2- it is not a peer reviewed Science journal- it's "facts" are opinion biased by it's political perspective: https://en.wikipe..._Journal

3-this goes back to your inability to comprehend the difference between evidence and opinion

linking a poli site with biased perspective to support arguments against science is like claiming you can prove you're a bird because you have a picture of you in a tree

MORE correlation =/= causation links
http://tylervigen...n?id=359

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2015
we need to follow dung's lead!
lets stop drowning deaths by stopping the number of movies Nicolas Cage appears in!
http://tylervigen...n?id=359

we can up our chances of getting a civil engineers doctorate by promoting the eating of mozerella cheese!
http://tylervigen...?id=3890

we can stop people from drowning from fishing boats by refusing marriage in KY!
http://tylervigen...n?id=598

we can stop railway train collisions with drivers by stopping our imports of oil from Norway!
http://tylervigen...n?id=136

save people from power line electrocution by asking Alabama to stop allowing marriage!
http://tylervigen...n?id=677

Correlation =/= causation

$100 says he doesn't get it yet

denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
So your paper establishes correlation - but not causation.

Ah, but i believe it does, because existence and direction of the cause-and-effect relationship is well lined-out.

I was hoping you would point out something specific to support your point. I suppose I expected too much. My fault.

but you don't have the mental capacity. Having made that realization - you would hopefully stop spamming

For you, I have. You may now join Captain Stumpy in the ignore bin.

Comment posted by a person you have ignored
Exactly.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2015
Ah, but i believe it does
ROTFLMFAO
so... science doesn't actually motivate dung to learn about statistics... demonstrations from furlong and thermo doesn't help... noting spurious correlations only makes him mad... proving his "paper" is a political biased proposition based upon subjective data that is not scientific makes him "ignore" you...
but he is here to learn and- in his own words
to engage in intelligent dialogue on the subject
so... if he accepts pseudoscience and lies, fraud, and delusion as acceptable and "intelligent dialogue on the subject" then what does he call the scientific method?

I was hoping you would point out something specific to support your point
the whole reason he said this is because he read my posts above and doesn't want to have to address the fraudulent attempts to push known lies as "fact"

this is almost as hilarious as bs and his trolling about eu dogma!
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2015
Deng says:
So your paper establishes correlation - but not causation.


Ah, but i believe it does, because existence and direction of the cause-and-effect relationship is well lined-out.


What you need to do to show a causal relationship is to have a hypothesis as to what that causal relationship is. You then test it. Please point out the causal relationship you see (why a change in CO2 output drives our increase in standard of living). Please make it specific to CO2 and not to the availability of energy services (which I see as the causality). You then have to show how we are prohibited from achieving the energy services while reducing CO2.
denglish
3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
Hi Thermo, I hope all is well.

why a change in CO2 output drives our increase in standard of living

The paper is chock full of examples.

CO2 and not to the availability of energy services

C02 is the output of the energy services. They can't be separated.

You then have to show how we are prohibited from achieving the energy services while reducing CO2.

C02 being the output of the energy services, reducing C02 would prohibit the energy services to the degree C02 output is reduced.
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2015
Too late onions, you're muted...and mad, evidently.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2015
Deng said:
Too late onions, you're muted...and mad, evidently.


Everyone has to right to ignore anyone, but Green has been pushing science that could help you understand why CO2 is an issue and why we can combat it. He points out alternatives to your proposed interpretations. You are, really, shooting yourself in the foot for ignoring him. I have purposefully not ignored ignoramuses like Rygg2 and Alche/WaterBowl just to be able to follow their twisted lack of logic to be able to help others understand how wrong they are. You might (or might not) want to do the same thing. As Green pointed out the curve could be due to something as unconnected as nutrition (although you could argue CO2 from food production - but he is emphasizing our understanding of nutrition instead of just quantity of food). I still consider that part of the energy services, but his argument is valid as a conjecture.
Bongstar420
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2015
I hope...Its certainly better than the other way..the ocean going down 60ft due to the next imminent ice age
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2015
I hope...Its certainly better than the other way..the ocean going down 60ft due to the next imminent ice age

The next glaciation isn't expected for at least ~50000 years, so I'm not sure how you're defining "imminent".
ahaveland
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2015
The next glaciation isn't expected for at least ~50000 years, so I'm not sure how you're defining "imminent".


Per Tzedakis et al 2012, "glacial inception would require CO₂ concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv"

As we are at about 403 ppm right now ( http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ ) and climbing, we can be sure the next glacial epoch won't be happening in our lifetimes.
http://junkscienc...-age.pdf

Further down the road?
Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:

"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."

So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery for the next million years...
http://plankt.oxf...pdf+html
denglish
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2015
Everyone has to right to ignore anyone

I just don't have the time to go in circles, and a person that uses insult again and again isn't interested in dialogue. If you see that person's inputs as reasonable I'd suggest to you that you're prejudiced.

Anywho thermo, you didn't address my points, or perhaps you're chewing on them...

"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."

Is this based on models that have already been falsified?

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2015
a person that uses insult again and again isn't interested in dialogue
and this is demonstrated no better than your own posts
when you are refuted with scientific evidence and studies, you resorted to denigration and posting blatant lies
Anywho thermo, you didn't address my points, or perhaps you're chewing on them
well, you have yet to address the points or facts that I have continued to post since day one with you:
where are the studies that refute the validated studies that I posted to you specifically as refute to your claims?
where are the retractions, changes or alterations to the studies i posted?

you want to argue "falsified models", but you have already been taught about models, statistics and the math involved by Furlong and Thermo: why are you ignoring it again?

this doesn't even take into consideration that you admitted you don't understand the science...
denglish
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored.
Let me guess: personal attack, poor formatting, CAPS, and exaggerated punctuation.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored.
Let me guess: personal attack, poor formatting, CAPS, and exaggerated punctuation.

@d
why is it you only reply to the ones that I specifically target you in?
you don't reply to the ones I post to others... except for one single incident, but that doesn't count either because I produced an argument which refuted your claims.. is that what threw you off?
forced you to comment?

that is fascinating considering you say you ignore me... you post "Comment posted by a person you have ignored."

... so why continue to read and post only when I refute your arguments?

your own words tell the story: you lie

thanks for confirming it
again

PS
I've been tracking this: I've scaled down replies to you intentionally
but you still only post replies to my posts to you, or that refute you
interesting, isn't it?
denglish
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2015
LOL

Comment posted by a person you have ignored.
Let me guess: personal attack, poor formatting, CAPS, and exaggerated punctuation.
denglish
1 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2015
LOL both of you muted. You guys are gluttons! I love it.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2015
Deng said:
Anywho thermo, you didn't address my points, or perhaps you're chewing on them...


I have missed the points you wanted comments on. Please make them again and I will be very glad to respond. I just saw statements from you and must have missed the points.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 18, 2015

"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."

Is this based on models that have already been falsified?



I don't know, denglish. Show me any that have been falsified and I'll let you know. Most of the ones I know of are right on target.
denglish
1 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2015
Deng said:
Anywho thermo, you didn't address my points, or perhaps you're chewing on them...


I have missed the points you wanted comments on. Please make them again and I will be very glad to respond. I just saw statements from you and must have missed the points.

Not a big deal. This thread is dead. You asked that I point to causation re: C02 emissions and quality of life, and I did.

Show me any that have been falsified

Google "Temperature predictions vs reality images" There are hundreds of examples
https://higherrev...lity.png

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.