Short-lived greenhouse gases cause centuries of sea-level rise

January 9, 2017 by Jennifer Chu
Researchers report that warming from short-lived compounds — greenhouse gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons, that linger in the atmosphere for just a year to a few decades — can cause sea levels to rise for hundreds of years after the pollutants have been cleared from the atmosphere. Credit: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Even if there comes a day when the world completely stops emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, coastal regions and island nations will continue to experience rising sea levels for centuries afterward, according to a new study by researchers at MIT and Simon Fraser University.

In a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers report that warming from short-lived compounds—greenhouse gases such as methane, chlorofluorocarbons, or hydrofluorocarbons, that linger in the for just a year to a few decades—can cause sea levels to rise for hundreds of years after the pollutants have been cleared from the atmosphere.

"If you think of countries like Tuvalu, which are barely above , the question that is looming is how much we can emit before they are doomed. Are they already slated to go under, even if we stopped emitting everything tomorrow?" says co-author Susan Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT. "It's all the more reason why it's important to understand how long climate changes will last, and how much more sea-level rise is already locked in."

Solomon's co-authors are lead author Kirsten Zickfeld of Simon Fraser University and Daniel Gilford, a graduate student in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

Short stay, long rise

Recent studies by many groups, including Solomon's own, have shown that even if human-caused emissions of were to stop entirely, their associated atmospheric warming and sea-level rise would continue for more than 1,000 years. These effects—essentially irreversible on human timescales—are due in part to carbon dioxide's residence time: The greenhouse gas can stay in the atmosphere for centuries after it's been emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes.

In contrast to carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons have much shorter lifetimes. However, previous studies have not specified what their long-term effects may be on sea-level rise. To answer this question, Solomon and her colleagues explored a number of climate scenarios using an Earth Systems Model of Intermediate Complexity, or EMIC, a computationally efficient climate model that simulates ocean and atmospheric circulation to project climate changes over decades, centuries, and millenia.

With the model, the team calculated both the average global temperature and sea-level rise, in response to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.

The researchers' estimates for carbon dioxide agreed with others' predictions and showed that, even if the world were to stop emitting carbon dioxide starting in 2050, up to 50 percent of the gas would remain in the atmosphere more than 750 years afterward. Even after cease, sea-level rise should continue to increase, measuring twice the level of 2050 estimates for 100 years, and four times that value for another 500 years.

The reason, Solomon says, is due to "ocean inertia": As the world warms due to greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide included—waters heat up and expand, causing sea levels to rise. Removing the extra ocean heat caused by even short-lived gases, and consequently lowering sea levels, is an extremely slow process.

"As the heat goes into the ocean, it goes deeper and deeper, giving you continued thermal expansion," Solomon explains. "Then it has to get transferred back to the atmosphere and emitted back into space to cool off, and that's a very slow process of hundreds of years."

Stemming tides

In one particular climate modeling scenario, the team evaluated sea level's response to various methane emissions scenarios, in which the world would continue to emit the gas at current rates, until emissions end entirely in three different years: 2050, 2100, and 2150.

In all three scenarios, methane gas quickly cleared from the atmosphere, and its associated atmospheric warming decreased at a similar rate. However, methane continued to contribute to sea-level rise for centuries afterward. What's more, they found that the longer the world waits to reduce methane emissions, the longer seas will stay elevated.

"Amazingly, a gas with a 10-year lifetime can actually cause enduring sea-level changes," Solomon says. "So you don't just get to stop emitting and have everything go back to a preindustrial state. You are going to live with this for a very long time."

The researchers found one silver lining in their analyses: Curious as to whether past regulations on pollutants have had a significant effect on sea-level rise, the team focused on perhaps the most successful global remediation effort to date—the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty ratified by 197 countries in 1989, that effectively curbed emissions of ozone-depleting compounds worldwide.

Encouragingly, the researchers found that the Montreal Protocol, while designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out pollutants such as chlorofluorocarbons—has also helped stem rising seas. If the Montreal Protocol had not been ratified, and countries had continued to emit chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere, the researchers found that by 2050, the world would have experienced up to an additional 6 inches of sea-level rise.

"Half a foot is pretty significant," Solomon says. "It's yet another tremendous reason why the Montreal Protocol has been a pretty good thing for the planet."

In their paper's conclusion, the researchers point out that efforts to curb global warming should not be expected to reverse high seas quickly, and that longer-term impacts from sea-level rise should be seriously considered: "The primary policy conclusion of this study is that the long-lasting nature of heightens the importance of earlier mitigation actions."

Explore further: Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets

More information: Centuries of thermal sea-level rise due to anthropogenic emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1612066114

Related Stories

Accounting for short-lived forcers in carbon budgets

July 15, 2015

Limiting warming to any level requires CO2 emissions to be kept to within a certain limit known as a carbon budget. Can reducing shorter-lived climate forcers influence the size of this budget? A new IIASA study published ...

Warming of two degrees inevitable over Canada: study

March 4, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. That’s a best-case scenario, according ...

Recommended for you

Climate change made Harvey rainfall 15 percent more intense

December 14, 2017

A team of scientists from World Weather Attribution, including researchers from Rice University and other institutions in the United States and Europe, have found that human-caused climate change made the record rainfall ...

East Antarctic Ice Sheet has history of instability

December 13, 2017

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet locks away enough water to raise sea level an estimated 53 meters (174 feet), more than any other ice sheet on the planet. It's also thought to be among the most stable, not gaining or losing ...

Hydraulic fracturing negatively impacts infant health

December 13, 2017

From North Dakota to Ohio to Pennsylvania, hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has transformed small towns into energy powerhouses. While some see the new energy boom as benefiting the local economy and decreasing ...

54 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CCMcCombs
2 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2017
Most of the land ice is going to melt on planet Earth. We started pulling out of a ice age about 15,000-12,000 years ago. Geologists are in consensus that we are in an interglacial period and a new glaciation might not occur for a long time. This means that we can expect approximately 20 feet of sea level rise over the next millennia. Not to say that humans don't influence the climate to a significant degree, humans change a lot of things, but eccentricity, obliquity and precession drive the climate.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2017
"Even if there comes a day when the world completely stops emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, coastal regions and island nations will continue to experience rising sea levels for centuries afterward, according to a new study by researchers at MIT and Simon Fraser University."


Okay then, let's ponder this for a moment: Many millennia ago the British Isles were connected to what is now mainland Europe. We know this because under the waters of the present day English Channel remnants of ancient domains of human habitat are known to exist (for the lazy, just GOOGLE it).

Off the coasts of most of the rest of Europe, abandoned human habitat have been discovered to be in evidence that extends hundreds of miles beyond the present day coastline with the Atlantic Ocean.

Dumb Neanderthals, building all those campfires to cook their meat & to keep warm, just look at what they wrought on us, is it no wonder the oceans won't go back to their original levels.
snoosebaum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2017
of course it will, its a model , and from what i hear about academia / PC politics , they would get roasted if it didn't.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2017
Most of the land ice is going to melt on planet Earth. We started pulling out of a ice age about 15,000-12,000 years ago. Geologists are in consensus that we are in an interglacial period and a new glaciation might not occur for a long time. This means that we can expect approximately 20 feet of sea level rise over the next millennia. Not to say that humans don't influence the climate to a significant degree, humans change a lot of things, but eccentricity, obliquity and precession drive the climate.


If the past is a predictor of the future it seems ocean level rise is a slowing event. These human domain remnants found in the English channel were around 10k yrs old as I recall. The flooding event occurred fairly quickly, probably from a sudden release of ice melt from the north, maybe the same event that flooded human occupied areas off the southern European coasts causing ocean levels to rise something like 100- 200 feet.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2017
LOL.
The only thing that has risen as a result of GHGs are the number of Pathological Lies from the AGW Cult and their Pathological "science".
howhot3
4 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
This article is spot on. It's exactly why I said the Oceans would boil by 2200 (earlier post) and that is the linger time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the oceans aren't going to boil, but they do collect heat and the heat capacity of the oceans is very large. But then again, global warming from green house gasses is nothing to dismiss. Already the planet is in the process of a major extinction event comparable to the ones like the Permian, Jurassic etc. Interesting how the denier goon squad trimbles in absolute fear about AGW, facts and science. They could be paid trolls for the oil industry or they maybe just idiots.

A little googling can be enlightening when it comes to digging up the truth. Here is a story about the ocean temp in the South Korean waters. There the average ocean surface temps are 1.29C over avg temp from 43 years prior. Whereas the global increase of avg temp is around 0.4C in that same period.
http://www.koreah...01000167
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2017
so how does 'global' warming affect just one spot? maybe flaky data affects one area
howhot3
4 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
@snooze, I guess it would be like this; The 1.2C is a delta-temp so in the map around South Korea, that green was probably cyan 43 years ago.

http://www.ospo.n...contour/
Pooua
2 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2017
These human domain remnants found in the English channel were around 10k yrs old as I recall. The flooding event occurred fairly quickly, probably from a sudden release of ice melt from the north, maybe the same event that flooded human occupied areas off the southern European coasts causing ocean levels to rise something like 100- 200 feet.


I recall that it was an ice dam in Niagra, around New York, that burst, causing rapid sea level rise. 20,000 years ago, New York was under a mile of ice.

We cannot stop climate change, and attempting to do so likely would hurt our economy. We need to develop methods of living with extreme climate events and climate change.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2017
People that claim that climate models can make such predictions have not taken the time to learn about the limitations of modeling and academic research more broadly. At the timescale of decades and in light of how large the planet is, there is so much parameterization that the signal becomes a function of the parameters.
Chris_Reeve
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2017
It's honestly a scandal what these researchers are doing. Their models are obviously tweakable to whatever conclusion they want to arrive at, and they consistently decide to scare the public. All of these people should honestly lose their jobs and grants. The public doesn't need to fund this nonsense.
manfredparticleboard
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2017
"We cannot stop climate change, and attempting to do so likely would hurt our economy. We need to develop methods of living with extreme climate events and climate change."

Climate change will hurt the economy! Developing methods to live with extreme climate events is one thing- implementing them will hurt the economy. Doing something about it will slow climate change and hurt the economy but then sooner or later you have to clean up your room after playing with your toys...or will someone do that for you? You play you pay one way or another.
Apparently, its easier to change the climate of the planet than change the behaviour of self interested individuals.
humy
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2017


Their models are obviously tweakable to whatever conclusion they want to arrive at,.and they consistently decide to scare the public.

How would you know this?
Tell us why this is 'obvious'.
What is your evidence or premise for this?
Are you an expert in climate modelling?

The one thing that really is 'obvious' here is that you either are a hateful big lair or have a totally delusional mind or both. You will fool very few scientists and intellectuals here.
marcush
3.1 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2017
Those complaining about models conveniently forget that if anything, the evidence indicates they are underestimating the coming warming.
humy
3.5 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2017
I am a computer expert and a semi-expert in mathematical modelling and computer modeling and running computer simulations and have much actual practical experience doing all these things. I can tell you from personal, experience that when laypeople people complain about climate models making out they are 'unreliable' or 'fraudulent', or words of that effect, they are always, at least always when I have read their comments in the past, talking a load of total nonsense. I should also point out climate model predictions have often and usually proven correct and the quality and reliability of climate models to predict is improving all the time.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2017
sooner or later you have to clean up your room after playing with your toys...or will someone do that for you?

Privatize profits, socialise costs. As always taxpayers have to pay for the irresponsibility of companies (and governments either pandering to them - or being outright in their pockets).

You play you pay one way or another.

They play. We pay.

Apparently, its easier to change the climate of the planet than change the behaviour of self interested individuals.

Any kind of profit comes at the cost to someone or something. We have to start realizing that. Self-interested individuals will always try and find a way to circumvent any attempts to change them (they are self-interested, remember?). You can't really change them - only mitigate the damage they do.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2017
people complain about climate models making out they are 'unreliable' or 'fraudulent', or words of that effect, they are always, at least always when I have read their comments in the past, talking a load of total nonsense.
............in the meantime 4 billion years of Climate Change marches inexorably onward all because the genius experts like you have failed to come up with the technology that shuts down the 99% of atmospheric GH gas the sources of which are volcanoes & forest fires which your models ignore.

You're an expert of some kind are you? Next time you post try better language skills before attempting to pass yourself off as an expert.

Paulw789
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
I am a computer expert and a semi-expert in mathematical modelling and computer modeling and running computer simulations and have much actual practical experience doing all these things. I can tell you from personal, experience that when laypeople people complain about climate models making out they are 'unreliable' or 'fraudulent', or words of that effect, they are always, at least always when I have read their comments in the past, talking a load of total nonsense. I should also point out climate model predictions have often and usually proven correct and the quality and reliability of climate models to predict is improving all the time.


It is assumed that you have not reviewed the climate model predictions then. There must be at least one example of accuracy you could point to.
philstacy9
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
'Scientists Now Warn Of A New Ice Age'

http://www.climat...-russia/
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Re: "I should also point out climate model predictions have often and usually proven correct and the quality and reliability of climate models to predict is improving all the time."

Wow, perhaps you should pitch that to the IPCC ...

https://fabiusmax...e-89635/

"Let's discuss what scientists can do to restart the debate. Let's start with the big step: show that climate models have successfully predicted future global temperatures with reasonable accuracy ...

This spaghetti graph — probably the most-cited data from the IPCC's reports — illustrates one reason for lack of sufficient public support in America. It shows the forecasts of models run in previous IPCC reports vs. actual subsequent temperatures, with the forecasts run under various scenarios of emissions and their baselines updated ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
(cont'd)

"... We want to know how well the models work. That is, how well each forecast if run with a correct scenario ...

A massive body of research describes how to validate climate models (see below), most stating that they must use 'hindcasts' (predicting the past) because we do not know the temperature of future decades. Few sensible people trust hindcasts, with their ability to be (even inadvertently) tuned to work (that's why scientists use double-blind testing for drugs where possible) ...

But now we know the future — the future of models run in past IPCC reports — and can test their predictive ability ...

Climate scientists can run such tests today for global surface temperatures ...

So they should run the models as they were originally run for the IPCC in the First Assessment Report (FAR, 1990), in the Second (SAR, 1995), and the Third (TAR, 2001) ..."

(cont'd)
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Recent studies by many groups, including Solomon's own, have shown that even if human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide were to stop entirely, their associated atmospheric warming and sea-level rise would continue for more than 1,000 years.

LOL.
Yet it has been shown that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. Not only as temperatures rise but as they fall also. i.e. CO2 continued to increase as the ice ages began.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
(cont'd)

"... This was proposed by Roger Pielke Jr (Prof Environmental Studies, U CO-Boulder) in "Climate predictions and observations", Nature Geoscience, April 2008 ...

we now have respectably long histories since publication of the early IPCC reports: 25, 20, and 15 years. These are not short periods, even for climate change. Models that cannot successfully predict over such periods require more trust than many people have when it comes to spending trillions of dollars — or even making drastic revisions to our economic system (as urged by Naomi Klein and Pope Francis) ...

Re-run the models. Post the results. More recent models presumably will do better, but firm knowledge about performance of the older models will give us useful information for the public policy debate. No matter what the results ..."
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Re: "I am a computer expert and a semi-expert in mathematical modelling and computer modeling and running computer simulations and have much actual practical experience doing all these things. I can tell you from personal, experience that when laypeople people complain about climate models making out they are 'unreliable' or 'fraudulent', or words of that effect, they are always, at least always when I have read their comments in the past, talking a load of total nonsense ..."

I study scientific controversies, critiques of modern science, academic whistleblowers and science education reform, and I can tell you from those activities that whenever a modeler seeks to claim that models can make various amazing predictions, that these modelers have not spent adequate time seeking out good critics or workable competing ideas.
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2017


............in the meantime 4 billion years of Climate Change marches inexorably onward all because the genius experts like you have failed to come up with the technology that shuts down the 99% of atmospheric

That statement is complete gibberish.
What does natural part of climate change got to do with the very recent man made part?
And what does "technology that shuts down the 99% of atmospheric" mean? In what sense "shuts down"?
humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2017


It is assumed that you have not reviewed the climate model predictions then.


No need, climate scientists do that for us.

There must be at least one example of accuracy you could point to.

try most of them.
humy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2017

I study scientific controversies, critiques of modern science, academic whistleblowers and science education reform, and I can tell you from those activities that ....

Stop right there! None of those activities are about the actual science nor scientific method in general thus those activities do not qualify you to comment on whether any particular scientific theory is correct.
You can study the scientific controversies all you like, but what counts regarding which theory is valid or correct is not the controversies over it but rather the evidence. Controversies are people disagreeing. people disagreeing isn't evidence.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Re: "You can study the scientific controversies all you like, but what counts regarding which theory is valid or correct is not the controversies over it but rather the evidence. Controversies are people disagreeing. people disagreeing isn't evidence."

That's not completely correct.

There are patterns throughout the controversies which do not become apparent until a person studies controversial science as a topic.

For example, how can a person really understand bias in statistics with just one example?

How can a person understand the effect of worldview upon theory-making without studying all scientific domains?

How can a person become fluent in the problems of peer review if they only focus upon one particular discipline?

Realize as well that challenges to theory oftentimes today emerge from adjacent scientific disciplines.

The context of science matters just as much as the specializations and calculations.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
Further, you may not realize this -- most people don't -- but there exists an ever-growing body of literature dedicated to critique of modern science.

I've been systematically going through this literature, and I can tell you that there are many common threads which run through these critiques.

In fact, the critique is largely corroborative of one another.

Along the way, I've found all sorts of fascinating things ... for example, a critical history of science journalism. Most people do not even know that science journalism HAS a history at all. It does, and it's of course extremely relevant to the topic of climate change.

Many specialists overlook the role of specialization in the formation of their worldviews.

This is a huge mistake. We specialize because it makes the organization more efficient -- but the effect upon an individual's worldview is devastating.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017


............in the meantime 4 billion years of Climate Change marches inexorably onward all because the genius experts like you have failed to come up with the technology that shuts down the 99% of atmospheric

That statement is complete gibberish.
What does natural part of climate change got to do with the very recent man made part?
And what does "technology that shuts down the 99% of atmospheric" mean? In what sense "shuts down"?

OK, there was something wrong with my weblink to this link so that the rest of that last part of the sentence was hidden from my view but now I see it and I see now it makes semantical sense so I apologize for that. But the former part of your statement is still gibberish because it makes no distinction between man made and natural causes of climate change.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
One of the key lessons of studying scientific controversies is that although corporations value specialization, our personal worldviews are typically more in need of generalization.

We are all chasing after the topics which interest us, but that leaves us with a patchy understanding of the big picture.

When a specialist speaks up on a topic, their authority rests upon a principle of ignoring everything that exists outside of their specialty. This becomes obvious with controversies because many controversies exist between scientific domains.

For instance, are you aware that there has been sporadic debate between dendrochronologists and tree physiologists? The problem is that dendrochronologists are not typically tree physiologists, and temperature is of course not the only factor in the formation of tree rings.

There are countless examples which standard science journalism today ignores.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2017
How can a person understand the effect of worldview upon theory-making without studying all scientific domains?


You don't seem to understand what is scientific method;
Scientific method is about obtaining a conclusion from the evidence and flawless logic alone, not a personal worldview (nor what you want to be the conclusion so emotions should have nothing to do with it) unless that personal worldview just so happens to be simply nothing more than the attitude that one should obtaining a conclusion from the evidence and flawless logic alone.
Chris_Reeve
3 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2017
I do indeed understand THE IDEAL of scientific method, but it does not appear that you understand that a common critique is that most scientists do not actually follow this ideal.

Climate change is perhaps the ultimate example ...

There are, for example, plasma physics explanations for the polar vortex splitting into two and recombining.

In fact, we see a remarkably similar phenomenon happening at Venus' pole, and it's a function of Venus' interaction with the solar wind. This occasional splitting of a filament once it comes into contact with a surface is even observable in novelty plasma globes.

The ideal of scientific method would suggest that the phenomenon might be better understood in electrical terms.

But, the worldview that co2 drives climate invites researchers to ignore that alternative explanation.
Chris_Reeve
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
Bolstering that argument is the fact that Piers Corbyn has had some successes with predicting these extreme weather events. That is, in fact, his own focus: His predictions are most accurate in terms of the extreme events -- like when the polar vortex splits.

But, the dominant co2 worldview positions the climate change community against him -- because he uses planetary sciences indicators to make his weather predictions.

Realize that at one point, these climate modelers asked him to help them to work these parameters into their models, to make them more accurate.

If you know anything about Corbyn, you know that this made him chuckle.
Chris_Reeve
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
I should add that one of the critiques I've seen -- I forget where, at this point -- suggested that people who go online to teach others the merits of "scientific method" are typically the least savvy in critique.

You might consider that by completely ignoring the critics and context of science, you are actually depriving yourself of valuable feedback.
howhot3
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2017
I do indeed understand THE IDEAL of scientific method, but it does not appear that you understand that a common critique is that most scientists do not actually follow this ideal.

You have a flawed argument. You don't understand science at all, not it's methods of discovery, it's methods of reporting finding, it's checks and balances, or its dissemination of knowledge to all people.

Your a climate denier just like all of the other scrubs.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2017
I do indeed understand THE IDEAL of scientific method, but it does not appear that you understand that a common critique is that most scientists do not actually follow this ideal.

You have a flawed argument. You don't understand science at all, not it's methods of discovery, it's methods of reporting finding, it's checks and balances, or its dissemination of knowledge to all people.

Your a climate denier just like all of the other scrubs.

Hey lookee at what became unstuck from his mancrush Al, from whom he gets his Globull warming science, and we know from which end. Here is your chance to ask Al about all the scientific fraud he peddled in that movie The Convenient Lie. You know, like the graphs showing CO2 leading temperatures.
Chris_Reeve
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2017
Re: "You have a flawed argument. You don't understand science at all, not it's methods of discovery, it's methods of reporting finding, it's checks and balances, or its dissemination of knowledge to all people."

The only way to understand whether or not these things you mention are actually effective is to listen to the critics and actually think about what they're saying.

Further, it's imperative that to do this correctly, a person must not stop at the first support for the mainstream they find. They must actually seek out the BEST critiques they can find.

The climate change community has completely failed to do this, and in fact, the reporting which you think so highly of actually convinces the public to believe that there is no debate at all.

So, how can this community be an expert in something which they do not actively cultivate an expertise in?
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2017
Information bubbles are real things.

The news today encourages people to avoid confrontation with their own belief system. In the journalism industry, this is called "exploitation".

By contrast, savvy news consumers practice some regular amount of "exploration".

The climate change community has accepted exploitation as the rule through their never-ending emphasis upon climate experts.

But, their refusal to inform their adherents of all of the various controversies surrounding these issues creates a vulnerability in this community.

To be an expert in something, the truth of the matter is that a person has to decide against cultivating an ideology. They must escape the information bubble that is provided to them. And they cannot treat theories as communities.

Since a theory is of course provisional, any community which bases upon a theory must be prepared to disband at a moment's notice.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2017
Just more FAKE "science" from a desperate AGW Cult of Pathological liars.
BackBurner
1.3 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2017

Since a theory is of course provisional, any community which bases upon a theory must be prepared to disband at a moment's notice.


Well said, and something even the most adamant skeptic must always keep in mind; nothing in the sciences is ever settled.

Even though no evidence has been presented in support of the AGW hypothesis, it's still possible someday there might be. For now though, it's best not to make policy based on it.
Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2017
These human domain remnants found in the English channel were around 10k yrs old as I recall. The flooding event occurred fairly quickly, probably from a sudden release of ice melt from the north, maybe the same event that flooded human occupied areas off the southern European coasts causing ocean levels to rise something like 100- 200 feet.


I recall that it was an ice dam in Niagra, around New York, that burst, causing rapid sea level rise. 20,000 years ago, New York was under a mile of ice.

We cannot stop climate change, and attempting to do so likely would hurt our economy. We need to develop methods of living with extreme climate events and climate change.

You recall? And how old are you? I am saying you're not very old, nor are you very bright....
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2017
Chris , thanks for your posts, ,,
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2017

Since a theory is of course provisional, any community which bases upon a theory must be prepared to disband at a moment's notice.


Well said, and something even the most adamant skeptic must always keep in mind; nothing in the sciences is ever settled.

You are both talking total crap.
It is settled in science that the Earth is round, not flat;
It is settled in science that natural rainbows come from the refraction of sunlight;
It is settled in science that the sound barrier can be broken;
It is settled in science that we are contributing to global warming.

-so, no, it is not true that nothing in the sciences is ever settled.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2017
I do indeed understand THE IDEAL of scientific method, but it does not appear that you understand that a common critique is that most scientists do not actually follow this ideal
1- this is a delusional comment not based in reality that demonstrates conspiracist ideation. you should read this: http://journals.p....0075637

2- what you've just argued is that there is a conspiracy with intent (and you attempt to demonstrate this with Climate Change)
said conspiracist intent cannot be possible as it would require collaboration on a large scale between cultures that can't agree on the tastiness of pig, let alone the role of different sexes...

a person can have intent, and you can provide circumstantial proof of intent for an individual, or maybe the leader of a group, but not for a whole group without considerable evidence
https://www.law.c...ules/fre

http://legal-dict...m/Intent

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2017
so when you claim
how can this community be an expert in something which they do not actively cultivate an expertise in?
or talk about your information bubbles, you've based the entire strawman argument on a delusional belief that has no substantive evidence in the real world

in fact, climate change has exactly the opposite - much to your chagrin

more to the point: you claim we should listen to the "critics" but what are the requirements to be considered a critic?
absolutely none - only that you call yourself one
that's it

the same is true for an "expert" - unless you're talking about the legal "expert witness", which requires validation of expertise (see link above)

so you're argument is invalidated by your own argument
you don't listen to those least experienced in a field to get the critique of a field - but rather the most experienced

this is why climate change critics are ignored by scientists, BTW
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2017
Just more FAKE "science" from a desperate AGW Cult of Pathological liars.


i see our circus monkey is on a spree today posting the exact same gobbledgook on every science article.
now now think....type... those aren't just pretty buttons on the keyoboard you should not dumbthumb it everytime you get an urge.
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2017
Chris , thanks for your posts, ,,

thanking your own sock... again .... ?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2017
So basically even though they're short-lived intense greenhouse gases can have effects that last for centuries as the heat percolates through the geosystems.

This is like saying that if you eat arsenic you don't die instantly, it takes a while. Ummmm duhhhh.

what counts regarding which theory is valid or correct is not the controversies over it but rather the evidence. Controversies are people disagreeing. people disagreeing isn't evidence.
Exactly. Denier meme #37: "Sciensetis cant make up there mindses!!!!!111!!one!!"
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2017
This is like saying that if you eat arsenic you don't die instantly, it takes a while. Ummmm duhhhh.
-- Da Tard
This is like saying that if your parents dropped you as a baby you don't become a retard instantly, it takes a while and particularly in your case, practice. Ummmm duhhhh.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2017
If you got some evidence, @boracle, bring it.

Been waitin' for years now, @boracle. You're still boring.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2017
If you got some evidence, @boracle, bring it.

Been waitin' for years now, @boracle. You're still boring.

If you got someone with a brain to explain the evidence to you. @Da Tard, bring it.
Been waitin' for years now. @Da Tard. You're still retarded.

PS.
When you find someone with that brain, let them explain the fact that CO2 continues to increase for hundreds of years even after ice ages have begun.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2017
No ticket no laundry. I and many, many others have brought reams of evidence and you've denied them all without ever bringing any yourself but links to denier/whiner sites.

All deniers can do is deny. They're easy to spot and of below-average intelligence.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2017
No ticket no laundry. I and many, many others have brought reams of evidence and you've denied them all without ever bringing any yourself but links to denier/whiner sites.

All deniers can do is deny.

No brain no intelligence. You and many, many other Chicken Littles have reamed....
All Chicken Littles can do is parrot the dogma preached to them by their cult.

http://principia-...e-proof/

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.