OT: Rutgers Sea Rise Study

[RU Husky]

Since we have so many weather and climate tards posting here, thought this might be of interest-especially with the RU connection.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20160223_Rutgers__sea-level_rise_is_fastest_in_2_800_years.html

 

[mychaljohn]

Since we have so many weather and climate tards posting here, thought this might be of interest-especially with the RU connection.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20160223_Rutgers__sea-level_rise_is_fastest_in_2_800_years.html

Ha. Rather than see this as more evidence of man-made climate change, they'll probably see this as evidence that Rutgers is too liberal.

 

[beaced]

Ha. Rather than see this as more evidence of man-made climate change, they'll probably see this as evidence that Rutgers is too liberal.

Most likely cyclical change.There IS such an animal.

 

[RU Husky]

Ha. Rather than see this as more evidence of man-made climate change, they'll probably see this as evidence that Rutgers is too liberal.

and/or blame Julie

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Ha. Rather than see this as more evidence of man-made climate change, they'll probably see this as evidence that Rutgers is too liberal.

HAHA! It literally took one reply to go all red v blue...that's so simultaneously sad and awesome!!

 

[RUScrew85]

Most likely cyclical change.There IS such an animal.

Or the natural warming from a glacial period. OMG!

 

[cicero grimes]

and/or blame Julie

It would be unfair to blame Julie. Flood, no pun intended on the other hand...

 

[RUich]

Let me go purple here. I honestly believe this climate change is from a double whammy of cyclical and pollution. One or the other would certainly have forced some changes, but together they are a perfect storm.

 

[ru8081]

Or the natural warming from a glacial period. OMG!

It is not. Much much quicker changes over a very short period of time.

 

[RUChoppin]

Scientists: Science!

Media: Brief summary of science including many overgeneralizations.
Group A: I believe the science because it supports my views.
Group B: I don't believe the science because it doesn't support my views.

Scientists: Seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?

 

[brgossRU90]

Scientists: Science!

Media: Brief summary of science including many overgeneralizations.
Group A: I believe the science because it supports my views.
Group B: I don't believe the science because it doesn't support my views.

Scientists: Seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?

Group C: I believe the science because it's extensive and scientists are usually pretty close to being right when they research something in depth.

 

[RUScrew85]

It is not. Much much quicker changes over a very short period of time.

So what to do? Spend a lot of money and time and sacrifice economic growth to control a gas responsible for less than 10% of the warming (assuming the models are right (they're not)) while doing nothing about water vapor which is uncontrollable and creates 10X the warming effect?

For extra credit, given the magic ability to remove ALL CO2 from the atmosphere would you do it?

 

[Upstream]

Here is a link to the research paper. Robert E Kopp from Rutgers is the lead author. Contributing are others from Rutgers, Tufts, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Germany), Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, University of York (UK), and Harvard.


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113?tab=author-info

 

[brgossRU90]

I hear they invented something that magically removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I believe it's called a "tree."

 

[RUJohnny99]

I wonder what percentage of the rise can be attributed to the 30,000 container ships worldwide each displacing 175,000 tons of water. That's 5.25 billion tons of manmade stuff in the ocean that shouldn't be there.

 

[RUChoppin]

Group C: I believe the science because it's extensive and scientists are usually pretty close to being right when they research something in depth.

Scientists: You people are cool. Now, let's do more science to further refine our science!

 

[Upstream]

I hear they invented something that magically removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I believe it's called a "tree."

Also Rutgers related

http://risingdove.com/kilmer/Trees.image.asp

 

[ngrant]

No football going on so...what I love about the con side of this argument is how the best scientists in the world write things like "extremely likely faster". "would have risen" and "might have decreased". And that's just in the first two paragraphs! And they begin citing sea level rises from the 1800's. Who the hell was out there measuring before they even invented the steam engine? I love that stuff.

 

[rutgersdave]

Conservative views has changed from no such thing as climate change or global warming to now they might exist, but humans can not affect any changes in the future because's too big and no use trying.

 

[m1ipabrams]

No football going on so...what I love about the con side of this argument is how the best scientists in the world write things like "extremely likely faster". "would have risen" and "might have decreased". And that's just in the first two paragraphs! And they begin citing sea level rises from the 1800's. Who the hell was out there measuring before they even invented the steam engine? I love that stuff.

You do realize there a ways to determine historic sea levels without having had someone there to measure it.......

 

[mildone]

I wonder what percentage of the rise can be attributed to the 30,000 container ships worldwide each displacing 175,000 tons of water. That's 5.25 billion tons of manmade stuff in the ocean that shouldn't be there.

You left out an important number. What's the ovearall volume of the ocean. Only knowing that can we know what the impact of 5.25 billion tons of displacement really is.

 

[newell138]

Fire Flood

 

[redlight123]

When does on the banks become at the shore

 

[Caliknight]

Fire Flood

Not "fire". That will get all of the Prius driving alarmist takers in a tizzy as it isn't "carbon neutral". More like, find a safe place for Flood.

 

[RUScrew85]

Conservative views has changed from no such thing as climate change or global warming to now they might exist, but humans can not affect any changes in the future because's too big and no use trying.

No. We still offer a number of questions that are rarely answered.

1. Can you prove it? There are many skeptics.
2. Is it worthwhile to pay the cost for the benefits? (Lomborg's point)
3. Are you sure this isn't yet another lefty power grab?
4. I remember global cooling, are you sure about this?
5. What is the correct temperature for Earth and why?
6. If the left classifies CO2 which is necessary for plant life as a pollutant how can we take you seriously?
7. Based on what we know about the greenhouse effects of water vapor why are we focusing on CO2?

How bout them apples?

 

[RUScrew85]

Not "fire". That will get all of the Prius driving alarmist takers in a tizzy as it isn't "carbon neutral". More like, find a safe place for Flood.

Prius carbon neutral? LOL. They run on coal and NG for the most part.

 

[RUScrew85]

You do realize there a ways to determine historic sea levels without having had someone there to measure it.......

By using a proxy. Like measuring temps. They use a proxy - tree growth rings for crissakes. Like that is ONLY dependent on Temp.

A proxy is not a direct measurement and should be treated a such.

 

[ngrant]

You do realize there a ways to determine historic sea levels without having had someone there to measure it.......

One way to measure what is "historic" is to rely on a bias that may be bought and paid for by those in the global warming industry. How many professors across the country rely on the scare tactics of "historic" levels? And no one was running a steam engine when the dinosaurs were freezing their asses off. One burp from the sun can burn up all that research you haven't read, in a second.

 

[RU Husky]

So, will the report help or hurt recruiting?

 

[Caliknight]

Prius carbon neutral? LOL. They run on coal and NG for the most part.

Shhhhh. They don't want to know that. The batteries are an enviro nightmare. But hey, Leo DiCaprio was strategically spotted in one driving to his private jet, so it must be right.

 

[RU2055]

Let me go purple here. I honestly believe this climate change is from a double whammy of cyclical and pollution. One or the other would certainly have forced some changes, but together they are a perfect storm.

Most of the time, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Riceonthebanks]

No. We still offer a number of questions that are rarely answered.

1. Can you prove it? There are many skeptics.
2. Is it worthwhile to pay the cost for the benefits? (Lomborg's point)
3. Are you sure this isn't yet another lefty power grab?
4. I remember global cooling, are you sure about this?
5. What is the correct temperature for Earth and why?
6. If the left classifies CO2 which is necessary for plant life as a pollutant how can we take you seriously?
7. Based on what we know about the greenhouse effects of water vapor why are we focusing on CO2?

How bout them apples?

Meh. Don't have time to address them all but your number 6 about CO2 is silly and juvenile. Something that is beneficial or even essential can be terribly harmful in greater quantities. If you don't believe me go drink 3 gallons of water between now and sundown and tell me what happens.

 

[RUSONIC]

Sounds like we prevented the next ice age, go us!

 

[brgossRU90]

Here's the thing about skepticism: in order to be taken seriously it has to be based on something more substantive than an X-Files type allegation of a global conspiracy with nothing to back up said allegation. You can't pull objections out of your ass and expect them be taken seriously by people with functioning brains, an endangered species in the age of the "trump voter."

 

[mildone]

No. We still offer a number of questions that are rarely answered.

1. Can you prove it? There are many skeptics.
2. Is it worthwhile to pay the cost for the benefits? (Lomborg's point)
3. Are you sure this isn't yet another lefty power grab?
4. I remember global cooling, are you sure about this?
5. What is the correct temperature for Earth and why?
6. If the left classifies CO2 which is necessary for plant life as a pollutant how can we take you seriously?
7. Based on what we know about the greenhouse effects of water vapor why are we focusing on CO2?

How bout them apples?

I know Matt Damon. I'm close personal friends with him. And you, sir, are no Matt Damon.

That aside, all perfectly fine questions to ask except for #3 to which the answer is obviously "yes". All political issues are either lefty or righty power grabs. All of them. Without exception.

 

[RUJohnny99]

You left out an important number. What's the ovearall volume of the ocean. Only knowing that can we know what the impact of 5.25 billion tons of displacement really is.

321 million cubic miles. Not sure how to convert the two systems though (tons vs miles) also considering water volume is typically measured in gallons.

maybe if I ever finish flipping these burgers at work I'll google for comparables.

 

[RUaMoose]

I wonder what percentage of the rise can be attributed to the 30,000 container ships worldwide each displacing 175,000 tons of water. That's 5.25 billion tons of manmade stuff in the ocean that shouldn't be there.

Probably about the same impact as man on the climate but much less than all the hot air emanating from the mouths of these quack climate scientists like Bob Kopp.

 

[RU Husky]

Look, the first day of creation was October 22, 4004 BC and that's it. The sea is rising because Mother Nature took a leak and forgot to flush.

 

[RUScrew85]

Meh. Don't have time to address them all but your number 6 about CO2 is silly and juvenile. Something that is beneficial or even essential can be terribly harmful in greater quantities. If you don't believe me go drink 3 gallons of water between now and sundown and tell me what happens.

So you're point is that we are getting near dangerous levels of CO2? Now who's being silly and juvenile?

 

[mildone]

321 million cubic miles. Not sure how to convert the two systems though (tons vs miles) also considering water volume is typically measured in gallons.

maybe if I ever finish flipping these burgers at work I'll google for comparables.

No worries. I will hand the problem over to a friend who enjoys working out these sorts of unit-of-measure conversion problems. The only trick will be to get him not to answer using a 10 page paper w/lots of squiggly symbols that look so much more at home on a fraternity entrance overhang than they ever do in a simple email response.