Again, history has proven you wrong already. It was WAY warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, regardless of whether you're trying to claim it had gotten warm for different reasons that doesn't negate that it was WAY WARMER than it is now... and yet... hardly any difference in overall land mass.
Your own link is hysterically laughable in that it points to only ONE single potential cause... supposed global warming.
But given how much MONEY they're getting from government climate change grants... that's not too surprising.
In REALITY there are a whole SLEW of different factors that can affect the perceptive level of sea rise. The MOST important is, well... GARBAGE!
It's estimated that upwards of FOURTEEN BILLION POUNDS of garbage are dumped into the ocean EVERY YEAR... that's where the sea rise is largely coming from.
I really can't find anything suggesting Holocene had similar sea levels to today. In fact all I could find were a few mentions of the opposite being true, noting sea level rises during the early holocene period.
Garbage? That's interesting. I also can't find anything to suggest garbage makes significant contribution to sea level rising, so if you can point me towards any sources I'd appreciate that.
Responding to above, there's more. Here's something from Wikipedia (which is indeed credible as a compilation of sources) Excuse wall of text:
Although the experimental protocol had not been published, physicists in several countries attempted, and failed, to replicate the excess heat phenomenon. The first paper submitted to Nature reproducing excess heat, although it passed peer-review, was rejected because most similar experiments were negative and there were no theories that could explain a positive result;[notes 1][38] this paper was later accepted for publication by the journal Fusion Technology. Nathan Lewis, professor of chemistry at the California Institute of Technology, led one of the most ambitious validation efforts, trying many variations on the experiment without success,[39] while CERN physicist Douglas R. O. Morrison said that "essentially all" attempts in Western Europe had failed.[6] Even those reporting success had difficulty reproducing Fleischmann and Pons' results.[40] On 10 April 1989, a group at Texas A&M University published results of excess heat and later that day a group at the Georgia Institute of Technology announced neutron production—the strongest replication announced up to that point due to the detection of neutrons and the reputation of the lab.[41] On 12 April Pons was acclaimed at an ACS meeting.[41] But Georgia Tech retracted their announcement on 13 April, explaining that their neutron detectors gave false positives when exposed to heat.[42] Another attempt at independent replication, headed by Robert Huggins at Stanford University, which also reported early success with a light water control,[43] became the only scientific support for cold fusion in 26 April US Congress hearings.[text 3] But when he finally presented his results he reported an excess heat of only one degree celsius, a result that could be explained by chemical differences between heavy and light water in the presence of lithium.[notes 2] He had not tried to measure any radiation[44] and his research was derided by scientists who saw it later.[45] For the next six weeks, competing claims, counterclaims, and suggested explanations kept what was referred to as "cold fusion" or "fusion confusion" in the news.[29][46]
In April 1989, Fleischmann and Pons published a "preliminary note" in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[26] This paper notably showed a gamma peak without its corresponding Compton edge, which indicated they had made a mistake in claiming evidence of fusion byproducts.[47] Fleischmann and Pons replied to this critique,[48] but the only thing left clear was that no gamma ray had been registered and that Fleischmann refused to recognize any mistakes in the data.[49] A much longer paper published a year later went into details of calorimetry but did not include any nuclear measurements.[27]
Nevertheless, Fleischmann and Pons and a number of other researchers who found positive results remained convinced of their findings.[6] The University of Utah asked Congress to provide $25 million to pursue the research, and Pons was scheduled to meet with representatives of President Bush in early May.[6]
On 30 April 1989 cold fusion was declared dead by the New York Times. The Times called it a circus the same day, and the Boston Herald attacked cold fusion the following day.[50]
And only a fool places 100% trust in anything and everything a scientist says. The scientific method is not about finding evidence that supports your claim. The idea of the scientific process is to try and disprove your claim so that the only other possibility is that your claim is right. If your claim is that all swans are white then you don't go about proving it by finding a bunch of white swan and go "there, see." You go about it by trying to find any other color swans that would contradict your claim. The same goes anthropomorphic climate change or anything else. It is unscientific to go "well every scientist agrees with me, that means I must be right." You don't need a fancy degree to be a scientist. A scientist is merely someone that follows the scientific method. So long as you use the method, for whatever it may be, you are being a scientist.
Your entire argument is predicated on the the illusion that the majority of scientists agree with you. You even said it, the stat comes from the percentage of those who expressed an opinion. But the majority of scientists did not state a position, so that majority group is not represented. So to say that 97% of scientists agree with man-made climate change is false because not every scientist was equally taken into consideration, only those that expressed an opinion which are the minority. And again, it still didn't make the distinction between humans being the main cause and humans being a cause. I would love to hear from the ones who says that humans are not the main or even a cause. Don't you think that's more interesting and informational than hearing that humans are the main cause which you've already heard a thousand times? I don't even have to rely on the appeal to popularity fallacy for this.
I don't put 100% trust in everything that comes from science. Not sure if you were referring to me or Scarlet there, but I don't automatically trust everything that comes from science. It's all about evidence, and there is evidence for climate change, and anthropological climate change. It's the same reason I don't believe in god, and the same reason I know evolution is real. Evidence. (or a lack thereof)
On a more semantic point, I think the scientific process is hardly about trying to prove yourself right or wrong. It's just about making a hypothesis and collecting data to evaluate that hypothesis. I guess you can call yourself a scientist as long as you follow the scientific method by your definition, but that doesn't give you any credibility in the scientific community. Like I mentioned before it's so much more complicated than that.
The popularity fallacy does apply here, I'll admit. Implying that global warming is true just because a lot of scientists say it's so (as I did) is wrong. However, I'm not just saying that it's true because scientists did a hand vote and most of them agree, but because that number points towards the large body of evidence which supports anthropological climate change.
...at this point I think it's pretty obvious though that you're trolling. It should not have taken you more than 30 seconds to find that original animated map (it took me about 10 seconds).
And your claim that dumping 14 BILLION pounds of garbage into the ocean isn't affecting sea rise... yeeaaaah, you're trolling.
Not JUST that of course, there are loads of other factors that affect sea rise, from tectonic plate movement to aquatic life to sedimentation rates, tidal movement (from the moon slowly drifting from orbit), etc, etc, etc. Again, only an absolute FOOL (or a troll) would even be attempting to make the claim that sea rise is the sole product of global warming.
Thanks for the pictures. I saw this piece from another part of wikipedia
During the Pleistocene epoch, global cooling led periodically to the expansion of glaciers and lowering of sea levels. This created land connections in various regions around the globe.[15] Today, the average water depth of the Bering Strait is 40–50 meters, therefore the land bridge opened when the sea level dropped more than 50 meters below the current level.[16][17] A reconstruction of the sea-level history of the region indicated that a seaway existed from 135,000-70,000 YBP, a land bridge from 70,000-60,000 YBP, intermittent connection from 60,000-30,000 YBP, a land bridge from 30,000-11,000 YBP, followed by a Holocene sea-level rise that reopened the strait.[18][19] Post-glacial rebound has continued to raise some sections of coast.
I noticed your source notes that the bridge was present 9000 cal BP, which is apparently right at the beginning of the holocene period. The source I listed claims sea levels rose up during the period, reopening the strait. I don't really know much about this in particular, so can you explain this? Edit: Or does it say that the strait was open during that time period? I have no idea.
True, I wasn't alive during this time. But it only takes a little digging to see that you're mistaken here.
Did you uh... did you actually READ anything on that page... because it proves everything I said was spot on.
The "history" part though needs updated, because they're including everything from the 90s under "current research".
Of course I read it. Do you think I just highlighted a random part and threw it at you? If you're going to keep treating me like an idiot I don't have to respond to you. And taking a second look at it I only see that there was a temporary fever over it before other scientists grew skeptical after being unable to successfully reproduce results. There were some who continued on, but it was largely discredited.
.................... WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. You make a claim, try to disprove that claim by finding evidence until you can only deduce that your claim is right. You're literally going, 'you're wrong, now I'm going to say what you said but in a different way to disprove what you said.' I'm well aware of what the scientific process is, I've done it.
I don't think you're getting what I'm now explaining for the 3rd time. Scientists didn't do "a hand vote and most of them agree." Most of them agreed, but only a subset of them, mainly those that expressed an opinion. Meaning you cannot make the claim that 97% or even the majority of them agree with man-made climate change. It is deceptive because it leads you to believe that the majority of scientists agree with man-made climate change, but you cannot make that assumption. I will explain it again, only 1 third of scientists expressed an opinion. OF THAT ONE THIRD, 97% agree with man-made climate change. That's based on Cook's own words.
.................... WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. You make a claim, try to disprove that claim by finding evidence until you can only deduce that your claim is right. You're literally going, 'you're wrong, now I'm going to say what you said but in a different way to disprove what you said.' I'm well aware of what the scientific process is, I've done it.
I don't think you're getting what I'm now explaining for the 3rd time. Scientists didn't do "a hand vote and most of them agree." Most of them agreed, but only a subset of them, mainly those that expressed an opinion. Meaning you cannot make the claim that 97% or even the majority of them agree with man-made climate change. It is deceptive because it leads you to believe that the majority of scientists agree with man-made climate change, but you cannot make that assumption. I will explain it again, only 1 third of scientists expressed an opinion. OF THAT ONE THIRD, 97% agree with man-made climate change. That's based on Cook's own words.
No, what we said are not the same thing. I said you try to evaluate it. That doesn't necessarily mean trying to prove it wrong as you said.
About Cook:
This is a common source of confusion. The middle group were those scientific papers that expressed no opinion, for example A 20-Year Record of Alpine Grasshopper Abundance, with Interpretations for Climate Change. They were included in the initial list because the initial list includes every paper with "global climate change" or "global warming". Just because the paper expresses no opinion, doesn't mean the authors were undecided. In this case, it's because the authors are ecologists and aren't studying whether global warming is human-caused or not. That's why they are not included on either side of the 97% figure.
Much of this wasn't a survey of scientists directly. The discarded figures were papers which made no mention of the topic or didn't express any positions on it. There's not reason to include those, because it's not a statement of "I have no opinion on this". It's a lack of usable information altogether.
To add onto that, they actually did contact many scientists directly. And out of those who responded, 97% (again) said that they supported anthropological climate change.
That was the 2013 version. Apparently they came out with another this year which reiterated the same thing, but I have yet to look into it at all.
As for your second part, I don't see at all how that disagrees with what I said. I didn't say everyone completely stopped messing with cold fusion. There were some who continued. Even in the parts you quoted right there you can clearly see people ceasing to respect the idea. Most of those quotes you listed are relevant to 1989 or 1990, or a few years later. I don't know why you keep saying that my claim is in conflict with the evidence, because it's really not.
Anyway, the holocene period thing is pretty interesting. However I'm having trouble finding information about it as it relates to climate change today, other than one source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html which notes the different causes of climate change between today and then. (orbital forcing vs human activity) But I'm definitely going to look into that when I get some time. We can't discuss this much since I barely know what the holocene period is in the first place. Speaking of time I'm taking off from this thread for a while because i have work to do lol Spending my time discussing climate change on a Maplestory forum probably wasn't the best use of my time, but it was interesting. Thanks to everyone~
You know... I can understand people doubting religion as it cannot be proven... but people doubting a SCIENCE OF ALL THINGS? WOW... what is next claiming earth is flat and that Earth is actually center of universe and sun moves around the earth instead of earth moving around the sun?
Can you imagine if climate scientists or NASA had nothing better to do than hang around pop culture facebook pages and actually argued with people with no credentials.
You know... I can understand people doubting religion as it cannot be proven... but people doubting a SCIENCE OF ALL THINGS? WOW... what is next claiming earth is flat and that Earth is actually center of universe and sun moves around the earth instead of earth moving around the sun?
Can you imagine if climate scientists or NASA had nothing better to do than hang around pop culture facebook pages and actually argued with people with no credentials.
It's okay, they already have people with no credentials arguing for their case. Take Bill Nye for example. He has only a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering, which he never used for anything, instead going into the entertainment business. But hey, "science"!
Can you imagine if climate scientists or NASA had nothing better to do than hang around pop culture facebook pages and actually argued with people with no credentials.
It's okay, they already have people with no credentials arguing for their case. Take Bill Nye for example. He has only a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering, which he never used for anything, instead going into the entertainment business. But hey, "science"! .
Except Bill Nye doesn't represent NASA, he is merely a science enthusiast celebrity that uses his status to bring attention to climate change so his credentials are not relevant. He has never tried to use his credentials as a way of proving climate change is real, he has always references reputable sources. Regardless, mechanical engineers are required to take introductory chemistry classes as well as advanced courses in thermodynamics and statistics. By the way the appropriate title is not BA in Mechanical Engineering. Its Bachelors of applied science in mechanical engineering. So if anything he is has more credentials than the average person.
I would argue that the land shifting in Africa is causing a bigger impact on sea levels than global temperature. Like filling a bucket full of water and then squeezing the sides; water has no where to go but up.
Except Bill Nye doesn't represent NASA, he is merely a science enthusiast celebrity that uses his status to bring attention to climate change so his credentials are not relevant. He has never tried to use his credentials as a way of proving climate change is real, he has always references reputable sources. Regardless, mechanical engineers are required to take introductory chemistry classes as well as advanced courses in thermodynamics and statistics. By the way the appropriate title is not BA in Mechanical Engineering. Its Bachelors of applied science in mechanical engineering. So if anything he is has more credentials than the average person.
He has way less "credentials" than I do. Of course I cite actual DATA rather than PEOPLE... so there's that. Bill Nye's primary vested interest though is in his BOOK as well as other media appearances. He makes a LOT of money fear mongering for climate change hysterics.
>"Has less credentials than I do" >doesn't post what makes you more qualified than someone with a degree that requires knowledge of physical science.
This thread has become a joke. Bill Nye is allowed to fear monger if he wants to because he is not pretending to be an authoritative figure on the matter. But you are so intelligent you probably already knew that.
He has way less "credentials" than I do. Of course I cite actual DATA rather than PEOPLE... so there's that. Bill Nye's primary vested interest though is in his BOOK as well as other media appearances. He makes a LOT of money fear mongering for climate change hysterics.
>"Has less credentials than I do" >doesn't post what makes you more qualified than someone with a degree that requires knowledge of physical science.
and I have a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering. I have a better set of credentials than him.
Comments
Garbage? That's interesting. I also can't find anything to suggest garbage makes significant contribution to sea level rising, so if you can point me towards any sources I'd appreciate that.
Responding to above, there's more. Here's something from Wikipedia (which is indeed credible as a compilation of sources)
Excuse wall of text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#History
True, I wasn't alive during this time. But it only takes a little digging to see that you're mistaken here.
It's the same reason I don't believe in god, and the same reason I know evolution is real. Evidence. (or a lack thereof)
On a more semantic point, I think the scientific process is hardly about trying to prove yourself right or wrong. It's just about making a hypothesis and collecting data to evaluate that hypothesis. I guess you can call yourself a scientist as long as you follow the scientific method by your definition, but that doesn't give you any credibility in the scientific community. Like I mentioned before it's so much more complicated than that.
The popularity fallacy does apply here, I'll admit.
Implying that global warming is true just because a lot of scientists say it's so (as I did) is wrong.
However, I'm not just saying that it's true because scientists did a hand vote and most of them agree, but because that number points towards the large body of evidence which supports anthropological climate change.
Edit: Or does it say that the strait was open during that time period? I have no idea.
Of course I read it. Do you think I just highlighted a random part and threw it at you? If you're going to keep treating me like an idiot I don't have to respond to you.
And taking a second look at it I only see that there was a temporary fever over it before other scientists grew skeptical after being unable to successfully reproduce results. There were some who continued on, but it was largely discredited.
I don't think you're getting what I'm now explaining for the 3rd time. Scientists didn't do "a hand vote and most of them agree." Most of them agreed, but only a subset of them, mainly those that expressed an opinion. Meaning you cannot make the claim that 97% or even the majority of them agree with man-made climate change. It is deceptive because it leads you to believe that the majority of scientists agree with man-made climate change, but you cannot make that assumption. I will explain it again, only 1 third of scientists expressed an opinion. OF THAT ONE THIRD, 97% agree with man-made climate change. That's based on Cook's own words.
About Cook: Much of this wasn't a survey of scientists directly. The discarded figures were papers which made no mention of the topic or didn't express any positions on it. There's not reason to include those, because it's not a statement of "I have no opinion on this". It's a lack of usable information altogether.
To add onto that, they actually did contact many scientists directly. And out of those who responded, 97% (again) said that they supported anthropological climate change.
That was the 2013 version. Apparently they came out with another this year which reiterated the same thing, but I have yet to look into it at all.
Anyway, the holocene period thing is pretty interesting. However I'm having trouble finding information about it as it relates to climate change today, other than one source:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
which notes the different causes of climate change between today and then. (orbital forcing vs human activity)
But I'm definitely going to look into that when I get some time. We can't discuss this much since I barely know what the holocene period is in the first place.
Speaking of time I'm taking off from this thread for a while because i have work to do lol
Spending my time discussing climate change on a Maplestory forum probably wasn't the best use of my time, but it was interesting. Thanks to everyone~
oh man, so scary, I'm shaking in fear.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change
The sea has only risen 1 ft total since 120 years ago.
>doesn't post what makes you more qualified than someone with a degree that requires knowledge of physical science.
This thread has become a joke. Bill Nye is allowed to fear monger if he wants to because he is not pretending to be an authoritative figure on the matter. But you are so intelligent you probably already knew that.