Althouse: "So the 'good' news is that it might take 1000 years (or longer) to raise sea levels several tens of feet..."

May 20, 2014

"So the 'good' news is that it might take 1000 years (or longer) to raise sea levels several tens of feet..."

"... and the choices we make now can affect the rate of rise and whether we ultimately blow past 69 feet to beyond 200 feet."

84 comments:

Gahrie said...: hey McFly...grab a clue....it stopped getting warmer more than a decade ago.; 5/20/14, 7:07 PM
PB said...: this is the perfect scenario for the climatistas - "we must implement massive changes now to forestall a disaster in 1000 years."

The ability of these people to predict anything short-term, let alone long-term is zero.; 5/20/14, 7:14 PM
jimbino said...: The first question is: Why the hell should we childfree folks sacrifice now for the speculative future benefit of the breeders' progeny?

The second is: are the breeders willing to pay the costs themselves to secure the future of their progeny?

You don't make payments on my BMW and I won't make payments on the future of your brats.; 5/20/14, 7:15 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Here's this guys bio from a NASA web site. The take-away:

r. Rignot holds a Ph.D in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Master’s degrees in aerospace engineering and electrical engineering from the University of Southern California, a Master’s degree in astronomy from the University of Paris VI Pierre et Marie Curie in France, and a Bachelor’s degree in engineering from Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures in Paris, France.

He has no degrees in geology. No degrees in meteorology or climatology. He's a fucking engineer! Our tax dollars are being spent so that this asshole can call himself a "glaciologist" & pursue his hobby at work.

Look at the backgrounds of a lot of the scientists on both sides of the AGW dispute. There's a lot of hobbyists on both sides of the question.; 5/20/14, 7:18 PM
rhhardin said...: Actually they don't know anything.

It's pretend science.; 5/20/14, 7:24 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: 200? That something with the uterus?; 5/20/14, 7:24 PM
Ann Althouse said...: I'm just trying to understand how there can be so much water and then why water is so hated.

Can't we move it around in a good way?; 5/20/14, 7:26 PM
n.n said...: Gore's beachfront estate is an anthropogenic contributor to subsidence.

That said, the bad news is that the system is chaotic, and the oracles have limited skill to predict its evolution. In fact, science is a philosophy necessarily constrained to a limited frame of reference. We should be careful to not conflate methods of induction with deduction.; 5/20/14, 7:38 PM
traditionalguy said...: The SciFi Channel must be pumping out last decades horror flicks.

The government thinks they can fool all of the people all of the time if they propagandize scared children hard enough. It is pure government child abuse.; 5/20/14, 7:40 PM
jr565 said...: 1000 years is a pretty long window. We have to fundamentally remake our economy because in a thousand years the seal levels will rise?
And, wasn't it supposed to stop rising when Obama took office? I could have sworn he made that promise, and I took him at his word.

So, if the sea levels are going to rise, why is that an issue? Flooding of cities? Ok then, start building levees. You have a thousand years to get the job done. It will be much cheaper than totally remaing our economy and getting off of carbon based fuel.; 5/20/14, 7:43 PM
Æthelflæd said...: What a gig. The voodoo weatherman can't predict the next five year trend correctly, so just move it out several centuries. Nice work if you can get it.; 5/20/14, 7:44 PM
jr565 said...: rhardin wrote:
Actually they don't know anything.

It's pretend science.

It really is.; 5/20/14, 7:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: They are still faking the data. The time it will take land subsidence which has been steady for 10,000 years now to raise the sea level 30 feet is 247,000 years. The ice age we are going back into right now will turn permanent long before that.; 5/20/14, 7:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, first you have to melt ice caps that are NOT floating (melting floating ice doesn't change the sea level). Then you have to make sure that 1: you're melting "above water" ice (melting ice that's below the water level would drop the water level, since ice is less dense than water) 2: the decreased weight of the above water ice doesn't cause the ice cap to rise up an float, since that would again drop the sea level

And 3: you have to ignore the fact that temperature has been flat since 1996, and down since 1998, in contradiction of all predictions from the weather models.

And "models" that make wrong predictions over 20 years, are worthless over 1000 years.; 5/20/14, 7:48 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Ann Althouse said...

Can't we move it around in a good way?

I say bring back the Inland Sea. We'll have whales cavorting where Kansas used to be, great whites cruising the shoals of the Texas panhandle. Nobody lives there but Republicans, anyway.; 5/20/14, 7:57 PM
shereen said...: Honest - this time we didn't put the minus sign in the wrong spot. I promise!!; 5/20/14, 7:59 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: He has no degrees in geology. No degrees in meteorology or climatology. He's a fucking engineer! Our tax dollars are being spent so that this asshole can call himself a "glaciologist" & pursue his hobby at work.

Not sure why you think that geology, etc. are so great here. A lot of the problems that we have seen with the AGW "crisis" seems to be a result of a bunch of tree-ring-counters getting out of their expertise - apparently lacking adequate backgrounds in physics, astrophysics, chemistry, statistics, computer science, etc.

BTW - it turns out that the famous 97% figure comes from a master's degree project where those with "non-climate" degrees were eliminated - but there was no requirement that those counted have a PhD, and many didn't. Some, apparently, didn't even have master's degrees. But, that is what they counted as "climate scientists" - geologists, paleontologists, hydrologists, etc. - the earth sciences, and eliminated those with degrees like astrophysics, who would have better realized that much of the warming that they were panicking about resulted from solar cycles. And, statisticians would have pointed out the futility of trying to eliminate the overwhelming factors such as solar radiation, winds, currents, etc., to find the resulting CO2 effects in the resulting noise - in the end, the error terms swamp the CO2 effects.; 5/20/14, 8:01 PM
Curious George said...: OH MY GOD THE FUCKING POLAR BEARS!!!; 5/20/14, 8:02 PM
n.n said...: The population control protocol has successfully delayed anthropogenic climate catastrophe. The gods are happy, but not satiated. There must be more human sacrifices at abortion/murder clinics. The threat of overpopulation remains an imminent threat to the elite's enjoyment of beachfront estates and control of the serfs.... I mean, global weather/climate/whatever.

What, too cynical?; 5/20/14, 8:04 PM
Jaq said...: I can't imaging what people will be able to do in a thousand years any more than King Arthur,Charlemagne, or Beowulf could have imagined what we are able to do.

Sea level was much higher the last break between ice ages, and cities have been lost to the sea in this interglacial.

http://weburbanist.com/2013/04/22/submerged-cities-7-underwater-wonders-of-the-world/

Population growth is now projected to level off by 2030.

I think there is time to get the science right.; 5/20/14, 8:04 PM
n.n said...: Ann Althouse:

It's not. Where the water goes, the people are sure to follow. Not only can we move it around, but we can also process it to realize an abundant source of potable water. The current windmill and photovoltaic technology is especially well suited for this task.; 5/20/14, 8:08 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The other thing to keep in mind is that the ThinkProgress people were cherry picking their data. They used the West Antarctic Ice sheet, and ignored the fact that, overall, the ice over Antarctica is growing, not shrinking.

Still, so what if the sea levels rise. BFD. The time scales are far beyond the normal building lives. Sure, AlGore may lose some of his beach front. But, that probably won't even be noticeable. And, in this country, maybe there will be an issue with the really old parts of New Orleans. But moving the next generation of buildings up slope a couple feet is negligible in long term cost.

If the proposed figures for sea level rises are anywhere close to accurate - which they aren't. The sea wasn't rising that quickly when the thousand plus foot ice sheet over this continent was melting, and temperatures were rising far faster than they are today. If they are rising, which they probably haven't been for the last decade and a half.; 5/20/14, 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...: 4 to 5 feet or more

It's a real confidence-builder, that they report their claimed sea-level rise using the exact same format as claimed weight loss from bogus diet pills.; 5/20/14, 8:14 PM
JackWayne said...: Exactly, Ann! None of these whack-jobs have observed a glass of ice melt. And the level of the water does not rise.; 5/20/14, 8:15 PM
Luke Lea said...: Readers might be interested in this listof failed mainstream climate change predictions. Over a hundred of them!; 5/20/14, 8:25 PM
Drago said...: Gahrie: "hey McFly...grab a clue....it stopped getting warmer more than a decade ago."

Actually, 17.5 years ago.

So now they climate liars are trying out all sorts of new theories (which is "settled science" darn it!!)

My favorite?

The super duper secret brand new capture of heat in the oceans!!

Which was never predicted in any of the "climate" (heh) models.

They just keep making it up as they go.; 5/20/14, 8:28 PM
Moneyrunner said...: But what do the Frosh at UW think?; 5/20/14, 8:29 PM
SGT Ted said...: OH bullshit. They don't know anything about how any "choices" we make is going to affect sea rise over the course of a thousand years.

These people are so full of themselves and so full of shit at the same time it boggles the mind.; 5/20/14, 8:30 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: BTW - before you start panicking about the rise in the sea levels, read this from Powerline: Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn’t Science.

Also, in regards to the "famous" 97% consensus figure: Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard, along with: What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?.; 5/20/14, 8:32 PM
SGT Ted said...: Climate alarmism is the new call to fascism.

Talking about the Jews doesn't work anymore, so they had to come up with something.; 5/20/14, 8:34 PM
David in Cal said...: Two more problems with this:
1. There is no way to reduce atmospheric CO2, without disastrous consequences, since there alternatives to fossil fuels could replace only a small portion of the energy they produce.

2. It's by no means certain that sea level is controlled by CO2. Sea levels were rising slowly before CO2 was a factor, and their rise hasn't speeded up much.

David in Cal; 5/20/14, 8:42 PM
Russ said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/20/14, 8:45 PM
Russ said...: Actually, the "really old" parts of New Orleans are the ones that are highest in relation to sea level.

That's how they got to be "really old"; 5/20/14, 8:46 PM
Hagar said...: In a 1000 years we should be at another 1000-year "warm peak," but slightly less warm than the current peak. However, between then and now, in 500 years they should be skating on the Thames at Christmas-time again.; 5/20/14, 9:00 PM
Sorun said...: "we must implement massive changes now to forestall a disaster in 1000 years."

It would be amusing if some Europeans were talking this way a 1000 years ago. I wonder what future disasters they would think to save us from.; 5/20/14, 9:04 PM
Hagar said...: Unless there is some kind of big event that causes the current "ice age" to end, of course, in which case all bets are off.

Or the other way around, an event that causes another "snowball earth" period.

Que sera,sera.
Qui vivra, verra.; 5/20/14, 9:04 PM
Richard Dolan said...: "Can't we move it around in a good way?"

Just keep drinking and then pick your spot carefully. If everyone did that, while singing kumbaya at top volume, flowers would bloom in the desert, the sheep would lie down with the lion and all problems would go away.; 5/20/14, 9:05 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: 1000 years? The world will be completely different then. Given 1000 years lead time, I'm pretty sure everyone can move.; 5/20/14, 9:12 PM
David said...: From Justin Gillis and Kenneth Chang, witing in the NYT on May 12, 2014:

Scientists said the [Antarctic] ice sheet was not melting because of warmer air temperatures, but rather because relatively warm water that occurs naturally in the depths of the ocean was being pulled to the surface by an intensification, over the past several decades, of the powerful winds that encircle Antarctica.

And while the cause of the stronger winds is somewhat unclear, many researchers consider human-induced global warming to be a significant factor.

That last sentence is bulshit, by the way. It means they have no idea, and it probably isn't warming but they can't admit that.

That same article notes that the sea level rise is now "expected" to be slow in the 21st century. This after two decades of warning that the deluge was upon us any day now.

The time scale for these "predictions" is thousands of years. That means they actually are guesses. We could also have a new ice age in that time. Surely, unless they destroy themselves by war, or a huge meteor falls, or we bring back some horrid disease from Mars, we will find ways to deal with the sea level changes.

But remember. You heard it in the NYT. Global warming is not causing the supposed collapse of the antarctic ice. It's wind.

And that statement is probably wrong too.; 5/20/14, 9:12 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Also, I went to the map page and ramped it up to plus sixty meters, the max. The water didn't get as high as I would have thought. I don't think these 1000 years scenarios are helpful to the stop climate change cause.; 5/20/14, 9:14 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Take a look at what sea levels were 18,000 years ago.

You could walk from Asia to America. Yeah, sea levels have been rising for a while now.

The same climate-change crowd back then would have been clamoring to save the glaciers covering North America and Europe. The ones that made a good chunk of the world unihabitable.

There was a lake covering half of Utah. Think of the environmentalists thousands of years ago trying to save it from disappearing. I'm sure it was our fault, somehow.

The climate has changed dramatically in the recent past, much more so than the greatest alarmists are predicting. The Sahara desert didn't even exist until about 10,000 years ago. The biggest desert on Earth wasn't there!

So yeah, climate changes quite a lot. We don't understand why, either. Maybe it's the orbit, maybe it's CO2, maybe it's the sun. The idea that today's climate is somehow special or would remain static if only we left it alone is crazy. Of course it wouldn't.; 5/20/14, 9:14 PM
Sorun said...: I watched the Jetsons. I don't recall anyone living on the ground anyhow.; 5/20/14, 9:20 PM
Jupiter said...: "Can't we move it around in a good way?"

If we could take the salt out, and move it to, say, the Sahara, or the Australian Outback, or Nevada ...; 5/20/14, 9:22 PM
Rusty said...: ""So the 'good' news is that it might take 1000 years (or longer) to raise sea levels several tens of feet...""

This all assumes nothing will change in a thousand years.

In less than 20 years technology is going to change they way we store and use electricity. And the beauty part of is going to that the greenies will have nothing to do with it. The market is going to drive the change.; 5/20/14, 9:24 PM
grackle said...: Settle down and take a few deep breaths. Then go to the link below and read the debunking of the alarmists. First the author posts the article in question. Scroll down to where it says "Sanity Check."

http://tinyurl.com/pfapjdn

It's a little technical so allow me to summarize: The article in question is crap.

Global warming is crap. Climate change is crap. Coastal cities are not going to be under water. The polar ice caps are not going to melt away. Every alarm ever sounded by the alarmists has been thoroughly debunked. Every prediction of impending disaster when checked against reality has proven to be untrue. According to the global warming alarmists of 20 years ago we should all be toast now. Their crap of yesterday is the same as today. Crap.; 5/20/14, 9:31 PM
Illuninati said...: Great news. Joe Romm guarantees that we will not have another ice age within the next 1000 years. Do the climate scientists know what causes ice ages? Milankovitch cycles? So far there seems to be more - what that might be is unknown.; 5/20/14, 9:32 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: What is it these fucking boomers? The Vietnam War was the most unjust war in the history of humanity and only the Boomers could stop it!
Nixon was the worst president in the history of the country and only the Boomers could stop him!
Ronald Reagan was going to start World War 3 and only the boomers could stop him!
George W Bush was the worst president in the History of America and only the Boomers could stop him!
The Iraq War was worst mistake the country has ever made and only the Boomers could stop it!
The entire world will be destroyed by rising sea levels unless the Boomers can stop it!
Jesus fucking Christ you's think people who are so terrified of the effect that current policies have on the future would hesitate for just one second before committing to trillion dollar federal deficits for all eternity.; 5/20/14, 9:34 PM
Richard Dolan said...: A straight-line projection in a dynamic environment fails every time it's tried.; 5/20/14, 9:44 PM
Original Mike said...: "No one has any concept of how to adapt cities, ports, infrastructure and the like to such a rate of sea level rise. "

Someone doesn't have any concept how long 100 years is.; 5/20/14, 9:47 PM
David said...: Hey John Lynch.

That was a great link to that magazine. It's in my bookmarks now.

Thanks.; 5/20/14, 9:56 PM
RecChief said...: bullshit.; 5/20/14, 9:56 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Actually, the "really old" parts os New Orleans are the ones that are highest in relation to sea level.

Good - then there is one less thing to worry about if sea levels did rise a couple feet (over the next century or so).

My previous point is that buildings are expected to last maybe 50 years. And, then they usually have to be rebuilt. Not all, but the cost of rebuilding them is comparable to new construction. So, a small number of buildings in this country would be endangered by a rise of a foot or so of the sea level. But, by the time the sea rises that much, the building will have been rebuilt, probably a couple of times. At which times, it is most often a simple matter to just build them a bit higher up.

Sure, there are some buildings that are historic, or otherwise don't fall into this situation. But they really aren't that common, and the cost of moving the small number of buildings that can't be rebuilt higher up over the next century or so is de minimis - a minuscule fraction of the cost of remediation that is being foist upon us.

I think that the reality is that the leftists who are pushing this either have no clue (AlGore, Obama, etc.), or are using the AGC/AGW/AGCC/AGCD scare to increase government control over our lives, as well as the amount of our GDP they control. No wonder that the shakier the evidence looks, the more fevered their pronouncements.; 5/20/14, 10:00 PM
Tim said...: They can't even get the next 5 days right.; 5/20/14, 10:03 PM
jr565 said...: Think about a thousand years in the span of human history. Imagine if the Aztecs were saying they needed to do something as otherwise something bad would happen in a thousand years. Would they be privy to the Industrial Age, space travel, computers, the Internet, automobiles, nuclear power. Planning for a calamity that's ten centuries out is really insane. For all we know, in a thousand years we may have colonized the moon and not even be living on the planet any more.; 5/20/14, 10:06 PM
The Godfather said...: So I looked at the map. I used to live in south Florida. In a 1,000 years it will be under water. Glad I sold out when I did.

Now I live in North Carolina, but inland. The barrier islands and some coastal areas of North Carolina will be under water in a 1,000 years. Good. All the enlightened folk are trying to persuade the government to prohibit people from living there. Wait a 1,000 years and the enlightened folk can give it a rest.

The Delmarva Peninsula (across the Bay from where I lived in Annapolis) apparently is going to be under water in a 1,000 years. That's too bad. Purdue is going to have to move his chicken farms.

I will be sorry to see New Orleans go, though. Some really good jazz there, and some pretty good bars. I don't suppose anyone can figure out a way to move those things to higher ground in a 1,000 years?; 5/20/14, 10:10 PM
jr565 said...: This is from the article:
“It’s like a terrible competition between Greenland and Antarctica for Biggest Loser,” Box told me today. “Multiple factors have been combining to produce surprisingly rapid change. This is the hallmark of a system unable to catch up with an exponentially increasing forcing.”
This concern is underscored by the paleoclimate data. In 2012, the National Science Foundation reported on paleoclimate research that examined “rock and soil cores taken in Virginia, New Zealand and the Eniwetok Atoll in the north Pacific Ocean.” Lead author Kenneth Miller of Rutgers University said:
“The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now.”
And that was only slightly less worrisome than a 2009 paper in Science that found the last time CO2 levels were this high, it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher.

is that worrisome? It sounds almost the opposite. We should assume that sea levels should already be 75 feet higher based on our CO2 levels. But they're not. Does that me a that sea levels and co2 levels aren't as linked as they think?; 5/20/14, 10:20 PM
David said...: From Astrobiology Magazine March 3, 2014:

Current Ice Melt Rate in Pine Island Glacier May Go On For Decades
By Astrobio - Mar 3, 2014

A massive crack runs about 29 kilometers (18 miles) across the Pine Island Glacier’s floating tongue, marking the moment of creation for a new iceberg that will span about 880 square kilometers (340 square miles) once it breaks loose from the glacier. Lawrence Livermore research shows that the glacier’s recent melt may go on for decades or centuries.
A study of the Pine Island Glacier could provide insight into the patterns and duration of glacial melt.

The Pine Island Glacier, a major outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, has been undergoing rapid melting and retreating for the past two decades. But new research by an international team including researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory shows that this same glacier also experienced rapid thinning about 8,000 years ago.

Using LLNL’s Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry to measure beryllium-10 produced by cosmic rays in glacially transported rocks, Lawrence Livermore researchers Bob Finkel and Dylan Rood reported that the melting 8,000 years ago was sustained for decades to centuries at an average rate of more than 100 centimeters per year. This is comparable to modern-day melting rates.

The findings indicate that modern-day melting and thinning could last for several more decades or even centuries. The research appears in the Feb. 20 issue of Science Express.

"Pine Island Glacier has experienced rapid thinning at least once in the past. Once set in motion, rapid ice sheet changes in this region can persist for centuries," said Finkel, one of the authors of the new findings.

- See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/climate/current-ice-melt-rate-in-pine-island-glacier-may-go-on-for-decades/#sthash.35lxeFL6.dpuf

So it's not "unprecedented" and it's not "irreversible."

[Thanks to John Lynch for the link to the magazine.]; 5/20/14, 10:31 PM
David said...: That's John Lynch the Pizza Driver (according to his Google bio) who seems to be a lot smarter than your average climate scientist.; 5/20/14, 10:33 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I have guarded mine and myself by building a forty-foot-tall, ten-foot-wide cylinder out of pre-stressed, steel-reinforced concrete in my front yard (imagine a Jacuzzi at the bottom of a wide well). When the tides come, we will be ready with crackers, Skittles, and round stones.

My fellow warmists ask, "Why the round stones? Why the front yard?"

Round stones hurt, but rarely kill. Would-be-but-failed raiders will sit around the top of the mound moaning, as a warning to others.

The front yard...all the world will be the front yard soon.; 5/20/14, 10:54 PM
Krumhorn said...: 40 years of observations yields data that can be projected out 1000 years? The CryoSat2 data shows less than .45 mm per yr.

As Roy Spencer says, "I think we might be seeing the death throes of alarmist climate science. They know they are on the ropes, and are pulling out all the stops in a last ditch effort to shore up their crumbling storyline."

- Krumhorn; 5/20/14, 11:02 PM
SteveR said...: Get India and China under control and check back with me. Otherwise its just a government power reach.; 5/20/14, 11:14 PM
Michael McNeil said...: Exactly, Ann! None of these whack-jobs have observed a glass of ice melt. And the level of the water does not rise.

There is an enormous difference between the (relatively thin) floating pack ice of the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica — and the more than a mile thick ice sheets burying Greenland and Antarctica proper. The former's melting would indeed not change sea levels at all. The latter — whose present average altitude above sea level in the case of Greenland is 7,000 feet, and in the case of Antarctica is 14,000 (!) ft. above sea level — if it were to all melt, would increase world sea levels by several hundred feet.; 5/20/14, 11:16 PM
Kirk Parker said...: "I'm just trying to understand how there can be so much water and then why water is so hated". said someone who lives waaaayyyy inland.; 5/20/14, 11:18 PM
MadisonMan said...: It seems to me that the problem will not be one of temperature but one of pH.; 5/20/14, 11:45 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: ""So the 'good' news is that it might take 1000 years (or longer) to raise sea levels several tens of feet...""

Damn! I was hoping I could retire at home on beachfront property. I'm already driving my SUV the long way to work every day. What more can I do?; 5/20/14, 11:59 PM
Achilles said...: In the 70's we had an imminent ice age and the only way to stop it was massive government intrusion and a giant army of bureaucrats.

In the 80's and 90's we had global warming and the only way to stop it was massive government intrusion and a giant army of bureaucrats.

Since the turn of the millennium we have had climate change and the only way to stop it was massive government intrusion and a giant army of bureaucrats.

For the life of me I can't see a pattern here. But Jeff Imelt, T Boone Pickens and Al Gore sure made a lot of money trying to save the world.; 5/21/14, 12:23 AM
Mark said...: Last I heard, most of Holland was below sea level and has been for hundreds of years.

It's amazing what humans can cope with. Given 1000 years, even the worst-case "warming" scenario gives me a bad case of the "meh"s.; 5/21/14, 6:44 AM
Henry said...: Like Caligula we declare war on Poseidon. If we throw spears into the ocean the ocean will only rise 69 feet. If we don't it will rise 200 feet.

A lot can happen in 1000 years.

Or even 200.; 5/21/14, 7:09 AM
Robert Cook said...: Jimbino asked:

"Why the hell should we childfree folks sacrifice now for the speculative future benefit of the breeders' progeny?"

Yeah...why the fuck should I care about anything in the world around me today or the world to come if it does not or will not have an immediate negative impact on ME and MINE?!

Given the rest of Jimbino's comment, I assume he is being arch, mocking those who really hold such attitudes, but his remark--however intended--does succinctly capture the typical attitude of we hairless apes.; 5/21/14, 7:23 AM
George M. Spencer said...: Some predictions below from Luke Lea's link at 8:25....

76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

****

77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won't be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]

****

78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”; 5/21/14, 7:29 AM
Curious George said...: You think that's bad, look out 10,000 years. The whole damn planet will be underwater. Don't go crying to Al Gore when that happens!; 5/21/14, 7:33 AM
Larry J said...: 65 said...
rhardin wrote:
Actually they don't know anything.

It's pretend science.

It really is.

Actually, it's a religion. We must repent for our sins or risk the wrath of an angry God (or planet). If we change our ways, we get to live in paradise.

If we don't want to change our ways, we can buy indulgences (carbon offsets) and live as large as we want (Al Gore has the carbon footprint of a small country). Heretics to the One True Religion must be punished. About the only reason they don't propose burning Deniers at the stake is that it would release too much CO2.; 5/21/14, 8:07 AM
Original Mike said...: "It seems to me that the problem will not be one of temperature but one of pH."

How so, MM?; 5/21/14, 9:23 AM
cubanbob said...: The global warmist crowd is doing a heck of a job in stripping Science of its mantle of seeking truth no matter what the results might be and the perception of its purity.
Heck of job boys heck of job, right up there with Lysenkoism and eugenics.

The funny thing about these doom and gloom models telling us just how bad things will be in a thousand years is that the very same models when run from their baseline to the current time are grossly inaccurate. Yet the green-communists take them seriously and expect others to take them seriously which is indicative of mental illness. Or just a power grab justification.; 5/21/14, 9:30 AM
kimsch said...: The warmists and the environazis pick a frame of the movie of life on this planet and decide that that frame is the perfect one.

So the temperature of that frame is the one we should have. Never more, never less.

The number of delta smelt in that frame is the perfect number. Never more, never less.

The number of spotted owls in that frame is perfect, never more, never less. So logging was stopped, livelihoods lost, economies trashed and the spotted owl numbers didn't recover. Because they were being eaten by barred owls. The solution offered by the environazis? kill the barred owls to stop them eating the spotted owls.; 5/21/14, 9:54 AM
Matt said...: "Several tens of feet." Is this good English? I would probably say "several dozen feet." I know this construct exists in other languages (e.g., Spanish - muchas decenas de), but I was not aware "tens of" existed in English unless followed by "thousands" or "millions," or, maybe, "kilometers".; 5/21/14, 10:08 AM
Gahrie said...: "It seems to me that the problem will not be one of temperature but one of pH."

How so, MM?

The oceans are growing more acidic, which is going to kill all the coral reefs and release carbon stored as methane and cause the end of the world.; 5/21/14, 10:25 AM
MadisonMan said...: I wouldn't say cause the end of the world.

However, to change the pH of a medium in which a large part of the world's useable protein grows is not a good idea. How bad an idea is it? Time will tell.; 5/21/14, 11:59 AM
Jon Burack said...: Let's see. One thousand years or longer from now.

Imagine someone back in 1000 AD realizing it was getting warmer (The Medieval Warm Period would last another three hundred years!) and thinking, gosh, those poor souls in the year 2000. We better stop grazing all these cattle and sheep and contributing greenhouse gases via bovine farting. And just forget about cutting down any more trees. We are going to need trees galore to absorb all the CO2 we will someday start to produce, if anyone could figure out how better to mine coal and use it to run these damn grist mills we've got! We owe it to the future, otherwise they will live at a level of poverty that would make us shudder. They say those folks up around Antwerp have some ideas about dykes to hold back the sea. Silly them if they think they can adapt to the deluge to come!

Of course, such concerns about the hopeless denizens of the future are nothing compared with the all but certain inability of people in the year 3014 to cope with the horrors of a rising sea. I mean how can we expect them to pay for it when we are all doing so well comparatively speaking?

Of course all this presumes that computer models unable to predict a thing for next decade, or even the LAST decade, will be spot on about the next thousands years. We know that's the simply truth. Don't we?; 5/21/14, 12:10 PM
Original Mike said...: "The oceans are growing more acidic, which is going to kill all the coral reefs and release carbon stored as methane..."

That sounds a lot more troubling than "we're going to have to move New York and we only have 1000 years to do it".; 5/21/14, 12:39 PM
readering said...: I'm not a scientist, so I can't judge, but it seems telling that two groups of folks who think seriously about this issue are the insurance industry and the Pentagon.; 5/21/14, 1:21 PM
Rusty said...: However, to change the pH of a medium in which a large part of the world's useable protein grows is not a good idea. How bad an idea is it? Time will tell.

OK I'll bite.
And the mechanism to accomplish this is.......?; 5/21/14, 1:27 PM
Sam L. said...: We're ALL gonna DIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Well, yes. Get over it.; 5/21/14, 1:50 PM
Original Mike said...: One of the problems I have with the warmists agenda is, according to their own models, any conceivable reduction in CO2 will not decrease warming by a meaningful amount. Is the situation different with respect to ocean acidification? Can realistic reductions achieve a meaningful result?; 5/21/14, 5:37 PM