AnimusRex
Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
|
OK, first off-
Did anyone in here actually read the entire article?
It says that one published study is going to be withdrawn. Why? Because there were two technical errors which meant that the conclusion couldn't be definitively proven.
So, like, does this mean that there are no studies that support the notion of rising sea levels?
NO.
This was one of many studies, all of which still stand.
In addition, according to the article:
"At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate."
So in other words, they may have underestimated sea level rise; only more work will determine this.
OK, I know you guys are eager to dispute global climate change; and I know you are hungry to leap on evey morsel of error and mistake made by any scientist in this field, in the same way the Jesus & Dinosaur folks want to seize upon every error made by an evolutionary bilogist to cast doubt on Darwin's still-unproven "theory";
But I am not a climatologist; and neither are any of you. Not one person reading this board really can read and understand all the scientific studies out there, and we can only rely on what the newspapers and magazines are telling us. And most of them have an agenda of some sort.
So rather than try to trade zingers back and forth, lets look at the big picture here.
No one argues that we are pumping gazillions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere, right? Carbon dioxide, monoxide, sulphur, methane, and a dozen other chemicals are being poured by the millions of tons, into the air every single day.
What effect is this having on the atmosphere, and climate?
No one can really prove anything. But does anyone reading this think that these billions of tons of crap filling the atmosphere is going to have a beneficial effect? Do you think that in 50 years we will look back and say, "Wow, sure is a good thing that we burned 4 Trillion tons of coal, and Trillions of barrels of petroleum! The air and sea and forests are healthier than ever!"
Does somebody here really want to make that stand?
No, I wouldn't want to make such a foolish claim either. And what effect do you all think it will have when China and India begin buring coal and oil at the same rate as America and Europe?
Even if we can't prove the exact effects, common sense would indicate that it can't possibly be good for us.
And seizing on one paper that had a couple errors is not the same as discounting the big picture, any more than an error in a biology paper proves that Jesus rode a T Rex.
P.S. Al Gore is still fat. So I will give you that one.
P.P.S And it is demonstrably colder now in February than is was in August. Another point for your side.
< Message edited by AnimusRex -- 2/21/2010 7:48:23 PM >
|
OPPS...There Go the Rising Sea Levels! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread