I know, global warming is a liberal hoax, but still...

[Johan]

Draft IPCC report predicts sea levels to rise a metre by end of century

Sea levels could rise a metre by the end of the century, according to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


The ABC has obtained a final draft of the report ahead of its official release next Friday.

While average land and sea temperatures will continue to rise, it shows the planet is heating at a slower rate.

The IPCC predicts anything more than 4 degrees Celsius is unlikely this century.

Professor Steve Sherwood from the University of New South Wales says the more immediate impacts of climate change are well known.

"Right now if you look at the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is fairly close to the worst case scenarios that have been looked at by scientists since we started looking at this problem," he said.
Audio: Jake Sturmer reports on the IPCC findings (PM)

"Eventually we can expect to see more intense heatwaves, stronger downpours of rain, longer periods between rain.

"They are three things that a lot of different lines of evidence tell us that's what we can expect in a warmer world."

The scenarios outlined in the draft report show global temperatures have risen by almost a degree since the pre-industrial era.

The report suggests sea levels could surge by a metre by the end of the century, in part because glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster.

Evidence suggests that if carbon emissions keep rising, it would lead to a near complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet and a seven-metre sea level rise by the end of the millennium.

But one thing scientists have been battling to explain is why the rate of warming has slowed.

The draft report says the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is likely to have been 0.05 degrees, smaller than the trend since 1951 of 0.12 degrees.

John Cook from the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland says the planet is still heating up.

"There's been a lot of studies that have examined the question over the last few years and what the evidence seems to be telling us is the oceans are picking up most of the heat of global warming," Mr Cook said.

Some who question the science have focused on the report's apparent lack of certainty about exactly how our climate will change.

Scientists from around the world are due to gather in Stockholm next week to finalise the exact wording of the report - but the debate is likely to continue long after its release.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/draft-ipcc-report-show-sea-levels-to-rise-by-metre/4969724

 

[Jack Davenport]

It may not be a hoax. But can you for certainty say that sea levels have not risen in the Earth's history before to catastrophic levels or at least own up to the fact that if they did, that man played little or no part in it. Moreover please produce a time table throughout the billions of years of the Earth's history that will show that it is far worse now than ever before. Thanks in advance.

 

[Mayhem]

It doesn't matter what has happened in the last "billions of years", but your imitation of a stupid person is spot on. We have the data for the last couple thousand years (water lines, facilities built on the water line, etc) to know where things should be. A one meter rise over a century is ridiculous and obviously not naturally occuring.

 

[Jack Davenport]

First off Johnny bad ass I am on record as leaning toward the idea that there is climate change contributed by human beings their machines and lifestyle.
Now having said that, it does matter a fucking great deal what happened throughout the Earth's history. If water levels rose catastrophically even a million years ago when the Earth's population was a fragment of what it is now and without the aid of the internal combustion engine then that would negate the theory that it is all man made. That is pretty important data to consider especially when it could indicate that the earth could go through cyclical changes that occur naturally. Unfortunately, every time I or any other person raises this challenge you climate change kool aid drinkers start stomping around and talking a little louder because you can't offer complete evidence and it frustrates you. I have an open mind about it yours is made up.
I honestly have tried to keep an open mind about you but the only conclusion that can be drawn about you is that you are some ex military dude that works in the gaming industry that is a gun loving liberal that fancies himself as some Louis Black talk louder than the rest of us so you will be heard Newsflash you can tone it down some. We hear you fine it's just that none of seem to find what you are saying particularly interesting.

 

[sean miguel]

It doesn't matter what has happened in the last "billions of years", but your imitation of a stupid person is spot on. We have the data for the last couple thousand years (water lines, facilities built on the water line, etc) to know where things should be. A one meter rise over a century is ridiculous and obviously not naturally occuring.

If that's true then the solution is simple- we all walk or bike to work. You first of course.

We don't have to go back billions of years. There is evidence of Roman vineyards in Britain. So it had to be warm enough back then and all before the combustion engine. Go figure.

 

[Philbert]

Forget the oil created from animal and plant life under megatons of earth from the time of abundant water and vegetation where we now find Saudi Arabia and Qatar; Ein Gedi in the Judean Desert is 423 meters below sea level (around 1200 feet +/- and 200 meters above; there was a salt sea there a long time ago, and I have pried a seashell from the limestone wall on the "mountaintop" where the fresh water falls come out...not man made global warming and just another redecoration by the world's favorite Invisible Man.
Since co2 is what plants use to produce oxygen, and warmer is better for agriculture, where is the severe downside for more plant growth (read food stuffs like grains and vegatables, etc) where climate was unable to sustain such food production? Since there are more climatologists shrugging their shoulders and wondering where the actual warming went, I don't think there is the calamitous societal upheaval needed that the Libtards were scamming the gullible with (]cough[ Al Gore ]cough[)...
Like everything else the screeching Mariah-like psychotic sky-is-falling ecoturds try to pass off as Ubercritical fix it RIGHT NOW or DIE! stuff (ObamaCare) we the people need to address this as a careful "keep the planet pleasant and clean" effort so we don't forget how nasty breathing L.A. (Tokyo, London, New York) smog can be.
No need to panic, and thanks for all the Fish!

 

[Mayhem]

First off Johnny bad ass I am on record as leaning toward the idea that there is climate change contributed by human beings their machines and lifestyle.
Now having said that, it does matter a fucking great deal what happened throughout the Earth's history. If water levels rose catastrophically even a million years ago when the Earth's population was a fragment of what it is now and without the aid of the internal combustion engine then that would negate the theory that it is all man made. That is pretty important data to consider especially when it could indicate that the earth could go through cyclical changes that occur naturally. Unfortunately, every time I or any other person raises this challenge you climate change kool aid drinkers start stomping around and talking a little louder because you can't offer complete evidence and it frustrates you. I have an open mind about it yours is made up.
I honestly have tried to keep an open mind about you but the only conclusion that can be drawn about you is that you are some ex military dude that works in the gaming industry that is a gun loving liberal that fancies himself as some Louis Black talk louder than the rest of us so you will be heard Newsflash you can tone it down some. We hear you fine it's just that none of seem to find what you are saying particularly interesting.

*sigh* For a guy that doesn't want to be talked to like Fisher, you almost seem to insist upon it. I know that the Earth is probably on a natural warming cycle. I have used Mesa Verde, the Sahara and the Tigris/Euphrates Valley as evidence of this for decades. But the drastic changes that have happened and are predicted to happen have no basis in natural reality. It's been proven ad infinitum that there is only one rationale for the spikes in temperature that we're seeing. And you fucking know this. And this "challenge" that you have been raising is the same one I've been raising for a long time.

As for the rest of whatever that was you wrote..........sounded like Sammy to me.

If that's true then the solution is simple- we all walk or bike to work. You first of course.

We don't have to go back billions of years. There is evidence of Roman vineyards in Britain. So it had to be warm enough back then and all before the combustion engine. Go figure.

There are vineyards to this day in England. Keep in mind that wine during the Roman era was nothing like wine as we know it, people are going to find a way to drink regardless of where they are (most especially the ancient Romans), and you could probably have a vineyard in Iceland, you'd just make shitty wine.

 

[sean miguel]

There are vineyards to this day in England. Keep in mind that wine during the Roman era was nothing like wine as we know it, people are going to find a way to drink regardless of where they are (most especially the ancient Romans), and you could probably have a vineyard in Iceland, you'd just make shitty wine.

Exactly. That was my point. Cimate change happens in cycles. For a time during the dark ages it was too cold for most places in Britain to grow a vineyard period.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Meh .. sighing isn't the most manly of message board posting tools. Your slip is showing there Hoss. I know You Miss Sammy . time heals all wounds.

 

[eponymous]

Ten years ago most anti-liberals were saying Global Warming is a hoax, it's not true, there is no science behind it, and so on.

In the last few years, I've noticed many - if not most - of them have shifted to saying that Global Warming is true, but that it's no fault of ours...it's just a normal cycle in the Earth's evolution.

Soon they will call it "God's Will" and say that it was unavoidable, or that it's retribution for our "liberal" sins.

Funny how things never seem to change.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yeah it is funny isn't it Like having to change the terminology from global warming to climate change because the warming wasn't happening at the rate that the proponents wanted it to. Hilarious

 

[sean miguel]

Global warming supposedly stopped 17 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html


If this is true, we have done absolutely nothing to cause it to plateau which would also mean we did nothing to cause it to rise in the first place.

 

[HehehehehehehehehehahaHyena]

/homo sapiens

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

Yeah it is funny isn't it Like having to change the terminology from global warming to climate change because the warming wasn't happening at the rate that the proponents wanted it to. Hilarious

Actually both terms are still commonly used in the scientific community. If you want to know why climate change has been adopted primarily in the political world, well...

Page 12 of the PDF, section: Conclusion: Redefining Labels

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with "global warming" and ending with "environmentalism." It is time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

It was a part of Republican Party Strategist and Communication Consultant Frank Luntz's adgenda to make the phenomenon less scary to the American public. So it's actually part of the right wing effort to marginalize the issue.

 

[sean miguel]

I'm fucking drunk. Global warm this bitches.


</debate>

 

[Mariahxxx]

why are they finding plants growing thousands of miles farther north in the tundra that have NEVER grown there before? how can we believe that pumping billions of tons of waste and toxic matter into the air and the oceans doesn't have harmful effects? Japan's nuclear reactor dumps 300 million TONS of radioactive waste into the sea EVERY DAY. the fish population is at an all time low and there are no more cod to be found in guess where? CAPE COD.

the Koch brothers have spent over $3 BILLION dollars to deflate the climate change theories...why? because they make their money from fossil fuels. Do any of you live on the gulf of Mexico? I do and I still have to have my sea wall pressure washed every 6 months because of the oil build up and I'm way out of the direct zone of the BP oil spill, which was devastating on so many levels to the shrimp and fishing industry as well as the tens of thousands of birds that died.

anyone who doesn't believe that the pollution we are creating isn't going to kill us is ignorant. When more than 90% of the world's scientists say it's real, why would anyone not believe it? Oh yeah, because some billionaires who stand to lose money have infected the information with their own bullshit to keep it from becoming a reality.

There is a mass of trash floating in the pacific ocean the size of texas? have you seen it? I flew over it on my way to new zealand from Seattle and it is fucking amazing. 90 minutes flying over a trash heap in the middle of the ocean and people think it has no effect on the environment?

the earth will be fine. It will be here for billions more years just like it has been. it's us who won't be.

 

[Philbert]

It was a part of Republican Party Strategist and Communication Consultant Frank Luntz's adgenda to make the phenomenon less scary to the American public. So it's actually part of the right wing effort to marginalize the issue.

from an anti-Fox rant on MSNBC online...


Correction (Apr. 28 at 16:45 UTC): I originally wrote that Luntz coined the term "climate change", but the term was apparently first used in a 1975 paper by geochemist Wallace Broecker.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ews_global_warming_versus_climate_change.html

 

[saschaxx]

why are they finding plants growing thousands of miles farther north in the tundra that have NEVER grown there before? how can we believe that pumping billions of tons of waste and toxic matter into the air and the oceans doesn't have harmful effects? Japan's nuclear reactor dumps 300 million TONS of radioactive waste into the sea EVERY DAY. the fish population is at an all time low and there are no more cod to be found in guess where? CAPE COD.

the Koch brothers have spent over $3 BILLION dollars to deflate the climate change theories...why? because they make their money from fossil fuels. Do any of you live on the gulf of Mexico? I do and I still have to have my sea wall pressure washed every 6 months because of the oil build up and I'm way out of the direct zone of the BP oil spill, which was devastating on so many levels to the shrimp and fishing industry as well as the tens of thousands of birds that died.

anyone who doesn't believe that the pollution we are creating isn't going to kill us is ignorant. When more than 90% of the world's scientists say it's real, why would anyone not believe it? Oh yeah, because some billionaires who stand to lose money have infected the information with their own bullshit to keep it from becoming a reality.

There is a mass of trash floating in the pacific ocean the size of texas? have you seen it? I flew over it on my way to new zealand from Seattle and it is fucking amazing. 90 minutes flying over a trash heap in the middle of the ocean and people think it has no effect on the environment?

the earth will be fine. It will be here for billions more years just like it has been. it's us who won't be.

...@Mariah : :applause: :applause: :applause: ...could not have it said better !

 

[Jack Davenport]

Still waiting for someone to offer evidence that this has never happened before! Oh that's right because you believe in the invisible data! It really is a very simple request.
I am willing to sweeten the offer. If someone, anyone can offer conclusive evidence that in all of the earth's existance that there has never been a blip on the radar screen of time that included sea levels rising to catastrophic levels, loss of glaciers, melting ice caps.
Come on people! Surely your team of scientists can put this to rest once and for all.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Oh and Mariah what exactly are you doing to help reduce emissions. Contrary to popular belief I don't roll into the parking deck every morning laying rubber in a Lambo with a sweater tied around my neck. It is basically something I keep garaged and drive once or twice a month. I have a little boat that i basically use to clam or harvest oysters. I actually own a hybrid and a flex fuel vehicle. On the other hand, you are constantly churning up the waterway with your Evinrude 130 and have logged more flight hours than the 4th Fighter Wing. That's one hell of carbon footprint there Mari!