Warming Has Been Underestimated

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

Interesting read below.

...that’s where the good news ends. Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.

Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change - Scientific American Blog Network

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

WCH · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

So, don't buy any waterfront property.

ttwtt78640 · Aug 20, 2019

WCH said:
So, don't buy any waterfront property.

Hmm... using which year's projected (modeled?) shoreline map?

Jack Hays · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

Well well well. Not merely propaganda, but transparently stupid propaganda. There are many many volcanoes under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Not a word about those. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Drawdown · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

I don't see it as putting a nail in any coffin. It sounds like a convoluted argument to explain away the 97% who agree number no longer being in agreement. Field researchers in the arctic have put forth that soot may be a driver there. Field researchers in the antarctic have put forth competing opinions as to the Ross Ice Shelf. One group suggested that it is wind pushing in warm currents driving the melting and another has suggested based on their observations that it is local surface weather. The book, and apparently you as well, believe that whatever the worst case scenario is, that is the one that must be scientifically true and anything not supporting that just needs to be ignored.

WCH · Aug 20, 2019

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... using which year's projected (modeled?) shoreline map?

Don't know. Saw it in a headline.
Climate change experts on why they wouldn't buy waterfront property - Business Insider

vegas giants · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

Cue the deniers.......

swing_voter · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

Scientists have known about global warming since 1896, that's over a hundred years. Seems like they could've been more vocal about it over that time.

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

Jack Hays said:
Well well well. Not merely propaganda, but transparently stupid propaganda. There are many many volcanoes under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Not a word about those. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Can you add that disclaimer to every post. It would be more helpful up front though.

Lord of Planar · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

Need I say more?

Scientific American Blog Network

Jack Hays · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Can you add that disclaimer to every post. It would be more helpful up front though.

It's not every time that I'm responding to fake news.

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

Jack Hays said:
It's not every time that I'm responding to fake news.

No, but it is nearly every time that one of your posts can be the poster child for "Nothing to see here folks. Move along."

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
Need I say more?

Scientific American Blog Network

So, you can't refute the information in the article. Thanks.

Jack Hays · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
No, but it is nearly every time that one of your posts can be the poster child for "Nothing to see here folks. Move along."

There is some important climate news, but you routinely ignore it.

LowDown · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Interesting read below.

As for my opinion, let's put it this way. I certainly never thought that scientists were overestimating the severity of the problem. Scientists are cautious that way. So, that their errors sided on the low side meets my expectations. It also puts another nail in the denier's coffin.

Let's "correct" the record some more. Maybe we can squeeze more warming out of it and scare everyone.

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

All the wrong on the Right is stunning. First they pick the two worst presidents in history, and then they deny that the ice is melting, even as video shows them that the ice is melting. :doh

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

Jack Hays said:
There is some important climate news, but you routinely ignore it.

Propaganda pushed by WUWT is not news

Deuce · Aug 20, 2019

LowDown said:
Let's "correct" the record some more. Maybe we can squeeze more warming out of it and scare everyone.

What did you research come up with?

Deuce · Aug 20, 2019

Jack Hays said:
Well well well. Not merely propaganda, but transparently stupid propaganda. There are many many volcanoes under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Not a word about those. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Do you think you’re the one who discovered those volcanoes?

calamity · Aug 20, 2019

LowDown said:
Let's "correct" the record some more. Maybe we can squeeze more warming out of it and scare everyone.

There comes a time when people who have been marching down a false path need to man up and just admit they have been wrong. Now is that time.

Jack Hays · Aug 20, 2019

calamity said:
Propaganda pushed by WUWT is not news

How about the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study?

[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]

Jack Hays · Aug 20, 2019

Deuce said:
Do you think you’re the one who discovered those volcanoes?

I think the OP authors studiously ignored them. Naomi Oreskes is integrity-challenged.

Deuce · Aug 20, 2019

Jack Hays said:
How about the Chairman of the Raccah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study?

[h=2]Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct[/h]

I can cite credentials for all kinds of AGW proponents.

Deuce · Aug 20, 2019

Jack Hays said:
I think the OP authors studiously ignored them. Naomi Oreskes is integrity-challenged.

You have no indication volcanoes were ignored.

Jack Hays · Aug 20, 2019

Deuce said:
I can cite credentials for all kinds of AGW proponents.

So what? The point was to answer a claim about WUWT.

Warming Has Been Underestimated

Privileged

Believer

Sometimes wrong

Traveler

Believer

Privileged

Traveler

Privileged

Privileged

Traveler

Curmudgeon

Privileged

Privileged

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Privileged

Traveler

Traveler

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Traveler

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency