5680 Shares

Here we go again! Same old bad news from rising sea levels. 5.4F rise by the end of the century?

Here we go again! Same old bad news from rising sea levels. 5.4F rise by the end of the century? Topic: Media researchers
June 16, 2019 / By Chester
Question: "Climate Study: Rising Seas Could Wipe Out Many Cultural Landmarks" http://news.yahoo.com/climate-study-rising-seas-could-wipe-many-cultural-021048847.html Consider the source: Denise Chow has a master's degree in journalism. " ... The findings are also worrisome because the scenario imagined in the study — that is, a temperature increase of 5.4 degrees F (3 degrees C) above pre-industrial levels — is not much more extreme than current climate change projections, the researchers said. ... " 3/5/2014 LiveScience How does the media and journalists get away with this unmitigated sensationalistic climate reporting?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Here we go again! Same old bad news from rising sea levels. 5.4F rise by the end of the century?

Alysdare Alysdare | 10 days ago
Over the next 2000 years. LOL. And the warmers pretend they are not alarmists. They are not trying to scare people. They are not part of this twisted stupidity to scare mankind into spending trillions. Last time I checked, we don't have enough fossil fuels to burn for 2000 years, probably not even 100. Of course alarmism does not need to concern themselves with those trivial facts, when fiction is so much more sensational. Climate realist, The melting point of ice means we should project out 2000 years??? LOL. What crazy world do you live in? As for the nuclear scare mongerers, ..., they artificially increase the cost of nuclear within the US by scaring people into protesting and stopping every nuclear build, not to mention the petitions to the gov't for unnecesary regulations (the necessary ones, I am fine with). The market place has one less source of energy and thus the average cost goes up as any who has taken Economics would know. And if the question is about the next 100 years, then you should be as against idiotic scare-mongering crap of 2000 years out, MORE than I am. That would be true, IF you did not like also perpetuating the scare-mongering garbage. Jeff M, You are too funny. You say the same thing as the article and talk about 2000 years. Plus you STUPIDLY claim that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the thousands of years, when it is not even 100 years. But you really entertain me with your attempt to make me look bad. LOL. Here is a hint for trying to make me look bad. You actually have to show that something I said is incorrect. Failing to do so AND making an erroneous claim looks pretty stupid, especially when you are attempting to call someone out. So endth the lesson. If you need any more schooling, just let me know. Also Jeff M, I am making a claim that you all are alarmists. Pointing to some "scientists" who clearly cared more about gettting a grant than true science, has no affect on my point. They too are alarmists. If you are claiming your precious models actually work 2000 years out, then I laugh with derision. HAHAHA. Jeff M, NO it is you that would have us believe that you can predict the temp 2000 years out and that the temp is solely based upon the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, WHILE also having us believe that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than 10 times the amount the IPCC stated. How many times did you have to beat your head against the AGW wall of enlightenment to stop questioning basic assumptions inherent in "studies"??? Jeff M, Too funny. So I can take that to mean that you think the study is garbage as well??? LOL, thought not. You are endorsing the study by your actions and thus endorsing alarmism. If you do not want to be called an alarmist, then don't act like one. Further, don't whine about "insults" like "alarmist" and call people "deniers". Don't try to call someone out as being wrong without even being able to point to an error. BTW, if you want to get into other errors in the study, even assuming they are right about the temperature staying 3 degrees warming, they assuming constant meting and that a new equilibrium of ice mass will not be reached. Seems a rather bold assumption to me, and that is assuming that their incorrect CO2 concentration assumptions were actually true. Sure this looks good enough to publish and fool many, but it is still bad science.
👍 188 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? Here we go again! Same old bad news from rising sea levels. 5.4F rise by the end of the century? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Media researchers


Alysdare Originally Answered: Here we go again! Same old bad news from rising sea levels. 5.4F rise by the end of the century?
Over the next 2000 years. LOL. And the warmers pretend they are not alarmists. They are not trying to scare people. They are not part of this twisted stupidity to scare mankind into spending trillions. Last time I checked, we don't have enough fossil fuels to burn for 2000 years, probably not even 100. Of course alarmism does not need to concern themselves with those trivial facts, when fiction is so much more sensational. Climate realist, The melting point of ice means we should project out 2000 years??? LOL. What crazy world do you live in? As for the nuclear scare mongerers, ..., they artificially increase the cost of nuclear within the US by scaring people into protesting and stopping every nuclear build, not to mention the petitions to the gov't for unnecesary regulations (the necessary ones, I am fine with). The market place has one less source of energy and thus the average cost goes up as any who has taken Economics would know. And if the question is about the next 100 years, then you should be as against idiotic scare-mongering crap of 2000 years out, MORE than I am. That would be true, IF you did not like also perpetuating the scare-mongering garbage. Jeff M, You are too funny. You say the same thing as the article and talk about 2000 years. Plus you STUPIDLY claim that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the thousands of years, when it is not even 100 years. But you really entertain me with your attempt to make me look bad. LOL. Here is a hint for trying to make me look bad. You actually have to show that something I said is incorrect. Failing to do so AND making an erroneous claim looks pretty stupid, especially when you are attempting to call someone out. So endth the lesson. If you need any more schooling, just let me know. Also Jeff M, I am making a claim that you all are alarmists. Pointing to some "scientists" who clearly cared more about gettting a grant than true science, has no affect on my point. They too are alarmists. If you are claiming your precious models actually work 2000 years out, then I laugh with derision. HAHAHA. Jeff M, NO it is you that would have us believe that you can predict the temp 2000 years out and that the temp is solely based upon the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, WHILE also having us believe that the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than 10 times the amount the IPCC stated. How many times did you have to beat your head against the AGW wall of enlightenment to stop questioning basic assumptions inherent in "studies"??? Jeff M, Too funny. So I can take that to mean that you think the study is garbage as well??? LOL, thought not. You are endorsing the study by your actions and thus endorsing alarmism. If you do not want to be called an alarmist, then don't act like one. Further, don't whine about "insults" like "alarmist" and call people "deniers". Don't try to call someone out as being wrong without even being able to point to an error. BTW, if you want to get into other errors in the study, even assuming they are right about the temperature staying 3 degrees warming, they assuming constant meting and that a new equilibrium of ice mass will not be reached. Seems a rather bold assumption to me, and that is assuming that their incorrect CO2 concentration assumptions were actually true. Sure this looks good enough to publish and fool many, but it is still bad science.

Tiara Tiara
I think the thermometers they used in the pre-industrial age were different than the ones we use now, as today's thermometers were most likely invented by Al Gore. That explains why we're freezing to death out here shoveling snow, while everyone on the news talks about how hot it's getting out there. What they need to do is take a flight and vacation to the sun. (It's okay, they can go at night when it's cooler.)
👍 70 | 👎 8

Rosie Rosie
Chow is a writer, not the person who did the study Re Sensational reporting. Over the last 5 years, the sensational reporting has been in favor of the deniers, without verifying the science behind the claim. Things are a bit different now and since they verify the source, it will mostly be on the side of the warmists Ice is melting, seas are rising., climate is changing, so man up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAOH42OY1...
👍 61 | 👎 6

Myrtle Myrtle
What "master's degree in journalism" has to do with sea level? Consider the source news.yahoo.com. Yahoo is strictly entertainment and commercial website. I haven't heard any scientist mentioned any article from Yahoo as his/her source for any scientific theory.
👍 52 | 👎 4

Lorelle Lorelle
The far left democratic opinion would probably say something like: more spawning grounds for estuarial fish. Or now there's no park maintenance upkeep. After all the lack of employment gives more free time with your starving family. I don't listen to any alarmist crap provided by extremist nut jobs.
👍 43 | 👎 2

Kat Kat
Why not look at the actual study? http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/... "If the current global mean temperature was sustained for the next two millennia, about 6% (40 sites) of the UNESCO sites will be affected, and 0.7% of global land area will be below mean sea level. These numbers increase to 19% (136 sites) and 1.1% for a warming of 3 K. At this warming level, 3–12 countries will experience a loss of more than half of their current land surface, 25–36 countries lose at least 10% of their territory, and 7% of the global population currently lives in regions that will be below local sea level. Given the millennial scale lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, our results indicate that fundamental decisions with regard to mankind's cultural heritage are required." Perhaps Raisin Cane should read the actual study first before making assumptions based on a news article and you should as well. This study is not a consequence of the media or journalists. Here is the authors homepage. http://www.marzeion.info/ A recently released article from the Royal Society and NAS is available online. http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-ass... On page 22 we see the following "Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing [Figure 9]" Projections of sea level rise are not only based on yearly emissions of CO2 as Raisin Cane, from his answer, would have us believe. Further papers on sea level rise over the coming centuries are available in the links below. ftp://arda.eos.ubc.ca/pub/vradic/literature/Sea%20level%20rise/Rahmstorf2007.pdf http://ssi.ucsd.edu/scc/images/Schaeffer%20SLR%20at%20+1.5%20+2%20NatCC%2012.pdf Raisin Cane: I did not claim anything. I was merely posting the link to the actual study and further information and studies. It is YOU who are making unsubstantiated claims. And your reply is full of insults. for someone who claims to respond to people based on the responses they give him you are doing a terrible job of it. Raisin Cane: How about if you get a little class? The word 'denial' or 'deny' had it's origin in the 13th century. Was the word originally formed as a means of ridiculing those that did not believe the holocaust occurred? You attempting to say that I use that word to insult others is pathetic. All you are doing is arguing a fallacy. If you can do a better job perhaps you should post a rebuttal in the scientific literature? Or even on a blog as that is what people like you prefer.
👍 34 | 👎 0

Hazel Hazel
C- funny but for AGW cultists in the 90s the 'question' was within the next 20 years. Now since that failed AGW cultists want the question to be the next 100 years. ROTFL. How many times are the AGW cultists going to continue to move the goal posts every time their prophecies fail to come to fruition?
👍 25 | 👎 -2

Dorthy Dorthy
>>Consider the source….<< Take your own advice. Here is the source, nitwit. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/...
👍 16 | 👎 -4

Cathleen Cathleen
Yet, if she "questioned" global warming, her master's degree would make her an expert. Raisin Caine Ice melts when it's temperature reaches 0C. The fact may be scary, but it also is true. If you hate spending an extra 1 cent per kilowatt hour, anti-nuclear scare mongers are your best friends. The question is about the next 100 years.
👍 7 | 👎 -6


If you have your own answer to the question media researchers, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.