Comments 1 to 33:

1. adelady at 10:18 AM on 17 March, 2011
   Excellent, John.
   
   Some people are really clever. I wish I'd thought of such a simple illustration - how to link heat-> melt-> sea level rise.
   
   And have it attractive enough for people to look at it long enough for the image and its message to stick.
2. deyanaus at 10:26 AM on 17 March, 2011
   The author is apparently Ferdi Rizkiyanto, an Indonesian (according to this site). His blog is here.
3. Agnostic at 11:16 AM on 17 March, 2011
   Not just striking but conceptually brilliant!
4. Daniel Bailey at 11:29 AM on 17 March, 2011
   Prediction:
   
   The "skeptics" will be peeved by this one. So keep 'em comin'!
   
   The Yooper
5. logicman at 12:07 PM on 17 March, 2011
   deyanaus: thanks for the links.
   
   If you go to Ferdi Rizkiyanto's site and click on the image you get to download a much bigger jpg.
   
   The image is clearly marked as copyright of Ferdi Rizkiyanto.
   
   However, Ferdi has most generously licenced this image under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported terms.
   
   Links:
   Ferdi Rizkiyanto Portfolio
   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
6. ClimateWatcher at 01:56 AM on 18 March, 2011
   "Limited time offer, order now."
   
   "Hurry, supply is limited"
   
   "So you don't forget, order before midnight tonight".
   
   Things which have to be sold rely on hard sell and time limits.
   
   Climate armageddon follows suit.
7. Charlie A at 04:43 AM on 18 March, 2011
   It would be even more effective if one of the polar bears was in danger of being sucked into the whirlpool.
8. Sphaerica at 05:39 AM on 18 March, 2011
   6, ClimateWatcher,
   
   And it has to be sold because:
   
   1) Many (most?) people are too shortsighted to look or think beyond their most immediate needs
   
   2) There is a lot of money being spent on the foolish idea that climate change is not a problem.
   
   3) There is a horde of people who have, for various reasons, fallen for the denial meme, and so tout that particular line even when they aren't getting a big check from the fossil fuel industry.
   
   The quiet implication that climate change needs to be sold because it's not real is as invalid as it is offensive.
   
   Regardless of the reason for the "sale," people need to prompted into waking up and doing something, by a variety of means, and the fact that this particular effort is annoying to deniers tells me that it is an effective tool.
9. Tshane3000 at 06:36 AM on 18 March, 2011
   Right on Sphaerica.
   @ClimateWatcher,
   
   Science is rarely ever an easy sell--unless, and this is only maybe--when it's about cute, fuzzy koala bears going extinct. That's because science is nuanced and complicated--and scientists aren't marketing experts. Marketing nuance is tough!
   
   Also, there is no dumbed-down echo chamber in science, as there is among (pardon me, but both these labels are true:) corrupt or ignorant conservatives who want business as usual only because it's in their interest (at least, financially--certainly not ecologically, as their planet and descendants are at risk).
   
   Myths and lies and disinformation--climate change denial--keep spinning round and round in the media because most people just *won't* do the hard work of ferreting out truth. But finding truth is what science does so well--and it's not as easy as mere sloganeering and speaking in sound bytes.
   
   Truth is the realm of science. Profit is the realm of greed, power and survival. Both are possible in a sustainable world, but sustainability balances profit with people and planet.
   
   Sustainable development must be managed by those who see the world with a far wider, more compassionate and future-oriented lens than those bouncing in the echo chamber, and digging like piggies after easy money in greasy dirt.
   
   One of the great things about the scientific method is that it welcomes legitimate, well-reasoned challenges. That is built into the system, so it continually evolves to better and better understand both the "why" and "how" of nature. True science is an ever self-perfecting truth machine that keeps on giving to the human race--far more than any organization, religion or other human-created system, physical, mental, philosophical or other. It crosses and merges and encompasses all those realms, and more.
   
   If conservatives want to challenge the science, go get climate science degrees and do it! It just hasn't happened. Conservatives who have science degrees by and large make too many mistakes in their work to be considered legitimate. It seems clear that their political beliefs mostly drive their science, whereas legitimate science must always drive politics when appropriate--as it is when a threat hangs over humanity as large as climate change.
   
   Why don't conservatives get climate science degrees? It's too much work, compared to just dumping your money in oil stocks and sit back sipping tequila on a beach!
   
   
   Greed is a far easier sell than altruism. Hence the $ billions Big Oil makes, and the pennies the environmental movement garners. These lies about huge profits to be made in green energy are just silly--unless you also want to work twice as hard as anyone else to make the profits. If we didn't have to, nobody would do it.
   
   Oil and coal are going, "sure things." (Which is why the industry is fighting so hard to keep it up. But even they admit global warming is happening! They just don't fully want to blame themselves and give up the cash cow so easily.) By contrast, developing green energy worldwide is the hardest work the population of Earth may ever do. The canaries in the coalmine (literally) are singing--and people are dying because of it--every day, more than in most industries. (Yet another reason to get rid of dirty, polluting coal.)
   
   Best get to the good, green work ASAP! Thank God someone finally came up with effective marketing for it.
10. Berényi Péter at 10:09 AM on 20 March, 2011
    #9 Tshane3000 at 06:36 AM on 18 March, 2011
    Greed is a far easier sell than altruism.
    
    Yes. And I didn't know ads are supposed to go under the umbrella term peer reviewed science.
    
    However, if we are at icons, this one is right on spot (click on image).
    
    
    
    Spinning Star Wind Energy Project in Texas gets $450 million (30% of its financing) from U.S. stimulus funds (taxpayers' money), the rest comes from state owned Chinese banks (controlled by CPC, that is). A bargain.
11. Marcus at 16:15 PM on 20 March, 2011
    Yes, Beranyi, & how much tax-payers money do you think the US Coal & Nuclear industries get-in spite of being "mature" technology? Lets just say that it is way, way more than $450 million. So you're really just putting up a straw-man argument right there. The second part of your argument is just naked racism, which I'm sure you'd hate were it directed towards you. I see that, after months of posting bogus arguments, you're finally just scraping the bottom of the barrel.
12. Marcus at 16:17 PM on 20 March, 2011
    Also, BP, though its true this doesn't represent peer-review science, it is *backed* by the vast bulk of peer-review science. Meanwhile, the propaganda being pushed out to the public, by the Contrarians, isn't backed by peer-reviewed science, but I bet you don't object to that-even when its funded by tax dollars?
13. Berényi Péter at 20:34 PM on 20 March, 2011
    #11 Marcus at 16:15 PM on 20 March, 2011
    The second part of your argument is just naked racism
    
    I see. If one prefers a constitution based on checks and balances in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to one built on people's democratic dictatorship and the principle of democratic centralism, that's naked racism. I have not heard this line of argument in more than two decades but I can't say it is unheard of. In fact I was fed this BS ad nauseam during my youth.
14. JMurphy at 21:52 PM on 20 March, 2011
    Berényi Péter, does your aversion to Chinese investment extend to all of it or just that bit invested in renewables ?
15. Marcus at 22:03 PM on 20 March, 2011
    As JMurphy says-so you'd be OK with the Chinese withdrawing *all* investment from the US economy? If you do, then say good-bye to the US economy altogether. Secondly, does this support for energy sources that aren't dependent on foreign dictatorships also extend to *oil*, which comes largely from the most non-democratic nations in the World (like Saudi Arabia & the United Arab Emirates). Seems like you're cherry picking in order to create a straw-man argument, which is pretty much all you ever do.
16. Marcus at 22:12 PM on 20 March, 2011
    Also, BP, its worth noting that China has considerable investment in the Australian Coal & Natural Gas industry, & I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same in the US-so I'm sure we'll hear you kicking up a massive stink about that...well actually we probably won't, because Chinese investment in fossil fuels is *fine*-its only a problem when they invest in renewable energy. Isn't that right BP?
17. Berényi Péter at 22:22 PM on 20 March, 2011
    #12 Marcus at 16:17 PM on 20 March, 2011
    though its true this doesn't represent peer-review science, it is *backed* by the vast bulk of peer-review science
    
    Presumably you mean papers like this one.
    
    Environmental Research Letters, 2007, Volume 2, Number 2, 024002
    doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002
    Scientific reticence and sea level rise
    J E Hansen
    
    "There is enough information now, in my opinion, to make it a near certainty that IPCC BAU climate forcing scenarios would lead to a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale".
    
    
    
    Hansen's statement is unfortunately not supported by actual measurements. If it goes on like this, sea level would stop rising by 2027 and would be 23 cm below current level by 2100.
18. les at 22:49 PM on 20 March, 2011
    17 Berényi: does really say "below Current levels"!?!? No one could seriously tell if that graph is curve like a parabola or asymptotic.
19. Marcus at 23:11 PM on 20 March, 2011
    BP @ #17-as if to prove my previous point, there you go with your Cherry Picking. Why 18 years BP? Would 20 or 30 years have disproved your argument? Got to love you contrarians, always so very selective of what "data" you use to "prove" your case-probably because the *whole* picture doesn't do your case any good at all. Still, nice to see that, along with all your other arguments, you're very clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
20. Marcus at 23:14 PM on 20 March, 2011
    Also, how *exactly* do you come up with a deceleration from that graph? A shift from an anomaly of -25mm to almost +25mm-in only 18 years-doesn't seem like much of a "deceleration" to me. Sounds like someone is just faking it now.
21. Berényi Péter at 05:27 AM on 21 March, 2011
    #19 Marcus at 23:11 PM on 20 March, 2011
    BP @ #17-as if to prove my previous point, there you go with your Cherry Picking. Why 18 years BP?
    
    Unfortunately it happens to be the case we have global satellite altimetry only for the last 18 years. Before that time we have tide gauge data distributed unevenly along the coastlines and nowhere else. Do you really think it is cherry picking to use all the data available?
    
    However, we also have some pretty long datasets for various geologically stable environments like New York. Rate of sea level rise at individual spots does not have much to do with global ocean volume, as land itself has vertical motion depending on location. However, the acceleration term in the absence of major earthquakes or volcanism is telling, since rate of isostatic rebound is stable on millennial scale.
    
    
    
    Now, in New York rate of sea level rise is decelerating steadily during the last 85 years at about 0.3 m/cy². During the last twenty years this deceleration, if anything, is more pronounced, not less so.
    
    Therefore any talk about accelerating sea level rise is rooted in fantasy, not facts.
    
    Of course fantasy is a great resource for advertising, but for highways and countryside to actually get under water as claimed by your celebrated ad above a bit more is needed. Some considerable acceleration, that is. And sorry, it is not observed so far.
22. Rob Painting at 06:03 AM on 21 March, 2011
    BP - Now, in New York rate of sea level rise is decelerating steadily during the last 85 years at about 0.3 m/cy2. During the last twenty years this deceleration, if anything, is more pronounced, not less so.
    
    Much of the contribution to sea level rise is now coming from the Greenland ice sheet. This would be expected to cause a reduction in sea level rise in areas adjacent to Greenland, and perhaps have an effect on SLR at New York, as the local gravitational attraction diminished.
    
    Have you calculated this?. Is it negligible for New York?.
23. les at 06:10 AM on 21 March, 2011
    To validate this "decelerations" one would need to know the function fitted, the R^2, and the equivalent for a Log function and a straight line, at least.
24. Berényi Péter at 07:00 AM on 21 March, 2011
    #23 Rob Painting at 06:03 AM on 21 March, 2011
    Have you calculated this?. Is it negligible for New York?
    
    Come on, get real. The distance is some four thousand kilometers and Greenland is losing ice in recent years at an annual rate of not more than 0.01%. It is negligible.
    
    BTW, anyone can visit the PSMSL (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level) site. You are free to cherry pick a station which shows considerable acceleration during the last several decades provided it
    1. does not sit on the side of a volcano
       
    2. there is no major tectonic fault line there
       
    3. it is not swampland
       
    I don't think you'll find a single such example.
25. Rob Painting at 07:11 AM on 21 March, 2011
    The distance is some four thousand kilometers and Greenland is losing ice in recent years at an annual rate of not more than 0.01%. It is negligible
    
    So you haven't bothered to do the math, or are unable to?. I'm not really interested in your opinion that it's negligible BP, I'd like to see if you have actually addressed this issue. If you don't know how to account for the effect, just say so.
26. les at 07:20 AM on 21 March, 2011
    12 Berényi I'm still curious about your fit.
    You link to http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php
    I guess this data?
    
    who show a rate of 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/ year, rather than your 18.8 cm / century 1.88 mm/year ... Why the discrepancy of 1.6? and how did you manage to get that extra significant figure of precision?!?!
    
    Their rate is from a straight line fit. what function have you used?
27. les at 07:29 AM on 21 March, 2011
    Moderators - and before you say it - I know, I know... should be in How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?
28. Berényi Péter at 07:35 AM on 21 March, 2011
    #27 les at 07:20 AM on 21 March, 2011
    I'm still curious about your fit
    
    It is actually this one (Inverted barometer applied, Seasonal signal included).
    
    
    
    You can download numeric data from here. A linear fit is clearly not appropriate. But at least one can exclude any acceleration with very high confidence. Which contradicts Hansen's claim ("a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale").
29. les at 07:47 AM on 21 March, 2011

    29 Berényi Fine, I wasn't sure because the first data points on both are not the same as yours... still, both have a similar rate and precision... so my questions hold. What the huge discrepancy in rate? What do you mean by "very high confidence" for your decceleration? which you seem to be able to include with high precision and, I suppose, confidence. If you give the comparative fit qualities, we can all judge whether a linear fit is not appropriate compared to your function...

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] OK, this has gone on quite enough. Anyone wishing to continue discussing sea level rise can carry this conversation over to the http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm or similar thread of their choice. In a little bit I'm going to start removing all off-topic comments from this thread. Thanks!

30. les at 08:15 AM on 21 March, 2011
    12 Berényi - please do repost 12 + the required analysis details in the sea rise post. I'm really curious.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm
31. les at 08:16 AM on 21 March, 2011
    I mean 17...
32. Berényi Péter at 08:31 AM on 21 March, 2011
    #32 les at 08:15 AM on 21 March, 2011
    I'm really curious.
    
    Here you go.
33. les at 05:32 AM on 27 March, 2011
    33 superfreak - "truthiness"
    From here
    “truthiness” — the Word of the Year in 2005, according to the American Dialect Society, which defined it as “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.”
    
    Well, yes I guess if you post up truthiness it may not get you very far... but go for some cold hard facts or detailed analysis and it'll probably be fine.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.