0
2

[–] novictim 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

"And that's according to one of the world's most firmly global-warmist scientists.

Dr Ken Caldeira's credentials...former IPCC! Here is what wiki said about his resignation:

"In 2011, Caldeira resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter, stating "Again, I think the IPCC has been extremely useful in the past, and I believe the IPCC could be extremely useful in the future. [...] My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique.""

So he approves of the work being done by the IPCC and is no longer in the depths of this research.

So what does his endorsed former IPCC colleagues have to say about global warming and sea level rise?

Look at the graph: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1-figure-1.html

Notice the slope? According to the IPCC/ data, the sea will be rising at a rate in 2100 of 7" to 11" inches per year. EVERY FUCKING YEAR! And the rate of increase in this trend starts to sharpen upward past 2040! We will be looking at a foot of seal level rise per year by 2120. What the fuck!

Sure, the sea level rise won't be catastrophic at the year 2100 as this stupid article suggests...but if we have any concern for future generations then that should not assuage your concern over this prediction. And the issue does not just end with sea level rise!

I might add that Dr. Caldeira, himself, notes that Carbon dioxide is the key dangerous factor here.. It is not just global warming and sea level rise that is the issue in this regard. It is the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 that threatens the oceans via acidification. Acidic oceans kill or limit shell fish. We cold lose all the shell fish species at some point in the not too distant future. This might be a tipping point in the current ocean food web and portend mass human famine as shell fish and fish stocks decline as a result.

0
2

[–] Kal 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The article reads like an opinion piece. If you read through it you come away with the impression that this study suggests that burning all of the fossil fuels in the world will not cause any problems.

there will be no troublesome sea level rise due to melting Antarctic ice this century. You, and your children, and your children's children, can pretty much relax.

How many of us were even worried about sea levels rising as a cause of global warming though? If you read the actual study his article is based on you find things like this, which his article doesn't even glance over.

"We took a model and emitted all of the carbon dioxide available in fossil fuel resources, and that model — which has a very low climate sensitivity, and what I would consider a hyperactive land biosphere — produced 9-degree Centigrade warming globally and 20 degrees around East Antarctica.

His article completely leaves out those parts and just focuses on sea level rise, leaving the reader coming away with an impression that burning all fossil fuels is just not a problem. I really hate this type of journalism.

0
2

[–] RunsWithScissors 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Looked up who wrote the article, completely disregarded any possibility of a single word that isn't pure bullshit.

0
0

[–] novictim 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Correct. I posted a little bit more on this for the skeptics.