West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets likely to completely melt

[lustindarkness]

I have not been paying that much attention. So, can someone tell me, that it proven by science, beyond doubt, that global warming is man made?

[Jacob]

I have not been paying that much attention. So, can someone tell me, that it proven by science, beyond doubt, that global warming is man made?

Depends on how you define "beyond a doubt". But if you mean that people who are actually educated in the relevant scientific fields consider it a settled question, then the answer is yes.

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

There's more reading here, if you're inclined: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.Ue1-2T49xnI

[Neil]

Nobody cares, Timmay.

They'll care if sea level rises 65 feet.

Would the ice melting cause higher sea levels? Ice was already in the ocean displacing water and if it melts it just takes up a different form, but still the same mass. I could be wrong, curious, so let me know if that theory "holds water".

This ice is largely sitting on landmasses, although I can't say for sure if the model they've used takes into account the fact that some of the ice is floating.

[sbr]

I have always found it strange that in general* the group of people that demand facts and hard proof of global warming (and other related things) has a very large overlap with the group of people who have no problem having blind, unproven faith in God or another higher power.

Why are they so willing to believe in something that seems so hard to believe in and impossible to prove, yet refuse to belive in natural phenomena that happens before their eye without hard and fast evidence.

*Very generally.  This is not directed at anyone specifically, here or elsewhere.

[lustindarkness]

very high confidence

I guess that is as sure as they can get? Ok, thank you.

[Neil]

There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.

There is something we can do to prevent global warming.

I'm not sure the second statement is true.

[lustindarkness]

I have always found it strange that in general* the group of people that demand facts and hard proof of global warming (and other related things) has a very large overlap with the group of people who have no problem having blind, unproven faith in God or another higher power.

Why are they so willing to believe in something that seems so hard to believe in and impossible to prove, yet refuse to belive in natural phenomena that happens before their eye without hard and fast evidence.

*Very generally.  This is not directed at anyone specifically, here or elsewhere.

Yes, very general (I don't believe in shit myself). But I always find that interesting too.

[Berkut]

It isn't strange at all.

The ability to actually draw conclusions based on evidence is, I have found, the exception rather than the rule.

Most people have conclusions based on their culture, what they want to be true, what their parents/priest/political ideology tell them ought to be true, and then pick and choose from the facts (if even that) to support that conclusion.

The fact that this results in comically ridiculous stances should hardly be strange. It would be strange if such a irrational approach to thinking resulting in rational and reasonable outcomes.

[frunk]

Has it melted yet? Hypothetical BS. Will Yellowstone Caldera blow.....maybe. Will we get hit with an extinction level metor....maybe. Will etc.

The question is, where do you think the scientists are making a mistake?  Is it the amount of ice in Antarctica/Greenland?  Is it the potential for it to melt due to temperature increase?  Is it temperature increase itself?  Is it the influence CO2 and other greenhouse gases has on temperature?  Is it the assumption that we'll have plenty of dramatic but recoverable warnings other than the current glacier retreat and 1.8 mm/year sea level rise?

Yellowstone and the meteor are significantly different in that they are risks that have a hundreds of thousands to millions of years timeframe.  Global climate change is a risk that is going to play out in the next hundred years.

[jimmy olsen]

There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.

There is something we can do to prevent global warming.

We absolutely have the technological capability to deflect an extinction level meteor. We just haven't built it because the government is too cheap.

[Neil]

There is nothing we can do to prevent Yellowstone Caldera from blowing, or being hit by an extinction level meteor.

There is something we can do to prevent global warming.

We absolutely have the technological capability to deflect an extinction level meteor. We just haven't built it because the government is too cheap.

Only at sufficient distance.  And we don't do very much skywatching.

[Jacob]

Only at sufficient distance.  And we don't do very much skywatching.

Given current levels of skywatching, how much warning would we likely get if one was going to strike? And how much certainty would we have? Would it be one of those "there's-a-50%-chance" deals until the very end when we realize "oh fuck, it's 100%" or "phew"?

[Siege]

Where is the thread for the royal baby?

[Grey Fox]

Maybe it's simply the current ice age ending.

[Neil]

Only at sufficient distance.  And we don't do very much skywatching.

Given current levels of skywatching, how much warning would we likely get if one was going to strike? And how much certainty would we have? Would it be one of those "there's-a-50%-chance" deals until the very end when we realize "oh fuck, it's 100%" or "phew"?

It really depends.  Using Apophis as an example, it could be 20-30 years notice.  However, there's no reason to believe that would be typical.