×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Groundwater Use May Not Explain Half of Sea-Level Rise

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the science-is-complicated dept.

Earth 244

New submitter Sir Realist writes "A recent Slashdot scoop pointed us at a scientific study that claimed 42% of global sea-level rises could be due to groundwater use. It was a good story. But as is often the way with science, there are folks who interpret the data differently. Scott Johnson at Ars Technica has a good writeup which includes two recent studies that came to remarkably different conclusions from mostly the same data, and an explanation of the assumptions the authors were making that led to those differences. Essentially, there is some reason to think that the groundwater estimates used in the first study were too high. However, that's still under debate, so it's worth reading the whole argument. Scientific review in action!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

244 comments

I didn't believe it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40311851)

I think it has something to do with bunny rabbits.

Re:I didn't believe it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312513)

I think it has something to do with bunny rabbits.

or vagina.

Scientific review (3, Insightful)

x0 (32926) | about 2 years ago | (#40311869)

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

Got it...

m

Re:Scientific review (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40312033)

Or maybe it is simply that all peered reviewed papers get reviewed. And it is simply that climate change is a fact and it is happening ~ like we believe it is so all reviews of those papers turn up no problems.

Re:Scientific review (2, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40312047)

If you'd care to have a look at the literature, you'd see constant reviewing of all models, of all parameters, of all proxies. In contrast to just repeating the same old talking points, that would take effort, though, wouldn't it?

Re:Scientific review (0)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#40312571)

So where are the reviews that actually challenge the hypothesis - or is that untouchable?

Re:Scientific review (3, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40312593)

Well, within a period of 120 years, no one has brought up sufficient empirical data to challenge the hypothesis that the radiative balance of Earth deviates from the expected blackbody values due to greenhouse gases, as put forth by Arrhenius - it gets "touchable" once you provide data instead of talking points.

Re:Scientific review (0, Troll)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#40312831)

How disingenuous...

Clue: No one was putting forth the theory that the Earth was warming due to mankind's actions 120 years ago, so unless you can post a paper stating otherwise, trot that troll elsewhere.

Furthermore, much proof has come forth since then showing that CO2 isn't even the biggest source of greenhouse gas (Try methane for starters, and there's a fuckton of that thawing out under the sea now [wikipedia.org], even after numerous downward estimate revisions. 'course, that alone would put a crimp in the ever-so-constant and "scientific consensus" of "itz ALL MANKINDZ FUALT!!!!!!11!!!BBQ!").

Hell, they can't even figure out yet what concentrations we actually have, what would be considered "normal", and what would cause this doom-laden runaway effect scenario that we were treated to not even 10 years ago.

The funny part is, the research itself is often rife with actions that reek of fraud (seriously, "hide the decline"? What the fuck kind of actual science does that fall under?) Then there's the niggling fact that almost every time someone brings up anything even remotely contrary, the interloper is immediately accused of being in the employ of "Big Oil", or is otherwise and unceremoniously blackballed from the community at large by all means deemed necessary.

Tell you what - when the pro-AGW types clean their act up, and actually present something that isn't slanted, in constant need of models more tailored to fit a hypothesis instead of testing it, or isn't rife with hysteria, then maybe they can get some credibility as real scientists.

Re:Scientific review (5, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40312933)

"if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."

See also: Svante Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276. [globalwarmingart.com]

Now, if you clean up your act and stop simply spouting lies, we might have a discussion.

Re:Scientific review (3, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 2 years ago | (#40312947)

These points have been refuted so many times that it honestly isn't worth listing them again.

I sure as hell hope that no scientist has to work under these ludicrous standards you demand of the climatology field. They've demonstrated on several occasions that they have nothing to hide, and denialists just keep piling on them with more cherry-picked quotes. It's sickening to watch.

Re:Scientific review (4, Informative)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 2 years ago | (#40312729)

So where are the reviews that actually challenge the hypothesis - or is that untouchable?

Reviews don't do that; competing hypotheses do. In the world of science, a competing hypothesis overtakes the consensus if and only if it explains everything the old system could and more that it couldn't. Science demands alternative explanations that solve inconsistencies; finding a problem with the consensus is only the first step, and denialists are stuck there.

Re:Scientific review (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40312053)

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy, there. We've got too many satellites confirming it, along with thousands of ground stations and the upward trend is undeniable.

It's still up for discussion why it's happening or what it will eventually mean for us. Ethical scientists generally take the side of "Until we can predict with some confidence what will happen, we should do what we can to limit the impact," similar to the ideal behind the Hippocratic oath. Our present models, understanding, and theories point to rising sea levels, melting ice caps, and heating to the point where much of the ariable land along the equator will no longer be able to sustain industrial farming.

We're already seeing some of the effects of this rapid heating (in geological terms); In Japan, native moss is no longer used at several Zen shrines because it's become too warm for them to survive. Coral reefs are undergoing a mass-extinction event, and we are seeing weather patterns which roughly correspond to modelling predictions for a warmer Earth. If these trends continue, life will become increasingly inhospitable to humans. While long-term predictions aren't reliable, it is almost certain the Earth of 200 years from now will have a radically different climate than the Earth of today; We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age with as much speed and force as the Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event.

The debate really doesn't center on whether or not these things happen; The choice faced by our generation is not whether or not life after climate change is possible, but what kind of life it will be.

Re:Scientific review (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312089)

Wow. That Kool-aid must taste great.

Re:Scientific review (3, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#40312677)

Wow. That Kool-aid must taste great.

It's the other side that is chugging Kool-Aide. On one side you have climatologist and environmental scientists that have all agreed for a decade or more that we are seeing a major shift in the climate and we are the cause. On the other side are pundits that have an agenda to avoid changes that will affect lifestyle or corporate profits that have no formal education in climate science that say we can't affect weather no matter what we do to the Earth. Now which side sounds like the Kool-aide drinkers, the scientists or corporate America who are making a fortune off releasing CO2? I've heard claims all my life that we can't seriously affect the environment yet I've seen a massive change in the world over the last 50 years. Cities themselves cause heating because of all the dark roofs and roads so it's obvious we are having an affect on the environment. FYI the pundits are lying about all the experts that deny climate change. There was even a major study by a climate change denial group that had the same results as the climate scientist. Their reaction was to say that there is change but we can't be the cause. There was no proof that we weren't the cause it was their opinion. The carbon we are releasing predates the dinosaurs so it's insane to assume that it can't affect the environment. It took tens of millions of years to store it and we're releasing it in a couple of hundred years. To put it into perspective imagine a 1,000 years worth of your trash, you know those bags you leave out front for the garbage man. Now pile that thousand years of trash bags around your house. The pile would be hundreds of feet high. That's what we are doing when we release 400 million year old stored carbon. Think that ridiculous? Imagine ten million years of your garbage and you are getting closer to the truth. It's not the same thing obviously but it illustrates how extreme the release of CO2 has been over the last 200 years.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312801)

I think it is the blatant disregard for some of the more obvious signs, whether it can be called "global warming" or not: glaciers melting is the prime example. This particular phenomenon has been observed for quite some time (> 50 years), with pictures of receding glaciers. Or observational data regarding the increasing area of the Sahara Desert. Been reading about this for 30 years.

It is happening. Sure, the reasons why are hypotheses (but they're being backed up by observational data...doh), but whether the hypotheses are correct or not does not deny that these things are happening.

Sure, temperate zones will shift closer to the poles. But temperate land areas will get smaller.

Oh well, at least we're not talking (yet) about areas of pink fluffy powder and giant worms that eat everything in their path.

Re:Scientific review (2)

x0 (32926) | about 2 years ago | (#40312123)

The choice faced by our generation is not whether or not life after climate change is possible, but what kind of life it will be.

QED

m

Re:Scientific review (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312133)

Please post 1998 to present temp data, you global warming stud.....

Re:Scientific review (1, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#40312227)

It's still up for discussion why it's happening

Personally, I feel it's a bit disingenuous to say that without adding something along the lines of "but the most widely accepted and scientifically supported explanation is man made CO2 emissions". The plain fact of the matter is that there isn't much discussion amongst scientists as to the cause and that there's virtually no debate amongst climate scientists. Solar variation isn't enough to explain the changes we've seen and CO2 from other sources is a tiny fraction of human output (despite what many people would tell you online). Having a group of laymen trotting out the same tired arguments again and again while the experts explain why they are wrong isn't a debate, if it were then evolution would be up for debate as well!

Re:Scientific review (3, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | about 2 years ago | (#40312241)

>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

Re:Scientific review (3, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#40312315)

>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.

Re:Scientific review (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#40313935)

Over here in Finland it is actually getting a lot warmer than it used to. For several years now the temperature can be above zero even in January, but when I was a child that would have been totally unheard of; back then the temperature could drop as low as -35 degrees Celsius where I lived in.

Over here in Canada, the temperature could drop like that too. It could also be much colder than that. And much warmer. In fact we had a much warmer winter than average, last winter we had a much colder winter than average. In fact 50 years ago, seeing 10m snowdrifts and 8m of snowfall in a 1 day period were very common where I live. Not so much now, but last year we had it too(Southern Ontario). People leaving from their second story windows? Yep that was common 60-70 years ago too, happened last year as well. Again not all that common, happened when I was a kid.

Then again, there's plenty of stories about the settlers landing in the americas that what *is* Washington DC and Virginia was so inhospitable that 80% of the settlers died in their first winter due to the cold. And that was only 200-350 years ago.

Re:Scientific review (3, Informative)

andy16666 (1592393) | about 2 years ago | (#40312417)

>>>It's a scientific fact that global warming is real. There is no debate, and no controversy

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

They don't. Global temperatures continue to show a rise, despite certain local climate variations.

Re:Scientific review (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312767)

Oooh, another community college edumacated cracker stating "Oh there's snow on that there ground, so much for that global warming theee-orr-eee." Why don't you get a real education at a real university rather than a GOP brainwashing institute such as a community college.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40313065)

Warming temperatures causes more water to go into the atmosphere causing more precipitation including snow. Of course regional variations are as useful as anecdotal evidence anyway.

Re:Scientific review (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#40313121)

How come it's getting colder over the last decade with record levels of snowfall and cooler-than-normal summers? (I had heard by 2010 we wouldn't even know what snow is in Great Britain.)

Weather != climate. In fact, global warming has been shown to make weather more extreme - more hurricanes (a nice big hurricane can cool the ocean by a couple of degrees - it is a big heat engine after all). Summers will be hotter, drier, winters will be colder, snowier, etc. In fact, the melting ice cap has an interesting observation that winter wind patterns could push south bringing more cold air down with it.

So summers get hotter and drier, which makes farming much more difficult. Sure the northern areas get more arable land, but their growing periods are far shorter because of lesser sunlight.

The only real predictions are colder winters, hotter summers, and more hurricants/tornadoes (which is the natural way the oceans cool off).

Re:Scientific review (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312247)

It's still up for discussion why it's happening or what it will eventually mean for us. Ethical scientists generally take the side of "Until we can predict with some confidence what will happen, we should do what we can to limit the impact," similar to the ideal behind the Hippocratic oath.

My concern here is that without being able to predict the outcome with confidence it is not possible to determine what action will "limit the impact". What we need to do is to verify the models by predicting a future change and see if it happens as predicted. If so the model used is "good enough" and we can see if limiting carbon emission makes things better or worse.
We also have to get ridf of the myth that climate is something stable. The earth is on a journey from creation to end. No year will ever be the same as the last one. The distance to the moon changes, the distance to the Sun changes, the solar output changes. The cyclic model is just a model that works well enough. What we need to find is not a state that is "natural". What we need to determine is what kind of climate we want and do whatever it takes to get that climate, even if the this includes increasing gas emissions. Until we are willing to do this we are playing with the planet for the sake of politics rather than doing what is scientifically sound. (Also, it might be a better idea to experiment with Mars rather than to try to fix the production system while we still depends on it.)

Re:Scientific review (4, Insightful)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about 2 years ago | (#40312621)

Mod AC up. While more of an engineering exercise, this is more than likely the correct course of action.

We have to say for certain that given a certain subset of data, with X variables factored in, we can validate Y over a certain time frame.
This would tell us the following;

1. Is our science correct?
2. Are our predicted results accurate?
3. What factors occurred during this time frame that could have favored or skewed our estimates?
4. What should we do next?

Right now, the problem with AGW\Climate Change science is that it works like this;

1. Scientists gather data
2. Peer review takes place - "data only".
3. Scientific community finds potential "cause data".
4. Peer review takes place - "data only".
5. Scientific community makes recommendation based upon 2 different datasets (problem dataset, cause dataset)
6. Politicians scream and legislate based on #5.

Re:Scientific review (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312269)

First you say "It's still up for discussion why it's happening...", then you say "We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age..."

Which is it going to be? You seem objective at the start, but your bias is showing.

Re:Scientific review (5, Interesting)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#40312309)

I followed and agreed with your first two paragraphs. Even the first couple sentences of the 3rd paragraph. Then you went crazy.

Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.

Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned. Not that the earth is warming, but the cause. You conveniently failed to bring that part up in your first two paragraphs. You even say "it's still up for discussion why it's happening". Did you come to the conclusion while writing the paragraphs in between?

Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???

Re:Scientific review (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#40312567)

Define "radical" please.

The rate of change is important. Toss me a baseball and I'll catch it, whip it at my head and I probably won't.

We generally don't know the rate of change that previous global climate changes had, but the rates that we're seeing today would be equivilent to the ice age ending in a matter of decades or at most a couple centuries. 1.5 degrees so far might not sound like much but when look at the global scale that is a big change.

That's one of the problems with many proponents (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 2 years ago | (#40312817)

They start with the statement of "It is a scientific fact that global warming is happening," which is true. That the Earth is getting warmer outside of known cycles is a claim of fact, something you can measure, and measurements show it is indeed correct. No problems there.

However the problem then starts that they make a bunch of other claims, such as that if the warming continues Earth will be inhospitable, and so on, and want to claim that is all scientific fact too. No, not so much. That things will get worse would be an assertion or judgement call that would be based on a bunch of theories and hypothesis about what will happen if the warming continues. It is the kind of thing that is actually up for a lot of debate since you have to evaluate all the different theories of what might happen, how well supported they are, and then pass a judgement call as to if it would be better or worse.

Thing is, they present it as just something you have to accept part and parcel. A situation of "If you deny any of this, you are denying the facts." No, not really. Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is denying facts, unless they can show how the measurements that we use to reach that conclusion are flawed (given the measurements are world wide and spanning a century, it is possible, though unlikely, the conclusion is incorrect). However from that it does not automatically follow that things will be horrible.

Re:Scientific review (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40313071)

Inhospitable? You know the earth has been much warmer with humans living on it? Earth had a radically different climate 200 years ago, and 200 years before that, and 200 years before that. Define "radical" please.

No, the Earth has NOT had radically different climate change since the end of the last ice age... that's about 20,000 years of a pretty steady and unchanging climate. There have been a few glitches caused by volcanic eruption and the like, but it's always returned to baseline. Climate change has only really accelerated in the past 50--100 years, which is a drop in the bucket compared to that amount of time. Scientists are already pointing to climate changes observable within a single person's lifetime. In geological terms, that's massively fast. I would even say... radically so.

Then you finish with "we are directly responsible". That is the part being questioned.

It's the most likely possibility given the facts presently available. But like all new discoveries, it takes time to fully explore and document the relationships between so many complex variables and distill it into a simple truth. I'll start saying we aren't the cause when the body of assembled evidence weighs in the other direction. I can't say it has been settled with certainty, but then I also can't say prove the existance of the higgs-boson, yet I'm not about to discount the entire standard model because of it, anymore than I'm going to discount evolution because we're missing one fossil in a series of 100. Anyone can argue "There's not enough evidence!" for an infinity, but reasonable people draw conclusions based on available evidence, and if it's insufficient to do the responsible thing and gather more. You will never hear a scientist utter the phrase "But we have too much evidence!" If you truly feel there's another explanation then go find the evidence for it. This is the one field of inquiry where its participants are often heard to say "Why that's a very convincing argument. I must have been mistaken." I look forward to reading your peer-reviewed study on how humans have played a minority role in global warming.

Then you finish by saying earth will not be inhospitable. What is your opinion here???

At least in the United States, the majority of our water supply is derived from ground water sources. Most rivers are too polluted to be drinkable, and the quantity of fresh water existing in lakes is, and will continue, to decrease as a result of global warming. Considering that right now, today, at this moment there are states in the southern United States that are facing major water shortages, it's not hard to see how some areas could become uninhabitable due to a lack of drinkable water -- let alone have enough to farm the land.

In science, we form conclusions based on the available data. Now I'm only an amateur scientist, and I freely admit I am not a specialist in climate change. If there is a climatologist in the audience I would gladly yield to their authority; But I've read all the data in many journals, and there's two facts about this that are inescapable: First, that climate change is happening, and second that we're the most likely cause of it. At this point, it would take a significant new discovery to reverse that conclusion, and no such discoveries have been forthcoming -- every new piece of data I read about just further confirms that human beings are the cause. So I believe that what I've said is scientifically accurate. As to what to do about it... well, that's a lot more complicated and I'll just leave off by saying I think of all the available options, "do nothing" is the only one I'm firmly against.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40312413)

I believe you are confused on what constitutes a "scientific fact".

For example, tectonic plates are "scientific fact," It is widely and generally accepted that the Earth has tectonic plates, due to the overwhelming evidence. Relativity is also a "fact", but it is still subject to peer review. Some stellar objects have made relativity more complicated (black holes), yet the scientific fact remains after 80+ years of scrutiny.

Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming. Scientific fact does not change every 10 years or every time someone writes a blog. There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it. For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.

To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived. Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."

P.S. - 200 years ago the Earth underwent a mini Ice-Age, as was well documented throughout the Napoleonic Wars and the American Revolution. So yes, I hope we have a radically different climate. Traffic is bad enough in D.C., imagine if the commuters were staring at the icebergs in the Chesapeake Bay.

Re:Scientific review (2, Funny)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40312561)

The "O-Zone layer", yes? I'd refrain from talking about what constitutes science, if I were you...

Re:Scientific review (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40312861)

Sorry, some of us were not yet conceived when the ozone layer fiasco was going on. Criticizing only makes you look like a crotchety old man.

Re:Scientific review (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40313015)

You surely mean the "O-Zone" layer, yes? Exactly what fiasco are you talking about? The fact that actions against emitting more CFCs lead to the shrinking of the ozone hole? Color me unimpressed.

Re:Scientific review (1)

tbannist (230135) | about 2 years ago | (#40313703)

Global warming is neither of the above. In the 1970's, it was all about global cooling. In the 1980's, it was the O-Zone layer. Now it is global warming.

You seem to be confused. In 1970s some reporters made a big deal about global cooling, however, most scientists still believed the world would warm [skepticalscience.com]. It was about 60% warming and 10% cooling. The ozone layer was a different issue having to do with skin cancer, not climate change. In the 1980s the scientists continued to research global warming and most of the 10% who predicted cooling were won over by the evidence supporting global warming. That's how science is supposed to work.

There's data to prove global warming, and data to disprove it.

There's evidence to prove global warming, but there really isn't any to disprove it. Like most established theories, evidence that at first seems counter to the theory, often ends up incorporated into the theory as nuance.

For every article about the moss not growing in Japan, there's one about icebergs blocking the Bearing Strait.

I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.

To say that Global Warming is indisputable fact that should not be debated is a disgrace to Newton, Einstein, Tesla, and every other real and empirical scientist who has ever lived.

Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.

Real scientists would say "I think this is happening, now somebody prove me wrong so society as a whole can learn and grow."

That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.

Re:Scientific review (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40314031)

I'm not sure how an iceberg peeling off the Arctic ice cap and blocking the Bering Strait would constitute evidence against global warming. I would think that was the expected behaviour if the polar ice cap was breaking apart due to global warming.

The Bering Strait had a record amount of ice still in the ocean well into April, the longest it has ever been present. If this ice was present in December, your argument may be valid. April is not winter, and the ice should not have been there.

Scientists don't debate facts. Facts are facts. Global average temperatures continue to rise, that's a fact and that fact means global warming is occurring. You can argue about the consequences of global warming, or about details within the theory, but the theories explaining the phenomenon have been tested for decades and still hold strong.

And this is what every single global-warming alarmist says, "The facts are not up for discussion, it's already proven, just do what I tell you to do!" Remember when your parents would do that, you ask why and they say "Because I said so!" That's what you, and your global-warming buddies are doing. You all sound more like a Pope during the Crusades than "scientists."

That would put you back in the 1970s when there was still some controversy on the basics. Real scientists don't say "prove to me that evolution doesn't exist" or "prove to me that physics is all a hoax" or "prove to me tectonic plates exist". That sort of thing is wasted on theory that is older than the scientist. That's how you treat new theories rather than theories that are more than 30 years old.

Worth noting that theory of evolution was formed about 160 years ago, physics has been evolving for thousands of years, and tectonic plate theory is about 100 years old. Thirty years old for a scientific THEORY is nothing. And with people like you shooting down any critical review, of course there will be no peer review.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312653)

Who is we? Ethical Scientists? Or do you mean the liars who take government grants? You do know the Earth spun us, people, the ones being blamed for the so called change? Does the Earth not know how to handle its own? Who is our generation?

The global warming community has a lot to answer for as far as lies go, and I'm quite sick of the fact they want carbon credits and everything else. Life will change if this fallacy proceeds one way or another. Id rather take my chances on mother nature, than mankind or the government. I love people who post like the end is coming, if you truly believe in the stuff STOP posting, since it uses evil electricity. Stop driving a car etc, etc.

This site is truly stupid.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#40312969)

Climate change is happening.
I agree. Climate change has always happened.
Before humans existed. Massive changes. What effect we have on this dynamic and misunderstood climate is what is debatable.
Any real scientist would put "Earth has always gone through massive climate changes due to its nature and that of the sun" as the hypothesis to take down.
Doing it with something that has more inconsistencies than what we know may actually be right but it is not good science.

Re:Scientific review (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40313301)

Got some more trivialities that actually have nothing to do with the state of the science? If you want to put the current warming trend down to natural and, in particular, solar influences, please present a model with more explanatory power than the current anthropogenic global warming models. I'm waiting. I am very patient.

Re:Scientific review (1)

thegreatemu (1457577) | about 2 years ago | (#40313263)

When I read your second paragraph, I was really ecstatic for a minute there. You hit the nail on the head that so many climate change prophets are attacking with screwdrivers. There is a huge difference between the very well-demonstrated rising temperature and the significantly hazier predictions of future states based on extremely complicated and chaotic models. But based on very simple arguments, our actions are _likely_ to have an effect, and so doing what we can to minimize that possible effect is rational. (Unfortunately, the haze predictors are being used as justification for the degree of the response, which is not really justified.)

And then you negate all your rationality with the statement "We are directly responsible for this planet entering a new geological age with as much speed and force as the Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event". It was a good job trying to sound rational, but you really need to keep your discourse consistent.

FACT! (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about 2 years ago | (#40313713)

FACT: Earth didn't always have CO2 in atmosphere
FACT: Over time CO2 has increased
FACT: Earth didn't always have complex life
FACT: Over time complex life has increased

THUS: The more CO2 we have in Earth's atmosphere the more abundant and complex life we have.

I'd make you a pretty graph but I'm too lazy, instead I'll describe it: It involves two correlated lines closely mirroring each other upwards.

There take that!

Is that the whole story? Probably not.

Re:Scientific review (3, Insightful)

Lisias (447563) | about 2 years ago | (#40313733)

It's a scientific fact that global warming is real.

As the Earth being the center of the Universe was, once, another scientific fact.

Every single scientific fact is prone to scrutiny and refutal. Every single one.

We can assume that some scientific facts are insanely unlikely to be refuted (Gravity Law, for the sake of my balls and despair of my girlfriend's boobies, are one of them). But never, ever, assume any "scientific fact" above any controversy or debate.

Dogmas have no place here.

Not the same. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312087)

Climate Change has been studied for decades with thousands of studies that keep coming to similar conclusions.

And how many studies have been done on this hypothesis that ground water is the cause of higher sea levels?

When this hypothesis gets a few more studies behind it and mostly come to the same conclusion, then I'll give it the same credence as Global Climate change. I won't hesitate - I have no political, religious or any other dogmatic interest in either; I take that back, I am dogmatic about scientific rigor.

Re:Scientific review (4, Insightful)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about 2 years ago | (#40312163)

Any individual study can be reviewed at any time. This rarely has any significant impact on the consensus formed by the weight of all other existing related studies. If there are two interpretations of a study based on two different sets of assumptions, the question can be resolved by testing the assumptions. The fact that a single study is ambiguous does nothing to cast doubt on the remaining vast preponderance of scientific studies which unambiguously indicate that climate change is both real and man made.

'Climate Change' is a done deal

The scientific community has overwhelmingly agreed that Climate Change is occuring, and that there is a greater than 90% chance it is man-made. [wikipedia.org]

That this is the consensus is a cold, hard, unambiguous fact. If you want to believe that climate change is not real, or not man-made, the only remaining avenue of rationalisation is that the scientific community a wrong or lying for some reason. This puts climate change deniers on the same ground as creationists.

Re:Scientific review (2, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | about 2 years ago | (#40312323)

At one time it was the scientific consensus that light was a wave, and that it traveled through a medium called "ether" that filled the gap between the sun and the earth. 99% of scientists believed this.
They were wrong.
Consensus doesn't really mean much..... read "Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Learn about paradigm shift; how an entire generation of scientists can believe with absolute certainty a false fact.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312779)

God help us, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The aether model was tested and found wanting. But that doesn't mean it was good in a fixed frame, or indeed very useful. Isaac Newton was wrong - Newtonian mechanics has been superseded by (first special and now) general relativity. But that doesn't mean it wasn't good enough to get man to the moon, or calculate the orbits of Jupiter's moons, or design working aeroplanes. The consensus was that Newton was probably right for the most part. Here the consensus is that global warming is man made and happening. It might not be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore it and stick you head in the sand, any more than knowing Newtonian mechanics is wrong means you can ignore a comet heading towards your planet.

Re:Scientific review (4, Informative)

icensnow (932196) | about 2 years ago | (#40312783)

The idea that light was a wave moving through the ether was consistent with all available data, especially given the limitations of 19th century measurement, until the Michelson-Morley experiments. Maxwell's equations are still consistent with pre-relativity understanding, and I certainly had to learn how to work with them. The old way of thinking is not so much wrong as limited to a certain level of measurement, just as with Newton's laws and pretty much everything else before relativity and quantum mechanics. The old ways of thinking are still useful and generally correct within their assumptions. I begin to think that we need some kind of Godwin's Law against bringing up Kuhn and paradigms in an actual scientific discussion -- it seldom leads anywhere useful but usually is used just like this post to say "just because everyone who knows something thinks so doesn't mean it's right."

Re:Scientific review (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40312249)

One is one paper, the other is scientific consensus. Please troll elsewhere.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312333)

Silly you to question the religion of the believers! Don't be distracted by "it's a consensus, move along". These question is how much are we contributing to it? Few if any of the predictions made by the models 10 years ago have come to pass. If you are still trumping those up, then the Arctic ice caps only have 3 months left before they are melted completely.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/the-arctic-ocean-could-be-nearly-ice-free-at-the-end-of-summer-by-2012/

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312343)

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

Ah, somebody's pretending they're a genuine skeptic again.

Actually, you're more like somebody trying to assert there's still worth in phrenology, phologiston or the celestial spheres.

Or worse. You're somebody who is a paid shill trying to appear as if you were neutral, a genuine skeptic, thinking of what's best for anybody.

Your professions of virtue, your self-victimized martyrdom is a sign you aren't honest, but some people still believe your act.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312409)

Of course it's a "done deal." Al Gore said so. There is NO scientific debate or disagreement on "climate change" / AGW / etc.

Right.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312587)

So, we can review groundwater/sea-level scientific studies, but 'Climate Change' is a done deal.

Got it...

Your lame attempt at sarcasm aside, you basically do have it correct. Climate change has been researched by thousands of people across dozens of disciplines from hundreds of countries and they all arrive at similar results. That's as close to confirmation as you're going to get in science. There's about as much confirmation of climate change as there is for General Relativity, and when someone claims there is still a scientific 'debate' about the validity of Relativity they are rightly laughed out of the room.

Re:Scientific review (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40314145)

"la la la no it isn't can't hear you la la la" does not qualify as an alternate hypothesis.

Good, let the scientists hash it out (5, Funny)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#40311879)

As soon as a politician with no scientific qualifications weighs in, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed.

Interesting Theory (3, Insightful)

Ferretman (224859) | about 2 years ago | (#40311959)

We certainly HAVE pumped a lot of groundwater out and I presume most of it ends up in the atmosphere or the oceans one way or the other.

Glad to see REAL scientists questioning AGW tenets.

Ferret

Re:Interesting Theory (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40312073)

Wow, do people ever think any more? Okay, we pumped ground water out. Did it stop raining? Did the processes for saturation suddenly stop working? Did all of the ground water magically vanish that we were pumping out, rivers all dried up, and shit we all live in a desert now?

As of about five years ago, you should immediately have known that "Science" no longer means Science. What you read is from an agenda, and not Scientists.

Honestly, I feel really bad for Scientists that want to do real science. The only way they can seem to make money is to spew garbage that fills someone's agenda, they can't do real science (or at least they can't write papers based on it).

Re:Interesting Theory (4, Informative)

bbecker23 (1917560) | about 2 years ago | (#40312257)

The issue is actually pretty similar to that with declining returns in oil production. Groundwater replenishment is certainly still happening. Similarly, the processes which produce oil are still occurring. The issue is that we are consuming much faster than we are replenishing. Groundwater, depending on the depth of the aquifer and the material in which it exists, can take years to thousands of years to be replenished. Oil takes millions.

The reason that ocean levels might rise from groundwater is that we are bringing it up faster than it can go back down. All that water has to go somewhere.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40312531)

Which of course becomes a contributing factor, but it's painfully obvious that it's not the only reason for the rise. Ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic have much more bearing than ground water as the article tried to state. Those do not include Glacial loss, permafrost loss, etc...

If anything, I think the Global Warming issues point at an immediate problem we have with the Scientific community (by no way is that statement intended to blame the Scientists directly). Instead of doing "Science" they are working on theories that an agenda wants them to work on. Real science took a back seat long ago.

Re:Interesting Theory (1, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40312609)

What agenda do you think climate scientists are working for? If climate scientists were catering to the powerful, wouldn't they be publishing data and models that the oil industries like?

The fact that there is such strong agreement among climate scientists in the face of such powerful and wealthy opposition is a very good indication that they are not in fact serving an agenda.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40312773)

There are at least 2 distinct lobby groups. Polluters, and GW. The GW group also breaks down in to two more groups. The natural and man made.

Each has their own funding and support, and each publishes reports based on biases that tend to show that the opinion they receive funding from is correct.

I think you are making a mistake in thinking that Money can only come from one source. You also make a second mistake, in that the creation of controversy has no financial gain.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40313153)

Obviously, the oil industry is huge and has a lot of money to put into research that would benefit it. However, the overwhwelming majority of the research out there supports the AGW hypothesis. Therefore, if you are correct and science is primarily agenda driven, the AGW group must have even more money than the oil industry.

Where do those funds come from, and how is creating controversy profitable for the group that provides the funding?

I mean, it's conceivable that creating controversy could be profitable for James Hansen. He has made a career out of it. But he's just a guy. How does fabricating evidence in favor of AGW benefit his funding agencies (NASA)? Why would NASA choose to take on the most powerful industry in the world?

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40313285)

Sorry, you are going to have to search for it since I'm lazy at the moment (actually to swamped with other things). This was a big internal discussion at my last work place, and a person was able to track down many of the funding sources. Greenpeace was one, and of course Oil and Coal were big ones.

The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.

I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that? Is NASA the only source of scientific data being used currently? I think that you will find that Politicians stay pretty far from NASA's data when proposing policies, laws, and discussion of GW. MSM uses the same data you find Politicians have.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40313783)

Greenpeace was one

Greenpeace's total budget is around10 million per year [activistcash.com]. How is it that they can influence the overwhelming majority of climate research?

If climate science is primarily agenda driven, and climate science is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW there must be a group out there that profits from the fabrication of data for the AGW hypothesis and has more money than the oil industry. I don't see any candidates.

The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.

Yes, this would prompt the oil industry to manufacture controversy allowing it to continue polluting. But that's only one side of the story.

Who benefits by the fabrication of AGW data? If no one benefits, then how do you square your claim that climate science is primarily agenda driven with the fact that climate science is overwhelmingly in agreement with the AGW hypothesis?

I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that?

NASA does a considerable amount of research into the radiation of energy by planetary bodies. This research is diretly related to the AGW argument. Those models are developed and used by people like James Hansen to predict what will happen to the energy our planet absorbs, given the composition of the atmosphere. If you are correct, and all of this is bunk science driven by an agenda, then NASA must have been coopted by some special interest group. Is that your claim?

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40313847)

Apologies, the Greenpeace US budget is around 10 million/year. Globally it's 360 million. I should have read more carefully.

I will point out that 360 million is still peanuts compared to the oil industry. If money speaks louder than facts in climate science, why is the consensus not what the oil industry wants to hear?

Re:Interesting Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312895)

Most science starts with an idea to be tested, either to support that idea, or to disprove another idea. Another word for "idea" is "agenda".

So put the "agenda" blow-up doll argument back into its box and send it back.

Re:Interesting Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312751)

Was there somebody claiming that groundwater pumping was the only reason for the rise? I thought the most ambitious had calculated ~40%, which is hardly "only."

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40313157)

This article does exactly what you say, however it's presentation by other media has been: "See, no global warming. We use to much water!". Sanity is not a requirement to work in the media. On occasion, I listen to a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh on the way to work. In the last week, I have heard at least 2 segments claiming that Global Warming is a farce because plants need CO2, so CO2 can't be rising to cause global warming.

And yes, I probably read way to much in to the comments of the post I replied to.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312283)

Yes, the water will eventually return to the ground, but some of it has been underground for 100,000 years, and may take that long to return to the depths it came from.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312391)

Some of the aquifers we are using do not get recharged because they have impervious materials between them and the surface. The water we pump out of them does not go back into them and they do not get recharged by rain.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | about 2 years ago | (#40312493)

>>>Did all of the ground water magically vanish that we were pumping out

If you read the article, it clearly says groundwater levels have DROPPED over the last few decades. The grandparent poster was correct. You are wrong.

WE NEED MORE RAINWATER TANKS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312245)

Holy smoke batman, the ground doesnt absorb anymore, this must be the work of the joker!

That being said if you believe this so strongly should you not be out spruiking that rainwater tanks for everyone [and greater underground reservoirs] is the only way to stop the sea from covering all the land on the planet, it's not like the corporations are going to stop using ground water amirite and there is alot of ground underneath the ocean that we can take the water out of.

[That the capture is puddling seems somewhat ironic]

Re:Interesting Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312393)

Allegedly there were more year-round streams flowing in the San Francisco Bay area 100 years ago. In one of the local history pieces I read that developers sold the idea of "trout you could catch by your front door". You still see some properties like this, and you wonder why they built so close to stream banks. That's why. Today there are no fish, there is 100 years of bank erosion, and there are bugs near the water. That's when there's water. Apparently the withdrawal of groundwater has caused some of these streams to stop flowing during the Summer. There's a really sad reminder of this in Woodsise--a large fish carved from redwood with a small plaque explaining how there used to be a salmon run in the stream. I think overfishing killed the salmon though...

Re:Interesting Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312671)

1. Ground water pumping does not affect how much water "ends up in the atmosphere"
2. This has *nothing* to do with AGW

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the idiocy of your post. Sorry, should have meant a poast.

Re:Interesting Theory (1)

guises (2423402) | about 2 years ago | (#40313445)

I know this is Slashdot and you didn't read the article, so let me help you out:

Other researchers in the field can spot dodgy methods in a paper like the mascot in a cereal box knock-off of Where’s Waldo? Scientists know that every study is imperfect or incomplete in some way and are especially skeptical of results that contradict—rather than build upon—the existing science. When lots of data has been published supporting one conclusion, and then a single data set points in a different direction, the most likely explanation is that something is wrong with that rogue data set.

The thrust of the matter is that there have been several other previous studies on the effects of groundwater contribution to sea level rise, all with conclusions in roughly the same (low) ballpark. Then a single study comes along with wildly different results and that's the one which gets heavily reported on in popular media. I don't know who the real scientists are in this case (and you don't either), but we'll see if the new study survives a thorough peer review.

Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312147)

Go carve blocks of ice out of Antarctica and drop them down into massive man-made vertical drops.
The circle of life continues. For another season!
Hurry up and make me King of Existence already.

But really:
1) find hot areas
2) massive mirrors
3) black heat absorber half a meter under the water
4) point mirrored sunlight at the heat absorber
5) capture the steam
6) ????
7) profit.
Hell, even the black heat absorber under the water would do in all honesty. It just needs to be slightly under the surface so more water is likely to fall loose of the rest and fly upwards in the updraft from the rest of the steam.
Funnel all that water in to the deserts and put it through a massive solar tower, comes splashing down over lots of dynamos, free water and power at the same time, sorted.

They can't even "count" groundwater (1, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | about 2 years ago | (#40312155)

Just finished the article. These scientists can't even reach a conclusion of how much groundwater was pulled from reservoirs *even when directly measuring it*. Some say 0% loss. Others 40% loss.

And yet these same people claim they can predict the temperature 100 years from now. :-| Riiiight. If they can't get *current* numbers right, even when pulling out their rules and measuring, how can we trust anything they say about the future water level, temperatures, et cetera? The Greeks called this "hubris".

Re:They can't even "count" groundwater (0)

benzaholic (1862134) | about 2 years ago | (#40312281)

"These same people"? Do you mean all "scientists" look the same to you? Talk about hubris.... With that attitude, I guess I can see how people who think and who create and constantly refine mathematical models of real world effects in order to try to better predict them must all seem pretty alien to you. So sad.

Re:They can't even "count" groundwater (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | about 2 years ago | (#40312431)

>>>"These same people"? Do you mean all "scientists" look the same to you?

Yes.
They all share the same profession and general beliefs. Ditto engineers, programmers, doctors, nurses with their respective careers.

   

Cause (1)

skyggen (888902) | about 2 years ago | (#40312279)

The cause of Global Warming is Simple; Humans.

Re:Cause (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#40314129)

The cause of Global Warming is Simple; Humans.

Because humans took the planet from 0 Kelvin to the temperature it is now, right?

Re:Cause (3, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#40314173)

My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.

It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).

Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.

Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.

At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.

It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.

The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.

It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.

Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.

I thought water evaporated (2, Funny)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#40312401)

I think a 3rd grader better review all this data, because according to the current grade-school curriculum, water evaporates, condenses into clouds, rains, fills lakes, rivers, aquifers, etc, and then evaporates again in a seemingly recurring cycle.

With global warming, shouldn't the rate of evaporation increase causing more water to evaporate, increasing cloud cover and rain and filling up groundwater reservoirs?

Doesn't more cloud cover block the suns heat thus reducing Global warming?

I know everybody thinks the world is going to sh*t and we are living in Hell and the planet will be destroyed in a matter of decades, but I find it hard to believe that after a few billion years of water evaporating, condensing and raining that suddenly this basic concept of a global ecosystem some-how no longer applies.

If a 3rd grader can just step up figure this sh*t out for us cause obviously the "scientific" community doesn't have a f*cking clue

Re:I thought water evaporated (2)

ChromaticDragon (1034458) | about 2 years ago | (#40312809)

Is this a troll? Do you actually believe it's reasonable to attempt to refute current scientific studies with 3rd-grade textbooks?

No matter what folk personally believe (or want to believe), does it not seem inappropriate simply to assume scientists specifically or in bulk are simply stupid? Is it not more productive to maintain an inquisitive approach and ask yourself what you might be lacking in your own understanding?

Now, to the actual point, your trite reference to elementary school understanding of the water cycle completely ignores all the relevant volumes. How much water is evaporating? How much water is raining/snowing? How much water is being pumped out of aquifers? How much water is draining down to replenish aquifers? How much water is being taken out of rivers for irrigation? How much water is sinking into the ground vs. escaping via run-off?

It's trivial to explain the water cycle in a simplistic sense. But it is incredibly foolhardy just to assume certain things are or will always be in balance (especially related to FRESH water). Your claim that increased rain is filling up aquifers can be straightforwardly disproved. They call this "fossil water" for a reason. Worldwide, we're exhausting groundwater (much) faster than it's being replenished. And increased precipitation due to increased evaporation isn't going to help if much of that extra rain is simply falling over the oceans - which is what the vast majority of modelling suggests will occur with increased warming. Some areas will get wetter. Many areas will endure droughts. And remember, heavy rain on parched ground just runs off.

Re:I thought water evaporated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40313149)

you got trolled

Re:I thought water evaporated (1)

buglista (1967502) | about 2 years ago | (#40312901)

THANK YOU!

Please, someone tell the British Meteorological Office that water evaporates, forms clouds and this can lead to occlusion of the sun at times. I'm sure they'll be EXTREMELY GLAD that someone bothered to mention it to them.

Re:I thought water evaporated (2)

pk001i (649678) | about 2 years ago | (#40313011)

Strawman much?

Although I do not know these scientists personally, I have a hunch that they understand the water cycle, and still believe that water evaporates. The groundwater is constantly recharging, it is just that we are removing the groundwater faster than it can recharge. This recharge deficiency could be due to a number of things, we could simply taking out too much water, or we could have altered the recharge mechanisms. Calculating how much water we take out is easy, but understanding all the ways that we could be interrupting the recharge mechanism is pretty complex. Off the top of my head we could have asphalted the recharge zone, or altered rainfall/snow-melt patterns, altered the natural drainage system via ditches and canals and sewage systems.

I don't really understand the contempt towards earth scientists these days. The vast majority of these people are highly intelligent, and are honestly attempting to understand these highly complex systems. If I were to ask myself, "Who should I talk to to better understand hydrology?" It would be to talk to a hydrologist, just like if I were to ask myself "Who should I talk to learn about cancer treatments?" I would go talk to an oncologist. Believe it or not, there is a good chance that these scientists, who have spend decades trying to understand these systems know more than you, just like I imagine you know more than them in your given field. (As a geophysicist, I don't know much about biology, and so I choose to trust those who have devoted their lives to it's study, just like those biologists generally trust me when I explain some aspect of geophysics.)

That is all.

Re:I thought water evaporated (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 2 years ago | (#40313907)

Well put.

May I, just from personal curiosity, ask in what particular field of geophysics you work? I used to share the building with our geophysics guys while I did my PhD in biochemistry. They were not so helpful on ecosystem questions, though - they were mostly concerned with high-pressure metamorphic stuff trying to model it in their diamond-stamp-huge-arse-pressure-press ;)

different estimations lead to different conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312457)

There are massive unknowns in the dataset, and the two groups used different numbers for their estimations. Then they came to different results. It's not surprising.

Re:different estimations lead to different conclus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40313591)

Just goes to show: correlation doesn't imply hydration.

tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40312669)

To summarize: "We assume that the previous study guessed the wrong data, but we assume that we guessed correctly, since our guess is closer to actual measurements. And when the paper of our objections gets published, we'll find out who made an ass out of whom."

Here in North Carolina (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40313195)

We let our lawmakers decide. No need for science, we just pass a law to stop sea level rise from being planned for.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...