Massive Antarctica ice sheet is cracking due to warming oceans

[Old Rocks]

When a giant (225 square mile) slice of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier broke off in 2015, scientists wondered exactly what caused it. Well, they now have an explanation... and it's not very reassuring. They've determined through satellite imagery that the break started when a rift was formed at the base of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, almost 20 miles inland, in 2013. Most likely, warming oceans intruded the sheet at the bedrock well below sea level, triggering cracks that gradually made their way upward. In other words, Antarctic ice could be much more susceptible to breaking up than it seems on the surface, and that separation may be happening faster than researchers expected.

There's still a lot left unanswered. The discoverers want to know just how these rifts get started, and determine their overall effect on the stability of ice shelves. That will require data collected from the air and on the ground, not just in space. And that may be difficult for US researchers when the incoming Trump administration appears bent on shutting down"politicized science" -- that is, anything which studies the causes of climate change. The US and UK are already teaming up on field research in the area, however, so they'll likely have more info regardless of long-term American science funding.

If the glacier break is a sign of things to come, it reinforces predictions that humanity is in for a rough ride as the Earth warms up. Scientists believe that the entire West Antarctica Ice Sheet is likely to collapse within the next 100 years, sending a massive volume of water into the sea. That would be enough to raise the global sea level by almost 10 feet and flood coastal cities. The newly analyzed satellite data suggests that the collapse could happen sooner than later, and possibly within your lifetime.
Massive Antarctica ice sheet is cracking due to warming oceans

Looks as if the scientists have been a bit conservative once again.

 

[TNHarley]

Thanks for the info. I hope nobody freaks out about it, though. It is just Earth being Earth

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

 

[Deplorable Infidel]

Don't confuse nobody with no facts...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

Yet you bloviate about nothing remotely germane to my post you quoted. YOU claim global warming to be fact, which constitutes Scientific Law. My challenge was to provide a prediction based upon that law that has been achieved. You failed to do so.

That is fact not conjecture.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomalies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

Yet you bloviate about nothing remotely germane to my post you quoted. YOU claim global warming to be fact, which constitutes Scientific Law. My challenge was to provide a prediction based upon that law that has been achieved. You failed to do so.

That is fact not conjecture.

I never claimed "global warming is a fact", i.e. a scientific Law; lying does not make your posts credible. Review the highlighted points in my post, and then apologize for being the liar you seem to be! Of course not being capable of comprehending my prose may be an excuse - were you home taught.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Your position on global warming / climate change is well known and quite consistent. I did not lie, yet you do and have the audacity to ask for an apology for a lie that never occurred. Are you saying now that GW / CC isn't real? If not, then please explain what you said on 9/24/14:

"There seem to be lots of "Zealots" and only a few fringe conservatives brain washed by the brothers Koch, et al, who deny Climate Change is a threat and thus an issue which needs addressing:"

 

[ScienceRocks]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

Yet you bloviate about nothing remotely germane to my post you quoted. YOU claim global warming to be fact, which constitutes Scientific Law. My challenge was to provide a prediction based upon that law that has been achieved. You failed to do so.

That is fact not conjecture.

What ever idiot. Please go live in your cave and stick your head in the sand about the reality that the ice sheets are melting and our cities are screwed. Jezzzzz. Fact in this case moron is the data is so solid that most scientist accept it,,,not so much making it a law.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

Yet you bloviate about nothing remotely germane to my post you quoted. YOU claim global warming to be fact, which constitutes Scientific Law. My challenge was to provide a prediction based upon that law that has been achieved. You failed to do so.

That is fact not conjecture.

What ever idiot. Please go live in your cave and stick your head in the sand about the reality that the ice sheets are malting and our cities are screwed. Jezzzzz. Fact in this case moron is the data is so solid that most scientist accept it,,,not so much making it a law.

Please provide a video of those "malting" ice sheets...Pupps would love to see that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

We keep posting the same things and keep asking for any of the repeatable lab experiments demonstrating the "link" between a few PPM of CO2 and "Warming" and we never get any experiments back, just predictions and models

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When a giant (225 square mile) slice of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier broke off in 2015, scientists wondered exactly what caused it. Well, they now have an explanation... and it's not very reassuring. They've determined through satellite imagery that the break started when a rift was formed at the base of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, almost 20 miles inland, in 2013. Most likely, warming oceans intruded the sheet at the bedrock well below sea level, triggering cracks that gradually made their way upward. In other words, Antarctic ice could be much more susceptible to breaking up than it seems on the surface, and that separation may be happening faster than researchers expected.

There's still a lot left unanswered. The discoverers want to know just how these rifts get started, and determine their overall effect on the stability of ice shelves. That will require data collected from the air and on the ground, not just in space. And that may be difficult for US researchers when the incoming Trump administration appears bent on shutting down"politicized science" -- that is, anything which studies the causes of climate change. The US and UK are already teaming up on field research in the area, however, so they'll likely have more info regardless of long-term American science funding.

If the glacier break is a sign of things to come, it reinforces predictions that humanity is in for a rough ride as the Earth warms up. Scientists believe that the entire West Antarctica Ice Sheet is likely to collapse within the next 100 years, sending a massive volume of water into the sea. That would be enough to raise the global sea level by almost 10 feet and flood coastal cities. The newly analyzed satellite data suggests that the collapse could happen sooner than later, and possibly within your lifetime.
Massive Antarctica ice sheet is cracking due to warming oceans

Looks as if the scientists have been a bit conservative once again.

"Most likely, warming oceans intruded the sheet at the bedrock well below sea level..."

Undersea volcanoes?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomalies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

We keep posting the same things and keep asking for any of the repeatable lab experiments demonstrating the "link" between a few PPM of CO2 and "Warming" and we never get any experiments back, just predictions and models

How do you propose such an experiment, putting half the earth as the control, and adding "a few PPM of CO2" to the other half?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

Yet you bloviate about nothing remotely germane to my post you quoted. YOU claim global warming to be fact, which constitutes Scientific Law. My challenge was to provide a prediction based upon that law that has been achieved. You failed to do so.

That is fact not conjecture.

What ever idiot. Please go live in your cave and stick your head in the sand about the reality that the ice sheets are malting and our cities are screwed. Jezzzzz. Fact in this case moron is the data is so solid that most scientist accept it,,,not so much making it a law.

Please provide a video of those "malting" ice sheets...Pupps would love to see that.

Here you go:

Of course you really were not posting a question, you're being captious, a jerks response to a typo.

 

[yiostheoy]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

All these Scientific terms are mere shadows of what they really are: inferences from a collection of observed data.

The Law Of Gravity holds true for all our observations of spacecraft nearing any planet or satellite that we know of which we have sent space probes to.

We have never observed any place with out space probes that has not been influenced by gravity of one sort or another either from the Earth, from the Sun, from our Moon, or from our nearby or distant planets or their moons.

It is therefore safe to say that gravity occurs everywhere, although we can only actually speak from experience for our own Solar System.

We call it a "law" but it is just an inference, nothing more.

From this inference, our scientists (astronomers and astrophysicists) infer that the same thing happens around other stars as well and also in the middle of our Milky Way Galaxy even though we have never sent a probe to any other star nor even to the middle of our Galaxy.

It is always best to keep in mind what Science is, and what it is not.

Science is "natural philosophy" as it was originally called before it was named "science."

Science is NOT written in stone.

Science is NOT Religion.

Science is not Pure Philosophy.

Pure Philosophy is superior to them all.

Science is subordinate to Pure Philosophy.

Religion is subordinate to Pure Philosophy and to Science.

When the Pope refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the satellites of Jupiter as evidence that not all things revolve around the Earth as the center of the Universe, he was being ignorant of the power of Science and of Philosophy over Religion.

BUT do NOT make Science your Religion -- doing so is really ignorant too.

The Earth is warming -- sure -- it has several times -- and cooled again as well -- over the past 100,000 years that we know of from the archaeology. It will likely (inference) continue to do so in the future in cycles.

Do we know why yet? No. Morons and imbeciles that think they know why are just being ignorant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomalies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

We keep posting the same things and keep asking for any of the repeatable lab experiments demonstrating the "link" between a few PPM of CO2 and "Warming" and we never get any experiments back, just predictions and models

How do you propose such an experiment, putting half the earth as the control, and adding "a few PPM of CO2" to the other half?

I was unaware that CO2 needed a critical mass to effect temperature, that's the first time I've heard it. The AGW guys keep telling us that CO2 itself has the capacity to "trap heat" therefore you could conduct a control experiment on a far smaller scale that the entire Earth itself.

 

[yiostheoy]

When a giant (225 square mile) slice of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier broke off in 2015, scientists wondered exactly what caused it. Well, they now have an explanation... and it's not very reassuring. They've determined through satellite imagery that the break started when a rift was formed at the base of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, almost 20 miles inland, in 2013. Most likely, warming oceans intruded the sheet at the bedrock well below sea level, triggering cracks that gradually made their way upward. In other words, Antarctic ice could be much more susceptible to breaking up than it seems on the surface, and that separation may be happening faster than researchers expected.

There's still a lot left unanswered. The discoverers want to know just how these rifts get started, and determine their overall effect on the stability of ice shelves. That will require data collected from the air and on the ground, not just in space. And that may be difficult for US researchers when the incoming Trump administration appears bent on shutting down"politicized science" -- that is, anything which studies the causes of climate change. The US and UK are already teaming up on field research in the area, however, so they'll likely have more info regardless of long-term American science funding.

If the glacier break is a sign of things to come, it reinforces predictions that humanity is in for a rough ride as the Earth warms up. Scientists believe that the entire West Antarctica Ice Sheet is likely to collapse within the next 100 years, sending a massive volume of water into the sea. That would be enough to raise the global sea level by almost 10 feet and flood coastal cities. The newly analyzed satellite data suggests that the collapse could happen sooner than later, and possibly within your lifetime.
Massive Antarctica ice sheet is cracking due to warming oceans

Looks as if the scientists have been a bit conservative once again.

"Most likely, warming oceans intruded the sheet at the bedrock well below sea level..."

Undersea volcanoes?

We just don't know yet.

Maybe someday researchers at NOAA will find out.

 

[Meathead]

Being that this is what America would look like with much fewer whiny people, would a rise in sea level be that bad?:

 

[Wry Catcher]

Now why should anyone freak out about it? After all, if we see 10 feet of sea level rise before 2050, what possible harm can it do?

Name one prediction that the global warming demi-gods made that came true. Science doesn't involve ifs - those are conjecture. Science involves facts.

Obviously the Scientific Method is alien to the ZZ; being a good liberal I am always willing to help the ignorant, not so much interested in helping the helpless, i.e. the Willfully Ignorant.

• A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon;
• a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.
• A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept

The seminal moment in the development of the hypothesis began with the killer fogs in London, due to coal burning,

[ The Killer Fog That Blanketed London - History in the Headlines ]

and as observations of changes in the temperature of the oceans, glacial changes photographed from space and other biological and physical anomalies were noted, such as acid rain, the hypothesis of human activity having an impact on the air people and animals breath, the water they consume and the food eaten opened up the theory that coal and oil - which had replaced wood as energy sources - might have a larger and more egregious effect on the planet than ever before considered; thus the theory replaced the hypothesis.

No Scientific law has been reported that I'm aware of in Scientific Journals stating the human activity is the sole source of such anomilies. That said, the general reason for objecting to these facts was generated because the purveyors of coal and oil felt such a theory might impact the golden goose they owned. A full on propaganda effort went into producing the type of skepticism of crazy right wingers who simply echo such propaganda.

All these Scientific terms are mere shadows of what they really are: inferences from a collection of observed data.

The Law Of Gravity holds true for all our observations of spacecraft nearing any planet or satellite that we know of which we have sent space probes to.

We have never observed any place with out space probes that has not been influenced by gravity of one sort or another either from the Earth, from the Sun, from our Moon, or from our nearby or distant planets or their moons.

It is therefore safe to say that gravity occurs everywhere, although we can only actually speak from experience for our own Solar System.

We call it a "law" but it is just an inference, nothing more.

From this inference, our scientists (astronomers and astrophysicists) infer that the same thing happens around other stars as well and also in the middle of our Milky Way Galaxy even though we have never sent a probe to any other star nor even to the middle of our Galaxy.

It is always best to keep in mind what Science is, and what it is not.

Science is "natural philosophy" as it was originally called before it was named "science."

Science is NOT written in stone.

Science is NOT Religion.

Science is not Pure Philosophy.

Pure Philosophy is superior to them all.

Science is subordinate to Pure Philosophy.

Religion is subordinate to Pure Philosophy and to Science.

When the Pope refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the satellites of Jupiter as evidence that not all things revolve around the Earth as the center of the Universe, he was being ignorant of the power of Science and of Philosophy over Religion.

BUT do NOT make Science your Religion -- doing so is really ignorant too.

The Earth is warming -- sure -- it has several times -- and cooled again as well -- over the past 100,000 years that we know of from the archaeology. It will likely (inference) continue to do so in the future in cycles.

Do we know why yet? No. Morons and imbeciles that think they know why are just being ignorant.

I read a cartoon once which is mindful of your post:
The more you study, the more you know
The more you know, the more you forget
The more you forget, the less you know,
so why study?

Seriously, a law of science is more than an inference, and a theory is more than a speculation. Even a hypothesis is more than an inference/speculation, since the hypothesis seeks more examples before one is able to posit one for further study and testing.

Religion based on a diety fails the test of science. There is no evidence to prove faith can be morphed into the realm of science. Most philosophy, sans logic, are not more than opinions, for each school there our equal and opposite opinions, and most have not evolved beyond that since before the Golden Age of Greece.