Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon

the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined.

An error twice as large as all human contributions.

I am constantly coming across articles presenting some unaccounted-for or re-estimated piece of the climate/carbon cycle/whatever. In the last week just on physorg:

http://www.physor...756.html
http://www.physor...316.html
http://www.physor...488.html
http://www.physor...002.html
http://www.physor...134.html
http://www.physor...049.html

Developing an accurate climate model is a worthy goal but I'm afraid I don't have too much faith in what we have now.

"Developing an accurate climate model is a worthy goal but I'm afraid I don't have too much faith in what we have now."

Humans should select problems that require models that are tractable with todays technology or may be a small stretch of it. We should avoid wild eyed cranks taking over the popular media with dire predictions based on pre-determined models which are obviously biased.

Who would of guessed.... another error overestimating global warming.....

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann.

Just thought I would drop in and say hi to the climate sceptics and watch them do some cherry picking, because we all know their better informmed than 98% of the scientists who work in field.

Faked Data on Global Warming Exposed - NASA Lies Again

http://darkmissio...sed.html

GIR what you have observed could be a renaissance of real science fighting back against pseudo science.

This is a constant battle, and if not fought constantly, will be lost.

Just look what has happened in U.S.A where Creationists have somehow gained an upper hand over real science because real scientists have not been pushing real science hard enough.

To ryuuguu - the problem is not that the world is warming or cooling in a series of consecutive samples. The problem lies in interpreting results from samples where the data lies inside the magnitude of error.

When results of measurements lie inside the magnitude of error, the thing we should be doing is reducing the error, not jumping to conclusions.

It is the job of real scientists to work on real problems. That is not to say that a scientists can not have an opinion, they are entitled to an opinion.

The trouble we have in the world today mostly stems from media reporters hunting sensational headings and forgetting that a reporters job is to report the truth, NOT to exaggerate the truth.

There will always be scientists that confuse fact with opinion but when it is reported by intelligent people, that are trained to look for the difference between fact and fiction, then we are in trouble.

I no not lay the entire blame on Al Gore or many others that agree with him, for the one-sided unintelligent debate that has not taken place. The true blame lies with media companies that think that news is entertainment and therefore requires no basis in fact.

@GIR:

the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined.

An error twice as large as all human contributions.

This is incorrect. The article says that the new discovery concerning black carbon accounts for a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from soils over 100 years.

This means it accounts for a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by soils every year by 20%/100 or 0.2%.

So the error is only 0.2% downwards annually.

If the total contribution to carbon dioxide made by human activity is 10% of the size of carbon dioxide emitted by soils then the error in previous estimates was only one twentieth the size of all human contributions, or 5%.

This is incorrect. The article says that the new discovery concerning black carbon accounts for a 20% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from soils over 100 years.

This means it accounts for a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by soils every year by 20%/100 or 0.2%.

So the error is only 0.2% downwards annually.

If the total contribution to carbon dioxide made by human activity is 10% of the size of carbon dioxide emitted by soils then the error in previous estimates was only one twentieth the size of all human contributions, or 5%.

Your math is worng, you'd have to perform your calculations on a 20% decrease against the CO2 estimate for each year attributable to soil. Not a blanket 0.2% per year. It's down 20% every year, not just for the whole period of 100 years.

If you want to talk about how small a number that is, here's another small number for you: total human contribution percentage to atmospheric CO2 - estimated between 0.08% and 0.3%

So if that error was only 0.2% downward per year, and soil contributes more than 10 times what human beings do, then technically all of our estimates, after accounting for the soil process, should now represent a net decrease or equilibrium in CO2 against temperature, but that isn't the observed result either.

So one can conclude:

Temperature and atmospheric CO2 are not reliably linked under current models and estimates.

We don't actually know how the CO2 cycle works.

We can't account for the increase in temperature by looking at man made CO2.

Make sense?

In "13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time", the author comments that scientists like a herd of antelope all charging together in a direction across the plain. And then they will change direction and charge a different direction.

It is too bad so many 'scientists' are so irrational and can't be independent.

What little real information actually is in this article seems to indicate that someone thinks the pre-existing natural carbon cycle is even significant. Its not. Take a CO2 cycle system operating in balance for hundreds of thousands of years, add enough CO2 from digging up and burning fossil fuels, and you have an increase in atmospheric CO2, as seen by direct measurements over the past several decades. Period. Whether the amount of CO2 contributed to the original balanced system was X or Y is of little or no significance.

If you want to talk about how small a number that is, here's another small number for you: total human contribution percentage to atmospheric CO2 - estimated between 0.08% and 0.3%

Estimated by who? There's an apparent deliberate attempt to confuse here, using meaningless percentages unatributed or referenced.

Even Wikipedia can make the issue simple.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. As of 2004, around 27 gigatonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide, equivalent to about 7.4 gigatonnes of carbon (see List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions); in 2006 8.4 gigatonnes carbon were emitted [1]. With some simple calculations based on the surface area of the Earth, normal atmospheric pressure, and an estimate of roughly 400ppmv atmospheric CO2 content one can calculate that the atmospheric CO2 content is currently approximately 3 teratonnes.

(27 x 10^9 / 3 x 10^12) x 100 = 0.9% added to atmosphere's CO2 every year by burning fossil fuels. If nature removes none of it in addition to its natural CO2 cycle, then in 10 years earth's atmospheric CO2 content goes up by 0.9% x 10 = 9%

@Valenarris:

Your math is worng, you'd have to perform your calculations on a 20% decrease against the CO2 estimate for each year attributable to soil. Not a blanket 0.2% per year. It's down 20% every year, not just for the whole period of 100 years.

The relevant statement in the article is that "the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years" - I read this statement as saying that there is a 20% decrease over a period of 100 years.

My original contention was with GIR saying:

An error twice as large as all human contributions.

GIR misread the article.

You're correct to say you wouldn't apply 0.2% a year - that is an average reduction per year from the original amount, and a 0.2% annual error would eventually compound to a larger amount by:

Error over 100 years (as fraction) = (1 0.002)^100 = 1.22

Or 122% over 100 years.

So the error with 0.2% annual error compounded would be substantially larger. The reason I highlighted 0.2% is because GIR asserted (incorrectly) that the error was twice human-derived CO2 emissions, when it fact is likely to be a small fraction of that.

If you want to talk about how small a number that is, here's another small number for you: total human contribution percentage to atmospheric CO2 - estimated between 0.08% and 0.3%

So if that error was only 0.2% downward per year, and soil contributes more than 10 times what human beings do, then technically all of our estimates, after accounting for the soil process, should now represent a net decrease or equilibrium in CO2 against temperature, but that isn't the observed result either.

So one can conclude:

Temperature and atmospheric CO2 are not reliably linked under current models and estimates.

We don't actually know how the CO2 cycle works.

We can't account for the increase in temperature by looking at man made CO2.

Make sense?

I guess. I apologise for mentioning 0.2%. I will now try to calculate the actual annual amount.

To recap: I believe you are wrong in saying the decrase should be 20% a year - the article says a 20% reduction over a period of 100 years.

To calculate the change per year to account for a 20% reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted as a result of soil over 100 years you need a formula like this:

T = (1-E)^P

Where T: Total amount after compounding period (as a fraction), E: Annual Error (again as a fraction), P: Number of accounting periods.

Running this formula through solver in Excel with T=0.8 (so with a 20% reduction), and P=100 gives me a value of 0.0022.

This fraction is equal to an annual downward error of 0.22%.

Which is remarkably close to my original fuzzy estimate. This is a perfect example of the power of exponential numbers.

I think our disagreement is over whether the error is over 100 years (as I believe) or over 1 year.

In any case as to your further points concerning anthropogenic global warming I can't comment.

Correction to my previous post:

Where I say:

My original contention was with GIR saying:

An error twice as large as all human contributions.

GIR misread the article.

You're correct to say you wouldn't apply 0.2% a year - that is an average reduction per year from the original amount, and a 0.2% annual error would eventually compound to a larger amount by:

Error over 100 years (as fraction) = (1 0.002)^100 = 1.22

Or 122% over 100 years.

Obviously I mean:

Error over 100 years (as fraction) = (1-0.002)^100 = 0.81

Or a 19% reduction over 100 years.

IOW: Not only was my maths not incorrect, even my off-the-wall estimate was pretty close to the mark.

Go me.

I think our disagreement is over whether the error is over 100 years (as I believe) or over 1 year.

Agreed.

I took "reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years" to refer to the time frame of the simulations as opposed to how long it would take to achieve the 20 percent error with small errors compounded annually. If I am incorrect (definate possibility) I would say the language they used is misleading.

This is just speculation as I have not actually seen the code in the simulations so feel free to ignore me:

The 20 percent over a 100 year simulation should represent an average due to the fact that changing global conditions would alter the input values.

For example permafrost is expected to release vast stores of carbon if it melts. If this is accounted for in simulation then the contribution of carbon by soils would increase over time since the models predict warming. Black carbon content in permafrost is not accounted for so the margin of error would change as the contributing factors changed.

Using a constant compounding factor would be an oversimplification of a dynamic system.

Who cares if the global warming environuts are wrong...Al Gore got his Nobel Prize...and thats what counts...doesn't it...

Nobel Prizes are awarded to genius and real science...or so we are told.

Who cares if the global warming environuts are wrong...Al Gore got his Nobel Prize...and thats what counts...doesn't it...

Nobel Prizes are awarded to genius and real science...or so we are told.

Once they gave him one they might as well hand them out in cereal boxes IMO.

If Franken gets the courts to elect him we might as well hand out Senate seats in happy meals.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that the study only sampled Australian soil and then assumed the results were valid globally?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that the study only sampled Australian soil and then assumed the results were valid globally?

The sample was Australian soil and showed significant derivation from an assumed standard.

Deviation from a standard by a huge degree means it's not a standard.

QCCCE=Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence

Not so odd they only sampled in Australia.

It doesn't look like they were trying to say their numbers were valid globally. They were just making the point that black carbon needs to be accounted for.

The simulation they ran only used numbers from Australian soils because those were the only numbers they had. It demonstrates the concept.

Global measurements would have to be taken to obtain accurate data.

What's a climate skeptic, someone that doesn't believe in climate? Well for the most part I believe in climate, except for the sky component because that fell years ago and is perpetually falling.

List of illustrious nobel peace prize winners:

Jimmy Carter
Yassar Arafat
Al Gore

Excelsior!

Put me down as a Nobel Peace Prize skeptic, call me crazy but it seems to be all about politics, nothing about results.

"Just thought I would drop in and say hi to the climate sceptics and watch them do some cherry picking, because we all know their better informmed than 98% of the scientists who work in field."

(We are smarter than you so you can't be privy to the higher level processes it takes to comprehend the money making machine we have produced. Our ivory tower is built in such a way to shadow all common sense.)

agg, scientific sense is quite often not of the "common kind". that's why it's given the name science instead of just calling it "common sense".

anyway, it's interesting how the deniers here tout these findings will be less than what many saw, even though it acknowledges the reality of warming itself.

do you all seriously think it's only the scientists that YOU disagree with that are exaggerating the truth, one way of another? the truth is almost certainly somewhere in between the two.

this is something good at the cato institue: http://twurl.nl/0zjk3j

In "13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time", the author comments that scientists like a herd of antelope all charging together in a direction across the plain. And then they will change direction and charge a different direction.

It is too bad so many 'scientists' are so irrational and can't be independent.

And it wasn't that long ago that the herd was headed in the direction of global cooling,... they would claim to have more data now then 40 years ago, but not less herd mentality.

hmm, sorry, not quite sure what i was trying to say in my second paragraph above. :p

agg, scientific sense is quite often not of the "common kind". that's why it's given the name science instead of just calling it "common sense".

anyway, it's interesting how the deniers here tout these findings will be less than what many saw, even though it acknowledges the reality of warming itself.

do you all seriously think it's only the scientists that YOU disagree with that are exaggerating the truth, one way of another? the truth is almost certainly somewhere in between the two.

this is something good at the cato institue: http://twurl.nl/0zjk3j

I'm not quite sure where you were going with the second paragraph either, but from what I can understand of it you think all the AGW skeptics are ignoring that the earth is warming.

That's not true. A lot of us fully recognize the Earth is warming, we jsut don't see the evidence that it's anthropogenic. That's my stance on it at least.

indeed nasa is bigest lier on the planet should be

dimentelled all they do is lies and usleess crap in space, the secret space program is so far adavanced that nasa can go home watch american idol same use

global warming is a scam of the elite , jsut liek 911 for the sheep

And yet it warms.

I rather like global warming. Seems like most of the worlds biosphere likes it too.

Look, any large perturbation of our natural environment is ... most un-conservative/unwise. We evolved to live within very narrow zones.

If you deny that humans can/are perturbing the climate, I'll deny much more that getting off carbon fuels would cost us economically. Rather, it is THE largest business opportunity that now exists. The more we wait to start a full, all out program in it, the more we'll cede our economic advantage to China/India/Japan.

If you don't like doing this for climate reasons, than do it for security reasons.

Alternative fuels will happen in due time, grasshopper. As long as carbon based fuels are easily available and our entire infastructure is tooled for them, that will be the economic choice. And oil will never run out, it will just become more and more expensive to obtain, and THAT is what will motivate alternative competition,... the path of least resistence will be chosen always in a free economic society...

The tree-huggers are naive and stupid in thinking that mankind would 'do the right thing' and stop 'damaging our earth',.. while humanity has never been able to stop conducting wars for example,.. why the Earth, but not each other(?),.. thier just naive about things like this. Their 'science' has the similar naive foolishness; They think they have a handle on global temperture cycles for thousands of years, including the sun, to the degree that a fraction of 1 % in carbon in the atmosphere will be the end of us all? These are the same people that don't want nuclear power? Their ideas are ad-hoc and always economically unnature, not the path of least resistence. There is still starving and war in the world, but GW will be The Thing in which we come together and solve (!?),.... riiighht. Naive.

And yet it warms.

(Actually its been cooling for the last ten years), but the question isn't 'weather' it warms, if you could graph the global temp for the last few million years you would see it all over the place,... is the effect of the industrial age lost in the natural cycles over thousands of years. Again alternative fuels will come in eventually, wouldn't the earth them stabilize back to 'normal' in hundred years?

And yet it warms.

(Actually its been cooling for the last ten years), but the question isn't 'weather' it warms, if you could graph the global temp for the last few million years you would see it all over the place,... is the effect of the industrial age lost in the natural cycles over thousands of years. Again alternative fuels will come in eventually, wouldn't the earth them stabilize back to 'normal' in hundred years?

This whole warming/cooling argument is silly. Can we just go with significant change from the norm? If any of the models I've seen are correct, we'll lose more economically from the fallout of such a change than we will by trying to prevent it now. This isn't about alternative fuels, it's about the possible/probable environmental effects of burning fuels.

Don't listen to anyone who claims the apocalypse is coming. If some of the models are near correct we might see a few degrees change. Developed nations will survive for the most part, but maybe a billion or so people in the undeveloped world will starve. If you don't care about that, that's fine. But recognize that as climate patterns shift coast lines will change, destroying some very nice cities. Changes in weather will also mean a destruction of much of our agricultural production. Sure, it can be rebuilt elsewhere, but it will be a massive undertaking. The potential costs are much higher, and more wasteful, than simply moving to cleaner energy.

A few synonyms for "warm"...
affable, affectionate, amiable, amorous, ardent, cheerful, compassionate, cordial, empathetic, fervent, genial, gracious, happy, heartfelt, hearty, hospitable, kindhearted, kindly, loving, pleasant, responsive, sincere, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, warmhearted, wholehearted

A few synonyms for "cold"...
apathetic, cold-blooded, cool, dead, distant, emotionless, frigid, frosty, glacial, icy, impersonal, imperturbable, indifferent, inhibited, inhospitable, joyless, lukewarm, matter-of-fact, passionless, phlegmatic, reserved, reticent, spiritless, standoffish, stony, unconcerned, undemonstrative, unenthusiastic, unfeeling, unimpassioned, unmoved, unresponsive, unsympathetic

Reading these synonyms from a thesaurus, you might think that humans prefer warmth to cold. However, we live in a time when common sense has become a very rare commodity, while fear has taken over the minds and imaginations of most people. Cold, it seems, has become a state to be desired, while warmth is detested. In the last two millenia, every one of man's leaps forward have happened in warm periods, the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Warm period and the Modern Optimum. Cold ended the first two, will it end ours? Cold is certainly nothing to be desired. Warmth equals prosperity while cold equals death and poverty. I hope our Modern Warm period continues.

Cold is certainly nothing to be desired. Warmth equals prosperity while cold equals death and poverty. I hope our Modern Warm period continues.

Cold, or rather having the same temperature as the early half of the Twentieth Century equals glaciation remaining aproximatly as it was then or at least as it is today. Continued warming equals decreased volumes of water tied up in ice. Which must result in raised ocean water levels.

Its not the warming thats going to cause cause death and poverty. Its the concomitant loss of land to raised ocean levels. If water levels go up a couple of inches thats not a problem. A couple of feet might be managed with only a few hundred billion or perhaps a couple of trillion on mitigating expenditures.

A hundred feet, like the difference between now and 10,000 years ago, is going to change civilization around the world. Nearly every coastal city on the planet either under water or behind vast and high dykes.

While the global warming may or may not be proven to be human generated claiming its a boon and not a problem is stupid. No, not just stupid, terminally foolish. Its not burying your head in the sands of ignorance. It sticking your head in a bucket of water and then taking a deep breath.

Don't listen to anyone who claims the apocalypse is coming. If some of the models are near correct we might see a few degrees change. Developed nations will survive for the most part, but maybe a billion or so people in the undeveloped world will starve.

During the last warm period (the Medieval Optimum) the agricultural yields increased. What makes you think they won't increase this time?

Ethel,
You said:
"While... global warming may or may not be proven to be human generated claiming its a boon and not a problem is stupid."

I don't think it is stupid to trust history. Also my viewpoint, which is shared by many, is not foolish.
Foolish would be spending your children's inheritance to reduce a beneficial trace gas.
Mike

Don't listen to anyone who claims the apocalypse is coming. If some of the models are near correct we might see a few degrees change. Developed nations will survive for the most part, but maybe a billion or so people in the undeveloped world will starve.

During the last warm period (the Medieval Optimum) the agricultural yields increased. What makes you think they won't increase this time?

Not only did they increase, the increased by such a drastic amount that the grain market in Europe dropped prices to 1/2 of the norm.

This is a graph which shows the global sea ice area since 1979, as you can see there is not a huge problem here.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Also, many glaciers are making a comeback, see here:

http://www.iceage...iers.htm

Don't let the government spend all your money on a non-problem.

Ethel,
I don't think it is stupid to trust history. Also my viewpoint, which is shared by many, is not foolish.

The number of fools does not change the level of foolishness.

No, its not stupid to trust history. It IS stupid to ignore physical and geological facts. The ice caps are warming. The non polar glaciers are clearly melting. Some of the small hanging glaciers have disappeared entirely. The Antarctic glaciers are moving at much higher speeds. Greenland may actually become green and will become green if temperatures continue to increase.

Those are facts. They aren't models and they aren't speculation. Its FOOLISH to ignore them. Which is what you are doing and did in your reply. You carefully evaded all of that. You only dealt with the Medieval Warm Period, something I have been aware of for decades(Greenland really was a lot greener during the heart of that time).

In no way can warming be considered a unmitigated boon. Up to a point it could be a good thing. Of course that would be ignoring the probable increase in hurricanes. Sure would be nice for Northern Europe. However rising water levels (which you ignored) can lead to disaster. New Orleans is not exactly the only place that is already having problems. Ever hear of the Zeider Zee or Venice? How about all those other cities sited at the mouths of rivers?

Foolish would be spending your children's inheritance to reduce a beneficial trace gas.
Mike

Its not beneficial if the water levels rise. Thats what I said and you evaded. Its what I was clearly referring to by saying your statements are foolish.

Deal with the water issue and maybe you can change my mind. Your evasion makes is apparent that you don't want to consider things that would effect your pocketbook. Shortsightedness is the bane of those that won't learn from history AND archeology.

We don't know much about the earliest coastal towns. Their under the sea. The entire Black Sea area used to be inhabited. That ended when water levels rose from melting glaciers.

We don't know much about the earliest coastal towns. Their under the sea. The entire Black Sea area used to be inhabited. That ended when water levels rose from melting glaciers.

Those towns were founded when the oceans were around 230 meters below their current level.

Frame of reference is rather important here.

This is a graph which shows the global sea ice area since 1979, as you can see there is not a huge problem here.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Sea ice has little or no effect at all on ocean levels. The only effect it can have is back pressure on grounded ice.

You do know that ice floats because its less dense don't you? When it melts or freezes there is no change in the shore levels.

Of course cherry picking your data doesn't prove anything either. I looked the rest of the site. Thanks for the ammunition.

From YOUR SOURCE Mike:
The 40Mb animation at the left shows the recent dramatic loss of multiyear sea ice.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/multiyear.ice.quikscat.mov" title="http://http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/multiyear.ice.quikscat.mov" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://arctic.atm...scat.mov

Dramatic loss. Gosh, that sure showed me. Using data from a site that agrees with me and disagrees with you sure was brave. Or foolish.

I'll let you decide which floats your ice flow on the brave or foolish question.

Here is the link to the main page of Mike's source:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

However to reiterate. Sea ice doesn't effect sea levels. It does show water temperature changes. According to Mike's chosen site, apparently its warmer.

Also, many glaciers are making a comeback, see here:

http://www.iceage...iers.htm

Don't let the government spend all your money on a non-problem.

From the web site you linked to:
"This paper, published in 2006, shows that the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to lower %u2013 lower! - global sea levels by 0.08 mm year.

Where are the breathless headlines announcing this fact?"

From the paper the site is abusing:
"In consequence, the data places a further burden on accounting (Munk 2003) for
the twentieth century rise of 1.5%u20132 mm yrK1."

In other words the site claims that water levels are going down and the paper says they are going up. Such a great site. I bet they wear hip waders and use snorkels when they aren't standing. Its a crank site. This can be seen by noticing the books its pushing. He one on losing with self-hypnosis. On THAT site he call himself a Certified Hypnotherapist. I am so assured that he is an expert on geology and meteorology by that.

Now the paper itself is interesting. Its based on satellite data and isn't corroborated by ground data. Some areas of the Antarctic are increasing in altitude according to the paper. Other areas are going down. The coastal areas are where its going down. Which isn't all that different from what others are saying. The noise in the data AND the lack of direct measurement makes the conclusions tentative.

Mike you have to do better than this. Its better than your first response where you ignored almost everything I said. But quoting cranks and cherry picking ambiguous data from sites that agree with is not much of a challenge.

Those towns were founded when the oceans were around 230 meters below their current level.

That was my point. The water levels were lower. The Ice Age was ending. The water levels then rose. As in a warming climate just might not be the bestest thing that ever happened to people living near sea level. Or below sea level in the case of the former Black Sea basin inhabitants.

Those towns were founded when the oceans were around 230 meters below their current level.

That was my point. The water levels were lower. The Ice Age was ending. The water levels then rose. As in a warming climate just might not be the bestest thing that ever happened to people living near sea level. Or below sea level in the case of the former Black Sea basin inhabitants.

Ok, I want you to understand something that's rather important to the conversation.

The Ice Age was a period of time when an estimated half to two thirds of the globe were covered in ice.

To compare the sea level rise at the conclusion of the last ice age to today's estimated sea level rise is utterly ridiculous.

End of the last ice age: estimated sea level rise of .6m per year

Today estimated 0.008m per year.

There isn't enough ice on the planet to cause the same volume increase in the sea as we had at the last ice age's conclusion.

We can further punch holes in your example due to it's location. The Black Sea was previously similar to Death Valley, not in temperature or climate, but in geography. It's a deep basin, most likely a fertile valley due to the possibility of two local rivers, surrounded by high steep mountains, that was filled in by advancing seas and retreating land masses. Advances which were so catastrophic and sudden that every major culture of the world shares a flood myth somewhere in their history.

Let's pick a better example, let's go with Egypt, or Nubia, or Kush, or the Mayans. There's 4 civilizations that simply created better infrastructure to address the climate change they encountered. Are you going to say we're less capable of addressing climate change issues than cultures that believed that the sun was a God's phallus?

Ok, I want you to understand something that's rather important to the conversation.

I want you to understand that posting information from crank sites like Mike did isn't going to cut it. Nor is going around and rating me one on well reasoned posts. If its good enough to make you respond its not a one.

The Ice Age was a period of time when an estimated half to two thirds of the globe were covered in ice.

And you got those numbers out of whose posterior? For instance the 230 meters is nearly double the usual numbers. The The glaciers didn't barely covered half of North America, which had the most extensive coverage after Antarctica. Those numbers DO fit a possible ice age prior to the Cambrian explosion.

A more accurate statement would have been one third to half and even that may be over stating things.

The last ice age reached its peak around 18,000 years ago which is about 10,000 years before the earliest known cities.

To compare the sea level rise at the conclusion of the last ice age to today's estimated sea level rise is utterly ridiculous.

Especially if you pad your numbers. Well, only if you pad your numbers. Try real numbers instead of numbers using "I" as a descriptor.

Today estimated 0.008m per year.

I thought is was 2mm a year, thank you for making it clear that its 4 time higher at 8mm per year or ,8 meters per century. At present. Temperatures don't even to increase for the rate of metlting to increase. As the ice warms the rate of melting will increase. If temperatures rise the rate of melting will increase even faster.

There isn't enough ice on the planet to cause the same volume increase in the sea as we had at the last ice age's conclusion.

Since when did I make that claim? I used the Ice Age as an example to show the bogus nature of the claim that warning is an unmitigated boon. Do try reading what I type instead of making things up.

Ocean levels have increased 120 meters not 230 meters. If Greenland deglaciates water levels will rise over twenty feet. That would inundate some major coastal cities without massive expenditures. Venice is already spending huge amounts of money and thats for much less than twenty feet. ALL seaports would have to relocate or build dykes and locks. That would be billions and probably trillions. There are a lot of harbors and it would be billions each.

We can further punch holes in your example due to it's location.

You can't go further until you actually punch a hole in the first place. Bogus numbers won't do it even if you make up my position.

The Black Sea was inhabited. It was an example of the flaws in the claim that global warming can only do good. Not my fault the original claim of the wonderfulness of global warming was unsupportable. Sure it was an extreme example. However it can happen in other areas of the globe if the Antarctic ice cap melts. There were no ice caps on Earth except during the ice ages. With increased CO2 that can happen again.

Are you going to say we're less capable of addressing climate change issues than cultures that believed that the sun was a God's phallus?

No I won't make such a claim(a god's phallus? Mayans? You need to learn a bit more about ancient religions before commenting on them).

I did however say that it would COST MONEY. Mike was claiming we shouldn't spend money on stopping the alleged wonderfulness of Global Warming. Which was what I called foolish.

He said spending money was a bad idea. I showed that is was foolish as it would cost far more to fix the problems of rising water. You seem to have a problem with that statement.

Why?

You obviously don't keep yourself abreast of modern research. There are multiple known city sites found as deep as 280 meters under current sea level. Meaning either your date for the first civilizations is wrong, or your date for the end of the last iceage is wrong.

When you have a relevant talking point about rising seas, feel free to bring it up.

I'm interested, what city sites have been discovered 280m below current sea levels?

I have a theory that pre clovis settlements would have been close to the sea as the first Americans would have had to have sailed around the ice bound coasts prior to 11000 years ago and so would now be below sea level.

280m seems a bit excessive

I'm interested, what city sites have been discovered 280m below current sea levels?

I have a theory that pre clovis settlements would have been close to the sea as the first Americans would have had to have sailed around the ice bound coasts prior to 11000 years ago and so would now be below sea level.

280m seems a bit excessive

There are currently 3 listed off the coast of Cuba, 2 listed south of Japan, (not counting yoniguni as that hasn't been proven to be man made as of yet), and another 4 just outside of the mediterranean ocean between Portugal and the Azores. Most of the sites have not been well explored however they have all yielded man made artifacts and from long range sonar outlines appear to be lain out in formats similar to other ancient cities found to have existed 7000 years ago.

The problem is, every loony wants to attribute them to Atlantis, and that's part of the problem. Every diluvain archaeologist is too busy trying to attribvute sunken cities to mythical places, rather than get a proper investigation done they abandon the sites and leave them to treasure hunters who produce horrid specials on the history channel.

For references and in some cases picture of these sites check out Graham Handcock's "Underworld".