So I have a quick question about "global warming"

[Sternface]

@Sternface: Then what would you need as evidence¿

I think I understand what K^2 wants as evidence, but would you like him want to (and be able to; as said above, it needs a nontrivial amount of knowledge) check several scientific papers¿

Well, I'm no scientist. But I did a dual degree in physics and biology, with a minor is psychology, and I tend to procrastinate by reading academic journals and wikipedia*, so I definitely feel comfortable reading through a scientific journal and study** - though obviously not to the same degree as someone like K^2 who is a scientist by profession.

But yes. I typically will read through the data and study before I come to a conclusion. If it is a news article, I will skip to the source (or find it), read it, and then go back to article before I make up my mind. And if it i something controversial, I will seek out contradicting papers to weight the two against each other.

I need more than journalistic sensationalism and political fear-mongering as evidence. If an article says, xx% of scientists agree, that is not enough, and is actually a formal logical fallacy - appealing to authority. If you really look at the evidence behind global warming, and I mean the actual evidence, not media, you will see how controversial the matter is.

Politics have a strong influence on the science. Google "Global warming + falsified" and see for yourself. Obviously, you want to ignore the conspiracy and right-wing oriented sources...they are aplenty.

*P.S. Despite what everyone says, I find that Wikipedia is generally a very good source of reliable sources. And depending on the article, can have an excellent summary of the subject.

** By comfortable, I don't mean that I always fully grasp the issues, but more that I feel comfortable in looking at methodology and conclusion. And where my knowledge is lacking, the blanks can sometimes be filled in with some reading.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

We do know the cost of not putting any more CO2 into atmosphere. It's worldwide starvation.

Sorry, but why is that¿ It's not the farming and its backing chemical industry that causes it (apart from some effecty by cattle, which are not giving that much food anyway). It's mainly (post)industrial lifestyle causing it. And a lot of the suggested things are not even prohibiting those to continue.

And I understand very well what I talk about there. I also don't see how those scientists are doing this for the scare at all (are you seriously claiming that a very relevant amount of those scientists does that¿ And that even back when it was essentially unpolitical they did just because... they can¿).

You have not debunked my argument in any way: what do we have experts for if not exactly to be able to tell us what will happen¿ How does it make sense to have experts, but then as soon as it is against your believes suddenly requireing almost everyone to be well educated in it first¿ It's just a huge waste of ressources to educate everyone properly of this (and of any other matter that requires some level of expertise), as the same results can always be found by a minority of experts. And honestly, are you requiring the same amount of evidence for things you want to believe; and are you ready to require similiar amounts of effort in other important matters (medical research, for example)¿

So please stop just iterating a claim that I blindly follow what some people say; those people are exactly those that spent decades on researching this, and a huge majority of those that did are in agreement. It is their damn job to know this and it is my job to know my area of research.

[lajoswinkler]

I can't believe that anyone educated in natural sciences can deny the existence of global warming. Such person ought to have his diploma taken away from him.

I also can not believe Americans are the most developed country in the world which citizens have such widespread disbelief in these experimentally proven facts, but it's something you should expect when so many people there think the world was created by some ghost 5000 years ago.

[ZetaX]

I can't believe that anyone educated in natural sciences can deny the existence of global warming.

I think only very few actually deny it, and it seems nobody in this thread does. The question is if or how much is man-made and how high the damage will be.

[Sternface]

I think only very few actually deny it, and it seems nobody in this thread does. The question is if or how much is man-made and how high the damage will be.

Exactly.

The issue is human's contribution, not whether or not climate change is real. You would have to be a bonafide fool to state that the Earth's climate is and always has been the same.....

[ZetaX]

By the way, the final costs of climate change are what I am the least sure about. I can easily imagine trillions of dollars, but I have no good argument for that seen so far. There is the rise of the oceans, but that one is not as problematic in the long run by itself. Droughts and floods are maybe a major concern as they might heavily influence food production and also produce medical problems in poorer countries. Some of the others like stronger winters or storms are probably not really that much of a problem, but like the rising oceans make adaptions necessary.

[lajoswinkler]

Exactly.

The issue is human's contribution, not whether or not climate change is real. You would have to be a bonafide fool to state that the Earth's climate is and always has been the same.....

The issue existed 20 years ago. Today we have a scientific consensus, based on all the data gathered, that we're the ones to blame. Whether we can do anything (and how much) about it is opened for debate, but not who's guilty.

It doesn't matter the climate hasn't been always the same. Conditions were a lot more worse in the geological past. The problem is that we're witnessing extremely rapid change (relative to large time periods) which correlate with extremely rapid anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases. Never in the history of Earth have those things changes so fast, unless we count in large bodies impacting our planet after the crust and oceans have formed.

That and some other things, like isotopic composition of carbon in atmosphere, which shows that its source is indeed increasingly C-14 poor stuff we dug up from the ground, can't be debated anymore. Those are facts, measurable facts and attacking them opens you to mocking.

"What will happen?", "Can we do anything about it?", "What can we do?" - those are the questions we're now solving. So far the recommended policy is to lower the greenhouse gases release, and mild predictions say the sea level will keep on (it has already begun) rising so that by the end of century the mean water level reaches the heights of coastal cities. The weather extremes will get a lot worse, which we're witnessing.

One of the most obvious indicators that **** has hit the fan are animal/plant migrations. Mosquitos, jellyfish (trust me, this will destroy a lot of fish economy), algae and microorganisms that like warm and moist medium, they're shifting to north.

Nature will survive, but we're going to have a tough time. We're already losing battle with antibiotic resistance. Imagine the world with more infectious diseases because of pests and vermin, and antibiotics are weak.

Edited November 23, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[K^2]

Sorry, but why is that¿ It's not the farming and its backing chemical industry that causes it (apart from some effecty by cattle, which are not giving that much food anyway). It's mainly (post)industrial lifestyle causing it. And a lot of the suggested things are not even prohibiting those to continue.

Our agriculture is dependent upon farming machines. We have neither land nor human resources to produce sufficient food for the population without burning fossil fuels. Ditto the distribution networks. In large cities, the cost of food is directly tied to energy costs. As gasoline prices increase, so do the prices at the store by almost the same fraction.

So the costs of completely taking out fossil fuels right now? Complete and total devastation. Just petroleum? That would account for roughly a third of emissions, and we would end up without sustainable agriculture or transportation. Transportation accounts for over 70% of petroleum consumption in U.S.

We can talk efficiency. US is really bad in that regard. Liberally, energy consumption percapita in the US can be roughly halved. This requires a total rehaul of the infrastructure, however. If we start now, we can roughly balance off the consumption growth rate with improvements in efficiency. It will cost a lot of money, however.

So yeah, halting growth of CO2 output would cost a lot to the economy, making it more difficult to spend money on research we need to switch to other energy sources. Trying to reduce CO2 output would result in food cost inflation and starvation even in the U.S. I'm not even going to bring up third world where food is already a problem. But then again, they don't contribute as much to the total output, so we really can limit discussion to U.S., Europe, and China.

Today we have a scientific consensus, based on all the data gathered, that we're the ones to blame.

No, we do not have consensus. Criteria for consensus require an established model, which we do not have. The fact that there is still a significant percentage of publications being made in peer-reviewed journals that show lack of anthropogenic cause to global climate change is a direct reflection of the lack of consensus.

Try to understand, scientific community doesn't work by majority vote.

Edited November 23, 2013 by K^2

[vetrox]

Ok lots of good stuff to read still.

However is there any chance we could stop calling it "global warming" and instead refer to it as "climate change"

I find the term Global warming a bit misleading (even more so after reading some sources linked on here). For some reason its starting to grate on me and the term GW sounds a bit fear monger-ish.

Threads starting to get a bit busy now so if you're stating something as fact and are able to link me a source please could you its definatley an interesting subject matter

[PakledHostage]

No, we do not have consensus. Criteria for consensus require an established model, which we do not have. The fact that there is still a significant percentage of publications being made in peer-reviewed journals that show lack of anthropogenic cause to global climate change is a direct reflection of the lack of consensus.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, could you please provide us with a reference? Maybe a link to an example of such a paper in a reputable journal? I assume from your statement that you've come across one or two, and would therefore have an easier time finding an example than we would.

[Naten]

We're at the end of the Ice Age. It's really that simple (on the surface).

[lajoswinkler]

No, we do not have consensus. Criteria for consensus require an established model, which we do not have. The fact that there is still a significant percentage of publications being made in peer-reviewed journals that show lack of anthropogenic cause to global climate change is a direct reflection of the lack of consensus.

Try to understand, scientific community doesn't work by majority vote.

NHF, but your point is ridiculous. Of course we have a consensus.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes

in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and

in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for

human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been

the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to

2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings

together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this

period. {10.3}

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details).

I really don't want to start a pie-throwing war using documents instead pies, but I had to post this.

What you're saying is completely ridiculous. It was not ridiculous a quarter of century earlier, but since then evidence has piled on. Claiming we have no clue who's responsible is absurd. We can't claim we know 100% it was us (science doesn't work that way), but we have >95% probability here. The consensus exists and models do exist.

You're implying that "majority vote" in this case means a collection of opinions based on speculation. It doesn't work that way. Nobody votes and nobody speculates. People write papers and submit them to reviewing. Vast majority of papers support the anthropogenic dominance.

This is actually a very old thing. I've read scientific literature written in early 20th century which speculate that with enough coal burning, we might heat up the atmosphere and even cause a runaway greenhouse effect. I was surprised to see that people were thinking about these things even during the silent movie era. But it is logical and expected, and today we have evidence which is increasing in size every year.

Ok lots of good stuff to read still.

However is there any chance we could stop calling it "global warming" and instead refer to it as "climate change"

I find the term Global warming a bit misleading (even more so after reading some sources linked on here). For some reason its starting to grate on me and the term GW sounds a bit fear monger-ish.

Threads starting to get a bit busy now so if you're stating something as fact and are able to link me a source please could you its definatley an interesting subject matter

Well, "global warming" is a correct term. The average temperature on Earth is climbing. That causes weather going nuts. Temperature, humidity, precipitation and wind speed extremes, positive and negative.

Fear mongering is something else. Saying we'll lose New York in 20 years under the sea is a good example.

The media is often acting very stupid about this. Scientists are writing carefully, using numbers and explanations, and the press craps all over it and puts out huge titles that attract stupid people. That's why you should never judge scientific news using mass media. They're unable to write a small article without making huge errors.

Edited November 24, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[K^2]

NHF, but your point is ridiculous. Of course we have a consensus.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

Yes, a brochure from a website whose name, "climatechange2013," suggests no bias whatsoever is certainly the definitive proof of consensus within scientific community.

How about something that, at least, cites sources, so we can talk about where the numbers are coming from and whether they are reliable?

[Sternface]

Well, "global warming" is a correct term. The average temperature on Earth is climbing. That causes weather going nuts. Temperature, humidity, precipitation and wind speed extremes, positive and negative.

This is simply not true. The Earth's temperature has not been climbing in the last 15 years. Please provide a primary source to back your claim. Here is mine:

Primary:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Secondary: Both left and right wing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/10/terrifying-flat-global-temperature-crisis-threatens-to-disrupt-u-n-climate-conference-agenda/

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

https://plus.google.com/+TheEconomist/posts/hCpiKgDnt5e

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/28/UN-Climate-Change-Report-Ignores-15-Year-Pause-in-Warming

A climate model which completely failed to predict, or even account for this, must be revisited. As with the erroneous model's conclusions. Models are changed to fit the data, not the other way around. The latter would be politics, not science.

These same climate models also predicted a large decrease in Antarctic sea ice. Guess what? Antarctic sea ice is at record-high levels.

Primary:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160

In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record. Sea ice extended over 19.47 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) of the Southern Ocean. The previous record of 19.44 million square kilometers was set in September 2012.

A large increase in sea ice means that more sunlight is reflected, causing global cooling if on a large enough scale. The fact that last year was the previous record-setter suggests that this should not be dismissed as anomalous.

The graph above shows the maximum extent for each September since 1979 in millions of square kilometers. There is variability from year to year, though the overall trend shows growth of about 1.5 percent per decade.

We're at the end of the Ice Age. It's really that simple (on the surface).

This is what I suspect as well. We are still coming out of the last mini ice age.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

This is simply not true. The Earth's temperature has not been climbing in the last 15 years. Please provide a primary source to back your claim. Here is mine:

Primary:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

According to that source, it has: "2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century." So yes, it was one of the coldest years of the decade, but a single years variance is not even saying much, and it still was a rather warm year. They also explain that global warming has slow down (not: reversed/vanished) and explain in detail why this slow down is not really one (the increase at the end if the 20th century was just exceptionally strong and we are at a solar minimum).

Also: "We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years. ".

This is what I suspect as well. We are still coming out of the last mini ice age.

And why is that¿ It's not like earth just decides "yeah, was cold long enough, lets get warmer"... What is causing this shift is rather likely us and the effect is not less harmful just because it has (well, only partially) happened in the past.

[lajoswinkler]

Oh, the "it's been cold recently" argument by the same kind of people that say the warming is just a fluctuation.

I've already said that I'm not going to participate in a stupid war. Some dudes' opinion online has no impact on facts. I've taken only one source (one more than anyone here at the moment of posting).

I understand Americans are subjected to heavy bombardment by politicians, but such ignorance is something we in Europe don't see very often. At least those people aren't very loud.

Some of you might want to watch this video to learn a bit about the language of science.

There's a quite informative page on NASA website you can look at.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

This topic is not controversial or polarizing just like evolution isn't. Some people just don't want to accept it and are very vocal about it.

[K^2]

And why is that¿ It's not like earth just decides "yeah, was cold long enough, lets get warmer"... What is causing this shift is rather likely us and the effect is not less harmful just because it has (well, only partially) happened in the past.

Little Ice Age. Please, educate yourself.

It has now gotten warmer than medieval warm period, so one might argue that this bit is anthropogenic, but the latest warming trend since 1800s started long before humans had anything to do with it. In fact, I would argue that it's likely the end of Little Ice Age that has jump-started the industrial revolution. Furthermore, whatever effect we have on the environment, we are pushing on the upswing. If the temperature overshooting its equilibrium is due to human efforts, it's still likely that it's the outcome of us pushing with the main driving force. And we don't know how long that's going to last. In fact, as Sternface pointed out, there is indication that this trend has ended.

[ZetaX]

I know of that already, don't treat me like I'm stupid or illiterate. We are as said already significantly above that and still on the rise.

And where is that supposed evidence that the trend has ended¿ The given link says nothing in that favour and explains why it rather likely has not, I even already commented on that, so you are again avoiding the actual discussion.

[Fractal_UK]

Little Ice Age. Please, educate yourself.

It has now gotten warmer than medieval warm period, so one might argue that this bit is anthropogenic, but the latest warming trend since 1800s started long before humans had anything to do with it. In fact, I would argue that it's likely the end of Little Ice Age that has jump-started the industrial revolution. Furthermore, whatever effect we have on the environment, we are pushing on the upswing. If the temperature overshooting its equilibrium is due to human efforts, it's still likely that it's the outcome of us pushing with the main driving force. And we don't know how long that's going to last. In fact, as Sternface pointed out, there is indication that this trend has ended.

On what basis do you hope to argue this exactly? The climate situation, while perhaps non ideal for portions of the middle ages does not have any impact on the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time, namely that learning or innovation were not particularly important and that knowledge was the purview of priests and the Catholic church in general. The climate situation was much improved in the Roman period compared to Europe during the little ice age and the Romans were more advanced both culturally and technologically than the Europeans throughout all or almost all of the little ice age. In other words, if climate were the prevailing factor, it would have happened a good 1600 years earlier. Honestly your argument strikes me more as beginning with a predefined conclusion and trying to argue your way back to it, it has been a consistent theme of your contributions on this topic.

Some people have similarly argued that the little ice age also had anthropogenic causes, namely the large population reduction in Europe following the black death and the consequent reduction in agriculture, reforestation, etc and it ended as the population grew and exceeded previous levels. I'm sure this had some impact but it's not even clear how global these climate changes actually were and I'm not convinced about the scales involved, just pointing out that you can draw very different conclusions from isolated bits of evidence and come to radically different conclusions. I'd suggest avoiding drawing unfounded conclusions without more evidence on your side.

[K^2]

I know of that already, don't treat me like I'm stupid or illiterate.

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

We are as said already significantly above that and still on the rise.

It's not like earth just decides "yeah, was cold long enough, lets get warmer".

It basically did exactly that. Yes, we've overshot the mark, but the increase in temperature certainly predates any effects of human activity. Why it got even warmer than during Medieval Warm Period and whether we have something to do with it is a separate discussion, but at least half of that temperature change is clearly due to the end of Little Ice Age.

And where is that supposed evidence that the trend has ended¿ The given link says nothing in that favour and explains why it rather likely has not, I even already commented on that, so you are again avoiding the actual discussion.

We've seen temperatures level off, which is exactly what you'd expect from a dynamic system responding to this sort of input.

On what basis do you hope to argue this exactly? The climate situation, while perhaps non ideal for portions of the middle ages does not have any impact on the prevailing cultural attitudes of the time, namely that learning or innovation were not particularly important and that knowledge was the purview of priests and the Catholic church in general. The climate situation was much improved in the Roman period compared to Europe during the little ice age and the Romans were more advanced both culturally and technologically than the Europeans throughout all or almost all of the little ice age. In other words, if climate were the prevailing factor, it would have happened a good 1600 years earlier.

I'm not saying it's a sole factor. But end of the Little Ice Age has given us the agricultural boost needed to go from agricultural economy to an industrial one. You can't build a factory if all of your labor force has to be in the fields in order to feed the population.

I'm not positioning end of Little Ice Age as the cause of industrial revolution, but rather as a trigger that set up the timing. Technology to begin industrialization was already in place and population densities sufficient long before that.

Some people have similarly argued that the little ice age also had anthropogenic causes

Some people need to learn a bit of math and physics. Even today, most of the third world doesn't produce enough CO2 output to be of any concern. United States produces 20% of anthropogenic CO2, in contrast. An agricultural society doing anything sufficient to change climate? In middle ages? That is absolutely laughable.

Honestly your argument strikes me more as beginning with a predefined conclusion and trying to argue your way back to it, it has been a consistent theme of your contributions on this topic.

Sure. I'm the only person here who has done any numerical analysis of the problem and provided at least some hints at why certain models work or fail. But no, that's all drivel, according to you. We should trust information from propaganda pamphlets instead, which carry absolutely no references, let alone explain any analysis. Yeah, lets go with that as our reliable source of information.

[Fractal_UK]

Sorry, can you provide a citation where somebody suggested relying on information from propoganda pamphlets or are you making things up again? Rhetorical question, I know the answer.

Honestly the only mathematical analysis I've read from you in this thread is laughably meaningless, most models are predicting 2-4C of warming and trying to analyse the impacts of this level of warming while you're drawing warming upper bounds based on IR opaque shells, which represents a totally different atmospheric regime from the one we live in or are even close to living in. Upper bound of 30C of warming in this regime? That's nice but so far from the state of the atmosphere currently as to be totally irrelevant.

One can actually draw somewhat relevant conclusions taking a similar approach using the idealised greenhouse model, which predicts a climate sensitivity of 1.2C (to doubling of CO₂). We can take this as a lower bound because there are numerous positive feedbacks we need to account for, increased water vapour concentration, methane from permafrost, rainforest loss, ice albedo effect while negative feedbacks are almost solely down to increased radiation with temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is obviously already taken into account in this model. If you want to predict climate sensitivity at this value or lower, you're going to have to start describing additional negative feedbacks to counter the positive feedbacks I have just illustrated.

[sal_vager]

This thread will return to civility or it will be closed, as it is this subject is usually not permitted as it always devolves into arguments and name calling, which is happening here.

These are the Science Labs, back up any claims for or against with science, not argument.

[Sternface]

^ Agreed. There is no need for name calling.

Back on topic, I'm curious why those quoting my posts ignored the issue of Antarctic ice. If a model predicts a loss of ice, and instead it increases to record-high levels, does this not call the model's accuracy into question? You cannot ignore the inconvenient data, that is called conformation bias and it is a fallacious heuristic.

And I am curious how you can deny that the Earth's temperatures have been stagnant the last 15 years. It literally takes 30 seconds on Google to verify this, not to mention the primary and secondary sources I posted. This isn't significant because it is a small blip in the trend, it is significant because the theoretical climate models, which are used to draw conclusions and predictions, completely failed to predict, or even account for this 15 year contradictory trend.

My point is not that 15 years of stagnation disproves global warming, my point is that it invalidates the model upon which it depends. When you factor in this, and the increased Antarctic sea ice, I would think one would call into question the validity of said models.

Oh, the "it's been cold recently" argument by the same kind of people that say the warming is just a fluctuation.

You mean like the, "it's been warm recently" argument by the same kind of people that say the cooling is just a fluctuation? <---This is why this sort of argument doesn't work well. It has no substance and can be applied in the affirmative or the negative by simply changing a couple of words. Sort of like how if you say to someone, "you're a stupid face," they can just as easily reply with, "nuh uh. You're the stupid face."

Note: I am not calling you a stupid face lol

Edited November 24, 2013 by Sternface

[ZetaX]

You already gave a NASA link that explains why currently the increase is smaller then at the end of the 20th century: there it was even more extreme then expected and the current one is leveling that overshoot (but nothing more).

See for example http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png , it shows the plateau you speak of, but also note the other plateaus there, some smaller, one even bigger. That is, as explained at NASA, an effect of el Nino/Nina and the suns intensity having a 11/22 year cycle.

@ Fractal_UK: I will side with K^2 here on the matter of the medieval societies not having much impact due to not burning any reasonable amounts of (former) biomatter. At least, I don't see how this should work and have also never heard of that before. Any evidence please¿

[ZetaX]

I now have also looked up the ice. The reason simply is that you have to distinguish between land ice and sea ice, see for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm .

As climate change also causes more extreme weathers (e.g. by the Golf stream failing) winters in antarctica could easily become colder than ever, especially at the sea with the warm water from the equator comming in at a decreased rate. Also, if you still insist on the ice not really melting: where does the rising sea level come from then¿ the glaciers outside the poles do not really store that much ice anymore.