I have seen (as have you) physical arguments, data, and modeling results that indicate that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases radiative forcing...
The scope is the real question.
... (but as yet unconfirmed) hypothesis of AGW.
Hey, good on you.
Whether such an increase in temperature would be bad may be open to debate but has been argued to have adverse climate outcomes such as increased drought in some regions, increased severe weather, and rising sea levels.
The problem with these claims is that we’re measuring the opposite. Less sever drought, less severe weather events, and zero increase to the rate of sea level change. Given this, it seems to be pointing toward CO2 being a moderator of climate.
Separately, the associated drop in ocean pH is certainly damaging some ecosystems, such as coral reefs - may or may not count as harmful depending on your point of view.
I’ve also heard that acidification either isn’t happening to the claimed extent or that it isn’t damaging to the claimed extent. I will say, however, that my research into the matter has yet to expand into the pH of the oceans, and so I won’t say anything definitive.
Whether such an increase in temperature would be bad may be open to debate but has been argued to have adverse climate outcomes such as increased drought in some regions, increased severe weather, and rising sea levels.
The problem with these claims is that we’re measuring the opposite. Less sever drought, less severe weather events, and zero increase to the rate of sea level change. Given this, it seems to be pointing toward CO2 being a moderator of climate.
That depends a lot on the period of data that you consider - you like to look at just the past few years since the asserted "pause" in climate change. In the context of a minimum of yearly cycles I don't think that is statistically defensible. Over virtually any longer period the opposite is not being observed. In any case, in the absence of any proposed mechanism that would not argue for CO2 to be viewed as a moderator - it would argue no correlation.
That depends a lot on the period of data that you consider - you like to look at just the past few years since the asserted "pause" in climate change.
Oh, I generally start at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Actually further back when regarding specific weather events.
Over virtually any longer period the opposite is not being observed.
Well, sea level rise is slower now than at any time in the last 13,000 years, so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
In any case, in the absence of any proposed mechanism that would not argue for CO2 to be viewed as a moderator - it would argue no correlation.
If CO2 rise happened alongside a reduction in severe weather events, the correlation would be CO2 causes a leveling-out–a moderation–of climate extremes.
That depends a lot on the period of data that you consider - you like to look at just the past few years since the asserted "pause" in climate change.
Oh, I generally start at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Actually further back when regarding specific weather events.
Oh - OK, well in the past you have mostly used much more recent data to make that point. If you look over a couple of hundred years then those effects have clearly been measured. Of course, if you reject those data then that is a different matter, but you were, I think, referring to what has been measured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
Over virtually any longer period the opposite is not being observed.
Well, sea level rise is slower now than at any time in the last 13,000 years, so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I think you are referring to the glacial melt period after the last ice age from around 15,000 to 8,000 years ago. That is not a useful comparison since we are not coming out of an ice age. It was fairly stable over the past 3,000 years, but then been increasing over the past 150 years or so - consistent with other climate observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
In any case, in the absence of any proposed mechanism that would not argue for CO2 to be viewed as a moderator - it would argue no correlation.
If CO2 rise happened alongside a reduction in severe weather events, the correlation would be CO2 causes a leveling-out–a moderation–of climate extremes.
No - my point was that, scientifically speaking, in the absence of a credible mechanistic explanation, correlation is not, generally, taken to imply causation.
Thanks. I'm not sure I get the "renewables" part. From reading the link it would appear that it's mainly PV. And hydro is not "renewable", but a separate class? Hm. Are you paying more for renewable energy?
Here, in Germany, you can have offerings where you "mix your own" and price depends on the actual mix of fossile and renewable, the latter ones being more expensive.
PV solar is a very environmentally friendly solution, second only to wind given a few caveats for location, and it is still on a decreasing cost curve. There are a few solar concentrator sites that have had problems with bird kills, as have wind sites. The world will probably be at 400 GW of capacity in four years, and the rate of growth is still logarithmic. If you want to have a clean energy source for EV's, this is the top candidate.
One of the advantages of PV solar, is that it is very scalable as a manufacturing process, and with the growth in PV installations, R & D can continue to focus on higher efficiency, green materials, and cost reduction. One of the asides, is that Solar EV has been a good jobs creator.
Apple has a unique opportunity with EV's to provide both the solar PV power source, and the EV and I suspect that Apple could have a lease plan with energy packages included at a low fixed price; Tesla might do the same, but already provides consumer solutions. Each would become brokers/providers of green energy to offset the use in the vehicles that they sell.
Nuclear power still has promise as a base power source, but it scales poorly with today's technology, and it will be very difficult to achieve the growth rates in added GW that Solar PV can achieve. Never understood why the Nuclear industry doesn't throw coal under the bus; probably the same investor set I suppose.
Whatever the energy source, the U.S. needs to make a concerted and expensive update the the grid such that energy is more efficiently transported from the source to the demand. No reason that solar PV power generated in the West/Southwest couldn't be a low cost national source.
I agree what you said about PV and Wind. Wind increasingly offshore, as resistance is growing regarding the negative side effects.
The biggest disadvantage of PV is the efficiency right now.
I'm curious how long term effects for both looks like: changes in locale climate, eg.
The other disadvantage for both is of course the need for either storing the energy or transporting it, in combination with lack of guaranteeing capacity.
I also tho k that a there is no one-fits-all solution. But a sensible mix of renewables plus fossile basis is the current trend is see.
TBH I don't see the comeback of nuclear power due to current risks regarding tech tales plus waste plus research costs.
Thanks. I'm not sure I get the "renewables" part. From reading the link it would appear that it's mainly PV. And hydro is not "renewable", but a separate class? Hm. Are you paying more for renewable energy?
Here, in Germany, you can have offerings where you "mix your own" and price depends on the actual mix of fossile and renewable, the latter ones being more expensive.
Solar and wind. Regarding efficency, is Campus 2 a waste in PV when the roof are nearly completely covered in solar panels?
...you were, I think, referring to what has been measured.
Sure, and the problem in some cases is that we only have measurements using modern methods for a little over 100 years. Beyond that we have to look at ice cores, tree growth, etc., and that’s slightly less accurate.
It was fairly stable over the past 3,000 years, but then been increasing over the past 150 years or so...
Hmm. I’d not seen anything to suggest an increase. Certainly it began to level off–even around 6000 BC–but looking at change within the timeframe you suggested I don’t think I’ve seen a short range uptick.
No - my point was that, scientifically speaking, in the absence of a credible mechanistic explanation, correlation is not, generally, taken to imply causation.
Right; sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that matching CO2 to a calming of climate was the only possible explanation, either.
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane
Less is not none.
80 years to inert matter is better than ~10,000. I’ll take the 80.
Hmm. I’d not seen anything to suggest an increase. Certainly it began to level off–even around 6000 BC–but looking at change within the timeframe you suggested I don’t think I’ve seen a short range uptick.
The recent increases are certainly not visible on that scale. Looking more closely shows a noticeable rate increase:
Looking more closely shows a noticeable rate increase:
Ah, but that chart isn’t accurate, unfortunately. I will say that the data presented therein has been manipulated–leaving the discussion thereon alone for now–and present other data that contradicts it.
Here’s NOAA itself, stating that the rate of rise is 1.7 millimeters per year. That’s this September! That translates (let’s round up) to 6 inches by 2100. 15 centimeters for our French system tagalongs. EDIT: Oh, they put the page back up. They had taken it down earlier because those numbers contradicted what they reported publicly and they were called out on it. Here’s the live version, which happily says the same thing. Here’s an in-depth long term US analysis (which makes mention of the same global sea level change in the summary). Here’s a (single) example (I can provide many more) of a station with zero change to its rate over the entire recording period. Many of Florida’s stations rose faster before 1950. Some rise is entirely predicated on land subsidence, not water rising.
I recall reading recently about a medieval castle in Britain which was moated and connected directly to the sea during the Medieval Warm Period, but which is now a mile or so inland, as the planet has cooled considerably since then. I’ll certainly try to find it; I should have saved the information when I saw it. That’s a single incident, sure, but it’s valuable data since it’s one of the only human records (written, drawn, and architectural) we’d have of that period...
One of the “leading” climate “scientists” claimed the following:
If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues the effect is likely to be... ...thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice thus causing sea levels to rise by to 4 feet by the middle of the next century.
Reality is currently ~1000% removed from his claim. And that’s just on what he said about sea level!
So many times in these discussions (not just here, of course) people get all uppity and claim that I would have an “agenda” or am simply being “contrarian”. My only agenda is Truth. Capital T: objective. I look at the data we’ve collected, see what it says, compare to the claims, and see that the claims are false. I prefer using the data to extrapolate the future, rather than delusional nonsense based in nothing but whimsy. It is this whimsy that causes me to wonder where the “agenda” is. But honestly, that’s just secondary. I only care about the data; I don’t care where it’s from or what it implies. If people want to get upset that the data doesn’t match their claims, the answer isn’t to edit it, omit it, handwave it, or hide it. The answer is to change the claim.
I’ve changed my claims a ton of times. Been wrong even more times than that. For example, three or four years ago I would’ve said a faster-than-yearly-release iPhone update was unlikely. Looking at the data of their past release schedules–the only metric by which we could judge such things–we would have seen nothing to corroborate such claims. But now, when we’re on the other side of an iPad release that happened six months apart, we now have precedent for Apple breaking their yearly release cycle. And so these claims of the iPhone 7 being released early aren’t unlikely (well, they are, statistically...); they’re just a small possibility. Look at something else: the car. We’ve no information whatsoever that would say Apple’s going to make an actual car car, and so my thoughts on the matter have always been musings on what Apple could do to change the concept of what we know as a “car”, based on the past data we have on what they did to change the concepts of “computer”, “phone”, “music player”, “tablet”, etc. Taking this information into account, I extrapolate that if Apple were to make a car, it would be a landmark product with industry-defining change, and so I suppose I welcome it. A television set, as a counter example, I don’t welcome (even though I have no Apple stock). We have historic data (hey!) regarding the potential margins of that industry, which–to me–makes it look like a poor choice product field to enter. They could certainly make a product that redefines what we think of a television being, but the fiscal success of such an endeavor is low. The same goes for the delusional demands that some far leftists have to shut down all coal, oil, gas, and nuclear plants in the West (and only the West...) while still expecting to be able to provide the energy needed to power civilization. For me, it’s all about the data. I don’t care who was paid by whom (or not) to say (or not say) what; if it doesn’t match the data, it’s worthless.
I don’t think that “Hey, let’s just do this and damn what the past says!” has ever worked out well for anyone, anywhere. Could be wrong, though.
The difference between sane people and that “scientist” is that sane people realize that their theories are supposed to change in the face of data, not the other way around.
That got long. I’ll end with a quote from the January 1907 issue of the Monthly Weather Review.
It is wrong to mutilate or suppress the record of an observation of a phenomenon of nature, but it is also wrong to make a bad use of the record. In fact, it is the misuse of meteorological data, not the observing or publishing, that constitutes a crime against the community. Observation and careful research are to be encouraged as useful. Misrepresentations are to be avoided as harmful. The “Independent Press” as the “Voice of the People” should be not only “Vox Populi” but “Vox Dei”, repressing all cheats and hoaxes, defending the truth and the best interests of the whole nation as against the self-interest of a few.
Looking more closely shows a noticeable rate increase:
Ah, but that chart isn’t accurate, unfortunately. I will say that the data presented therein has been manipulated–leaving the discussion thereon alone for now–and present other data that contradicts it.
Here’s NOAA itself, stating that the rate of rise is 1.7 millimeters per year. That’s this September! That translates (let’s round up) to 6 inches by 2100. 15 centimeters for our French system tagalongs. EDIT: Oh, they put the page back up. They had taken it down earlier because those numbers contradicted what they reported publicly and they were called out on it. Here’s the live version, which happily says the same thing. Here’s an in-depth long term US analysis (which makes mention of the same global sea level change in the summary). Here’s a (single) example (I can provide many more) of a station with zero change to its rate over the entire recording period. Many of Florida’s stations rose faster before 1950. Some rise is entirely predicated on land subsidence, not water rising.
OK - what am I missing here? What is the evidence that the chart data have been manipulated? Those pages that you linked are identical as far as I can tell. 1.7 mm/yr is the average estimated global MSL increase from around 1870 to 2000 - that is why it is mentioned in the context of looking at regional measurements and extracting vertical land movement. The whole point is that the recent rate of change of MSL is somewhat higher - over 2.5 mm/yr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I recall reading recently about a medieval castle in Britain which was moated and connected directly to the sea during the Medieval Warm Period, but which is now a mile or so inland, as the planet has cooled considerably since then. I’ll certainly try to find it; I should have saved the information when I saw it. That’s a single incident, sure, but it’s valuable data since it’s one of the only human records (written, drawn, and architectural) we’d have of that period...
That's fascinating but the author is clearly mistaken. His paper concludes that the sea level around the UK was around 30 m higher at that time. That would have put London under about 80 ft of water, which it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
One of the “leading” climate “scientists” claimed the following:
If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues the effect is likely to be... ...thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice thus causing sea levels to rise by to 4 feet by the middle of the next century.
Reality is currently ~1000% removed from his claim. And that’s just on what he said about sea level!
So that was a newspaper article back in 1988 on Hansen and others testifying to a congressional committee. It is not at all clear where the projected MSL change that is mentioned came from since it is not directly attributed, but you misquoted it anyway - the article said "1 to 4 feet". Based on the current rate of change of the MSL rate of increase (second derivative of the chart data), the lower end of that estimate range does not look unreasonable.
Look at the wheels on your office chair. 5 wheels would prevent all roll-overs. No steering. No suspension. Use bicycle parts. Ultra light. 5 wheel motors. Computer controls, no windows, hammock interior, ultimate aerodynamic shape.
The whole point is that the recent rate of change of MSL is somewhat higher - over 2.5 mm/yr.
But even NOAA says otherwise.
His paper concludes that the sea level around the UK was around 30 m higher at that time. That would have put London under about 80 ft of water, which it wasn't.
Sea level changes aren’t equal globally. In some places right now they’re going down. In others, up far faster than the average. I must have missed 30m; I thought it said 30 feet...
It is not at all clear where the projected MSL change that is mentioned came from since it is not directly attributed
He invented it.
but you misquoted it anyway - the article said "1 to 4 feet". Based on the current rate of change of the MSL rate of increase (second derivative of the chart data), the lower end of that estimate range does not look unreasonable.
Gah, I pulled the text straight off the initial page and their OCR must have missed the 1; sorry.
If the MSL is 1.7 millimeters, that means 6 inches by 2100 and 2.5 inches by 2050, the initial claim date. So it’s way off. Even if it’s 3.3 millimeters, as is lied about often, that’s only 4.5 inches by 2050. Still not a foot, much less 4.
The whole point is that the recent rate of change of MSL is somewhat higher - over 2.5 mm/yr.
But even NOAA says otherwise.
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
It is not at all clear where the projected MSL change that is mentioned came from since it is not directly attributed
He invented it.
No - I meant that it is not mentioned who made that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
but you misquoted it anyway - the article said "1 to 4 feet". Based on the current rate of change of the MSL rate of increase (second derivative of the chart data), the lower end of that estimate range does not look unreasonable.
Gah, I pulled the text straight off the initial page and their OCR must have missed the 1; sorry.
If the MSL is 1.7 millimeters, that means 6 inches by 2100 and 2.5 inches by 2050, the initial claim date. So it’s way off. Even if it’s 3.3 millimeters, as is lied about often, that’s only 4.5 inches by 2050. Still not a foot, much less 4.
No - as I pointed out, 1.7 mm/yr is the historical average. This estimate is based on the increasing rate of increase illustrated by the chart. The data are concave upwards, from which the second derivative of MSL can be estimated, quite apart from model predictions. Also, MSL has already risen by 3 inches since the date of that comment - at your example average rate of 3.3 mm/yr from 1988 that would have been around 9.6 inches by 2050, not 4.5. But the whole point is that these estimates are non-linear. I'm not arguing that it will necessarily happen, but a rise of 1 foot from 1988 to 2050 would require an average rate of increase over that period of around 4 mm/yr, which is not inconsistent with the trend in that chart.
No - I meant that it is not mentioned who made that statement.
Oh, in that specific article? I suppose. But Hansen is cited many times since with similar (and even greater) claims, so I imagine it came straight from him.
This estimate is based on the increasing rate of increase illustrated by the chart.
Oh, okay (you’re referring to your initial chart, right?). But there’s no evidence to suggest that the rate will increase. There was no increase in the rate during the period from 1988 to 2015, as he claimed there would be, so with the data not corroborating his theory, we can only make predictions based on the (new, contemporary) data we have now.
...a rise of 1 foot from 1988 to 2050 would require an average rate of increase over that period of around 4 mm/yr, which is not inconsistent with the trend in that chart.
But again, it’s only ~1.7 mm.
Regarding the calculations, I was only calculating from today, based on today’s rates, so that’s my fault. If we use today’s rate (which, according to him, should even be higher than that at his start date, even though it isn’t) across the whole time (1988-2050), that’s only 4.14 inches. If we use the mythical 3.3 mm, that’s 8 inches.
Now we are going around in circles - I already pointed out that they are giving that number as the historical average, not the recent one. You misunderstood the point of that explanation, although I admit that they could have written it more clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
This estimate is based on the increasing rate of increase illustrated by the chart.
Oh, okay (you’re referring to your initial chart, right?). But there’s no evidence to suggest that the rate will increase. There was no increase in the rate during the period from 1988 to 2015, as he claimed there would be, so with the data not corroborating his theory, we can only make predictions based on the (new, contemporary) data we have now.
Yes - the one that I posted. I guess it depends on the dataset that you are looking at. Since 1990 or so satellite data do appear to show a roughly constant rate of increase (3 mm/yr), but the tide data clearly show an increasing rate, which appears to average 4.2 mm/yr over that period. You can plot the data and check those rates. While there is no guarantee that the rate will continue to increase, my point was that the original predictions are not particularly inconsistent with current data. In other words a curve fit to either the tide or satellite data, extrapolated to 2050 yields a total rise of the order of 1 foot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by muppetry
...a rise of 1 foot from 1988 to 2050 would require an average rate of increase over that period of around 4 mm/yr, which is not inconsistent with the trend in that chart.
But again, it’s only ~1.7 mm.
Regarding the calculations, I was only calculating from today, based on today’s rates, so that’s my fault. If we use today’s rate (which, according to him, should even be higher than that at his start date, even though it isn’t) across the whole time (1988-2050), that’s only 4.14 inches. If we use the mythical 3.3 mm, that’s 8 inches.
Right - I realized you were calculating from the present. But no, it is not 1.7 mm/yr now, or anything close to it. Your other point is correct but, if we accept the chart data, those higher rates are not unreasonable extrapolations. As I said above, 3.3 mm/yr looks quite close based on recent satellite data and low based on tide data.
...they are giving that number as the historical average, not the recent one.
Okay, so why is the modern average of all NOAA gauges only 1.14 mm/year? It seems I was being generous...
Here’s the most recent data they have publicly available. I say publicly available, but they’ve actually taken this page down on their site (hmm... why are they being subpoenaed, I wonder...). I pulled it off the site, threw it into Numbers, and ran an average function on the MSL trend column. 1.14. Am I doing something incorrectly? Is that not the way to do it?
Let’s assume that both your data AND my data are correct, for a moment. Since there’s no publicly available information anymore to check, by what amount would each of the gauges have to have increased in the last 14 months for it to be an average of 3.3 worldwide now? Given past change in the rate of increase (roughly ~0.0mm over the last, what, 50-100 years; let’s call it .5 mm, even, whatever), does it make sense that it would suddenly jump 2.16 mm in 14 months?
...they are giving that number as the historical average, not the recent one.
Okay, so why is the modern average of all NOAA gauges only 1.14 mm/year? It seems I was being generous...
Here’s the most recent data they have publicly available. I say publicly available, but they’ve actually taken this page down on their site (hmm... why are they being subpoenaed, I wonder...). I pulled it off the site, threw it into Numbers, and ran an average function on the MSL trend column. 1.14. Am I doing something incorrectly? Is that not the way to do it?
No - that's the correct analysis, and I'm sure that your calculations are fine. But those data are uncorrected for vertical land movement. For example, you will notice that data from glaciated regions such as northern Canada, the arctic etc. show quite large negative trends caused by land rise due to the decreased glacial loading. I suspect that those data are skewing your analysis. Check what you get if you exclude those regions.
And - just to add - you are still calculating an average of averages over various historical ranges, not current.
Sure, and the problem in some cases is that we only have measurements using modern methods for a little over 100 years. Beyond that we have to look at ice cores, tree growth, etc., and that’s slightly less accurate.
Comments
The scope is the real question.
Hey, good on you.
The problem with these claims is that we’re measuring the opposite. Less sever drought, less severe weather events, and zero increase to the rate of sea level change. Given this, it seems to be pointing toward CO2 being a moderator of climate.
I’ve also heard that acidification either isn’t happening to the claimed extent or that it isn’t damaging to the claimed extent. I will say, however, that my research into the matter has yet to expand into the pH of the oceans, and so I won’t say anything definitive.
The problem with these claims is that we’re measuring the opposite. Less sever drought, less severe weather events, and zero increase to the rate of sea level change. Given this, it seems to be pointing toward CO2 being a moderator of climate.
That depends a lot on the period of data that you consider - you like to look at just the past few years since the asserted "pause" in climate change. In the context of a minimum of yearly cycles I don't think that is statistically defensible. Over virtually any longer period the opposite is not being observed. In any case, in the absence of any proposed mechanism that would not argue for CO2 to be viewed as a moderator - it would argue no correlation.
Oh, I generally start at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Actually further back when regarding specific weather events.
Well, sea level rise is slower now than at any time in the last 13,000 years, so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
If CO2 rise happened alongside a reduction in severe weather events, the correlation would be CO2 causes a leveling-out–a moderation–of climate extremes.
Oh, I generally start at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Actually further back when regarding specific weather events.
Oh - OK, well in the past you have mostly used much more recent data to make that point. If you look over a couple of hundred years then those effects have clearly been measured. Of course, if you reject those data then that is a different matter, but you were, I think, referring to what has been measured.
Well, sea level rise is slower now than at any time in the last 13,000 years, so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I think you are referring to the glacial melt period after the last ice age from around 15,000 to 8,000 years ago. That is not a useful comparison since we are not coming out of an ice age. It was fairly stable over the past 3,000 years, but then been increasing over the past 150 years or so - consistent with other climate observations.
If CO2 rise happened alongside a reduction in severe weather events, the correlation would be CO2 causes a leveling-out–a moderation–of climate extremes.
No - my point was that, scientifically speaking, in the absence of a credible mechanistic explanation, correlation is not, generally, taken to imply causation.
Nope. Less is not none. Also, currently technological risks are still higher and efficiency lower.
Thanks. I'm not sure I get the "renewables" part. From reading the link it would appear that it's mainly PV. And hydro is not "renewable", but a separate class? Hm. Are you paying more for renewable energy?
Here, in Germany, you can have offerings where you "mix your own" and price depends on the actual mix of fossile and renewable, the latter ones being more expensive.
I agree what you said about PV and Wind. Wind increasingly offshore, as resistance is growing regarding the negative side effects.
The biggest disadvantage of PV is the efficiency right now.
I'm curious how long term effects for both looks like: changes in locale climate, eg.
The other disadvantage for both is of course the need for either storing the energy or transporting it, in combination with lack of guaranteeing capacity.
I also tho k that a there is no one-fits-all solution. But a sensible mix of renewables plus fossile basis is the current trend is see.
TBH I don't see the comeback of nuclear power due to current risks regarding tech tales plus waste plus research costs.
Solar and wind. Regarding efficency, is Campus 2 a waste in PV when the roof are nearly completely covered in solar panels?
Sure, and the problem in some cases is that we only have measurements using modern methods for a little over 100 years. Beyond that we have to look at ice cores, tree growth, etc., and that’s slightly less accurate.
Hmm. I’d not seen anything to suggest an increase. Certainly it began to level off–even around 6000 BC–but looking at change within the timeframe you suggested I don’t think I’ve seen a short range uptick.
No - my point was that, scientifically speaking, in the absence of a credible mechanistic explanation, correlation is not, generally, taken to imply causation.
Right; sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that matching CO2 to a calming of climate was the only possible explanation, either.
80 years to inert matter is better than ~10,000. I’ll take the 80.
The recent increases are certainly not visible on that scale. Looking more closely shows a noticeable rate increase:
Looking more closely shows a noticeable rate increase:
Ah, but that chart isn’t accurate, unfortunately. I will say that the data presented therein has been manipulated–leaving the discussion thereon alone for now–and present other data that contradicts it.
Here’s NOAA itself, stating that the rate of rise is 1.7 millimeters per year. That’s this September! That translates (let’s round up) to 6 inches by 2100. 15 centimeters for our French system tagalongs. EDIT: Oh, they put the page back up. They had taken it down earlier because those numbers contradicted what they reported publicly and they were called out on it. Here’s the live version, which happily says the same thing. Here’s an in-depth long term US analysis (which makes mention of the same global sea level change in the summary). Here’s a (single) example (I can provide many more) of a station with zero change to its rate over the entire recording period. Many of Florida’s stations rose faster before 1950. Some rise is entirely predicated on land subsidence, not water rising.
I recall reading recently about a medieval castle in Britain which was moated and connected directly to the sea during the Medieval Warm Period, but which is now a mile or so inland, as the planet has cooled considerably since then. I’ll certainly try to find it; I should have saved the information when I saw it. That’s a single incident, sure, but it’s valuable data since it’s one of the only human records (written, drawn, and architectural) we’d have of that period...
EDIT: Aha, found it.
One of the “leading” climate “scientists” claimed the following:
Reality is currently ~1000% removed from his claim. And that’s just on what he said about sea level!
So many times in these discussions (not just here, of course) people get all uppity and claim that I would have an “agenda” or am simply being “contrarian”. My only agenda is Truth. Capital T: objective. I look at the data we’ve collected, see what it says, compare to the claims, and see that the claims are false. I prefer using the data to extrapolate the future, rather than delusional nonsense based in nothing but whimsy. It is this whimsy that causes me to wonder where the “agenda” is. But honestly, that’s just secondary. I only care about the data; I don’t care where it’s from or what it implies. If people want to get upset that the data doesn’t match their claims, the answer isn’t to edit it, omit it, handwave it, or hide it. The answer is to change the claim.
I’ve changed my claims a ton of times. Been wrong even more times than that. For example, three or four years ago I would’ve said a faster-than-yearly-release iPhone update was unlikely. Looking at the data of their past release schedules–the only metric by which we could judge such things–we would have seen nothing to corroborate such claims. But now, when we’re on the other side of an iPad release that happened six months apart, we now have precedent for Apple breaking their yearly release cycle. And so these claims of the iPhone 7 being released early aren’t unlikely (well, they are, statistically...); they’re just a small possibility. Look at something else: the car. We’ve no information whatsoever that would say Apple’s going to make an actual car car, and so my thoughts on the matter have always been musings on what Apple could do to change the concept of what we know as a “car”, based on the past data we have on what they did to change the concepts of “computer”, “phone”, “music player”, “tablet”, etc. Taking this information into account, I extrapolate that if Apple were to make a car, it would be a landmark product with industry-defining change, and so I suppose I welcome it. A television set, as a counter example, I don’t welcome (even though I have no Apple stock). We have historic data (hey!) regarding the potential margins of that industry, which–to me–makes it look like a poor choice product field to enter. They could certainly make a product that redefines what we think of a television being, but the fiscal success of such an endeavor is low. The same goes for the delusional demands that some far leftists have to shut down all coal, oil, gas, and nuclear plants in the West (and only the West...) while still expecting to be able to provide the energy needed to power civilization. For me, it’s all about the data. I don’t care who was paid by whom (or not) to say (or not say) what; if it doesn’t match the data, it’s worthless.
I don’t think that “Hey, let’s just do this and damn what the past says!” has ever worked out well for anyone, anywhere. Could be wrong, though.
The difference between sane people and that “scientist” is that sane people realize that their theories are supposed to change in the face of data, not the other way around.
That got long. I’ll end with a quote from the January 1907 issue of the Monthly Weather Review.
Looking more closely shows a noticeable rate increase:
Ah, but that chart isn’t accurate, unfortunately. I will say that the data presented therein has been manipulated–leaving the discussion thereon alone for now–and present other data that contradicts it.
Here’s NOAA itself, stating that the rate of rise is 1.7 millimeters per year. That’s this September! That translates (let’s round up) to 6 inches by 2100. 15 centimeters for our French system tagalongs. EDIT: Oh, they put the page back up. They had taken it down earlier because those numbers contradicted what they reported publicly and they were called out on it. Here’s the live version, which happily says the same thing. Here’s an in-depth long term US analysis (which makes mention of the same global sea level change in the summary). Here’s a (single) example (I can provide many more) of a station with zero change to its rate over the entire recording period. Many of Florida’s stations rose faster before 1950. Some rise is entirely predicated on land subsidence, not water rising.
OK - what am I missing here? What is the evidence that the chart data have been manipulated? Those pages that you linked are identical as far as I can tell. 1.7 mm/yr is the average estimated global MSL increase from around 1870 to 2000 - that is why it is mentioned in the context of looking at regional measurements and extracting vertical land movement. The whole point is that the recent rate of change of MSL is somewhat higher - over 2.5 mm/yr.
That's fascinating but the author is clearly mistaken. His paper concludes that the sea level around the UK was around 30 m higher at that time. That would have put London under about 80 ft of water, which it wasn't.
One of the “leading” climate “scientists” claimed the following:
Reality is currently ~1000% removed from his claim. And that’s just on what he said about sea level!
So that was a newspaper article back in 1988 on Hansen and others testifying to a congressional committee. It is not at all clear where the projected MSL change that is mentioned came from since it is not directly attributed, but you misquoted it anyway - the article said "1 to 4 feet". Based on the current rate of change of the MSL rate of increase (second derivative of the chart data), the lower end of that estimate range does not look unreasonable.
The whole point is that the recent rate of change of MSL is somewhat higher - over 2.5 mm/yr.
But even NOAA says otherwise.
Sea level changes aren’t equal globally. In some places right now they’re going down. In others, up far faster than the average. I must have missed 30m; I thought it said 30 feet...
He invented it.
Gah, I pulled the text straight off the initial page and their OCR must have missed the 1; sorry.
If the MSL is 1.7 millimeters, that means 6 inches by 2100 and 2.5 inches by 2050, the initial claim date. So it’s way off. Even if it’s 3.3 millimeters, as is lied about often, that’s only 4.5 inches by 2050. Still not a foot, much less 4.
The whole point is that the recent rate of change of MSL is somewhat higher - over 2.5 mm/yr.
But even NOAA says otherwise.
Where?
He invented it.
No - I meant that it is not mentioned who made that statement.
Gah, I pulled the text straight off the initial page and their OCR must have missed the 1; sorry.
If the MSL is 1.7 millimeters, that means 6 inches by 2100 and 2.5 inches by 2050, the initial claim date. So it’s way off. Even if it’s 3.3 millimeters, as is lied about often, that’s only 4.5 inches by 2050. Still not a foot, much less 4.
No - as I pointed out, 1.7 mm/yr is the historical average. This estimate is based on the increasing rate of increase illustrated by the chart. The data are concave upwards, from which the second derivative of MSL can be estimated, quite apart from model predictions. Also, MSL has already risen by 3 inches since the date of that comment - at your example average rate of 3.3 mm/yr from 1988 that would have been around 9.6 inches by 2050, not 4.5. But the whole point is that these estimates are non-linear. I'm not arguing that it will necessarily happen, but a rise of 1 foot from 1988 to 2050 would require an average rate of increase over that period of around 4 mm/yr, which is not inconsistent with the trend in that chart.
Where?
At the links I gave! Here. 1.7 mm.
Oh, in that specific article? I suppose. But Hansen is cited many times since with similar (and even greater) claims, so I imagine it came straight from him.
Oh, okay (you’re referring to your initial chart, right?). But there’s no evidence to suggest that the rate will increase. There was no increase in the rate during the period from 1988 to 2015, as he claimed there would be, so with the data not corroborating his theory, we can only make predictions based on the (new, contemporary) data we have now.
But again, it’s only ~1.7 mm.
Regarding the calculations, I was only calculating from today, based on today’s rates, so that’s my fault. If we use today’s rate (which, according to him, should even be higher than that at his start date, even though it isn’t) across the whole time (1988-2050), that’s only 4.14 inches. If we use the mythical 3.3 mm, that’s 8 inches.
Where?
At the links I gave! Here. 1.7 mm.
Now we are going around in circles - I already pointed out that they are giving that number as the historical average, not the recent one. You misunderstood the point of that explanation, although I admit that they could have written it more clearly.
Oh, okay (you’re referring to your initial chart, right?). But there’s no evidence to suggest that the rate will increase. There was no increase in the rate during the period from 1988 to 2015, as he claimed there would be, so with the data not corroborating his theory, we can only make predictions based on the (new, contemporary) data we have now.
Yes - the one that I posted. I guess it depends on the dataset that you are looking at. Since 1990 or so satellite data do appear to show a roughly constant rate of increase (3 mm/yr), but the tide data clearly show an increasing rate, which appears to average 4.2 mm/yr over that period. You can plot the data and check those rates. While there is no guarantee that the rate will continue to increase, my point was that the original predictions are not particularly inconsistent with current data. In other words a curve fit to either the tide or satellite data, extrapolated to 2050 yields a total rise of the order of 1 foot.
But again, it’s only ~1.7 mm.
Regarding the calculations, I was only calculating from today, based on today’s rates, so that’s my fault. If we use today’s rate (which, according to him, should even be higher than that at his start date, even though it isn’t) across the whole time (1988-2050), that’s only 4.14 inches. If we use the mythical 3.3 mm, that’s 8 inches.
Right - I realized you were calculating from the present. But no, it is not 1.7 mm/yr now, or anything close to it. Your other point is correct but, if we accept the chart data, those higher rates are not unreasonable extrapolations. As I said above, 3.3 mm/yr looks quite close based on recent satellite data and low based on tide data.
...they are giving that number as the historical average, not the recent one.
Okay, so why is the modern average of all NOAA gauges only 1.14 mm/year? It seems I was being generous...
Here’s the most recent data they have publicly available. I say publicly available, but they’ve actually taken this page down on their site (hmm... why are they being subpoenaed, I wonder...). I pulled it off the site, threw it into Numbers, and ran an average function on the MSL trend column. 1.14. Am I doing something incorrectly? Is that not the way to do it?
Let’s assume that both your data AND my data are correct, for a moment. Since there’s no publicly available information anymore to check, by what amount would each of the gauges have to have increased in the last 14 months for it to be an average of 3.3 worldwide now? Given past change in the rate of increase (roughly ~0.0mm over the last, what, 50-100 years; let’s call it .5 mm, even, whatever), does it make sense that it would suddenly jump 2.16 mm in 14 months?
...they are giving that number as the historical average, not the recent one.
Okay, so why is the modern average of all NOAA gauges only 1.14 mm/year? It seems I was being generous...
Here’s the most recent data they have publicly available. I say publicly available, but they’ve actually taken this page down on their site (hmm... why are they being subpoenaed, I wonder...). I pulled it off the site, threw it into Numbers, and ran an average function on the MSL trend column. 1.14. Am I doing something incorrectly? Is that not the way to do it?
No - that's the correct analysis, and I'm sure that your calculations are fine. But those data are uncorrected for vertical land movement. For example, you will notice that data from glaciated regions such as northern Canada, the arctic etc. show quite large negative trends caused by land rise due to the decreased glacial loading. I suspect that those data are skewing your analysis. Check what you get if you exclude those regions.
And - just to add - you are still calculating an average of averages over various historical ranges, not current.
Can you point me to a source for the 80 years?