Climate change

[PassedOut]

That is an upper limit. It does not mention three feet, although that might be worrisome.

 

Looking at the satellite measurements (from three different satellites), I can see no acceleration over the entire measurement period.

Sea level is rising at 3.2 mm per year. All measurements put earlier sea level increases at less than 2 mm per year; therefore the acceleration is indisputable. The latest findings reduced the earlier increases in sea level to 1.0 - 1.4 mm per year, so the acceleration is greater than had been thought.

 

I suggest that you reread the paper that you referenced to support your position on the matter: Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100

 

With more than 600 million people living in the low elevation coastal areas less than 10 m above sea level (McGranahan et al 2007), and around 150 million people living within 1 m of high tide (Lichter et al 2011) future sea level rise is one of the most damaging aspects of warming climate (Anthoff et al 2009, Hallegatte et al 2013). The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (AR5 IPCC) noted that a 0.5 m rise in mean sea level will result in a dramatic increase the frequency of high water extremes—by an order of magnitude, or more in some regions (Church et al 2013a). Thus the flood threat to the rapidly growing urban populations and associated infrastructure in coastal areas are major concerns for society (Hallegatte et al 2013, Hinkel et al 2014). Hence, impact assessment, risk management, adaptation strategy and long-term decision making in coastal areas depend on projections of mean sea level and crucially its low probability, high impact, upper range (Nicholls et al 2014).

The actual upper limit given in the paper you recommended is 190 cm, over six feet. The median in the probability distribution is 80 cm, almost 32 inches. That is well above the danger level by any reckoning.

[Daniel1960]

Sea level is rising at 3.2 mm per year. All measurements put earlier sea level increases at less than 2 mm per year; therefore the acceleration is indisputable. The latest findings reduced the earlier increases in sea level to 1.0 - 1.4 mm per year, so the acceleration is greater than had been thought.

 

I suggest that you reread the paper that you referenced to support your position on the matter: Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100

 

 

The actual upper limit given in the paper you recommended is 190 cm, over six feet. The median in the probability distribution is 80 cm, almost 32 inches. That is well above the danger level by any reckoning.

 

As you mentioned earlier with the gallon bucket, the argument supporting acceleration is that earlier measurements were wrong. You also stated the difficulty in measuring Lake Superior to 1 mm accuracy. Why are you now using these earlier measurements as evidence that sea level rise is accelerating? Using two separate measuring systems, without validating their relationship to one another, is not good scientific practice. If tide gauges showed acceleration during the time frame mentioned, and they could be correlated with the satellite measurements, then I would agree with you. However, neither show any acceleration independently. Absent any correlation, I see no evidence of acceleration. The satellite data does not show it, and the tide gauge data does not show it. Since there has been no acceleration during the time period of higher temperature rise (1979-present), how can make any prediction as to future acceleration? The paper assumes this acceleration, so their model is based on an unverified assumption. Even so, their mediam and maximum are much lower than others have predicted. Unless this assumption can be shown to be true, then I see no reason why their model shall be accepted.

[PassedOut]

As you mentioned earlier with the gallon bucket, the argument supporting acceleration is that earlier measurements were wrong.

No.

 

If you are driving at 19 mph and a minute later you are driving at 32 mph, you have accelerated. The latest research makes it likely that you were actually driving at 14 mph to start, so your acceleration has been faster.

 

Using two separate measuring systems, without validating their relationship to one another, is not good scientific practice.

There are not two measurement systems; there is only the rise in sea level in millimeters per year.

 

The rise in sea level is dominated by glacial melt and thermal expansion. You can (a) calculate the rise by from those elements, and you can (b) measure the rise directly. In fact, you get the current 3.2 mm per year rise by both (a) and (b), so the relationship has absolutely been validated.

 

The only discrepancy is that the earlier direct measurements (b) are slightly higher than the results from (a). Whether in the past (b) was right, (a) was right, or somewhere between (a) and (b) was right, there has still been acceleration.

 

And seriously, do you really think that the authors of the paper you recommended are totally ignorant of "good scientific practice?" If you do, why did you direct me to their paper to buttress your position in the first place?

 

Even so, their mediam and maximum are much lower than others have predicted.

No, their 32-inch median corresponds to the upper end of mainstream predictions. The purpose of determining the upper limit of sea level rise was to provide city planners with the worst case to prepare for.

[Daniel1960]

No.

 

If you are driving at 19 mph and a minute later you are driving at 32 mph, you have accelerated. The latest research makes it likely that you were actually driving at 14 mph to start, so your acceleration has been faster.

 

 

There are not two measurement systems; there is only the rise in sea level in millimeters per year.

 

The rise in sea level is dominated by glacial melt and thermal expansion. You can (a) calculate the rise by from those elements, and you can (b) measure the rise directly. In fact, you get the current 3.2 mm per year rise by both (a) and (b), so the relationship has absolutely been validated.

 

The only discrepancy is that the earlier direct measurements (b) are slightly higher than the results from (a). Whether in the past (b) was right, (a) was right, or somewhere between (a) and (b) was right, there has still been acceleration.

 

And seriously, do you really think that the authors of the paper you recommended are totally ignorant of "good scientific practice?" If you do, why did you direct me to their paper to buttress your position in the first place?

 

 

No, their 32-inch median corresponds to the upper end of mainstream predictions. The purpose of determining the upper limit of sea level rise was to provide city planners with the worst case to prepare for.

 

The two measurements systems are the satellites and tide gauges. They both attempt to measure the same thing - sea level rise. One metris, two techniques. Neither of which show acceleration over the timeframe employed. You cannot simply switch measurement techniques and assume that they complement one another.

 

Using your analogy, if you use one measurement technique to determine the speed to be 19 mph, a second to determine the "accelerated" speed of 32 mph, and a third to determine that the original speed was only 14 mph, how can you be sure that the measurement techniques are compatible with one another? If there was indeed acceleration since 1979, would that not be evident in the satellite data? Yet, the data shows no rate change over 35 years of data measurements.

[onoway]

If we only wait long enough, science will catch up with itself. Sometimes.

http://www.biznews.com/green/2015/02/04/scientists-seeking-save-world-find-best-technology-trees/

[blackshoe]

We have long known that the rain forests are the lungs of the world.

[Daniel1960]

If we only wait long enough, science will catch up with itself. Sometimes.

http://www.biznews.com/green/2015/02/04/scientists-seeking-save-world-find-best-technology-trees/

 

Of course. Estimates range from 25 - 50% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to deforestation. It only makes sense to start reforesting now.

[PassedOut]

Just as the cigarette companies paid unscrupulous doctors and scientists to deny the fact that smoking causes cancer, the Koch brothers and others are paying unscrupulous scientists to deny the fact that pouring CO₂ into the atmosphere causes global warming: Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

 

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

 

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

 

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

 

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

Not that ethics matter to an unscrupulous person.

 

Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

 

Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

 

Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

 

Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

 

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

The science might be pointless, but the money is real.

[kenberg]

Comparing climate studies with smoking studies brings this to mind:

 

I started smoking in 1954 at the age of 15. I knew it was harmful. Everyone knew it was harmful. Really, we all understood that. Perhaps we did not fully grasp the extent of the harm but we knew it was harmful. Later the scientific evidence became overwhelming, the deniers were shown to be not just wrong but fraudulant, but anyone with eyes could see it much earlier.

 

I largely feel the same way about all of this crap we are putting in the air. It has no effect??? Really??? Of course it has an effect. Scientists can document the details and I hope that they do, but to think we can get away with pumping more and more stuff into the atmosphere with no consequences requires a touching faith in the in the ability of the planet to withstand abuse.

[PassedOut]

Comparing climate studies with smoking studies brings this to mind:

 

I started smoking in 1954 at the age of 15. I knew it was harmful. Everyone knew it was harmful. Really, we all understood that. Perhaps we did not fully grasp the extent of the harm but we knew it was harmful. Later the scientific evidence became overwhelming, the deniers were shown to be not just wrong but fraudulant, but anyone with eyes could see it much earlier.

 

I largely feel the same way about all of this crap we are putting in the air. It has no effect??? Really??? Of course it has an effect. Scientists can document the details and I hope that they do, but to think we can get away with pumping more and more stuff into the atmosphere with no consequences requires a touching faith in the in the ability of the planet to withstand abuse.

I fully expect that somewhere down the line there will court cases against the polluters, and their defense will be, "Everyone knew that CO₂ caused global warming and did nothing to stop it, so we are not liable."

[hrothgar]

Comparing climate studies with smoking studies brings this to mind:

 

I started smoking in 1954 at the age of 15. I knew it was harmful. Everyone knew it was harmful. Really, we all understood that. Perhaps we did not fully grasp the extent of the harm but we knew it was harmful. Later the scientific evidence became overwhelming, the deniers were shown to be not just wrong but fraudulant, but anyone with eyes could see it much earlier.

 

I largely feel the same way about all of this crap we are putting in the air. It has no effect??? Really??? Of course it has an effect. Scientists can document the details and I hope that they do, but to think we can get away with pumping more and more stuff into the atmosphere with no consequences requires a touching faith in the in the ability of the planet to withstand abuse.

 

Here' the rub.

 

We (meaning the US, the Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans) are imposing our decisions on the rest of the world...

Folks in the third world are going to bear an awful lot of costs from our lifestyles and they don't get a say in the decision.

 

The fact that we know what we're doing just makes it worse.

[Al_U_Card]

That might well depend on what you were smoking...

 

Meanwhile, the IPCC being such a consensus-monger, for that CO2 to be a bigger threat, it just had to hang around a long time....such as the consensus of scientific literature at the time (but not what the models needed to generate scare stories)

 

http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg

 

errrmmm....

[Al_U_Card]

Just as the cigarette companies paid unscrupulous doctors and scientists to deny the fact that smoking causes cancer, the Koch brothers and others are paying unscrupulous scientists to deny the fact that pouring CO₂ into the atmosphere causes global warming: Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

 

 

Not that ethics matter to an unscrupulous person.

 

 

The science might be pointless, but the money is real.

 

So they made a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating how inept and unfit for purpose the GCMs used by the IPCC are, relative to their ability to actually forecast (project....etc.) better than "tomorrow will be the same as today" and the models were shown to be inadequate. So, no funding for that paper but, rather than dispute the science, attack one of the authors. Not that ethics or science matter to an alarmist's agenda.

[hrothgar]

So they made a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating how inept and unfit for purpose the GCMs used by the IPCC are, relative to their ability to actually forecast (project....etc.) better than "tomorrow will be the same as today" and the models were shown to be inadequate. So, no funding for that paper but, rather than dispute the science, attack one of the authors. Not that ethics or science matter to an alarmist's agenda.

 

There's already more than enough content out there pointing to gross inadequacies in Dr Soon's "research".

 

I don't see the harm in also pointing out that he also

 

1. Has committed perjury during his congressional testimony

2. Had grossly violated professional standards with respect to conflict of interest

[Al_U_Card]

Well, he is a climatologist (of sorts) so it's all right then...right?

 

As with:

 

BP gave Pachauri's TERI $9.5million (£6.1million) between 2006 and 2009 for planting 8,000 hectares of jatropha, a type of bush, as part of a bio-diesel research project.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Questions-over-awards-given-by-worlds-top-climate-scientist.html

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/413746/all-washed-up-for-jatropha/, ;

"....jatropha requires an average of 20,000 liters of water for every liter of biodiesel produced in India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Brazil, and Guatemala–the only countries for which jatropha production figures were available."

 

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/anthra_statement.pdf

 

"In East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh, India the aggressive promotion of jatropha is being done by TERI, (The Energy Resource Institute) in partnership with British Petroleum, UK (B P Technology Centre (BPTC).

 

BPTC has financed the program to the tune of USD 9.4 million. The plantations began in 2008 on the homelands and territories of Indigenous people.

 

Most saplings have died. Those that have survived are stunted in their growth with no signs of flowering or fruiting due to severe drought and heat conditions. Farmers have been forced to make huge investments in terms of irrigation, ploughing and manuring to get a good yield from Jatropha at the cost of their food. Jatropha undermines farmers’ livelihoods and food sovereignty in India.

 

Jatropha cultivation is completely unsustainable and hazardous for the poor farmers as it replaces their food production and makes them dependent on wage labour and forces them to purchase food at high costs.

 

Above all it undermines the food sovereignty and rights of farmer for autonomy over food production and its related land and water. It is therefore unavoidable that, as a consequence of the promotion of biofuels policy, the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities will be relinquished further, and that food security will be undermined and lands for agricultural purposes and subsistence livelihoods will diminish."

 

So much for sustainability.....

 

 

But his dalliances have required his resignation (unless that was "hacked" as well) so it whould be okay as well. Spending our tax dollars does not mean spending them wisely.

[PassedOut]

From Scientific American: Weird Winter Weather Plot Thickens as Arctic Swiftly Warms

 

Several groups around the globe, including my colleagues and me, are trying to understand the linkages between rapid Arctic warming and changes in weather patterns.

 

A number of recent studies have found what appears to be a solid connection between sea-ice loss in an area north of western Russia during the fall and a rash of abnormally cold winters in central Asia. The loss of sea ice favors a northward bulge in the jet stream, which strengthens surface high pressure to the east. That shift pumps cold Arctic air southward into central Asia.

 

Other studies suggest that Arctic warming in summer leads to a split jet stream—or two separated rivers of wind—which tends to trap the waves. Those stationary waves cause weather conditions to remain “stuck” for long periods, increasing the likelihood of extreme heat waves, droughts and flooding events in Eurasia and North America.

 

Our own new work, published last month in Environmental Research Letters, uses a variety of new metrics to show that the jet stream is becoming wavier and that rapid Arctic warming is playing a role. If these results are confirmed, then we’ll see our weather patterns become more persistent.

The effects of jet stream meandering are certainly noticeable here.

[Al_U_Card]

From Scientific American: Weird Winter Weather Plot Thickens as Arctic Swiftly Warms

 

 

The effects of jet stream meandering are certainly noticeable here.

It is only "weird" because they don't compare it to anything beyond the latest cycle of oceanic circulations etc. We are all old enough to remember the cold of the 50s and 60s as well as the snows of the 70's, if only in our regions. The planet is on a NATURAL warming cycle and has been for the last 200 years or so. ONLY THE MODELS ascribe this to human influence and then in a catastrophic but clearly inaccurate way. The more we look into this, in depth, the clearer the situation appears and that is that we are able to adapt to IMPROVING climate conditions with ease. Only model projections claim imminent disaster and they are already proving incapable of withstanding climate "variability" let alone run-away warming...err change.

[Daniel1960]

It is only "weird" because they don't compare it to anything beyond the latest cycle of oceanic circulations etc. We are all old enough to remember the cold of the 50s and 60s as well as the snows of the 70's, if only in our regions. The planet is on a NATURAL warming cycle and has been for the last 200 years or so. ONLY THE MODELS ascribe this to human influence and then in a catastrophic but clearly inaccurate way. The more we look into this, in depth, the clearer the situation appears and that is that we are able to adapt to IMPROVING climate conditions with ease. Only model projections claim imminent disaster and they are already proving incapable of withstanding climate "variability" let alone run-away warming...err change.

 

What is weird is that this pattern did not exist during the time that the Arctic was warming; 1992-2010, but rather, after the Arctic started cooling in 2011, and sea ice started increasing in 2013.

 

http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

[billw55]

Arctic sea ice did not "start increasing" in 2013. It's just short term mean regression embedded in a long term decline. This is easy to understand if you actually look at the long term data.

[mikeh]

Arctic sea ice did not "start increasing" in 2013. It's just short term mean regression embedded in a long term decline. This is easy to understand if you actually look at the long term data.

You forget....al has zero interest in trying to appreciate reality. He loves taking isolated scraps of data out of context, he loves citing discredited 'experts', he has a fixed agenda. Why he chooses a bridge forum to express his selective reading of the data is weird...altho I assume that he probably infects other websites as well....

 

As I mentioned once before...he is to global warming as lukewarm is to religious ideas. A zealot incapable of rational discourse, tho possessed of a vocabulary that will trick the naïve reader into thinking that he is trying to debate.

[Daniel1960]

Arctic sea ice did not "start increasing" in 2013. It's just short term mean regression embedded in a long term decline. This is easy to understand if you actually look at the long term data.

Billw,

Over the long term, the short term increase is smaller, but not insignificant (+1.2 vs. -3.1 million sq. km). Over the intermediate term (2007-2015), there is no discernable trend. While the sea ice has expanded and contracted over that timeframe, quite erradicately, the extent is comparable to where it was eight years ago (there was a large one-year decline from 2006 to 2007). One could argue that the large decline in 2007 was an overshoot, and the sea ice has simple corrected for it over the past eight years. This did not stop several scientists from using that short-term decline to make bold predictions about an ice-free Arctic sometime this decade.

 

In the decade prior, Arctic sea ice was declinely slowly. Using the current regression since 1998, which amounts to the highest projected loss rate, the Arctic would be ice-free (< 1M sq. km.) in ~25 years. Employing longer-term regression analyses, it would take significantly longer.

 

Before the 1990s, sea ice had reached a maximum, and was holding steady for at least a decade. Prior to the satellite data in 1979, sea ice data is less certain, although evidence suggests that the ice increased from ~1940-1970. If the sea ice extent is on a more cyclical pattern, then an ice-free Arctic would not occur this century, if ever.

 

If you examine the data, the sea ice anomaly has remained in a much tigher range over the past three years, compared to the previous six. Whether the sea ice resumes its downward spiral or regenerates, is uncertain. However, the recent hiatus (to borrow the global warming term) in sea ice decline is evident from the data:

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed, we rely on the satellite observational data to describe the polar sea-ice extents, from 1979 on. That year was during the period of greatest expanse of Arctic since recent non-satellite, observations and appeared to follow previous oceanic cycles in terms of growth and loss. Are we at the nadir of that cycle yet? Has [CO2] caused an calamitous change towards total Arctic sea-ice loss? The models project that, but they also projected that Antarctic sea-ice would go into decline... We are certainly living in interesting times as well as gradually warming climes.

 

Actual measurement and observation tends towards moderation and modulation. Modeled studies present catastrophic eventualities that, as they have shown thus far, fail to come about. Sometimes zealous belief in a cause clouds the minds of the intelligent and rational. Sometimes their hubris and ignorance serves them as expected. Just taking the factual observations at face-value is often a sufficient wake-up call. Sometimes, not so much.

[PassedOut]

Although satellite measurements confirm the acceleration of global sea level rise to the present 3 mm per year, it is interesting to see how much variation there is across the globe. Here is an interesting map of the changes from 1993-2010. One particularly striking example was this rise in two years: US sea level north of New York City 'jumped by 128mm'.

 

This study identifies a record breaking high sea level event that occurred along part of the US east coast in 2009-10. There is strong evidence that the likelihood of such events has been increased by climate change, and that we should expect more such events in the future. This example illustrates how individual extreme events are influenced by multiple factors - in this case the global rise of sea levels, regional changes in ocean circulation, and wind patterns.

 

Dr Dan Hodson, also from the University of Reading, said the analysis underlined the importance of understanding the connections between surges in sea levels and ocean currents. "Sea level change is a complex phenomenon, especially on the regional scale, where changes to the global ocean circulation can play a major role," he said. "The east coast of North America is quite close to an area of active, fast ocean currents, and so is quite sensitive to changing ocean circulation."

Earlier in this thread, Daniel1960 gave a link explaining that a sea level rise of 6 feet by the year 2100 has only a 1 in 20 chance of happening, but clearly the problem, even if the rise is only 3 feet, will be much greater for some and much less for others.

[Al_U_Card]

Although satellite measurements confirm the acceleration of global sea level rise to the present 3 mm per year, it is interesting to see how much variation there is across the globe. Here is an interesting map of the changes from 1993-2010. One particularly striking example was this rise in two years: US sea level north of New York City 'jumped by 128mm'.

 

 

Earlier in this thread, Daniel1960 gave a link explaining that a sea level rise of 6 feet by the year 2100 has only a 1 in 20 chance of happening, but clearly the problem, even if the rise is only 3 feet, will be much greater for some and much less for others.

 

So, NATURAL VARIATION ([CO2] is NOT responsible for ocean currents...yet?) can raise the sea-level almost 43 times the current annual rate which is supposed to cause, by 2100, 3x85=255mm or about half that "projected" amount. How did those people thusly affected adapt? Was it a catastrophe? Did we even hear about it? (|And they only had 12 months to deal with it. let alone 42.5 years...)

[hrothgar]

So, NATURAL VARIATION ([CO2] is NOT responsible for ocean currents...yet?) can raise the sea-level almost 43 times the current annual rate which is supposed to cause, by 2100, 3x85=255mm or about half that "projected" amount. How did those people thusly affected adapt? Was it a catastrophe? Did we even hear about it? (|And they only had 12 months to deal with it. let alone 42.5 years...)

 

As I recall, New York city "adapted" by submerging itself underwater during hurricane Sandy and then spending tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.

 

The Philippians "adapted" by burying thousands of people after typhoon Haiyan.