I think I'm a "sea-level-rise" skeptic!

[AndyH]

Another thing not really touched on is our ability to measure sea level rise to begin with.

Have a look at Dr. Morner's video that I linked on the previous page. He covers this topic in quite a bit of detail. But tide gauges tell the locals what they need to know.

Skeptic does not equal denier, therefore Pielke and his ilk are not germane.
Besides, cherry season in NA isn't until June - save the cherry picking until then, please...

 

[WetEV]

the Big List of Failed Climate Predictions

Seems to be missing a few. Isn't any bias at WWUT, oh no, not a bit.

Err, well, maybe a little. :lol:

Oh, and why not a list of accurate climate predictions?

Start one with Svante Arrhenius in 1895.


Oh, and predictions of the end of the century. Isn't it a slight bit early to call those "failed", or for that matter accurate?

Just a tiny bit?

What that means is that by 2034, the seal level in Florida will have risen about 2 inches from where it is today.

[/quote]

Really. All we need to predict future sea level is the current trend. This will always work. :lol: :roll: Right.

 

[donald]

do you also dispute the disappearing ice?

Disappearance in what respect? We are in an interglacial period, where the bulk mass of ice will change. It is a geological inevitability, so how can I dispute it?

If you are asking if I believe we humans are the cause, I don't believe anything. I've seen arguments for and against and neither are convincing.

 

[donald]

'Fraid I can't see that from the data. Could you elaborate on this insight?

Just going with the scientists on this one:

Fair enough, but I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence before I "realize that sea level rise is going to continue at an accelerating rate". It's based on numerical models that cannot predict the past, so I can't see how they can predict the future.

I'm quite confident the sea levels have been rising, from the end of the 1800's in a linear manner, from what I have seen. Looks like it could have easily been the melt following a minor glaciation to me. I don't dispute the rate could accelerate, I just don't see why it would nor any data showing that.

 

[donald]

'Fraid I can't see that from the data. Could you elaborate on this insight?

Highly-coordinated/synthesized reporting:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html

Thanks for the detailed response, but I was switched right off where the report states; "In agreement with climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations show that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. In some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling. "

If the mechanism for sea level rise is glacial melt, then it should be an even increase. I can't see how a non-uniform increase in sea level can be assigned to global temperature. Seems more like continental plate shift to me.

Unless there is good, strong reason to believe in something that is not obvious, then in the first instance the obvious should take precedent over the non-obvious.

 

[Stoaty]

Fair enough, but I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence before I "realize that sea level rise is going to continue at an accelerating rate".

Translation: "I know the climate scientists have been saying that CO2 is causing climate change for over 20 years, and the decade ending in 2010 was the hottest on record. They say it could ruin our world over the next hundred years, but I don't trust climate scientists so I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence."

Translation: "I know my doctor said I have a cancer and that without treatment it will spread, but I don't trust doctors so I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence."

 

[RegGuheert]

What that means is that by 2034, the seal level in Florida will have risen about 2 inches from where it is today.

Really. All we need to predict future sea level is the current trend. This will always work. :lol: :roll: Right.

No, I think instead we should add the end of a hockey stick to every curve and then proclaim how horrible things will be after we reach the "tipping point"! :lol:

As I have explained before, the null hypothesis dictates that we project the sea level rise based on the tidal gauge data since we have no compelling, verified evidence that can link in other undercharacterized phenomena. Any other prediction of future sea-level rise is simply alarmism.

 

[RegGuheert]

Fair enough, but I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence before I "realize that sea level rise is going to continue at an accelerating rate".

Translation: "I know the climate scientists have been saying that CO2 is causing climate change for over 20 years, and the decade ending in 2010 was the hottest on record. They say it could ruin our world over the next hundred years, but I don't trust climate scientists so I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence."

No.

Translation: There is no credible link between CO2 and the melting of the ice on Antarctica, so the idea of a "tipping point" of sea-level tied to CO2 emissions is ludicrous.

Hint: The top of the ice does not melt, but sublimates in sunlight and is replenished by snowfall. Cloudiness is what determines how much the top of the ice grows/shrinks. The bottom of the ice is melted by underground volcanoes on land and by sea water on the ice shelves. The latter process is strongly influenced by the temperature of the water under the ice shelf:

Researchers aren't sure how changing climates will affect ocean temperatures and currents in this area. But the bottom line, Rignot said, "is that the rate of melting is very sensitive to ocean temperature."

So, what are the southern ocean temperatures doing?

As you can see, the Southern Ocean has been well below its average for the past seven years and running. Since the rate of melting is "very sensitive" to ocean temperature, the obvious conclusion is that the rate of melting of the ice shelves must be lower in the recent years.

But, don't lose hope! There is this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQMtb1Pd07E[/youtube]
It looks credible that there could be an acceleration within the next couple of hundred years. But note the words of one researcher:

“I have a problem with the widespread implication (in the popular press) that the West Antarctic collapse can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change,” said Mike Wolovik, a graduate researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies ice sheet dynamics. “The marine ice sheet instability is an inherent part of ice sheet dynamics that doesn’t require any human forcing to operate. When the papers say that collapse is underway, and likely to last for several hundred years, that’s a reasonable and plausible conclusion.”

And, finally, no, the oceans around the U.S. are not currently swelling due to increased heat content:

It seems only the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic oceans are doing that currently. For over ten years, there has been no increase in the heat content of the Pacific and the North Atlantic oceans.

 

[mbender]

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time

For the record, after 9 pages of back-and-forth posts, and even though I'm not yet at the end of my exploring, I think I'm still in the skeptics' camp.

If that puts me into Pielke's ilk and/or makes me not germane ;-), then so be it!

Fascinating topic and discussion, regardless.

 

[donald]

Translation: "I know my doctor said I have a cancer and that without treatment it will spread, but I don't trust doctors so I'll wait until I see a hint of some physical evidence."

That's absolutely ridiculous. If I had a lever I could pull that would stop all fossil fuel burning on the planet with no ill effect, then I'd pull it. What else are you asking me to do, Doctor!?

You've really aimed for the wrong target with that pot-shot. You won't find a stronger advocate for renewables and nuclear power.

That doesn't mean I believe, or need to believe, other people's motivations for wanting that, though. It is perfectly logical irrespective of claims of climate change.

So... translation:
Doctor: "You've got headaches because of a tumor, even though it hasn't appeared on the brain scan yet. I prescribe this medicine, the only known side effect being that you're less like to lose energy during the day and that others will be less likely to control you."
Me:"I'm not yet convinced I have a brain tumor, but for side effects like that, what the hell, I'll take it!!"

You are exemplifying perfectly why natural-climate-change deniers seem to be more cult-like than scientific - you seem to think it is not sufficient to do what's right, you have to believe it is right for dogmatic reasons before the 'fix' will work!

Am I persuaded that AGW is real? I think the 'evidence' I have seen does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the case. Am I persuaded that AGW is a false hypothesis? Again I have not see evidence that proves that beyond reasonable doubt. Neither case meets the criterion of 'proven on the balance of probabilities' and is nowhere near 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Stoaty]

You are exemplifying perfectly why natural-climate-change deniers seem to be more cult-like than scientific - you seem to think it is not sufficient to do what's right, you have to believe it is right for dogmatic reasons before the 'fix' will work!

Well, if you favor cutting CO2 emissions as quickly and deeply as possible, I don't care what reasons you have. Is that your position?

 

[donald]

Well, if you favor cutting CO2 emissions as quickly and deeply as possible, I don't care what reasons you have. Is that your position?

Absolutely. Wasting fossil fuels by burning them is idiotic when we have alternatives.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Nice to see that after 92 posts of adult conversation everyone finally came together in agreement... or mass exhaustion.

 

[AndyH]

'Fraid I can't see that from the data. Could you elaborate on this insight?

Highly-coordinated/synthesized reporting:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html

Thanks for the detailed response, but I was switched right off where the report states; "In agreement with climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations show that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. In some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling. "

If the mechanism for sea level rise is glacial melt, then it should be an even increase. I can't see how a non-uniform increase in sea level can be assigned to global temperature. Seems more like continental plate shift to me.

Unless there is good, strong reason to believe in something that is not obvious, then in the first instance the obvious should take precedent over the non-obvious.

Am I persuaded that AGW is real? I think the 'evidence' I have seen does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the case. Am I persuaded that AGW is a false hypothesis? Again I have not see evidence that proves that beyond reasonable doubt. Neither case meets the criterion of 'proven on the balance of probabilities' and is nowhere near 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'.

I'll be blunt, Mate. First - you appear to be assuming that the increase is 'only' glacial melt and that the increase 'must' be linear to be 'real'. Sorry, both of those are incorrect. We know that because there are a couple hundred years of observations, measurements, photographs, etc. that were analyzed in order to craft that phrase. Nobody is asking you or anyone else to 'believe' what the phrase says because science is based on redundant (duplicate, not in line to be fired ) and overlapping observations and tests. There is a LOT of information hiding behind that phrase. Not a good time to switch off...

Second, when you say to me/us/anyone that you stopped listening/reading the report you asked for because it doesn't match your view of the world suggests that you might want to spend some time understanding the scientific process and exploring the tons of human-years that led up to that. In this, I don't even care if you're a published climate scientist because you would be joining the group of four folks on that side of the room while we continue to learn from the 97 folks over here...

What I find to be useful is to explore the information first, then explore the information that led to that. One has to read the material with an open mind, and both the ability and desire to understand what's being communicated first and foremost.

Good hunting.

Here's a great starting point - the Dr is not only a real climate scientist but is an excellent communicator. I found fact-checking this videos to be a fun and very educational process. Note in the 2nd clip that neither warming nor ice melt are linear...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXgDrr6qiUk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiM1DSmCSUc[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE[/youtube]

edit...additional on-topic quote; youtube intro.

 

[AndyH]

If that puts me into Pielke's ilk and/or makes me not germane ;-), then so be it!

Nope - you'll have to have a fair amount of your brain removed and make sure you continue to cash any oil company checks you receive to fall to that level. Keep exploring - the light's waiting there for you and she's amazingly patient.**

** Mother Nature, on the other hand? Not so much...

 

[donald]

I'll be blunt, Mate.

Thanks. :roll:

First - you appear to be assuming that the increase is 'only' glacial melt and that the increase 'must' be linear to be 'real'.

Sorry, you are now reading what you want to read. I've made no such presumption. I have looked at the data, and I see no reason to exclude it as being a linear increase since 1900. The only reason for thinking the rate is accelerating is because someone has plotted a graph with a big 'yike' at the end of it following whatever theorising they've done.

Second, when you say to me/us/anyone that you stopped listening/reading the report you asked for because it doesn't match your view of the world suggests

Again, not what I wrote. The writer has switched me off because he has not clarified if he's talking about an increase in total volume of sea water, or if he is talking about changes of distribution of that water. Doesn't mean I didn't read it, just that I found it lacking in explanation.

 

[RegGuheert]

Here's another view of the NOAA tide gauges, but sorted by trend and with some locations labled:

The red area shows the sites which have a sea-level trend below that of what is being reported based on satellite altimetry.

 

[AndyH]

First - you appear to be assuming that the increase is 'only' glacial melt and that the increase 'must' be linear to be 'real'.

Sorry, you are now reading what you want to read. I've made no such presumption. I have looked at the data, and I see no reason to exclude it as being a linear increase since 1900. The only reason for thinking the rate is accelerating is because someone has plotted a graph with a big 'yike' at the end of it following whatever theorising they've done.

If that's what you think then you don't understand the chart or the science and data that are behind it.

Second, when you say to me/us/anyone that you stopped listening/reading the report you asked for because it doesn't match your view of the world suggests

Again, not what I wrote. The writer has switched me off because he has not clarified if he's talking about an increase in total volume of sea water, or if he is talking about changes of distribution of that water. Doesn't mean I didn't read it, just that I found it lacking in explanation.

I didn't say it was 'what you wrote' - but am reflecting back what you communicated. You wrote that the information does not convince you. You then clarified that the 'writer...switched you off' which of course no writer can do. While interesting, it's not relevant, because your lack of either belief or understanding of gravity does not allow you to float to the ceiling - it doesn't change reality. When you have a desire to understand, you'll follow the links and explore. When you do that, you'll understand that your questions have been answered.

 

[donald]

If that's what you think then you don't understand the chart or the science and data that are behind it.

Well, I surely don't understand a graph showing sea level rise when you also link me to text that says it goes up some places and down in others.

Where's the graphic showing what's happened in the places where it's gone down? Why only link me to graphics showing it's gone up?

It's not a case of me not understanding. I simply would not attempt to comprehend data presented that is inconsistent.

And the data which seems clear enough, without any graphics shown people's 'deductions' about what might happen in the future, is:

I'm quite satisfied that this graphic shows no indication of an accelerating rate. Do you say this graphic is in error, and if so why/how? If you say it is not in error, then in what way do you see an accelerating rate of rise?

 

[Nubo]

Where's the graphic showing what's happened in the places where it's gone down? Why only link me to graphics showing it's gone up?

Consider that cold glacial melt (freshwater) is different than warm, tropical ocean water (saline). This affects local density and also affects ocean circulation that moves vast cold and warm streams of different densities in various patterns around the globe.