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

[WetEV]

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.

I'll have to get the corrected maps.

The ones that show walls between oceans. :roll:


Oh, and that is assuming that the Pacific isn't warming. 2013 was the warmest year on record. And why 10 years, why not 20? Or for that matter all the data???

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-p0-2000m.dat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, if you pick the CORRECT 10 years, you can get almost no trend. Pacific temperatures increased faster than trend line in the 1990's to about 2003, then was a near flatline to 2012.

 

[donald]

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.

Sure, but what does the metric 'sea level rise' mean in a world where it falls some places. Are we talking an average? If so, who's choosing where to sample the sea levels, and how?

 

[Weatherman]

Ultimately, all that matters is what's going on where you are.

If you are on the Washington coast, sea level is falling. You should be happy camper, since no action is required. On the southeast Florida coast sea level is rising so slowly with no delta-v that it's difficult to get too concerned (although local governments are taking action based on flooding, which has occurred almost every year for the past several decades). If you are at some location where the land is subsiding while the sea level is rising, it might be something to worry about.

 

[WetEV]

Sure, but what does the metric 'sea level rise' mean in a world where it falls some places. Are we talking an average? If so, who's choosing where to sample the sea levels, and how?

If I put a level gauge in my swimming pool, it matters just a bit where I put it. It will not record exactly the average level in the pool, depending on wind, circulation pumps, thermal variations, etc. But will probably tell me when I need to add water to the pool any place I put it.

That is, if I had a swimming pool.

 

[donald]

Ultimately, all that matters is what's going on where you are.

I've no idea what that means in the context of global effects. If there is no 'global effect', then what the heck are we talking about here?

 

[Weatherman]

Goes back to my comment about the dangers of drawing cause-effect relationships between some local event and a globally averaged phenomenon.

If I was in Washington state an a local politician was talking about spending millions or billions of tax dollars on sea-level-rise mitigation efforts, I might be inclined to vote him or her out of office. It's kind of like Governor Moonbeam talking about the need to move LAX, due to sea-level rise. It was such a ridiculous idea that it was immediately shot down (fortunately before the first dollar was spent).

 

[Nubo]

Governor Moonbeam

Your spots are showing.

 

[Weatherman]

Governor Moonbeam

Your spots are showing.

Governor Moonbeam is ok. I even have his signature on my Bachelor of Science diploma.

Fact is, I'm not a big fan of Rick Scott, either, but at least he doesn't talk about having to move Miami International Airport due to sea level rise.

 

[WetEV]

Goes back to my comment about the dangers of drawing cause-effect relationships between some local event and a globally averaged phenomenon.

If I was in Washington state an a local politician was talking about spending millions or billions of tax dollars on sea-level-rise mitigation efforts, I might be inclined to vote him or her out of office. It's kind of like Governor Moonbeam talking about the need to move LAX, due to sea-level rise. It was such a ridiculous idea that it was immediately shot down (fortunately before the first dollar was spent).

Really. Not all of Washington's coast follows your example. Puget Sound, for example, doesn't, and that is where most of the people live.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

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:

<denier BS removed>

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?

Great - another one. :roll: You throw rocks at real science while 'countering' it with bad info from known anti-science denialists.

If you look at the original chart I posted, and look at only the actual measurements, you'll see very distinct slopes (rates of change) on the chart. It's clear to anyone with a desire to see and understand that the rate of change is increasing. When you insist it's otherwise it makes you look like yet another denier that's been caught in the anti-science propaganda web. That's unfortunate, but not my problem.

 

[Weatherman]

Really. Not all of Washington's coast follows your example. Puget Sound, for example, doesn't, and that is where most of the people live.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given what I know about the very steep terrain in the Puget Sound area (having lived there for five years), the following data just isn't that exciting.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9447130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2 mm per year with no delta-v for a very long time.

 

[AndyH]

Really. Not all of Washington's coast follows your example. Puget Sound, for example, doesn't, and that is where most of the people live.

http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/moteetalslr579.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given what I know about the very steep terrain in the Puget Sound area (having lived there for five years), the following data just isn't that exciting.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9447130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2 mm per year with no delta-v for a very long time.

Same thing for you, 'weatherman' - it's not cherry season till at least next month. Don't eat the green ones - they're not ripe yet.

 

[donald]

<denier BS removed> Great - another one. :roll: You throw rocks at real science while 'countering' it with bad info from known anti-science denialists.

OK, so if you are saying that plot is not correct then you only have to say that, rather than act like a child and go straight for the name-calling.

But it looks simply like a more detailed version of the stuff you've been throwing in. I can't see the difference, but that this plot appears to show detail. This data is pulled from NOAA data - are they 'deniers', as you phrase it, or are you saying the NOAA data has been misrepresented?

I think you are painting your case by labelling people as 'deniers'. I think the whole notion of 'denying' a hypothesis is absurd in science.

Can I just clarify something - what sort of observation could be made that you say would disprove anthropogenic global warming? Is there any observation possible that, if it were seen, would in your view disprove AGW?

What I mean is, if I'm sitting on the fence as I am and I say 'OK, you lot make a prediction to show your case, and you lot make a prediction to show yours' what would you predict to show what you are saying? Neither case appears to be making any really testable predictions of the future, they are all very vague and woolly, not really what I would associate with 'science'.

 

[AndyH]

<denier BS removed> Great - another one. :roll: You throw rocks at real science while 'countering' it with bad info from known anti-science denialists.

OK, so if you are saying that plot is not correct then you only have to say that, rather than act like a child and go straight for the name-calling.

But it looks simply like a more detailed version of the stuff you've been throwing in. I can't see the difference, but that this plot appears to show detail. This data is pulled from NOAA data - are they 'deniers', as you phrase it, or are you saying the NOAA data has been misrepresented?

I think you are painting your case by labelling people as 'deniers'. I think the whole notion of 'denying' a hypothesis is absurd in science.

Can I just clarify something - what sort of observation could be made that you say would disprove anthropogenic global warming? Is there any observation possible that, if it were seen, would in your view disprove AGW?

What I mean is, if I'm sitting on the fence as I am and I say 'OK, you lot make a prediction to show your case, and you lot make a prediction to show yours' what would you predict to show what you are saying? Neither case appears to be making any really testable predictions of the future, they are all very vague and woolly, not really what I would associate with 'science'.

Try to stay on task. The data are the data. What you showed was NOT a full dataset - what I presented was NOT edited to fit an AGW denial paradigm. That's the difference.

The REAL, FULL data clearly shows that there is a difference between the rate of sea level rise during the past century and the current rate since the long-predicted warming started to appear on a 'thermometer near you'. Those are hard black and white facts. Anyone - you or the denialsphere - that suggests that we are unable to read yardsticks or take a series of basic measurements only prove themselves to be out of touch with reality.

The science around the greenhouse effect goes back to 1824. It's as certain as gravity. If you want to know more, don't post here - simply read the material we've already placed on the table in front of you. We can lead a horse to water...

 

[Stoaty]

Can I just clarify something - what sort of observation could be made that you say would disprove anthropogenic global warming? Is there any observation possible that, if it were seen, would in your view disprove AGW?

A fairly strong case could be made against AGW if the global average temperature from one decade to the next went down. In other words, if AGW is correct (and not too much of the excess heat goes into the ocean), each decade should be hotter than the previous one. Since 2000-2010 is the hottest decade on record, the hypothesis stands. I would be amazed (and very very pleased) if 2010-2020 was cooler. Shorter periods of observation are not meaningful, and you don't get to cherry pick the start/stop years.

 

[donald]

Can I just clarify something - what sort of observation could be made that you say would disprove anthropogenic global warming? Is there any observation possible that, if it were seen, would in your view disprove AGW?

A fairly strong case could be made against AGW if the global average temperature from one decade to the next went down. In other words, if AGW is correct (and not too much of the excess heat goes into the ocean), each decade should be hotter than the previous one. Since 2000-2010 is the hottest decade on record, the hypothesis stands. I would be amazed (and very very pleased) if 2010-2020 was cooler. Shorter periods of observation are not meaningful, and you don't get to cherry pick the start/stop years.

So, it's that simple, then? If it was shown to be cooler in 2010-2020 than 2000-2010 then that would disprove AGW?

 

[donald]

Try to stay on task. The data are the data. What you showed was NOT a full dataset

That's the first I've ever heard a suggestion that AGW started back in the 1800's. I mean, we'd just come out of a minor glaciation in Europe and barely anyone could measure temperature, let alone had a standard scale of temperature, so how the heck is anything from the 1800's relevant?

 

[Zythryn]

That's the first I've ever heard a suggestion that AGW started back in the 1800's. I mean, we'd just come out of a minor glaciation in Europe and barely anyone could measure temperature, let alone had a standard scale of temperature, so how the heck is anything from the 1800's relevant?

No Donald, it isn't the first you have heard that suggestion, as that suggestion wasn't spoken.
What he said was "the science around the greenhouse affect goes back to 1824". Not that AGW has been observed since 1824.

The science around how our atmosphere works has a long history. Predicting how it will behave is extremely difficult, however we are getting better at it.

As for disproving any theory, there are a number of ways. I wouldn't agree that simple air temp fluctuations on a decade scale would be sufficient to disprove AGW, however they would call it into question.

Most single data points can only weaken, or strengthen a theory.
For example, if we found that the upper atmosphere was warming faster than the lower atmosphere, that would weaken AGW and strengthen the idea that the warming is due to the sun.

Or, if O2 content in the atmosphere was steady or climbing rather than falling that would also weaken AGW.

There are many other findings that would weaken AGW, every one, to my knowledge, actually strengthens it.

 

[Stoaty]

So, it's that simple, then? If it was shown to be cooler in 2010-2020 than 2000-2010 then that would disprove AGW?

No, I said a fairly strong case could be made against it, and that it would also have to be shown that the excess heat didn't go into the ocean. I gave you the simple version. In model runs it was found that up to a decade could have some cooling while the overall trend was warming, but since that was the edge case I didn't include it.

Here is a more important question, though. Think of global warming as a risk management problem. What level of risk would you accept that global warming is happening before insisting on strong measures to prevent it? If you thought there was a 50% chance that the scientists were right would you want action taken? 30%? 10%? Remember that if the scientists are right and you are wrong you will be condemning your children, grandchildren, etc. to a nasty future. Most of us insure our houses against fire even though the chance of one burning down is pretty low, and the house can always be rebuilt. If the climate scientists are right, the effects of global warming will be irreversible for thousands of years. So what level of risk would you accept without buying insurance for the earth?

 

[donald]

No Donald, it isn't the first you have heard that suggestion, as that suggestion wasn't spoken.
What he said was "the science around the greenhouse affect goes back to 1824". Not that AGW has been observed since 1824.

You are discussing semantics. The implication is disingenuous if that is not what was indicated, else what relevance is the earlier data set if it was not affected in that way?

As for disproving any theory, there are a number of ways. I wouldn't agree that simple air temp fluctuations on a decade scale would be sufficient to disprove AGW, however they would call it into question.

... yet such observations are sufficient to prove a theory as certainly as gravity, just not sufficient to disprove it? Weird.

OK, so would two decades of observations of cooling be sufficient to disprove it? Looks like I'm going to be dead before I have any hope of seeing a definitive conclusion on this, as will everyone else who have made a career out of it. That's quite some gravy train, to put in motion a whole process of career-oriented steps that you will never be held responsible for.

Most single data points can only weaken, or strengthen a theory.

You appear to be defending an earlier response from someone who says this stuff is as certain as gravity. Do you wish to distance yourself from that particular part of the comment?

There are many other findings that would weaken AGW, every one, to my knowledge, actually strengthens it.

Strikes me that no observation could possible weaken it. Every single observation, global warming or cooling, sea levels rise/fall, whatever, the observations can go in every direction and it always seems to be argued for strengthening the theory. How can you strengthen a theory that is already as certain as gravity?