Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
malemute,
if we look at those plots you showed, it proves they don't agree,
and so there is no consensus, and science is worthless. QED.
The first law of denialism (kooks 19:98) says all that's required to disprove all science is to find one slightly mistaken source, and drudge it up for the rest of time. If any model ever might have been imperfect, all models must be ignored.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
they are as intelligent as chimps
Dubious.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
The Good Places
|
|
i drive oilcars and do not see or care the linkage twixt that and the so called "mother" earff
a7 or deff
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Oh man am I gonna step in it here.
Is the planet warming? Yes, it's clearly measurable. Are humans causing it? I'm agnostic on this. For example, on the subject of rising sea levels, the trend has been linear from 1880 to 2014. The data from 1880 to 2014 is from the Australian Gov.(tide gauges,) from the early 1990's through 2014 from the NOAA satellites. FWIW the NOAA data is slightly more linear that the gauges.
In 1880 the earths population was app. 1B. In 2014 that number is roughly 7B. I can't find stats, but I think it's safe to say that the carbon footprint per billion humans has increased substantially since 1880.
Last but not least, I'm not arguing for or against either point of view, my mind is open on this subject. I just think this data is interesting. Most of the data we are presented with is from the last 10 or 20 years, not the last 135 years. So, is the prospect of rising sea levels a serious issue? Absolutely. I don't relish the idea of Manhattan being under water. Especially Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Does the trend of rising sea levels support the theory that it is caused by humans?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
I keep hearing about Irma being the most powerful Atlantic hurricane EVER!
How does Irma stack up against Wilma, Allen, Gilbert or the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane?
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
How do your worldview get around the thermal expansion of water?
I tried to to be clear that I don't have a "worldview" on this subject.
I need some clarification on the graphs. I searched "thermal expansion of water" and came to a bunch of calculus. Sadly they don't teach this at music school :-) I did get the principle that the expansion vs temp. is not linear. My first question is, at what depth are the measurements made? Intuitively, it seems to me that ocean water will be colder at a depth below the surface, and affected less by temperature variations at the surface. If so, how is this variable factored into the conclusions?
Regarding the storms, I posted this info on the other thread. But again I find it interesting. How about that "Cuba" hurricane held class 5 winds for 78 hours. Yikes.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
My original question originates from the graph I posted which shows a linear increase in ocean levels since 1880. This despite the world population growing by seven times. Then Malemut brought up the subject of thermal expansion of water, an interesting subject which I'd never thought about before. But the graph I posted says nothing about the mechanism by which the oceans are rising, only that they are and have been at a constant rate since the late 1800's. It seems to me to be a natural question to ask.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
That's not a linear increase in ocean levels, KSolem. Get out a straight edge and watch it rotate as you line up the various regions.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
given that pretty much the majority of reasonably intelligent adults now agree that no one is lying any more about the earth setting new heat records every year now
no one really disputes that fact ..
so the two big questions are whether human activity has been and is contributing to the warming
and secondly can we do anything to lessen, to mitigate the negative effects of this warming?
when I ask this question the first response is usually how much of a tax increase will I have to personally pay? followed by - If any amount then I am against it....
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Malemute's last graph there get's my attention. I'll read as much of the findings as I can understand, and watch the video.
The way I read the one I posted is, corrected for the short term variations (as Malemute's graph does,) the 40 years starting in 1880 to 1920 show a 2 inch rise. The 40 years from 1920 to 1960 look like 2.25" reading the bump around 1961 as a short term variation (Malemute's graph treats that bump the same way.) The next 40 look like another 2.25". Then the sat and gauge data disagree as to the rate.
I suppose that in such matters an increase of .25 inches for every 2 is significant, being a rate of increase of 12.5% per 40 years. Converting from mm to inches Malemute's graph shows a rate of increase of 2.2 inches per 40 years from 1930 to 1990. Then the rate of increase more than doubles? So from 1990 we should see an increase of about .5 inches per 40 year period. Am I getting this right?
Here to learn...
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
You wonder? We live in a country where, 500 years after the beginning of the scientific revolution, fully 42% of the people believe in Creationism...how bizarre is that!
Our modern lifestyle is fully dependent on, and the result of, the science that so many here reject....go figure!
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Scientific projections of sea level for the next 83 years show an accelerating average yearly rise. It's not linear. The rate of the last 20 years is 3.4mm per year, but the rate rises to roughly at least 12mm per year by 2060 (depending on the scenario). Current sea level is actually tracking the projections. The reason to worry now is that the extremely long lag times to change these outcomes. GHG emissions policy would need to get much stronger. The heat sink of the oceans takes many decades to reach a new steady state, as do major ice caps. Even changing most energy users from fossil fuel to renewables takes many years.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2017 - 09:38am PT
|
Chris, it is important to provide the citation for the graphs you might post, if for no other reason that the plot could be reproduced independently, and by so doing, the details of what went into the plot could be known.
Just showing a plot doesn't constitute "proof" of anything.
Same with EdwardT, for instance, what is "Accumulated Cyclone Energy"?
|
|
Nuglet
Trad climber
Orange Murica!
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2017 - 10:53am PT
|
pray away climate change... hey, it worked for the gays!!!!
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2017 - 11:40am PT
|
Splater
Sep 9, 2017 - 09:19pm PT
Scientific projections of sea level for the next 83 years show an accelerating average yearly rise. It's not linear. The rate of the last 20 years is 3.4mm per year, but the rate rises to roughly at least 12mm per year by 2060 (depending on the scenario).
Statements like this hurt credibility of the cause.
The global sea level has risen at roughly the same rate for the last 100 years or so. Yes, the rate is increasing. But to assert the rate will increase (at least) 250% by 2060 comes across as alarmist fear mongering.
If you want to win over skeptics, quit presenting worst case scenarios as if they're a given.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2017 - 12:29pm PT
|
Statements like this hurt credibility of the cause.
The global sea level has risen at roughly the same rate for the last 100 years or so. Yes, the rate is increasing. But to assert the rate will increase (at least) 250% by 2060 comes across as alarmist fear mongering.
If you want to win over skeptics, quit presenting worst case scenarios as if they're a given.
Actually what I wrote is the CONSENSUS,
and is far from worst case.
Look it up yourself and you can see how any peer reviewed model shows this huge increasing rise.
I'm not going to do it yet again for you since it's already been done numerous times in these threads for the last 15 years which you always ignore.
IT's NOT LINEAR.
Many people have some instinct to think things are linear. They are wrong.
Denying reality is a strange cause.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2017 - 07:13pm PT
|
from
How an ocean climate cycle favored Harvey
Julia Rosen
Science 01 Sep 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6354, pp. 853-854
DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6354.853
Summary
Hurricane Harvey was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since 2005, but in some ways, it was long overdue. For decades now, tropical storms have been getting a boost from a powerful but still mysterious long-term cycle in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures, which appears to be holding steady in its warm, storm-spawning phase. This cycle, called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), swings between warm and cool phases every 20 to 60 years, shifting North Atlantic temperatures by a degree or so and setting the backdrop for hurricane season. Since about 1995, the AMO has been in a warm state, but researchers aren't sure where it's headed next. The AMO has traditionally been attributed to natural shifts in ocean currents, and some think it's on the cusp of shifting back toward a cool, quiescent phase. But others propose that human activities—a combination of declining air pollution and greenhouse warming—might prolong the current warm period, keeping hurricane activity high.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2017 - 06:53am PT
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
Actually what I wrote is the CONSENSUS, and is far from worst case.
Look it up yourself and you can see how any peer reviewed model shows this huge increasing rise.
I'm not going to do it yet again for you since it's already been done numerous times in these threads for the last 15 years which you always ignore.
IT's NOT LINEAR.
Many people have some instinct to think things are linear. They are wrong.
Denying reality is a strange cause.
I always get a kick out watching posters puff out their chest when they get called on their BS.
"what I wrote is the CONSENSUS"
"Look it up yourself"
"I'm not going to do it yet again for you since it's already been done numerous times in these threads for the last 15 years which you always ignore."
Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph!
Anyway, did a little checcking.
Two months ago, you posted:
IPCC AR5 predictions from
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
page 1180-1182
Only RCP2.5 (which assumed we level out GHGs immediately below 400ppm equivalent, which is no longer possible) shows moderate increase in the sealevel rise rate. The rate has already doubled in the last 30 years to 3.2mm/yr. RCP2.5 shows an increase to 4.5mm/yr. Even that rate would mean .45meter in 100 years.
All the other scenarios show the rate going to at least 6mm/year by 2060.
Now, we're up to 12.6mm/year.
You doubled the rate in two months? This is the peer reviewed consensus?
Sure thing, sport.
Here's a few non-consensus projections.
The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4) projected century-end sea levels using the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES).... The six SRES "marker" scenarios projected sea level to rise by 18 to 59 centimetres. Their projections were for the time period 2090–99, with the increase in level relative to average sea level over the 1980–99 period.
Projections assessed by the US National Research Council (2010) suggest possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm .
In its Fifth Assessment Report (2013), The IPCC concluded that if emissions continue to keep up with the worst case IPCC scenarios, global average sea level could rise by nearly 1m by 2100 (0.52−0.98 m from a 1986-2005 baseline). If emissions follow the lowest emissions scenario, then global average sea level is projected to rise by between 0.28−0.6 m by 2100 (compared to a 1986−2005 baseline).
The Third National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, projected a sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet (30–120 cm) by 2100. Decision makers who are particularly susceptible to risk may wish to use a wider range of scenarios from 8 inches to 6.6 feet (20–200 cm) by 2100.
Your claim of the rate rising to roughly at least 12mm per year by 2060 and that it's the consensus opinion is just alarmist BS.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!