ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

[Punx0r]

Claiming we have a long time before needing to act before risking anything bad is just wrong. Pretending to take a middle-of-the-road approach between the false dichotomy of "denier" and "alarmist" isn't the intellectual way, it's just a more disingenuous form of denialism.

I never claimed that. Scroll up and re-read.

OK

Two feet? Okay, in the worst case scenario, we have 80 years to save those cities, assuming the worst case scenario of water rise starts immediately. The best case is that we have 200 years.

I think that is more than ample time to sort out what to do with energy. Do you agree?

Greenland ice sheet sliding into the ocean may not come to pass. Just like all the other scary things that never happened:
+ runaway effect
+ 'artic summers ice free by 2013'
+ etc

I think the safest bet is that the catastrophe does not happen. 999 times out of 1000, it doesn't.

As for the next sentence, that reminds me a lot of George Bush's idea of 'you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists' style thinking.

I prefer "help, or get out of the way".

 

[billvon]

The way i see it is that we are going to fall off the cliff someday, but you should enjoy the ride while it lasts.

And the way some of the rest of us see it, it's worth the effort to turn the steering wheel away from the cliff - even if it's not as much fun.

 

[jimw1960]

A lot of times I hear the excuse that it will do no good for the USA to reduce CO2 emissions because of the emissions of developing countries like China and India are higher. This is despite the fact that USA per capita CO2 emissions rank #16 in the world, compared to China's #50 ranking and India's #127. I also recently learned that both of these countries are undertaking massive efforts to help mitigate CO2 by planting hundreds of millions of trees. A recent study by NASA shows a significant global greening since the 1990s is mostly attributable to these two countries. Both countries are also undertaking massive efforts to electrify their transportation systems. Last year, China deployed an entire regiment of 60,000 troops to accelerate their tree planting efforts. Maybe USA could have our troops do likewise instead of twiddling their thumbs down on the Mexico border.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#3c66db976e13

 

[billvon]

Maybe USA could have our troops do likewise instead of twiddling their thumbs down on the Mexico border.

Yep. Now that the precedent has been set, it would be nice to declare a "presidential emergency" and actually do something useful.

 

[Hillhater]

I was reading some bombastic article about global warming a few days ago and found at least one thing that looks like a fact and not just wild speculation / doom 'n gloom.

The ocean is projected to rise 0.3 inches a year, which means in 40 years, it will be up by 1 foot. Current rate of rise is something like 0.1-0.2 inches per year....

You need to filter your reading sources !
Which ocean were they speculating about ?
Whos data were their predictions based on ?

Australia has some of the oldest and consistent sea level records in the world.,
We also border several of the worlds oceans ..Pacific, Southern, Indian ,..etc
It is also a fairly stable land mass with little geological movements
Sea level rise in Sydney has averaged 0.65 mm per year as measured before compensating for any land movement.
Allowing for the land rise, the actual rise is just 0.16 mm/yr...AND decreasing in rate over the past 50 yrs !

Fort Denison in Sydney has one of the longest running continuous records, starting in 1886, .
For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.

Must all be happening in the Northern Hemisphere i guess

Incidentally, there is other research based on records from Amsterdam going back to 1700, that show sea levels started to rise before 1800...way before any significant AGW /CO2 influence :wink:

 

[Punx0r]

Didn't you previously complain that global temperature trends based on Victorian-era measurements were flawed because they are too inaccurate (and that compenstating them based on known error is fraud)?

Yet you're happy to base sea level trends on a single tide marker from the 1880's? Even though it contradicts that much larger body of more accurate measurements from all over the world?

Please, please, don't ever have worked on a safety-critical application for any device/product/vehicle/infrastructure I might ever have to use...

 

[Hillhater]

Didn't you previously complain that global temperature trends based on Victorian-era measurements were flawed because they are too inaccurate (and that compenstating them based on known error is fraud)?

No!
But I did queery why the magnitude of the "compensation" so closely correlates with the change in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Nobody seemed willing or able to explain that ?
Changes, "corrections", "processing" of Temperature records are well known, (openly reported by the various relavent bodies),
Sydney sea level records have also been altered, for dubious reasons, but even with that, the results are still as i stated.
Just stating the facts !
If the facts dont fit your belief, you need to change your belief :wink:

 

[neptronix]

You need to filter your reading sources !
Which ocean were they speculating about ?
Whos data were their predictions based on ?

It was from an article about Louisiana in the United States. Of course, they used the most drastic example possible ( some parts of Louisiana are actually below sea level )

Yes, "global warming" is not an accurate term to describe what is going on. The northern hemisphere has warmed significantly more than the southern hemisphere. Coincidentally there is also a tiny fraction of human beings & human activity going on in the south hemisphere vs the north.

"Global warming" looks more like local warming once you start perusing data from NASA. CO2 levels are significantly higher at the northern hemisphere.

 

[MJSfoto1956]

Incidentally, there is other research based on records from Amsterdam going back to 1700, that show sea levels started to rise before 1800...way before any significant AGW /CO2 influence

Incidentally, 1800 corresponds more or less with the end of the "Little Ice Age". And of course the oceans would rise as the glaciers melted. Duh.

BTW: Most folks hate it when people cherry pick to make a political point. :winky poo:

 

[Punx0r]

No!
But I did queery why the magnitude of the "compensation" so closely correlates with the change in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Nobody seemed willing or able to explain that ?

It was from before that, I could have sworn it was you but must have been someone else. Apologies, mistaken identity...

 

[Hillhater]

Incidentally, there is other research based on records from Amsterdam going back to 1700, that show sea levels started to rise before 1800...way before any significant AGW /CO2 influence

Incidentally, 1800 corresponds more or less with the end of the "Little Ice Age". And of course the oceans would rise as the glaciers melted. Duh.

BTW: Most folks hate it when people cherry pick to make a political point. :winky poo:

So, you accept that sea level rise began independently of any significant AGW effect ?
And, which "cherry" is it you think i have picked ?..
....and for which "political" point..?

 

[jimw1960]

If you want to study up on sea level rise, NASA website has some interesting data and observations. Satellite data are available from September 1992. Data going back to 1800 from tide gauges are also presented (with credit to CISRO, so you Aussies can't complain you weren't consulted). Most of the sea level rise to date is attributed to thermal expansion of water from all the heat being absorbed by the oceans due to the global warming trend. However, accelerating meltwater from Greenland and ice loss from Antarctica are expected to make the meltwater contribution more dominant in the future. The long-term chart suggests an increased rate of rise since about the 1980s, and currently at 3.3 mm/yr. All indications are that this rate will increase throughout the rest of this century unless there are significant reductions in CO2 emissions.

Sea Level Charts: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Understanding Sea Level: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/ice-melt

Ice sheet mass loss since 2003: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

 

[Hillhater]

There are a few too many word like, "most of", "attributed to", "expected" "suggests" , "indications are" etc...
In that comment to take it without question.
I assume you know that the NASA satelite sea level data is a "computation" ,...rather than any kind of direct measurement, and there are many questions over its validity ?
Further, most of the sea level "model predictions" have been shown to be wildly inaccurate

The figures below are a comparison of sea level measurements vs. sea level computations over the time window 1970 to 2017, and evidence based forecasts to the year 2100 vs. the model predictions. The difference amongst latest models and reality is increasing as opposed to being lessened. It should be the opposite. Many may certainly claim new links between the anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the sea level rise, This does not mean they are correct.

From the graphs below, we already know that up to 2017 the models have been wrong, and it is increasingly unlikely to expect more rather than less sea level rise by 2100 vs. the already exaggerated IPCC predictions.

 

[Punx0r]

There are a few too many word like, "most of", "attributed to", "expected" "suggests" , "indications are" etc...
In that comment to take it without question.

This cautious style of writing is common across the scientific, technical and medical disciplines and has been observed to convey a lack of certainty to the lay public, which is problematic because conmen, charlatans and the ignorant speak with certainty. The result is undue credit being given to alternative medicene, anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.

Anyone with an education in, or has written on, these subjects, or even is just familiar with reading them will automatically be aware of this phenomenom and won't fall for it. Personally, I find a writer making sweaping, conclusive statements without extensive justification is an immediate red flag that what I'm reading is likely of poor quality and value. "This proves that..." is a powerful claim to be used with caution.

 

[jimw1960]

I assume you know that the NASA satelite sea level data is a "computation" ,...rather than any kind of direct measurement, and there are many questions over its validity ?
Further, most of the sea level "model predictions" have been shown to be wildly inaccurate

Funny how deniers always like to cite the satellite-based temperature "computations" that UAH miscalculated in an attempt to show warming not as much as claimed, and never mention that those are computations--nor that those comptations are not in agreement with surface observations and also not in agreement with NASA calculations of their own satellite data. In the case of the use of satellite data to calculate sea level, those calculations are in agreement with the tide gauge data down to the millimeter.

As far as future sea-level rise projections go, there is a great deal of uncertainty related to many potential tipping points and positive feedbacks that may or may not be triggered. So most of the uncertainty tends to lean toward even worse case projections. The conservative estimate for sea level rise by the end of this century is in the range of 1 to 3 feet. It certainly won't be less than that range but could possibly be quite a bit higher.

You don't cite a source for the graph you showed, so I can't really comment on it, except to say I see several red flags. For example it is showing three IPCC 8.5 projections starting from year 2000, but the IPCC 8.5 modeled scenarios did not even exist in year 2000. Also, no sea-level rise projection that I have ever seen plots as a straight line increase the way they are shown on your graph. And, lastly, it appears to be comparing global average calculations to individual tide gauges, which may or may not have been cherry-picked to show the desired effect. Smells funny to me. I'll stick to the peer-reviewed published information that I have read. I recommend to read the latest IPCC AR5 chapter on sea level rise linked below. The RCP scenarios modeled in that report begin in 2010 and show good agreement with observations for the period of overlap between 2010 and 2015.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

 

[TheBeastie]

For the last 6 months, Scott Adams has been going through the climate change data trying to reach a conclusion.
Going through just about every single climate change chart and data from both sides of the argument.
About 30% of his videos on average cover his progress looking at both sides of the argument.

This is his latest part looking at the climate change debate, he starts with "let's go to the fun part"
https://youtu.be/SBMwurN9n2o?t=2846
^It should come up automagically at minute 46 28seconds..

He's mainly on periscope but I don't really like Periscope, it doesn't even have easy to use features like youtubes "Start at" point in time in the video for a sharable video URL.
Oh, actually maybe you can now, called "Share starting at" in Periscope.
I am willing to bet for most peoples devices merely taping on this URL and having it go to the right place probably fails more often than Youtubes "start at" feature though.
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1yNxaOZYBQvGj?t=47m20s

I tend to do most of my video watching via the web browser and not the apps and while Youtube is fully featured in the web browser periscope is quite limited.

For understanding what the "Russian model" is I recommend watching this video Dr. Patrick Michaels in the USA for example. This guy has a PhD in climatology, he worked at the UN IPCC, and has been a contributing author to noble prize awarding work.
https://youtu.be/fA5sGtj7QKQ
Full transcript on the Fox news website https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-patrick-michaels-on-the-truth-about-global-warming?fbclid=IwAR2cJPYwAnMrcMEt5XX2IFzAYPELhvtEMJuNqBZoEsMlzuAEUsDzT605LpM

Remember not to knock it simply because it's on "Fox news", this is entirely the opinion of PhD Dr Patrick Michaels.
I am so sick of people going "oh you can trust that because it's on the Internet or it's on Wikipedia". Its all about the source!

 

[jimw1960]

For the last 6 months, Scott Adams has been going through the climate change data trying to reach a conclusion.
Going through just about every single climate change chart and data from both sides of the argument.
About 30% of his videos on average cover his progress looking at both sides of the argument.

Who the heck is Scott Adams? He obviously is not a climate scientist.
As for Dr. Patrick Michaels, if he's working for Cato Intitute, all credibility is out the window. The fact that this was on Fox News also destroys any credibility. Show me something in a peer reviewed scientific journal, not just some opinions of some paid hacks and some idiot with a youtube channel. Seriously, how do you even fall for this obvious misinformation?

 

[billvon]

For the last 6 months, Scott Adams has been going through the climate change data trying to reach a conclusion.

Who the heck is Scott Adams? He obviously is not a climate scientist.

He's a cartoonist. He does Dilbert. (Seriously. That's his qualification.)

 

[MJSfoto1956]

This is his latest part looking at the climate change debate, he starts with "let's go to the fun part"
https://youtu.be/SBMwurN9n2o?t=2846

It didn't take long for his "fair and balanced" discussion to trip over itself. To paraphrase his "fun part" linked above: "Only the Russian model matches the observations" -- yet he is unmistakably pointing to "the future" on his chart. Matching observations about the future? This is crystal-ball-ese. Voodoo climate pseudoscience. Talk about a charlatan. Yikes.

M

 

[Hillhater]

This is his latest part looking at the climate change debate, he starts with "let's go to the fun part"
https://youtu.be/SBMwurN9n2o?t=2846

It didn't take long for his "fair and balanced" discussion to trip over itself. To paraphrase his "fun part" linked above: "Only the Russian model matches the observations" -- yet he is unmistakably pointing to "the future" on his chart. Matching observations about the future? This is crystal-ball-ese. Voodoo climate pseudoscience. Talk about a charlatan. Yikes.

If you were a little more dilligent and honest in your obsevations, ....... You might have picked up where (at 51.50). He states that the "Russian Model" is the only one that predicted the "actual obsevations" over the last 10 years to date. None of the other models came close.
And also it was the only model that predicted the observed " temperature pause " that alarmists convieniently ignor
None of the future predictions are anything more than "crystal-ball-ese. Voodoo climate pseudoscience.". Including all the IPCC ramblings..
Once you go beyond the bounds of recorded data, it becomes non scienctific.

Jimw1960...... Shooting the messenger again .... (because you dont like the message ?)
What ever their credentials or level of knowledge, im pretty sure they have as much credibility as Al Gore etc.

 

[billvon]

What ever their credentials or level of knowledge, im pretty sure they have as much credibility as Al Gore etc.

Yep. Almost none. Now compare them to the 97% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is being driven primarily by human emissions. They win; Dilbert loses.

 

[Hillhater]

What ever their credentials or level of knowledge, im pretty sure they have as much credibility as Al Gore etc.

Yep. Almost none. Now compare them to the 97% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is being driven primarily by human emissions. They win; Dilbert loses.

Care to remind me of how many that 97% actually is ?... :wink:

 

[MJSfoto1956]

I love how people are so desperate to show that climate models are wrong. This article lays that nonsense to rest:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/

 

[billvon]

Care to remind me of how many that 97% actually is?

Depends on the study. In 2009, there was a study by Doran and Zimmerman with 3146 scientists interviewed. When it was all scientists from all disciplines, it was 77% yes. When it was just meteorologists, it was 64%. When it was just active climate scientists, it was 97%. Interesting comment from the study:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

In 2010, Anderegg did another such study and found similar results. When it was open to all, it was around 80%. When it was narrowed down to active climate scientists, it was 97%.

In 2013, Cook did a study of a large number of papers on the topic - over 12,000. It then narrowed it down to papers that expressed an opinion on the anthropogenic aspect of climate change. Again, 97% agreed. They then contacted a sample of the authors to ensure that they hadn't been misquoted or changed their minds. And again - 97%.

Oreskes in 2004 did a paper study similar to Cook's. Of the papers that expressed an opinion, 100% agreed with the consensus. (This was in the days when there weren't that many papers published, and the denial organization hadn't gotten good funding yet.)

 

[Hillhater]

Lots of %s... but what is the actual head count ?... 97% of how many ??