Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 Next
Comments 57451 to 57500:
-
dana1981 at 16:53 PM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Apparently Michaels circa 2008 was a lot smarter than Michaels circa 2012! -
DonaldB at 16:48 PM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
"...the lack of statistically significant warming since 1996... is of unknown importance at this time." Michaels seemed to have a better idea of how important it was when he addressed the Heartland conference a few years ago: "What happened, and this is why this argument is so very, very dangerous, is that solar activity and the La Nina we're in now [He was speaking in 2008] have conspired to add up to produce very, very little temperature change in the last couple of years. What's going to happen is, one of these years, that's going to turn around. If you make that argument now, you're going to have a very, very difficult time defending the future. Global warming is real and the second warming of the 20th century- people have something to do with it. Get over it." -
dana1981 at 13:08 PM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Roger - indeed, we'll have a post on the Exxon CEO comments in the near future. -
Pierre-Normand at 10:41 AM on 30 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
I think this answers Daisym's query: "It is plausible that the unique surface thermal properties of urban areas (e.g. heat capacity, emissivity, conductivity) could also affect the warming there. While these properties are included in the Noah land surface model, there is little evidence that they result in a differentiated urban effect, because the warming in the urbanized coastal zone is so similar to that over the coastal ocean." Hall et al. p.11 -
Tom Curtis at 07:57 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 @18"Is it safe for me to think that the pure sea level risings around the globe are about the same?"
CRV9, rises is sea level due to thermal expansion or changes in salinity do not involve direct changes in mass distribution, except that water from regions with higher sea level from these causes will tend to flow to regions with lower sea level. As the causes of long term temperature differences are (by definition) stable, the region of increased sea level will be stable as well, but the tendency of water to flow will redistribute heat elsewhere, and mitigate the sea level rise at the source of the heat while causing a rise elsewhere. It is, therefore, not a uniform rise, but not a localized rise either. Changes in sea level due to the melting of ice sheets, glaciers and ice shelves which rest on the sea floor do result in a substantial shift in mass. Ignoring gravity, the water will spread over the entire ocean surface, with a tendency to rise higher near the equator due to the Earth's rotation. However, because there is now less mass at the former ice sheet (or glacier etc), the ocean is less strongly attracted gravitationally to the former location of the water, and will move away. This will result in much larger sea level rises the further away from the source you are, and can even result in sea level fall close to the original source of the water. This is illustrated in the following graphic showing the effect of the loss of much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet on Sea Level:
To make things even more interesting, a significant change in mass at the Earth's poles will slightly change the Earth's rotation, which in turn effects ocean currents, tending to pile water higher on east coasts than west coasts (in the case of the loss of the WAIS). (discussion here)
-
Pierre-Normand at 07:53 AM on 30 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Michael: "Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." The question about the future bears no relationship to the strawman claim about the past you keep beating up. Your reference acknowledges the UHI effect. It's just that station siting doesn't introduce any significant bias in the reconstructions of historical temperature anomalies. That's because (1) the sampling isn't biased, and (2) the reconstructions aren't spatially fine-grained. This is as should be. They're meant to pick up climate signals. But the question about the future isn't a question about climate signals, but a question about causes of high frequency spatial variation. They're two separate issues that you keep conflating. Look at the map in the OP and how greatly both current observations and modeled predictions vary over areas just a few miles apart. Are you suggesting that only variations in natural geography can account for it and urban geography likely plays no significant role? I can't see why the contrary suggestion (merely a question, actually) would be extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence. -
CRV9 at 07:50 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Thank you, thank you, KR, Daniel, Rob. You can't imagine how much I aprreciate your replies. That was what I thought but couldn't really express or properly articulate it, specially in details. (And it is almost impossible to find a place where I could ask simple questions and wouldn't wake up those and contaminate the place.) -
Daniel Bailey at 07:24 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Indeed. Ask any sailor worth his salts and they will quickly tell you (the scurvy lot of 'em) that sea levels vary due to wind, tide and phase of moon. For reference, a copy of Bowditch's American Practical Navigator is invaluable. (Full Disclosure: Published by my former employer) (Fuller Disclosure: I had no hand in the currently available edition nor do I profit by the sales of it. More's the pity...) -
Rob Painting at 05:45 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 - The US is sinking. The US was levered up by the presence of the giant Laurentide Ice Sheet (imagine a see-saw, or teeter-totter) and, due to the elastic nature of the Earth's crust, has been slumping back down ever since the ice sheet began to melt away (much like a person hopping off the other end of a see-saw). The dark blue areas in KR's image are areas rebounding upwards much faster that anywhere else, because these were heavily loaded by ice mass at the height of the last Ice Age (Glacial Maximum). But that is but one mechanism which affects global sea levels - one operating over millenial timescales. On shorter time frames, changes in ocean currents and winds can piles water mass up in a region, increasing the rate of sea level rise there, despite the global average being smaller. Such is the case with islands in the Pacific, such as Tuvalu. Stop thinking of sea level as level, it isn't. If you were to hop on a boat and sail around the world, relative to a fixed distance from the centre of the Earth, you'd actually be sailing up and down hill as you went. This is because Earth's mass distribution and gravity is rather lumpy and, therefore, sea level varies from region to region. This will all be discussed in upcoming posts by the way. -
KR at 05:36 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 - As John Hartz pointed out, redistribution of ice melt to the liquid at the equator is also a factor. Looking back at some of my references, thermal expansion is not uniformly distributed, nor are changes in salinity - I apologize for overstating the rate of redistribution. And combined with long term wind patterns, some areas such as the Western Pacific are showing sea level rise as much as 5X that of the global average. Meanwhile, the western coast of the US shows a sea level decline. Cazenave and Llovel 2010 has some excellent images of this distribution (see Fig. 3). The uniform global trend is ~3.4mm/year. Water does mix fairly slowly, especially below the top 100 meters where winds churn the "well-mixed" layer. Below that there are much slower thermohaline circulations, which help account for a 500-800 year oceanic CO2 adjustment period as seen in previous ice age cycles. That doesn't mean it's entirely stationary, though - and if a particular portion of the ocean expands or contracts the effects will ripple out from there ("Just a jump to your left... and a step to the right"). Local effects, however, are very important in judging and predicting sea level rise! -
Roger D at 05:14 AM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Naomi Oreskes "Merchants of Doubt" documents well the past cases of "skeptics" saying that it is too expensive to reduce/ limit some harmful activity. History has shown that the advocates of buisiness as usual were mostly wrong regarding the cost-benefit equation faovoring waiting. And on the "hey, we'll just adapt" (non)strategy for dealing with climate change we now have the CEO of Exxon-Mobil. It could be interesting to see the responses of various "skeptics" to this deviation from the "it's not us" script. -
r.pauli at 04:41 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
North Carolina politicians demonstrate that global warming is a social/cognitive problem that resides with humans not science. -
CRV9 at 04:20 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Thank for your quick reply, KR. I thought that the pure sea level rising at the East Coast line is higher than other areas, because of ocean currents, gravitational differences and other factors except local ones. So this is actual physical sea levels at local areas with local variables. Is it safe for me to think that the pure sea level risings around the globe are about the same? I mean without global and local variables, would water from melting ice from both poles move quickly enough to spread out throughout around? I wish I don't sound dumb. I thought water mixes kind of slow like air in the atmosphere, like a bunch of large volume of bodies of water here and there, or differences in different oceans. Yes, I did watch videos of ocean currents and winds around the glob from NASA. -
John Hartz at 04:08 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
KR: Doesn't the centrifugal force caused by the Earth's spinning on its axis tend to concentrate SLR along the equator, especially in the Pacific? -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:34 AM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
The "changing our way is too expensive and will kill the economy" motto is a most common line of argument among deniers that goes back as far as the lead paint battle. The reasoning is deeply flawed and an acknowledgment of failure from those using it. They often try it when everything else has failed. It is a last ditch attempt to show that the benefit does not outweigh the cost, by trying to inflate the cost in ridiculous proportions. The implicit acceptance that the action proposed have the benefits presented by their proponents is worth noting. Usually, the costs they argue are so removed from all thoughtful estimates that it's not even near plausible. Sallie Baliunas argued that phasing out CFCs would cost "trillions" of dollars. Interestingly, so far this century the only thing that has cost trillions of dollars was the financial fiasco that came crashing down in 2008. -
dana1981 at 02:44 AM on 30 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
angusmac - the 0.9 factor in the spredsheet was to account for the forcing difference between reality and Scenario B (roughly 10%, though I'll need to revisit that figure in more detail this weekend). You're also penalizing Hansen for the GISS LOTI being more accurate now than it was in 1988, because his model was tuned to the 1958-1984 observed temperature change at the time. That's why I did the calculation using models vs. observations post-1984. -
dana1981 at 02:39 AM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
vroomie, see the CO2 limits will harm the economy rebuttal. I'll probably have another post on mitigation vs. adaption next week, but it will mostly be a re-tread of the information in that rebuttal. -
KR at 02:36 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
CRV9 - Some reasonable questions! The oceans, as liquids, will move around with expansion in mid-ocean affecting coastlines in pretty short order (almost instantly in terms of the speed of expansion). There are multiple influences in play, though: - Persistent winds (trade winds) pushing and piling water downwind, lowering it upwind. - Gravity has an effect, with water pulling up slightly near continents. - Continents themselves move (rising and falling), mostly due to "Glacial Isostatic Adjustment" (GIA): the redistribution of weight from the ice that melted in the last ice age (several kilometers thick) means many continental areas are still rebounding from that mass, while others (balancing the the rising sections) are sinking. The East Coast of the USA is notably dropping due to this effect, as the northern Canadian sections of the continent are rapidly rising.
[Source]
This is why evaluations of sea level change need to take GIA into account, and use measurements from widely spread tidal gauges and satellites. Otherwise you may get thrown off by local effects.
-
CRV9 at 01:53 AM on 30 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
I'm honestly and ernestly asking this. Because I really don't know. I don't even have an associate degree. Don't they behave like bodies of water? What I mean is that like high or low pressure systems in the atmosphere move as bodies of air. They do mix when they meet but it only happens at the front? Most time one system moves others away. So depending on how far away or other factors, the expansion of water in the middle of the ocean wouldn't neccesary or imediately affect coast line? And why does the east coast have higher sea levels than other areas then? Don't all oceans connected? -
angusmac at 01:39 AM on 30 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Dana@67 The baseline used was 1958 and from that baseline Scenario B has a 1958-2019 temperature trend of 0.0209°C/decade. The sensitivity is based on your simplified methodology in the SkS spreadsheet in which you derived Scenario D by multiplying Scenario B by the factor (0.9*3/4.2). This equates to temperature sensitivity of 0.9*3 = 2.7 °C, compared with 4.2°C for the original Scenario B. I know that LOTI is the GISS temperature index but an 'equivalent sensitivity' for LOTI can be derived from the SkS methodology above by using LOTI's 1958-2011 trend of 0.0118°C/decade, which equates to an 'equivalent sensitivity' ≈ 4.2*0.0118/0.0209 ≈ 2.4°C Furthermore, there seems to be a difference in semantics when you state that, "we're not talking about errors, we're talking about the amount by which the model sensitivity was too high." There are several definitions of error. The most commonly used is a "mistake" but the scientific definition is usually, "the difference between a measured value and the theoretically correct value." I suggest that the "40% too high" value to which you refer is the scientific definition of an error. Finally, regarding “policy makers”, I think your opinion may be a bit too sceptical. In the field of engineering in which I work, there are a whole raft of sustainability regulations and specifications related to climate change (many of which are sensible). These would not be in place without the influence of Hansen and similar people -
vrooomie at 01:27 AM on 30 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
"This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question." *Priceless*...;) I'm deep into investigating how mitigation is way less expensive than BAU, for that is the deniers' latest meme. Thanks dana, for the excellent article. -
michael sweet at 22:43 PM on 29 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Pierre: It is good that we agree that UHI has not caused significant temperature increases in the past. You claim future temperature might be affected by UHI when it has been shown that past temperature have not. While it is always possible for the future to be different than the past, it does not seem to me to be a legitimate question. AGW fake skeptics repeatedly ask the same questions to be constantly addressed again and again. This is not how science works. If we show something was true in the past you need to provide data to support your contention that in the future those properties will change. The model described in the OP is sufficiently detailed that it is unreasonable to suggest that experienced scientists did not consider UHI without providing data to support such an extraordinary claim. You have not provided any data to support your position, merely hand waving. Hand waving claims can be dismissed with a hand wave. This discussion has deteriorated. If you do not provide data to support your claims I will no longer respond. -
ralbin at 22:40 PM on 29 June 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
"To the conservatives' credit, cap and trade systems have worked remarkably well" This is actually less clear than the general popular impression. The usual example is acid rain control in North America. Roger Backhouse, a highly competent intellectual historian specializing in history of economics, has a good discussion of the acid rain program in his recent book, The Puzzle of Modern Economics. While Backhouse guardedly endorses the success of the cap-and-trade model in this case, he is careful to specify that evaluating cap-and-trade success for acid rain control is confounded by other important developments, notably the fact that abatement technology proved considerably less expensive than projected. David Hounshell, a specialist in history of technology, has pointed out that pollution regulatory regimes have consistently prompted the development of improved and less expensive abatement technologies. Its plausible that any regulation of acid rain, cap and trade or not, would have led to better abatement technologies. Its worth remembering that the only modest success in GHG mitigation to date is banning CFCs, a piece of outright regulation. -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:25 PM on 29 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Thanks for the comment Tom, it doesn't unduly surprise me that the observations are skirting the 2-sigma range of Hansens model, given that they are not that far from the 2-sigma range of the CMIP-3 models as well. It would be a useful exercise to perform multiple runs of Hansens model as you say and generate the error bars properly. Rules of thumb are useful, but shouldn't be relied upon of the statistical analysis has already been done. Of course this is the difference between science and "skepticism" a scientist is searching for the truth and will carry on until they get to it, even if they find out their hypothesis was wrong, whereas a "skeptic" will stop as soon as they have found a reason not to accept an argument that doesn't suit their position. -
BBD at 18:25 PM on 29 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
As Rob Painting reminds us @ 12, thermal expansion is but the usher. Wait 'till the WAIS really gets going. It's only just starting. -
Pierre-Normand at 13:54 PM on 29 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Michael, the part that you put in bold is a point that have explicitly granted twice. To suggest that this point didn't seem in dispute was the very reason I replied to you in the first place. Daisym was inquiring about model predictions, not past reconstructions from station measurements. This is a different topic. You need not lash at someone just because the "UHI" acronym figures in her post. You now ask me for a reference that shows the models are finely gridded enough to discern between industrial and residential areas. That's in the OP. "The study overlaid this entire area with a grid of squares 1.2 miles across and provided unique temperature predictions for each square. This is in contrast to global climate models, which normally use grids 60 to 120 miles across." This seems finely gridded enough to make Daisym's question at least relevant. -
Tom Curtis at 09:34 AM on 29 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Dikran Marsupial @71, Hansen et al 88 provides us two pieces of information that allow us to approximate the range of unforced variability. Specifically, Hansen determines (section 5.1) that the unforced variability over the twentieth century has a standard deviation of approx 0.13 C. Over the short period since 1988, therefore, the scenario A, B and C predictions should be treated of having a 2 sigma (95%) error range of at least +/- 0.26 C. Further,as best as I can determine from Hansen et al (1984), the climate sensitivity of the model is 4.2 C +/-20%. Combining these two sources of error, and on the assumption that the Scenario B projection represents a multi-run mean, then actual temperatures are skirting the edge of the lower 2 sigma range, and will falsify scenario B if they do not rise shortly. Of course, the assumption that the scenario B projection represents a multi-run mean is false. It is an individual run, and may well be up to 0.26 C above a genuine multi-run mean. Where the fake "skeptics" serious in their skepticism, they would use the program for the model used in Hansen 88 with actual forcings and perform 100 or so runs to determine the multi-run mean. They would then compare that with the actual temperature record, or ideally with a record adjusted for elements not including in a multi-run mean (ENSO, volcanic forcing, solar cycle) and determine if the model was any good. The most likely result of such an effort would be the discovery that climate sensivity is less than 4.2 C, but greater than 1.8 C. Of course, rather than employ the scientific method in their analysis, they consistently misrepresent the actual forcings and ignore extraneous factors effecting temperature to create an illusion of falsification; then insist the falsification of a 1983 model with a climate sensitivity of 4.2 C also falsifies 2006 models with a climate sensitivity of 2.7 C (Giss model E series). -
Riccardo at 08:10 AM on 29 June 2012North Carolina Lawmakers Turning a Blind Eye to Sea Level Reality?
A century ago the so-called "Indiana Pi Bill" story ended "when one senator observed that the General Assembly lacked the power to define mathematical truth". I was not aware that things have changed. -
Dikran Marsupial at 07:31 AM on 29 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
angusmac, O.K., so can you describe the statistical methodology that justifies the the +/-30% range? The reason that I ask, is that the statistics have already been done. The spread of the model runs is our best estimate of the range of unforced variability, in which case even if the model were perfect, there is no good reason to expect the observations to lie any closer than that. Hansen didn't have the computing facilities to do this, but there is little reason to suppose that if he had the uncertainty range would be less than that of more modern models. Thus if you want to insist on some higher level of accuracy, it seems reasonable to ask exactly what is the basis for such a requirement. -
kampmannpeine at 06:55 AM on 29 June 2012North Carolina Lawmakers Turning a Blind Eye to Sea Level Reality?
one thing is missing there: the Evangelicans ! -
John Bruno at 06:53 AM on 29 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
OK, maybe I was being overly optimistic. According to the Daily Tar Heel (UNC school newspaper): Rep. Pat McElraft, R-Carteret, who is the primary sponsor of the bill the original study was flawed because it only used one model and ignores historical data, even though she said the panel was asked to incorporate multiple models and historical data. She said the bill will commission another study into the matter. “We needed to direct the state agencies not to use the 39 inches that the science panel came up with, because we don’t feel that was good science,” she said. McElraft, who said she doesn’t believe climate change is caused by humans, said it was difficult to use the study to predict climate change. “In 1974, the alarmists were talking about the ice age coming in,” she said. “What has happened, has the ice age come in?” -
Rob Painting at 05:58 AM on 29 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Sphaerica - Steve Case is correct - sea level has increased in a near-linear manner over the last two decades. But as discussed in this post David Evans: All at Sea about Ocean Warming and Sea Level Rise), that's not greatly surprising considering the trend in aerosols and ENSO. However, El Nino seems to be forming, and we're likely to see a return to an El Nino-dominant period sometime soon. Sea level is therefore likely to spike upwards for a time. Indeed, globally-averaged sea level has already risen over 10mm in the last year:
The longer-term problem is that ice mass loss from the Greenland & Antarctic Ice Sheets is accelerating and this, coupled with the Earth's current energy imbalance (that dictates further warming is effectively dialed in), suggests an acceleration of sea level rise is likely at some point in the future. This will be influenced by how the trend in human-made and natural volcanic reflective aerosols develop too.
-
John Hartz at 04:21 AM on 29 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Angusmac: A quick scan of the term Scientific Method posted in Wikepedia suggests that your definition of "scientific methodology" falls way short of the commonly accepted understanding of the term by the scientific community. -
KR at 03:38 AM on 29 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
angusmac - I believe Dikran was asking what methodology you used in establishing a +/-30% range. What statistics, data, and period? Or did you use the "eyecrometer"? I will note that the tone of your post, while technically within the comments policy, is quite insulting overall. -
angusmac at 02:53 AM on 29 June 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Dikran Marsupial @65 The scientific methodology is statistics and reliability. (-Snip-)Moderator Response: Inflammatory comments snipped. Please try and keep the discussion civil. -
michael sweet at 02:41 AM on 29 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Pierre; I re-read the abstract of the paper that I linked above. You seem to have misinterpreted their conclusion. Your quote above is incomplete and gives an incorrect summary of the abstract. It should read: "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." My emphasis. I have provided data that shows UHI is not important to the OP. Please provide data to support your claim that UHI is important. As I said above "In general, UHI is a non effect that deniers cite to confuse people. AGW fake skeptics often raise tone questions of this type to suggest data issues that do not exist. What is your point?" -
michael sweet at 02:31 AM on 29 June 2012Mercury rising: Greater L.A. to heat up an average 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century
Pierre: Please provide a reference that shows the models are finely enough gridded to discern between industrial and residential areas. It seems to me that if I misinterpreted Daisym's question it is up to her to clarify the misunderstanding. You might be the one misinterpreting her question. While UHI is a real effect, it is very small. Numerous studies, including BEST, showed that it makes no difference to temperature trends whether you correct for UHI or not. Since the authors and reviewers of the paper are professionals it should be presumed that they considered any important effects unless data is provided to show that they did not. No data has been provided to show anything important was left out. Asking a question does not show that the authors made a mistake. If you think it is a good question, read the paper and see what they say. -
chuckbot at 01:59 AM on 29 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
sigh. First NC legislated straight marriage as the only acceptable relationship. Now they're legislating straight lines as the only acceptable graph. We're not all loonies here, I promise :/ -
Bob Lacatena at 23:57 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Steve, You may find this helpful in correcting your misunderstanding. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:54 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Steve Case, 8, When you say "not according to the satellite record" do you mean "not if you ignore the data that doesn't show what you'd like it to show, while further putting undue weight on short-term trends that are heavily influenced by short-term factors?" -
vrooomie at 23:39 PM on 28 June 2012North Carolina Lawmakers Turning a Blind Eye to Sea Level Reality?
TC@1: I apologize for the all-caps; I simply forgot to revert to another method of emphasis. As for the 'imputations of dishonesty,' I'll let stand the original wording and actions of the legislators in question. -
Steve Case at 23:38 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
"Globally, sea level rise is known to be accelerating..." Not according to the satellite record. -
vrooomie at 23:35 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Just as an aside: The King Canute story is so ofttimes mistold, it's now risen to a level of mythical urban...myth! Canute was not trying to control the sea: he was trying to show the limits of kingly power. His sitting by the sea (perhaps apocryphal) was to show his minions that a king's powers had limits. Back to our regularly-scheduled science...;) -
Jim Eager at 23:17 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
heijdensejan, no that should be 20th century. The increase to 3.2mm/yr took place in the 1990s. -
Pierre-Normand at 22:36 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
The argument is flawed but makes some kind of sense. If surface water only warmed away from the coasts, then, indeed, the immediate effect would be the same as if that water expanded through freezing. It wouldn't tend to displace water underneath. But the flaw in the reasoning, of course, is that this water wouldn't remain there. Unlike floating ice, some of the raised volume of warmer water would tend to flow towards the coasts. If one delicately poured warm water on top of cold water in in the middle of a container, it wouldn't remain in the middle to form a stable reversed-bowl-shaped liquid surface. -
chriskoz at 21:44 PM on 28 June 2012North Carolina Lawmakers Turning a Blind Eye to Sea Level Reality?
I cannot help but remind these images of Irene in NC. Each mm of SLR increases the probability of destructions on the pictures. Just wait and see the insurance/reinsurance rates. If the legislators keep denying the obvious the crash (when re won't be able to cover it and Obama won't be able to dig in fed coffer) will be even bigger and more spectacular. NC coast infrastructure in a bubble waiting to burst. You don't need to understand climate science to put big money on it if you're a panter.Moderator Response: [Riccardo - link fixed] -
Paul D at 21:26 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
ahhh. Just noticed Rob Paintings reference to Canute in a similar post. Plagarism wasn't intended :-) -
Paul D at 21:23 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
The stories of King Cnut trying to control nature and the sea are probably a myth. He probably wasn't mad. Yet now we have an American state government trying stop the sea by doing a 'big brother' and re-writing history. Yep, in comparison Cnut had all his marbles. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:15 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
"Moreover, although thermal expansion does cause satellite-measured mid-ocean sea level to rise, it does not necessarily cause coastal sea level to rise. If deep-ocean water were to expand, it would, indeed, affect coastal sea levels. But when surface water warms, it rises in place, like ice, and its displacement is unaffected, so it does not affect coastal sea levels." WTF! I want some of their Kool-Aid! -
heijdensejan at 18:41 PM on 28 June 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
29th century?
Prev 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 Next
