Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 Next
Comments 14801 to 14850:
-
Art Vandelay at 10:28 AM on 21 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nijelj@14, Just to add that I was really only speaking for conservatives in Australia, who are more libertarian than conservatives in the USA. The situation in NZ is no doubt similar. Conservatives in Australia largely fall within the upper middle class and are more likely to be self employed or employed within senior mangament positions in medeum to large enterprises. Not surprisingly, Australia's conservatives mostly believe in small government too, and from observations they look far less to government for leadership than is the case with the progressive class, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But ultimately it's resistance to change that defines a conservative. That doesn't mean that change isn't possible though. When evidence is clear and compelling that change is for the better a conservative will embrace change.
-
nigelj at 06:44 AM on 21 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @13, thanks for the info. on Australia. I realised you probably knew most of the material I posted. I posted it more for the benefit of anyone else interested as well. Same goes for some of the following.
The nature of renewable energy means more sharing of resources by the States which suggests a national plan is now appropriate, or alternatively one national lines company perhaps. Britain has sidestepped the political problems and regional control by putting energy planning in the hands of a non partisan body separate from government. They have not had the same level of cost and relaibility problems as Australia probably as a result. They are also doing better than New Zealand.
"I mention all of this because I don't believe that a majority of conservative heartland denies climate change, but whether it does or doesn't probably doesn't matter that much anyway"
I hear you and its a interesting point. I assume you really mean agw climate change. It's complicated, and peoples beliefs might even change almost from day to day depending on who they listen to, and of course you get gradations of belief, for example yes humans are warming the climate, but less than the IPCC predict. But I think this is all still denial of the issue in the end.
Perhaps more imprtantly is people like Trump and Scott Pruitt and media personalities like Bill O'reilley and other authority fugures claim the science is a fraud and conservative people appear to be very influenced by authority figures whatever they believe internally. Liberals are more argumentative and less likely to follow authority figures (for good or bad).
interestingly polls back up what you say on renewable energy. Conservatives are more receptive to this, than to climate science theory. This in turn suggests they might accept the science more than they say when polled, but dont want to admit they accept the science to their peers.
I agree part of this is selling the benefits of renewable energy, and I accept conservatives embrace renewable energy to some extent. But you have a couple of problems still in the way of all this. Firstly the conservative leadership certainly doesn't accept renewable energy. The White House stand firmly opposed to renewables despite their rhetoric, and is even reported to be about to use cold war legislation to enable it to give direct government support to coal. The Republican congress is still luke warm on renewable energy. And as I mentioned authoity figures are important to conservatives. In other words the conservative leadership is not helping as much as it could, even if people on the ground make efforts.
The Democrat politicians are more supportive of renewables, but not as much as they could be either. It needs much stronger efforts and this will in turn build confidence with ordinary folk.
And a good acceptance of the science and risks impacts of climate change on humanity will be good motivations to adopt renewable energy even if it does cost slightly more or alternatively requires some small state subsidy. So its important to improve acceptance of the science as much as possible.
Acceptance of the science has improved in America over the last 20 years although slowly.
-
Xulonn at 02:42 AM on 21 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
>nigelj - thank you for the glacier/water supply links. I shall read them in the near future as well as search for more.
It is difficult to determine which negative effect of AGW/CC will cause the most damage to human civilization over various time periods, but the cumulative impact will ultimately be devastating. It appears that the distribution of changes in large-scale agricultural productivity might favor Russia while the U.S. suffers - an interesting quirk I was not aware of until recently.
At age 76, I am alive to witness the slow acceleration of the negative effects of AGW/CC , but the generation after me will likely to be the first to be seriously threatened.
-
Art Vandelay at 22:45 PM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
nigelj@12, yes all understood. I'm across the detail of the problems here with wind and pv solar etc, and grid reliability issues which are not directly attributed to renewable energy but more the lack of despatchable base load power. So it's an indirect relationship more than a direct one, but people really don't care about the how's or why's. All that matters is that the power is always working, and with a retail price that's stable and affordable. As we transition to more intermittent renewables there will be many challenges. Politics in this country is interesting because the states themselves control their own energy supplies, and until recently there's been no national energy plan.
I mention all of this because I don't believe that a majority of conservative heartland denies climate change, but whether it does or doesn't probably doesn't matter that much anyway. Regardless of political orientation, people won't be hostile to renewable energy if it's able to effectively match traditional sources for price and reliability. If the solution to climate change is renewable energy, as the experts say, then it's simply a matter of selling the benefits of renewable energy. Fwiw, conservative areas in the major cities have all led the way for PV solar installations, so the evidence suggests that conservatives are definitely willing to embrace renewable energy. They already have.
-
michael sweet at 21:55 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Scaddnp:
I thought as much. I posted so the absurd claim that Mt. Hunter was ice free were not left unrebutted on the board. The paper states that is was very rare (less than one melt day per decade) for Mt Hunter to have any melt at all in the 1600's. Even if the MWP affected the glacier it would have caused occasional melt, not deglaciation.
-
Daniel Bailey at 20:52 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
I wish people would actually read papers they cite. That paper is entirely consistent with the established phsyics of AGW.
-
bozzza at 17:28 PM on 20 April 2018Climate's changed before
Rates of change is always the concern. The global debate should be about this but it's not because business has already accepted the reality of climate change: everything else is the vagaries of investment.
-
bozzza at 17:25 PM on 20 April 2018CO2 effect is saturated
Daniel, "This page isn't available
The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed."
-
bozzza at 17:21 PM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Norris, you can't just join issues.
-
nigelj at 17:04 PM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @11
I tend to confine my comments to what I think is driving denialism of the science. We have a whole separate but related issue of peoples concerns about renewable energy, and I agree its reasonable for people to be concerned about reliability and costs (we in Auckland NZ have just had a huge record setting power cut due to an unusually intense low pressure system and its frustrating. It took out numerous power lines).
However I think the reasons for wind farm problems of reliability in Australia appear related to a political fight on how the electricity system as a whole is designed at a conceptual and market level and how the states share resources, as opposed to the technology of wind farms themselves.
I know you also had a disastrous storm that caused wind power to be taken off line, but this was due largely to the failure of transmission lines and would have happened with a purely fossil fuel based system. Some software problem with the wind farms did contribute to the problem, and hopefully people appreciate this will sometimes happen with new technology, and the problem was quickly fixed. But clearly too many of these won't be tolerated.
Increasing electricty prices have a range of causes mostly due to a a failure to invest in enough new generation and issues with transmission lines costs. Renewable electricity itself only accounts for about 16% of increase in prices. I remembered reading this, and found this article below:
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-25/the-truth-about-soaring-power-prices/8979860
But the bottom line is its not the renewable electricity causing most of the problems. Its politics. And industry lobby groups and conservative leaning political think tank groups falsely blame all the problems on renewable energy ( as described in the article I linked) and the end result is a very confused and mislead public.
-
NorrisM at 15:56 PM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
scaddenp @ 78
Can we agree that my reference to .4M by 2100 is the middle ground of the Rholing 2013 paper? It is not the low end. It is the "probability maximum".
It is so easy to move off from the blog topic of sea rise level but only to reply to your comment regarding my "over-estimate the consequences of proposed action" just tell me how the Chinese or Indian farmer replaces his diesel tractor. If he has to go back to plowing his fields with animals he will be reduced to the poverty he has just recently been lifted from.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic snipped.
-
Art Vandelay at 15:52 PM on 20 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #14
One Planet Only Forever@13, I respect your opinion but don't agree that fossil fuels are root of all evils. If for instance humans had burnt forests instead of fossil fuels, there's some evidence that the overall environmental impact might be worse than it is now. Population growth has also fueled emissions growth, and if the global population had stabilised at 2-3 billion it's unlikely that we would have a climate problem in 2018, even if 100% powered by coal, oil and gas.
Aportioning of blame might make some people feel better but it doesn't solve the problem, and might even make solutions more difficult to achieve. Now is the time to accept that a problem exists and to devise and implement remedial actions that are likely to succeed and are universally accepted.
-
bozzza at 15:49 PM on 20 April 2018The courts are deciding who's to blame for climate change
We are: the people lead, governments follow!
-
Art Vandelay at 15:27 PM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Nijelj@9, I think you're on the right track with that reasoning. Living in conservative heartland I meet many people who are labelled 'deniers' but in actual fact many do openly acknowledge the existence of climate change, along with the possibility of potential severe consequences. However, they resist voting for political parties that advocate more radical solutions, primarily because those parties lean further to the left than a conservative is prepared to go, but also due to the negative consequences already experienced from transitioning to intermittent renewables, which in Australia has seen higher power prices and reduced reliability / more outages in some states and regions. In Australia, our governing Liberal Party is actually the most conservative party, and offers less ambitious targets and solutions than Labor or The Greens, but it seems almost certain now that Labor will win gov't next year, and possibly with a Greens alliance, and if it does will definitely implement its policy of 50% renewable energy by 2030, and with more ambitious targets going forward.
To a large extent, Labor's success or failure will depend on energy prices and reliability, as well as the overall impact on the economy. Overly ambitious targets that risk energy affordabilty and / or reliability, with a flow-on economic impact will create a large voter backlash and a rapid return to a more conservative government with a more conservative climate change policy.
-
scaddenp at 14:09 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Michael, Steveh should answer for himself, but I think he is echoing WUWT commentators. If the ice core is 400 years old at bedrock, then that "proves" Mt Hunter was ice-free pre-1600 (ie MWP) and only re-glaciated in LIA which are now thankfully "coming out of". I kid you not.
-
nigelj at 13:35 PM on 20 April 2018Skeptical Science at EGU 2018 - a personal diary
Regarding debunking climate myths. I have heard the incorrect claim a lot recently that climate science can't be trusted, because the science is allegedly very new, and was developed by the United Nations for political motives. Or variations on this general theme.
The science is actually more than a century old. It might be worth adding this issue to the list of climate myths with some of the history.
-
michael sweet at 12:49 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Steveh:
Your analysis is not supported by the paper you reference. They specifically state that the thickness of each year of ice becomes thinner as you go down in the ice core. Below 165 meters the layers are too thin to resolve, while near the surface they are as thick as a meter. This means your estimation of 100-300 years previously to be ice free is just something you made up. The actual time to the bottom of the core is much longer, it is not discussed in the paper. The data do not support your claim that this ice core relates to the MWP. I did not see any mention of the MWP in the paper.
In summary: you have made up any statements about the MWP, they are not supported by the data in the paper.
-
SteveH at 12:22 PM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
From the next to last paragraph in the above article - "And this is why a new study attracted my attention. A paper was just published by the American Geophysical Union that shared research carried out by Dominic Winski and his colleagues."
The mt hunter study is interesting for a number of reasons in that it confirms several things most everyone knows.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027539
The first point is that two ice cores were drilled down to 208 meters at which point they hit rock. The 400 year point (from 2013 to 1613) was reached at 164.8 meters which left approximately 44 meters which extrapolates to approx 100-300 years for the remaining ice. in other words mt hunter was ice free sometime between 1300-1400 which coincides with the end of the MWP.
Second, this is another of several data points that indicate that the MWP was more wide spread than the convential/current climate science conclusions. This is also consitent with the exposed tree stumps from the mendenhal retreating glacier which was carbon dated circa 1000-1100ad.
Third the study points out the the melting is 60x more than circa 1850 which is to be expected since that is considered the end of the LIA.
In summary, the Mt hunter study adds additional confirmation and insight to what is already known.
-
John Hartz at 11:00 AM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
More reasons to suspect that the IPCC projections of SLR are on the low side...
Sea levels could be rising faster than predicted due to new source of Antarctic ice melting by Josh Gabbatis, Environment, Independent (UK), Apr 19, 2018
New study shows worrisome signs for Greenland ice by John Abraham, Climate Consensus - the 97%, Gurdian, Apr 14, 2018
Antarctic Glaciers Lost Stunning Amount of Ground in Recent Years by Chelsea Harvey, E&E News/Scientific American, Apr 4, 2018
-
scaddenp at 10:37 AM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Conspiracy theorist: "I believe in hypothesis A" (eg climate change isnt happening) [belief is based on preferences routed in values and identity]
Rationalist: "Here is data proving the contrary"
CT: "There is a conspiracy to hide the real data" [cant change the belief so only alternative is disbelieve the data]
Virtually all conspiracy theories dont make sense. They are held by people for whom the rationalist framework is a foreign country.
-
Tom Dayton at 09:55 AM on 20 April 2018CO2 is plant food
After 24 years, the pattern reverses: C3 plants grow worse as CO2 continues to increase, and C4 plants grow better. New article.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 20 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
NorrisM @81, concerning 2 M approx. sea level rise by 2100, if the Antarctic destabilises etc.
Right now this is possible and connot be ruled out. Probabilities are small given current best understandings and observational evidence, but 2M by 2100 would be catastrophic. Because the consequences are grave, even a low possibility becomes concerning.You have to think of it in these terms.
It's not sensible to start saying perhaps a 10% possibility, or we dont have definitive evidence or enough observations so lets hope we dodge this bullet, because if we don't consequences are very severe and very costly in terms of adaptation and possible geo political ramnifications. Even 1M is bad enough.
Of course you have to weigh all this against costs of reducing emissions, but these have been demonstrated to be within the boundaries of what countries can deal with and the technology is there, at least for electricity and vehicle transport, and these are large parts of the issue and negative emissions options are also available and proven in most cases.
And appreciate whatever the rate of sea level rise is by 2100, it will continue at the same or greater rate beyond 2100.The more temperatures rise the faster ice melts, basic stuff and this is before you consider how glaciers and ice sheets respond in detail and can become destabilised.
The last decade or so has averaged about 3.5MM so thats 350mm per century at 1 degree of warming. Even drastic emissions cuts by 2050 has still locked in about 1.5 degree, and so at least 400mm probably more like 600mm by 2100. So forget about this low end scenario.
Higher temperatures can only increase the rate well above 400mm. We are definitely in 1M to 2M territory, unless emissions are reduced.
-
nigelj at 07:45 AM on 20 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #15
This is important: Trump's Latest Plan for Saving Coal Comes From the Cold War
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Doug_C @6
Well argued. The idea that climate science is a conspiracy doesn't make sense to me either. Too many people have been involved to keep such a secret. It's as absurd as the twin towers conspiracy theories, or moon landing conspiracy.
Of course the denialists would argue bizarre things that all the early research was fake, and its all an elaborate plot by the one world illuminati socialist globalist conspiracy to enslave humans for god knows what crazy reason.
Better to apply occams razor. The simplest explanations are usually correct. Scientists were looking at the climate and trying to explain things, nothing more or less than this.
Apply Occams Razor to the climate denialists and its tempting to say they are simply ignorant low intelligence people, but this doesn't stand scrutiny, because the denialists include higher than average intelligence, so the next plausible and simple motive is vested interests and political dislike of government regulations and programmes needed to help fix the problem.
-
nigelj at 07:11 AM on 20 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay @6
"After all, a higher average temperature will result in greater evaporation - which means more vapor in the atmosphere."
Yeah I was wondering this exact thing myself, and I dont know the text book answer. However here's my answer as an alternative to M Sweet. If the sun went through a period of enhanced activity causing a warming effect and the water vapour feedback, day time temperatures are increasing because of both direct influence of the sun 'and' the water vapour greenhouse effect. This is going to lead to more rise of temperatures during the day than at night because at night the only factor is the greenhouse effect.
-
nigelj at 06:35 AM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Useful articles on the glacier issue:
www.ipsnews.net/2011/09/200-million-depend-on-melting-glaciers-for-water/
www.scientificamerican.com/article/shrinking-mountain-glaciers-are-affecting-people-downstream/
-
william5331 at 06:01 AM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Of course the amount of percipitation is likely to be the same or greater in a glacier free world but the water will flow down the rivers to a large extent in the winter when it is less needed and not in the summer when it is. Countries, where it is possible would be wise to become absolute fanatics about spreading beavers through the head waters of all streams and mounting a wide and deep education program in the media and in the schools about the benefits beavers bring. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2007/07/canadian-beaver-pest-or-benefactor.html
-
Xulonn at 01:23 AM on 20 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
The above is an excellent article that expands my knowledge of glaciers in the global climate picture, but there is one critical aspect that I have not seen summarized for lay readers.
It is obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of geography and hydrology that China, India, many SE Asia nations as well as South American nations on the western slopes of the Andes depend on glacier melt to feed their rivers and support their civilizations. The number of humans in both the countryside and major cities that depend on the great rivers of SE Asia is staggering. (Conversely, the glaciers of Alaska, Greenland and West Antarctic & the Antarctic Peninsula are important with respect to sea level rise, but not critical as water sources for large populations.
Water and the balance between its solid, liquid and vapor/gas states is the magic that makes the difference between a dead, rocky planet in the proper solar radiation zone, and one that teems with fertile soil and life. Water - supplies, droughts and floods - will likely be a primary factor in causing turmoil, strife and tragedy in modern civilization as AGW/CC progresses.
If anyone knows of a comprehensive summary of human dependence on mountain glaciers - and/or winter snow packs as in California - please post a link. The likely progression of events includes increasing overall glacier-fed river water flow rates for now - in erratic patterns including floods and low flows. In the near future - as mountain glaciers are reduced to fractions of their former size and volume - overall flow rates will "permanently" decrease. This will have dire consequences for the downstream farmers and cities who have depended on glacier-fed rivers for centuries.
(I will search the internet over the next couple of days, and if I find a good summary, will post a link.)
-
michael sweet at 23:12 PM on 19 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Norrism:
I typed "Rignot" into google and one of the first hits was :
Rignot et al Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island,
Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica,
from 1992 to 2011This appears to fit what you want.
I sugggest you follow my previous recommendation and go to Rignot's personal web site (google rignot) and review his publications on this topic.
In general, it is not my job to search Google for you. Try to make more of an effort.
-
michael sweet at 22:08 PM on 19 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art Vandelay,
I do not have a peer reviewed explaination for your question.
I understand that if the sun was stronger it would deliver more energy during the day and heat it up. Since it is hotter, more energy would radiate into space at night so the night time temperature would not increase as much as during the day. (Night time temperatures would increase, just not as much).
With more CO2, the temperature would increase because energy from the sun would radiate to space more slowly. This would have a larger effect at night because night time cooling would be a lot slower. Nigelj's reference appears to be slightly different from mine, his is more authorative.
Spencer Weart's book The history of Global Warming source would have this information.
-
nigelj at 19:22 PM on 19 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Interesting how the graph of mass balance shows a curved form over the full time period, although it is not exactly smoothly rounded. However its an acceleration, that reinforces the information suggesting sea level rise has accelerated.
-
Doug_C at 17:07 PM on 19 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Let's use the relativity of wrong to compare a climate change "conspiracy" perpetrated by scientists with a climate change denial conspiracy perpetrated by people associated with the fossil fuel sector.
1. In the first case this would have to be a very long running conspiracy dating back to the early days of modern science when it was first realized that the Earth's surface was warmer than it should be if it was just radiating its black body radiation driectly into space - that was in the late 1600s. By the 1820s Joseph Fourier has calculated by how much the Earth was being wamred by this unknown process. By the 1850s John Tyndall had identified what was almost certainly the mechanism, carbon dioxide and water vapour in the atmosphere that he clearly demonstrated to the London Royal Society trapped heat. By the 1890s Svante Arrhenius did the thousands of calculations by hand that were required to determine climate sensitivity - what happens to average global temperature if you double atmospheric CO2. Results that are "suspiciously" still within modern margin of error. All this before the development of very powerful theoretical tools to understand how nature behaves at the smallest level where this process would be going on.
Now we have the next step in the science "conspiracy" with the introduction of quantum mechanics and a much deeper understanding of why more complex molecules like H2O and CO2 absorbs heat and N2 and O2 don't. Confirming the science that already stretched back two centuries. And all subsequent science on climate change has been based on this solid theoretical and experimental foundation.
If there is a scientific conspiracy regarding climate change it is very old and suspiciously self-confirming by using the scientific process that gives us most of modern technology and therefore modern society itself.
If the science of climate change is a fraud then so is all the rest of science which is based in the same fundamental theories in which case society stops working and falls apart... we're still here. Great, that's evidence that the science of climate change has a very high degree of confidence.
2. Case two, is climate change denial a fraud and if so who is behind it. Where oh where would we ever find parties with almost unlimited funding who might want to deny the valid science of climate change no matter the consistent data for centuries.
We know that those running Exxon had a very good idea of the science 40 years ago and decided to deny it.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
We also know with a high degree of confidence that some of the same "scientists" that went to work with the tobacco industry to deny health risks also transferred the same techniques developed to do that to denying climate change.
We also know that the Royal Society specifically warned Exxon to stop funding climate change denial in 2006.
Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
And even though on the surface it seems like it did stop outright funding of denial groups it had set up, the evidence is now that a complex network has been created to use "dark money" to keep funding climate change denial.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
So comparing the two "conspiracies" lets see how they fit in the relativity of wrong.
- A conspiracy of scientists is highly unlikely because it totally lacks a motive. All the individuals associated with the field going back centuries were applying the latest knowledge in the best manner available. And their result are still in close agreement with science in general without which modern society wouldn't exist.
Very unlikely that there is a scientific conspiracy behind human created climate change.
2. Denial of the science appeared suddenly in the late 1970s when individuals running a corporation that would soon cease to exist if the latest science guided policy decided to deny that science no matter the cost. They later used techniques developed by the tobacco industry which has since been sued successly many times for doing so.
There is a long, well documented money trail from the fossil fuel sector to the denial movement. Which means deniers are not true skeptics in any sense, they are paid shills. When presented with evidence of their own complicity in a 40 year old fraud they totally ignore it and go into a complex display of the techniques of denial as listed above. Once again first created by the tobacco lobby to convince members of each new generation to contribute "replacement" smokers as the older ones died off much earlier than they would have otherwise.
End result.
- No evidence at all the scientific theory of human forced climate change has been intentionally forged at any point.
- All the evidence point to denial being entirely a fraudulent exercise to distort and deny the valid science in exactly the same manner the tobacco lobby did using some of the very same players. See Fred Seitz and Fred Singer for two examples of this.
-
Art Vandelay at 16:52 PM on 19 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Michael@3, Nijel@4, I don't dispute what either of you are saying, but why would a stronger sun result in a greater rise in daytime max temperatures than nighttime min temperatures? After all, a higher average temperature will result in greater evaporation - which means more vapor in the atmosphere. IOW, enhanced greenhouse.
I know it's not directly related to the actual topic being presented, and it's not my intention to take discussion off topic.
-
NorrisM at 16:23 PM on 19 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
My apologies for going off-thread.
Thanks Bob Loblaw for your explanation of short term variations in sea level rise based upon precipitation impacted by El Ninos and La Ninas. I can see that the "levelling off" of sea level rise shown in the second Dan Bailey graph above did occur post 2015. I am assuming that this is attributed to the La Nina which followed the 2015-2106 El Nino.
But despite my requests, I have not had any suggestions for reviewing any recent paper on what is actually happening with the WAIS.
Here is what I said with respect to WAIS in my long blog @ 58 above:
"As to the evidence of a retreat of WAIS, see Chapter 13 at 13.5.4.1:
'Although the model used by Huybrechts et al. (2011) is in principle capable of capturing grounding line motion of marine ice sheets (see Box 13.2), low confidence is assigned to the model’s ability to capture the associated time scale and the perturbation required to initiate a retreat (Pattyn et al., 2013).'What this tells me is that there is a “theoretical” danger but so far we do not have any evidence of an actual retreat or the time frame over which this could occur. We cannot base our rational responses to AGW based upon theories which have not been supported with observational evidence."
Has anyone challenged me on these statements beyond providing me with the De Conto & Pollard paper? I have asked for further references beyond De Conto & Pollard which, on my reading, is once again, theory adding MICI to MISI. Is there any paper discussing recent observational evidence of the MISI or MICI theories?
The IPCC basically said in 2013 that the previous papers on MISI (prior to De Conto & Pollard) do not provide any time frame. Does this comment still hold valid?
-
Lachlan at 15:44 PM on 19 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #15
Riduana, I wouldn't be too picky about the difference between climate change and global warming. Both global warming and the predominant changes in climate come from an increase in the heat content near the earth's surface.
However ocean acidification (which you list as a consequence of global warming) is a substantially different issue. The main reason for increased acidity is an increase in the amount of CO2 dissolved in it. That is a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and not (primarily) caused by the increased heat content. It would not happen if there were a sudden rise in CH4 without the rise in CO2, whereas climate change and global warming would.
-
Riduna at 15:37 PM on 19 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
This will be of growing concern to the 2 billion people who are sustained by the waters of glaciers on the Hindu-Kush, Himalayas and mountains of N.W. China
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:57 AM on 19 April 2018American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
Thanks, gentlemen, for the images of GRACE data and an updated sea level graph. I knew of the GRACE data and analysis, but Rob Painting's older post was the one I first found with a quick search.
In terms of updated sea level data, Daniel Bailey had already posted another more-up-to-date graph in this comment on the "Sea Level Rise Predictions Are Exaggerated" thread that michael sweet has responded on. Daniel's comment is only two spots above NorrisM's long comment with his unsupportable argument for linear extrapolation. This is an example of why comments should be placed on the correct threads.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:49 AM on 19 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
To collect the bread crumbs of the responses here, michael sweet's commnet #79 refers to several comments on the "American conservatives are still clueless..." thread, ending with this comment,
-
John Hartz at 10:47 AM on 19 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #15
Riduna:
The header for the first section of Dr Sheperd's article is Global warming is just one part of climate change. All of the ensuing narrative in this section explains this statement in more detail. I see no daylight between your and Dr Sheperd's respective understandings of global warming and climate change.
-
nigelj at 10:28 AM on 19 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Nights warming faster than days. This is related to greenhouse warming, because of the way the atmospheres layers change at night according to phys.org here.
-
michael sweet at 10:15 AM on 19 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Art,
Yes it is true. The minimum temperature at night has increased more than the hottest temperature during the day. It has also increased more in winter than in summer (both predicted by Arhennius in 1896). If the sun increased in heat the summer would warm faster than the winter.
-
Doug_C at 09:25 AM on 19 April 2018Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
It's projected that 70% of glaciers will be gone from British Columbia by 2100, with about 50% loss in the coast ranges which are wetter and 90% loss in the drier Rockies. Most of the remaining glaciers by that time will be in the North West corner of BC.
Western Canada to lose 70 per cent of glaciers by 2100
In 2015 "The Blob" of warmer water in the Pacific off the west coast of Canada helped create condition that saw a significant increase in the rate of melting of some glaciers.
-
Art Vandelay at 09:24 AM on 19 April 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
"if the ocean surface warmed up because less cold deep water were being exchanged with it), then sea surfaces should warm as fast as the land. And if global warming were caused by the sun, days would warm faster than nights; in fact the opposite is true."
Is this actually correct?
It's easy to test the effect of the sun on diurnal temperature range, becuse we can easily compare summer and winter data, and globally it appeaars that diurnal range decreases in summer - presumably due to increased water vapor from evaporation. In other words, any mechanism that increases earth's surface temperature will result in increased humidity and a reduced diurnal temperature range.
-
michael sweet at 08:55 AM on 19 April 2018American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
Norrism:
I have posted a new reply to you here where it is on topic. You should post all your posts on sea level rise on that thread becasue anything here will be permanently lost. It is site policy to always post on a relevant thread, I am surprised the moderators have not started deleting your off topic posts.
You should read the comments thread to keep up on all threads like everyone else does. The comments button is at the top of every page in the middle of the blue line.
I suggest that everyone try to post sea level rise debate on the relevant thread that Bob Loblaw originally linked and is linked again above. Both Bob Loblaw's and MA Rodger's posts above are interesting and will be impossible to find in two weeks.
-
michael sweet at 08:50 AM on 19 April 2018Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Norrism:
I mam replying to you from here where you are posting on sea level rise but that is off topic. I followed Bob Loblaw's link here and found your post on projections of sea level rise.
It appears that I rembered your post incorrectly. If you posted here on topic I would have been able to find your old post and would not have wasted my time. The moderators have warned you multiple times about posting off topic but you cannot be bothered to follow the site rules. Is that allowed in court?
Apparently you estimated sea level rise for the rest of the century at 3.2 mm/yr from the IPCC report and not 1.7 mm/yr as I thought. As the data linked above proves, the rate of sea level has increased substantially since the IPCC report was written so it is no longer relevant. You must use the current rate which is estimated at between 3.8 mm/yr here by MA Rodger (a 12.5 year average so it is less than the current rate) or 4.1 mm/yr in the linked post from Tamino using Nerem's method.
Nerem et al. give a minimum amount of sea level rise from 2005 as 65 cm, more than double your guess. You must provide a reason why you believe that the rate of sea level rise will no longer accelerate when it has been accelerating for the past 130 years. You should also justify your selection of a rate at least 20% lower than current measurements show. Remember that expert scientists predict that the acceleration will increase.
Please post your replies here where they are on topic so that posts are not lost.
-
Riduna at 05:56 AM on 19 April 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #15
John
My understanding of “part of” is: as an arm is just one part of the human body, inseparable from or integral to it, as opposed to something quite separate and distinct as have tried to explain in my comment – a distinction not clearly made by Dr. Sheperd. Is the term is understood differently in the USA?
-
CBDunkerson at 21:15 PM on 18 April 2018The courts are deciding who's to blame for climate change
william, setting aside 'the whole human race is responsible for climate change', there are clearly some subsets of the human race which are more responsible than others... with those who have profited off it, and used those profits to deceive the public about it, being at the top of the list.
-
MA Rodger at 19:02 PM on 18 April 2018American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
Bob Loblaw @32,
Of course, the graph you show (linked from another SkS post) is a bit out-of-date now and even the source for the image (which has been provided data to mid-Feb 2018) doesn't use the re-calibrated TOPEX data as in the CU graph below. That graph demonstrates visually an acceleration in global SLR. (And simplistically, if you put a linear regression through the first half of the 25 years of the calibrated SLR data and the second half fo the data, the difference is 3.8-2.8=1mm/yr SLR, this obtained on two halves of the record. These halves being 12½ years apart, it suggests a global SLR acceleration of 0.08mm/yr/yr, or alternatively 2½%/year. Sustained until 2100, 2½%/year would equate to about one metre SLR for the century, a little above the 0.8m 'black dot' on the Rohling graphic @24.)
-
scaddenp at 13:09 PM on 18 April 2018American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
The GRACE measurements of mass change over the 2010-11 period show very clearly why sea level dropped.
Article here. keithpickering reported on the sums from the GRACE grids and confirmed most of the change in sealevel accounted for by change in hydrological storage.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:01 AM on 18 April 2018American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus
NorrisM:
You seem to be wanting to continue sea level discussions here, rather than on the Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated thread, where you have not responded to this comment from me.
The moderators have been snipping from your recent post in this thread. One of the snipped phases was:
We saw this happen with sea level rise during the "hiatus" and we could see it if temperatures were to level off for the next 10 years.
...in apparent justification for you claiming that a flattening of sea level rise could be caused by a flattening of temperature rise.
Leaving aside the argument that the "hiatus" in surface temperature rise represented a slowing of global warming (not seen in the ocean temperatures, which are the ones that affect sea level), you are simply wrong that any temporary slowdowns of sea level rise were the result of temperature changes. The primary driver of short-term fluctuations in sea level over the past decade or two is El Nino/La Nina - it shifts water between oceans and land, due to precipitation changes.
Read this post to see the explanation. Here is the first graph from that post:
You are making the wrong conclusions becuase you are looking at the wrong physical mechanisms. Without an understanding of the physical principles that affect sea level, you are doomed to continue these fundamental misunderstandings. I have tried to point this out to you on the other thread, but you are persisting in drawing your own conclusions from a position of ignorance.
Prev 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 Next
