Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 17101 to 17150:

cero at 23:28 PM on 7 November 2017

Climate's changed before

Thanks @MA Rodger. That was the kind of explanation I was searching for. :-)

Eclectic at 22:12 PM on 7 November 2017

What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?

Cero, a small addendum to (D) above :-

The unreality of the (American) labels "liberal, or conservative" . . . is hampering the (American) ability for logical thought on these issues — and is fanning the false-dichotomy (which seems to be the local mental fashion in recent decades). Unfortunate. But we (including you) must try to rise above that sort of nonsense. Regardless, it all reflects poorly on "the Memo-ist".

Eclectic at 22:04 PM on 7 November 2017

What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?

Cero @20 :-

(E) Look at human history: for centuries (millennia, actually!) the subordinate position of women has effected a "pay gap" [in monetary or other reward] for the female of the species. Exceptions were rare. In effect, the "pay gap" has been the default position. I accept your point that the difference is diminishing — in First World countries. There, because the situation is in a state of flux, it becomes less easy to distinguish between true preferences and true discrimination.

But the onus is on you to dismiss the default position by demonstrating the alleged absence of adverse discrimination. (Yet the point is fairly minor, in comparison to AGW . . . so please don't bother to put yourself to much trouble in doing so !!)

I am not sure what region of this planet you inhabit, Cero — but it must surely be a Utopian place, if you regard the "pay gap" as highly anecdotal. ;-)

(D) Pro-homeotherapy & Anti-vaccination stances are often correlated with higher-than-average education levels. Yet that is not at all to suggest that education (and possibly intelligence) could be the cause of such self-harming & deeply insane stances. But merely that (insane) motivated reasoning is facilitated by above-average education. [Sadly, the term "above average education" is a long way short of flattery, for anyone !!)

(C) In part, the [above] is why I say that "the Memo-ist" shows bias and lack of insight into his own nature and also into the nature of humanity/society.

But Cero, please call a spade a spade — and please do go so far as to attest him [having] an extremist attitude. I doubt it would hurt his feelings. Indeed, I strongly suspect he is proud of his extremist attitude [though he would never admit to himself as being anything other than a mainstream thinker ;-) ].

(B) The greater variance of men's IQ . . . is an old idea, and likely of dubious validity. There would be many confounding factors in such assessment — especially decades ago, when there were greater M/F social differences.

(A) I fear for you Cero, if you believe our modern world holds little threat to your privacy. I wish you good luck!

MA Rodger at 21:17 PM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Bob Loblaw @241,

Further to this Boretti/Parker issue, my understanding as per @240 was that there was one odd date (likely explainable), and all else pointed to a simple name-change. In the Tamino discussion you refer to dated 26Sept2012, there is mention of 3 published comments, one of these from Boretti and one from Parker. The Parker comment is published 6Sept2012 and cites the Boretti comment as being "In Press". The authorship of the Parker comment must then post-date the Boretti comment. And they both must have been published prior to the Tamino post of 26Sept2012.

So here is the one odd date, the Boretti comment publication is dated 11Oct2012. I can but assume this for some reason was written, and published in some form prior to both the Parker comment and the Tamino post but has for some reason acquired a later date of publication in the form linked above. Beyond this, I initially saw no Boretti literature on this subject that post-dates the arrival of Parker.

That did suggest a name change (as per the commenting here on a different paper) and that Parker was not acting as a sock-puppet for Boretti. However....

...Boretti has acted as a sock-puppet for Parker (hat-tip DeSmogBlog who got no sense from Parker when they asked him abot the two names). And Parker also continues to use the name Alberto Boretti when publishing in his day job so Parker continues to be a nom de plume, perhaps used to build a firewall between the responses he gets to his purile writings on climatology (which "would be unacceptable in an undergraduate lab report") from his more serious Mechanical Engineering work (eg here).

Which ever way you see it, Parker/Boretti's use of different names within scientific publications is unacceptable.

bozzza at 19:51 PM on 7 November 2017

Climate's changed before

Answer is: whether it's going too fast or not!

(Did I win?)

Bob Loblaw at 13:09 PM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

As Mal Adapted points out, the journal this recent paper came out in is quite new.

I noticed that issue #2 has a correction in it, for a paper from issue #1. Although it is to the credit of the authors and journal to correct errors, I hope that this is not the start of a pattern of error-riddled papers.

Bob Loblaw at 13:00 PM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

MA Rodger:

In addition to the link michael sweet gave to a Tamino article, there are several other blog posts that Tamino has done on Parker/Boretti's work. A search at Tamino's provides a list.

One of those posts (also linked to in the Tamino post michael points us to) has more details on the paper that Boretti/Parker sent in two comments on (both published). Although I haven't read the comments to see if Boretti said anything about Parker, it is clear that Parker did not stop using the Boretti name just because it wasn't his legal name any more.

Perhaps he just forgot some of the tnings he wanted to comment on when he sent in the first comment, and then forgot he'd already sent in a comment using his other name when he sent in the second comment.

MA Rodger at 08:42 AM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

michael sweet @239,

I think it is more correct to state that "Albert Parker" was known as "Alberto Boretti" and that at some point prior to September 2012, as confirmed by the University of Ballarat on October 1st 2012, "Alberto Boretti ... changed his name to Albert Parker." Of course, this allows Parker to say nice things about Boretti. But is there actually evidence of Boretti returning to say nice things about Parker?

And let us not forget Parker's co-author in this allegedly "most authoritative and objective analysis yet of sea-level rise globally" who is an octogenarian with a bit of a problem accepting there is significant ice loss from the Greenland & Antarctic ice caps.

nigelj at 08:39 AM on 7 November 2017

What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?

Cero @19

Thank's for your response. I dont have the time for in depth response, but here are the essential things to me:

I still think the memo writers position is essentially and mainly that biological and deep seated temperamental differences are the main issues in this particular career choice.

He has provided a couple of peer reviewed papers, but thay could be non typical and other research might find something different. Refer to my prior comment that he needs to look at full range of evidence. Its not totally clear if women preferring people jobs is biological or learned.

The evidence in the articles I linked to is actually pretty compelling. However ultimately we dont know for sure either way. It may be a combination of all these factors biological differences, learned differences, barriers, and perceptions etc.

But the bottom line is the memo writer made a claim he hasnt been able to prove adequately, and its on a contentious matter. This puts him in a difficult position, especially as she did it in work time and spread it around the office. It could be interpreted as spreading sexist opinion. If he was writing a book, no problem he can claim what he likes.

He did make a number of political comments about marxism, liberal media bias etc. I think that is unusual material to be circulating in office time at a technology company and rather inappropriate, and his views are pretty dubious as well.

I accept he made several other good points as you noted, but these get lost once he started ranting about liberals in the media. I dont actually see many liberals at Fox. And this is the problem, once the issue is policised it gets argumentative, and away from the issue of women in technology

Regarding the gender pay gap, we do have a reasonable idea of cause. The main factor appears to be career choices women make and just low paying jobs in some industries. Gender discrimination appears to be about 25% of the problem. Read the research linked on wikipedia.

However I dont think it matters what the exact proportionality is, gender discrimination is still a part of the problem, and is easy to address with appropriate laws, and we have those in my country and they work quite well. I assume America has some sort of laws.

michael sweet at 07:06 AM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

yppo: "Albert Parker" or "Alberto Boretti", the nome de plume that he sometimes writes under, is well known to make up his data on sea level rise. Please suggest a reason we should listen to his prattle now? (for those new to science, writing under two names in considered dishonest in science. "Alberto Borelli" has written positive comments about "Albert Parker's" work.)

Mal Adapted at 06:58 AM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

yppo: "the most authoritative and objective analysis yet of sea-level rise globally."

Sorry, I'm skeptical. Your citation is to the second of two issues of a brand new journal. From the 'Preface' to the first issue, published three months ago:

It is our great pleasure to present the inaugural issue of our newly launched scientific journal “Earth Systems and Environment,” the official journal of King Abdulaziz University, which has now become a reality with Springer Nature in Germany. Our main objective is to establish very high standards for the journal so as to support research and innovation in the greater Middle East region and to promote the exchange of scientific knowledge between local scientists in the region and the international community.

With all due respect to King Abdulaziz and his namesake University, its new house organ has yet to establish how 'authoritative' it is. As for whether Short-Term Tide Gauge Records from One Location are Inadequate to Infer Global Sea-Level Acceleration will "finally put this issue to bed", that's up to post-publication peer review to decide.

As an armachair climate scientist, I'm hardly a 'peer' of any working SLR specialist, but I'll offer my two cents. I noted this in the article's Introduction:

The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.

Candidly, citing the likes of Mörner and Scafetta to support a claim of "loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory" won't help to "establish very high standards for the journal."

yypo at 05:30 AM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

yypo at 05:30 AM on 7 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Just published in December 2017 issue of “Earth Systems and Environment” the most authoritative and objective analysis yet of sea-level rise globally.
Should finally put this issue to bed. The next time you hear about sea-levels rising several feet this century remember there’s no evidence of this rate to date despite the explosion of CO2 since early in the 20th century.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0019-5

cero at 04:59 AM on 7 November 2017

What does a sexist Google engineer teach us about women in science?

@Eclectic:

(A) "Yet in this world of rapidly-shrinking privacy (and especially so in the digital world) it seems that an employee of Google (of all places!!) would be very alert to the possibility that any statements made would bob to the surface and see daylight at some stage, sooner or later."

Well, I hope not. Of course, the possibility exists, but if this would be likely, I would live my life in fear. At least I don't see how anyone could blame him for that.

When I hear him in the interviews it at least seems as if he genuinely thought he could start a reasonable, open debate with this document (I would still recommend to listen to the interview linked above).

(B) I get your point. However, the author auf the memo doesn't argue about a difference in general intelligence, but about a difference in behavior.

As a sidenote: Is the statement, that men's IQ shows more variance than women's disputed? I know, that the brain size argument was once there and has been disproved, but I don't know about the IQ variance.

Another sidenote: Yes, of course, the behavior (and therefore the hormones) are irrelevant when talking about the skill for a certain profession. However, it is highly relevant when talking about the number of people who choose a certain profession.

(C) Well, I wouldn't go so far as to attest him an extremist attitude, but at least it shows a conservative touch and maybe not enough insight into sociological theories (on the other hand, I don't have them as well, so who am I to judge).

(D) You are right, the American terms of "liberal" and "conservative" are quite different from the meanings in Europe. But I think one should interprete his statements in an American context.

About the 95%: For this he cited the following. https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

They state, that the 95% is the number of liberals in the humanities, while the figure from Wikipedia refers to academia as a whole (He also explicitly refers to social sciences in the memo). I ccurrently can't confirm this number, however it seems plausible for me, that the number of left-leaning scientists is higher in the humanities.

"But when we boil it down, the situation is this :- When a commentator finds that 75-90% of highly-educated intelligent people hold a view which is appreciably "to the left" of the commentator's view . . . then very likely it is his view that has a bias — not theirs!"

In general I tend to agree with that. However, if we look at topics such as GMOs or homeopathy there is a tendency to be more anti-scientific, the higher the formal education is. So while higher educated people tend to agree on the scientific consensus, which confirms the left, they do not necessarily tend to agree on scientific consensus for positions on the right. (Sorry, this sentence is awkward)

(E) "But look around, Cero, within the USA and internationally too — for women, the "zero pay gap" is the exception, rather than the rule, for equal-work jobs."

That seems highly anecdotic. If I look around in my area, I don't see women getting paid less for the same work with the same qualification etc. I don't deny, that there are some, but I would rather rely on scientific data than on anecdotes. And the scientific evidence for a significant difference due to discrimination is rather weak.

John Hartz at 04:57 AM on 7 November 2017

We have every reason to fear Trump’s pick to head NASA

Recommended supplemental reading:

How the Trump White House Wound Up Releasing Dire Climate Report by Eric Roston & Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg News, Nov 6, 2017

Daniel Bailey at 22:23 PM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Ancillary to Bob Loblaw's fine comment at 232, previous research has shown that ice sheet mass contributions from land-based ice sheets have exceeded thermal expansion as the biggest contributor to global sea level rise. Recent research just submitted now has isolated the individual ice sheet contributions to global sea level rise.

Per Hsu and Velicogna 2017, between April 2002 and October 2014 global mean sea level grew by about 1.8 millimeters per year, with 43 percent of the increased water mass coming from Greenland, 16 percent from Antarctica, and 30 percent from mountain glaciers.

Hsu and Velicogna 2017 - Detection of Sea Level Fingerprints derived from GRACE gravity data

SLR Fingerprints
Embiggened

william5331 at 18:16 PM on 6 November 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

I don't get it. Presumably the air pollution that comes from Chinese factories is primarily particulate material and sulfur. If so, why don't they simply buy off-the-shelf equipment from the USA and reverse engineer it. America cleaned up the same problem about 70 years ago with electrostatic precipitators and sulfur scrubbers in the smoke stacks of power plants, smelters and other polluting industries.

michael sweet at 10:31 AM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Norrism:

Bob Loblaw and M.A. Rodger have address some of the data analysis. If you read Tamino's post you will get a more detailed account. The IPCC does not state how their data was calculated. The method is undoubtedly somewhere in the references. It looks to me like they used a short analysis period, but it may be due to the data sources they used.

It appears that the IPCC graph that Koonan used was graphed with the 18 year data point at the start of the 18 year period (Noonan did not copy the caption so I could not tell from his graph). That means the data reached to 2011 and was up to date when it was written. My last post incorrectly dated the graph.

We know that sea level rise has increased rapidly for the last 6 years. That means the sea level now is about 20% greater than it was in 2011 when the IPCC data was written. Comparing to 1950 it is less likely that 1950 was as fast as today than in 2011 since sea lefel rise is greater.

In addition, papers have evaluated all the data sets graphed in the IPCC reports and some of those data sets have been updated. That would change the data (I am not sure what those changes are). In order to make a valid comparison today you need to use the updated data sets.

The writers of the CSSR reports used the updated data sets to reach their conclusions. They reached a valid scientific conclusion. Koonan cherry picked old data because he thought it supported his preconceived notions. His claims are not scientificly valid. The CSSR report supersedes the IPCC report because it is a more recent in depth review.

MA Rodger at 08:44 AM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

NorrisM @230.

Yous seem to be asking two things. Firstly, why do we not see "similarly high rates" to 3,2mm/yr(+/-0.4mm/yr) in the Tamino graph? Secondly, what caused the rate of SLR 1920-50 to be higher than periods before and after?

The methods used to create the Tamino graph have been explained @231/232 but this is probably not enough for you.

To address your first question concerning the IPCC quote, be aware that the quote originates in the Executive Summary of AR5 Chapter 13 so is not what I would call definitive, and indeed the quote you give cites references elsewhere within AR5. (You call this quote "fact" which is seriously wrong.)

If you refer to Section 3.7.4 you will see that it is not just Church & White that are being cited and that in Fig 3.14 Church & White data yields the lowest SLR through this 1920-50 period, hitting a momentary peak of just 2.3mm/yr from 18-year lnear trend calculations. (It is not clear from AR5 but this is certainly Church & White (2011) not C&W(2006) which would yield significantly higher levels of SLR through these years. Note C&W(2011) plot 16-year linear trends which also peak at 2.3mm/yr.) The Tamino graph uses differing methods and yields a peak of 2.1mm/yr through these year.

Your second question has no definite answer. Note that C&W(2011) speculate that the ice-melt contribution in 1920-50 could have been greater than is usually estimated. And if you look at zonal temperature records (ie GISTemp below), the place with the big temperature during the early 20th century was the high northern latutudes that do conveniently have ample ice to melt.

GISTEMP zonal graphic

Bob Loblaw at 05:44 AM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

With respect to acceleration, and whether it will continue, the figure I included in comment 222 shows that Greenland and Antarctica are having an increasingly large contribution. Ice sheets like these are slow to react, and they are just getting going in response to recent warming. The major question on what will happen by 2100 is "what will happen with Greenland and Antarctica?"

Bob Loblaw at 05:39 AM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

NorrisM:

In the Tamino link provided above, he states:

"If we smooth the data, a lot depends on the time scale for smoothing. Too short a time scale will tell us about the ubiquitous wiggles, which is not what we’re interested in."

In the figure just after that statement, he shows the smooth fit he produced:

Tamino sea level (Church and White)

Note that Tamino's curve does not follow every "ubiquitous wiggle". Less smoothing will give greater variation in rate over shorter time intervals. The IPCC report does not state (that I can see from a quick glance) how short a time interval they used to get "similar" rates. Section 13.2.2.1 does, however, state:

"Interannual and decadal-scale variability is superimposed on the long-term MSL trend, and Chapter 3 noted that discrepancies between the various published MSL records are present at these shorter time scales.

and

"Because of the presence of low-frequency variations (e.g., multi-decadal variations seen in some tidal gauge records; Chambers et al. (2012)), sea level acceleration results are sensitive to the choice of the analysis time span.

If you make the time span short enough, you'll get twice-daily tides with very high rates of change. Not "sea level rise", though. The IPCC is probably looking at shorter time scales than Tamino.

Mal Adapted at 05:29 AM on 6 November 2017

Why people around the world fear climate change more than Americans do

ddost4827:

I suspect there there's a strong reaction dynamic at play in US politics where because Democrats advocate for climate change policies so stridently, to the point of demonizing Republicans or conservatives who oppose it, people in those groups push back more on the political aspect and party line division rather than on any scientific basis.

This is a straw man argument. Individual Democrats who 'advocate for climate change policies so stridently' may get pushback against themselves. Blaming those particular obnoxious Democrats for the refusal by "Republicans and conservatives" to discuss any climate change policy at all, doesn't help with "keeping the discussion fact based and discussion oriented".

I'm not convinced ddost4827 is actually interested in dialogue.

NorrisM at 04:29 AM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

michael sweet @ 218, Bob Loblaw @ 219 and MA Rodger and John Hartz

I have read the references in the above citations and I am still confused as to the statement by the IPCC in the 2013 Assessment which, again, has the following summary:

"It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950. {3.7.2, 3.7.4, 5.6.3, 13.2.1, 13.2.2, Figure 13.3}"

The graph of Church & White presented in Tamino and reproduced in michael sweet's post at 227 seem to be inconsistent with a statement of fact in the 2013 IPPC statement. The rate shown in the Church & White graph (is this fully Church & White or an extension added to a Church & White graph that ended earlier?) does not show a similar rate in 1920 to 1950 at approximately 3.2 mm/yr. Surely this is what "similar high rates" has to mean.

Responding to Bob Loblaw, of course new information on sea level rises since 2013 are relevant but it does not explain this statement by the IPCC made in 2013. At that time it was either right or wrong. From what I can gather, the new CCSR report effectively repeats this analysis in the main report but does not reference this in the Executive Summary which is Koonin's complaint.

Moderator @ 224

I have not fully read the Mooney discussion nor have I got through this entire thread which I intend to do as part of my understanding on this issue.

But I thought I should respond to what seems to be an inconsistency between the Church & White graph and what the IPCC (and I believe the CCSR) have said about this period 1920- 1950.

I thought I was going to get an explanation of why the rate during 1920-1950 was close to the same but the answer comes back that the rate was no where near 3.2 mm/yr at all during this latter period. If all the IPCC was referencing was a short term acceleration during this period at the same rate for a much shorter time than the 30 years, then that could have been made a lot clearer because that is not what was stated. But that is not even supported by the Church & White graph.

I certainly agree that Koonin's most recent statements would suggest that he is not looking to becoming the Chair of any Red Team Blue Team panel unless Pruitt intends to have Co-Chairs, one from each side of this issue.

MA Rodger at 03:23 AM on 6 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

This Koonin blather raised by NorrisM includes a WSJ opinion piece by Koonin (paywalled) entitled "A Deceptive New Report on Climate", this concerning the draft of a Climate Science Special Report (CSSR). Blog Mom Judy Curry has a post suppling some excerpts from the WSJ item and from the Koonin memo to the authors of the CSSR, the memo itself being also posted at Judy's site (where NorrisM linked to it @221).

The Koonin criticism sets out to fudge the inevitability of serious SLR by branding SLR rates since 1993 as "not statistically different from those during the first half of the 20th Century," this description being required so as to "not misleadingly alarm the non‐expert reader into believing that recent rates of rise are unprecedented." And he also wants mention of 2m SLR by 2100 setting out that this would require a rate of 24mm/yr so as to "help illustrate for the non‐expert reader just how dramatic the projected changes are." Or should that be 'how unbelievable'?

So here we have somebody in denial over AGW-induced SLR.

And he is not the only one. In the same post, Judy links to a slide show of her own titled "Sea Level Rise: Past, Present & Future" which also shows signs of denial. And Judy's prediction of global SLR 2017-50 is presented on Slide 35 as 3" to 8" which works out as an average SLR over the period of 4.2mm/yr(+/-2mm).

michael sweet at 21:20 PM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Norrism:

Your post is a perfect example of why scientists do not want to engage in a "Red-Blue" team discussion with Koonin as moderator, as you have suggested.

When one team deliberately falsifies the data the public thinks that scientists have not reached consensus. In this example of sea level rise, everyone who has looked at the data agrees that sea level rise is twice as much now as it was in 1950.

Koonan is not an acceptable person to moderate such a debate since he has demonstated that he in completely uninformed of the data and deliberatly misinforms his audience. There is no excuse for Noonan's use of data that is 12 years out of date to make claims of current sea level rise. If Noonan wants to make public criticism of scienitsts he is required to use the current data that was in the report he criticized.

The analysis from Dr. Nerem, linked at 216, gives enough data to realize Koonin's claim is false on its face. I linked the article containing Tamino's graph there also. You have been given the actual data. Every time you use Curries' blog as a reference everyone here knows that you are misleading them. Why have you not learned Curry is not a credible source from your previous postings of false information using her as the source? Do lawyers always continue to use references after they have been shown to be incorrect several times?

Koonin cites the IPCC to support his lie that sea level rise is approximately the same now as in 1950. The intent of the CSSR is to update data in the IPCC report. The scientists who wrote the CSSR are required to use the most up to date data. In addition, the data in the IPCC report was 7 years old when that report was written 6 years ago. Do we really need to reargue data that is 13 years old when current data is available?

Do you lawyers sit around and endlessly argue if it is fair to count blacks as only 3/5 of a vote and whether separate but equal facilities are acceptable??? Why do you ask scientists to reargue current sea level rise based on 13 year old data?

As I paraphrased from your post: " It is this attitude of the "denier side" which drives scientists crazy. If the facts were honestly stated on both sides then you would not get this kind of dismissive reaction from scientists."

Raise your game. You have been posting here at SkS for a long time and you still post these obviously false claims from sources you have been repeatedly shown are spouting lies. It is time consuming to find the actual data to respond to these lies.

michael sweet at 12:05 PM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Norrism:

I recommended to you that you should read Tamino's posts on sea level rise. You wasted your time at Curry's blog.

If you had gone to Tamino you would have seen this graph of the speed of sea level rise calculated from Church and White:

sea level rise

This graph indicates that currently sea level is rising at approximately double the maximum rate during the 20th century. Please present data to support your wild claim that the current rate is similar to the rate in 1950. The acceleration was similar in 1930 but it did not last as long and started from a much lower base. Koonin does not discuss acceleration.

From a brief examination of this graph and the post of Koonin at Curry's blog it appears that most of the similarity in speed of sea level rise Koonin claims is due to Koonin cherry picking the time period that was analized.

Koonin's graph under "what the literature says" ends in 1995. I note that in 1995 Tamino's graph indicates the sea level rise was approximately the same as the peak in 1950. Unfortunately, my calendar says it is 2017. Koonin's graph is an 18 year running average. Becasue sea level rose so fast after 2000, the running average is much lower than the yearly (smoothed) average.

Keep in mind that the IPCC data is all at least 6 years old and Tamino's graph shows rapid acceleration over the last six years. I reviewed the sea level section of the CSSR and they do not have a comparable graph.

I do not know why you point out that Koonin posted his remark just before the report was released. The release date was set several years ago and it was the Fifth draft of the report. Koonin knew what was going to be in the report before it was released.

Denier's who rely on obviously cherry picked data to make their points are dishonest. It is this attitude of the "denier side" which drives scientists crazy. If the facts were honestly stated on both sides then you would not get this kind of dismissive reaction from scientists.

This information was not included in the Executive Summary because it is false.

You consistently pick minimums and claim deniers arguments that are cherry picked are equal to data anlysis by scientists. This is a false argument. You need to raise your game. By continously bringing up false claims you make people think you are just a troll and are not interested in learning about the causes and problems of AGW.

You asked: "Is there a scientific explanation for why sea level rises during the period 1920-1950 were close to the same as the present rates?"

The answer is: current rates are double the rates from 1920-1950. You fell for a cherry picked argument by deniers.

If you refer to Koonin as a reliable authority on AGW again I will refer to this post and point out that Koonin is a cherry picker whose primary purpose is to mislead. It makes you look bad to refer to him so much.

Eclectic at 11:48 AM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

It is sad to see Koonin's ideas spiralling down into crankdom.

Koonin is only 65, and yet for some years now there has been increasing evidence of that widely-known but poorly-understood phenomenon: "Going Emeritus". Considering his previous prominent administrative/advisory governmental jobs, it is possible that there may also be a touch of LDS motivating him [ LDS = Limelight Deprivation Syndrome ].

While LDS is probably a minor part of the affliction suffered by the average professor who retires, it is neverthless clearly not at the heart of the "Emeritus" condition. But I fear it will be a very long time until the physiologists & neuro-psychologists come to a good understanding of the mechanisms producing the science-denier mind-set of such "Gone Emeritus" cases.

In the meantime, we (including NorrisM) will just have to ponder the mystery of how an intelligent science-literate guy like Koonin is able to get it so terribly wrong about such basic scientific thinking. And while he is lecturing climate scientists about them "not looking at the bigger context" . . . he himself is blithely turning a blind eye to the necessity of seeking causations for physical events (and he is losing himself in a mess of cherrypicking & statistical abstractions, rather than looking at the real world).

More than sad, it is tragic.

Bob Loblaw at 07:31 AM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Thanks, gentlemen. I should know better.

John Hartz at 04:37 AM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

NorrisM @221

As evidenced in the new research summarized in the following article, sea level rise is a very complex subject matter. You would do well to focus your time and energy on peer-reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals rather than on the pseudo-science poppycock posted on Judith Curry's website.

New science suggests the ocean could rise more — and faster — than we thought by Chris Mooney, Energy & Envronment, Oct 26, 2017

Bob Loblaw at 03:29 AM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

Crap. That figure ended up being a lot wider than I expected. Moderators, can you please fix?

Moderator Response:

[JH] Fixed.

Bob Loblaw at 03:28 AM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

NorrisM:

I have no interest in what Steve Koonin has asked - he has no credibility as a scientific source on climate change, due to reasons already explained. Judith Curry is also of no interest to me. Most of what gets posted on her site is a waste of time.

In comment 219, I posted a link to RealClimate. It includes the following graph:

Sea Level rise

I assume that you have followed the links given to you, or have a reason not to. What is it about this figure that you question? What about it fails to answer the question you are posing about cause of changes in sea level rise in the past century?

Moderator Response:

[DB] Fixed image width.

NorrisM at 02:59 AM on 5 November 2017

Sea level rise is exaggerated

michael sweet and Bob Loblaw

In an earlier post on another thread (which discussion has properly moved to this location) I posed the following question:

"It is interesting that in the above IPCC quote we had similar "high rates" during the period 1920-1950. Curious as to whether there is any explanation of that anomaly."

And Bob Loblaw @ 219 states:

"You need to understand why sea level has changed (both in the past century and the past 20,000 years) and apply that knowledge to what will happen by the year 2100."

It seems now that Steve Koonin has posed the very same question in a critique issued by him on October 10, 2017 prior to the release of the CSSR report which I understand just happened. You can read his criticique at https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/cssr-on-slr.pdf

I am not saying that the recent sea level rise since 1993 is not more relevant than the average over the 20th century but does it not behoove scientists to either explain the 1920 to 1950 rise or admit that they do not know?

And I agree with Koonin that the CSSR, by not including this information in the Executive Summary (which is intended for the layman), shows that it is not just a scientific report but rather one which is intended to "move the agenda". It is this attitude of the "consensus side" which drives conservatives crazy. If the facts were honestly stated on both sides then you would not get this kind of dismissive reaction from Republicans who you have to convince ( a common theme in my posts).

Is there a scientific explanation for why sea level rises during the period 1920-1950 were close to the same as the present rates?

secretclean at 09:20 AM on 4 November 2017

There is no consensus

Climate change is real and has very clear anthropogenic causes. Countless people have died due to smog and pollution, proven. It has a negative impact on the environment, proven. CFCs and other greenhouse gases created a hole in Antarctica's ozone layer, proven. Banning CFCs helped the ozone layer heal, proven. Just because oil conglomerates will lose billions switching to renewable energy and it's more expensive for them to observe emissions regulations while mass producing plastics doesn't mean the science behind industrialization changing our climate isn't true.

michael sweet at 06:37 AM on 4 November 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41

The U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report has been released. Link is to the Executive Summary. This is similar to the IPCC report but not as long and it focuses on the USA. I find this report easier to read than the IPCC report.

For Sea Level Rise:

sea level rise

Note the area of 5+ feet of rise (for the intermediate scenario) in the Gulf Coast.

A separate report on impacts will be released next year.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Fixed image width.

nigelj at 06:05 AM on 4 November 2017

Why people around the world fear climate change more than Americans do

Fossil fuel advocacy is a large part of the problem and delays progress, but ideology is also a factor. You see some of Americas climate deniers coming out with plenty of rhetoric on personal liberty, as an excuse to avoid laws that they dont like.

nigelj at 05:44 AM on 4 November 2017

Why people around the world fear climate change more than Americans do

ddost4287 @3

"Democrats advocate for climate change policies so stridently, to the point of demonizing Republicans or conservatives who oppose it, people in those groups push back more"

I suspect you are right to some extent. The trouble is Republicans advocate just as stridently on other matters, and have demonstrably and provably shown very little desire for bipartisan arrangements. Trump is the extreme example.

Perhaps both sides need to "pull their horns in" but its hard to see how this will happen. The Democrats generally say look at the science, and other reputable evidence, on economic, social and environmental matters. I find it hard to see anything wrong in that position.

"I'm surprised at how many mainstream sources never talk about the science, they just reference how most scientists believe man-caused climate change is occurring - if you're not willing to present an actual fact-based, scientific argument, than don't be surprised if people reject your policies"

Yes it would be good to get a more detailed list of evidence for climate change in the general media. However their purpose is more to bring us the latest news and general opinion, they cant be a tutorial session especially on complex issues. The IPCC reports are all available online for free for the sceptics to read, but I suspect they just dont want to know the truth. They prefer to latch onto whomever is making the most noise and telling them its all a hoax, people like Christopher Moncton, Rusch Limbaugh and Donald Trump, etc. I dont actually live In America but I see this happening.

John Hartz at 05:14 AM on 4 November 2017

Greenland is gaining ice

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments