Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, James M said:

I see no cited sources from anyone.

There are innumerable sources for this data. Government, NGO, academic, etc. It all tells basically the same story. Sea levels have been rising since about 1850. We now have confirmed the shoreline data with satellite data that shows the same thing. We know about how much of the rise is due to ice melt and about how much is due to thermal expansion as the ocean warms. All this stuff can be found in moments from multiple trustworthy sources just by typing "sea level rise" into Google.

But I work on this stuff professionally, and so I have experience about how useless it is to try to engage in a debate over this, particularly in an internet forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

There are innumerable sources for this data. Government, NGO, academic, etc. It all tells basically the same story. Sea levels have been rising since about 1850. We now have confirmed the shoreline data with satellite data that shows the same thing. We know about how much of the rise is due to ice melt and about how much is due to thermal expansion as the ocean warms. All this stuff can be found in moments from multiple trustworthy sources just by typing "sea level rise" into Google.

But I work on this stuff professionally, and so I have experience about how useless it is to try to engage in a debate over this, particularly in an internet forum.

1850, that is probably the end of the little ice age, CO2 emissions did not add meaningful changes to co2 levels until  around 100 years later. 
The old paintings was from the little ice age. 
Note it was other human effects back then like loads of deforestation, in 1800 stone coal was as environmental friendly you could get :) 
It was an serious problem England was running out of timber to build warships. 
Most first world countries has more forest than they had 100 years ago as lots of marginal farmland has been dropped as it can not be farmed with tractors and its limits on how hard to use non farmland as pasture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

It's just that when you have one side screaming the sky is falling and the other with its head in the sand saying nope, nope nothing happening - communication is failing and we can't address the real problem. 

So - can we, here, get away from the 'worst case scenario' and 'can't prove nuttin' predictions and arguments? 

I liked this post.

But here’s the thing.

The sky is falling.

The science is clear and unavoidable: the worst-case scenario IS happening if we don’t change things.

The uncertainty is how quickly the sky is falling. Thankfully, the sky is not falling as quickly as we had initially feared. But it’s still falling. It will continue to fall. It will not stop falling unless we take drastic action.

We have one side saying “the sky is falling” and the other side saying “the sky is falling slower than some estimates, therefore it probably isn’t falling at all, so don’t do anything.”

WRT the OP:

 

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

This forum, however, is a bit better read about stuff and not afraid to look at the science.  It's one of the things I like about this place 

Agreed. Most of the people here discuss in good faith. 

And people who do not discuss in good faith are quickly shot down by actual scientists. Like @mikegarrison. And @Rakaydos.

And me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

There are innumerable sources for this data. Government, NGO, academic, etc. It all tells basically the same story. Sea levels have been rising since about 1850. We now have confirmed the shoreline data with satellite data that shows the same thing. We know about how much of the rise is due to ice melt and about how much is due to thermal expansion as the ocean warms. All this stuff can be found in moments from multiple trustworthy sources just by typing "sea level rise" into Google.

But I work on this stuff professionally, and so I have experience about how useless it is to try to engage in a debate over this, particularly in an internet forum.

I was just talking about the people arguing in the thread. Not on the internet itself. I know there are sources to cite. They just weren't posting those sources until I said something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently learned a few things that actually blew my brain about climate change.

Namely around the idea that if the ocean gets just a little warmer... that's incredibly bad

The idea that the ocean gets .5 degrees warmer sounds like nothing, except as water warms, it expands thus it increases sea levels, I don't remember if there was an answer on how much it would rise based on overall temperature however. It could be only a few inches, but it is something to keep in mind even when all the glaciers melt.

Another aspect of water is that it can hold a lot of energy. This is why it takes a while to boil a pot of water. So imagine how much water is in the ocean, and how much energy it now holds if all of it rose by .5 degrees. I forget exact numbers, but even a tiny change in average ocean temperature is like directly exploding thousands of nuclear bombs directly into the ocean. 

A .5 degree change is very small in other terms, like if my coffee got .5 degrees warmer I probably wouldn't notice. However, there's a difference between temperature and heat. My coffee can be 100 degrees hotter, but it doesn't generate hurricanes because it holds very little heat. The oceans of the world on other hands are holding incredible amounts of heat energy, which in turn ends up what generates hurricanes, even though temperature wise it has hardly risen.

Each of these properties are verifiable through known science, and practical experiments (water expansion is due to the molecules moving around more from heat, core science knowledge) so even a tiny change results in progressively worse outcomes. 

 

I consider myself to be an extremely harsh skeptic of all things. Its hard to get me to believe anything, its also very hard for me to deny anything outright. In today's day and age you don't have to go far to find information, but its vastly harder to navigate such information. Its way easier to follow some source and consider that the "truth" and be done with it as you "know". Its way harder, but much wiser, to be skeptical. Its much more work to question your respected sources, to question authority, to question others, and most importantly to question your own self.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P Feynman

"It is just as intellectually lazy to believe everything you see, as it is to deny everything you see." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Be skeptical, keep being skeptical and follow those that continue to seek the truth, and be weary of those that say they find it. 

 

 

So going back to the moon wobble, I assume flooding will get worse in a few years, then slowly go "back to normal" as its a gradual change right? Would it be fair to assume in 4-5 years flooding will get slightly more worse/common than what it is right now? 

Edited by MKI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, klarkwhite said:

To be honest, it seems to me that the moon that causes floods is something out of the realm of fiction. How can it be connected at all? Another thing is underwater tremors and other factors related specifically to the Earth.

Have you ever seen a tide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Have you ever seen a tide?

But it floods the special limited places. Never heard of a Moon-caused tsunami. Just incomparable amounts of water get moved at once.

The friction stops the water faster than the Moon can accelerate it.

While an underwater earthquake moves up a lot of water at once.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 10:48 AM, GoSlash27 said:

I go and look at the actual data and I'll be darned if I can see any trend whatsoever outside of the statistical noise floor, let alone one so dire that it will cause any discernable difference 18 years from now.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/1551/2018/

and similar articles

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5834701/

etc...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

KerikBalm,

 Yeah, I'm aware of such articles. The problem is they always use models to predict the effect of the forcing, then 'adjust' (alter) the data to fit the projection. This is bad science. Looking at the raw data, it's impossible to discern any trend whatsoever because it's all in the noise floor. 

 These same people have been making these same dire 10 year predictions for the last 40 years, and have yet to make a single correct prediction.  Unless and until they manage to accomplish this, I will remain skeptical of anything they claim as 'fact'.

 This is not to say that anthropogenic climate change isn't occurring, or that the sea levels aren't rising. Just pointing out that these people practice bad science, have zero credibility and lousy track record. I don't hang my hat on anything they say as established fact.

Best,

-Slashy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

The problem is they always use models to predict the effect of the forcing, then 'adjust' (alter) the data to fit the projection. This is bad science.

The problem is that this is not my area of expertise, and I am skeptical that your (most likely similarly non-expert) opinion of their methods is accurate. 

However, I have seen a lot of bad science  and bad logic recently by prominent virologists wanting to shut down debate on the origin of a certain virus, so I am somewhat open to the idea of fields where dogma trumps good science/logic (I suspect this happens a lot in economics as well).

That said, if the planet is warming, which it certainly seems to be, it seems logically sound that the total ice cover on land would decrease overall (there could be specific regions where it gets thicker), and sea level rise is thus expected.

The effect of complete melting of ice sheets on land is fairly straightforward to calculate, and thus the risks of sea level rise a sa result of climate change are there, even if the dire effects of the sea level rise haven't yet manifested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

 

That said, if the planet is warming, which it certainly seems to be, it seems logically sound that the total ice cover on land would decrease overall (there could be specific regions where it gets thicker), and sea level rise is thus expected.

 

Instead the ice is getting less dense as it melts from the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

That said, if the planet is warming, which it certainly seems to be, it seems logically sound that the total ice cover on land would decrease overall (there could be specific regions where it gets thicker), and sea level rise is thus expected.

 That would certainly be logically sound... except the planet doesn't seem to be warming at all. It's the exact same problem created by the exact same people; the raw data shows no discernable difference , and the trends only appear when they "correct" (i.e. alter) the data to line up with their models. 

 

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

The problem is that this is not my area of expertise, and I am skeptical that your (most likely similarly non-expert) opinion of their methods is accurate. 

You're more than welcome to look into it yourself. Or not... I'm not here to convince you of anything or change your mind. I'm just pointing out that they have a 100% perfect track record of bad scientific practice and failed predictions, so I give them no credence.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

Instead the ice is getting less dense as it melts from the inside.

I think what KerikBalm was referring to was any ice on land, that melts, ends up in the ocean. What state the water is in doesn't matter much IMO if that water is on land rather than in the ocean, adding more to its volume. Unfortunately Antarctica isn't shaped like a bathtub ;D

 

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

These same people have been making these same dire 10 year predictions for the last 40 years, and have yet to make a single correct prediction.  Unless and until they manage to accomplish this, I will remain skeptical of anything they claim as 'fact'.

The main claim usually is along the lines of "the world is getting hotter, at an accelerated rate, that is a bad thing", all other supporting claims follow this claim.

I'm sure there are holes, as there are in any claim built on the physical sciences, the discipline isn't built on perfect evidence, because it deals with the real world. Seeking perfection in such a scenario is pointless as the physical world isn't perfect. This is unlike other disciplines, like math, or non-quantum physics, where you can more or less boil the problem down to a logical conclusion through proofs built on math/logic. Then one can support those claims through observation with physical evidence. This is why we can use the laws of general relativity is used to manage global GPS systems, but can't always get tomorrow's weather forecast right for tomorrow. (Yes calculating weather is harder than calculating general relativity, at least in terms of the number of possible variables) 

However, just because there are holes doesn't mean such claims can't be useful, or should be dismissed "because they can't get it right". The same way weather predictions can be wrong, but they still are useful to know if you need to bring an umbrella or not. The fact you can find data models that don't exactly match the data and should be dismissed "because its not science", doesn't mean it isn't science, its just an imperfect science because humans aren't "god-level" at it yet at understanding every single thing. 

A mind bender shows up if one dismisses all of these "estimated sciences" because we don't actually know 100% how things work. This also means one has to dismiss the single most successful theory of everything, quantum physics, which also has massive holes of understanding and understanding it is extremely convoluted and confusing, but can currently explain almost everything we have observed in the universe.  But its also based on statistical guessing through a convoluted scheme of design and theories built up more to explain what we understand and make useful predictions rather than a clear simple representation of reality. Apparently the universe isn't really easy to understand, but then who said it has to be?

 

I believe its great to be skeptical, but being skeptical also requires you to understand what will require you to change your position on a subject. If changing one's position requires the impossible to happen, then I'm not sure if you can call yourself skeptical anymore. 

 

3 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

That would certainly be logically sound... except the planet doesn't seem to be warming at all. It's the exact same problem created by the exact same people; the raw data shows no discernable difference , and the trends only appear when they "correct" (i.e. alter) the data to line up with their models. 

This is a potentially problematic statement, that requires one to produce the raw data against "their data", along with "their data" they refer too. Otherwise we could be referring to bogus data, or fallible studies, or something as simple as cherry picking.

I wouldn't be surprised if you provide data that gets accused of "having holes", as that's usually how physical science works, or science in general. As with all things internet I'm 100% sure you will find what your looking for, its the internet it will find what you search for. Unfortunately, that could just make it a nicely designed confirmation bias machine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MKI said:

I believe its great to be skeptical, but being skeptical also requires you to understand what will require you to change your position on a subject. If changing one's position requires the impossible to happen, then I'm not sure if you can call yourself skeptical anymore. 

I don't think I'm asking for the 'impossible' at all. All I ask that they make one single prediction and have it be correct in order to validate their methods and models. This is a reasonable request for any scientist. 

 I would also like to see them employing a method where they don't alter the historical record to conform with their model, but rather alter their model to correctly predict the future. This behavior is the polar opposite of 'science'.

 They do that, and I'll start lending them some credence.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MKI said:

This is unlike other disciplines, like math, or non-quantum physics, where you can more or less boil the problem down to a logical conclusion through proofs built on math/logic.

Not as much as you might think.

F=MA is just a model of reality. It's a model that happens to explain things very well, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I don't think I'm asking for the 'impossible' at all. All I ask that they make one single prediction and have it be correct in order to validate their methods and models. This is a reasonable request for any scientist. 

 I would also like to see them employing a method where they don't alter the historical record to conform with their model, but rather alter their model to correctly predict the future. This behavior is the polar opposite of 'science'.

 They do that, and I'll start lending them some credence.

Can you do 3 things please.

1. What would be an example of a "single prediction to be correct"?

2. Who would be the one to "validate the prediction to be correct"?

2. Can you please provide 1 piece of evidence that can handle scrutiny against observation that "they" manipulate all historical data to conform to a given model. I'm curious to see what you come up with. 

This claim seems both serious and extremely flimsy. As a comparison here is a unrelated argument following a similar structure:

Quote

 

I don't think I'm asking for the 'impossible' at all. All I ask that they make one single attempt at proving it exists, and have it verified in order to validate their methods and models. This is a reasonable request for any scientist.

I would also like to see them employing a method where they don't alter the data to confirm to their model and theory, but rather alter their model to correctly predict the future. This behavior is the polar opposite of 'science'.

They do that, and I'll believe the "theory of gravity" exists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

[But] the planet doesn't seem to be warming at all. It's the exact same problem created by the exact same people; the raw data shows no discernable difference , and the trends only appear when they "correct" (i.e. alter) the data to line up with their models. 

This claim is plainly and demonstrably incorrect.

And that's not a graphic I found somewhere online. I went to the actual source data from Berkeley Earth, downloaded the .txt datasets, converted them into CSV, and loaded them into Excel myself. These data are not "corrected" or "altered" or "normalized" or "adjusted" in any way. They are the raw, unedited data.

Here's the ten-year average if you want to see that:

Spoiler

raw-land-temperature.png

The Earth is warming. It is obviously and incontrovertibly warming. Insisting otherwise isn't skepticism; it's sticking your head in the sand. 

Edited by sevenperforce
"Warming" not "warning" which I suppose was a Freudian slip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

This claim is plainly and demonstrably incorrect.

And that's not a graphic I found somewhere online. I went to the actual source data from Berkeley Earth, downloaded the .txt datasets, converted them into CSV, and loaded them into Excel myself. These data are not "corrected" or "altered" or "normalized" or "adjusted" in any way. They are the raw, unedited data.

Here's the ten-year average if you want to see that:

  Reveal hidden contents

raw-land-temperature.png

The Earth is warming. It is obviously and incontrovertibly warming. Insisting otherwise isn't skepticism; it's sticking your head in the sand. 

Sorry, but you are the one who's mistaken. That data actually *is* altered. You have to actually dig for the unaltered records because they only show the altered version.

 But if you want to try something fun, try looking for this same data set for each year over the past decade. You will notice the past getting cooler and cooler every year. 

 You know what... There's no point in us arguing about this. It's much easier to fool someone than it is to convince him that he's been fooled. 

Carry on.

-Slashy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GoSlash27 said:

You know what... There's no point in us arguing about this. It's much easier to fool someone than it is to convince him that he's been fooled. 

More unintentionally ironic words have hardly ever been spoken.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darn, I probably am a fool, for fooling myself into believing I'd actually see something that would be groundbreaking my reality right now.

Just the usual run of the mill stuff so far that's pretty boring may I add. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Sorry, but you are the one who's mistaken. That data actually *is* altered. You have to actually dig for the unaltered records because they only show the altered version.

When done legitimately, that's data reduction, not alteration.  It's done to give reduced data that can be properly compared.  For experiments I did back in the day, like variable star photometry, I can recall it in detail.  For photometry, I transformed raw phototube output to apparent stellar magnitude to standardized absolute stellar magnitudes as they are outside of the Earth's atmosphere.  My methods were standard for the field and I could produce it to support my results.

Other data in other sciences can be reduced in a similar proper way.  It's why science depends on many people doing theory and many experiments and discussing this in detail.  And when things are actually fiddled--example, primate speech experiments in the 1950's to 1980's--eventually the truth comes out and the original work is discredited.

When those working in a field like climate science overwhelming keep producing the same types of results--which I've seen since the 1970's--the trend is real and the arguments are over finer details.  And island nations in the Pacific are planning for their own demise, because even before rising sea levels make their territory unliveable, greater storm surge will.

Edited by Jacke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...