Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/1/2021 at 11:41 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

One problem I have with using this as an alarm; the Industrial Revolution happened (the nascent period, at least) during the latter part of the Little Ice Age (mid 1300s to mid 1800s).  It's unlikely that the few factories churning out coal smoke in Europe and NA were the cause of the end of the Little Ice Age... and yet the warming period began back then.  You end up having people using the start of the Industrial Revolution as the beginning and cause of Global Warming - and while the two might have occurred similarly in time, it is unlikely that one caused the other.  It's not a good 'alarm' signal -- and one that if someone does just a little digging appears discredited at the outset.  Thus, as alluded to above - arguments like the energy imbalance as a result of pollution seem stronger to me than 'we've been killing the Earth since the start of the Industrial Revolution'. 

This is one of the reasons  I prefer the 'we live here, quit trashing the place' school of thought.

Exactly!

And out of curiosity, do we actually know what caused the end of the Little Ice Age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the oceans rise and increase in overall heat absorption due to overall warming, why don't we see more hurricanes, and instead see stronger ones? Like anything with energy, more heat = more energy = more stuff going on so it makes sense something changes. But how come this translates to stronger hurricanes but not more of them, or a longer hurricane season?

 

There's also the topic of the recent news about how the Atlantic current is changing faster than expected due to the after mentioned warming.... I did just watch "The Day After Tomorrow" and that sort of finding is.... "chilling" if I may say so myself (pun intended, I'm sorry)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IPCC 6th assessment *just* came out, and issues about severe storms are addressed in there. I suggest people read that.

Chapter 11 is called "Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate". I suggest looking there.

(Also, Chapter 9 is about sea levels.)

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to go to the source, I'll give you the spoiler version:

It is uncertain whether the frequency of tropical cyclones will increase, decrease, or stay the same. Various models and datasets have suggested all three, generally with low confidence.

However, it is more likely than not that the frequency of the most severe storms will increase. Meaning that there may not be more hurricanes overall, but more of them will be Cat 4-5.

The thing that had high confidence is that the storm tracks are moving poleward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MKI said:

There's also the topic of the recent news about how the Atlantic current is changing faster than expected due to the after mentioned warming.... I did just watch "The Day After Tomorrow" and that sort of finding is.... "chilling" if I may say so myself (pun intended, I'm sorry)

The Day After Tomorrow appears to be based on a garbled misreading (via The Guardian, if memory serves) of a Pentagon report on an imminent Ice Age. Said description of a report, echoing a few hype waves from a bit more than a decade prior, has been paraded around as proof climate scientists can't keep their story straight.

Instead of asking what DoD's doing predicting climate, and wondering who they handpicked to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DoD is not predicting climate, per se (although they do fund a LOT of basic research), but rather trying to be prepared for national security issues that may arise from climate change.

The goal of the DoD is not to predict the exact scenario that is going to happen, but rather predict enough of the possible scenarios to hopefully ensure that whatever does happen does not catch them completely by surprise.

Also ... ocean currents are discussed in the IPCC report.

Really, if you have seen ANY news report about climate in the past couple of weeks, it was almost certainly inspired by the 6th AR. So just take the time to read the 6th AR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Really, if you have seen ANY news report about climate in the past couple of weeks,

I'm slrry that I dropped the really relevant bit.

It was a report from the early 2000s. The 2019 (IIRC) DoD report on climate is more conventional, and quite sane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good article on the limitations of current modeling.

"Even today’s fastest supercomputers are too slow to simulate 2,000 years at a relevant scale." 

https://slate.com/technology/2021/08/ipcc-report-climate-models-redwoods-future.html

"For the first time, the IPCC released an interactive atlas so nonscientists can explore the futures these models predict. If you obsessed over “flatten the curve” graphics early in the pandemic, this may be a fun, soothing way to prepare for the apocalypse"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that keeps me from getting all excited about some of the findings in science (especially related to Climate Change) is how papers (and researchers/editors) chase the money. 

Example: PLOS One has an article about e-bike safety in China.  The title?  "Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on e-bike safety in China via multi-output and clustering-based regression models".  Like, really? 

It's a total stretch to find a relationship between the two - but in this environment if you want to publish it - you gotta have the 'term du jour' in the article - and better yet, in the title.  Currently the hype and money is chasing Covid - so if you are smart and want to publish... Chunk in the term. 

 

The last 15 years have been the same with regard to Climate Change. 

Want to write about the mating habits of turtles?  Gotta have the key words.  'The mating habits of marine turtles may help to protect them against the effects of climate change' 

 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124200106.htm

 

How about how the ice age influenced clades in spotted skunk evolution?  Need to mention Human Caused Climate Change - even if it is unrelated to the subject of the article. 

"... while human-induced climate change has been causing major problems for wildlife as of late, changes in Earth's climate have impacted evolution for millions of years... " 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170503131927.htm

Or what relationship exists between European Colonialism and the climate?

"... to study the influence of climatic factors on the colonial life and politics, such as hypothesized links between climate and violence..." 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/65708/4/Climate_Colonialism_pre_print.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjs9PrCrcfyAhXRZs0KHTa9CI0QFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw19FsiAei7usKqKeGvRJRqR

The primary objection I have is that there is both an overt and a subtle influence on the findings of researchers to conform to the narrative.  If you don't conform you don't get published. When you have to mention the cause celebre in unrelated concepts / disciplines it's insidious.  It's also disingenuous. 

I don't really have a point, here, other than to suggest that there is a real risk of missing good science when requiring conformity to an agreed upon narrative. 

A consensus is a good way to state policy objectives - but is it good to defacto require conformity in all disciplines just to be published?  Can't we simply read about how the ice age broke up populations of skunks and influenced the evolution - without requiring a passing mention of Human Caused CC? 

 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The primary objection I have is that there is both an overt and a subtle influence on the findings of researchers to conform to the narrative.  If you don't conform you don't get published. When you have to mention the cause celebre in unrelated concepts / disciplines it's insidious.  It's also disingenuous. 

I don't really have a point, here, other than to suggest that there is a real risk of missing good science when requiring conformity to an agreed upon narrative. 

A consensus is a good way to state policy objectives - but is it good to defacto require conformity in all disciplines just to be published?  Can't we simply read about how the ice age broke up populations of skunks and influenced the evolution - without requiring a passing mention of Human Caused CC? 

Importantly, the influence is decentralized. It is a form of academic fashion and respectability - the official term for the caveats you mention is "establishing the relevance of a work", it was blindingly obvious in my two economics theses.

However, this signalling seems to have escalated: some sort of a desirable ecological or societal outcome now seems to be treated as a requisite mandate to do science. Any science, which is why you see some truly bizzare links being made (usually between a hard science and a social cause), and that's before we go into outright fraud and nepotism perpetrated in the name of the same causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this: don't get me started on some of the idiocy related to proposed solutions:

 "Could humans add sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere to combat global warming?

Actually, maybe. We can’t control volcanic eruptions, of course, but scientists who advocate for the study of solar geoengineering say that we could potentially use airplanes to add diamond dust or sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, increasing the amount of sunlight reflected from Earth."

Can we use volcanoes to cool the Earth off? (slate.com)

...

These people are literally citing to volcanoes as the potential cause of the Little Ice Age without recognizing that a slightly cooler climate was pretty brutal for the people who lived through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

but scientists who advocate for the study of solar geoengineering say that we could potentially use airplanes to add diamond dust or sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, increasing the amount of sunlight reflected from Earth."

Scientists who advocate for geoengineering, advocate for geoengineering. Surprising.

Don't forget the broken telephone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like "science-title click-bait".

Or more traditionally "attention grabbing title".

 

The existence of "click-bait" doesn't automatically make the claims false, but we are more or less trained to assume as such since we are flooded with such claims on a daily basis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

One of the things that keeps me from getting all excited about some of the findings in science (especially related to Climate Change) is how papers (and researchers/editors) chase the money. 

Example: PLOS One has an article about e-bike safety in China.  The title?  "Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on e-bike safety in China via multi-output and clustering-based regression models".  Like, really? 

It's a total stretch to find a relationship between the two - but in this environment if you want to publish it - you gotta have the 'term du jour' in the article - and better yet, in the title.  Currently the hype and money is chasing Covid - so if you are smart and want to publish... Chunk in the term. 

 

The last 15 years have been the same with regard to Climate Change. 

Want to write about the mating habits of turtles?  Gotta have the key words.  'The mating habits of marine turtles may help to protect them against the effects of climate change' 

 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124200106.htm

 

How about how the ice age influenced clades in spotted skunk evolution?  Need to mention Human Caused Climate Change - even if it is unrelated to the subject of the article. 

"... while human-induced climate change has been causing major problems for wildlife as of late, changes in Earth's climate have impacted evolution for millions of years... " 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170503131927.htm

Or what relationship exists between European Colonialism and the climate?

"... to study the influence of climatic factors on the colonial life and politics, such as hypothesized links between climate and violence..." 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/65708/4/Climate_Colonialism_pre_print.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjs9PrCrcfyAhXRZs0KHTa9CI0QFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw19FsiAei7usKqKeGvRJRqR

The primary objection I have is that there is both an overt and a subtle influence on the findings of researchers to conform to the narrative.  If you don't conform you don't get published. When you have to mention the cause celebre in unrelated concepts / disciplines it's insidious.  It's also disingenuous. 

I don't really have a point, here, other than to suggest that there is a real risk of missing good science when requiring conformity to an agreed upon narrative. 

A consensus is a good way to state policy objectives - but is it good to defacto require conformity in all disciplines just to be published?  Can't we simply read about how the ice age broke up populations of skunks and influenced the evolution - without requiring a passing mention of Human Caused CC? 

 

 

Err, while there certainly is a tendency to turn to click-bait esque titles or mentioning a seemingly unrelated topic to get someone's attention and then talk about something completely different (NASA sometimes does this in their Twitter PR), I don't think anyone is being forced to do this.

All of the examples you listed are perfectly reasonable things to study.

1. COVID-19's impact on e-bike safety in China is certainly a relevant topic. It isn't "just bike safety" but more about understanding the effects a pandemic has on every aspect of human life, and safety is certainly a major aspect.

2. This study does not appear to be "forced" to include climate change in any way- the authors seem to be deliberately studying mating habits of turtles to see how turtles might try to adapt to climate change. I am sure if you want to "just" read about the mating habits of turtles you can go find a paper that is just about that.

3. Climate change is obviously having a major impact on human domestic and foreign policies which in some way shape or form, in one way or another, will of course lead to other physical effects, potentially even violence. So it makes sense to go back and look at history and see how climate change might have affected policy decisions at different times (even if understanding of climate was limited). That is what the authors of that paper appear to be trying to do, not publishing a standard history on colonialism. If you want to read about "just colonialism" I am certain there are hundreds, if not thousands of different works available out there.

7 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The primary objection I have is that there is both an overt and a subtle influence on the findings of researchers to conform to the narrative.  If you don't conform you don't get published. When you have to mention the cause celebre in unrelated concepts / disciplines it's insidious.  It's also disingenuous. 

I don't really have a point, here, other than to suggest that there is a real risk of missing good science when requiring conformity to an agreed upon narrative. 

A consensus is a good way to state policy objectives - but is it good to defacto require conformity in all disciplines just to be published?  Can't we simply read about how the ice age broke up populations of skunks and influenced the evolution - without requiring a passing mention of Human Caused CC? 

I don't see any evidence of pressure to tie one's subject of their paper to climate change. Perhaps this is some sort of confirmation bias- only papers which try to relate their topic to climate can be seen, but does anyone actually know the contents of the papers not being published? I'm assuming the answer is no- after all, they weren't published- but we don't know whether these unpublished papers did or did not tie their subject to climate change.

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'll add this: don't get me started on some of the idiocy related to proposed solutions:

 "Could humans add sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere to combat global warming?

Actually, maybe. We can’t control volcanic eruptions, of course, but scientists who advocate for the study of solar geoengineering say that we could potentially use airplanes to add diamond dust or sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, increasing the amount of sunlight reflected from Earth."

Can we use volcanoes to cool the Earth off? (slate.com)

...

These people are literally citing to volcanoes as the potential cause of the Little Ice Age without recognizing that a slightly cooler climate was pretty brutal for the people who lived through it.

This (using volcanoes to cool the Earth) is just plain stupid thinking, I don't see how this is related to your statement in the post before this one. And to repeat myself, it is indeed stupid, but humans will be humans.

Edited by SunlitZelkova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

 

Amid a record hot summer in large parts of Northern Hemisphere,... 

 

The average temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station between April and September...  was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957. This was 4.5 degrees lower than the most recent 30-year average.

... 

The temperature averaged over September was also the coldest on record at South Pole... 

The extreme cold over Antarctica helped push sea ice levels surrounding the continent to their 5th highest level on record in August, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2021/10/01/south-pole-posts-most-severe-cold-season-on-record-a-surprising-anomaly-in-a-warming-world/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a joke circulating in my country, usually used during anomalous weather: "World is getting warmer - that's why it's so cold outside."

Summer this year was actually... underwhelming. A bit colder and wetter than everyone expected from summer. Predictions of apocalyptic heat arriving from Africa failed to materialize. It also turned into autumn pretty quickly in September.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scotius said:

Summer this year was actually... underwhelming.

Emphatically not the case back here. And if I remember correctly, I live not that far away in global terms.

@JoeSchmuckatelli, I ceased to be amazed by climate science when I learnt that the Sahara is getting greener.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What most people don't seem to remember is that it doesn't matter how much below freezing it gets.  So cold winters don't make more ice.

But it *does* matter how hot the summers get. Hot summers melt more ice.

This is why glaciers are retreating (or completely gone) from mountains all over the world.

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...