The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[FleshJeb]

23 minutes ago, darthgently said:

You got that right

On the one hand, we have documentation and testimony proving that oil companies hired the advertising agencies that spread a lot of FUD to say smoking was healthy for you.

...and on the other, we have vague conspiracy theories about nebulous figures trying to control the world.

Yep, totally equivalent and equally legitimate. /s

[darthgently]

31 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

On the one hand, we have documentation and testimony proving that oil companies hired the advertising agencies that spread a lot of FUD to say smoking was healthy for you.

...and on the other, we have vague conspiracy theories about nebulous figures trying to control the world.

Yep, totally equivalent and equally legitimate. /s

Oil companies promoting smoking? You mean tobacco companies?

Thousands of well qualified scientists and educated people have brought up issues with urban heat islands around temp monitoring stations that show mild warning, while satellite data shows normal warming terms that has been going on for some time.  None of the models can possibly take all of geothermal into account because we don't know if all the geothermal sources, especially deep sea ones.  Data sets have been manipulated many times in science before, doesn't require nebulous conspiracies to allow it could happen again.  CO2 ability to trap heat diminishes as it increases and hits an asymptote at which point it is limited; there is no "runaway greenhouse" danger there.  Snowball earth or glaciated earth is more likely

[FleshJeb]

19 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Oil companies promoting smoking? You mean tobacco companies?

https://www.fastcompany.com/90759059/doubt-is-their-product-how-big-tobacco-big-oil-and-the-gun-lobby-market-ignorance

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/

21 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Thousands of well qualified scientists and educated people have brought up issues with urban heat islands around temp monitoring stations that show mild warning, while satellite data shows normal warming terms that has been going on for some time.  None of the models can possibly take all of geothermal into account because we don't know if all the geothermal sources, especially deep sea ones.  Data sets have been manipulated many times in science before, doesn't require nebulous conspiracies to allow it could happen again.  CO2 ability to trap heat diminishes as it increases and hits an asymptote at which point it is limited; there is no "runaway greenhouse" danger there.  Snowball earth or glaciated earth is more likely

Provide sources from reputable news or scientific organizations. This is a serious public policy issue, making vague assertions and handwaving are not sufficient.

If scientists are liars, why are "your" scientists telling the truth, and "mine" lying?  I can just as easily argue on that basis: "No, your scientists are paid off liars and/or idiots." Of course, since 97% of climate scientists agree, and 3% don't, then there might be some merit in my adopting that position.

Climate Change is an uncomfortable phenomenon, it demands taking responsibility and thinking and acting like an adult. It's much easier and more comfortable to be dismissive and iconoclastic. Iconoclasm is cool, because one can just say, "LOL, no" to everything and still feel good about it.

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, Codraroll said:

They do perfectly predict the straight horizontal lines...

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

If scientists are liars, why are "your" scientists telling the truth, and "mine" lying? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion

Scientists are divided into two categories: those ones, who have admitted to the fact that their N-factor model has sunk in details and assumptions, and those ones, who haven't.

(N → infinity)

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Oil companies promoting smoking? You mean tobacco companies?

Both.
 

Spoiler

  

 

They even call them Smokers.

Spoiler

 

1 hour ago, FleshJeb said:

Of course, since 97% of climate scientists agree, and 3% don't, then there might be some merit in my adopting that position.

If admit to the fact that the climate change is either absent, or uncontrollable, 100% of the climate scientists would be fired (not literally).

3% of daredevils is a normal marginal value in any community.

[darthgently]

5 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

since 97% of climate scientists agree, and 3% don't

The 97% fallacy has been debunked so many times it is embarrassing to read it.  One, it wasn't "climate scientists", two, most were bureaucrats, three, many actual researchers included on the list spent years trying to get their names off the list.  Look into the methodology behind that claim.

Take the time to steel man the arguments you find yourself disagreeing with.  I have done so, and continue to do so, and am at a middle ground leaning skeptical.

The career of "climate scientist" didn't even exist a few decades past.  There is such a thing as economic and political momentum even in the economics and politics of science.

The replication crisis in science and the breakdown and politicization of the peer review process in science are very real and the degree to which someone takes them seriously is the degree to which I take that someone seriously, no matter what thier views

Edited June 24, 2023 by darthgently

[Codraroll]

12 hours ago, darthgently said:

Thousands of well qualified scientists and educated people have brought up issues with urban heat islands around temp monitoring stations that show mild warning, while satellite data shows normal warming terms that has been going on for some time.

The urban heat island effect is well known, and compensating for it when doing measurements has been standard practice for ages. There's a nice article about it here: https://skepticalscience.com/BEST-October-2011.html

Also, quoting a relevant figure, where they looked at very rural temperature measurements compared to all temperature measurements:

12 hours ago, darthgently said:

Data sets have been manipulated many times in science before, doesn't require nebulous conspiracies to allow it could happen again. 

To the degree that you are insinuating, it absolutely would. Evidence of global warming is visible everywhere you look, too much for all of it to be faked.

To give an example, I'm a building scientist myself. Some colleagues and I recently did some work on the melting of snow on rooftops in Norway, to assess the risk of icicle formation (icicles falling on you from three stories up is like being whacked in the head with a hammer by a strong guy, and approximately as healthy). We set up a model to calculate the conditions most likely to facilitate ice formation. It requires that there's a few centimeters of snow, so that the insulating effect of the snow combined with the heat transfer through the roof causes the bottom layer to melt, while ambient air temperatures are lower than 0 °C so the snowmelt freezes once it runs off the roof. We pored over weather station data from various locations to see where such conditions occurred the most often. What we found was that the frequency of such conditions had been decreasing all over the country since the early 1990s, since the number of days with snow cover and temperatures below 0 °C had gone down drastically. The number of days without any snow at all had increased everywhere except the very northernmost cities - where it previously had been too cold to snow very much. What used to be once-every-two-years cold spells are now once-a-decade. Reports of icicle damage in building defect cases have also diminished, although that's probably partially due to higher insulation requirements. But we are seeing an uptick in extreme rain events, which is consistent with the predictions of climate science.

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

The career of "climate scientist" didn't even exist a few decades past.

Neither did "computer technician", but here we are.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Codraroll
Spelling.

[darthgently]

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

Evidence of global warming is visible everywhere you look

Of course it is.  And it is increasing at pretty much the same rate that it has increased since the beginning of the medieval warming period.  I merely question whether we should be trying to change that curve through clever expensive schemes

[darthgently]

7 hours ago, Codraroll said:

, which is consistent with the predictions of climate science.

I have seen colder weather, warmer weather, wetter weather, dryer weather, any weather  blamed on "climate change".  Basically, anything that happens is purported to be made scarier because "climate change".  There is a quite humorous, but based on real headlines, list out there of all the things blamed on climate change.  The non-science cult aspects of it in culture are unsettling to say the least.

The predictions are always more extreme, then when actuality occurs "it was within the error bars of the model".  But it is in the lower part of the bracket.  And the actuality also fits in the error bars of the no significant anthropogenic warming case.

 

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

And the actuality also fits in the error bars of the no significant anthropogenic warming case.

No, not really this time either.

Unfortunately, Bloomberg has put their excellent "What's warming the world" graphic behind a paywall, but NASA has a (slightly less elegant) page with the same data. It shows that none of the other factors we can think of that would explain the warming, have evolved to the degree that would result in the warming being observed. And if the cause is actually something we haven't yet found or imagined, we'll really have to wonder why we haven't yet seen it despite it being powerful enough to accelerate the warming of the world to such an unprecedented degree, and also why all the anthropogenic carbon emissions haven't resulted in the warming we'd expect from it.

After all, the thermal properties of CO₂ have been known for more than a century (Arrhenius predicted that the world's rising coal consumption would eventually cause global warming as early as 1896), and loads of very sensitive industrial processes are based on a very precise understanding of those properties, so we can't have gotten them fundamentally wrong because the processes really do work. Everything we know about the stuff tells us that if we put a certain number of gigatons of it into the atmosphere, there would be heating, and now we have the gigatons and observe the expected heating. The probability that we've got CO₂ this wrong, that the world has warmed for some other reason at the same time, and also that we've failed to identify the actual cause of the warming, is extremely unlikely. At some point, an honest skeptic would have to realize he's grasping at incredibly thin straws in his quest not to believe the data laid before him.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a version of that Bloomberg/NASA graphic with error bars somewhere, showing that even the 99.99% confidence intervals for the "natural" and "anthropogenic" figures have no overlap, but despite a lot of googling I can't find it. Anybody else?

EDIT: I duh'ed, it's Figure 1 in the AR6 Summary for Policymakers:

With the figure text:
 

Quote

Figure SPM.1 | History of global temperature change and causes of recent warming

Panel (a) Changes in global surface temperature reconstructed from paleoclimate archives (solid grey line, years 1–2000) and from direct observations(solid black line, 1850–2020), both relative to 1850–1900 and decadally averaged. The vertical bar on the left shows the estimated temperature (very likely range) during the warmest multi-century period in at least the last 100,000 years, which occurred around 6500 years ago during the current interglacial period (Holocene). The Last Interglacial, around 125,000 years ago, is the next most recent candidate for a period of higher temperature. These past warm periods were caused by slow (multi-millennial) orbital variations. The grey shading with white diagonal lines shows the very likely ranges for the temperature reconstructions.

Panel (b) Changes in global surface temperature over the past 170 years (black line) relative to 1850–1900 and annually averaged, compared to Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate model simulations (see Box SPM.1) of the temperature response to both human and natural drivers (brown) and to only natural drivers (solar and volcanic activity, green). Solid coloured lines show the multi-model average, and coloured shades show the very likely range of simulations. (See Figure SPM.2 for the assessed contributions to warming).   {2.3.1, Cross-Chapter Box 2.3, 3.3, TS.2.2, Cross-Section Box TS.1, Figure 1a}

With "very likely", they mean "probabilities in a range of 90-100%", so I presume the error bars represent the 95% confidence interval.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Codraroll

[NFUN]

38 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Unfortunately, Bloomberg has put their excellent "What's warming the world" graphic behind a paywall

(noscript, allow bloomberg.com, disallow bwbx.io)

[darthgently]

 

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx

 

[NFUN]

well this is a first for something I've seen in a paper. Not dismissing it because of this but... lol

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

32 minutes ago, NFUN said:

Not dismissing it because of this but

I had the same reaction.  Interestingly the response papers don't criticize the Wikipedia data, although they do contest the conclusions.  Here's the latest, referencing others. 

 

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2023/03000/Comments_on__Components_of_CO2_in_1750_through.9.aspx

I'll note that it does not seem that the paper has been retracted, despite the critics recommending it. 

SCIENCE! (not for the faint hearted) 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, NFUN said:

well this is a first for something I've seen in a paper. Not dismissing it because of this but... lol

The paper is addressing the period prior to the testing.  A Wikipedia link is adequate to explain why they are only addressing prior to the testing.  A research paper citation is not required for a generally known fact like this as one likely does not exist

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I had the same reaction.  Interestingly the response papers don't criticize the Wikipedia data, although they do contest the conclusions.  Here's the latest, referencing others. 

 

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2023/03000/Comments_on__Components_of_CO2_in_1750_through.9.aspx

I'll note that it does not seem that the paper has been retracted, despite the critics recommending it. 

SCIENCE! (not for the faint hearted) 

The criticism about accounting for reservoir transfers details that the time constant is about a decade for the transfers.  I can see how it could be argued by the original paper that reservoir exchange could be inconsequential given the much longer range they were examining.  Not certain that is a deal killer

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

More fun:

Humans’ unquenchable thirst for groundwater has sucked so much liquid from subsurface reserves that it’s affecting Earth’s tilt, according to a new study.

 

Groundwater provides drinking water for people and livestock, and it helps with crop irrigation when rain is scarce. However, the new research shows that persistent groundwater extraction over more than a decade shifted the axis on which our planet rotates, tipping it over to the east at a rate of about 1.7 inches (4.3 centimeters) per year.

... 

Between 1993 and 2010, the period examined in the study, humans extracted more than 2,150 gigatons of groundwater from inside Earth, mostly in western North America and northwestern India, according to estimates published in 2010. To put that into perspective, if that amount were poured into the ocean, it would raise global sea levels by about 0.24 inches (6 millimeters).

In 2016, another team of researchers found that drift in Earth’s rotational axis between 2003 and 2015 could be linked to changes in the mass of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as the planet’s reserves of terrestrial liquid water.

In fact, any mass change on Earth, including atmospheric pressure, can affect its axis of rotation

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/pumping-groundwater-earth-axis-shifting-scn/index.html

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Codraroll]

On 6/26/2023 at 5:08 PM, darthgently said:

A Wikipedia link is adequate to explain why they are only addressing prior to the testing.  A research paper citation is not required for a generally known fact like this as one likely does not exist

[snip]

You don't cite a research paper on stuff like this, but you find something way more reliable and permanent than Wikipedia.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[darthgently]

On 6/26/2023 at 6:15 PM, Codraroll said:

You don't cite a research paper on stuff like this, but you find something way more reliable and permanent than Wikipedia.

So, just to be clear, are you disputing the information, or the source of the information? Because the information is correct, whether from Wikipedia or elsewhere.  It would be fairly difficult to revise history wrt the start of atomic testing, even for Wikipedia

[snip]

On 6/26/2023 at 5:46 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

More fun:

Humans’ unquenchable thirst for groundwater has sucked so much liquid from subsurface reserves that it’s affecting Earth’s tilt, according to a new study.

 

Groundwater provides drinking water for people and livestock, and it helps with crop irrigation when rain is scarce. However, the new research shows that persistent groundwater extraction over more than a decade shifted the axis on which our planet rotates, tipping it over to the east at a rate of about 1.7 inches (4.3 centimeters) per year.

... 

Between 1993 and 2010, the period examined in the study, humans extracted more than 2,150 gigatons of groundwater from inside Earth, mostly in western North America and northwestern India, according to estimates published in 2010. To put that into perspective, if that amount were poured into the ocean, it would raise global sea levels by about 0.24 inches (6 millimeters).

In 2016, another team of researchers found that drift in Earth’s rotational axis between 2003 and 2015 could be linked to changes in the mass of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as the planet’s reserves of terrestrial liquid water.

In fact, any mass change on Earth, including atmospheric pressure, can affect its axis of rotation

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/world/pumping-groundwater-earth-axis-shifting-scn/index.html

 

A very good argument for nuke powered desalination on a grand scale

Edited June 28, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Codraroll]

On 6/26/2023 at 6:29 PM, darthgently said:

So, just to be clear, are you disputing the information, or the source of the information? Because the information is correct, whether from Wikipedia or elsewhere.  It would be fairly difficult to revise history wrt the start of atomic testing, even for Wikipedia

Disputing the procedure. A competent researcher would not draw numbers directly from Wikipedia, and a competent journal would never let that slip past peer review. It follows that neither the researcher nor the journal have their procedures in order, which might indicate that the rest of their work is similarly flawed.

The link @JoeSchmuckatelliposted also highlights other major flaws with the paper that the authors did not address despite being specifically asked for it. The fact the paper has not been withdrawn on the basis on these flaws does not reflect favourably upon the journal.

[snip]

Edited June 28, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[NFUN]

sea lions are my favorite animals. I hope climate change doesn't hurt them

Edited June 26, 2023 by NFUN

[darthgently]

For what it is worth, this is the paper that moved me to what I think is a healthy skepticism of the current scientific apparatus.  It is a short read, with no major flaws I'm aware of. 

Science is crucial and it pains me to see where we are now and that problems seem to have increased rather than decreased:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

With that, I'm dropping my part in this hot button topic

[kerbiloid]

On 6/26/2023 at 6:46 PM, Codraroll said:

A competent researcher would not draw numbers directly from Wikipedia, and a competent journal would never let that slip past peer review.

Because the competent researcher would draw numbers from the Wikipedia sources, linked below, lol.
They call it citation index, lol².
The more scientific guys have read a wiki article, and then quoted info from the links below, the more citated authors are citated by wiki, lol³.
Interesting fact. The more often wiki is citated itself, the more it beomes the most citated and reliable source, lol⁴.

***

Btw, the wiki diagram is not 0-based, it starts from y~=80.

On 6/26/2023 at 5:46 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

any mass change on Earth, including atmospheric pressure, can affect its axis of rotation

The water stays on the Earth. The mass is constant.

And the more water in the ocean, the more water should be falling on ground with rains. Arer they sure, they got it right?

On 6/26/2023 at 7:55 PM, NFUN said:

sea lions

Lions...
Sea tigers.

They are already putting tigers in boats, because of global warming and ocean level rise.
Poor janitors, it should be so scary.

Spoiler

 

On 6/26/2023 at 9:18 PM, darthgently said:

the current scientific apparatus

 

Spoiler

[snip]

Edited June 28, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[darthgently]

12 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

"...In fact, any mass change on Earth, including atmospheric pressure, can affect its axis of rotation..."

The text at link should probably read "change of center of mass" instead of "mass change".

[Snark]

Several posts have been redacted and/or removed, due to:

• being off-topic
• ad hominem or personal remarks
• arguing about arguing
• telling other people what to do (a.k.a. "backseat moderating")

Folks, please play nice.  We understand that this is a topic that people have strong feelings about:  not just about the science itself, or even just about proposed policies, but also about the awful behavior of the people who are on the opposite side of the argument from yourself, and frustration with how those wrong people can keep on being so wrong.  Anger and frustration tend to lead to unhelpful posting behavior, such as described above.  Such behavior doesn't solve anything, doesn't strengthen your argument, and all it achieves is to spread rancor in the forum.  So please, don't do that.

To be clear:  The topic of this thread is sea level rise (and, by association, global warming and its causes).

Note that the topic of this thread is not the behavior, attitude, motivation, honesty, or level of understanding of anybody other than yourself.  That's off-topic speculation and doesn't help anyone, including yourself.  "Anybody other than yourself" includes your fellow forum members, as well as third parties you may cite.

Please, address the post, not the poster.  This applies both to folks here in the forum you're directly interacting with, as well as any third-party sources you cite.  You can make your point without getting personal.

• Forum example:  If someone in the forum says something you believe to be Wrong™, don't say "you clearly don't understand this", or "you're being dishonest", or "you're just adhering to dogma", or anything like that. Instead, just indicate why you believe that their point is incorrect, and cite your evidence for believing that.
• Third-party example:  Someone cites a paper to support their position.  You disagree with the paper's methodology or conclusion.  Don't try to attack it based on "but they're just spouting the party line" or similar ad hominem speculation.  Instead, say that you disagree with the paper, and cite your evidence as to why you believe that.

Also note that "arguing about arguing" is off-topic.  When you're in a frustrating argument with someone who is Wrong™ and is being stubborn about it, ask yourself this each time you post:  "Am I writing something about sea level rise and global warming?  Or am I complaining about how other people make their points?"  If it's the latter, you're off topic and need to take a step back.  Remember, if someone's wrong, it's enough to just demonstrate-- with evidence-- why their points are incorrect.  Making any statements about how someone else makes their points is never going to end well.

This thread has been locked for 24 hours to give tempers some time to cool off.  Once it's back open, please keep the debate civil, everyone.

Thank you for your understanding.