The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[FleshJeb]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

by the hired climatologists, whose job is to study the ancient climate for money. 

Like climatologists hired by Exxon? ...Oh wait...

From Exxon's internal documents between 1977 and 2003:

Source:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

Quote

Emphasizing uncertainties

It has been established that, for many years, Exxon’s public affairs strategy was—as a 1988 internal memo put it—to “emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect” (10, 44, 50). However, our analysis shows that in their reports and briefings to management, ExxonMobil’s own scientists did not particularly emphasize uncertainty; on the contrary, the level of uncertainty indicated by their global warming projections (bootstrapped 2σ standard error of the mean = ±21%) was commensurate with that reported by independent academics (±16%). Crucially, it excluded the possibility of no anthropogenic global warming; at no point did company scientists suggest that human-caused global warming would not occur. Nor did they conclude that the uncertainties were too great to permit differentiation of human and natural drivers. Yet publicly, ExxonMobil Corp made these claims until at least the early 2010s (see Box 2).

 

Quote

Denigrating climate models

ExxonMobil has often specifically claimed or suggested in public that climate models are “unreliable” (51). In 1999, for example, ExxonMobil Corp’s chief executive officer (CEO) Lee Raymond said future climate “projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, sheer speculation.” (2) In 2013, his successor, Rex Tillerson, called climate models “not competent” (52). In 2015, he stated: “We do not really know what the climate effects of 600 ppm versus 450 ppm will be because the models simply are not that good” (53). The company’s own modeling contradicts such statements. Exxon’s 1982 projection shown in Fig. 1 (panel 3), for example, suggests that 600 ppm of atmospheric CO₂ would lead to 1.3°C more global warming than 450 ppm.

 

 

You were saying something about financial conflicts of interest?

 

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And any "0.1 K" for the ~300 K value is what a student gets a "fail" on Metrology exams, unless the climate archaeologists use mercury thermometers from far past.

No one in history has ever made precise measurements with imprecise equipment (/s):

That's assuming single-source measurement. What happens when you intersect two or more noisy datasets from different sources? Precision goes UP.

That said, hinging an argument on "They reported too many significant figures, therefore the entire premise is invalid" is VERY silly.

Quote

They can't have enough large sampling to get this accuracy from average.

Prove it. Find some sources and dissect their methodology. It doesn't have to be rigorous--A reasonable, informal evaluation will do. I'm perfectly happy to read and follow along with any well-presented argument.

[FleshJeb]

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

"How to fight about politics without fighting about politics"

Dodging moderators should be an Olympic sport. It's fun for all sides.

My primary goal is really to combat science denialism and bad argumentation, and I try to stick within those bounds, even if I'm excessively snarky about it. The fact that it's politically-charged just makes me sad.

For those who are new to this years-long argument on the forums, I actually LIKE the two people I'm fighting with. I like them BETTER when their arguments are better constructed, but overall they're great, and contribute a lot to the overall health of the community. Kerbiloid and I throw each other upvotes pretty frequently, even when it gets heated.

[kerbiloid]

14 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Chart 1: Not zero-based, most of diagram is black, estimated. Real data are blue and red, and they just show 320→410. 

Chart 2: Actual data are 1900..2020, and they just 1° growth (if we consider the 1900 data relevant).

Chart 3: Model-based.

Such large charts with such small actual data range. Like if somebody was going to impress the readers.

20 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

It has been established that, for many years, Exxon’s public affairs strategy was—as a 1988 internal memo put it—to “emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect”

In 1988 Tesla and lithium batteries were a far future, together with all other greenergetics.

This doesn't mean that once the world got green, the Exxon owners won't be active proponents and manufacturers of solar windmills, and the most active fighters against carbon and oil.

As this text shows, their prognoses depend on the Exxon owners' business.
If it's oil, then oil. If not oil, or plastic windmills, then their prognoses will show exactly this priority.
Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. exist not for principles, but for their owners' profit, regardless of this profit source.

28 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

What happens when you intersect two or more noisy datasets from different sources? Precision goes UP.

Not necessary. Merge two white noises, and you get the same white noise.

Merge datasets with different precision, and you have one, polluted with another one.

Also, it's not the measurements of actual temperatures in the past.
It's measurements of depleted traces.

32 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Prove it.

Watch the weather prognoses. They are based on actual modern precise data, but almost never match the actual tomorrow weather.

[Delay]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Chart 3: Model-based.

ALL science is model-based! That's what makes science so effective for predicting real-world phenomena!

Edited August 15, 2023 by Delay

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Delay said:

ALL science is model-based!

Before you build a model, you should collect raw data.

After building the model, you can extrapolate.

And while building the model, you are intrapolating, the extrapolation is much less accurate, unless you have a straight line.

The estimation of the far past condition is extrapolation by 100 000 years, when your empiric data are just from 100 year long range.

This means almost random set of values.

[Delay]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Before you build a model, you should collect raw data.

After building the model, you can extrapolate.

And while building the model, you are intrapolating, the extrapolation is much less accurate, unless you have a straight line.

That is to say, a scientific experiment or observation is either model-creating or model-fitting. Either we use our data to create a new model or we use it to corroborate an existing one.

As far as climate change is concerned (as well as our activities being the primary driving factor), we typically find the latter. Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific consensus, as are the consequences we face for not doing enough to stop it.

If even Exxon's paid scientists cannot find a way around this conclusion, believing it to be absurd is frankly ludicrous.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Delay

[Delay]

20 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The estimation of the far past condition is extrapolation by 100 000 years, when your empiric data are just from 100 year long range.

This means almost random set of values.

This is not relevant to the Exxon study you were responding to.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Delay

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, Delay said:

That is to say, a scientific experiment or observation is either model-creating or model-fitting. Either we use our data to create a new model or we use it to corroborate an existing one.

There is a difference between the model-based extrapolation by 20% of the measurement range (take a century, estimate next twenty years), and 1 000%.

Unless the function is very simple, you get almost qualitative estimation, rather than quantitative one.

13 minutes ago, Delay said:

As far as climate change is concerned (as well as our activities being the primary driving factor), we typically find the latter. Anthropogenic climate change is the scientific consensus, as are the consequences we face for not doing enough to stop it.

What do the models say about the 10kya ocean level raise by 100 m? Why no trace of hurricanes and tsunamies?

[Delay]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

What do the models say about the 10kya ocean level raise by 100 m? Why no trace of hurricanes and tsunamies?

Okay, so our estimates of sea levels, temperatures and atmospheric composition 10,000 years ago were wrong. I'll grant you that. That does not undo what we see today.

So why do you bring this up instead of watching the news?

Edited August 15, 2023 by Delay

[kerbiloid]

41 minutes ago, Delay said:

Okay, so our estimates of sea levels, temperatures and atmospheric composition 10,000 years ago were wrong.

The coastline has enough evidences of the sea level.

[FleshJeb]

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Chart 1: Not zero-based, most of diagram is black, estimated. Real data are blue and red, and they just show 320→410. 

The purpose of the paper is to assess Exxon's modeling with newer data. (This particular chart is from 1982). It shows strong correlation, which corroborates the validity of the modeling.
The delta-temperature is zero-based. There's no benefit to charting the CO2 PPM to zero, because that's not a condition that's existed, and it would be discontinuous anyway, as soon as CO2 concentration ceased being the primary controlling variable in the physical system.

16 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Chart 2: Actual data are 1900..2020, and they just 1° growth (if we consider the 1900 data relevant).

The usual datum is 1850 for industrialization, and hundreds if not thousands of temperature stations existed worldwide by 1900. I've actually visited a science station that was built in 1897 and had a LONG conversation with the docent. They did some hardcore observations there.
1 deg C in that amount of time, over the entire Earth is a MASSIVE amount of energy--It's relevant. Particularly since we know that the ocean induces a LOT of thermal lag. So, a 1 deg change represents much more energy storage than a 1 deg surface temp change indicates.

26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Chart 3: Model-based.

Independent models being corroborated. Possibly from the same or similar sources, so I'll give you that one.

27 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Such large charts with such small actual data range. Like if somebody was going to impress the readers.

Originally published internally at Exxon for making business decisions about the effects of drilling a new field. Only obtained by the public in 2015. They weren't trying to impress anyone, and the conclusions drawn were contrary to the business interests. A manipulative chart would have wanted to downplay the effects.

32 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

This doesn't mean that once the world got green, the Exxon owners won't be active proponents and manufacturers of solar windmills, and the most active fighters against carbon and oil.

Extractive industries have higher profit margins, and it was already their expertise. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal were already in use, but that required investment, and the risk of moving outside of their existing expertise. Short-term profits and risk aversion prevented them from moving sooner. Today, oil company investment in green R&D is about 1% of their budget. (i.e. meaningless). The source for that is a recent TED talk by Al Gore, which you may not respect as a source, but I'm comfortable with him getting basic company-provided numbers correct.

39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. exist not for principles, but for their owners' profit, regardless of this profit source.

See the above. My unsupported conspiracy theory involves oil as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire Renewables are much easier to decentralize and don't provide the same opportunities for control.

43 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Not necessary. Merge two white noises, and you get the same white noise.

Merge datasets with different precision, and you have one, polluted with another one.

This is fair and possible, but not necessarily true. The argument is, "Can you get data that's more precise than the precision of the instruments, and is it fair to report it as such?" The answer is definitely yes.

45 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Also, it's not the measurements of actual temperatures in the past.
It's measurements of depleted traces.

Many depleted traces, cross-correlated with each other. This is much more difficult to do, but we proved plate tectonics in a very similar way. Lots of geological and paleomagnetic observations, and I'm sure many of them were contradictory and confounding. And yet somehow we're not arguing about the validity of this:

Long-term and short-term data.

Those damn geologists and their AGENDA! They were all paid off by Big Dinosaur! It's a Silurian plot!

57 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Watch the weather prognoses. They are based on actual modern precise data, but almost never match the actual tomorrow weather.

Ours match pretty well now, and I live in a very weird area with crazy geography and lots of microclimates. That said, "Climate is not weather" We're looking at the global average over a long period of time, not the daily bumps and jumps that are highly influenced by local variations in terrain and vegetation.

[Delay]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The coastline has enough evidences of the sea level.

You know that wasn't the point and disregards everything said afterwards.

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

No, because they demonstrate excessive confidence in a highly stochastic process prediction, even without possibility of direct measurements (they can measure only depleted traces).

What makes their confidence “excessive” besides that fact that you don’t like what they are saying?

FleshJeb and Delay have gone over how the use of mOdELs is valid.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp

The paper mentioned in the NASA article if you want to see the direct source https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

They’ve been pretty accurate so far.

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And because they say that several more centimeters will mean a global catastrophe, when just 10k years ago the ocean level had raised by 100 meters, and no global hurricanes happened.

I don’t think climate change in the past and now are comparable in terms of having similar effects.

I.e., warming from 10 degrees Celsius to 16 degrees C is not going to necessarily have the same effect as warming from 16 degrees C to 18-19 degrees C.

This is a dumb analogy, and if I am wrong someone please correct me, but I’d imagine it is loosely similar to how heating water from 20 degrees C to 80 degrees C will be different than going from 80 degrees C to 110 degrees C.

By the same comparison, I can’t turn around your analogy and say disaster is “inevitable” based on what happened in the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event, because the conditions were different then.

[StrandedonEarth]

42 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

This is a dumb analogy, and if I am wrong someone please correct me, but I’d imagine it is loosely similar to how heating water from 20 degrees C to 80 degrees C will be different than going from 80 degrees C to 110 degrees C.

Given that the partial pressure of water vapor goes up as temperature rises, the overall effects can be quite dramatic as it gets hotter 

[FleshJeb]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

16 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And because they say that several more centimeters will mean a global catastrophe, when just 10k years ago the ocean level had raised by 100 meters, and no global hurricanes happened.

I don’t think climate change in the past and now are comparable in terms of having similar effects.

Hurricanes:

You're making the mistake of believing an unsourced assertion.

Fun find of the day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleotempestology

While it doesn't cover exactly the time period, we have evidence of VERY large hurricanes in prehistory. I read the general methodology from more than one source; it seems pretty sound. Also, some good diagrams here: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/uncovering-prehistoric-hurricane-activity

I also looked up how hurricanes form: https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/tropical_stuff/hurricane_anatomy/hurricane_anatomy.html

Quote

The first condition is that ocean waters must be above 26 degrees Celsius

Lets presume that sea temperatures in an area follow some kind of bell curve, and that global warming pushes that bell curve to the right. So temperature gets above 26deg more often and it also can get higher. This is congruent with climate scientists often saying, "More frequent and more powerful storms."

Sea level:

Sea level rise is a potential LOCAL catastrophe (and that's how it's presented by climate scientists.) If by local we mean near the shoreline...where most people live. More frequent flooding, higher storm surges, etc. It's going to be absolute hell on infrastructure. This is kind of an over-generalization, but most infrastructure in the U.S. is built with a 2-foot safety zone ("freeboard") above the 100-year flood. A few centimeters eats up a healthy percentage of that safety zone, especially if you're also dealing with the more frequent and more powerful storms.

I drafted this when I was arguing with Joe a couple years ago. This is what it takes to add a couple of extra feet to an existing levee if you're trying to armor up against climate change. (EDIT2: This is an example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_resilience ):

Obviously, there will be a variety of parameters, but it's more effort than one might initially think.

Other:

FYI, I read both your links and they were fascinating. Aside from having to look up a few terms, they were quite understandable, and the methods appeared solid. As usual, people do very thoughtful and comprehensive work. The whole, "Scientists are dumb" narrative needs to go die in a ditch unless explicit, detailed critique is provided.

EDIT: I think @kerbiloid has an agenda

Edited August 16, 2023 by FleshJeb

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I've actually visited a science station that was built in 1897 and had a LONG conversation with the docent. They did some hardcore observations there.
1 deg C in that amount of time, over the entire Earth is a MASSIVE amount of energy--It's relevant. Particularly since we know that the ocean induces a LOT of thermal lag.

So, the X-axis should be marked in centuries. A millenium later we'll can see a clear _sinusoidal picture.

9 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Independent models being corroborated. Possibly from the same or similar sources

If two scientists learn the subjects from the same books, their models can be very similar and matching each other.
But they are still models.
The geocentric astronomers and the alchemists were having various models which were matching each other very well, just differing in details.

9 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal were already in use, but that required investment, and the risk of moving outside of their existing expertise

They need a lot of oil-based chemicals and plastic. If it's more profitable to use oil for their production, then the combustion is bad, and the owners are green. The oil is the same, the market agenda differs.

(Avoiding the possibility, that the proper agenda is told to Exxon from above. According to wiki, they are just 2..3% of the world oil production, after all.
So, if a political decision was made, the experts would follow it anyway. See the tobacco, which is absolutely useless poison, but still. Couldn't it be prohibited?)

9 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Long-term and short-term data.

If the models predicts 100 kya with 0.1° accuracy, it will definitely predict tomorrow with 1°.
(Looks through the window...)

The prediction of stochastic processes is like publishing the future bookmaker results for the next year.
You can predict average with wide interval of uncertainty.

9 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

Ours match pretty well now, and I live in a very weird area with crazy geography and lots of microclimates. That said, "Climate is not weather" We're looking at the global average over a long period of time, not the daily bumps and jumps that are highly influenced by local variations in terrain and vegetation.

In the world when a bottle of wine is "from Northern slope of the hill, 1954 year".
Because the local conditions affect very much.
For example, we almost never have the predicted rain, but have to daily pump out the underground water from the basement.
The sunny side of the house is +35°C, the shadow side is +25°C.
In the mountains the temperature jumps every half-hour, depending on a portion of cold air from top.
In the desert there can be +60° days and +10° nights.
So, the 0.1° accuracy of the models looks rather optimistic, if they speak about the real planet, rather than its virtual model.

9 hours ago, Delay said:

You know that wasn't the point and disregards everything said afterwards.

How does it prove the world-wide hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamies 10kya?

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

They’ve been pretty accurate so far.

They are uncheckable in the past, first of all.

If the uranium half-life probably has not changed last several billion years, the multi-factor stochastic process, like the climate and weather, is by orders of magnitude more complicated to predict.

Tomorrow somebody will discover that anomalous solar activity 20 kya, together with oceanic currents change due to Atlantis sinking brought a significant input in climatic change, and the models will be need an update, with changed results.
Unreal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

Or count the versions of the Universe age. Or remember the "Dark Matter".

The models are just models, not direct evidence.

12 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

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

It describes regular hurricanes, happening without ocean level change.

According to the < 1 m apocalyptic alarms, the post-IceAge 100m should be something absolutely devastating.

But the same models tell that mammoths and furry rhinos got extinct from the changed pastures, not gone by wind.

12 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Sea level rise is a potential LOCAL catastrophe (and that's how it's presented by climate scientists.) If by local we mean near the shoreline...where most people live. More frequent flooding, higher storm surges, etc. It's going to be absolute hell on infrastructure. This is kind of an over-generalization, but most infrastructure in the U.S. is built with a 2-foot safety zone ("freeboard") above the 100-year flood. A few centimeters eats up a healthy percentage of that safety zone, especially if you're also dealing with the more frequent and more powerful storms.

I drafted this when I was arguing with Joe a couple years ago. This is what it takes to add a couple of extra feet to an existing levee if you're trying to armor up against climate change:

The humans were always living along the coastlines.

 

So... What to say. Now I see that the climate agenda is propagated by the concrete manufacturers lobby...
They need a Wall.

Saving money 100 years ago, and making them for the next 100 years.

12 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

: https://www.americanscientist.org

Isn't opened here.

Edited August 16, 2023 by kerbiloid

[FleshJeb]

On 8/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, kerbiloid said:

So, the X-axis should be marked in centuries. A millenium later we'll can see a clear _sinusoidal picture.

Not with a slope that steep we won't. Also, this has already been accounted for in the models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

On 8/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, kerbiloid said:

If the models predicts 100 kya with 0.1° accuracy

Have we actually seen a model that does that in this thread? I'm tired, don't make me look for one.

On 8/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, kerbiloid said:

It describes regular hurricanes, happening without ocean level change.

According to the < 1 m apocalyptic alarms, the post-IceAge 100m should be something absolutely devastating.

It does, because they haven't consistently traced it back much farther than 6000 years. Newer evidence is easier to find and more likely to be undisturbed. They just started doing this in the 2010s, and they've been mostly concerned with corroborating it with written records. You know, to test the model to see if it's worth exploring further.

Any evidence is 100m underwater and more likely to have been disturbed, because the sea level was lower. The ocean sand has to crest over a beach to a coastal lake for the storm to be detectable. They'd have to find the remnant of a coastal lake in the ocean.

Additionally the temperature was cooler so the hurricanes would be actually be  less frequent and less powerful. Per one of the articles I read, they said that Paleotempestology methods can't even find evidence of the devastating Hurricane Sandy because it was too small.

On 8/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, kerbiloid said:

Isn't opened here.

I assume that means it's not loading. Try this? https://web.archive.org/web/20221005040516/https://www.americanscientist.org/article/uncovering-prehistoric-hurricane-activity

Spoiler

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by FleshJeb

[SunlitZelkova]

2 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

The whole, "Scientists are dumb" narrative needs to go die in a ditch unless explicit, detailed critique is provided.

Yeah.

Thanks for the info on hurricanes, my main focus in learning about prehistory has largely related to fauna so I wasn’t aware of that.

I’m out of reactions today, shame I can’t like such an informative post!

Anyways, as far as discussing various things in a negative manner goes…

48 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

Yes, it's horrendous. I smoke a pack a day and can't quit. Patches and gum made me smoke MORE, on top of using them. Sertraline (Zoloft) got me down to half a pack a day and then it stopped working. I often wake up in the middle of the night because the withdrawals are so bad and I need to feed them.

Fellow sertraline user here.

The local grocer pharmacy changed their hours, and I did not realize this, so I went out there to pick it up only to walk up to the place literally right as they closed the doors at 8:00 PM (like the pharmacy came into my sight seconds after the door closed).

So I went a day without a dose, because this also happened to be the one time I forgot to get it the previous weekend during grocery shopping *facepalm*

[Delay]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

How does it prove the world-wide hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamies 10kya?

It doesn't have to; we're living with that reality right now!

[Gargamel]

A large number of posts from this thread have been moved here.

As always, keep it civil and don't make it personal.

If there are any stowaway fragments of topics that don't belong here, please continue that discussion back on the original thread. 

 

 

[farmerben]

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

13 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

I should create a model that reads your posts and guesses your blood alcohol level

Please don't go retrograde - let my sleeping dogs lie! 

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

tobacco, which is absolutely useless poison

Uh... Nicotine does have some beneficial properties. 

Unlike vaping, incidence of short term death from moderate use is quite low. 

[PakledHostage]

22 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Unlike vaping, incidence of short term death from moderate use is quite low. 

What's "short term death"? A good sleep?

Also w.r.t. extraction of data below the normal sensitivity and noise level of sensors: Image stacking in astrophotography is a common example. It's like when a dice is loaded. Roll it once or twice and you won't know. Roll it enough times and you'll see the pattern.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

What's "short term death"? A good sleep

Well played. 

Semantics aside;

https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2019/12/vaping-may-be-more-dangerous-than-cigarette-smoking-studies-show

 

[Superfluous J]

On 8/16/2023 at 3:11 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Unlike vaping, incidence of short term death from moderate use is quite low

Compared to breathing just regular old air, though, incidence of any kind of death at all is quite high.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Superfluous J