Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In today's NYT, September 24, 2017, there is a piece on climate change in which commonly asked questions are asked and then answered. For instance:
Quote:
How do we know humans are responsible
for the increase in carbon dioxide?
This one is nailed down.
Hard evidence, including studies that use radioactivity to distinguish industrial emissions from natural emissions, shows that the extra gas is coming from human activity. Carbon dioxide levels rose and fell naturally in the long-ago past, but those changes took thousands of years. Geologists say that humans are now pumping the gas into the air much faster than nature has ever done.
How much will the seas rise?
The real question is how fast.
The ocean has accelerated and is now rising at a rate of about a foot per century, forcing governments and property owners to spend tens of billions of dollars fighting coastal erosion. But if that rate continued, it would probably be manageable, experts say.
The risk is that the rate will increase still more. Scientists who study the Earth’s history say waters could rise by a foot per decade in a worst-case scenario, though that looks unlikely. Many experts believe that even if emissions stopped tomorrow, 15 or 20 feet of sea level rise is already inevitable, enough to flood many cities unless trillions of dollars are spent protecting them. How long it will take is unclear. But if emissions continue apace, the ultimate rise could be 80 or 100 feet.
The science of climate change is settled. For anyone interested in an easy to understand primer on Climate Change and the assorted issues involved this is a good place to start.
While I don’t doubt the consensus, read that last paragraph carefully and see how the wording is hedged - “could”, “looks unlikely”, “unclear”. This lack of certainty, plus the tendency of the media to use the worst cast estimates, is what fuels the FUD.
Rhetorical questions are great for ensuring compliance and confluence in groups. They work even better if everyone repeats the answers in unison. Was this the same paper that had an article claiming 8" of sea level rise at Miami Beach?
Note the downward trend since about 2010.... One thing to note about these graphs is that they do not account for land movement. If you look around you can find some that are going down but that is relative to the land which is rising faster than the sea.
The Battery which I linked to here is good example because it's relatively stable geographic location.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-01-2020 at 05:29 PM..
The observed measurements we have only go back about 150 years for the longest records.
The data goes back 161 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Note the downward trend since about 2010
There is no downward trend since 2010.
Do you not see the tangent line angling upwards into 2020?
The mean sea level trend is 2.84 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1856 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.93 feet (11.16 inches) in 100 years. Yepper the sea level is a rising and has been on this trajectory since 1850.
Keep in mind that The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. Global CO2 emissions during the Industrial Revolution were a fraction of the CO2 we are currently emitting now. The data fits nicely with the observed melting of the Arctic sea ice and the sea level rising that we have been observing since 1850.
Let me clarify, there is downward trend relative to the mean from 2010 onward, the mean itself from 2010 on onward is about flatlined. I've seen it plotted before and that should be quite obvious just eyeballing it.
Just so it's clear this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things because it's very short sample. You can find other examples along the timeline where the rise has decelerated or accelerated. Point is the observed data for this particular station shows almost no increase in the sea level for the last 8 years or so. That of course will change.
Quote:
Do you not see the tangent line angling upwards into 2020?
There is four lines there, the collected data is indicated by the blue line. The red one is the mean based on the collected data. As you can see it is almost dead center for entire length of the record. The other two are predictions based on the collected data. They are difficult to see but they criss cross the mean. What is important to note is how close they are to the mean and they split the mean, this is indicative of a very predictable rise that can go either way. Once the lower mean id higher than the actual mean at the end of the graph you will have an indication of the sea rise accelerating over the time period.
Quote:
Yepper the sea level is a rising and has been on this trajectory since 1850.
But it's the same trajectory relative to the observed data for the last 160 years... Unless you are unaware the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age.
Quote:
The data fits nicely with the observed melting of the Arctic sea ice and the sea level rising that we have been observing since 1850.
You cannot use this data to make wild assumptions about data you do not have. What one could ask is if we have an ever increasing amounts of CO2 each year over this length of time what the rise has remained so steady and predictable.
Let me clarify, there is downward trend relative to the mean from 2010 onward, the mean itself from 2010 on onward is about flatlined. I've seen it plotted before and that should be quite obvious just eyeballing it.
Yes just by eyeballing it you would not say that it's flat-lined nor does the graph demonstrate this. The plot shows the monthly mean sea level.
Instead of focusing on a single outlier event try to understand what caused it.
Just so it's clear this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things because it's very short sample.
I am very familiar with your tactics.
Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline.
Ignore the long-term trend.
Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change.
The long term sea level rise trend we are seeing is not affected by sea level fluctuations. Long term sea level rise is influenced by thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice sheets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
You can find other examples along the timeline where the rise has decelerated or accelerated. Point is the observed data for this particular station shows almost no increase in the sea level for the last 8 years or so.
That water hasn't just magically disappeared, it's simply found a new temporary home on land, as the residents of Vermont have sadly just experienced. But it is only temporary, eventually all that water held in lakes, wetlands, rivers, soils and vegetation will find its way back into the ocean, and sea level will rise again.
Long-term, expect the sea to continue rising as the oceans warm and melting glaciers and ice sheets constantly add more water to the oceans, but don't be surprised if there's a large pothole, or speed bump, along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
That of course will change.
Yes it's called Short-term sea level fluctuations.
There is four lines there, the collected data is indicated by the blue line. The red one is the mean based on the collected data. As you can see it is almost dead center for entire length of the record. The other two are predictions based on the collected data.
I am very clear on what this graph indicates. What you seem to not understand is that the rate of sea level is rising more quickly then it did in the previous century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
They are difficult to see but they criss cross the mean. What is important to note is how close they are to the mean and they split the mean, this is indicative of a very predictable rise that can go either way.
Funny how climate science deniers cherry pick a very small section of data and completely ignore the long term trend while refusing to understand the short term trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Once the lower mean id higher than the actual mean at the end of the graph you will have an indication of the sea rise accelerating over the time period.
We already know that sea level rise is accelerating. This is old news.
But it's the same trajectory relative to the observed data for the last 160 years...
Looking at global data (rather than tide gauge records just from the U.S.) show that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880. The recent rate of sea level rise is greater than its average value since 1930. As for future sea level rise, these predictions are based on physics, not statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Unless you are unaware the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age.
Global sea level rose by a total of more than ~ 393 feet as the vast ice sheets of the last Ice Age melted back. This melt-back lasted from about 19,000 to about 6,000 years ago.
The current rise in sea level is not due to the end of an ice age. It's due to the current global warming of our planet which is melting glaciers and the ice sheets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
You cannot use this data to make wild assumptions about data you do not have.
I have made no wild assumption. I have provided data that correlates with what we are seeing today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
What one could ask is if we have an ever increasing amounts of CO2 each year over this length of time what the rise has remained so steady and predictable.
I am not clear on what you are actually trying to ask. Can you rephrase?
The science of climate change is settled. For anyone interested in an easy to understand primer on Climate Change and the assorted issues involved this is a good place to start.
I think this is a great website for anyone who is interested in learning the difference between the Myths and the Facts of climate science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
