Onging alarmism about sea level rise without substence.

[Tim the plumber]

Only in how certain people refuse to ever admit how wrong they've been and the damage they do with it. Maybe it will take having their hand-picked president humiliated and shipped off to prison to wake them up to the fact that whatever they are reading is steering them in the wrong direction. But, I doubt it. Most of these folks will just double down on the garbage they believe.

I estimate that this drivel about CO2 is killing 20 million people per year. Do you enjoy your guilt complex and utter innumeracy?

 

[Visbek]

The problem with citing things like the loss of arctic ice, is that, that loss has been ongoing for 12,000 years.

The problem with pointing out that ice has been retreating for 12,000 years is that it deliberately ignores the incredible acceleration of loss in the past ~250 years, in which humans have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, along with lots of other effects.

Sea levels do move up and down, but it may have little to do with CO2 warming, and there appears to be no correlation so far.

There is both correlation and causation linked to human activity. The science is quite clear on this.

It's evident you have nothing of substance to contribute. Thanks for playing.

 

[longview]

The problem with pointing out that ice has been retreating for 12,000 years is that it deliberately ignores the incredible acceleration of loss in the past ~250 years, in which humans have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, along with lots of other effects.



There is both correlation and causation linked to human activity. The science is quite clear on this.

It's evident you have nothing of substance to contribute. Thanks for playing.

I know the use of words like "dumping" are supposed to enhance emotional content, but Science and math
are just not emotional.
If we look at the growth in CO2, we can plot how much the warming should have been if we use the IPCC's
sensitivity numbers.
The CO2 expansion looks like this,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
1850 to 1910 increase 2.5 ppm per decade
1910 to 1960 increase 3.4 ppm per decade
1960-1970 8 ppm per decade
1970-1980 9 ppm per decade
1980-1990 14 ppm per decade
1990-2000 16 ppm per decade
2000-2010 19 ppm per decade
2010-2017 24 ppm per decade
So while you would like to throw around numbers like ~250 years, the vast majority of the CO2 increase has occurred since 1960.
The CO2 warming that could have occurred before 1960 would be 1.73 X ln(317/285), or only .18 C.
The point is that any accelerated ice loss from AGW warming would mostly be after 1960, and even past 1980,
yet we see little change in the rate of sea level rise!

 

[Tim the plumber]

The problem with pointing out that ice has been retreating for 12,000 years is that it deliberately ignores the incredible acceleration of loss in the past ~250 years, in which humans have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, along with lots of other effects.



There is both correlation and causation linked to human activity. The science is quite clear on this.

It's evident you have nothing of substance to contribute. Thanks for playing.

You need to do numbers not emotion in this area of debate.

It is not optional.

Emotional guilt complex and rampant stupidity are what has allowed the situation of vast amounts of food to be converted into fuel thus causing enormas hardship and death to the world's poor.

Care about that not this fashion for anti CO2 drivel.

 

[Visbek]

You need to do numbers not emotion in this area of debate.

Actually, you need science. Which, in case you hadn't heard, is very clear that human activity is a major driving factor in climate change, including sea level rise.

Emotional guilt complex and rampant stupidity are what has allowed the situation of vast amounts of food to be converted into fuel thus causing enormas hardship and death to the world's poor.

1) That wasn't done to reduce carbon emissions. Bush pushed for ethanol use to reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels, as well as to bolster corn farmers.

2) I'm not driven by emotion. I'm not driven by guilt. I'm driven by the science.

3) Thanks but no thanks for the irrelevant ad hominem talking points.

 

[Visbek]

If we look at the growth in CO2, we can plot how much the warming should have been if we use the IPCC's
sensitivity numbers.
The CO2 expansion looks like this...

...and the correlation looks like this:

The point is that any accelerated ice loss from AGW warming would mostly be after 1960, and even past 1980,
yet we see little change in the rate of sea level rise!

sigh

The data you yourself linked to shows significant increases in sea level rise since 1960.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Actually, you need science. Which, in case you hadn't heard, is very clear that human activity is a major driving factor in climate change, including sea level rise.



1) That wasn't done to reduce carbon emissions. Bush pushed for ethanol use to reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels, as well as to bolster corn farmers.

2) I'm not driven by emotion. I'm not driven by guilt. I'm driven by the science.

3) Thanks but no thanks for the irrelevant ad hominem talking points.

Biofuel is only being done with the cover of reducing CO2. This is killing loads of people. This is evil. This is real.

Take my challenge;

Choose a single bad thing that a slightly warmer world, as predicted by the IPCC, will cause.

Then describe the mechanism that will make this bad thing happen. Not the temperature rise the bad result of the temperature rise.

Then link to some sort of science that supports it. A paper is best but what ever you have got that details the mechanism.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually tiny of big. If it is going to be more costly for any single local council that has traffic lights to deal with than the cost of traffic lights I will accept that there is something in it.

If you are unable to meet this challenge please explain why you think we should continue to hype up the idea that CO2 is bad.

 

[Tim the plumber]

sigh

The data you yourself linked to shows significant increases in sea level rise since 1960.

ARRRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

The data he linked to was on CO2 not sea level rise and that was his point!!!!!!

 

[longview]

...and the correlation looks like this:

sigh

The data you yourself linked to shows significant increases in sea level rise since 1960.

The rate of the sea level increase is fairly constant within the noise band.
The sea level has gone up since the 1960's but not significantly faster than before the 1960's,
and nothing matching the change in temperatures.

 

[Visbek]

Biofuel is only being done with the cover of reducing CO2. This is killing loads of people. This is evil. This is real.

:roll:

I've already explained why Bush pushed for ethanol. It's not my problem if you can't accept it.

The idea that people are starving to death because some of the surplus corn we grow goes to ethanol, instead of use in food, is so laughably absurd that I can't believe you expect anyone to believe it. We could feed every single person on the planet right now, at least on a subsistence level; the reason we don't is because of politics and cost. Americans waste far more food than could be produced by eliminating ethanol production.

Choose a single bad thing that a slightly warmer world, as predicted by the IPCC, will cause....

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chan...p/B0173R4EJK/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
and
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chan...p/B06W57324L/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

That should get you started. Take your time reading them, and have a nice day.

 

[Visbek]

ARRRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

The data he linked to was on CO2 not sea level rise and that was his point!!!!!!

I'm referring to the NOAA data on sea level rise.

Please try to keep up.

 

[Visbek]

The rate of the sea level increase is fairly constant within the noise band.
The sea level has gone up since the 1960's but not significantly faster than before the 1960's,
and nothing matching the change in temperatures.

...and that is a big part of the reason why we are seeing an acceleration in sea levels in recent years, and will continue to see bigger accelerations in decades to come.

E.g. from a report that you yourself linked and cited:

In the 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5), the IPCC documented a range of observed climate trends. Global surface temperature has increased about 1.5°F (0.85°C) since 1880. Both hemispheres have experienced decreases in net snow and ice cover, and global sea level has risen by approximately 0.5 to 0.7 inches (1.3 to 1.7 cm) per decade over the past century (Hay et al., 2015). More recently, since the 1990s, the global sea level rise rate has accelerated to approximately 1.3 inches (3.2 cm) per decade (see Chapter 2, NPCC, 2015, for New York metropolitan region sea level rise observations and projections). Droughts (in regions such as but not limited to the Mediterranean and West Africa) have grown more frequent and longer in duration. In the United States, Canada, and Mexico (as well as other regions), intense precipitation events have become more common. Hot days and heat waves have become more frequent and intense, and cold events have decreased in frequency. The upper oceans have warmed and become more acidic (IPCC, 2013). As temperatures have warmed in the atmosphere and ocean, biological systems have responded as well; for example, spring has been arriving earlier, and fall has been extending later into the year, in many mid- and high-latitude regions (IPCC, 2014).

The IPCC AR5 states that there is a greater than 95% chance that warming temperatures since the mid-20th century are primarily due to human activities. Atmospheric concentrations of the major GHG carbon dioxide (CO2) are now approximately 40% higher than in preindustrial times. Concentrations of other important GHGs, including methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), have increased by close to 150% and close to 20%, respectively, since preindustrial times. The warming that occurred globally over the 20th century cannot be reproduced by GCMs unless human contributions to historical GHG concentrations are taken into account (Fig. 1.4). Further increases in GHG concentrations are extremely likely to lead to accelerated temperature increases. Depending on these future emissions and concentrations, by the 2081 to 2100 time period, global average temperatures are projected to increase by 2.0°F to 4.7°F (1.1°C to 2.6°C) or as high as 4.7°F to 8.6°F (2.6°C to 4.8°C)1 (IPCC, 2013). The large range is due to uncertainties both in future GHG concentrations and the sensitivity2 of the climate system to GHG concentrations. Warming is projected to be greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Throughout the globe, land areas are generally expected to warm more than ocean regions.

High-latitude precipitation is projected to increase in both hemispheres, while many dry regions at subtropical latitudes, such as the Mediterranean region, are projected to become drier.

Globally, it is virtually certain that the hottest temperatures will increase in frequency and magnitude, and the coldest temperatures will decrease in frequency and magnitude, although there could be regional exceptions (IPCC, 2012). Both land ice and sea ice volumes are projected to decrease. Ocean acidification is projected to increase as CO2 concentrations rise.
Emphasis added
New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 ReportChapter 1: Climate Observations and Projections - Horton - 2015 - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - Wiley Online Library


Oh, and I know this is going to sound, like, totally crazy, but it takes years for these effects to work their way through the environment. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today, temperatures and sea levels would continue to rise for decades.

 

[Jack Hays]

...and that is a big part of the reason why we are seeing an acceleration in sea levels in recent years, and will continue to see bigger accelerations in decades to come.

NOAA seems not to have received the memo.


[h=1]Dialing back the 10 foot hype – NOAA Tide Gauge Data shows no coastal sea level rise acceleration[/h]… meanwhile California sea level rise “model study” claims 10 foot rise by 2100 Guest essay by Larry Hamlin NOAA has just updated its coastal sea level rise tide gauge data including actual measurements through year 2016 which continues to show no evidence of coastal sea level rise acceleration. These measurements include tide gauge data…

May 2, 2017 in Alarmism, Sea level.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The funny thing is, you don't know how to read a trend line.

He seems to do well with anecdotes. Some get to live the dream:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/02/flooding-is-the-new-normal-in-miami/

 

[longview]

...and that is a big part of the reason why we are seeing an acceleration in sea levels in recent years, and will continue to see bigger accelerations in decades to come.


Oh, and I know this is going to sound, like, totally crazy, but it takes years for these effects to work their way through the environment. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today, temperatures and sea levels would continue to rise for decades.

There are some areas that have seen the rate of the sea level increase, But NYC is not one of them.
The two records NOAA and PSMSL are slightly different (Not sure why) but both show the 30 year averages from pre 1960 and post 1960
at roughly the same rate, well within the noise of the system.
The global sea level acceleration reported seems to mostly be an artifact of switching from gauge measurements,
to much less accurate satellites. (The Satellites only have an accuracy of about 30 mm).
For the tide gauges the rate of the change shows some acceleration in areas, but mostly just a even slope.

 

[Visbek]

There are some areas that have seen the rate of the sea level increase, But NYC is not one of them.

That's from the report prepared by the NYC office which made the projections, which formed the basis of the article, and which you quoted. Which discusses how both global climate change, and local factors, are likely to result in significant problems for NYC in the not too distant future.

This has been lots of fun, but not really.

 

[longview]

He seems to do well with anecdotes. Some get to live the dream:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/02/flooding-is-the-new-normal-in-miami/

I am guessing you did not read the caption on the photo.

Flooded parking garage after an hour of heavy rain (photo courtesy of Navarrete).

The tides during that period Fed 2017 were nothing special, it looks more like a rain event than sea level rise.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/n...ur&datum=MLLW&interval=hilo&action=dailychart
People who live in coastal cities know of something called a King Tide.
The right combination fetch, and flood tide can add several feet on top of the normal high tide.
For those who think high tides are something new to Miami beach,
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GxU_F-wQISw/UmnXS3DWE0I/AAAAAAAAQt8/IKfMPcf0iG4/s1600/10-26-1973b.jpg
I would not be surprised that Miami has more frequent tidal flooding events, but it could be from several factors,
including subsidence, development, and sea level rise.
I am not sure why I remember this but in the 60's the Today's show had a piece on Miami Beach sinking because of all the buildings.

 

[longview]

That's from the report prepared by the NYC office which made the projections, which formed the basis of the article, and which you quoted. Which discusses how both global climate change, and local factors, are likely to result in significant problems for NYC in the not too distant future.

This has been lots of fun, but not really.

]

I know where the report came from, and their range of numbers were too wide.
The likelihood that NYC will see 8 inches of sea level rise in the next 13 year is slightly ridiculous.
It is more like hyperbole on the part of the people writing the report.
The rate of the sea level rise in NYC is about 3 mm/yr, for 160 years.
The idea that the rate of the rise will suddenly increase to 15 mm/yr, for 13 years straight, is very unlikely.

 

[jimbo]

lol...you act as if they're mutually exclusive.

They are. So which do you want to discuss?

 

[Tim the plumber]

:roll:

I've already explained why Bush pushed for ethanol. It's not my problem if you can't accept it.

The idea that people are starving to death because some of the surplus corn we grow goes to ethanol, instead of use in food, is so laughably absurd that I can't believe you expect anyone to believe it. We could feed every single person on the planet right now, at least on a subsistence level; the reason we don't is because of politics and cost. Americans waste far more food than could be produced by eliminating ethanol production.



https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chan...p/B0173R4EJK/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
and
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chan...p/B06W57324L/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

That should get you started. Take your time reading them, and have a nice day.

This year began with record-breaking food prices that experts warn could lead to another fully fledged global food crisis. Rising food prices contributed to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and sparked riots in several other countries. A food crisis three years ago also brought impoverished people on to the streets when they couldn't afford to buy staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn. Not surprising when poor people spend up to 80% of their income on food.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...11/jun/01/biofuels-driving-food-prices-higher

For pitty's sake take some information in!!!

I will not read any link you post untill you are able to say exactly what bad thing it is you are talking about and then quote from the link or explain the mechanism that a warmer world will cause to happen.

You need to understand your own argument. That you are unable to say what it is tells all.

 

[Buzz]

I know where the report came from, and their range of numbers were too wide.
The likelihood that NYC will see 8 inches of sea level rise in the next 13 year is slightly ridiculous.
It is more like hyperbole on the part of the people writing the report.
The rate of the sea level rise in NYC is about 3 mm/yr, for 160 years.
The idea that the rate of the rise will suddenly increase to 15 mm/yr, for 13 years straight, is very unlikely.

Damn longview... why do you insist on pushing this dishonest misinformation?

First I have to point out that your contention that for this study to not be hyperbole would require 15mm/year sea level rise over the next 13 years is wrong. The study is basing it's prediction of 2 to 10 inches of rise in the 2020s on the base period of 2000-2004. And while sea level rise in NYC has been on the decline for 7 years it is still above that base period. And while I have to give you credit for not being a completely blatant denialist and using the highest prediction for your numbers like Steve Case did, you still used a number that was on the high side.

Fact of the matter is that NYC's sea level looks to be about 50mm above the base period of 2000-2004 despite 7 years of decline. And if we want to not be biased one way or another I think using the middle of the prediction of 6 inches of rise is more fair. So accounting for the rise seen since the base period and a non biased estimate of the rise that would need to be seen to verify this study would be about(if my math is correct) 7.5 mm/year for 13 years. That is half your number!

Now I don't normally advocate cherry-picking short time spans to get the data I want but in this case, it might be informative to people like you. Go back and look at the graph of sea level rise and notice all the times that the rate of rise did increase dramatically for short periods. There are several periods where the rate of increase was easily in the 7.5 mm/year range and sometimes even higher. And this often occurred right after a period of lower or even negative rates. It is entirely conceivable if not even probable that NYC will see rates like these in the near future.

I think you are just setting yourself up for more embarrassment when sea level increase likely spikes and you have to further contort the numbers and deny facts like you regularly do with the world temperature records to avoid admitting you were wrong.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Damn longview... why do you insist on pushing this dishonest misinformation?

First I have to point out that your contention that for this study to not be hyperbole would require 15mm/year sea level rise over the next 13 years is wrong. The study is basing it's prediction of 2 to 10 inches of rise in the 2020s on the base period of 2000-2004. And while sea level rise in NYC has been on the decline for 7 years it is still above that base period. And while I have to give you credit for not being a completely blatant denialist and using the highest prediction for your numbers like Steve Case did, you still used a number that was on the high side.

Fact of the matter is that NYC's sea level looks to be about 50mm above the base period of 2000-2004 despite 7 years of decline. And if we want to not be biased one way or another I think using the middle of the prediction of 6 inches of rise is more fair. So accounting for the rise seen since the base period and a non biased estimate of the rise that would need to be seen to verify this study would be about(if my math is correct) 7.5 mm/year for 13 years. That is half your number!

But if we use the 10 inch number and start with a 2 inch starting point that's 8 inches over 13 years. Or +15mm/yr or so.

A somewhat unlikely figure to be maintained.

 

[Steve Case]

Damn longview... why do you insist on pushing this dishonest misinformation?

First I have to point out that your contention that for this study to not be
hyperbole would require 15mm/year sea level rise over the next 13 years is wrong.
The study is basing it's prediction of 2 to 10 inches of rise in the 2020s on the
base period of 2000-2004. And while sea level rise in NYC has been on the decline
for 7 years it is still above that base period. And while I have to give you credit
for not being a completely blatant denialist and using the highest prediction for
your numbers like Steve Case did...

Here's what I wrote:

...
By the 2020s. Does that mean by 2030? 250 mm Thirteen years from now?
That comes to 19 mm/yr or well over three times the current rate.
When is this dramatic acceleration going to begin to happen?...

On a Google news search on [sea level meters] you don't have to go very far before you
find predictions in the main stream media that require rates three times what it is today

First one up:

Sea levels could rise by more than three metres, shows new study
Phys.Org-Apr 26, 2017
Global sea levels could rise by more than three metres – over half a metre more than previously thought – this century alone, according to a ...
Cutting edge visualizations show how bad sea level rise could get in ...
In-Depth-Mashable-Apr 26, 2017

That's ten times today's rate

Does that make me a blatant denier?

 

[Buzz]

But if we use the 10 inch number and start with a 2 inch starting point that's 8 inches over 13 years. Or +15mm/yr or so.

A somewhat unlikely figure to be maintained.

Yes... unlikely. Isn't that pretty much what the study is saying?

So if we go with the exact opposite end of the prediction and use 2 inches then we are already there. And if the study is correct then it is equally unlikely that the sea level will remain at this level for 13 more years.

 

[Buzz]

Here's what I wrote:

Yeah.... and it was even more biased and misleading than longview's comments.

On a Google news search on [sea level meters] you don't have to go very far before you
find predictions in the main stream media that require rates three times what it is today

First one up:

That's ten times today's rate

Did you even bother to read your "first one up"?

Professor Drijfhout said: "It might be an unlikely scenario, but we can't exclude the possibility of global sea levels rising by more than three metres by the year 2100.

So... 3 meters by 2100 is unlikely. Did you miss that line?

Does that make me a blatant denier?

We all know why media sources like this take the most extreme prediction and use it in the title even though it is unlikely. It makes for great click bait. But when people like you make a big deal about the most extreme end of predictions in a study while you ignore the rest in an effort to discredit it... it makes you a dishonest denier. Just like if someone took that 3 meter prediction and started telling everyone that amount of rise is a certainty they would be an dishonest alarmist.