Spring Comes Early To The Arctic

[ruckman101]

Oh oh, even those with a direct link to God seem to be in agreement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110510/ap_ ... FuLWFwcG8-

"Perhaps the reality that the Vatican recognizes this fact, as the report indicates, is worth mentioning to those who remain unconvinced of human-induced climate change," Ekwurzel said in an email.



neal

[turk]

or the deceleration of sea rise by the Journal of Coastal Research,

This is an example of how we have to be careful with our interpretations. Yell "deceleration!" enough times, and people will think that the sea level is actually falling. I hear people on various news networks who rant and rave about statistics and "evidence" to support their obvious biases every day even as the very same statistics and evidence are showing an opposite conclusion.

Coastal communities where 50% of the human population reside will have to deal with sea rise if the sea rise is rising regardless if the rate of rise has slowed if it has been proven that our ability to adapt to rise is non-existent. Venice for example is completely at the mercy of sea level. Every lousy centimeter is trouble. Go tell them that happy days are here again, the rate of rise has decelerated however briefly that may prove to be true.
Colin

No one is "yelling". We are trying to have a clearer picture than what is spoon-fed by the juggernaut of alarmist media reports. There is a difference between advocacy and science, and data doesn't always support the causes of the alarmists. We are not so obtuse to think the word deceleration means falling sea level. What I question is the theory it is caused by us. I only follow where the data leads. We do hear a lot of reports of data leading one way, but the picture is bigger. This we don't hear as much. So, what you or I believe is only reinforced, or not, by the data. In the case of rising sea level, it is complex. More so than a "smoking gun", some would like to portray - our CO2 emissions the culprit. I said earlier, I would stick to data primarily. This in response to flyaway's request that I "put up", (or shut-up presumably). What I intend is to provide a larger picture frame. I don't intend to "disprove" the predominant popular theory. Only to show there are more sides to the story. How am I to disprove a negative? The burden of proof is on those claiming the opposite: that it is caused by us (CO2 emissions). It's not on me to disprove what isn't proved yet. Make sense? That is the point of the "Null Hypothesis" link I provided above. It is totally "germane" to this debate. Absolutely logical. Thirty years of data is what it is. Data before that is what it is. It shows very little in the way of a smoking gun.
Now then, sea rise? Yes, Venice is dealing with it. It's been so for a long time. It's not accelerating now though. Wouldn't that be the logical assumption if CO2 emissions are the cause of said? CO2 emissions have increased no doubt. Sea-rise is not though, according to this. Here is the PFD again. No yelling. In my little opinion, the sea is a BIG fuckin' thing. Ocean Heat Content is probably a more important metric of Global Warming than surface station temperature measurement data. But, seriously, how does the surface station temperature readings (the lower atmosphere presumably) convect heat to the ocean? Ever think about it? Well, another fine discussion is in order. Science friend!
Okay, on to more contrary data to the meme. Let's put to rest any snap assumptions the recent weather was the result of Global Warming: HERE. That's the authority on it.
Uh let's see what else I can dig up. Really lots. Lets take THIS study as an example they don't have the smoking gun. Ever hear that one? It is repeated here.
I could go on, and I will. I have a literal cornucopia of dissent within peer-reviewed literature. I really do. I just started to dole out a few things from the tip of the ice-berg (no pun intended). I reserve the best for later. My point: it's not a smoking gun. That's what some want, but it ain't. Carry on. I'll BE BAAAACK.

[deschutestrout]

or the deceleration of sea rise by the Journal of Coastal Research,

I reserve the best for later.

So in other words...you're still searching for convincing, data-supported arguments?

[turk]

You must be illiterate. You just come along and post snark. I posted the data which is contrary to the meme. Go read it, then come back with something useful to promote your conviction. I've said all along: I bet anyone here to provide that evidence (smoking gun = CO2). There are links above. ^^ Click them. Refute if you can. And I reserved the best links I have for later. Yeah, I reserved 'em. Let's see your argument.

[deschutestrout]

[ruckman101]

The deceleration is in relationship to projected rates of acceleration. Sea levels are rising slower than initially projected. Not that big a surprise, considering the constant refinement of scientific models and data gathering tools. So how does this prove that human activity hasn't contributed to the rate of change?

And the tornados article? It certainly doesn't state that climate change hasn't been a contributing factor, only that current science data collection capabilities aren't able to definitively find a connection between the two at this time. So, again, I'm confused about how you feel this supports your assumptions.

And the third link sounds like, again, numbers that are a relationship to earlier predicted figures, and an admission of refining those numbers to build more accurate computer modeling to bear on the task, which, with all the variables involved, can't support pointing to CO2 and the known contribution of CO2 by human activity specifically as a direct correlation of climate change at this time, with this model. Variations from predictions of earlier less refined models. Go figure.

How does this prove human activity hasn't added negatively to the issue?

It would appear to me you're picking at straws in an attempt to prove the haystack doesn't exist.

Five days and a "boatload" comes down to the reposts of two links, with one additional.



neal

[turk]

The deceleration is in relationship to projected rates of acceleration. Sea levels are rising slower than initially projected. Not that big a surprise, considering the constant refinement of scientific models and data gathering tools. So how does this prove that human activity hasn't contributed to the rate of change?

And the tornados article? It certainly doesn't state that climate change hasn't been a contributing factor, only that current science data collection capabilities aren't able to definitively find a connection between the two at this time. So, again, I'm confused about how you feel this supports your assumptions.

And the third link sounds like, again, numbers that are a relationship to earlier predicted figures, and an admission of refining those numbers to build more accurate computer modeling to bear on the task, which, with all the variables involved, can't support pointing to CO2 and the known contribution of CO2 by human activity specifically as a direct correlation of climate change at this time, with this model. Variations from predictions of earlier less refined models. Go figure.

How does this prove human activity hasn't added negatively to the issue?

It would appear to me you're picking at straws in an attempt to prove the haystack doesn't exist.

Five days and a "boatload" comes down to the reposts of two links, with one additional.



neal

I have way, way more believe it. On the order of 1,000 peer-reviewed papers skeptical of man made climate change. I'm waiting to post the links. (waiting for the debate to get better than it is now - we're still dawdling in lameville). Those and clearly dead wrong projections of climate change made by the principals of its advocacy, shown in graphs for the eyeballs of devout believers. So, your logic here is to move the goal posts from scarier to less scary, while insisting proof something not proven isn't happening. LOL. Yeah, go re-read the preceding sentence again. That's your logic.
Yeah, it will get less scary the more data you actually look at. But that shouldn't matter to the fanatic.

[turk]

The deceleration is in relationship to projected rates of acceleration. Sea levels are rising slower than initially projected. Not that big a surprise, considering the constant refinement of scientific models and data gathering tools. So how does this prove that human activity hasn't contributed to the rate of change?
neal

You didn't read the paper did you?

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Even if what you said were the case (which it is not), don't act unsurprised when the rest of the scary projections turn out like all the others you've presented (i.e. catastrophic phytoplankton depletion). But none of it matters. Cataclysm and disaster are worth the salt of your excessive weening.

[ruckman101]

http://www.solarimpulse.com/

It can be done.



neal

[ruckman101]

One of the authors of that study says,...

"Saying, "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising. Our study showed that the rise is not accelerating - it is actually slightly decelerating over at least the last 80 years.

An analogy would be driving a car. If you are driving at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour, the car is not accelerating, but obviously moving. Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year for the past 100 years. We considered whether the 60 mile per hour speed of the car was accelerating (you are pushing on the gas pedal) or decelerating (you are pushing on the brake). We found a slight deceleration - sea level over the past 100 years, in particularly the past 80 years, has decelerated slightly, but it is rising."


neal

[turk]

No shit. It's not accelerating though. It's decelerating. Kinda goes against the meme don't it? The whole point. Guess what? The planet does shit. The climate changes across it too.

We didn't do it.

[ruckman101]

I'm well familiar with your opinion. However, I certainly have yet to see any proof from you to support it.


neal

[turk]

Like I said above, I have to nothing to prove. So far I've offered about half a dozen links to studies (above and before) which analyzed data that contradicts the meme. Like I said, I only intend to provide a bigger picture through the peer-reviewed studies I cite. Bigger than the dull clap-trap about doom. I have lots more - like I said, about 1,000 peer-reviewed studies skeptical of man-made climate change. I'll dole them out as I see fit. So, to recap thus far: peer-reviewed studies I cited show: no decrease of phytoplankton, rather increase; no acceleration of sea-rise, rather deceleration; no robust connection of CO2 to climate sensitivity; no causal connection of tornados to climate change; the predictions of Hansen et. al, in the late eighties were off the mark by a factor of 6. No "climate refugees" yet; no inundation of coasts yet; very little global warming measured - not even outside the signal noise or error bars of instrumental measurement. Satellite measurement showed no tropopause hot-spot yet, in thirty years of data. I can dig up the last two again. Like I said I have a cache of 1,000. This is fun.

[ruckman101]

Skeptical? Excuse me. Your framing of the issue is inflammatory and simplistic. Nothing you've presented "contradicts the meme", but rather points out discrepancies of data, exploring the methodology that generated that data in an effort to improve the certainty of future studies.

As the instruments are refined, and the available data is expanded and becomes more certain, humanity's contribution to the problem only becomes harder and harder to deny.

But by all means, keep grasping at straws.



neal

[turk]

Predicting the future is hard. I'm not flaming anyone. I'm only providing the other side of the story. The contradictory evidence.