Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[mhaze]

About the references:
Holgate's

The other: Not found something with that exact title. By adding "science" it shows up a book with 996 pages, contribution of working Group I
....?

So? Some of us here know this latter reference quite well. The IPCC ref to sea level rise you refer to, Fsol and I had quite a discussion about it.




Look at figure 1 in the worldclimereport except from the Holgate article. It simply does not support alarmism on sea level rise.

Macdoc does not like this....

 

[BenBurch]

IPCC is about the most conservative estimate you can find on AGW, MHaze.

I happen to think they are almost as unwilling to believe it as you are.

 

[mhaze]

IPCC is about the most conservative estimate you can find on AGW, MHaze.

I happen to think they are almost as unwilling to believe it as you are.

We are in agreement that here reside several far fringe Warmers.

 

[aleCcowaN]

What argument? That it's a nice day?

Oh and a live cam is fine. This is queensland - it's always nice here!

Sorry! I meant that you endorsed some way that "no sign of this episode ending"with your "4c above average" and links to be followed -I presumed-, all done in a more playful style, more as a margin remark. Then I took that spirit and added the crazy kind of "arguments" (sorry again: lines of reasoning) so often seen in the GW arena and this forum -but here they are disguised as "the horse's leg and not the whole horse", "central limit theorem with a sample containing 2, enough to make deviation the same order of media", "the proper subject abstraction being not the horse but the horse's tail, one ear and the weather vane on the stable", you know -.

 

[aleCcowaN]

So? Some of us here know this latter reference quite well. The IPCC ref to sea level rise you refer to, Fsol and I had quite a discussion about it.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244731ed7796761.png[/qimg]


Look at figure 1 in the worldclimereport except from the Holgate article. It simply does not support alarmism on sea level rise.

Macdoc does not like this....

[Yet another of your changes of subject]

I would say that everyone knows where the shoe pinches. My mother lives in a sea shore resort and she has to pay more and more taxes to the city every year for it to pay for sand to rebuild the beaches as it is considered worldwide that each millimeter the sea raises one meter of land is lost. As a consequence the city is loosing tourists -its main source of income-, and property values are going down. And that's nothing compared to what is happening to Bangladesh delta -land and people you almost mocked in a recent post-. But you celebrated the new salty marshes that country acquires, and surely will justify the fact I just told with local streams and other BS -though that area was well know for its expanding beaches as I used to play 35 years ago in the remains of ships wrecked in 1870-1910 that were hundred of meters from the sea waters.

My mother is also aware that she is paying for something caused mainly by people that throw tons of garbage to the air but willing to fine her in case she fails to hit the garbage can with a candy envelop.

I have now to reply some kind posts here, written by nice and sound people -above average-, then I postpone answering previous and coming post of yours to a few days from now. Feel free in answering all you want, or try -for your health's sake- to refrain yourself of posting here or elsewhere during 24-48 hours.

 

[macdoc]

Let's see mHaze garbage from the denier sites or the very pragmatic Dutch....tough choice that....

snip

ADAPTATION: The Dutch strive to make their country 'climate proof' (ClimateWire, 06/01/2009)

Jean-Marie Macabrey, E&E European reporter AMSTERDAM -- "Can we actually save the Netherlands? Or should we abandon part of the country?"
This is the basic question Dutch leaders were asking themselves within the context of global warming after witnessing Hurricane Katrina's devastating blow to New Orleans in 2005.
During a visit to the Netherlands last week, a delegation from Washington and Louisiana heard that Katrina was a wake-up call for the Dutch because it showed them that levees could fail and that there could be catastrophic damages.
Partly for this reason, the Dutch government appointed a commission -- the second Delta Commission -- in 2007 with a broad mandate spread over a very long term (2100-2200). The commission was asked to evaluate the potential effects of climate change in the Netherlands and to propose measures to "climate-proof" the country: keep it safe from flooding, while preserving its status as an attractive place to invest in, work and live.

The commission concluded that a regional sea level rise of 0.65 to 1.3 meters (2.13 to 4.27 feet) by 2100 and of 2 to 4 meters (6.56 to 13.12 feet) by 2200 should be taken into account. The sea level along the Dutch coast has already risen by approximately 20 centimeters (7.87 inches) over the past century. "Climate change is now forcing itself upon us: a new reality that cannot be ignored," wrote the commission in its report, published last year.
"It's not that we believe that the sea level will rise by 2 meters, but we do need to make sure we take the necessary measures," professor Louise Fresco, a Delta Commission member, told the American delegation, led by U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during a briefing in The Hague on the commission's findings.
Saving the Dutch delta region requires 'immediate measures'

http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/06/01/1

 

[mhaze]

[Yet another of your changes of subject]

I would say that everyone knows where the shoe pinches. My mother lives in a sea shore resort and she has to pay more and more taxes to the city every year for it to pay for sand to rebuild the beaches as it is considered worldwide that each millimeter the sea raises one meter of land is lost. .....

Land moves up or down, as well as sea level.

Sea level has been slowly rising for 10,000 years. Melt is still moving from land to sea from the last ice age, much of it underground.

The only question of relevance to this discussion is whether the has been a recent increase or accelating trend in sea level rise, such as might justify concern about Bangladesh.

Apparently not.

 

[BenBurch]

So, when can we see your scientific magnum opus, MHaze?

 

[mhaze]

Ben, your use of Rule 5 of Alinsky - Ridicule your Opposition because it infuriates them (instead of producing a substantial argument)....

Doesn't work.

Also, it is getting repetitive and ..... booorrringggg.

 

[BenBurch]

No rules by any fictional internet boogieman regulate my behavior, and I demand an apology for that assertion.

I challenged you to prove your ridiculous assertion by crunching the data for yourself and publishing the result. You changed the subject.

 

[aleCcowaN]

... it is considered worldwide that each millimeter the sea raises one meter of land is lost.

Erratum: the average is about one meter of land lost each centimeter the sea raises.

A bit over 1 m/mm is the average rate in San Borombón Bay

getting repetitive and ..... booorrringggg.

No need for you to self promote

 

[fsol]

So? Some of us here know this latter reference quite well. The IPCC ref to sea level rise you refer to, Fsol and I had quite a discussion about it.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_142244731ed7796761.png[/qimg]


Look at figure 1 in the worldclimereport except from the Holgate article. It simply does not support alarmism on sea level rise.

Macdoc does not like this....

As I remember the discussion was because you trumpeted a paper as proving the IPCC wrong when you didn't even understand what the paper had done.

It turned out that the paper didn't prove the IPCC wrong at all. It also turned out that you didn't understand the table you just posted either.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now CD, repeat after me.

I will not argue with macdoc again about that graph...
I will not argue with macdoc again about that graph...
I will not argue with macdoc again about that graph...
I will not argue with macdoc again about that graph...

I will not. However you can only depend on your original argument for so long as data accumulates, and we are used to thinking in terms of years here. We know how long previous episodes lasted (because they finished) but this one remains open-ended. And time does fly. When did you argue about it first? It must have been a while back now. Not long after you joined our happy crew as I recall (but then my recall ain't what it was when I started here myself ...)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Gee whiz, I thought this was the science subforum...

 

[Poptech]

They don't like SourceWatch as it exposes the manufactured controversy.

No we don't like worthless sources that can be edited by anyone and are funded by environmentalist activist groups.

Sourcewatch

$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy

- Sourcewatch (Discover the Networks)

These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)

An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".

In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.

The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."

Sourcewatch is as worthless as Wikipedia.

They don't like RealClimate as it is actual science by climate scientists and Gavin et al do not suffer fools such as them.

The Truth about RealClimate.org

RealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.

The truth about these organizations can only stay hidden for so long.

 

[CapelDodger]

Land moves up or down, as well as sea level.

Not at random it doesn't.

Sea level has been slowly rising for 10,000 years.

10K years ago we'd not long come out of the Younger Dryas. What about the last thousand or two thousand years? Sea level has been falling for the last 55 million years but now it's rising. What do you make of that, eh?

Melt is still moving from land to sea from the last ice age, much of it underground.

According to what evidence? How come nobody noticed until recently? Have you forgotten the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? You used to be so attached to those.

The only question of relevance to this discussion is whether the has been a recent increase or accelating trend in sea level rise, such as might justify concern about Bangladesh.

Why would you be concerned about Bangladesh anyway?

Apparently not.

India is concerned about Bangladesh, which is why they've built a fence around it.

 

[BenBurch]

Gee whiz, I thought this was the science subforum...

Hilarious, isn't it?

 

[MattusMaximus]

No we don't like worthless sources that can be edited by anyone and are funded by environmentalist activist groups.

...

The truth about these organizations can only stay hidden for so long.

You know, Poptech, we have two subforums that discuss what you're talking about: politics and economics. This is the science subforum, so how about sticking to... umm, I don't know... science?

 

[Poptech]

So we have a Pascal's choice.

We can chose to do it now at X cost for subsequent generations or
we can delay and pay 20X cost for subsequent generations if it is done later (the twenty is just a number it could be 2).

So if we do it now, we save money either way, if AGW is human related or not. In this Pascals choice you have:
-save money if AGW is not true
-save money and help the climate if AGW is true

Why Pascal's Wager is a Retarted Argument (Video) (2min)

And the acidification of the oceans is another reason besides the likely AGW.

CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future (PDF) (Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography)

The ocean chemistry aspect of this theory is rather straightforward; but it certainly is not as solid as acidification alarmists make it out to be. In evaluating global seawater impacts of (1) model-predicted global warming and (2) direct seawater chemical consequences of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, Loaiciga (2006), for example, used a mass-balance approach to (1) "estimate the change in average seawater salinity caused by the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow in a warming earth," and he (2) applied "a chemical equilibrium model for the concentration of carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere" in order to "estimate the effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 on the acidity of seawater." Assuming that the rise in the planet's mean surface air temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of all terrestrial ice and permanent snow, Loaiciga calculated that "the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61‰ from its current 35‰." He also reports that across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30°C), "a doubling of CO2 from 380 ppm to 760 ppm increases the seawater acidity [lowers its pH] approximately 0.19 pH units." He thus concludes that "on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2."

 

[CapelDodger]

No we don't like worthless sources that can be edited by anyone and are funded by environmentalist activist groups.

You mean you could edit them? What are you wasting your time here for instead of fighting the good fight against the Liberal Authoritarian Movement that's melting all those glaciers?

You may have noticed (almost anything's possible) that we don't copy-paste from these scare-sites of yours, whereas we definitely have noticed (and have commented on the ffact) that you do copy-paste from your favoured sources while contributing nothing original except your whining (which is hardly that original anyway).

Your claim that recent climate history disagrees with projections has been shown to be rubbish. Do you have some reason to disagree? If so you haven't presented it yet. Regard this as an opportunity to do so.