|
|
Post by steve on Feb 4, 2012 15:03:34 GMT
They clearly haven't taken into account the impact of the crocodile population.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2012 15:20:05 GMT
Steve:
Nor the polar bears.....right?
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 4, 2012 19:37:30 GMT
They clearly haven't taken into account the impact of the crocodile population. Well seeing as how there is no refutation of the .045 mm per unit of SSN derived best fit match of SSN to sea level.  Maybe you were referring to loss of alligators and mammals in Florida matched to AGW hockey sticks. Best fit to Python. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 5, 2012 17:27:03 GMT
In relation to a similar study on the river level of the Paramo river, a friend of mine who does statistics created many sets of random data with similar frequency distribution to the sun and many other sets with similar distribution to the river level data.
He then paired up the datasets and carried out the same statistical analysis as done for the Paramo river data (ie. detrending and smoothing).
He found that for random datasets a fit as good as the paper was found 20% of the time.
In this case the data has been detrended by converting it into a *rate* of sea level rise.
So accepting the analysis still requires you to accept an underlying and ongoing rise of sea levels. The important question is what is causing the *underlying* rise of sea levels, not what is causing variations in the rate of the rise of sea levels.
(Nothing in this post denies that the Sun has an influence on large scale weather and climate.)
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 5, 2012 17:51:38 GMT
Steve:
Would not the underlying rate of sea level rise be the normal climatic function of an interglacial?
We had rather abrupt rise in the early Holocene, and since then a slow but steady rise. I am talking multi century here, as we all know that within the trend there have been periods of negative sea level rise as well as postitive sea level rise.
I do think we ask ourselves questions, relying on proxy data to answer said questions, but the resolution and actual quality of the proxies make long term assumptions that one really has to have a "belief" system in place to view as credible.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 5, 2012 17:57:28 GMT
Another assumption that one has to make is that the climate varies very little. We both know that climate is chaotic, and demonstrates the ability to "shift" in a rather abrupt fashion.
I asked a question yesterday of a ardent AGW fellow. What percentage of the current warming trend is AGW in nature, and what percentage is climatic in nature? He has not responded as of yet. Earlier posts would indicate he believes the last 40 years of increased temperatures is all from CO2. I cann't find any papers of credence ....note credence....that even indicate what fraction of the warming at present is AGW and what fration is climatic.
I have no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have very large reservations as to the sensativity of our climate to CO2. I can see no more credibility to the 1.2C rise verses the 5.6C rise. There are too many assumptions taken, the variation shows those assumptions, and in reality, who knows which assumptions are correct? And which are wrong?
We just don't have the means with any duration of time to accept one over the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 5, 2012 20:57:02 GMT
sigurdur,
What I'm pointing out really is that the article trying to link sea level to solar cycle has failed to link the ongoing rise to solar, so it doesn't really say a lot about AGW.
Re your next post, in not knowing the credibility of 1.2 vs 5.6 you are saying what Judith Curry said. She also said that the case for CAGW was still not made which seems rather odd if she thinks that 6C is not out of the bounds of possibility. I pointed this out on her blog, but like you I have not had an answer to your question.
I'll give you an answer to your question which is of course the IPCC answer. The authors of the IPCC report have come to the view, having looked at the available scientific evidence, that it is very likely that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 5, 2012 21:07:47 GMT
Steve:
That is what the IPCC says.......based on the information they had at the time. Since AR4 was written, we have learned that TSI has been much more stable than previously thought.
We have also learned that the climate response of a tropical warm spot is not evident, no matter how anyone wants to try and find it........it just isn't there.
We have also learned that the stratosphere, ref paper on strat cooling in this forum, has not cooled as the models project.
I have actually read the IPCC, and see no validity to which sensativity is correct. When I got done reading it, and some of the underlying studies, I thought to myself, this is like a dart board. They threw a dart and hit approx 3.0C. The next dart may have been different.
As you know, being an old timer on this board, I am a farmer and take a very keen interest in climate science. I have been exposed to enough snake oil salesmen to spot one a mile away anymore. There is an aweful lot of snake oil in the IPCC. I will leave it at that.
I had hoped that by now our scientific abilities would have more credence, but when thinking back, I fully understand it is an infant science. There are just too many colors of the painting that aren't yet included to make the painting sellable.
I don't know if you agree with that or not, but I really am a true skeptic. I want the science to be correct so I can use it as a planning tool. The certainty of climate science at present in no way can be used for any long term planning purposes. I do hope the day comes soon when I can redact that statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 5, 2012 21:14:15 GMT
Steve:
When I look at the long term trend, the warming of the past 50 years is mostly an extension of a previous trend. In my humble opinion, it looks to me like approx .1C of our last 40 years comes from AGW, the rest was going to happen no matter what.
When looking at OHC, this reminds me of just which wavelength results in heating of the oceans. LW radiation just does not penetrate water well. SW does, which we both know.
To think that more LW is going to have this dramatic effect is just pure foolishness.
The easiest way to observe this is too look at the north side of a building, in our hemisphere. Snow will stay, even with warm temperature. However, on the south side of the building, the snow is all gone.
You can have a cloudy day of 50F, and the ground won't thaw. You can have a sunny day, such as today here, of 40F, and the ground has thawed 1/2". I was just out dumping a truck of cull potatoes, so this is a very recent observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 13, 2012 13:52:06 GMT
Scary stuff from Mr. Greens EPA. From the EPA's website. One meter seems like the best guess to them. Not the 2" or less per century. "Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Land Use" "Future global warming could raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers, and eventually, causing polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to melt or slide into the oceans. Hughes (1983) and Bentley (1983) suggested that over a period of 200-500 years, it might be possible for global warming to induce a complete disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which would raise sea level about 6 meters. Most recent assessments, however, have focussed on the rise that could occur in the next century. As Figure 1 shows, the estimates are generally between 50 and 200 centimeters, with recent estimates being at the low end of the range. All assessments of future sea level rise have emphasized that much of the data necessary for accurate estimates is unavailable. As a result, studies of the possible impacts generally have used a range of scenarios. Nevertheless, for convenience of exposition, it is often necessary to refer to only a single estimate. For illustrative purposes, we follow the convention of referring to a one meter rise in sea level. " epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/SLRLandUse.html |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 14, 2012 4:16:40 GMT
2 meters 3 meters Mr. Green and the EPA are sure of their numbers. Forget the historical 2" per century. Forget any thoughts of sea level falling due to natural cycles. Think of the children. (nth redo of sloppy math) do the math earth radius = 6378.1 Kilometers (OK you can argue with this) V= 4/3*pie R3 so volume of earth is around V1=1,086,780,374,578 K3 add lets say 2M to be conservative (not the three for Boston in the graphic) so volume is around V2=1,087,803,066,205 K3 for simplicity V2 - V1 = 1,022,691,627 K3 of additional water. Ever wonder where 1,022,691,627 cubic kilometers of H2O is coming from? With all of the glaciers already melted then maybe from Gore in Antarctica (30,000,000 km3)? Maybe fill in a few swimming pools in California. Well maybe only 70% of the number. So a lot of Antarctica (300%) has to melt to get the extra 1 billion cubic kilometers of H2O by 2100 and so far it has not been shrinking. My math must be bad as wiki has vol at "1,083,210,000,000 km3", well math is now close.  This is interactively from the Smithsonian. ocean.si.edu/ocean-photos/map-boston-3-meter-sea-level-rise |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 14, 2012 22:31:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Feb 14, 2012 23:11:35 GMT
What strikes me as odd is the substantial drop in sea level in 2010 in the CU study. I think it was blamed on the cooling of the Pacific due to a strong la nina. Check it out and scroll down. sealevel.colorado.edu/ |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 15, 2012 0:13:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 15, 2012 2:30:30 GMT
Well given this state of affairs I cannot see how we will reach the EPA's 3.5 meter goal anytime soon. I still am shocked at the Smithsonian Boston 3 meter gambit. I am eagerly awaiting Gore's pronouncement from Antarctica. |
|
