Ocean Concerns

[Dave_S]

I know it's not relevant but if that were a stock I would be buying up shorts (betting it will drop).

[darylat8750]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I find it impossible to either believe or disbelieve global warming.

What I do know for sure is that reporting that everything is going well doesn't make money and it is easy to spread bad news which does make money.

Charts and graphs and statements can be manipulated to provide a positive or negative outcome while still being factual they are a misrepresentation and intended to direct us to their point of view.

If in the image above they chose 25% or 5% ice coverage instead of 15% the visual would look different, maybe better or worse - choose the one that looks like what your selling.

My point is, from this seat, it is not possible to know if it is real or not. If I had to guess, Id say its fiction because probability leans that way.

However I see no reason why we shouldn't improve out treatment of the planet.

Well said.

[geoleo]

........lotsa crapola going around on this. NASA says -in their Sea Level description frontage- that they cannot couple (connect, correlate,) 'Ice size on land' changes with Sea Levels at all! So that statement blows hell out of all the glaciers melting, Antartica changes etc. etc. causing sea levels to rise. Besides the previous OP was correct, Nasa s recent readings past 2 years do show a drop on NASA graph.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

hmmm . . here is the actual NASA graph you are referring to. I would very politely suggest that it shows (and NASA would believe) sea level IS (still) in fact rising over time (3.4mm/year), with the expected random fluctuation.

Attachment 158532

Hey we can see and read- past 2 years it shows no rise at all and if you average the fluctuations per reading it shows a slight drop.

[geoleo]

.........then another NASA so called- study says the recent 'decline in rising sea levels " is probably caused by more water being on land now due to increased rain and more irrigation!! Next they will say more water is on land now because of recent hurricanes-- Have they given the dried -up Aral Sea and thought? Plus that other NASA graph confirms my 5inch rise since 1900 and 7 3/4 inch rise since 1870. Given the known variations in sea level history I don't think it is significant.........................however OVERPOPULATION is the huge elephant in the room and the leftists encouragement of unlimited families who cant feed themselves is making this much worse . meanwhile Al the Gore keeps flying around in his personal jet wasting precious fuel I could use in my sailboat.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by darylat8750

Well said.

an Ocean 44 uses a lot of dirty fuel ! aren't you feeling guilty?

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by StuM

There, fixed it for you

Thanks, beat me to it. Sea level rise as the NA ice sheet melted was around 350 feet in relatively short order. Now at a pretty constant rate since way before the industrialized era. It has been much lower and somewhat higher. Much as the climate has been both significantly hotter and colder.

I suggest the site WUWT for climate news, reviews and publications by many outside the political narrative.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

^^ A classic example of how the uneducated and stupid can distort the facts to suit their own narrative. Take a few 'facts' that selectively suit your arguement. Ignore the bigger context and the rest of the data that doesn't suit. So what about the rest of the 100 or so years of data showing sea levels rising? A few years ago the denialists narrative was that Nasa was making up stuff because it didn't suit their own beliefs.

https://youtu.be/LxEGHW6Lbu8

and there you have the classic example of attacking the people who see past the mmgwm. what next...calling their mom?

[danielamartindm]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

And of course this is why threads like this get closed down so often.

I didn't expect you to provide citations, or even sources (and, as assumed, you've proved my expectation), so I looked your assertions up based on a verbatim quote of them.

And, predictably, the first assertion appears to come from a bloggers opinion, complete with an 'Al Gore is getting rich conspiracy theory':

NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout | Zero Hedge

I would say to their credit, the blogger did reference a NASA report

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

but what the report says and the blogger states (and implies) are so far from each other that no credit is deserved, in fact, a cautionary note describing the level of misrepresentation would be more appropriate.


A slightly more informative report, also from NASA, explaining the slowing of the rate of sea level rise, is available here.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...-water-on-land


The second assertion,

'there was recently a large kill-off of penguin chicks in Antarctica due to vastly thicker sea ice'

yields the same kind of misrepresentation from ClimateDepot, a well-known 'denier' site.

Thousands of penguin chicks starve in Antarctica in ‘unusually thick sea ice’ | Climate Depot

This particular 'article' was written by none other that Marc Morano, a well known scumbag who encourages death threats to climate scientists and their families, and professes to enjoy them himself when he gets them.

You can hear the words from his own mouth at about 48 minutes here, but it would be more educational to watch the whole film...

As for what really happened to the penguins, far from the implication of their deaths 'due to vastly thicker sea ice', a huge iceberg that broke off in 2010, likely as a result of increased melting, has changed the environmental conditions in the local area, causing the penguins to have to travel much farther to reach their normal food source.

As reported here,

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-thousa...ntarctica.html


"Yan Ropert-Coudert, senior penguin scientist at Dumont D'Urville research stion, adjacent to the colony, said the region was impacted by environmental changes linked to the breakup of the Mertz glacier.
"The conditions are set for this to happen more frequently due to the breaking of the Mertz glacier in 2010 that changed the configuration of the stretch of sea in front of the colony," he told AFP.
"But there are other factors needed to have a zero year: a mix of temperature, wind direction and strength, no opening of polynya in front of the colony.""


As for

'You're rebutting my relaying of NASA's statement on worldwide sea levels with graphics regarding sea ice extent'.


what I'm actually doing is using sea ice extent as a proxy for sea ice volume; extent has a direct relation to volume, and therefore would counter your implication that Antarctic-wide ice was growing 'vastly thicker'.

Sea ice volume is by far the hardest to calculate, and it is only recently that extent has not been a primary consideration in the calculation. (that is my assumption)

The areas of low concentration, the much smaller-than-average area, and the (likely) much smaller volume all argue against the (implied) statement that Antarctic sea ice was everywhere vastly thicker.


To address several other 'objections' all at once.

The original post, about the potential collapse of the thermohaline circulation of the ocean, is intimately tied to the questions of climate change, sea level rise and Adelie penguins, not so much Milankovitch cycles (only because they're not so chaotic).

Since the force of the circulation is determined by, among many other things, the salinity and temperature of the ocean, effects of the atmosphere on the ocean from rain, temperature and wind all have potential effects on that force.

There is no doubt in the scientific community that greenhouse gases have a thermostatic effect on the climate; roughly speaking, add gases, the temperature goes up, remove them, the temperature goes down. This has been known for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks there is some kind of 'debate' about this is completely out of touch with the scientific community, the parallel of the 'debate' between young earth creationists and evolutionary biologists comes irresistibly to mind...

So, if climate can (and does) effect the thermohaline circulation, changing the climate must affect the THC (haha). And not to forget the Adelies, they feed on krill, which are dependent on (again, among other things) the upwellings of nutrients provided in part by, you guessed it, the THC. So maybe the loss of a few hundred thousand penguins is --good?--appropriate?--to be expected?--completely natural? --survival of the fittest?...but if krill are in trouble, what about the whales?

This is of course just to demonstrate a point. The concern with the climate over, say, the loss of arable top soil, or overfishing, of lack of clean water, or overpopulation, or any of the myriad of problems over any other is just--to put it nicely--ignorant.

These problems cannot be separated, because the earth operates as a system and is finite. Therefore, the only way to solve any of them is to treat them as a whole, or at least as much as possible as a whole, with long-term results in mind.

A very tall order indeed...

Referring to someone with whom you disagree as a vulgar word for a condom, and "nicely" characterizing me as "ignorant" do not boost your credibility, nor does pretending to understand more about the earth and its complex systems than we really do; and "settled science" beauties like yourself are the true deniers, as not all in the scientific community agree that the climate IS warming. THAT is an inconvenient truth for you. Resorting to insults, rather than just stating your opinion, makes you sound as if you're likely foaming at the mouth.

[UFO]

"There is no doubt in the scientific community that greenhouse gases have a thermostatic effect on the climate; roughly speaking, add gases, the temperature goes up, remove them, the temperature goes down. This has been known for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks there is some kind of 'debate' about this is completely out of touch with the scientific community, the parallel of the 'debate' between young earth creationists and evolutionary biologists comes irresistibly to mind..."

Not Strictly true - The particulate matter of such Gases can and does have an opposite effect on global warming, by directly effecting the radiation balance of the atmosphere and what makes it into the planet and what is reflected. There have been quite a few recent studies on this and a very interesting one was done directly after 9-11 in regards to particulate matter above the USA - It found that with the Grounding of ALL Aircraft after 9-11 there was a substantial increase in average Air Temperatures for that period, due to the reduced emissions from aircraft.
As previously said, Stats can be used and manipulated to show whatever you want - You can't believe a word from the MSM as they all have agendas depending on who owns/controls them. As for the bulk of scientists, most of them are more interested in keeping their grants going and certainly know which side their bread is buttered on.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

and there you have the classic example of attacking the people who see past the mmgwm. what next...calling their mom?

Sure, and if that and the "denier" label don't silence those with different opinions, the next step is to get the thread closed so those opinions won't be heard. Or how about, as we've already seen, trashing opinions and authors as coming from "denialist" blogs or websites as opposed to challenging the opinions themselves?

Why is it that the very people who are so convinced the science is "settled" the same ones who have such fear of reading opinions that suggest it is not? Could it be the same reason we've yet to read a rebuttal, to cite but one example, to StuM's graph showing that sea levels rose at a much more dramatic rate prior to the industrial age than they did after MMGW was supposedly to blame?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Suijin

There is much we don't understand or know. However, I'm siding with the scientists and what we do know as of today, which is that the earth is warming and that polar ice is melting at an accelerating rate.

Pretty wide agreement on the warming, but the scientific consensus narrows on how much is attributable to humans and what, if anything, can be done about it.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I find it impossible to either believe or disbelieve global warming.

What I do know for sure is that reporting that everything is going well doesn't make money and it is easy to spread bad news which does make money.

Charts and graphs and statements can be manipulated to provide a positive or negative outcome while still being factual they are a misrepresentation and intended to direct us to their point of view.

If in the image above they chose 25% or 5% ice coverage instead of 15% the visual would look different, maybe better or worse - choose the one that looks like what your selling.

My point is, from this seat, it is not possible to know if it is real or not. If I had to guess, Id say its fiction because probability leans that way.

However I see no reason why we shouldn't improve out treatment of the planet.

You're describing a tactic of the so-called-skeptic community (denier is so much simpler, why can't these people embrace their convictions?)

The 15% extent shown in the graph was chosen for some reason (I assume you can look it up here, https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/); I've forgotten why it was.

The second image, the concentration map, is much more informative in that it provides a visual reference to the actual state of the ice cover.

To illustrate:

This is a map


Depicting this graph


while this map



should illustrate your point that 'If in the image above they chose 25% or 5% ice coverage instead of 15% the visual would look different'.

Scientists are 'selling' information usually to inform. The 'skeptic crowd' are selling an ideological position, based on their being misinformed or the desire for short term profit.

Would like to hear more about 'I'd say its fiction because probability leans that way.'

Originally Posted by geoleo

"sea Level" has risen 4.82 inches on average since 1896

Source?

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I know it's not relevant but if that were a stock I would be buying up shorts (betting it will drop).

And if you held them more that a couple of years you'd likely loose...

Originally Posted by geoleo

........lotsa crapola going around on this. NASA says -in their Sea Level description frontage- that they cannot couple (connect, correlate,) 'Ice size on land' changes with Sea Levels at all! So that statement blows hell out of all the glaciers melting, Antartica changes etc. etc. causing sea levels to rise. Besides the previous OP was correct, Nasa s recent readings past 2 years do show a drop on NASA graph.

Sounds suspiciously like cherry-picking...could you post at least a complete sentence from the website?

Originally Posted by geoleo

.........then another NASA so called- study says the recent 'decline in rising sea levels " is probably caused by more water being on land now due to increased rain and more irrigation!! Next they will say more water is on land now because of recent hurricanes-- Have they given the dried -up Aral Sea and thought? Plus that other NASA graph confirms my 5inch rise since 1900 and 7 3/4 inch rise since 1870. Given the known variations in sea level history I don't think it is significant.........................however OVERPOPULATION is the huge elephant in the room and the leftists encouragement of unlimited families who cant feed themselves is making this much worse . meanwhile Al the Gore keeps flying around in his personal jet wasting precious fuel I could use in my sailboat.

These things are always great fun because they let me hone my abilities with old Al's invention.

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Thanks, beat me to it. Sea level rise as the NA ice sheet melted was around 350 feet in relatively short order. Now at a pretty constant rate since way before the industrialized era. It has been much lower and somewhat higher. Much as the climate has been both significantly hotter and colder.

I suggest the site WUWT for climate news, reviews and publications by many outside the political narrative.

Just to repeat



Ice melt lags behind temp rise, which lags behind greenhouse gas levels.

To recommend WUWT as being 'outside the political narrative' is just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

Referring to someone with whom you disagree as a vulgar word for a condom, and "nicely" characterizing me as "ignorant" do not boost your credibility, nor does pretending to understand more about the earth and its complex systems than we really do; and "settled science" beauties like yourself are the true deniers, as not all in the scientific community agree that the climate IS warming. THAT is an inconvenient truth for you. Resorting to insults, rather than just stating your opinion, makes you sound as if you're likely foaming at the mouth.

Referring to someone who characterizes encouraging death threats to anyone doing their job, or worse, encouraging them to their families and children as a 'public service' as a scumbag, (which is generally defined
as a contemptible person), would I think be what any ethically normal person would do. Never even thought about the connection between the term and a condom, but hey, I'm demonstrably very much more ignorant than you...

As regards to calling you ignorant, please advise how the statement

'The concern with the climate over, say, the loss of arable top soil, or overfishing, of lack of clean water, or overpopulation, or any of the myriad of problems over any other is just--to put it nicely--ignorant.'

Has anything to do with you? If anyone, the person who should be 'offended' is Hpeer, who, in the second post brought up the point (and about which my 'point' was suggested).

And if I were a whiner/skeptic/denier, I could probably click on that little in the lower left hand corner about this statement,

'makes you sound as if you're likely foaming at the mouth'

since it might be construed as seeming like a personal attack. But I'm not, and won't, because these are 'fun-while-they-last'.

Hey, maybe like Mr. Morano, I think they're a public service...
'

Originally Posted by UFO

"There is no doubt in the scientific community that greenhouse gases have a thermostatic effect on the climate; roughly speaking, add gases, the temperature goes up, remove them, the temperature goes down. This has been known for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks there is some kind of 'debate' about this is completely out of touch with the scientific community, the parallel of the 'debate' between young earth creationists and evolutionary biologists comes irresistibly to mind..."

Not Strictly true - The particulate matter of such Gases can and does have an opposite effect on global warming, by directly effecting the radiation balance of the atmosphere and what makes it into the planet and what is reflected. There have been quite a few recent studies on this and a very interesting one was done directly after 9-11 in regards to particulate matter above the USA - It found that with the Grounding of ALL Aircraft after 9-11 there was a substantial increase in average Air Temperatures for that period, due to the reduced emissions from aircraft.
As previously said, Stats can be used and manipulated to show whatever you want - You can't believe a word from the MSM as they all have agendas depending on who owns/controls them. As for the bulk of scientists, most of them are more interested in keeping their grants going and certainly know which side their bread is buttered on.

Which is of course why I said 'roughly speaking'.

I'm aware pf the 9-11 study (which was not particularly recent) and if I remember correctly, the temperature reduction was mostly (if not entirely) because of reduction of particulate emissions, not greenhouse gases.

So you are correct in saying,

'Stats can be used and manipulated to show whatever you want',

Which appears to be exactly what you're doing.


The tired old mantra, this time presented as

'most of them are more interested in keeping their grants going and certainly know which side their bread is buttered on'

only illustrates the unfamiliarity with most scientists and the application of the scientific method, and the lack of realization how the line between the 'MSM', as represented by the 'hip' internet generation, is quickly (to my jaded, cynical eyes has been for quite a while) becoming indistinguishable.

Originally Posted by Exile

Sure, and if that and the "denier" label don't silence those with different opinions, the next step is to get the thread closed so those opinions won't be heard. Or how about, as we've already seen, trashing opinions and authors as coming from "denialist" blogs or websites as opposed to challenging the opinions themselves?

Why is it that the very people who are so convinced the science is "settled" the same ones who have such fear of reading opinions that suggest it is not? Could it be the same reason we've yet to read a rebuttal, to cite but one example, to StuM's graph showing that sea levels rose at a much more dramatic rate prior to the industrial age than they did after MMGW was supposedly to blame?

I'm not going to get in yet another discussion with you about the 'denier' moniker. To anyone who accepts the general meaning of 'skeptic' the difference between the true skeptics, the scientists, and the pseudo-skeptics, the 'deniers', is (or should be, unless maybe there're ulterior [financial?] motives) obvious.

A quick look at the ClimateDepot website

Climate Depot | A project of CFACT

easily confirms their outright denialist agenda.

A quick look at their sponsoring organization's (CFACThttp://www.cfact.org/) staff.

shows a group of politically oriented, mildly or uneducated business people. Their motives in being part of the 'organization' will be easily recognizable and transparent to anyone willing to dig a little and honest enough to realize what they find...

Why is it that the very people who are so convinced the science is "settled" the same ones who have such fear of reading opinions that suggest it is not? Could it be the same reason we've yet to read a rebuttal, to cite but one example, to StuM's (unreferenced, out of context) graph showing that sea levels rose at a much more dramatic rate prior to the industrial age than they did after MMGW was supposedly to blame

I can and do read (some of) them, as should be obvious. Even though they're, as you say, opinions (most often from agenda driven non-scientists, though they will sometimes get a rent-a-scientist or Willie Soonish type individual to pound out something to fill the latest 'news vacuum').

As for a 'rebuttal' to a graph, are you serious? Especially that graph?

Of course, we all know (thanks to actual scientists and not the 'copy editors' at cfact) that sea levels rise rapidly after the end of ice ages.

What would be interesting, were the graph referenced or more accurate, would be to compare the 'upturn' at about 2500 years before present to previous curves, and then correlate them to other drivers, but alas, we must leave that to the real scientists (who youse guys appear, sometimes, to mistrust over bloggers...).

Originally Posted by Exile

Pretty wide agreement on the warming, but the scientific consensus narrows on how much is attributable to humans and what, if anything, can be done about it.

Again, the 'debate' about how much is 'attributable' widens proportionally as one widens the number of people weighing in. As a rational person, I tend to stick with the data and the opinions of those with a proven track record of credibility and integrity.

There is no question that something can and will be done about it, either by us or the planet itself...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

I find it impossible to either believe or disbelieve global warming.

* * *

My point is, from this seat, it is not possible to know if it is real or not.

* * *

However I see no reason why we shouldn't improve our treatment of the planet.

Sorry Dave, but such rationality has no place here, and your mere questioning of the party line -- i.e. "skeptical" but not dismissive -- labels you squarely as a "denier" -- i.e. akin to those who refused to accept such truly settled facts like the earth was round and the Holocaust occurred. And whether you are a proponent of other environmental causes, believe there are good reasons to transition away from fossil fuels regardless, or have solar panels all over your roof, it doesn't matter.

Either you profess your devotion to the CC mantra, or you're labeled a denier, uneducated, ignorant, a religious nut, politically conservative, or worst of all these days . . . a TRUMP supporter! Very few will engage on the merits because they're not scientists, have little or no technical background or training, and are all too often influenced by the MSM & politics, whether they acknowledge it or not.

[hpeer]

I have no desire to mire myself in this big wallow, not do I expect to change anyone’s opinion.

That said....

MY opinion, based on the best evidence I can find, the opinion of the vast majority scientists, and of folks who live in more northern climes (such as my 93 yo aunt and her contemporaries), folks who have made a living outdoors across the ice for decades.... based on this information I have no doubt the world has warmed significantly within human memory. And from that I conclude it will continue to rise.

PS I would NEVER quote anything from Zerohedge. It’s horrid misrepresentation of anything. Pure propoganda.