RIsing Seas /Global Warming

[Reefmagnet]

The seas have been rising since the start of the present inter glacial. Nothing to see here. Move along folks....

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Good luck plowing the Canadian Shield.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

Im thinking more of the STEPPE -the 2nd largest geographical feature on the planet -ocean is 1st.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Perhaps you have an alternative meaning for quantify. From the first link;

(This is an example of "quantification", the act of quantifying or "expressing or measuring the quantity of.")


"The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence). The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence)."

(These are examples of "corroborating evidence, data or studies", from exactly the same link.)

"According to Bindoff et al.,2 the likely range of the anthropogenic contribution to global mean temperature increases over 1951–2010 was 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C, compared with the observed warming 5th to 95th percentile range of 1.1° to 1.3°F (0.59° to 0.71°C). The estimated likely contribution ranges for natural forcing and internal variability were both much smaller (−0.2° to 0.2°F, or −0.1° to 0.1°C) than the observed warming. The confidence intervals that encompass the extremely likely range for the anthropogenic contribution are wider than the likely range, but nonetheless allow for the conclusion that it is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence)."

"The attribution of temperature increases since 1951 is based largely on the detection and attribution analyses of Gillett et al.,3 Jones et al.,4 and consideration of Ribes and Terray,5 Huber and Knutti,6 Wigley and Santer,7...."


Which is why, contrary to Exile's histrionic claims to victimhood, I offered the link to the 'executive summary'.

You can quote the entire research document but I suspect you overlooked the words “likely range” and “likely human contribution” and the prize winning unscientific term “likely estimated”, none of which are quantifiable. Or even meaningful.

I was before I retired a climate scientist. Throughout those years, we never ran into some internet search jockey pretending to know much about the subject until I came here. Critical thinking isn’t something you can learn by searching google.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

You might want to read it - your link only suggests a correlation to man made causes with ABSOLUTELY NO corroborating evidence, data or studies. It does not quantify anthropogenic climate change.
If you want to debate this further, try harder

Excerpted from the report:


Key Findings and Traceable Accounts
Each topical chapter includes Key Findings, which are based on the authors’ expert judgment of the synthesis of the assessed literature. Each Key Finding includes a confidence statement and, as appropriate, framing of key scientific uncertainties, so as to better support assessment of climate-related risks. (See “Documenting Uncertainty” below).
Each Key Finding is also accompanied by a Traceable Account that documents the supporting evidence, process, and rationale the authors used in reaching these conclusions and provides additional information on sources of uncertainty through confidence and likelihood statements. The Traceable Accounts can be found at the end of each chapter.

Key Finding 1
The Key Finding and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the climate science literature. Similar to statements made in previous national (NCA3)1 and international2 assessments.
Evidence for changes in global climate arises from multiple analyses of data from in-situ, satellite, and other records undertaken by many groups over several decades. These observational datasets are used throughout this chapter and are discussed further in Appendix 1 (e.g., updates of prior uses of these datasets by Vose et al. 2012;3 Karl et al. 20154). Changes in the mean state have been accompanied by changes in the frequency and nature of extreme events (e.g., Kunkel and Frankson 2015;5 Donat et al. 20166). A substantial body of analysis comparing the observed changes to a broad range of climate simulations consistently points to the necessity of invoking human-caused changes to adequately explain the observed climate system behavior. The influence of human impacts on the climate system has also been observed in a number of individual climate variables (attribution studies are discussed in Ch. 3: Detection and Attribution and in other chapters).


How much of the report did you read?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wealth, age, race and location all shape one's attitude towards the climate issue. Not completely, but the majority of opinions about it on CF pretty much meet expectations. With the usual side of Goraphobia.

Your uncritical applause for SV Illusion's easily disprovable assertions and uninformed questions suggests that denial is still very much in the mix. Or do you too sincerely believe that we don't know the extent to which human activity is causing warming? It's about as well-understood as plastics pollution, which you do seem to understand.

I looked into the question of man made climate change. What I discovered is that both sides lie and both sides have self serving agendas. As a former professional surveyor I also looked into "sea level rise' in the usa. Noaa says sea levels in the usa have risen 5 3/4 inches in the past 100 years 1919 to 2019. Many areas like Miami beach are sinking because they were built on swamps without engineered compaction, then hi rise condos were built on top. There has also in that time period has been the very large migration to cities where huge areas were paved over and large buildings were built, all this traps heat much more than former farms and woods and fields so older temperature records in cities (no one was taking them out in nowhere)---are very suspect.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wealth, age, race and location all shape one's attitude towards the climate issue. Not completely, but the majority of opinions about it on CF pretty much meet expectations. With the usual side of Goraphobia.

Your uncritical applause for SV Illusion's easily disprovable assertions and uninformed questions suggests that denial is still very much in the mix. Or do you too sincerely believe that we don't know the extent to which human activity is causing warming? It's about as well-understood as plastics pollution, which you do seem to understand.

I have no doubt that we'll solve any global problems as soon as people believe that they're a bigger threat than the other political party. Because if a political party actually believes it's a problem, it will forget the petty politics and try to actually solve it, instead of trying to use it as a wedge issue to benefit economically or politically from.

If you believe global warming is both a real threat and one that we can do something about, then it's clear that making Al Gore the public face of it (while creating an environmental company to take advantage of the solution he proposed) was the wrong approach.

To be honest, nobody can actually quantify with 100% certainty the effect of humans on global warming. And we shouldn't need to, in order to justify prudent steps towards energy conservation, fighting pollution, controlling population growth, and being good stewards of our planet.

Like with most things, everybody has a dog in the fight. Turns out humans haven't evolved as much as we'd like to think. And everyone thinks in terms of what everybody else should be doing. Which is why people often criticize the other political party about global warming while continuing to live in a large house and driving an SUV. It's why Al Gore still has multiple large houses and flies around as if he doesn't have a carbon footprint, while advocating for some blue collar worker in West Virginia to have his livelihood taken away, with a vague promise of a new technology job, which hasn't materialized even after over a decade.

I think we're very lucky to live in the timeframe in which we've had unprecedented world prosperity. I'm open for suggested solutions, but more open to the ones where someone is looking out for everybody, and not just their own vested interests.

[malcolmlj]

Boy what a wasps nest I have helped stir !!!
Asked how NASA measured ocean level. I assume the same way they measure wave hight-distance from satellite?

I now withdraw, religious believers, bigots and emotional people waste my time.
Believe what you want.
Just don't try to convince me that belief in hype is scientific proof.
Bye,Bye all.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by mglonnro

I don't think you can disconnect those. It's always a question about [People] X [Emissions per Capita].

The average for US residents is about sixteen tons of CO2/person/year, while the average resident of India causes about two.

Birth rates are (fortunately) going down, maybe even quicker than people previously have expected, but that alone won't really solve anything. Even with fewer people, global emissions might well continue to go up unless we do something about the other part of the equation.

Birth rates are going down, but the population is still increasing. And you can claim that the West is the problem because they consume/produce more, but the real problem is going to be folks in India and China increasing their consumption/output as their economies become more prosperous and they begin adopting more affluent lifestyles.

[Reefmagnet]

I'd agree with illusion on this one. Comes across as just as likely to be a link by association rather than causation.

One always needs to question the methodologies of these approaches.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Excerpted from the report:


Key Findings and Traceable Accounts
Each topical chapter includes Key Findings, which are based on the authors’ expert judgment of the synthesis of the assessed literature. Each Key Finding includes a confidence statement and, as appropriate, framing of key scientific uncertainties, so as to better support assessment of climate-related risks. (See “Documenting Uncertainty” below).
Each Key Finding is also accompanied by a Traceable Account that documents the supporting evidence, process, and rationale the authors used in reaching these conclusions and provides additional information on sources of uncertainty through confidence and likelihood statements. The Traceable Accounts can be found at the end of each chapter.

Key Finding 1
The Key Finding and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the climate science literature. Similar to statements made in previous national (NCA3)1 and international2 assessments.
Evidence for changes in global climate arises from multiple analyses of data from in-situ, satellite, and other records undertaken by many groups over several decades. These observational datasets are used throughout this chapter and are discussed further in Appendix 1 (e.g., updates of prior uses of these datasets by Vose et al. 2012;3 Karl et al. 20154). Changes in the mean state have been accompanied by changes in the frequency and nature of extreme events (e.g., Kunkel and Frankson 2015;5 Donat et al. 20166). A substantial body of analysis comparing the observed changes to a broad range of climate simulations consistently points to the necessity of invoking human-caused changes to adequately explain the observed climate system behavior. The influence of human impacts on the climate system has also been observed in a number of individual climate variables (attribution studies are discussed in Ch. 3: Detection and Attribution and in other chapters).


How much of the report did you read?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by malcolmlj

Boy what a wasps nest I have helped stir !!!
Asked how NASA measured ocean level. I assume the same way they measure wave hight-distance from satellite?

I now withdraw, religious believers, bigots and emotional people waste my time.
Believe what you want.
Just don't try to convince me that belief in hype is scientific proof.
Bye,Bye all.

DUH There were no sattellites in 1919

[conchaway]

Not to worry. By the time global warming affects anything, you and i will be dead.

[johnzo]

Any sea level rise can be mitigated by raising your waterline, try it.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Excerpted from the report:


Key Findings and Traceable Accounts
Each topical chapter includes Key Findings, which are based on the authors’ expert judgment of the synthesis of the assessed literature. Each Key Finding includes a confidence statement and, as appropriate, framing of key scientific uncertainties, so as to better support assessment of climate-related risks. (See “Documenting Uncertainty” below).
Each Key Finding is also accompanied by a Traceable Account that documents the supporting evidence, process, and rationale the authors used in reaching these conclusions and provides additional information on sources of uncertainty through confidence and likelihood statements. The Traceable Accounts can be found at the end of each chapter.

Key Finding 1
The Key Finding and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the climate science literature. Similar to statements made in previous national (NCA3)1 and international2 assessments.
Evidence for changes in global climate arises from multiple analyses of data from in-situ, satellite, and other records undertaken by many groups over several decades. These observational datasets are used throughout this chapter and are discussed further in Appendix 1 (e.g., updates of prior uses of these datasets by Vose et al. 2012;3 Karl et al. 20154). Changes in the mean state have been accompanied by changes in the frequency and nature of extreme events (e.g., Kunkel and Frankson 2015;5 Donat et al. 20166). A substantial body of analysis comparing the observed changes to a broad range of climate simulations consistently points to the necessity of invoking human-caused changes to adequately explain the observed climate system behavior. The influence of human impacts on the climate system has also been observed in a number of individual climate variables (attribution studies are discussed in Ch. 3: Detection and Attribution and in other chapters).


How much of the report did you read?

Didn’t have to read the whole thing but I did read that excerpt.

“Key finding based on the author’s expert judgment”?????? What? Self-professed?

“Findings summarize documents in climate science literature “ translates to nothing original. And we already know there is a ton of literature from which to (cherry) pick.

These lame internet search and post debates are never conclusive nor objective.

To review - science doesn’t care what you think. A quantitative assessment of anthropogenic climate change has never been established definitively. Believe what you want but don’t expect everyone to buy into your perceptions. And please stop posting links you don’t understand fully - it serves only to reflect poorly on the poster.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I just never understood the point of trying to divide up peoples' opinions about a scientific issue based on their immutable and otherwise irrelevant characteristics. ... Can you articulate some advantage to this approach that I may be overlooking?

I think it was you who once stressed the importance of being aware of bias. That should include recognizing its sources.

Advantage? Little. But pretending it isn't there is hardly better.

It just seems to me that these same sorts of arguments are being very successfully used in populist platforms around the world to create division (real or mfg'd) between working people and (stereotypically white, affluent, better educated, etc.) "elites."

Curiously enough, most current populists are somewhat anti-science and CC skeptics or deniers.

The only thing I might deem as "uncritical applause" is the logic, reason and utility behind the question s/v Illusion asked, not necessarily the answer. And I don't understand why it isn't something that the proponents of the issue wouldn't be even more desirous of resolving (and discussing) than the opponents. Of course we (i.e. the science) don't "know the extent to which human activity is causing warming." But I don't think even the IPCC goes so far as to claim that we'd be in a cooling cycle "but for."

Yeah, they have a pretty good idea, and they've said as much. And here's something more recent about the recent previous warm/cool events that AGW always gets compared to.

Imho, the entire CC issue needs to be reframed to where I think many if not most people find themselves anyway, namely a broad recognition that we should be cutting back on fossil fuels for lots of reasons we can probably all (mostly) agree with. Then the "debate" and policy decisions flowing therefrom can more productively be focused on "how" to cut back on fossil fuels with the least amount of disruption (if possible).

This thread has already shown that AGW denial is still prevalent in the CF demographic. There might be some pragmatism in "reframing" an issue to comport better with existing sentiment in order to achieve the desired goal of a soshulist agrarian dystopia reduced carbon emissions, but at the end of the day, with so many refusing to recognize or understand the scientific reality, it won't get us very far.

All attempts to politicize the issue will only divide people into their respective camps as the threads on CF clearly demonstrate, and retard the very progress which the proponents are advocating for. But this will only work if proponents care more about the environmental issues than they do about perceived political gains. In this regard an analogy to tackling plastic pollution is in fact appropriate.

We both know what side has benefited the most from politicization of climate change.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This thread has already shown that AGW denial is still prevalent in the CF demographic. There might be some pragmatism in "reframing" an issue to comport better with existing sentiment in order to achieve the desired goal of a soshulist agrarian dystopia reduced carbon emissions, but at the end of the day, with so many refusing to recognize or understand the scientific reality, it won't get us very far.

We both know what side has benefited the most from politicization of climate change.

Yes, because the other guys' perspective/politics are definitely in the wrong. Always, and on every issue. And there can be no compromise or framework where it's win-win. Because we're tribal.