COP26 - the Glasgow Climate Summit

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

An average of six stations across the planet gives an average of about 1.3 mm/year or about 5.1 in/century. Not much to panic about.

Global sea level rise as measured by satellites.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Hmmm. 60 out of a hundred floors. That sounds exactly like the Concerned Nuclear Scientists infamous Doomsday Clock. Somehow it never managed to be earlier than 11:50 pm. But it was always a good filler piece on a slow news day.

Wrong - whatever you meant.

In 1947, when the first panel of scientists created the Doomsday Clock, it was set at seven minutes with the purpose of highlighting awareness around increasing nuclear development. Seven years later scientists moved the clock hand two minutes forward as tension between the US and Soviet Union rose, as both nations developed supplies and tested nuclear weapons.

Doomsday Clock graph, 1947–2020. The lower points on the graph represent a higher probability of technologically or environmentally-induced catastrophe, and the higher points represent a lower probability.

It’s currently set at 100 seconds to midnight.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

[Bycrick]

Sort of like the bearded weirdo predicting that “The end is near.” There’s always a good excuse to predict the end of the world. And once we had quit worrying about the bomb, they needed to find something else to be “concerned” about. Why am I not surprised?

[genaea]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Typically tide gauges in different locations measure different relative changes in sea level because of differences in the sinking or rising of the land mass where the station is located.

Gravitational anomalies will cause absolute differences in sea level but many of these differences are not time dependent for all practical purposes. These anomalies can create suprisingly large differences in sea level height. From https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-d...due-to-gravity

The most useful description of the geoid is then its deviation from the reference ellipsoid at any point of interest. The maximum thus-defined deviations of Earth’s geoid from the reference ellipsoid are +85 metres in Iceland, and -106 metres in southern India.

Barometric pressure gradients and tides etc. will add short time variations in sea level between stations.

It appears there are many factors that go into calculating the actual sea level rise/drop. As such, it is likely just an estimate depending upon how one weights each of the multiple variables used for making this determination. Multi variant models such as this have a high potential for a greater than normal deviation, and also can pose significant issues when attempting to model/predict the future with high statistical accuracy due to this large deviation (similar to a hurricane track for 5/10/15 days in the future).

If this is correct, one can see why some models report a 1.1 mm annual increase while others report some higher/lower number.

Thank you for your thoughts...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by genaea

It appears there are many factors that go into calculating the actual sea level rise/drop.

This site has an excellent explanation of the factors affecting sea level measurements. The sites are US mainland.

https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...sses/index.php

[genaea]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This site has an excellent explanation of the factors affecting sea level measurements. The sites are US mainland.

https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...sses/index.php

Thank you for providing this link, very educational.

It is interesting to read through the descriptions for each type of influencer/variable. It would take some extremely sophisticated computational modelling to determine how each of these affect the sea level rise/fall down to a fraction of a mm for a given place on the globe at a given time. Based upon this information, the word 'exact' rise or fall should not be a term used in any scientific study since each variable is subject to much interpretation and possibly based upon another model to estimate its value.

Thank you again and enjoy your evening.

[Lake-Effect]

The ground under the feet of outright CC deniers has been steadily crumbling away, and there's very little credibility in that position now. Denial and opposition have been moving to higher ground (climate has always changed, not certain how much is human, warming is good, can't afford to mitigate, we'll adapt, etc).

And, faced with growing acknowledgment of CC, those whose denial was politically triangulated are now experiencing 11th-hour 'green' conversions, and using their new green cloaks to further justify their perennial demonization of immigration.

Such fine people...

[Lake-Effect]

Bonus:
The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Sort of like the bearded weirdo predicting that “The end is near.” There’s always a good excuse to predict the end of the world. And once we had quit worrying about the bomb, they needed to find something else to be “concerned” about. Why am I not surprised?

You really need an all-purpose post "Everything you say is wrong". The paragon of trolling.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The ground under the feet of outright CC deniers has been steadily crumbling away, and there's very little credibility in that position now. Denial and opposition have been moving to higher ground (climate has always changed, not certain how much is human, warming is good, can't afford to mitigate, we'll adapt, etc).

And, faced with growing acknowledgment of CC, those whose denial was politically triangulated are now experiencing 11th-hour 'green' conversions, and using their new green cloaks to further justify their perennial demonization of immigration.

Such fine people...

And don't forget the mindless trolls who do their bidding!

[GordMay]

[Ericson38]

Temperatures in the Pacific Northwest have varied considerably in the last 12K years. Here is a glacier study (2013) that documents tree stumps found under the ice pack showing evidence of mountain tree stands that were prevalent in an area, and then taken over by glacier advance, then later retreat. On figure 2-4, the little ice age (LIA) in the 1840s clearly shows up too.

http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/b...=1&isAllowed=y

Climate changes all the time. I think the disagreement isn't that climate changes. I think the disagreement is about what causes climate to change. Its more about whether one has bought into C02 being in the driver's seat or not, although it is a trace gas. Climate Denier is a misnomer (Climate is changing); it is whether C02 is in control.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Temperatures in the Pacific Northwest have varied considerably in the last 12K years. Here is a glacier study (2013) that documents tree stumps found under the ice pack showing evidence of mountain tree stands that were prevalent in an area, and then taken over by glacier advance, then later retreat. On figure 2-4, the little ice age (LIA) in the 1840s clearly shows up too.

http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/b...=1&isAllowed=y

Climate changes all the time. I think the disagreement isn't that climate changes. I think the disagreement is about what causes climate to change. Its more about whether one has bought into C02 being in the driver's seat or not, although it is a trace gas. Climate Denier is a misnomer (Climate is changing); it is whether C02 is in control.

There is no disagreement. There are just ignorant people denying what has been shown to be true.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Temperatures in the Pacific Northwest have varied considerably in the last 12K years. Here is a glacier study (2013) that documents tree stumps found under the ice pack showing evidence of mountain tree stands that were prevalent in an area, and then taken over by glacier advance, then later retreat. On figure 2-4, the little ice age (LIA) in the 1840s clearly shows up too.

http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/b...=1&isAllowed=y

Climate changes all the time. I think the disagreement isn't that climate changes. I think the disagreement is about what causes climate to change. Its more about whether one has bought into C02 being in the driver's seat or not, although it is a trace gas. Climate Denier is a misnomer (Climate is changing); it is whether C02 is in control.

Some science

"The geological record provides powerful evidence that atmospheric CO2 concentrations drive climate change, and supports multiple lines of evidence that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are altering the Earth's climate. Moreover, the amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere means that Earth is committed to a certain degree of warming. As the Earth's climate changes due to the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land-use, the planet we live on will experience further changes that will have increasingly drastic effects on human societies. An assessment of past climate changes helps to inform policy decisions regarding future climate change. Earth scientists will also have an important role to play in the delivery of any policies aimed at limiting future climate change."

https://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cont.../1/jgs2020-239

our reconstructions demonstrate that the modern global temperature has exceeded annual levels over the past 12,000 years and probably approaches the warmth of the last interglacial period (128,000 to 115,000 years ago).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x

Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some science

https://jgs.lyellcollection.org/cont.../1/jgs2020-239

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

But, what if I haven't "bought into", oh you know... science, and research, and verified knowledge, and expertise... all because I know better than actual climate scientists .

This is the same argument we see playing itself out over Covid-19. When did so many CFers become so anti-science?!?