Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I think I will go with the science.



The mean sea level trend is 2.22 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.04 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1955 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of 0.73 feet in 100 years.

Sea Level Trends - State Selection

Even IF that's an accurate depiction of actual, worldwide sea level rise, and this trend continues unabated and is about 8" every hundred years, don't you think that's something we can deal with? In some places, such as where I live, it wouldn't even be noticed even IF people lived long enough to notice and remember where it was when they were born, and other low lying places like Florida, the impact will be eventually felt, but not by anybody who lives there now. Their descendants will have a couple of hundred years before it's a big problem and that means they can start relocating or raising their homes or building sea walls or whatever else they'd like to do in order to not be impacted too badly. Or maybe the sea level will stop rising or even subside and no action will be necessary. The only sure thing about this is that we've got MUCH bigger things to worry about than 8" of sea level rise every 100 years or so.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I know the convenience of generalizations (and strawmen), but I have gone to the trouble of stating and restating what I am actually thinking about. Rather than retreat behind "alarmist!" "warmista!"... what DO YOU fear will happen if we choose to act to minimize AGW?

I have no fears. I am wrapped in truths that are self-evident, armed with the courage and hardware of inherent rights, and lifted by citizens who feel the same and will not relinquish them.

When "we choose to act?" Your fear should be that the "other" we should choose to act.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I have no fears. I am wrapped in truths that are self-evident, armed with the courage and hardware of inherent rights, and lifted by citizens who feel the same and will not relinquish them.

When "we choose to act?" Your fear should be that the "other" we should choose to act.

You're not writing from Oregon, are you? How's the food holding up?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

3-4 miles north is where I grew up and where I frequently visit. There are no 15-20 foot levees anywhere in the area. In fact, I don't know of even a single 2-3 foot levee. The land and channels around Huntington Harbor Residential development remain as it was back in the early 1960's when my parents looked for a house in the area. The street along PCH highway flooded the same during unusually high tides back then, just as it does today. No difference.

Nice try.

Please show us even a single picture of a 15-20 foot levee holding back the ocean along the Huntington or Newport Beach coastline. Those homes in Newport harbor were built 50-60 years ago only three feet above the high tide level. Today, they remain at three feet above high tide... Nothing has changed.

Your google pictures show a marsh area that I also know very well, which show a flushing channel that was newly created only five years ago to allow seawater to flush out the stagnant backwater on a daily basis. Before the channel was built, only ground seepage could cross the 400 meters under the Pacific Coast hwy. So now... Unlike 6 years ago, the area can receive a complete tidal flow.

Again, nice try at manipulating the data.

No manipulation here.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the 'Google Pictures' I originally posted. All three sets are of an area of south Louisiana, called the Biloxi Marsh. The coordinates for the first two are 30 08' 12.71"N, 89 25' 52.76" W, the second two are 30 04' 49.40"N, 89 28' 21.53"W, the third two are 30 03'07.30" N, 89 27' 21.93" W. It would seem a little difficult for 'ground seepage' from the Mississippi Sound to 'cross under the Pacific Coast Highway'...

Don't know what you call them in California, but here in Looosiana, we call manmade structures holding back water either levees or retaining walls.

The area in California I'm talking about is centered at 33 39' 37.58" N, 117 58' 67.48"W, and is bounded by State 39 on the west, roughly the Banning Channel Bikeway on the east, Adams Avenue on the north and the intersection of 1 and Brookhurst on the south.

In the picture below you can see three structures, running generally north and south, that look like ditches. The smaller ones to the right appear on Google to have 10 foot elevations, much of the land between them has elevations of 5 or so feet. The large ditch to the east, I assume a channelization of the Santa Ana River, has walls of 20 feet (according to Google Earth).

Without those 3 manmade structures, the area in the picture would flood regularly, from high tides, or strong southerly or southwesterly winds, or runoff from torrential rains, or any combination of the three, and I imagine that before the area was settled that's what it did.

I would also imagine that in the coming years the residents in the area will be glad for the protection of those ditches, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are already plans to fortify them. Just another one of those cost-free 'adaptations' the Rejectors are so fond of...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

No manipulation here.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the 'Google Pictures' I originally posted. All three sets are of an area of south Louisiana, called the Biloxi Marsh. The coordinates for the first two are 30 08' 12.71"N, 89 25' 52.76" W, the second two are 30 04' 49.40"N, 89 28' 21.53"W, the third two are 30 03'07.30" N, 89 27' 21.93" W. It would seem a little difficult for 'ground seepage' from the Mississippi Sound to 'cross under the Pacific Coast Highway'...

Don't know what you call them in California, but here in Looosiana, we call manmade structures holding back water either levees or retaining walls.

The area in California I'm talking about is centered at 33 39' 37.58" N, 117 58' 67.48"W, and is bounded by State 39 on the west, roughly the Banning Channel Bikeway on the east, Adams Avenue on the north and the intersection of 1 and Brookhurst on the south.

In the picture below you can see three structures, running generally north and south, that look like ditches. The smaller ones to the right appear on Google to have 10 foot elevations, much of the land between them has elevations of 5 or so feet. The large ditch to the east, I assume a channelization of the Santa Ana River, has walls of 20 feet (according to Google Earth).

Without those 3 manmade structures, the area in the picture would flood regularly, from high tides, or strong southerly or southwesterly winds, or runoff from torrential rains, or any combination of the three, and I imagine that before the area was settled that's what it did.

I would also imagine that in the coming years the residents in the area will be glad for the protection of those ditches, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are already plans to fortify them. Just another one of those cost-free 'adaptations' the Rejectors are so fond of...

You assume wrong on all accounts.

The Santa Ana river wash has had those concrete banks for forty years (not levees) so that rain storms in the mountains don't cause flooding if and when the river overflows it's banks into the community downstream. Nothing to do with holding back the ocean. You see... the term Santa Ana river is not entirely accurate, it's actually a low lying river wash which only contains water during heavy rains. Without the barriers, all the cities would flood from mountain run off. Along the coastline, those are 15ft breakwater walls at the river mouth with an 8ft chain link fence at the top to keep dumbass people from falling over the edge. Again... not levees. Point of information... It helps to have lived 35 years in the immediate area like I have and not to speculate from outer space via google maps.

And.. the levees as you call them at the mouth of the river wash, are actually breakwaters to prevent the small river delta from silting up with sand during heavy storms and rain. You can go sit on the bridge over the Santa Ana river at the coast any time during the day, and never see the tide water rise up any further than the sewage treatment plant 1/4 mile up stream... which is another reason why the twenty foot tall concrete walls were built and the river mouth is dredged. We needed to move away from that neighborhood apartment 40 years ago because of the sewage smell at times.

Any of the several million people living in the area can confirm what Ive written.

Regarding the photos, they look very similar to the California marsh I thought you were referring to that's approximately 3 miles north of the Huntington Beach pier. Sorry.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Isn't that the "who defends the sat data by disputing the surface readings"
That implies that they agree with the models.

OK, I don't want to screw this up so somebody correct me if my logic train is based on faulty assumptions:

1. The surface modeling shows large increases in avg. temps, and a significantly steeper if not alarming warming trend that has become more pronounced in the last decade or so;

2. The latest adjustments to the observed surface temps more closely match up with the surface modeling;

3. The latest adjustments to the UAH sat data also show a slight warming trend, but one with significantly cooler temps than both the surface modeling and observed surface temps, and therefore a much flatter trend;

4. The RSS sat data is closely aligned with UAH, and the weather balloons confirm both sets of sat data.

None of the above facts appear disputed, so assuming I've correctly stated them, how does the surface modeling & observed surface data on the one hand, and the two sets of sat data on the other, NOT amount to a discrepancy?? It seems to me the only way to reconcile them is to dispute the data from one or the other. What am I missing?

[olepedersen]

The Swedish workboat Tor Viking sailed unescorted through the Northeast passage . first vessel to do so in december.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I don't want to screw this up so somebody correct me if my logic train is based on faulty assumptions:

1. The surface modeling shows large increases in avg. temps, and a significantly steeper if not alarming warming trend that has become more pronounced in the last decade or so;

2. The latest adjustments to the observed surface temps more closely match up with the surface modeling;

3. The latest adjustments to the UAH sat data also show a slight warming trend, but one with significantly cooler temps than both the surface modeling and observed surface temps, and therefore a much flatter trend;

4. The RSS sat data is closely aligned with UAH, and the weather balloons confirm both sets of sat data.

None of the above facts appear disputed, so assuming I've correctly stated them, how does the surface modeling & observed surface data on the one hand, and the two sets of sat data on the other, NOT amount to a discrepancy?? It seems to me the only way to reconcile them is to dispute the data from one or the other. What am I missing?

That word "adjustment" is the key. See image below.

The issue is that the data sets have been adjusted, just a tiny bit. Our fine friends at Noaa have made adjustments to the original temperature data, shown in Red. The Adjusted temperatures, in blue shows, are also the published temperatures. Red is not published, but is actual non-adjusted temperature readings.

The net effect of the adjustments in every case, makes the warming trend seem higher then it actually is.

One key to science is you do not adjust the physical data to fit the model. You adjust the model to fit the physical data.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The question of what proposals YOU believe are on the table is important because I'm interested in exactly what you fear, and also because as far as I know, just about nothing is on the table, apart from some high-minded platitudes coming out of Paris.

From the above:

• deterrent [and /or incentive] to reduce fossil fuel demand
• systemic solutions in moving to more renewables
• nuclear (which I agreed with)
• western leadership in developing renewable technology (which I mentioned earlier)

... what's so scary about those? Hardly the serious proposed changes to our socio-economic system you maintain is threatened.

What's so scary is that, as Mike has repeatedly pointed out and many researchers have noted (Tim Allen & the Google team come to mind), if the more alarmist warnings on MMGW come to pass, it won't be enough. That's why, as a proclaimed true believer, you are going to have to decide whether you want to endure the reduced lifestyle, restricted economic opportunity, and loss of individual freedom which are likely to occur in order to achieve Mike's socio-economic model. OR you can opt to continue doing nothing but selfishly make yourself feel good by continuing to believe that using less fossil fuels & more renewables will solve the problem. Btw, how do you propose lowering demand for fossil fuels without some sort of increased govt. taxation? Like so many others signed up with the "greenie" movement, you're ignoring the other side of the balance sheet.

But for me and other skeptics, there is not much to be scared about. We recognize that society is already more or less doing the things you think are sufficient. Some for better and others for worse, but with little or no impact on solving what the alarmists believe is a problem. And if there really is a problem, we are more confident in humans' ability to solve it with technology that probably cannot be foreseen at this time.

The truth is closer to the fact that ANY 'green' changes are considered suspect by a certain demographic which apparently aligns closely with yacht ownership . If it wasn't AGW you'd be railing against disposal charges, or EPA, or bike trails, or food stamps, or unions, or a livable minimum wage, or universal health care...

It's funny, but my experience with the expense of yacht ownership has thus far convinced me that I will never be part of the demographic you speak of. You seemed to be doing OK for awhile but now you've fallen back into stereotyping again. Was it seeing the Oregon guys with their scary guns on the nightly news? I know, I know, it's just so easy making sense of the world as an "us vs. them" proposition, but you really should get out more.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well, I can' stay away. This thread, like CF in general, is addictive...

I'll bite.

Kinda like coming upon a car crash on the highway. You know you should turn your head away but you just gotta look.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I know the convenience of generalizations (and strawmen), . . . .

For once we agree!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM:
So should I ask JD yet again whether it is the models or the surface data with which he has problems?

(Not that I would expect an answer)

Originally Posted by jackdale

Show me where I said I has a problem with either.

It seems as though you're being rather coy as you know that the surface models and the adjusted surface data are now pretty close. How about some science comparing one or the other to the sat data? You can pick either UAH or RSS. Oh wait, Christy already graphed the UAH in March 2015 as a comparo to the surface modeling. Kinda handy for guys like me (who find this sorta thing challenging) when multiple sets of data are put on a single graph so they share the same dates & temp variations.

Anyone know how to imbed this?

http://media.al.com/news_huntsville_...c81b59f099.jpg

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

That word "adjustment" is the key.

Did you ever bother to read the three posts by Zeke Hausfather on Judith Curry's blog?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34:
That word "adjustment" is the key.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you ever bother to read the three posts by Zeke Hausfather on Judith Curry's blog?

Here's a pretty understandable overview from Zeke H., bearing in mind that he supports the validity of the adjustments whereas other scientists dispute at least some of them. The 2,000+ comment section should give a good idea of the amount of controversy.

But fwiw, I'm not arguing that one set of data may or may not be more or less accurate than another. I'm just saying that, assuming all the data adjustments are correct, there seems to exist a large discrepancy b'twn the surface models & observed data on the one hand, and both sets of sat data on the other.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... for me and other skeptics, there is not much to be scared about. ... And if there really is a problem, we are more confident in humans' ability to solve it with technology that probably cannot be foreseen at this time.

Translation: You are confident that 'scientific' skepticism on AGW is a plausible enough figleaf for your political opposition to any proactive measures. And hey! Future guy will fix!

I wish my world outlook made it as easy to block out problems.