Climate Change!

[George the original one]

Who's doing the ad hominem? You have stats for sea level rise. You have the limiting factors. The result should be an inside range and an outside range. Therefore you should be able to calculate, yet you say there is no way you could come up with the figures to do this.

Would you care to try again?

[steveo73]

Who's doing the ad hominem? You have stats for sea level rise. You have the limiting factors. The result should be an inside range and an outside range. Therefore you should be able to calculate, yet you say there is no way you could come up with the figures to do this.

Would you care to try again?

An ad-hominem argument is where you attack the person rather than the point they are making.

I don't believe that I could come back to you with the correct figure in relation to the ice melting on earth. I can't tell you the rate that it will melt by or that it will even melt. My guess is that it's not going to happen but it's a guess. At some point in the future the ice within the earth will increase in size. When that happens if I use that data and complete a simplistic model I will come back to you stating that we are entering a new ice age. Interestingly this was a theory that Stephen Schneider put out before he rallied behind the global warming theory.

[George the original one]

So take the shortcut and use this: http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#11/10.39 ... &pois=hide

They tell you where the data is coming from, how it is calculated, and the confidence interval. If you prefer, there is a NOAA version of this map for the USA. For some reason I was able to find both in 2 minutes with Google.

Once again, you ignore the polar sea ice melt issue that is currently happening THIS YEAR. You also ignore the documented glacial retreats happening worldwide. Ignoring this evidence suggests very strongly that you are not qualified to pass judgement on CC because you keep saying you don't believe any ice has melted.

[George the original one]

By the way, you're also missing the logic of where the documented sea level rise is coming from. I'll list some sources and let's play the logic game:
1) Some force is shoving a bunch of dirt/rocks into the oceans.
2) The draining of aquifers by agriculture has swelled the oceans.
3) Cloud cover (water vapor) has decreased.
4) Melting ice.

[jacob]

Hey, it's Deja Vu all over on the ERE forums again! And so soon too ... Who would've thunk it?

The very same objections from two years ago seem to be a repeating themselves already, including even the same major character players as well as the same old lines of standard objections from when this 500+ post thread initially premiered. Yay!

I invite anyone who has joined the forum within the past two years who didn't suffer through those old threads to fast forward to where this new thread could very likely go within the next few months and save their time. Other forumites have informed me via back channels that they learned a lot from that thread, some where even able to break away from the matrix, but I see no reason, personally, to purchase another ticket for this ride to ride it again just to convince a few fact-resistant stragglers. You can lead a horse to the water, but ... you can't force them to google "<insert their location> climate change" AND click AND read AND act on the obvious conclusions, as long as they don't want to. And some really don't want to until they hit the proverbial "rock bottom" which in this case means getting their home flooded or burned or having some relative die from heat stress.

At least that's the conclusion I've reached about the human species.---That climate change is no different than rural poverty, obesity, tobacco, overeating, overdrinking, ... that humans as a species with their emotional, short-sighted, and simplistic neolithic proclivities are basically not "gonna get it" when it comes to complex long-term impacts, ever, even if a few frustrated and insightful individuals will be condemned to endure their personal Cassandra Complex. Note that it's not that many generations (about 300ish) since humans escaped the stone age and locked themselves into their current farming behavior. Why should any foresight or any understanding of complex systems be expected of such humans? Humans still have the same hardware as their ancestors from 50000 years ago. And only a rare few have managed to upload modern software capable of comprehending complex systems understanding.

Visit a random first world hospital and go around the back. You'll observe fat nurses and doctors take a smoking break, obviously failing to connect the dots between their personal behavior and the eventual medical impact on a personal level expressed as diabetes or lung cancer. Or much more likely they do connect the dots but THEY JUST DON'T CARE or rather ... they value the present more than the future ... because they live on a day by day basis. Obviously this doesn't dismiss the scientific connection between smoking and donuts and the strongly causated lifestyle diseases. It only indicates a value judgment.

It's really not much similar to how I might buy a beach condo in Miama, FL when I'm 65. It's not because I'm denying the science or "not eating my own cooking". It's because I'm counting on it and because I no longer give a shite about living yet another year. Maybe I enjoy the beach more than I enjoy the continuing existence of my DNA.

As it is, I'm currently 41 years old and I probably have about 40 years left to live. WRT climate science, I'd consider myself highly informed. I spent 4 years in grad school and 5 years in post-doctoral studies developing complex simulations of stellar atmospheres and "oceans" from first principles with models that are the same/similar to what's used for climate science models. Subsequently I've taken an interest in Earth climate. Based on that combo, I can spot manipulated graphs and crackpot theories from a mile away. So can many others. This is why there are virtually lists of silly climate change objections.

I'm with Riggerjack on this. By my estimations (and yeah, I have no problems finding/googling the data and science ... there are tens of thousands of scientific papers (CC is one of the most organized research subjects in human history... if you can't find data, you need to get your school money back already) , hundreds of books, etc ... and I have the background to actually appreciate them ), what currently passes for dangerous climate change (2C) would by the best estimate happen around 2060+/-20 years.

So I'll probably be dead around then!

Therefore, it's not the biggest problem in my personal life and as long as I take some basic precautions, I'm (including DW and F&F except offspring, but they'll be above 55N) not personally going to experience any problems because I have both the money (<1% SWR), the scientific savvy, and the flexibility to handle most problems in a 1C, 2C, and 3C world (for anyone who've been living under a rock, we're currently in the 1C world). Around here, the main worry (according to a 1 min google seach, but I suggest spending more time) is flooding due to extreme precipitation, increased heat spells, and an increased chance of tornadoes. Consequently, we've invested in the best roof possible (on a brick building with a basement), we installed much better flood control than most on the street, and we're conscious of not abusing the convenience of A/C so as not to be stuck w/o electric power should be local power plants decide to shut down due to lack of cooling water (see France 2003! Lots of old folks died because of that.)

Indeed, my main worry is the scientific fact hat there's a 10% chance (according to the latest NASA data) that we're not talking 2060+/-20 but 2040+/-10 in which case ... my end years will be "interesting" because 3C and 4C could happen in my lifetime!! (meaning before 2070)

My main concern is that the official communications of the climate scientist community are too conservative. When scientists talk of 2C officially, they really mean a 66% of staying under but a 1/3 chance of going above. Exaggerating is anathema to any scientists though the public (and politicians) don't quite appreciate how unnerving that is. This means that anything being published suggests [to the average clueless civilian] that things are probably not nearly (say 33% less) as bad as more realistic projections actually are. This also means that all those suggestions about alarmism are incredibly ironic. Scientists are, if anything, the opposite of alarming. It takes some understanding of how science settled on the 95% prob level to appreciate that. Type I and Type II errors. Scientists are habitually conditioned to consider Type I errors (crying wolf when there's no wolf) to be far worse than Type II errors (failing to cry out just before the wolves eat everybody). Whereas an unbiased strategy (say finance or trading) should and would operate on a 50/50 bias. However, it doesn't take that much reading to readjust expectations. In any case, if you want a more honest assessment, try grabbing your random climate-informed scientist and ask them what they really feel/think compared to what they're prepared to state publicly.

My closest genetic relatives (to die around year 2090) would be in Scandinavia (55 deg N)---people on the Southern hemisphere are suggested to find something beyond 55S, obviously. Therefore, they're also good or at least a problem to be deferred. I'm nowhere near any risky coast lines. And that's by choice. I currently have 30 days of water and food stores (and looking to increase). I also have no interest/emotional investment in animal wildlife. I've tried to make myself feel about whatever species are currently alive in the same way that most humans now feel about the Dodo bird. Gone, sad. Mammoth, same, never met one. C'est la vie. Now, that DID take a while to fully internalize! That is, knowing that in the future fossil record, the appearance of humans will have the same impact as a major asteroid strike. Yay! Human pride! We're like the worst thing, ever, to happen to other species. We just kill stuff. It's who we are. Best to just accept. Try to appreciate other things.

I'd invite anyone who suffers emotionally from the potential loss to reframe their perspective. Think of it as replacing humans with AI robots .. or some other "next step". There's really no law that says that humans is the ultimate in Earth-evolution. Maybe we're just the pen-ultimate. Wouldn't it be cool if the survivors are AI robots 2000 years from now? It's quite possible to make semi-conductors that run well at an atmosphere like Mars or Venus with 99% CO2 which in our case would be 270C surface temperatures. 7 billion humans, not so much, but hey ... maybe in the future, a few humans can be orbital observers of whatever goes on down at the surface? Or maybe they can live underground in an abandoned mine. We are, after all, the likely cause of the sixth mass extinction. Still on a personal level, I'm sure there'll still be humans around for the next several generations if not several dozens. I think that [this time horizon] is way beyond what most humans care about anyway.

And lots of things can change anyway. Maybe humans get their combined shit together in the 21st or 22nd century---much like humans managed not to nuke each other to death in the 20th century---and render this a non-issue. I would never know, because I'd be dead already. Also, if humans elect a bunch of completely incompetent politicians who manage to thoroughly crash the first world economies down to third world level for the next 10 decades ... then the problem would also kinda solve itself. Most likely, there will still be humans around several hundreds of years from now. It just won't be 7+ billion or even 1/4 of that.

Anyhoo, I/we live closer to the climate than most people. This is like having a 30m headstart on a 100m dash, so I don't worry too much about my/our personal ass. I get used to heat during the summer and cold during the winter. This way I'm not going to suffer due to an abrupt cut-off which sometimes kill (see data that already happened ... for anyone who bothers to google and click, that is). By the way, this "personal orientation" is deliberate! I also chose not to buy/rent land under 200ft of sea level, no land/home in forest territory, no land w/o rich water, no "lake/water front", not moving to the South of the US and especially not the SW... and so on ... basically, I let readily available data (for those who care to seek it out) determine my choices and I don't feel bad about denialists drawing the short end of that stick. After all, just like investing, the existence of uninformed investors makes it easier for the informed ones + being deliberately uninformed makes it moral too.

My [personal] main problems are indirect. Refugees. Food security. But I have a stash. This is another problem entirely, however.

In other words, unlike Al Gore, I/we actually do arrange our lives according to science to minimize suffering. I think the difference between now (2016) and 2014 (first thread) is that I no longer care as much about the human species anymore. Because, triage. I suggest anyone who is still in the anger or denial stage of Kuebler-Ross to revisit whether they still think that humans are the end-all of planet earth or whether humans are just an intermediate species to be replaced over the next few hundred or couple of thousand of years. Like the dinosaurs. Makes it a lot easier.

If anything ... keep in mind that most humans only care/have a discount factor that extends to about next Friday. Why would you want to care beyond that if nobody else does anyway?! Go read Harry Brown's "How I found freedom in an unfree world" or imagine reading jacob's future work on "How I found peace in a stupid world". Oh well ...

[George the original one]

1) Geologic forces, such as increased siltation, would not be affecting sea levels unless you go down the path of deforestation and poor agricultural practices increasing siltation. In which case you have a manmade cause, ergo mankind needs to change its practices to avoid sea level rise.

2) We first need to figure out how much water has been drained out of aquifers in the past 100+ years and compare to sea level rise. If it matches, then once again we have a manmade cause, ergo mankind needs to change its practices to avoid sea level rise.

3) As I recall, cloud cover is either mildly increasing or has not significantly changed. Accurate measurements require satellites, so there are probably 45 years of measurements if we bother looking. Effects of cloud cover are not well understood in terms of CC: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_report ... estion.jsp.

4) Melting ice is well documented. Glaciers have significantly retreated in the past two centuries. Polar ice has significantly retreated in the past century. The rate of retreat is increasing.

[steveo73]

So take the shortcut and use this: http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#11/10.39 ... &pois=hide

They tell you where the data is coming from, how it is calculated, and the confidence interval. If you prefer, there is a NOAA version of this map for the USA. For some reason I was able to find both in 2 minutes with Google.

Once again, you ignore the polar sea ice melt issue that is currently happening THIS YEAR. You also ignore the documented glacial retreats happening worldwide. Ignoring this evidence suggests very strongly that you are not qualified to pass judgement on CC because you keep saying you don't believe any ice has melted.

This is just all rants. Can you confirm where I said that I don't believe any ice has melted.

All I'm stating is that this is a complex topic and the alarmist forecasts do not appear to be accurate or based on what I consider to be the scientific method. Lot's of scientists would also agree with me.

I tend to get my information from this site because she is skeptical and provides to me scientific discussion points:- https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/24/slow ... evel-rise/
https://judithcurry.com/2012/06/05/sea- ... on-thread/
https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/20/20th ... evel-rise/

I think this line is pretty good:-

From Chapter 3 of the AR5 SOD:

Two out of three reconstructions of GMSL (global mean sea level) from tide gauge data extending back to 1900 or earlier indicate non-zero acceleration. Estimates range from 0.000 to 0.013 [–0.002 to 0.019] mm yr–2, so it is likely that GMSL rise has accelerated since the early 1900s.

Just to be clear on this the confidence level to me is way too high based upon the data-sets that we have available to us.

I know that most people won't read this because it becomes more about beliefs than science.

[George the original one]

As you wish.

"I can't tell you the rate that it will melt by or that it will even melt."

[theanimal]

@Jacob- Can you elaborate on why no home or land in forested regions? Is it because of potential poorer gardening options and lack of power via solar? Lack of water? Or some other reason? Thanks.

[steveo73]

As you wish.

"I can't tell you the rate that it will melt by or that it will even melt."

Just to be clear you stated the following point.

Since you don't trust other people's figures and you have a background suitable for doing the math on this, you can figure out how long it will take for sea levels to rise 1', 10', or more. Remember it is a non-linear function until all the global ice has melted.

Personally I think that you are really pushing the science to state that all the global ice will melt. Are you really that confident ? I'd much rather someone state that he isn't sure that all the ice will melt and he can't state how quickly it will melt.

I think your position is alarmist.

I think that some ice has probably melted as it has in the past. Some melting may be due to AGW. I'm not confident enough to make big calls though in relation to the information that we have available to is.

[George the original one]

LOL, my position is alarmist! You really aren't studying this at all, are you? FYI, the best estimate on all the ice melting is 50 centuries. Yup, that's alarmist, now isn't it? LOL

[P_K]

@jacob
Thanks for the reply and for all you do on these forums. How you stay so patient is beyond me...

@theanimal
I cannot say for certain, but my guess would be forest fires. Look at the recent Gatlinburg forest fire as an example.

[theanimal]

@P_K- Ah, of course. Thank you.

[George the original one]

"I think that some ice has probably melted as it has in the past."

Fact: Using 1979 as 100%, artic ice area is only 75% of what it used to be.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... ng-summers
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... rature.png
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files ... ure3-1.png

"I'm not confident enough to make big calls though in relation to the information that we have available to is."

I think most people can extrapolate the above data pretty easily.

[BRUTE]

I think the difference between now (2016) and 2014 (first thread) is that I no longer care as much about the human species anymore.

welcome to nihilism.

[steveo73]

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/clim ... not-to-be/

This is a very interesting read.

[7Wannabe5]

If you live in a region where more flooding is to be expected, does it make more sense to buy a house with a basement or on a slab? Also, what might be some low tech ways to improve air quality for people with asthma?

This free course takes 14 to 28 hours to complete. I am starting today even though I would rather be reading "It Walks by Night" by John Dickson Carr, 1930. However, I might have to go down to the hotel breakfast bar to get another "free" cinnamon roll and cup of coffee to power up my brain (sigh.)

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense ... al101x-2#!

[George the original one]

I think stilts would be more appropriate.

[Dragline]

You are correct, and that is the time-honored method in coastal communities world-wide. My father was raised in such a structure in Belize.

But it probably makes more sense to just rent in the face of that kind of uncertainty. Basements will need a sump and/or drainage system.

There are interesting histories of communities that have "disappeared into the sea" for various reasons, usually having to do with improvident development, storms and erosion. Places like Cape May Point, NJ lost half of their town within the span of a lifetime. See http://www.capemay.com/Editorial/februa ... apemay.htm

[George the original one]

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/clim ... not-to-be/

This is a very interesting read.

Interesting for the politics, but not the science. In other words, it is mere gossip.