New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

UNsettled science; sea levels falling; rainforests are largest source of C02?)

Arkady

President
the explanation associated with each failed deadline:

"we were lucky - that won't happen next time"
By all means, point me to any "failed deadline" in the field of climate science where that was the explanation. What was the deadline, exactly, in what way did it fail, and who was it who said we were lucky and it won't happen next time? Be specific, please.

Here's how it really works. Climate policy is a whole series of deadlines for avoiding problems. The more deadlines you miss, the more problems you aren't going to be able to avoid. For example, the deadline for avoiding an 85 mm rise in sea levels passed long ago, and sea levels have risen 85 mm since 1993. We've missed the deadline for avoiding quite a bit more increase after that, too, since there's a lag on warming (and thus sea level rise). Seas are going to be higher ten and twenty years from now regardless of what we do. But there are still further increases for which we haven't yet missed a deadline. With every passing day, more negative consequences are locked in.
 
They didn't. It takes approximately 5 seconds of Googling to find NASA's sea level page:

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

It's all right there: the 3.4 mm/year sea level rise trend since 1993, the sea level rise trend from 1870-2000 according tide gauges, plus the little micro-trends in the opposite direction along the way. There's no attempt at all to hide the results. Quite the opposite, they make it possible to get the raw data to crunch the numbers yourself:

ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/merged_alt/L2/TP_J1_OSTM/global_mean_sea_level/GMSL_TPJAOS_V4_199209_201708.txt

But, the right-wing propaganda sites are calibrated for the paranoid style in American politics, and so they'll pretend there was an attempt to hide it, and the dummies will simply adopt those assertions mindlessly.
so basically, there's 150 years of sea level rise NOT associated with industrialization/carbon emissions, and no specific change associated with SUVs?

good to know.
 

Arkady

President

Tyrion Lannister: I believe what a few honest men tell me they've seen, my queen, rather than what "everybody knows".


http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/earth-science/satellite-data-shows-largest-co2-increase-earth-tropics/


http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/26/sea-levels-are-falling-nasa-data-sea-levels-fell-in-2016-from-jan-2016-to-march-2017/


You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. We just learned that rainforests produce more CO2 than they consume, and are the largest source of atmospheric carbon. And sea levels are falling, not rising.

But don’t worry – the government is NOT backing own from it's predictions that NYC will soon be underwater. They’re too deeply invested in the narrative to back down. Their credibility is at stake. They'll probably just extend the doomsday date another couple of decades, like those psychic apocalyptics do to keep book sales strong.

Stop laughing. I’m trying to be serious here. The fact that the government believes it HAS credibility to protect is the perhaps the biggest confirmation of government insanity that anyone could muster. This would be the same government which has produced: a $20 trillion federal debt; an opiod crisis; turned out schools into violent gang infested dropout mills; and hasn’t won a war in like forever.

You can spend an hour at NASA’s official “sea level” website, and not find any reference to falling sea levels as I recently did. There’s not a single chart showing it. To get the answer, wonks had to deconstruct the raw data (see link above).

I suppose the results would be similar if you went to the DOE (department of education) website, you’d never realize that 1/3 of all students never complete high school. Half drop out, if they were unlucky enough to be born in a deep blue city; the kind where the police no longer respond to 911 calls unless it involves an “officer down”.

If you visit the Pentagon website, you wouldn’t find out that we have more than 2,500 military bases, probably half of them redundant.


The government does disclose – it is required to – that the national debt is $20 trillion. However, it doesn’t mention that’s $200,000 for each of america’s 100 million families – because it doesn’t have to. And there is no pretence anywhere that there is a plan to fix this though better government policy.

At this point in my top post rants, I usually insert the phrase “back to (top post subject)”. And bait whichever PJ purveyor of misleading official government data to prove his thesis, or (more responsibly) to take a more bipartisan and objective approach; to avoid continuing to appear like one of the pathetic “party members” in 1984. My approach never works, though.

In response to the current findings, I’m certainly NOT going to propose clear cutting rain forests. Or that put our 401K balances into property insurance company stock on the theory that falling sea levels will result in less coastal damage. People will immediately build on any spit of sand which emerges – see photo below of Ocean City Maryland which wasn’t even a place 200 years ago, until a hurricane CREATED it.

Rather, I’m going to do what I always do, and what I believe is right: remind readers that if we see politicians, government payroll scientists, corporations, or foreign dictators telling us some crisis is unavoidable UNLESS we do as they say, we should exercise extreme skepticism, and investigate more deeply.

My touchstone: Live frugally and put something away for the future in case the “safety nets” get shredded. Stay sober. Read. A lot – from a variety of sources. Don’t hate the guy next door because he belongs to a different church, political party or warehouse shopping club than you do.

And don’t count on an eternal reward after death. The only heaven we’ll ever know is likely the one we create here and now, during our lifetimes.


"Don't worry. We have federal flood insurance, honey. And besides, 50 feet of sand has been enough to protect this building from hurricanes ever since it was built . . . "
Regarding CO2 output in the tropics, it's important to understand the difference between short-term carbon cycles and long-term ones. On a yearly basis, carbon is dominated by seasonal cycles. Over relatively short multi-year periods, it can also be influenced by dry and wet cycles in regional weather. But those things tend to equal out. For example, if a drought causes forest fires which dump a ton of carbon into the atmosphere, that also leaves behind open land that's been enriched by ash, and so once normal moisture levels return, you get very rapid vegetation growth, taking up that carbon again. Those trends will tend to balance out, globally, over decadal periods, and so they don't have a big impact on climate.

The bigger issues are those where you get a long-term increase in atmospheric carbon -- increases spanning the whole planet and lasting for decades. That's what we're seeing with AGW. Humans are digging up vast amounts of prehistoric carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere, far faster than natural processes can sequester it. We're also clear-cutting forests, converting them, long-term, to landscapes that do far less to sequester carbon. And we're producing cement, which produces carbon both because of all the fossil fuels we burn to heat the limestone, and because of the CO2 released by the heated limestone.
 

Arkady

President
so basically, there's 150 years of sea level rise NOT associated with industrialization/carbon emissions, and no specific change associated with SUVs?

good to know.
On your planet, when do you think the industrial revolution started? Also, do you have unicorns there?
 

Arkady

President
so basically, there's 150 years of sea level rise NOT associated with industrialization/carbon emissions, and no specific change associated with SUVs?

good to know.
OK, snark aside, I'll explain your error, in case you're not seeing it.

The period from 1870-2000 is entirely in the industrial era. The industrial revolution happened between 1760 and 1840. By the late 1800s, there was massive industrialization, fueled by coal (one of the most carbon-intensive energy sources). Yet, because industrialization rolled out lowly from Britain to less developed countries, human carbon output ramped up slowly, too, as did global warming and associated sea level increase.

You can see that in the graphs. According to the Satellite set, since this time 2000, global sea level went from 23.4mm above baseline to 84.9mm. That's 61.5 mm in 17 years or 3.6 mm/year. Now, compare that to 1870-2000. We went from zero to just under 200. So, 200 mm in 130 years. So, 1.5 mm/year. And break that down even within those 130 years. From 1870 to 1930, it was 50 mm of increase in 60 years, or 0.8 mm/year. From 1930 to 2000, it was 150 mm in 70 years or 2.1 mm per year.

That's exactly what we'd expect to see if sea level increases were being driven by human greenhouse gas emissions: we'd expect a slow start, in the early industrial era, when output was lower, with gradual acceleration over time -- 0.8 mm/year, 2.1 mm/year, 3.6 mm/year.
 

Hmmmm

Mayor
i am looking. i see that the we have been in an inter-glacial period since the peak of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago. The earth is far from as warm as its gotten prior to the last ice age. when climate scientists can tell us what caused the last 10 cycles of ice ages, and what made them recede, i'll have a higher comfort level that they're on to something.
What makes you think that scientists don't have some good ideas backed by data? Remember when I suggested that you read something scientific written by scientists, this is part of that. I can't tell you what books I have read that have discussed it. Factors such as Milankovic cycles, CO2 level changes due to plants and animals, changes in bodies of water, etc. I think I read once that a huge lake above where the great lakes are now was drained suddenly by some cataclysmic event and it had a huge impact on weather. You really should read science written by scientists, not ideologues.

Just a quick read on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation

"when climate scientists can tell us what caused the last 10 cycles of ice ages, and what made them recede, i'll have a higher comfort level that they're on to something" What makes you an expert on whether scientists are on to something or not? If you can't believe scientists with sciencey stuff, then the problem is almost always going to be you, not the scientists. Be a skeptic, but be an informed skeptic. If your beliefs correlate more closely to your political or religious beliefs than with scientific consensus, you are anti-science by definition.

The best book for non-scientists on science history and scientific progression is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. It is actually good to read because he spends some time on the personalities involved.
 

Days

Commentator
What makes you think that scientists don't have some good ideas backed by data? Remember when I suggested that you read something scientific written by scientists, this is part of that. I can't tell you what books I have read that have discussed it. Factors such as Milankovic cycles, CO2 level changes due to plants and animals, changes in bodies of water, etc. I think I read once that a huge lake above where the great lakes are now was drained suddenly by some cataclysmic event and it had a huge impact on weather. You really should read science written by scientists, not ideologues.

Just a quick read on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation

"when climate scientists can tell us what caused the last 10 cycles of ice ages, and what made them recede, i'll have a higher comfort level that they're on to something" What makes you an expert on whether scientists are on to something or not? If you can't believe scientists with sciencey stuff, then the problem is almost always going to be you, not the scientists. Be a skeptic, but be an informed skeptic. If your beliefs correlate more closely to your political or religious beliefs than with scientific consensus, you are anti-science by definition.

The best book for non-scientists on science history and scientific progression is "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. It is actually good to read because he spends some time on the personalities involved.
science = observation

... you are telling her to stop observing the scientists in the name of science? ... something wierd, I didn't get it.

Science is not religion. When you make it a religion, you have this faith-based thinking going that is the opposite of science. That's what happens when you buy into a theory for political reasons... it becomes your religion.
 

Hmmmm

Mayor
science = observation

... you are telling her to stop observing the scientists in the name of science? ... something wierd, I didn't get it.

Science is not religion. When you make it a religion, you have this faith-based thinking going that is the opposite of science. That's what happens when you buy into a theory for political reasons... it becomes your religion.
What are you talking about? I told her to be a skeptic but an informed skeptic. I told her to learn.
 
science = observation

... you are telling her to stop observing the scientists in the name of science? ... something wierd, I didn't get it.

Science is not religion. When you make it a religion, you have this faith-based thinking going that is the opposite of science. That's what happens when you buy into a theory for political reasons... it becomes your religion.
That's precisely what's going on here. The AGW zealots are the most religious people I know.
 

Jen

Senator

Tyrion Lannister: I believe what a few honest men tell me they've seen, my queen, rather than what "everybody knows".


http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/earth-science/satellite-data-shows-largest-co2-increase-earth-tropics/


http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/26/sea-levels-are-falling-nasa-data-sea-levels-fell-in-2016-from-jan-2016-to-march-2017/


You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried. We just learned that rainforests produce more CO2 than they consume, and are the largest source of atmospheric carbon. And sea levels are falling, not rising.

But don’t worry – the government is NOT backing own from it's predictions that NYC will soon be underwater. They’re too deeply invested in the narrative to back down. Their credibility is at stake. They'll probably just extend the doomsday date another couple of decades, like those psychic apocalyptics do to keep book sales strong.

Stop laughing. I’m trying to be serious here. The fact that the government believes it HAS credibility to protect is the perhaps the biggest confirmation of government insanity that anyone could muster. This would be the same government which has produced: a $20 trillion federal debt; an opiod crisis; turned out schools into violent gang infested dropout mills; and hasn’t won a war in like forever.

You can spend an hour at NASA’s official “sea level” website, and not find any reference to falling sea levels as I recently did. There’s not a single chart showing it. To get the answer, wonks had to deconstruct the raw data (see link above).

I suppose the results would be similar if you went to the DOE (department of education) website, you’d never realize that 1/3 of all students never complete high school. Half drop out, if they were unlucky enough to be born in a deep blue city; the kind where the police no longer respond to 911 calls unless it involves an “officer down”.

If you visit the Pentagon website, you wouldn’t find out that we have more than 2,500 military bases, probably half of them redundant.


The government does disclose – it is required to – that the national debt is $20 trillion. However, it doesn’t mention that’s $200,000 for each of america’s 100 million families – because it doesn’t have to. And there is no pretence anywhere that there is a plan to fix this though better government policy.

At this point in my top post rants, I usually insert the phrase “back to (top post subject)”. And bait whichever PJ purveyor of misleading official government data to prove his thesis, or (more responsibly) to take a more bipartisan and objective approach; to avoid continuing to appear like one of the pathetic “party members” in 1984. My approach never works, though.

In response to the current findings, I’m certainly NOT going to propose clear cutting rain forests. Or that put our 401K balances into property insurance company stock on the theory that falling sea levels will result in less coastal damage. People will immediately build on any spit of sand which emerges – see photo below of Ocean City Maryland which wasn’t even a place 200 years ago, until a hurricane CREATED it.

Rather, I’m going to do what I always do, and what I believe is right: remind readers that if we see politicians, government payroll scientists, corporations, or foreign dictators telling us some crisis is unavoidable UNLESS we do as they say, we should exercise extreme skepticism, and investigate more deeply.

My touchstone: Live frugally and put something away for the future in case the “safety nets” get shredded. Stay sober. Read. A lot – from a variety of sources. Don’t hate the guy next door because he belongs to a different church, political party or warehouse shopping club than you do.

And don’t count on an eternal reward after death. The only heaven we’ll ever know is likely the one we create here and now, during our lifetimes.


"Don't worry. We have federal flood insurance, honey. And besides, 50 feet of sand has been enough to protect this building from hurricanes ever since it was built . . . "
Yah. Global Warming was a hoax. Is a hoax. Some of us knew that all along. Everyone else was all gung ho about making AlGore rich and getting him an Oscar since he lost in his run for President..Lefty is all about paying retribution.
 

Arkady

President
Yah. Global Warming was a hoax. Is a hoax. Some of us knew that all along. Everyone else was all gung ho about making AlGore rich and getting him an Oscar since he lost in his run for President..Lefty is all about paying retribution.
There are various levels of sanity among the denialists. The most sane nibble around the edges, in ways that are perfectly legitimate -- challenging other scientists by providing alternate theories that can be tested, and calling attention to weak points in the mainstream science (e.g., the poor precision of the computer models, the haziness of more distant parts of the paleoclimate reconstructions, and the uncertainty about what the impacts of warming will be). A level below that are the people who are convinced that the scientists are getting it wrong, but who just try to throw any critique against the wall and hope something sticks. The lowest level of insanity are those who imagine the existence of a vast hoax being pushed by the scientists. Those crazies picture a conspiracy that somehow has enveloped tens of thousands of scientists working for thousands of different employers in scores of countries over the course of decades. They imagine that conspiracy somehow formed without any evidence of its organization leaking, and that it somehow continues year after year without any conspirators spilling the beans. Those people are nutty enough that they're probably a danger to themselves and others. Their lunacy is on a level with people who think the moon landing was a hoax.
 
Yah. Global Warming was a hoax. Is a hoax. Some of us knew that all along. Everyone else was all gung ho about making AlGore rich and getting him an Oscar since he lost in his run for President..Lefty is all about paying retribution.
global warming is (mostly) a natural process arising from the same processes which cause ice ages to wax and wane.

scientists are at a loss to explain what causes ice ages.

which puts the rest of us at risk of having anti-capitalist hijack THAT narrative, and claim ice ages are caused by SUV, industrialization, and democracy.
 
OK, snark aside, I'll explain your error, in case you're not seeing it.

The period from 1870-2000 is entirely in the industrial era. The industrial revolution happened between 1760 and 1840. By the late 1800s, there was massive industrialization, fueled by coal (one of the most carbon-intensive energy sources). Yet, because industrialization rolled out lowly from Britain to less developed countries, human carbon output ramped up slowly, too, as did global warming and associated sea level increase.

You can see that in the graphs. According to the Satellite set, since this time 2000, global sea level went from 23.4mm above baseline to 84.9mm. That's 61.5 mm in 17 years or 3.6 mm/year. Now, compare that to 1870-2000. We went from zero to just under 200. So, 200 mm in 130 years. So, 1.5 mm/year. And break that down even within those 130 years. From 1870 to 1930, it was 50 mm of increase in 60 years, or 0.8 mm/year. From 1930 to 2000, it was 150 mm in 70 years or 2.1 mm per year.

That's exactly what we'd expect to see if sea level increases were being driven by human greenhouse gas emissions: we'd expect a slow start, in the early industrial era, when output was lower, with gradual acceleration over time -- 0.8 mm/year, 2.1 mm/year, 3.6 mm/year.
clearly not. I provided a chart for those who are ignorant of history. it details annual carbon emissions - which is far differnet from "the industrial era"

 
global warming is (mostly) a natural process arising from the same processes which cause ice ages to wax and wane.

scientists are at a loss to explain what causes ice ages.

which puts the rest of us at risk of having anti-capitalist hijack THAT narrative, and claim ice ages are caused by SUV, industrialization, and democracy.
They already tried that in the 1970s. It's why the AGW hoaxsters currently lack credibility.
 

Jen

Senator
global warming is (mostly) a natural process arising from the same processes which cause ice ages to wax and wane.

scientists are at a loss to explain what causes ice ages.

which puts the rest of us at risk of having anti-capitalist hijack THAT narrative, and claim ice ages are caused by SUV, industrialization, and democracy.
And that's exactly what happened. Things naturally move in cycles. Global warming exists. Is it man made? Maybe to a fraction of a percent. But Al Gore et all made a lot of money off of it.

That said............I don't believe we should trash our planet and create pollution for people to have to breathe. I am for cleaning that up as much as possible. But I resent it when those using as much electricity as a whole third world nation tell me to get rid of my SUV.
 
Top