Antarctic ice cliffs may not contribute to sea-level rise as much as predicted(news.mit.edu)
news.mit.edu
Antarctic ice cliffs may not contribute to sea-level rise as much as predicted
http://news.mit.edu/2019/antarctic-ice-cliffs-not-contribute-sea-level-rise-1021
204 comments
If you really care to spend the time, here's how.
(1) read the research published by climate research
(2) ignore the press which tries to report the climate research, and bloggers, and youtube videos.
You might ask, why believe the climate researchers? I'll point out that even the climate change deniers who claim that climate researchers are in the pocket of Soros (or something equally crazy) have no problem taking climate research as fact if they think it supports their claims. Eg, they'll point out that there have been various earlier epochs of high CO2, or high temps or low temps, etc, all facts which are based on the work of the same climate researchers they disagree with.
(1) read the research published by climate research
(2) ignore the press which tries to report the climate research, and bloggers, and youtube videos.
You might ask, why believe the climate researchers? I'll point out that even the climate change deniers who claim that climate researchers are in the pocket of Soros (or something equally crazy) have no problem taking climate research as fact if they think it supports their claims. Eg, they'll point out that there have been various earlier epochs of high CO2, or high temps or low temps, etc, all facts which are based on the work of the same climate researchers they disagree with.
The climate world needs more curiosity. Ask questions and go find answers. Share what you find along the way.
Have you tried Google for "interactive climate model"? I'm reading through the results now, interesting stuff. Needs better software. https://www.google.com/search?ei=CMmtXdKDMvjG0PEPwJSakA4&q=i...
Here's a nice interactive model I found for Bay Area sea level rise from 2019 - 2100: https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/explorer
Also, this isn't a model, but we built CarbonDoomsday, an interactive chart of carbon dioxide levels: http://carbondoomsday.com
Have you tried Google for "interactive climate model"? I'm reading through the results now, interesting stuff. Needs better software. https://www.google.com/search?ei=CMmtXdKDMvjG0PEPwJSakA4&q=i...
Here's a nice interactive model I found for Bay Area sea level rise from 2019 - 2100: https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/explorer
Also, this isn't a model, but we built CarbonDoomsday, an interactive chart of carbon dioxide levels: http://carbondoomsday.com
I desire the same type of "unbiased" information myself but I do not believe it is attainable for this topic. The amount of emotion that people have about the effects of pollution on temperature makes it hard to take anything at face value. The best I do is try to read up on different opinions and ignore people telling me not to look or listen to something. Ultimately, though, I have a Ph.D. in physics and not meteorology, so there is a limit to how well I'm going to be able to understand the actual science involved.
On the topic of physics
>The uncertainty principle still prevails, though. The more uncertain you are, the more certain the course of action is, which is to avoid burning hydrocarbons.
This is _not_ the uncertainty principle. At least not the one I'm familiar with. :)
On the topic of physics
>The uncertainty principle still prevails, though. The more uncertain you are, the more certain the course of action is, which is to avoid burning hydrocarbons.
This is _not_ the uncertainty principle. At least not the one I'm familiar with. :)
I desire the same type of "unbiased" information myself but I do not believe it is attainable for this topic. The amount of emotion that people have about the effects of pollution on temperature makes it hard to take anything at face value.
As far as I can tell, the scientific consensus is that CO2 generated climate change is happening more or less according to the models, with the exact degree somewhat difficult to determine year-on-year. The situation along inaction, has provoked a strong emotional response in many people. It don't see how the combination of these things demonstrates a lack of objectivity.
The approach seems rather, uh, bad faith. Consider "People seem to react emotionally when I talk a flat earth. Where can I get objective information that considers flat and round earth possibilities in a balanced fashion not reacting emotionally to flat possibilities?"
As far as I can tell, the scientific consensus is that CO2 generated climate change is happening more or less according to the models, with the exact degree somewhat difficult to determine year-on-year. The situation along inaction, has provoked a strong emotional response in many people. It don't see how the combination of these things demonstrates a lack of objectivity.
The approach seems rather, uh, bad faith. Consider "People seem to react emotionally when I talk a flat earth. Where can I get objective information that considers flat and round earth possibilities in a balanced fashion not reacting emotionally to flat possibilities?"
Note that climate science is only really controversial in the US, and as I understand it, it wasn't even controversial there 30 years ago. The current political situation has arisen when the oil industry took issue with findings coming out of climate science which was not at that time politicised.
Of course, predicting the climate it tricky business. But the underlying processes (e.g. the greenhouse) are simple physics that a high-school student can understand, and are completely beyond reasonable doubt.
How much more evidence do you need?
Of course, predicting the climate it tricky business. But the underlying processes (e.g. the greenhouse) are simple physics that a high-school student can understand, and are completely beyond reasonable doubt.
How much more evidence do you need?
>>How much more evidence do you need?
This is the right question to ask.
This is the right question to ask.
I think one reason it is controversial in the US is that many of the solutions are basically the policies the Democrats have been arguing for (taxes and regulations). It looks somewhat convenient that the solution lines up with existing policies pushed.
There's way too much money on the table to accept fact as evidence.
> Of course, predicting the climate it tricky business. But the underlying processes (e.g. the greenhouse) are simple physics that a high-school student can understand, and are completely beyond reasonable doubt.
> How much more evidence do you need?
Understanding how the underlying processes work isn't evidence of the specifics of how it is working in this instance.
As for wanting more evidence, I'd be interested to see some comprehensive documentation on the data sources and adjustments that occur, including a full honest disclosure of areas that are problematic for various reasons. I've read some fairly detailed conspiracies related to this (some email leak, can't recall the name), and as I recall the outcome of the investigation that was promised essentially consisted of "we fully investigated and found no problems, carry on".
As another example, I've also read a fair amount of interesting behind the scenes details on the rise of "grassroots" activist Greta Thunburg that don't get mentioned for some reason in the extensive coverage in the mainstream media.
This and many other similar things do not give me a feeling of trust that everything is on the up and up.
> How much more evidence do you need?
Understanding how the underlying processes work isn't evidence of the specifics of how it is working in this instance.
As for wanting more evidence, I'd be interested to see some comprehensive documentation on the data sources and adjustments that occur, including a full honest disclosure of areas that are problematic for various reasons. I've read some fairly detailed conspiracies related to this (some email leak, can't recall the name), and as I recall the outcome of the investigation that was promised essentially consisted of "we fully investigated and found no problems, carry on".
As another example, I've also read a fair amount of interesting behind the scenes details on the rise of "grassroots" activist Greta Thunburg that don't get mentioned for some reason in the extensive coverage in the mainstream media.
This and many other similar things do not give me a feeling of trust that everything is on the up and up.
> I've read some fairly detailed conspiracies related to this (some email leak, can't recall the name), and as I recall the outcome of the investigation that was promised essentially consisted of "we fully investigated and found no problems, carry on".
You're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c..., where you'll find that eight different major organizations investigated, with pretty detailed findings.
"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion."
Maybe basing your opinion on climate science on "some email leak [you] can't recall the name [of]" isn't ideal?
You're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c..., where you'll find that eight different major organizations investigated, with pretty detailed findings.
"The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion."
Maybe basing your opinion on climate science on "some email leak [you] can't recall the name [of]" isn't ideal?
Let's take the first one just as an example:
------------------------------------------------------------
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.[86] The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February. They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.[87] An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.[88]
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[89]
The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually not included all the data and code used in reconstructions. It said that "even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified." The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.[90]
The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly". Jones had admitted sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof. Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."[33] In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could.[33] It stated: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists".[91]
The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries.[89]
------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a convincing evidence-based part in there that I'm missing?
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[61]
The panel commented that it was "very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians." It found that although the CRU had not made inappropriate use of statistical methods, some of the methods used may not have been the best for the purpose, though it said that "it is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results." It suggested that the CRU could have done more to document and archive its work, data and algorithms and stated that the scientists were "ill prepared" for the amount of public attention generated by their work, commenting that "as with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal." The media and other scientific organisations were criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties, doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU. The UK Government's policy of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere." The panel was also stated that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices." It found that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the difficulties of research in this area.[61]
Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists. He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.[92] Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."[93]
At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper produced in the United States by scientists led by Michael E. Mann, saying that the hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect. He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue. Mann subsequently told The Guardian that the study had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much attention or credence".[92]
The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings. Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."[94] He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."[95] The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better." It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."[96]
It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science. Phil Willis described this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had chaired had been led to believe. There were also questions about the selection of publications examined by the panel.[97] Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that his inquiry would look into the science itself. "I think that was inaccurate," Oxburgh said. "This had to be done rapidly. This was their concern. They really wanted something within a month. There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."[98]
------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than reducing my mistrust, this one has increased it.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe basing your opinion on climate science on "some email leak [you] can't recall the name [of]" isn't ideal?
It certainly isn't, lucky I'm not doing that: "This and many other similar things do not give me a feeling of trust that everything is on the up and up."
Maybe completely misinterpreting the words and intentions of anyone who dares disagree with the orthodoxy isn't an ideal approach. How's the consensus building going in your opinion?
------------------------------------------------------------
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir Russell review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets.[86] The committee invited written submissions from interested parties, and published 55 submissions that it had received by 10 February. They included submissions from the University of East Anglia, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Met Office, several other professional bodies, prominent scientists, some climate change sceptics, several MEPs and other interested parties.[87] An oral evidence session was held on 1 March 2010.[88]
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[89]
The committee criticised a "culture of non-disclosure at CRU" and a general lack of transparency in climate science where scientific papers had usually not included all the data and code used in reconstructions. It said that "even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified." The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.[90]
The committee chairman Phil Willis said that the "standard practice" in climate science generally of not routinely releasing all raw data and computer codes "needs to change and it needs to change quickly". Jones had admitted sending "awful emails"; Willis commented that "[Jones] probably wishes that emails were never invented," but "apart from that we do believe that Prof. Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research."[33] In Willis' view this did not excuse any failure to deal properly with FOI Act requests, but the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could.[33] It stated: "There is no reason why Professor Jones should not resume his post. He was certainly not co-operative with those seeking to get data, but that was true of all the climate scientists".[91]
The committee was careful to point out that its report had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries.[89]
------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a convincing evidence-based part in there that I'm missing?
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[61]
The panel commented that it was "very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians." It found that although the CRU had not made inappropriate use of statistical methods, some of the methods used may not have been the best for the purpose, though it said that "it is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results." It suggested that the CRU could have done more to document and archive its work, data and algorithms and stated that the scientists were "ill prepared" for the amount of public attention generated by their work, commenting that "as with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal." The media and other scientific organisations were criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties, doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU. The UK Government's policy of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere." The panel was also stated that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices." It found that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the difficulties of research in this area.[61]
Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists. He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.[92] Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."[93]
At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper produced in the United States by scientists led by Michael E. Mann, saying that the hockey stick graph it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect. He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue. Mann subsequently told The Guardian that the study had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much attention or credence".[92]
The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings. Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."[94] He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."[95] The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better." It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."[96]
It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science. Phil Willis described this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had chaired had been led to believe. There were also questions about the selection of publications examined by the panel.[97] Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that his inquiry would look into the science itself. "I think that was inaccurate," Oxburgh said. "This had to be done rapidly. This was their concern. They really wanted something within a month. There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."[98]
------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than reducing my mistrust, this one has increased it.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe basing your opinion on climate science on "some email leak [you] can't recall the name [of]" isn't ideal?
It certainly isn't, lucky I'm not doing that: "This and many other similar things do not give me a feeling of trust that everything is on the up and up."
Maybe completely misinterpreting the words and intentions of anyone who dares disagree with the orthodoxy isn't an ideal approach. How's the consensus building going in your opinion?
Rather than raw copy/pasting a good portion of the entire Wikipedia entry, would you care to highlight specifics you're interested in discussing?
It sounds like standard head patting assurances to me, I'd there anything in there beyond claims that all is well, which was the same story prior to the email leak?
Is all of the data and calculations now open sourced so the matter is permanently put to rest?
Is all of the data and calculations now open sourced so the matter is permanently put to rest?
> Is all of the data and calculations now open sourced so the matter is permanently put to rest?
Yes (with the exception of 19 Polish stations, for reasons the Poles didn't disclose). https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14315747
Yes (with the exception of 19 Polish stations, for reasons the Poles didn't disclose). https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14315747
That article contains no references to code that performs the calculations.
These sorts of discussions don't do much for increasing my confidence level that statements in the media or forums should be taken at face value.
These sorts of discussions don't do much for increasing my confidence level that statements in the media or forums should be taken at face value.
After reading this thread, the problem you have is YOU.
I'm not trying to be critical or a dick. Your argument is "I don't have the information, and random sources I didn't dig into cast aspersions and make me think things are not as straightforward, I want to see the data etc..."
The solution is TO GO LOOK AT THE DATA!. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies with methods laid out in detail, data provided for you with information on collection, manipulation etc... Everything you're asking for to be "more informed" exists, but your not actually out there reading it obviously, you're here claiming you want the data that is available and accessible simply by starting on google and working your way through it to educate yourself.
Ignore the media, ignore those 'email leaks' and other BS you're seeing. Read the actual studies look at the actual information.
Or alternatively you can go to the experts that do all of that and look at their point of view, which is overwhelmingly that while the models might not be as accurate as we'd like all the time, the trend and future direction and many of the eventual outcomes of those changes are predictable.
Furthermore, climate change scientists have been beating this drum for 3 decades. As they predicted and we ignored, We're in the middle of an extinction event where we're seeing massive die-offs in multiple areas of the ecosystem, sea level rise and temperature rise is already happening and visible/quantifiable, increased storms, flooding and fire is already part of our lives.
To still deny the scientists who have been largely right for 30 years+, to ignore the actual evidence published while demanding "more evidence" and to deny the climate changes and the causes (significantly: us) as we've well established is at best ignorant, at worst malicious.
Do the research, do the reading. Inform yourself instead of demanding others inform you while casting aspersions on scientists based on media and rumors.
I'm not trying to be critical or a dick. Your argument is "I don't have the information, and random sources I didn't dig into cast aspersions and make me think things are not as straightforward, I want to see the data etc..."
The solution is TO GO LOOK AT THE DATA!. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies with methods laid out in detail, data provided for you with information on collection, manipulation etc... Everything you're asking for to be "more informed" exists, but your not actually out there reading it obviously, you're here claiming you want the data that is available and accessible simply by starting on google and working your way through it to educate yourself.
Ignore the media, ignore those 'email leaks' and other BS you're seeing. Read the actual studies look at the actual information.
Or alternatively you can go to the experts that do all of that and look at their point of view, which is overwhelmingly that while the models might not be as accurate as we'd like all the time, the trend and future direction and many of the eventual outcomes of those changes are predictable.
Furthermore, climate change scientists have been beating this drum for 3 decades. As they predicted and we ignored, We're in the middle of an extinction event where we're seeing massive die-offs in multiple areas of the ecosystem, sea level rise and temperature rise is already happening and visible/quantifiable, increased storms, flooding and fire is already part of our lives.
To still deny the scientists who have been largely right for 30 years+, to ignore the actual evidence published while demanding "more evidence" and to deny the climate changes and the causes (significantly: us) as we've well established is at best ignorant, at worst malicious.
Do the research, do the reading. Inform yourself instead of demanding others inform you while casting aspersions on scientists based on media and rumors.
Have you ever Googled "interactive climate model"?
Thanks to your post, now I have. Looks like interesting stuff, and could be far better. Now I'm interested in building that better version. Thanks!
https://www.google.com/search?ei=CMmtXdKDMvjG0PEPwJSakA4&q=i...
Thanks to your post, now I have. Looks like interesting stuff, and could be far better. Now I'm interested in building that better version. Thanks!
https://www.google.com/search?ei=CMmtXdKDMvjG0PEPwJSakA4&q=i...
I have not but I will take a look! Sadly, it will probably just get added to the ever growing list of projects that I will pass away before working on them. :/
Haha I know the feeling! To solve that, I made the choice 3 years ago to focus my curiosity (is that possible...) on climate topics.
I worked with a bunch of HN readers to build "Carbon Doomsday", an interactive chart of carbon dioxide levels, like Coinbase charts. It got really great comments on HN about a year ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16332595
http://carbondoomsday.com
I worked with a bunch of HN readers to build "Carbon Doomsday", an interactive chart of carbon dioxide levels, like Coinbase charts. It got really great comments on HN about a year ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16332595
http://carbondoomsday.com
I meant the precautionary principle. Fixed, thanks.
Well, I'd start here: https://www.ipcc.ch and claim that's the least biased information available. Don't know whether it fits your definition of summary or up-to-date.
I have the same reserves about the climate change hysteria going on now, but I agree, there are other reasons to stop burning hydrocarbons anyway, not the least health and comfort in big cities.
I lean more toward the side that climate change is starting to become undeniable, even to subjective experience, but in either case it really is a Pascal's wager as far as I can see.
The worst case if we act as if climate change is real and it's not real is that the economy might slow a bit, and the environment probably becomes quite a bit healthier. The worst case if we act as if climate change is not real and it is in fact real is that the only place we know of in the universe where our species can exist might become uninhabitable.
The worst case if we act as if climate change is real and it's not real is that the economy might slow a bit, and the environment probably becomes quite a bit healthier. The worst case if we act as if climate change is not real and it is in fact real is that the only place we know of in the universe where our species can exist might become uninhabitable.
I disagree. If climate change is as catastrophic as it is being portrayed by most it's not going to a cause economic slowdown. It will cause massive economic upheaval.
If all fossil fuel vehicles are replaced by 2030 think of the scale of that. Every gas station in the U.S. will close. 98% of the cars on road will become junk items.
If all fossil fuel vehicles are replaced by 2030 think of the scale of that. Every gas station in the U.S. will close. 98% of the cars on road will become junk items.
Yes this change would destroy a lot of things, but it would require creating a lot of things as well. Replacing all those cars and gas stations with something else, like EVs and more public transportation will require a massive infrastructure effort. It might require demand reduction, like requiring employers to allow employees to work remotely when possible.
Yes these are big changes, but again what would be the alternative? To me it's like if you were diagnosed to Celiac's disease. Imagine your doctor tells you that you must stop eating grains or you will go insane and die. That may require making significant changes to your lifestyle you don't want to make, but can you really afford to just hope medical scientific consensus is wrong, and that you've been misdiagnosed, just because it's too hard or too complicated to make a change?
Yes these are big changes, but again what would be the alternative? To me it's like if you were diagnosed to Celiac's disease. Imagine your doctor tells you that you must stop eating grains or you will go insane and die. That may require making significant changes to your lifestyle you don't want to make, but can you really afford to just hope medical scientific consensus is wrong, and that you've been misdiagnosed, just because it's too hard or too complicated to make a change?
> Every gas station in the U.S. will close. 98% of the cars on road will become junk items.
If we do act, what you say here will happen, but we'll have charging stations instead and cars of a different kind on the road.
If climate change is real and we don't act: what you say will happen, with no replacement.
The question isn't whether gas stations can stay. The question is if we can stay on this planet.
If we do act, what you say here will happen, but we'll have charging stations instead and cars of a different kind on the road.
If climate change is real and we don't act: what you say will happen, with no replacement.
The question isn't whether gas stations can stay. The question is if we can stay on this planet.
extinction rebellion, the hundreds of videos flooding twitter of climate change activists blocking streets/intersections (one video that blew up was of "activists" on top of a train. stopping it, working class people trying to get to work in the most environmentally friendly way) have been ruining the movement
everyone is aware of the real effects of climate change but the extremes people are going about it (hysteria/moral panic) are dishonest. I would guess the majority of us western relatively well off middle/upper middle class understand the hardest hit by climate change will be the poors/lower classes. so far I've seen the ecofriendly movement as a war on the less fortunate. The biggest enemies of the environment are still the huge corporations/shipping and the us military/select countries.
everyone is aware of the real effects of climate change but the extremes people are going about it (hysteria/moral panic) are dishonest. I would guess the majority of us western relatively well off middle/upper middle class understand the hardest hit by climate change will be the poors/lower classes. so far I've seen the ecofriendly movement as a war on the less fortunate. The biggest enemies of the environment are still the huge corporations/shipping and the us military/select countries.
NASA is usually a good place to start. Their articles are clearly written for laymen, they're proven to do good science, and you can't say that NASA is overly political.
Basically, the consensus I can find is this:
1) The earth is warming, and it's our fault. There is no credible debate here - CO2 causes warming, and we release a crapload of CO2.
2) We're on track for something like 4°C by the end of the century. That's the difference between an ice-age and current temps (https://xkcd.com/1379/). So we're on track to find out what the opposite of an ice-age is by 2100.
3) What does "the opposite of an ice age" mean, besides warmer? Wetter.
4) All the models have thick error bars, though. For temperature, think of everything as being plus-or-minus something like 25%. Our current warming is well within current error bars, despite what deniers will tell you.
5) Sea level rise will happen, but of course slower than Gore and the like said - those previous predictions were using worst-case-scenario things. Remember, error bars. Also, when talking about sea-level-rise, don't think of it as "Miami swallowed by the ocean", but think about storm surges and floods creeping further and further in land. A house doesn't have to be permanently under-water to be inhospitable due to sea-level-rise - an annually-flooded-basement will do that just as well.
6) What else? That's where it gets iffy. There are millions of different theories with varying amounts of evidence supporting them - some of them quite apocalyptic. Extreme weather, shifting climates like desertification, heat waves, etc. vicious-cycle positive-feedback-loops like cloud collapse (https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/25/climate-change-kills-off-c...).
The biggest threat of climate change is what happens if the Global South becomes inhospitable. There are billions of poor people who cannot survive if their countries become deserts. And if that doesn't sound like Your Problem, remember that some of those people have nukes.
Basically, the consensus I can find is this:
1) The earth is warming, and it's our fault. There is no credible debate here - CO2 causes warming, and we release a crapload of CO2.
2) We're on track for something like 4°C by the end of the century. That's the difference between an ice-age and current temps (https://xkcd.com/1379/). So we're on track to find out what the opposite of an ice-age is by 2100.
3) What does "the opposite of an ice age" mean, besides warmer? Wetter.
4) All the models have thick error bars, though. For temperature, think of everything as being plus-or-minus something like 25%. Our current warming is well within current error bars, despite what deniers will tell you.
5) Sea level rise will happen, but of course slower than Gore and the like said - those previous predictions were using worst-case-scenario things. Remember, error bars. Also, when talking about sea-level-rise, don't think of it as "Miami swallowed by the ocean", but think about storm surges and floods creeping further and further in land. A house doesn't have to be permanently under-water to be inhospitable due to sea-level-rise - an annually-flooded-basement will do that just as well.
6) What else? That's where it gets iffy. There are millions of different theories with varying amounts of evidence supporting them - some of them quite apocalyptic. Extreme weather, shifting climates like desertification, heat waves, etc. vicious-cycle positive-feedback-loops like cloud collapse (https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/25/climate-change-kills-off-c...).
The biggest threat of climate change is what happens if the Global South becomes inhospitable. There are billions of poor people who cannot survive if their countries become deserts. And if that doesn't sound like Your Problem, remember that some of those people have nukes.
One thing to notice is that models and measurements are a lot more exact than they were only 20 years ago (when most of the modern controversies surroundies these issues started).
As those error bars have shrunk it is clear that early models were in fact too cautious. That's important to keep in mind as some pundits drop the word hysteria. So far, anything from the IPCC has been shown to be the opposite.
As those error bars have shrunk it is clear that early models were in fact too cautious. That's important to keep in mind as some pundits drop the word hysteria. So far, anything from the IPCC has been shown to be the opposite.
There isn't really such a thing as "unbiased" in climate unless you're an outright AGQ denier. There are a lot of different models, and the model you choose will give you different results. People have different foci- some people, like David Wallace Wells in the Uninhabitable Earth look at and warn about the most dangerous model. Others, like the IPCC, try to look at them broadly.
Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know by Joseph Romm is a great read. Very basic.
Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming by Paul Hawken is a good follow up for understanding what is necessary and what can be done.
The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypses, Lethal Oceans, and Our Quest to Understand Earth’s Past Mass Extinctions by Peter Brannen explains how historically Carbon has controlled the Earth's climate system.
That's my best list for "unbiased".
Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know by Joseph Romm is a great read. Very basic.
Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming by Paul Hawken is a good follow up for understanding what is necessary and what can be done.
The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypses, Lethal Oceans, and Our Quest to Understand Earth’s Past Mass Extinctions by Peter Brannen explains how historically Carbon has controlled the Earth's climate system.
That's my best list for "unbiased".
Ipcc report
The IPCC report is actually biased--it's too conservative. It doesn't consider positive feedback loops that cause "runaway" change:
> By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today’s temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees—let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control.
[0]: https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/climate-report-understates-t... (by Nobel prize winner Mario Molina)
> By largely ignoring such feedbacks, the IPCC report fails to adequately warn leaders about the cluster of six similar climate tipping points that could be crossed between today’s temperature and an increase to 1.5 degrees—let alone nearly another dozen tipping points between 1.5 and 2 degrees. These wildcards could very likely push the climate system beyond human ability to control.
[0]: https://thebulletin.org/2018/10/climate-report-understates-t... (by Nobel prize winner Mario Molina)
Every statement in the IPCC report must be approved unanimously by a panel of authors from various countries. The theories that are not reaching consensus yet cannot be part of it.
That's what gives the reports so much weight. Literally everyone should agree with it.
That's what gives the reports so much weight. Literally everyone should agree with it.
Of course "weight" does not mean the same as "accuracy".
It depends on your way of selecting the panel of authors, though.
eg. if you only pick people who agree with you, it's not a scientific consensus, but an echo chamber.
There are delegates from more than 120 governments that have to approve every line from every report. Government-appointed delegates from Saudi Arabia have the same weight as from France, UK, the US. The whole thing is mandated and sponsored by the UN and every government can participate. It's not an echo chamber.
This YouTube channel from a former oil and gas surveying geologist and technology columnist does a good job of conveying the science while taking care not to spook people who are on the right of the political spectrum (like he is) and have absorbed too much misinformation:
https://youtu.be/D99qI42KGB0
https://youtu.be/D99qI42KGB0
Let's build something like Coinbase Charts for climate models. Interactive, select different variables and even studies.
Here's an iPhone app version: https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-pathways/
Here's an iPhone app version: https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-pathways/
It sounds like you need to read more widely. You're probably not going to find a single source which is "unbiased" like that.
Interesting. It's unfortunate that this will be used as ammunition for climate skeptics.
It seems that ice cliffs are very different than ice sheets - the things currently melting. Ice cliffs were previously supposed to account for up to 6 feet of sea level rise, instead of the much more toned-down projections we have seen in the last few years.
The subtle distinction between ice cliffs and ice sheets will be lost in the media re-telling of this. Sometimes I wonder if science can ever truly be put to work for mass society? It seems not.
It seems that ice cliffs are very different than ice sheets - the things currently melting. Ice cliffs were previously supposed to account for up to 6 feet of sea level rise, instead of the much more toned-down projections we have seen in the last few years.
The subtle distinction between ice cliffs and ice sheets will be lost in the media re-telling of this. Sometimes I wonder if science can ever truly be put to work for mass society? It seems not.
Yes, I can already see all the articles saying that the meltdown of the ice sheets is "not that bad after all", even though the melting is on record levels in the last few years.
This is why even in the age of the Internet, it's going to take decades until the measures that actually need to be taken to combat climate change to be put in place.
By then we will be well above the 1.5 degrees rise in temperature, and population north of 10 billion.
This is why even in the age of the Internet, it's going to take decades until the measures that actually need to be taken to combat climate change to be put in place.
By then we will be well above the 1.5 degrees rise in temperature, and population north of 10 billion.
We don't control the climate. The climate is a non-linear dynamic system. There are dozens of natural cycles that control the climate (AMO, PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, to name a few). And all predictions of catastrophic, runaway warming have failed to materialize in the 21st century despite over 30 years of doomsday predictions. We've seen maybe a 0.13C per decade increase in temps. Well within cyclical norms. Our understanding of the climate has to be driven by facts on the ground and not computer models and hype.
We still do not have good models for understanding or predicting global low cloud cover. Clouds are hugely important to our climate system. There is no way to accurately predict the temperature in the future, especially 100 years into the future, without modeling fundamental and extremely complex systems. Our current models do not match reality or even closely approximate it.
We still do not have good models for understanding or predicting global low cloud cover. Clouds are hugely important to our climate system. There is no way to accurately predict the temperature in the future, especially 100 years into the future, without modeling fundamental and extremely complex systems. Our current models do not match reality or even closely approximate it.
> There are dozens of natural cycles that control the climate (AMO, PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, to name a few)
You don't think scientists are aware of these? You don't think they're already tracking solar cycles and the like?
For example, see this graph:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1896/
from this NASA article:
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes
showing how solar input does not explain climate change.
You don't think scientists are aware of these? You don't think they're already tracking solar cycles and the like?
For example, see this graph:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1896/
from this NASA article:
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes
showing how solar input does not explain climate change.
NASA has a collection of scientists that believe a range of things about the climate. I watched a good video by JPL back in April discussing how lacking our models are of clouds and cloud cover and their influence on climate: https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI
Solar cycles indirectly affect cloud cover not by variations in irradiance but by increases in cosmic rays from reduction in solar magnetic shield.
Some call this the Svensmark effect, after the Danish scientist who proved this influence in cloud chamber experiment from 2017 (https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSol...)
Finally, even the IPCC has acknowledged this and are in the process of altering their CMIP model for 2021, CMIP6, to include stronger solar forcing: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/
Climate science is not settled.
Solar cycles indirectly affect cloud cover not by variations in irradiance but by increases in cosmic rays from reduction in solar magnetic shield.
Some call this the Svensmark effect, after the Danish scientist who proved this influence in cloud chamber experiment from 2017 (https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSol...)
Finally, even the IPCC has acknowledged this and are in the process of altering their CMIP model for 2021, CMIP6, to include stronger solar forcing: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/
Climate science is not settled.
> Climate science is not settled.
No science really ever is.
The problem you run into, though, is that people who don't understand science confuse "we're continuing to refine our knowledge" with "we were completely and totally incorrect".
Discovering clouds play more of a role than expected is useful information, but it's a far cry from shaking the consensus on climate change as a whole.
No science really ever is.
The problem you run into, though, is that people who don't understand science confuse "we're continuing to refine our knowledge" with "we were completely and totally incorrect".
Discovering clouds play more of a role than expected is useful information, but it's a far cry from shaking the consensus on climate change as a whole.
The addition of solar forcing to CMIP6 means that they completely missed it for the first 5 models, so the consensus was wrong. Science is driven by observation and experiment not by consensus.
We should not expect their first iteration to accurately model clouds, but at least they are factoring it in now. How much did consensus override the concerns about cloud cover during the formation of climate models over the last few decades? Consensus is just a fancy word for groupthink.
We should be asking how much more accurate do our models need to be in order to predict future climate?
There are cycles such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation that we still don't really know how to model with a high degree of accuracy. The AMO has dramatic effects on climate. So does the PDO.
We don't know how volcanic activity is going to play out over the 21st century.
We don't know how much cosmic ray flux will increase if we enter a prolonged solar minimum cycle like the Maunder Minimum.
There are a ton of factors that influence climate that our models don't account for.
We should not expect their first iteration to accurately model clouds, but at least they are factoring it in now. How much did consensus override the concerns about cloud cover during the formation of climate models over the last few decades? Consensus is just a fancy word for groupthink.
We should be asking how much more accurate do our models need to be in order to predict future climate?
There are cycles such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation that we still don't really know how to model with a high degree of accuracy. The AMO has dramatic effects on climate. So does the PDO.
We don't know how volcanic activity is going to play out over the 21st century.
We don't know how much cosmic ray flux will increase if we enter a prolonged solar minimum cycle like the Maunder Minimum.
There are a ton of factors that influence climate that our models don't account for.
Solar forcing was considered well before CMIP6. The idea that it was "completely missed" is false.
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/
> We compare the climatic effects of the CMIP6 solar forcing dataset to its CMIP5 predecessor by using time-slice experiments of two chemistry–climate models and a reference radiative transfer model... This solar-cycle response is slightly larger, but not statistically significantly different from that for the CMIP5 forcing dataset.
We may not know the exact values of cosmic ray, volcanic, etc. inputs into the systems, but we can make reasonable conclusions about their high and low end values and the likely impacts that result. A quick Googling will reveal plenty of research on (and mentions in IPCC reports) the things you assert are being ignored.
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/
> We compare the climatic effects of the CMIP6 solar forcing dataset to its CMIP5 predecessor by using time-slice experiments of two chemistry–climate models and a reference radiative transfer model... This solar-cycle response is slightly larger, but not statistically significantly different from that for the CMIP5 forcing dataset.
We may not know the exact values of cosmic ray, volcanic, etc. inputs into the systems, but we can make reasonable conclusions about their high and low end values and the likely impacts that result. A quick Googling will reveal plenty of research on (and mentions in IPCC reports) the things you assert are being ignored.
So going on 10 billion humans don't have anything to do with it? A large part of the habitable land covered in agricultural fields, polar caps melting, forecasts of 2 degrees increase in temperature by the end of the century, its just all a coincidence?
Genuinely curious why your posts are being downvoted?
Because it's the same bad-faith argument that people have seen dozens of times from climate-action-deniers before. The idea that scientists at NASA and dozens of the most prestigious and reputable institutions and journals in the world have all conspired to miss That One Thing That Explains Climate Change that isn't the obvious CO2 that has been known to contribute to global temperatures for about a century.
Eventually people tire of living in Groundhog Day and go through the same thing over and over again and they just click the downvote button and move on.
Eventually people tire of living in Groundhog Day and go through the same thing over and over again and they just click the downvote button and move on.
When you say "we" - are you speaking as one of the many who have puts years of work into these matters? If not shouldn't you at least say "they... do not have good models" etc ?
I don't mean suggest that you/we have no ability to look over experienced shoulders to cast judgement on their works, but to speak as them without having their full experience seems problematic.
I don't mean suggest that you/we have no ability to look over experienced shoulders to cast judgement on their works, but to speak as them without having their full experience seems problematic.
Is this a parody of what the above two comments are worrying about?
The thing about cycles is, well, they're cyclical. That means on a long enough time scale they factor out. That's why it's easier to predict the long-term climate than it is to predict what the weather will be tomorrow, next week, or next year.
Honestly where do you get this stuff? It's like time-cube level of nuttery.
Which claim is nuttery?
1. Getting clouds right is extremely important for the climate models. 2. We still do not know how to get clouds right.
1. Getting clouds right is extremely important for the climate models. 2. We still do not know how to get clouds right.
Well for one there's contradicting comments. First saying that there has been warming every decade, but then saying that's somehow cyclical (warming and cooling cycle) when it's really a trend (continuous warming). Then saying we need facts and not computer models, but then going on to saying we need computer models.
Anecdotal, but something an economist friend of mine said: there are currently better models for predicting economics than there are for predicting the weather tomorrow.
That's because predicting economics is like predicting climate, not weather.
Predicting weather is like predicting if the stock market will go up or down tomorrow. We can't, really. Like climate, though, we can predict with decent accuracy what it'll do over years.
Predicting weather is like predicting if the stock market will go up or down tomorrow. We can't, really. Like climate, though, we can predict with decent accuracy what it'll do over years.
It won't take decades, because we are not going to do anything.
Well, there might be a bit of corruption. Politicians have relatives who can make big money on environmental projects. The financial industry is all excited about carbon trading, with high-frequency trading and insider trading and intentional crashes and lots more fun. Political "donations" have to be generated somehow, and the lingering possibility of legislation does that well no matter which side a politician has chosen.
Crashing the economy to combat climate change seems like an abstract far-off concept until you lose your source of income. Most countries aren't about to crash their economies. The ones that do so will end up under new management after revolution or after being conquered in their weakened state.
Well, there might be a bit of corruption. Politicians have relatives who can make big money on environmental projects. The financial industry is all excited about carbon trading, with high-frequency trading and insider trading and intentional crashes and lots more fun. Political "donations" have to be generated somehow, and the lingering possibility of legislation does that well no matter which side a politician has chosen.
Crashing the economy to combat climate change seems like an abstract far-off concept until you lose your source of income. Most countries aren't about to crash their economies. The ones that do so will end up under new management after revolution or after being conquered in their weakened state.
I remember in middle school (~2004) in Cambridge we had a school assembly about global warming, and they showed an animation of a cup of water filled with ice, the ice melting, and then the cup overflowing.
In retrospect it was a simplified analogy for kids to understand, but on the other hand, massive ammunition for climate skeptics such as my parents who instantly debunked the analogy as soon as I told them about the assembly and put a cup of ice water on the kitchen table to show how silly the claim was.
In retrospect it was a simplified analogy for kids to understand, but on the other hand, massive ammunition for climate skeptics such as my parents who instantly debunked the analogy as soon as I told them about the assembly and put a cup of ice water on the kitchen table to show how silly the claim was.
That analogy may hold for arctic ice, but not antarctic ice, which is mostly a set of glacier's above the ground - some of it even has its base more than a mile above sea level.
So think of a full cup and dropping ice cubes into it. Totally different result.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/about-antarctica/antarctic-e...
So think of a full cup and dropping ice cubes into it. Totally different result.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/about-antarctica/antarctic-e...
Sure, but even now the analogy is not great because the melting part has nothing to do with it.
In other words, if you drop an ice cube into a cup of water, it will either immediately overflow or it will never overflow. The melting part has nothing to do with whether it will overflow. If the snow on the roof melts -> the cup overflows
I think a better analogy is a cup sitting at the drain pipe of a rain gutter and the roof is covered with snow.
In other words, if you drop an ice cube into a cup of water, it will either immediately overflow or it will never overflow. The melting part has nothing to do with whether it will overflow. If the snow on the roof melts -> the cup overflows
I think a better analogy is a cup sitting at the drain pipe of a rain gutter and the roof is covered with snow.
Good point, don’t forget same is true of Greenland’s glaciers.
link is not working
You may want to check your blocking software or company firewall.
Works fine on my person device running ABP ( I just double checked to make sure).
Works fine on my person device running ABP ( I just double checked to make sure).
If you want to simulate Greenland/Antarctica, you have to put the ice cubes outside the cup, and have them drain into the already full cup as they melt.
> It's unfortunate that this will be used as ammunition for climate skeptics.
On the contrary, skeptics' argument that climate science is being suppressed and manipulated just took a heavy blow.
On the contrary, skeptics' argument that climate science is being suppressed and manipulated just took a heavy blow.
Conspiracy thinking doesn't require, or reward, consistency. It doesn't matter how trivial it is to refute a talking point. They'll just Gish Gallop on to the next one -- including ones that have been refuted for them before.
I found the terms confusing so looked them up. Does this look right to you?
Glacier: Large ice masses created by snowfall that has transformed into ice and compressed over the course of many years. Ice sheets, ice streams, and ice shelves are a few types of glaciers. [2]
Ice Sheets: Freaking huge glaciers
Ice Cliffs: the vertical edges of an ice sheet. Like a rock cliff but made of ice.
Ice Shelf: the "hanging chad" of the ice world. Chunk of an ice sheet that extends out over the ocean (nice diagram in source below) [1]
Sea ice: Frozen seawater, floating on the ocean. Not made from snowfall.
Iceberg: Ice floating on the ocean, chunk of an ice sheet/ice shelf
[1] Helpful: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacier-t...
[2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/05/glaciers-ice-sheets...
Glacier: Large ice masses created by snowfall that has transformed into ice and compressed over the course of many years. Ice sheets, ice streams, and ice shelves are a few types of glaciers. [2]
Ice Sheets: Freaking huge glaciers
Ice Cliffs: the vertical edges of an ice sheet. Like a rock cliff but made of ice.
Ice Shelf: the "hanging chad" of the ice world. Chunk of an ice sheet that extends out over the ocean (nice diagram in source below) [1]
Sea ice: Frozen seawater, floating on the ocean. Not made from snowfall.
Iceberg: Ice floating on the ocean, chunk of an ice sheet/ice shelf
[1] Helpful: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacier-t...
[2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/05/glaciers-ice-sheets...
> It's unfortunate that this will be used as ammunition for climate skeptics.
That will always happen, though it only shows that these people don't understand science: That "we don't know every detail about climate change and there's scientific controversy and new discoveries about many details" does not equal "we have a controversy about the basic facts of climate change".
Interesting enough the collapse of the west antarctic ice shield was a major point of criticism where people said the IPCC got things wrong, because they were underplaying risks. It seems the debate isn't over. We'll see how it plays out.
That will always happen, though it only shows that these people don't understand science: That "we don't know every detail about climate change and there's scientific controversy and new discoveries about many details" does not equal "we have a controversy about the basic facts of climate change".
Interesting enough the collapse of the west antarctic ice shield was a major point of criticism where people said the IPCC got things wrong, because they were underplaying risks. It seems the debate isn't over. We'll see how it plays out.
> Sometimes I wonder if science can ever truly be put to work for mass society? It seems not.
Come now, that's short-sighted. Have you forgotten the hundreds of scientific discoveries making your daily life better than it was for your great-great-grandparents?
Come now, that's short-sighted. Have you forgotten the hundreds of scientific discoveries making your daily life better than it was for your great-great-grandparents?
of course, but I'm not sure those discoveries have been "put to work" with the intention and mass organization in the same way climate science has been. I think with climate science we are trying to organize scientific knowledge and use it to solve a problem on a planetary scale that has not really been done before. There have been huge international interdisciplinary efforts like CERN and the ISS for example. But nothing so messily intertwined with people's personal lives, values, principles as climate science.
rimliu(3)
edoo(1)
> ammunition for climate skeptics
That climate change alarmist’s predictions have been shown to be wrong - again - will be used as “ammunition” by the people who can’t help but notice that climate alarmists predictions are wrong each and every single time they pronounce them strikes you as a problem… why, exactly?
That climate change alarmist’s predictions have been shown to be wrong - again - will be used as “ammunition” by the people who can’t help but notice that climate alarmists predictions are wrong each and every single time they pronounce them strikes you as a problem… why, exactly?
A lot of people are going to read only the headline and shout "MIT says global warming isn't true" into their science denial bubbles!
From my reading of this, the study does not say that sea-level rise won't happen, it's just saying one theoretical mechanism for RAPID sea-level rise might not be correct, so it'll be slower than some models predict.
The study relates to ice cliffs on land and the theory that if the ice shelves in the sea break apart, then the ice cliffs on land will break apart rapidly, contributing to rapid sea-level rise. Ice already in the sea doesn't raise sea-levels but ice currently on land would. The study uses modelling to demonstrate that runaway event is unlikely, so the sea-level rise from that even should be removed from estimates.
There's another paper about this from February_:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0901-4
Some quotes from the papers:
- "We’re saying that scenario, based on cliff failure, is probably not going to play out. That’s something of a silver lining. That said, we have to be careful about breathing a sigh of relief. There are plenty of other ways to get rapid sea-level rise."
- Ice cliff collapse... "is not required to reproduce sea-level changes due to Antarctic ice loss ... without it we find that the projections agree with previous studies (all 95th percentiles are less than 43 centimetres)."
A couple more things:
- Both papers still agree that sea-level rise will happen, but maybe not so fast and not so much. (Whether your house is under one foot of water or two doesn't make much difference to if you can live there.)
- If your discussion point against climate change is based on the models being wrong/inaccurate/too varied, then you have to discount this evidence, as it too is based on modelling.
- MIT's press department need to write better headlines.
From my reading of this, the study does not say that sea-level rise won't happen, it's just saying one theoretical mechanism for RAPID sea-level rise might not be correct, so it'll be slower than some models predict.
The study relates to ice cliffs on land and the theory that if the ice shelves in the sea break apart, then the ice cliffs on land will break apart rapidly, contributing to rapid sea-level rise. Ice already in the sea doesn't raise sea-levels but ice currently on land would. The study uses modelling to demonstrate that runaway event is unlikely, so the sea-level rise from that even should be removed from estimates.
There's another paper about this from February_:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0901-4
Some quotes from the papers:
- "We’re saying that scenario, based on cliff failure, is probably not going to play out. That’s something of a silver lining. That said, we have to be careful about breathing a sigh of relief. There are plenty of other ways to get rapid sea-level rise."
- Ice cliff collapse... "is not required to reproduce sea-level changes due to Antarctic ice loss ... without it we find that the projections agree with previous studies (all 95th percentiles are less than 43 centimetres)."
A couple more things:
- Both papers still agree that sea-level rise will happen, but maybe not so fast and not so much. (Whether your house is under one foot of water or two doesn't make much difference to if you can live there.)
- If your discussion point against climate change is based on the models being wrong/inaccurate/too varied, then you have to discount this evidence, as it too is based on modelling.
- MIT's press department need to write better headlines.
> A lot of people are going to read only the headline and
> shout "MIT says global warming isn't true" into their
> science denial bubbles!
Let's build an interactive display of different models. Like Coinbase.com/charts but for climate models.
You can check and uncheck various factors (ice sheets, greenland, methane tundra).
Interesting?
You can check and uncheck various factors (ice sheets, greenland, methane tundra).
Interesting?
Here is one model that you can download and run:
https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/en/arbeitsgruppen/theoretische...
It has a GUI mode where you can check and uncheck various things. (Needs a FORTRAN compiler though, and I needed some legacy packages.)
edit: It might be less comprehensive that what you mean but it is an actual physical model.
https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/en/arbeitsgruppen/theoretische...
It has a GUI mode where you can check and uncheck various things. (Needs a FORTRAN compiler though, and I needed some legacy packages.)
edit: It might be less comprehensive that what you mean but it is an actual physical model.
Does one already exist? I know there are some for C02 emissions and other useful stats. I am certainly interested in seeing a tool like this.
I haven't seen anything useful
For example, this looks like it was designed on the Apple II
https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-bathtub-sim...
For example, this looks like it was designed on the Apple II
https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-bathtub-sim...
That'd be pretty sweet if you were able to pull it off
ITT: A lot of people with no education in climate science proportioning to understand the climate better than the vast majority of climate scientists.
> the vast majority of climate scientists
"97% of climate scientists!!!" right?
http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html
"97% of climate scientists!!!" right?
http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html
What % of overall sea level rise predictions did this effect contribute? Do we still have to worry about New York and other coastal cities being inundated in the next few decades, or not?
Sea level rise predictions have the most uncertainty of any climate predictions. We can estimate pretty confidently what the equilibrium level of ice will be from a given temperature from the geologic record, but how quickly we get there depends on a lot we don't fully understand about the physics of ice sheets. One study like this probably shouldn't change your perception of our state of knowledge of this that much, but your baseline should also be that there's huge uncertainty.
If memory serves some of the more dire predictions accounted for 40 feet of sea level rise as a result of melting ice. This article says that Antarctica's ice shelves (cliffs) would only amount to six feet.
So that leaves 'only' 34 feet of sea level rise if the ice cliffs don't collapse as a result of occasional calving and instead gradually melt over time (at a slower pace).
Either way it's going to make the sea rise... Just over say, 150 years instead of 50.
So that leaves 'only' 34 feet of sea level rise if the ice cliffs don't collapse as a result of occasional calving and instead gradually melt over time (at a slower pace).
Either way it's going to make the sea rise... Just over say, 150 years instead of 50.
You still have to worry. This is one study, not a final word on the topic, there's considerable uncertainty in this area. Notably recent numbers indicate that Greenland melting is worse than predicted.
No, I don't have to worry. That would make me unhappy.
Worry is bad for your health. Don't worry about far-off uncertain things that are out of your control. It'd just get you down, paranoid and freaking out, when you could instead focus on the things that matter in life.
Worry is bad for your health. Don't worry about far-off uncertain things that are out of your control. It'd just get you down, paranoid and freaking out, when you could instead focus on the things that matter in life.
I get suspicous when people start shouting and screaming that the only way to do anything about climate change is X - where X might or might not reduce greenhouse gases but definately aligns with there politial prirors.
I also don't like the fact that these same people seem to have no respect at all for economic growth. I firmly believe that any realy solution will be an encouragement to growth not a discouragement.
I also don't like the fact that these same people seem to have no respect at all for economic growth. I firmly believe that any realy solution will be an encouragement to growth not a discouragement.
Economic growth? How does the imaginary game of wealth-points intersect with preserving the planet's ecosystem?
I can imagine many scenarios for saving the planet, that are detrimental to human interests. Nuke all major population centers, for instance. Ban burning oil entirely. Begin sequestering all crops in the bottom of the ocean as CO2 sinks.
To confuse human trivia with planetary disaster is one of the first refuges of naive deniers - "Well, we sure can't go without our cars, don't be ridiculous!"
I can imagine many scenarios for saving the planet, that are detrimental to human interests. Nuke all major population centers, for instance. Ban burning oil entirely. Begin sequestering all crops in the bottom of the ocean as CO2 sinks.
To confuse human trivia with planetary disaster is one of the first refuges of naive deniers - "Well, we sure can't go without our cars, don't be ridiculous!"
Reducing and eventually eliminating net emissions is not optional. How we get there can be discussed - if you have any better ideas please put them forward!
The changing climate will create the first trillionare.
> Scientists have assumed that ice cliffs taller than 90 meters (about the height of the Statue of Liberty) would rapidly collapse under their own weight, contributing to more than 6 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the century — enough to completely flood Boston and other coastal cities.
If I understand correctly, these are icebergs. I don't understand how melting icebergs should impact the sea level in the first place. If I melt an ice cube in a cup the water lever remains unchanged. Don't the icebergs already displace as much water as they would contribute? Is there something about icebergs that mean they displace less water, or am I somehow misunderstanding what is going on?
If I understand correctly, these are icebergs. I don't understand how melting icebergs should impact the sea level in the first place. If I melt an ice cube in a cup the water lever remains unchanged. Don't the icebergs already displace as much water as they would contribute? Is there something about icebergs that mean they displace less water, or am I somehow misunderstanding what is going on?
> If I understand correctly, these are icebergs.
You do not understand correctly. From the article, italicized emphasis mine:
> In a warming climate, as Antarctica’s ice shelves collapse into the ocean, they expose towering cliffs of grounded ice, or ice over land. Without the buttressing support of ice shelves, scientists have assumed that the continent’s very tall ice cliffs would collapse, calving into the ocean, to expose even taller cliffs further inland, which would themselves fail and collapse, initiating a runaway ice-sheet retreat.
You do not understand correctly. From the article, italicized emphasis mine:
> In a warming climate, as Antarctica’s ice shelves collapse into the ocean, they expose towering cliffs of grounded ice, or ice over land. Without the buttressing support of ice shelves, scientists have assumed that the continent’s very tall ice cliffs would collapse, calving into the ocean, to expose even taller cliffs further inland, which would themselves fail and collapse, initiating a runaway ice-sheet retreat.
This is describing cliffs of ice on land, like the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. The worry this paper is investigating is whether those could rapidly collapse ones the sea ice that protects it calves off.
And in addition to the ice moving from land to water, the land will be less compressed by the weight of ice above it and will rise, displacing even more water.
Thanks I clearly misunderstood. So it seems the icebergs provided support that the grounded ice did not. How is not exactly clear. Why would icebergs be more supportive than solid ground?
> Don't the icebergs already displace as much water as they would contribute?
Yes, this is Archimedes' principle. However, large icebergs have a gravitational influence on nearby water. Effectively, large icebergs attract water meaning the local sea level rises and elsewhere on the planet the sea level becomes lower. When the iceberg melts, this gravitational pull disappears and the melt water is spread more evenly across the surface of the Earth. The sea level across the rest of the world thus slightly increases.
Modeling this effect is quite complex, but the above is a summary of the effect of melting (large) icebergs.
Yes, this is Archimedes' principle. However, large icebergs have a gravitational influence on nearby water. Effectively, large icebergs attract water meaning the local sea level rises and elsewhere on the planet the sea level becomes lower. When the iceberg melts, this gravitational pull disappears and the melt water is spread more evenly across the surface of the Earth. The sea level across the rest of the world thus slightly increases.
Modeling this effect is quite complex, but the above is a summary of the effect of melting (large) icebergs.
Huh, this idea is new to me. Could you help out with a link? I only found two articles that talk about icebergs and gravity, one from NASA that only mentions taking measurements with a gravimeter [0] and a popsci article from 2011 [1] that mentions the geoid and irregular gravitational field of earth, but only sourced its “sister site” which appears defunct and simply redirected to its own front page, which looks like a garbage fire of pseudoscientific advertisement. I also found a BI article (to which I link with great trepidation) that mentions I think the same iceberg as the NASA article but mentions it is not expected to contribute to sea level rise in any significant way [2].
[0] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/fromthefield/2017/11... [1] https://www.livescience.com/amp/15605-melting-glaciers-alter... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-larsen-c-iceberg-...
[0] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/fromthefield/2017/11... [1] https://www.livescience.com/amp/15605-melting-glaciers-alter... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/antarctica-larsen-c-iceberg-...
Yes, here's a link: http://sealevelstudy.org/sea-change-science/whats-in-a-numbe...
edit: the video in the link also provides an animation of the effect
edit: the video in the link also provides an animation of the effect
Awesome, thank you! I’m now interested to try some back-of-the-envelope math to compare the mass of certain ice bodies to that of the moon, and the respective distances from moon to earth and, as the article mentions, Greenland to Scotland, and compare tidal differences induced by the moon, its squared inverse distance, and the gravitational effect of the ice on sea levels.
Can I get a source for this? It seems incorrect, given that water is more dense than ice, so the gravitational pull of melted water on nearby water should be stronger than the gravitational pull of ice on nearby water (due to the decrease in distance due to the shrinkage when melting).
See my sister post for link. The difference between ice and water is that water can freely move over the Earth's surface while massive icebergs cannot.
I may be completely missing something, but I was under the impression that floating ice has zero impact on sea levels - a unique characteristic of water. Ice floating in water in a cup already at the top won’t overflow when it melts.
It seems like only land-supported ice sheets would have any impact at all anyway. Where were they getting the 6 foot rise in the first place? The violent water displacement when the cliff falls?
The article is about land ice.
For hundreds of years there have been people predicting some kind of nightmare scenario 'in about 30 years'. In the 1960's and 1970's they were predicting a new ice age, that oil would completely run out, etc etc.
More recently they have been predicting extremely rapid climate change, global warming, 'cities underwater', etc.
Look at the graph of anticipated sea level rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Notice anything suspicious? It goes along pretty flat (the historical data looks as linear as it could possibly be), then as soon as you get to right now it jumps up and to the right with exponential growth. If a startup pitched that growth trajectory everyone would know exactly what was going on - high hopes and lies. Except that well meaning idiots have been pitching this for the last 30 years, exponential up and to the right growth of temperature and sea level, and it never materializes. Every few years they just update the graphs to show the small increase that actually occurred and move the exponential explosion so it's always in the near future.
Edit: I have noticed people down-voting this comment, that's fine of course, but I wonder whether it's because you think the oceans are going to start rising exponentially - starting right now - or if you think it's dangerous to question climate change dogma because it empowers climate change deniers or something? Or are you just down-voting it because it seems like something you don't like?
More recently they have been predicting extremely rapid climate change, global warming, 'cities underwater', etc.
Look at the graph of anticipated sea level rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Notice anything suspicious? It goes along pretty flat (the historical data looks as linear as it could possibly be), then as soon as you get to right now it jumps up and to the right with exponential growth. If a startup pitched that growth trajectory everyone would know exactly what was going on - high hopes and lies. Except that well meaning idiots have been pitching this for the last 30 years, exponential up and to the right growth of temperature and sea level, and it never materializes. Every few years they just update the graphs to show the small increase that actually occurred and move the exponential explosion so it's always in the near future.
Edit: I have noticed people down-voting this comment, that's fine of course, but I wonder whether it's because you think the oceans are going to start rising exponentially - starting right now - or if you think it's dangerous to question climate change dogma because it empowers climate change deniers or something? Or are you just down-voting it because it seems like something you don't like?
Well, I'm with you on sea level rise. I live in The Netherlands. Big part of our country is below sea level, millions of people actually. Recently Deltares, the body that advises the government on the height of our dikes released a 187-page report on sea level rise. Using the newest methods, they found that sea level has been rising at a constant rate (1.8mm/yr) for > 125 years now, and the sea level rise is NOT accelerating. I trust these people, since they are responsible for millions of lives.
Of course IPCC climate models are projecting acceleration, but those are just models. And past sea level rise acceleration projections have obviously been wrong so far.
I clearly remember over the course of my life reading about climate catastrophes, scientists being in consensus about it, it never came true, and I don't believe it now.
Of course IPCC climate models are projecting acceleration, but those are just models. And past sea level rise acceleration projections have obviously been wrong so far.
I clearly remember over the course of my life reading about climate catastrophes, scientists being in consensus about it, it never came true, and I don't believe it now.
You need to read the report more closely. First, it describes only the Dutch sea level rise, not the global sea level. Second, the most important reason that the sea level rise is that "the Netherlands is located in one of the least affected areas [of sea level rise] in the world. 9cm/century [of sea level rise] has not influenced the Netherlands, but has been observed around the equator" [1, from the summary]
[1] The report is here (in Dutch) https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-zeespiegelmo...
[1] The report is here (in Dutch) https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-zeespiegelmo...
Yes, I've had that comment more often. My standard answer is that if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere. The sea level rise itself may differ per location, but logic dictates that an acceleration should be visible everywhere.
Note that sea level rise differs across the globe for many reasons, land sinking being one of them. For example, sea levels are dropping in Sweden, because the land is rising.
Note that sea level rise differs across the globe for many reasons, land sinking being one of them. For example, sea levels are dropping in Sweden, because the land is rising.
> if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere.
If you mean "accelerating upwards" then it is completely wrong. Sea level gets lower near large icebergs (e.g. the arctic). As the ice from the pole melts, the gravitational pull of the ice mass decreases and water is displaced to areas further from the pole.
As for your Sweden comment, I don't see how it is relevant. Please explain
If you mean "accelerating upwards" then it is completely wrong. Sea level gets lower near large icebergs (e.g. the arctic). As the ice from the pole melts, the gravitational pull of the ice mass decreases and water is displaced to areas further from the pole.
As for your Sweden comment, I don't see how it is relevant. Please explain
I said 'sea level rise', not 'sea level'.
Sweden was just an example of a place where sea level is dropping.
Sweden was just an example of a place where sea level is dropping.
Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying, please correct me where I misinterpret what you mean.
On a global scale, the sea-level is rising [1] and the sea-level increase is itself increasing (i.e. accelerating). This can also be seen in [1]. That does NOT mean that the change is uniform over the globe. You can check your locale here [2] (and confirm that Sweden's sea level is getting lower, the Netherlands slightly rising).
Globally, sea level rise IS accelerating [3].
Coming back to your claim that "if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere". Please explain why there could not be some (the Netherlands? hypothetical?) place where the the sea level rise does not increase even if more water is added to the system? This IS possible but the water must go somewhere else, i.e. the acceleration will be stronger in other regions (for example, Manilla).
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
[2] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
[3] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-se...
On a global scale, the sea-level is rising [1] and the sea-level increase is itself increasing (i.e. accelerating). This can also be seen in [1]. That does NOT mean that the change is uniform over the globe. You can check your locale here [2] (and confirm that Sweden's sea level is getting lower, the Netherlands slightly rising).
Globally, sea level rise IS accelerating [3].
Coming back to your claim that "if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere". Please explain why there could not be some (the Netherlands? hypothetical?) place where the the sea level rise does not increase even if more water is added to the system? This IS possible but the water must go somewhere else, i.e. the acceleration will be stronger in other regions (for example, Manilla).
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
[2] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
[3] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-se...
You are confusing 'sea level rise increasing' with 'sea level rise increase acceleration'. Of course when a lot of water enters the ocean sea level rises everywhere. The amount to which it rises may not be the same everywhere, for example due to gravity differences. But as far as the 'acceleration of sea level rise' is concerned, that has to be visible everywhere.
An example. Suppose due to melting ice sea level rises 1 mm at the Dutch coast. Let's entertain the possibility that in Australia this results in 1,1 mm. Let's say this happens every year. Eventually this correlation will break, but for the sake of argument let's assume it doesn't. Now, when ice starts melting faster and faster, the sea level rise at the Dutch coast grows to 1.5 mm each year. This is sea level rise accelerating. Now, it is very unlikely that the rise in Australia stays at 1.1 mm each year and will not accelerate. That is why I say that if sea level rise is accelerating, it should show up every where. Hence if the rise isn't accelerating on the Dutch coast, it isn't accelerating anywhere.
Sea level rise isn't the same everywhere, but acceleration of that yearly rise should show up everywhere in some form.
An example. Suppose due to melting ice sea level rises 1 mm at the Dutch coast. Let's entertain the possibility that in Australia this results in 1,1 mm. Let's say this happens every year. Eventually this correlation will break, but for the sake of argument let's assume it doesn't. Now, when ice starts melting faster and faster, the sea level rise at the Dutch coast grows to 1.5 mm each year. This is sea level rise accelerating. Now, it is very unlikely that the rise in Australia stays at 1.1 mm each year and will not accelerate. That is why I say that if sea level rise is accelerating, it should show up every where. Hence if the rise isn't accelerating on the Dutch coast, it isn't accelerating anywhere.
Sea level rise isn't the same everywhere, but acceleration of that yearly rise should show up everywhere in some form.
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I now understand what you mean, however, I do believe you are wrong. Look at source [3] above. Sea level rise is accelerating globally. The effects are different locally.
A later study by (former IPCC) Dr Judith Curry has gone more into this [1]. And the report I referenced was even later. The comments on that page BTW make abundantly clear that scientists do not agree at all that the sea level rise is accelerating, and even if it is, if it's more than a minute amount. Most of the rise graphs focus around satellite measurement starting from 1993 which seem to show 3mm/year rise, and attaching these number to the graphs of sea level tide gauges is heavily disputed as scientific heresy. Additionally to get to that 3mm the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced.
So, whatever people may think, acceleration is not a fact, and even the scientists that believe it, think it's very small. It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions.
As a side note: I have been following climate news closely since a year now, and I have to say, I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs. Read for a recent example this article[2]. And I have noticed many occurrences of this, including from Goddard (part of NASA), NOAA, but also other institutions. This makes me suspicious.
In my own country the Dutch Royal Meteorological Institute, was accused of erroneously changing past temperature data - supposedly to correct for changed sensor setups, to make heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century disappear. I read that report, and it was very careful, and very thorough. But the Meteorological Institute refused to discuss it. It's these things that make me very suspicious. There are more examples, but I won't make this overly long.
So I would recommend looking really critically at any climate news, since in my experience most scientists do not agree on a lot of issues, despite claims to the contrary, and the subject is very heavily politicized.
[1] https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-lev... [2] http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/10/illustrating-the-c...
As a side note: I have been following climate news closely since a year now, and I have to say, I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs. Read for a recent example this article[2]. And I have noticed many occurrences of this, including from Goddard (part of NASA), NOAA, but also other institutions. This makes me suspicious.
In my own country the Dutch Royal Meteorological Institute, was accused of erroneously changing past temperature data - supposedly to correct for changed sensor setups, to make heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century disappear. I read that report, and it was very careful, and very thorough. But the Meteorological Institute refused to discuss it. It's these things that make me very suspicious. There are more examples, but I won't make this overly long.
So I would recommend looking really critically at any climate news, since in my experience most scientists do not agree on a lot of issues, despite claims to the contrary, and the subject is very heavily politicized.
[1] https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-lev... [2] http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/10/illustrating-the-c...
The climate news needs to be looked at with extreme caution, I agree. Newspapers tend to spin scientific reports in a specific direction (both "alarmist" and "denyist"). However, in general the scientific literature is very cautious, and presents models, measurements and conclusions along with their uncertainties and assumptions. The interpretation of these uncertainties and assumptions is often lost in translation when presented to the general public, which is a shame and should not be endorsed. From a PR perspective, it may be nice if the Meteorological institute(s) would give some public interview or explanation when doubts are cast on their work. The discussions get political really quickly, which leads to a blurring of the lines between what the facts are and what (politicians) suggest the solutions should be to curb carbon emissions. This needs to end. Unfortunately, we are still in the situation where people outright deny the human role in climate change and politicians on the "denier" side of the spectrum abuse this to continuously cast doubt on whether any action is required at all.
That being said, you claim: "the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced" but I couldn't find it in the report. The report (section 6.9) says [rough translation]: "The trend between satellite measurements and tide gauges [in the Netherlands] shows some agreement, along with their standard errors." and later "[..] satellite data are a less suitable source of deriving sea level rise". Note that this last quote should be interpreted in the Dutch sea level context, not the global context.
> It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions.
Agreed. That needs to stop.
> I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs
This, if true, is bad and needs to stop. It is the same behavior as the "deniers" have used for years (for example, the "no warming since 1998" meme).
That being said, you claim: "the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced" but I couldn't find it in the report. The report (section 6.9) says [rough translation]: "The trend between satellite measurements and tide gauges [in the Netherlands] shows some agreement, along with their standard errors." and later "[..] satellite data are a less suitable source of deriving sea level rise". Note that this last quote should be interpreted in the Dutch sea level context, not the global context.
> It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions.
Agreed. That needs to stop.
> I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs
This, if true, is bad and needs to stop. It is the same behavior as the "deniers" have used for years (for example, the "no warming since 1998" meme).
I just noticed that you linked the summary of the report, the actual report is here: https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonito...
The researchers state (page 68 - my translation): "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018), within the 1993-2017 record. A correction for the eruption of the Pinatubo and El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) was needed to find that acceleration. These corrections we do not apply in the sea level monitor."
I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. I've read enough to confidently say that the consensus claimed by the media is not there, so I'm not done reading yet.
The researchers state (page 68 - my translation): "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018), within the 1993-2017 record. A correction for the eruption of the Pinatubo and El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) was needed to find that acceleration. These corrections we do not apply in the sea level monitor."
I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming. I've read enough to confidently say that the consensus claimed by the media is not there, so I'm not done reading yet.
> I trust [Deltares], since they are responsible for millions of lives.
OK, so do so.
https://www.deltares.nl/en/blog/the-battle-of-engineers-agai...
> Climate change is happening right now and at a frightening speed, especially in the Arctic. To underpin the need for action, I share three wake-up calls...
> We can’t afford to ignore the warning signs. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to get climate change under control. After long negotiations, world leaders have agreed on action at the Paris climate summit. Now it’s up to the engineers to develop ambitious plans and innovative solutions.
OK, so do so.
https://www.deltares.nl/en/blog/the-battle-of-engineers-agai...
> Climate change is happening right now and at a frightening speed, especially in the Arctic. To underpin the need for action, I share three wake-up calls...
> We can’t afford to ignore the warning signs. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to get climate change under control. After long negotiations, world leaders have agreed on action at the Paris climate summit. Now it’s up to the engineers to develop ambitious plans and innovative solutions.
You are quoting a blog entry from 2016. The report I was referring to was from march 2019. They debunked their own blogpost.
In another comment, someone pointed out issues with your understanding of that report, which you replied to with basically "well I don't believe that part". As such, I'm not inclined to credit your claim they "debunked" this. You're welcome to cite an updated statement or blog post saying so, though.
This is just a bizarre exchange, (which I'm obviously changing to make people look silly, but I'll assume it reflects things accurately):
raarts: the official report by people with the expertise to measure this says X.
itcrowd: yea but here's someone's personal opinion from some blog hosted by that organization
raarts: sure, but that's an old blog post, and also it's just a blog post?
ceejayoz: I found some other post you made so I don't have to care what the official report says. I can assume you are lying because it is convenient. In the meantime, I won't hold any posts I agree with to any such standard.
raarts: the official report by people with the expertise to measure this says X.
itcrowd: yea but here's someone's personal opinion from some blog hosted by that organization
raarts: sure, but that's an old blog post, and also it's just a blog post?
ceejayoz: I found some other post you made so I don't have to care what the official report says. I can assume you are lying because it is convenient. In the meantime, I won't hold any posts I agree with to any such standard.
Except the official report doesn't say what's being claimed here. If they've decided climate change is debunked, that'd be worthy of at least a new blog post.
It's pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21313203 that /u/raarts misread that section.
It's pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21313203 that /u/raarts misread that section.
For others who arrived here, it was not 'pointed out' that I read it wrong, it was suggested that I read it wrong. The discussion continued from there, and I think I explained my point quite clearly, and I definitely did not read it wrong.
I still maintain sea level rise is not accelerating and my logic behind that was not proven wrong.
Instead my discussion partner started pointing to other sources.
You are being downvoted because you are spreading lies and misinformation. No AGW nightmare scenarios have been spread for "hundreds of years" (except maybe a biblical end of times, which is not scientific) and the "global cooling" of the 60s/70s meme has also long been debunked.
Please read up on climate science before making outrageous statements like you do (and provide sources for your claims). Maybe you can start learning here: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...
Please read up on climate science before making outrageous statements like you do (and provide sources for your claims). Maybe you can start learning here: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...
You are disagreeing, but also agreeing with me. My point is that weird biblical cults believed disaster is 'right around the corner' and when the disaster didn't happen at the appointed time, people kept believing it was 'right around the corner'. Global cooling has been debunked, but at the time it was something people thought was real and had a veneer of sciencism attached to it which enhanced it's credibility.
My point is that I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming (or sea rise) that has subsequently been measured. You can interpret that in lots of ways, but what you can't deny is that if every model is over estimating, there is a clear systemic bias.
My point is that I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming (or sea rise) that has subsequently been measured. You can interpret that in lots of ways, but what you can't deny is that if every model is over estimating, there is a clear systemic bias.
> I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming
Well, here's one under prediction:
Hansen made 3 scenarios in 1988 (A, B and C), of which A over-estimated the warming, B was almost spot-on and C was under-estimating the warming.
[1] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
Well, here's one under prediction:
Hansen made 3 scenarios in 1988 (A, B and C), of which A over-estimated the warming, B was almost spot-on and C was under-estimating the warming.
[1] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
A linear extrapolation would have been more accurate than any of his 3 models.
Notice that from now into the future it is no longer a line, but a range that widens the further into the future it goes. The base of which continues in a perfectly linear fashion. It's attempting to encompass simple progression and the likely impact of tipping points and accelerating melt.
So no I don't notice anything suspicious by including uncertainty on the plot. If you look at the range of IPCC predictions, current measured sea level rise is tracking the linear portion of their worst case prediction. (RCP8.5) Draw whatever conclusion you will.
So no I don't notice anything suspicious by including uncertainty on the plot. If you look at the range of IPCC predictions, current measured sea level rise is tracking the linear portion of their worst case prediction. (RCP8.5) Draw whatever conclusion you will.
This is again a misleading response. If these are uncertainty ranges, it should be statistically absurd for reality to always end up at the extreme low end of the predicted range.
How many times does that have to happen before you would have to say the prediction isn't a good one?
How many times does that have to happen before you would have to say the prediction isn't a good one?
IPCC reports are inherently conservative - they reflect the known and agreed. It's not surprising that reality tends worse as additional effects, tipping points and surprises are reflected in reality but not IPCC reports.
There has been criticism that they are too conservative.
There has been criticism that they are too conservative.
Have they ever, ever made a prediction that didn't over estimate the subsequent measured values of temperature or sea level rise?
It's worth noting that even we fall into the best case of the ranges depicted here, which there is no reason to believe we will, such a rise in sea levels would have deleterious effects. There are already climate refugees who were forced to relocate because their homes are now below water, and there are millions more living at or near sea level.
This is extremely false, there are no refugees who fled because sea level rise made their homes be underwater.
There are people who's homes are not tenable due to storms and storm surge, which would be true with or without sea level rise. There are people who live on land that is subsiding, and so the land is lower (not the sea being higher).
Sea level rise is estimated to be something like 60mm since the year 1900. That is about as much as your finger, less if you have an averaged sized hand. You can't live in a place that is 60mm above sea level, even a light breeze would put you under water due to the height of waves being far, far higher.
So to believe there are refugees due to sea level rise, you have to believe there were people who lived at some level that was already under water much of the time in the year 1900, basically whenever there is some wind, and now with sea level rise it's under water a little more often, because now it only takes a 11kph wind to put them under water when 120 years ago it would have taken 12kph, and that 'little bit more often' over the course of a hundred years was enough that they abandoned their home rather than put a couple of thin boards on top of their floor to make it 3 inches higher, which would put them far higher above the water than they would have been even in 1900. It's completely absurd.
There are people who's homes are not tenable due to storms and storm surge, which would be true with or without sea level rise. There are people who live on land that is subsiding, and so the land is lower (not the sea being higher).
Sea level rise is estimated to be something like 60mm since the year 1900. That is about as much as your finger, less if you have an averaged sized hand. You can't live in a place that is 60mm above sea level, even a light breeze would put you under water due to the height of waves being far, far higher.
So to believe there are refugees due to sea level rise, you have to believe there were people who lived at some level that was already under water much of the time in the year 1900, basically whenever there is some wind, and now with sea level rise it's under water a little more often, because now it only takes a 11kph wind to put them under water when 120 years ago it would have taken 12kph, and that 'little bit more often' over the course of a hundred years was enough that they abandoned their home rather than put a couple of thin boards on top of their floor to make it 3 inches higher, which would put them far higher above the water than they would have been even in 1900. It's completely absurd.
Here's the academic paper the article references:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019...
Not showing up on Scihub tho. Anyone found it?
Not showing up on Scihub tho. Anyone found it?
Articles like this should discuss how the impact it does have contributes to the whole, climate change is a feedback loop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
regional hegemons enforce embargoes on nations which refuse to behave according to new standards. a carbon non-proliferation treaty backed with coordinated blockades and cyber-attacks of critical infrastructure, initiating limited civil wars. the top level view is mutual cooperation to avoid global catastrophe.
this would require america and russia to stop selling their terrestrial missile technology and fossil fuels to the rest of world. once the current generation of inventory and raw energy is cleared it, orbital space based weapons can be deployed, obsolescing land and sea nuclear delivery and defense. this might explain china and india's rush to space, in order to have a bargaining chip in the future discussion about their territorial and energy sovereignty it is necessary for them to have a significant presence in low earth orbit.
things typically don't escalate dramatically during international disputes, and it's likely that the russians and americans will just use blackmail diplomacy to freeze, then develop the rest of the world with new energy they control. in order to avoid public scrutiny it's important to paint this as a critical emergency rather than a strategic sharing of influence between continental superpowers.
i suspect this will play out slowly over the next century, all the while regular people will be cowed by the ever looming threat of total extinction. not a very original sequel, a real throwback your parents might enjoy, cold war 2: fight the heat. the science on anything hardly matters, since scientific truth is subservient to pragmatism and political realities. given the massive investment in government information collection, it is clear that any large popular movement would quickly be steered towards desired policy goals, which should reinforce some version of the above story i laid out.
this would require america and russia to stop selling their terrestrial missile technology and fossil fuels to the rest of world. once the current generation of inventory and raw energy is cleared it, orbital space based weapons can be deployed, obsolescing land and sea nuclear delivery and defense. this might explain china and india's rush to space, in order to have a bargaining chip in the future discussion about their territorial and energy sovereignty it is necessary for them to have a significant presence in low earth orbit.
things typically don't escalate dramatically during international disputes, and it's likely that the russians and americans will just use blackmail diplomacy to freeze, then develop the rest of the world with new energy they control. in order to avoid public scrutiny it's important to paint this as a critical emergency rather than a strategic sharing of influence between continental superpowers.
i suspect this will play out slowly over the next century, all the while regular people will be cowed by the ever looming threat of total extinction. not a very original sequel, a real throwback your parents might enjoy, cold war 2: fight the heat. the science on anything hardly matters, since scientific truth is subservient to pragmatism and political realities. given the massive investment in government information collection, it is clear that any large popular movement would quickly be steered towards desired policy goals, which should reinforce some version of the above story i laid out.
Kaotique(14)
the hubris of man is that we have enough data to understand the earth at any given moment.
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Exactly! Which is why we need to be extremely prudent and not assume we can pollute without any major impacts. If the flashlight is poor, we should crawl, not run inside the cave.
We also shouldn't run out screaming when hearing the faintest noise, but try to see what it actually is. And build a better flashlight too.
Excellent find. Key quote:
"The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown."
Dated June 30, 1989
Global temperature anomaly 2018: +0.83 Celsius
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4626
"The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown."
Dated June 30, 1989
Global temperature anomaly 2018: +0.83 Celsius
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4626
1) Units are not given in the original AP article - and your own source shows that temperatures rose 1.5F over the 1950 - 1980 average.
2) Also from your own source of NASA, the end of the last ice age saw a global temperature increase of "4 to 7 degrees C over 5000 years"
Does that not make you wonder if 0.83C in 30(!) years is an extremely accelerated rate?
2) Also from your own source of NASA, the end of the last ice age saw a global temperature increase of "4 to 7 degrees C over 5000 years"
Does that not make you wonder if 0.83C in 30(!) years is an extremely accelerated rate?
I have literally just quoted the original article and the current data. I didn't state any opinion but apparently this is enough for people to disagree.
I think it is interesting in itself to read predictions made thirty years ago for the next thirty years and compare them with actual data. What I get from it is that the analysis was fundamentally correct- temperatures have kept increasing; but I also see a tendency to overconfidence and exaggeration: the source says that the most conservative estimates put the warming by 2018 between 1 and 7 degrees- even if it's Fahrenheit it literally means that we're at the lower end of the "most conservative estimates".
I think it is interesting in itself to read predictions made thirty years ago for the next thirty years and compare them with actual data. What I get from it is that the analysis was fundamentally correct- temperatures have kept increasing; but I also see a tendency to overconfidence and exaggeration: the source says that the most conservative estimates put the warming by 2018 between 1 and 7 degrees- even if it's Fahrenheit it literally means that we're at the lower end of the "most conservative estimates".
The low estimate seems to have been on the money.
Didn't even break onto the chart for the lowest number in the lowest estimates. I wouldn't call that "on the money."
High estimation is still over 700% of.
We are way worse at understanding how the effects of global temperature rise will manifest than we are at estimating those changes. That is coming to pass now - pollinators disappearing that could collapse ecosystems are just one example. We should not be arguing about how fast we are falling once we step off the cliff.
Last night I was called "alt-right" and a climate change denier by a peer for hesitating to agree that we are in a climate crisis, because I said don't have enough information about the situation and I'm suspicious whenever too many people start shouting about something.
The precautionary principle still prevails, though. The more uncertain you are, the more certain the course of action is, which is to avoid burning hydrocarbons.
Edit: I meant to say precautionary principle, not "uncertainty principle".