Sea Levels Reducing on East Coast?

[Carrikature]

I think that's part of the problem, Lurch - that the predictions were so dire, particularly from Al Gore who appeared to be "the spokesman".... that when those things don't happen like they were forecast, there's a natural tendency to disregard everything else they said.

I think we can use OT prophecies of destruction as a useful analogy. God tells a prophet to go warn some city he plans to destroy for their evilness. Prophet goes to the city, and the people repent. God relents and doesn't destroy them.

Was the prophecy wrong, or did the people react properly in time? Should the prophet be ignored in the future?

[Cow Poke]

I think we can use OT prophecies of destruction as a useful analogy. God tells a prophet to go warn some city he plans to destroy for their evilness. Prophet goes to the city, and the people repent. God relents and doesn't destroy them.

Was the prophecy wrong, or did the people react properly in time? Should the prophet be ignored in the future?

What is the proper "repentant" behavior that the world would display to thwart global doom?

[Carrikature]

What is the proper "repentant" behavior that the world would display to thwart global doom?

That's pretty dependent on the form it's expected to take and how far people are willing to go to prevent it. I don't consider 'global doom' a useful description, though.

[Cow Poke]

That's pretty dependent on the form it's expected to take and how far people are willing to go to prevent it. I don't consider 'global doom' a useful description, though.

Just out of curiosity, do you agree with Sanders' call for taxation of carbon?

[TheLurch]

I think that's part of the problem, Lurch - that the predictions were so dire, particularly from Al Gore who appeared to be "the spokesman".... that when those things don't happen like they were forecast, there's a natural tendency to disregard everything else they said.

If we're going to discuss this in detail, i'd actually like clarification on this:

What, precisely, did Al Gore predict that annoys you here?
What has happened that was not in the forecast?

Now, to be clear, i have issues with the way that Gore talks about sea level rise, which i can get into if you're curious. But i suspect there's something different going on for in this statement. What i suspect (and you can confirm or clarify, Cow Poke - don't want to put words in your mouth) is something like the following process:

He doesn't like Al Gore.
He heard something Gore said, doesn't remember the details, just that it sounds really bad.
He sees some information that, on the face of it, appears to contradict Gore.
He accepts that information, and uses that to validate his low opinion of Gore.

If i'm right, then Cow Poke has clearly demonstrated he's not a bot - humans (all of us) do that sort of thing all the time. It's a great cognitive shortcut, since it saves you from having to look up what Gore said, look into the article linked here in more detail, or (possibly) re-evaluate your opinion of Gore. I do the same thing with Watts' site, because (as Sylas has said), it's painful to see how information gets mangled and misrepresented there.

But, given that you've started a number of threads on climate/energy related topics, i suspect that this is a topic that interests you and you care about. If that's the case, then it might be worth spending some time stepping back from our confirmation biases.

(This is not meant to pick on you, Cow Poke - i've enjoyed our interactions here. I just think this topic is one where everybody could use to step back from our confirmation biases a bit more.)

[Cow Poke]

If we're going to discuss this in detail, i'd actually like clarification on this:

What, precisely, did Al Gore predict that annoys you here?
What has happened that was not in the forecast?

Now, to be clear, i have issues with the way that Gore talks about sea level rise, which i can get into if you're curious. But i suspect there's something different going on for in this statement. What i suspect (and you can confirm or clarify, Cow Poke - don't want to put words in your mouth) is something like the following process:

He doesn't like Al Gore.
He heard something Gore said, doesn't remember the details, just that it sounds really bad.
He sees some information that, on the face of it, appears to contradict Gore.
He accepts that information, and uses that to validate his low opinion of Gore.

If i'm right, then Cow Poke has clearly demonstrated he's not a bot - humans (all of us) do that sort of thing all the time. It's a great cognitive shortcut, since it saves you from having to look up what Gore said, look into the article linked here in more detail, or (possibly) re-evaluate your opinion of Gore. I do the same thing with Watts' site, because (as Sylas has said), it's painful to see how information gets mangled and misrepresented there.

But, given that you've started a number of threads on climate/energy related topics, i suspect that this is a topic that interests you and you care about. If that's the case, then it might be worth spending some time stepping back from our confirmation biases.

(This is not meant to pick on you, Cow Poke - i've enjoyed our interactions here. I just think this topic is one where everybody could use to step back from our confirmation biases a bit more.)

You're probably not far off on a lot of this, Lurch... don't have time to get into it right now, but I always appreciate the reasonable responses you give. I wish there were more of that.

So often, what happens is somebody asks an honest question, and some (being somewhat facetious here) high priest of the fanatic religion of climate worship (that part) attacks us and calls us liars or deniers or worse. It only serves to confirm our suspicion that this isn't real science, but climate fanaticism.

[Cow Poke]

Caution: my input was a derail (so tell me to stop if you don't want this side topic here).

Actually, I got the answer to the question in my OP, so... whatever.

[TheLurch]

So often, what happens is somebody asks an honest question, and some (being somewhat facetious here) high priest of the fanatic religion of climate worship (that part) attacks us and calls us liars or deniers or worse. It only serves to confirm our suspicion that this isn't real science, but climate fanaticism.

Fortunately, Jichard (sp?) seems to have stopped posting here.

[Cow Poke]

Fortunately, Jichard (sp?) seems to have stopped posting here.

I had actually forgotten about him already. But that's a good point -- you can't have a reasonable discussion when people ask honest questions and get lambasted as though they were idiots. I don't claim to be a scientist, and I readily admit skepticism. It would be like somebody coming to me to ask about my faith in Christ, and I cuss him out and call him a moron for not knowing Christ already.

And I do intend the parallel -- to many, it's like 'climate science' is far more "religion" than science, and a radical extremist form of religion at that. (OK, I should say "some", not "many")

[Kbertsche]

If we're going to discuss this in detail, i'd actually like clarification on this:

What, precisely, did Al Gore predict that annoys you here?
What has happened that was not in the forecast?

Now, to be clear, i have issues with the way that Gore talks about sea level rise, which i can get into if you're curious. But i suspect there's something different going on for in this statement. What i suspect (and you can confirm or clarify, Cow Poke - don't want to put words in your mouth) is something like the following process:

He doesn't like Al Gore.
He heard something Gore said, doesn't remember the details, just that it sounds really bad.
He sees some information that, on the face of it, appears to contradict Gore.
He accepts that information, and uses that to validate his low opinion of Gore.

If i'm right, then Cow Poke has clearly demonstrated he's not a bot - humans (all of us) do that sort of thing all the time. It's a great cognitive shortcut, since it saves you from having to look up what Gore said, look into the article linked here in more detail, or (possibly) re-evaluate your opinion of Gore. I do the same thing with Watts' site, because (as Sylas has said), it's painful to see how information gets mangled and misrepresented there.

But, given that you've started a number of threads on climate/energy related topics, i suspect that this is a topic that interests you and you care about. If that's the case, then it might be worth spending some time stepping back from our confirmation biases.

(This is not meant to pick on you, Cow Poke - i've enjoyed our interactions here. I just think this topic is one where everybody could use to step back from our confirmation biases a bit more.)

I've just been reading my thesis advisor's book, Physics for Future Presidents (New York, WW Norton, 2008). (I highly recommend it.). He's got a section on "climate change" which takes a moderate, mildly skeptical position. (The book was written in 2008; Rich is somewhat less skeptical now after looking into things in more detail with his BerkeleyEarth project.)

Here are some of Rich's comments on Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth:

Source: R.A. Muller

In An Inconvenient Truth, Vice President Gore showed increases in the intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires. Much of what he says is exaggerated. (pp. 248)
...
In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore shows a plot with the cold weather extending back 1000 years, and he makes fun of those who claim there was a medieval warm period, but the plot he shows has now been discredited, in the National Academy review that I mentioned earlier. (pp. 252-253)
...
As a final example of distortion, consider the dramatic image of polar bears that died because they were unable to find an ice floe--again, an image that is dramatically portrayed in An Inconvenient Truth. The issue was brought to a British judge by a school governor who objected to the widespread distribution of the movie to schoolchildren. After reviewing the published results on the subject, he concluded, "The only scientific study that either side brought before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm." (p. 284)
...
Consider tornadoes. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore also states that the number of tornadoes has been increasing and attributes that worrisome fact to global warming. In fact, however, the study published by the US government suggests otherwise. (pp. 287-288)
...
Wildfires provide another example of cherry picking. Al Gore states that the number of wildfires has been increasing, and he attributes that increase to global warming. It turns out that the annual NOAA report, ... shows that the number of fires is actually decreasing, contrary to Gore's claim. ... It turns out that Gore was not referring to acreage or number, but to "major disasters", not just in the United States but throughout North America. Major disasters are measured by human consequences, and these increase as people move closer to the wilderness. (pp. 289-290)

© Copyright Original Source

[Juvenal]

• Sea levels are currently increasing at about 3 mm per year. Other sources of this rise include Antarctic ice, glacial ice, land water storage and the expansion of water as ocean temperatures continue to increase.

Cheers -- sylas

There's a subtle point I'd like to address here.

More formally, from IPCC Assessment Report 5, Working Group 1, 2013, The Physical Science Basis, p. 291, Section 3.7.6 Conclusions:

It is virtually certain that globally averaged sea level has risen over the 20th century, with a very likelylikely that a rate comparable to that since 1993 occurred between 1920 and 1950, possibly due to a multi-decadal climate variation, as individual tide gauges around the world and all reconstructions of GMSL show increased rates of sea level rise during this period. Although local vertical land motion can cause even larger rates of sea level rise (or fall) relative to the coastline, it is very likely that this does not affect the estimates of the global average rate, based on multiple estimations of the average with and without VLM corrections.

It is virtually certain that interannual and decadal changes in the large-scale winds and ocean circulation can cause significantly higher or lower rates over shorter periods at individual locations, as this has been observed in tide gauge records around the world. Warming of the upper 700 m of the ocean has very likelylikelyvery likely that the rate of mean sea level rise along Northern European coastlines has accelerated since the early 1800s and that this has continued through the 20th century, as the increased rate since 1875 has been observed in multiple long tide gauge records and by different groups using different analysis techniques. It is likelylikely that GMSL has accelerated since 1900. Finally, it is likely that extreme sea levels have increased since 1970, largely as a result of the rise in mean sea level.

A few notes:

"GMSL" is the same as "globally averaged sea level."

Bold text here replaces italics in the original, to preserve emphasis if quoted.

Emphasis is included in AR5 under the following terms.

Confidence and likelihood are constrained by:

Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on
Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (PDF)

Uncertainty figure.jpg

[Carrikature]

Just out of curiosity, do you agree with Sanders' call for taxation of carbon?

I'm not familiar with it. I generally fail to see how taxing emissions necessarily translates into reducing emissions, though. Some things we don't have control over. I'd also expect that tax to be rolled into overhead costs and transmitted directly to price per unit, removing even the semblance of incentivizing emissions reduction.

BUT

As I've said to seanD on this topic recently, I don't see any other proposals being submitted. Opposition seems to be "I don't believe you" not "this won't work like you think it does". I find it unsurprising when that form of opposition is dismissed out of hand.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not familiar with it. I generally fail to see how taxing emissions necessarily translates into reducing emissions, though.

I haven't seen his whole "plan" -- just his taunting Hillary to join him in taxing carbon.

Some things we don't have control over. I'd also expect that tax to be rolled into overhead costs and transmitted directly to price per unit, removing even the semblance of incentivizing emissions reduction.

Yes, just like any other "unfunded government mandate" (yes, not technically so, but effectively) gets paid for somehow, usually by passing the cost to the consumer.

BUT

As I've said to seanD on this topic recently, I don't see any other proposals being submitted.

Lack of a proposal doesn't make any or all existing proposals right.

Opposition seems to be "I don't believe you" not "this won't work like you think it does". I find it unsurprising when that form of opposition is dismissed out of hand.

As I have continually said, I'd like to see some kind of "if we do X, we are reasonably certain that Y will happen". Along with "at what price?"

[Kbertsche]

I've just been reading my thesis advisor's book, Physics for Future Presidents (New York, WW Norton, 2008). (I highly recommend it.). He's got a section on "climate change" which takes a moderate, mildly skeptical position. (The book was written in 2008; Rich is somewhat less skeptical now after looking into things in more detail with his BerkeleyEarth
...

And a few more quotes from Rich's book:

Source: R.A. Muller

In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore characterizes the claim that humans are responsible for global warming with these words: "The evidence is now overwhelming and undeniable." He seems to suggest at several points in the film that humans are responsible for all (rather than some) of the warming of the past 100 (rather than 50) years. He may be right--but it is worth pointing out that he is in disagreement with the IPCC consensus. The IPCC was very careful to define precisely what it means by its words. Al Gore takes a much more extreme position. (p. 275)
...
Another example of distortion is found in the claim that the cost of hurricane damage has been rising exponentially because of global warming. ... This plot has been widely used, and a version of it appears in An Inconvenient Truth. It is highly misleading, however, because it shows costs without compensating for inflation. (p. 282)
...
His great movie An Inconvenient Truth is powerful propaganda, but as with all propaganda, there is a danger. When it is discovered that Gore has exaggerated the case, the public may reject the truly scientific case for fossil fuel-induced global warming. To use an old cliche, I fear that the public will throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. (p. 299)

© Copyright Original Source

[TheLurch]

I've just been reading my thesis advisor's book, Physics for Future Presidents (New York, WW Norton, 2008). (I highly recommend it.). He's got a section on "climate change" which takes a moderate, mildly skeptical position. (The book was written in 2008; Rich is somewhat less skeptical now after looking into things in more detail with his BerkeleyEarth project.)

That's funny - didn't realized you'd worked with Muller. What years were you at Berkeley? (I was there 89-95, but nowhere near physics).

Like i said, i have my own issues with some of the presentations in Gore's film, and it's clear that he chose to present some findings that were extremely preliminary, and haven't stood the test of more detailed research. But if you want to criticize, it's important to not go overboard in the other direction, finding fault where none exists, and Rich clearly has on one of these:

In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore shows a plot with the cold weather extending back 1000 years, and he makes fun of those who claim there was a medieval warm period, but the plot he shows has now been discredited, in the National Academy review that I mentioned earlier. (pp. 252-253)

I read the National Academies review, and sat in on the press conference in which its authors talked about the work. The "plot" in question here is Mike Mann's original reconstruction of the climate of the last 1,500 years. The report in question found the paper's conclusions to be (in their words) "plausible", and made it clear that later, improved studies by both Mann and others have produced results largely in line with it. That's anything but discredited.

Like i said, nobody's immune from confirmation bias...