Little Greta comes clean

[Mountain Man]

The fact is, you know the mansion the Obamas bought is not under any threat from predicted sea rise...

On what basis do you declare that I know this?

[oxmixmudd]

His home looks pretty even with the sea, and storm surges, as we experience more and more powerful storms as predicted, would just wipe it away.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41484[/ATTACH]

I said threat of major hurricane already exists, and that is a risk any seaside owner takes, today, 50 years ago, 50 years from now. Is it more likely a big storm surge might wash it away in 2100 than today - yes. Is it more likely than say a seaside homeowneer along the gulf coast or southeastern seaboard today, or even 50 years ago? Probably not. Such massive Hurricanes up there are rarer. And yet, people have bought and are still buying seaside homes in those regions that are today much more likely to be hit by high category storm than martha's vinyard will be even in 2100.

ETA: Using google Earth, the house sits at an elevation of 4 meters (13 feet) above the water level, and is, at it's closest point about 95 meters from the water (about 300 feet.) So theoretically they are safe for cat 1 and 2 storms¹, with cat 3 being marginal, and cat 4,5 would flood them for sure. with a sea level rise of 4 feet by 2100, they would definitely be flooded by cat 3 but still safe for cat 1 and 2. There are no storms greater than cat 3 in the known hurricanes hitting the area from the 18th century to the present, with 1 cat 3 in 1869, two others in 1938 and 1956, and none yet in the 21st century².

It would look like their decision is not hypocritical relative to their expressed concern over global warming.

1) https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/documents/tskaren.pdf

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_hurricanes

[Sparko]

There are proxies that are directly correlated to solar sunspot activity, specifically the production of c14 and be10. By measuring concentrations of these in items of known age, sunspot activity can be derived. Dead trees would be one source, another would be ice cores. There are other proxies that correlate well to temperature.

How does C14 correlate to sunspots? C14 is accumulated over the lifetime of the plant and decays afterward. How would they use that to measure something that changes quickly over short periods like sunspots? And how would C14 be affected by sunspots in the first place? I can see temperature changing how trees grow in different seasons, giving us a general reading through tree rings how well the plant grew. But if you are going to claim that sunspots don't always correlate to temperature and sometimes cause the opposite (cooler temps) then you can't use plant growth to measure sunspots.

I am not arguing against it. Just curious how it works.

[One Bad Pig]

His home looks pretty even with the sea, and storm surges, as we experience more and more powerful storms as predicted, would just wipe it away.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41484[/ATTACH]

No, it doesn't. It looks like it's just about the highest point of land around; what you see next to the sea is clearly not the shoreline.

[oxmixmudd]

How does C14 correlate to sunspots? C14 is accumulated over the lifetime of the plant and decays afterward. How would they use that to measure something that changes quickly over short periods like sunspots? And how would C14 be affected by sunspots in the first place? I can see temperature changing how trees grow in different seasons, giving us a general reading through tree rings how well the plant grew. But if you are going to claim that sunspots don't always correlate to temperature and sometimes cause the opposite (cooler temps) then you can't use plant growth to measure sunspots.

I am not arguing against it. Just curious how it works.

The may not have resolution of the 11 year sunspot cycle, but they can get averages over several decades, such as the Maunder minima. As for the correlation, sunspots change the cosmic ray output of the sun, and hence C14 production. Plants, at death, capture the concentration at the point they died. Tree rings capture c14 for the year they were grown. We are only interested in longer term variations anyway, short term variation (a la the sunspot cycle itself) have little discernible direct impact on climate. Other proxies are used for temperature, but I don't remember offhand what they are.

Here is an older paper that talks about c14 in trees.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....C081i021p03688

[lilpixieofterror]

Pixie, my statement was regarding the conclusions of science. There is no 'junk science' involved in concluding the Earth is warming and GHG produced by mankind are the driver. That is science. Who will go hungry and who will get a windfall as a consequence of that warming is speculation - at best. That is not climate science. I admitted that ignorant people exist on both sides. What I did not admit is that junk science drives the conclusion of AGW. It does not.

Speculation using incomplete variable sets is bound to have the potential to produce wildly inaccurate predictions. But speculation based on incomplete variable sets is not a scientific conclusion, it is speculation.

So the scientist that wrote The Population Bomb, was speculating?

I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible Pix. I am talking about what is.

I'm saying the AGW conclusion ISN'T using junk science to arrive at the conclusion. That is the point. AGW IS the scientific conclusion - the conclusion that is the result of applying the scientific method to analyse the known climate and related data against known physical principles.

That is true but irrelevant. AGW IS the conclusion that derives from the currently known climate and related physical data when analyzed using known physical principles and the scientific method.

[oxmixmudd]

No, it doesn't. It looks like it's just about the highest point of land around; what you see next to the sea is clearly not the shoreline.

I added the following to the post above in case you missed it. It helps take the guesswork out of just looking at the picture:

Using google Earth, the house sits at an elevation of 4 meters (13 feet) above the water level (which is a high point as you observed), and is, at it's closest point about 95 meters from the water (about 300 feet.) So theoretically they are safe for cat 1 and 2 storms¹, with cat 3 being marginal, and cat 4,5 would flood them for sure. with a sea level rise of 4 feet by 2100, they would definitely be flooded by cat 3 but still safe for cat 1 and 2. There are no storms greater than cat 3 in the known hurricanes hitting the area from the 18th century to the present, with 1 cat 3 in 1869, two others in 1938 and 1956, and none yet in the 21st century².

It would look like their decision is not hypocritical relative to their expressed concern over global warming.

1) https://www.navy.mil/ah_online/documents/tskaren.pdf

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_hurricanes

[oxmixmudd]

On what basis do you declare that I know this?

We discussed it the last time people tried to claim Obama was a hypocrite for buying the house, and I made these points then as well (excepting I didn't do the research I just did to quatify the actual risk to the house)

I suppose you could have forgotten all of that ... getting senile?

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

[Mountain Man]

We discussed it the last time people tried to claim Obama was a hypocrite for buying the house, and I made these points then as well (excepting I didn't do the research I just did to quatify the actual risk to the house)

I suppose you could have forgotten all of that ... getting senile?

Jim

You never discussed it with me.

[oxmixmudd]

You never discussed it with me.

I see. You were in the thread, so you would have seen my posts, so my expectation you were aware does not depend on direct correspondence between us - but whatever ... now you know. That excuse is dead if it wasn't already

[oxmixmudd]

Correlating them with AGW may be a ploy, but AGW itself isn't a ploy. Do you understand that the order of cause and effect is important? The science is the science. The fact some people use that conclusion as an excuse does not make the science wrong or the need to do something about AGW non-existent. AGW is the reality here. Trying to use that reality as leverage for some political agenda is the ploy.

So no, there is no direct correlation between them and I,and you, and anyone can feel free to reject or accept AGW without inference to the others.

[lilpixieofterror]

Correlating them with AGW may be a ploy, but AGW itself isn't a ploy. Do you understand that the order of cause and effect is important? The science is the science. The fact some people use that conclusion as an excuse does not make the science wrong or the need to do something about AGW non-existent. AGW is the reality here. Trying to use that reality as leverage for some political agenda is the ploy.

[Mountain Man]

I see. You were in the thread, so you would have seen my posts, so my expectation you were aware does not depend on direct correspondence between us - but whatever ... now you know. That excuse is dead if it wasn't already

Despite your very high opinion of yourself, I don't hang on your every word.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't - but you are having a difficult time understanding the difference between the hard science supporting AGW and real simulations of its effects and the soft science and majority speculative work that is typically part of something like 'the population bomb'.

So the scientist that wrote The Population Bomb, was speculating?

Mostly - yes.


Your statement is just too broad pix. Projections from scientific data are always subject to error. But there is specious reasoning and speculation, and there is the legitimate process of projecting based on objective physical principles from the present into the future. This is part of how theories are tested - can they predict future experimental results. But you are confusing and conflating shoot from the hip speculation with legitimate science based projections

(And I'm very surprised you'd think for two seconds I am afraid to adopt an unpopular position.)


Your statements that I disagreed with were too general to exclude the actual science of global warming from the set of things you were calling Junk Science. I have made the clarification, and for some reason instead of acknowledging that difference you continue to fight to include that science into the generalizations you are making about speculative work ancillary to the actual climate science that concludes AGW. And as long as you refuse to recognize the difference in your statements, I will continue to disagree with them because they are incorrect.



Because you are using these arguments to support a false conclusion - that there is something wrong with the scientific conclusion the world is warming at an unprecedented rate and that mankind is behind the significant increase in GHG that is driving it. Once you can separate out the legitimate scientific conclusion from the specious ancillary speculations, we can probably find places we agree. But until you do, to agree with you on the elements of your statements that I do agree with, I would also be agreeing with a false conclusion about the veracity of the underlying climate science that gives us the AGW conclusion.