2 of 2
2
An Essay Concerning Our Earth’s Fever (2017)
Posted: 24 December 2017 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

This is what evidence looks like.  I don’t see nothing that indicates any discrepancy between CO2 and sea level rise.
Of course MikeYohe would have to be honest enough to admit that Earth is a big place, scientists are small, different data produces slightly different results.  Mike thinks that’s a crime - he believes Earth is supposed to churn out exact numbers like a TI pocket calculator.

Systems science lad, system science.
==================================================================
Climate Change: Global Sea Level
Author:  Rebecca Lindsey |  September 11, 2017

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2016, global sea level was 3.2 inches (82 mm) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present).

StateoftheClimate_2016_SeaLevels_graph_597x336.png

_______________________________________________

The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming
The UN is warning that we are now on course for 3C of global warming. This will ultimately redraw the map of the world
Josh Holder, Niko Kommenda and Jonathan Watts | Nov 3, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming
- - - - - - - - -
Effect of global warming on sea level rise: A modeling study
Ecological Complexity
Volume 32, Part A, December 2017, Pages 99-110
J.B.Shukla, Maitri Verma, A.K.Misra

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476945X17300910
__________________________________________________

Extreme Arctic Melt Is Raising Sea Level Rise Threat; New Estimate Nearly Twice IPCC’s
Trajectory of dramatic climate change in the Arctic is locked in through 2050, but what happens after that depends largely on our choices today, report says.

BY SABRINA SHANKMAN | APR 25, 2017
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25042017/arctic-sea-ice-climate-change-global-warming-sea-level-rise-ipcc

__________________________________________________

Global Sea Level Rise Accelerates Since 1990
By Alister Doyle, Reuters, Published: July 1st, 2017

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-accelerates-since-1990-21586

The rise in global sea levels has accelerated since the 1990s amid rising temperatures, with a thaw of Greenland’s ice sheet pouring ever more water into the oceans, scientists said this week. …


____________________________________________

Global warming could cause sea levels to rise higher than the height of a three-storey building, study suggests
      Ian Johnston | January 19, 2017

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate-change-9-metres-study-science-a7536136.html


The researchers took samples of sediment from 83 different sites around the world, and these “natural thermometers” enabled them to work out what the sea surface temperature had been more than 125,000 years ago.

This revealed that over the course of some 4,000 years the oceans had got about 0.5C warmer, reaching about the same temperatures as are found now – after a similar increase achieved largely as a result of human-induced climate change in little over a century.

_____________________________________________

Scientists nearly double sea level rise projections for 2100, because of Antarctica

My Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney March 30, 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say

- - - - - - - - -

Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise
Robert M. DeConto & David Pollard
      Nature 531, 591–597 (31 March 2016)
      doi:10.1038/nature17145

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145

  Polar temperatures over the last several million years have, at times, been slightly warmer than today, yet global mean sea level has been 6–9 metres higher as recently as the Last Interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) and possibly higher during the Pliocene epoch (about three million years ago). In both cases the Antarctic ice sheet has been implicated as the primary contributor, hinting at its future vulnerability.  …

_____________________________________________________

Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise
By John Upton |  February 22nd, 2016

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055

The oceans have heaved up and down as world temperatures have waxed and waned, but as new research tracking the past 2,800 years shows, never during that time did the seas rise as sharply or as suddenly as has been the case during the last century.
The new study, the culmination of a decade of work by three teams of farflung scientists, has charted what they called an “acceleration” in sea level rise that’s triggering and worsening flooding in coastlines around the world.

The findings also warn of much worse to come.

The scientists reported in a paper published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they have greater than 95 percent certainty that at least half of more than 5 inches of sea level rise they detected during the 20th century was directly caused by global warming. …
_______________

Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era

      Robert E. Kopp, Andrew C. Kemp, Klaus Bittermann, , Jeffrey P. Donnellyi, W. Roland Gehrels, Carling C. Hay, Jerry X. Mitrovica, Eric D. Morrow, and Stefan Rahmstorf
      > vol. 113 no. 11
      > Robert E. Kopp,  E1434–E1441, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1517056113

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434

Significance:
We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries.

______________________________________________

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/sea-level.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 December 2017 09:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

About that Systems Science, here listen to a good talk where an expert explains it in plan english.
This is the stuff that’s educated me, the foundation of my understanding.

This is sort of a classic, not merely because its one of his last public talks,
but because of how completely and succinctly he explained today’s dilemma -
the one we as a people failed so completely - thanks to the relentless flood of garbage
from the likes of MikeYohe and that maliciously dishonest Republican public stupefaction campaign he parrots for.

It’s a must view classic if you want to be in a better position to understand what scientists have been explaining to us about our planet.

None of these fundamentals have changed these past years

Stephen Schneider: Climate Change: Is the Science “Settled”? -  (February 4, 2010)

Professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment,
he unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.

This course was originally presented in Stanford University’s Continuing Studies program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 December 2017 06:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2017-08-06

I cannot believe you are still trying to convince Mike Yohe.  This is a lost cause, that is why I have given up on this forum.  There is nothing to learn here at all.  Any knowledge you might obtain will be subjective or tainted with partiality.  Center for Inquiry is a complete failure.

 Signature 

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 December 2017 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24
WaylonCash - 25 December 2017 06:13 PM

I cannot believe you are still trying to convince Mike Yohe.  This is a lost cause, that is why I have given up on this forum.  There is nothing to learn here at all.  Any knowledge you might obtain will be subjective or tainted with partiality.  Center for Inquiry is a complete failure.

CFI’s a failure only because so few seem interested in a hardy discussion these days.

Why do you think I’m trying to “convince Mike Yohe”?
He’s one of my star specimens for the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party, don’t tell me I should stop studying him.


Other than that, since you didn’t ask, I’ll share it anyways:

Pruitt’s Red Team Challenge goes into hiding.

DECEMBER 25, 2017

 
Updating Pruitt’s Red team Blue team challenge, December 15th, E and E News’ Robin Bravenender reported, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum attended a White House meeting with Trump energy aide Mike Catanzaro, deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn and others to discuss the future of the debate and it has been put on hold.

I’m not at all surprised, after all Republicans have way more to lose.  Republicans are the ones performing the flim flam.  I think it’s a wonderful idea, compose a Blue team of savvy, well spoken, sharp-witted science communicators who have a deep understanding of Republican’s war on rational constructive science debate and learning, along with the ability to enunciate today’s climate science understanding under fire.

No, not real climate scientists!  Scientists have had their constructive debates (among competent experts who understand the details such as the math, science, unexpected complexities and such.).  Scientists have published their results.  Scientists’ work is On The Record!  Scientists are busy using their talents to continue the research.  Leave the politics to the public arena.

Use the Red team Blue team confrontation to force Republicans to show their cards.  Seems to me a wonderful opportunity to publicly expose their fraud.  That’s why I’m working on a few posts related to pursuing the challenge, even if only from a distance. ...

Now I just need to find more time to work on it.  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2017 11:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

Some curious things about Svensmark et al. reference list
Posted on 25 December 2017 by Ari Jokimäki
https://skepticalscience.com/analysis_of_svensmark_reference_list.html

The hypothesis of significant effect of cosmic-rays to climate has been shown wrong many times. This is a pet hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark, who continues to push papers on the subject to scientific journals. A few days ago, the journal Nature Communications published a paper of Svensmark (& co-workers). I checked out its reference list because I think that some indicators of the quality of a paper can be found simply by checking the reference list, and how references are used.

S17 reference list - first impressions
...
s17_1.jpg
The Kulmala et al. paper I mention there is this one: “Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation”. It shows results against Svensmark’s hypothesis, but it is not cited by S17. The mentioned paper list in my tweets is this one from my blog AGW Observer: “Papers on the non-significant role of cosmic rays in climate”.

... Svensmark et al. paper was also discussed in …and Then There’s Physics. In the comments there, one commenter (“dikranmarsupial”) noted an issue that relates to the reference list issues I’m discussing here:

It is hard to see how this made it through peer review when it cites early work on the CLOUD project, but not it’s negative (for the argument of the paper) outcome. Surely reviewers competent to review the paper would be aware that the CLOUD project doesn’t support Svensmark’s hypothesis?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 December 2017 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24
WaylonCash - 25 December 2017 06:13 PM

I cannot believe you are still trying to convince Mike Yohe.  This is a lost cause, that is why I have given up on this forum.  There is nothing to learn here at all.  Any knowledge you might obtain will be subjective or tainted with partiality.  Center for Inquiry is a complete failure.

Crazy shit dude.

Take a look at my posts, both their wording and the items I share.
It is substantive, I provide the links so you can check it out yourself.  My writing style, quality not up to snuff?  Make some suggestions!

What the f do you want WaylonCash and DougC, and other whiners, leave you alone so you an get back to the ball game or bitching at how idiotic others are???

What are you offering???

What do you suggest WaylonCash?

What is so difficult about recognizing that there is value is calmly demonstrating that all these climate science contrarian arguments are failed, and I can explain where and why, while describing what’s actually going on within our climate system.  Not 100%, for sure, I make plenty errors, but they are easily found, acknowledged and learned from.  That’s why I always offer sources for my understanding.

For gosh sake Doug and Waylon, can’t you simply take advantage of the resource and learn some serious shit that’s worth knowing, from what I provide.  After all if you guys still can’t figure it out, I write as much for on lookers, and to develop my own ‘voice’ and skill, as i do for MikeYohe.  Mike has shared his best with me, and I for one appreciate the opportunity he’s provided me for working through a few things.  Most contrarians are drive-by intellectual cowards, at least he’s got the brass balls to stand his ground, even if it’s more like them bound back clown punching bags.  Still I’ve learned a lot from him.

Tell me Waylon or Doug, what have you guys learned, or done, or tried doing lately?

If I’m doing it all wrong, why not offer some suggestions beyond fold up and go away?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2017 08:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2017-08-06
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 26 December 2017 11:26 PM
WaylonCash - 25 December 2017 06:13 PM

I cannot believe you are still trying to convince Mike Yohe.  This is a lost cause, that is why I have given up on this forum.  There is nothing to learn here at all.  Any knowledge you might obtain will be subjective or tainted with partiality.  Center for Inquiry is a complete failure.

Crazy shit dude.

Take a look at my posts, both their wording and the items I share.
It is substantive, I provide the links so you can check it out yourself.  My writing style, quality not up to snuff?  Make some suggestions!

What the f do you want WaylonCash and DougC, and other whiners, leave you alone so you an get back to the ball game or bitching at how idiotic others are???

What are you offering???

What do you suggest WaylonCash?

What is so difficult about recognizing that there is value is calmly demonstrating that all these climate science contrarian arguments are failed, and I can explain where and why, while describing what’s actually going on within our climate system.  Not 100%, for sure, I make plenty errors, but they are easily found, acknowledged and learned from.  That’s why I always offer sources for my understanding.

For gosh sake Doug and Waylon, can’t you simply take advantage of the resource and learn some serious shit that’s worth knowing, from what I provide.  After all if you guys still can’t figure it out, I write as much for on lookers, and to develop my own ‘voice’ and skill, as i do for MikeYohe.  Mike has shared his best with me, and I for one appreciate the opportunity he’s provided me for working through a few things.  Most contrarians are drive-by intellectual cowards, at least he’s got the brass balls to stand his ground, even if it’s more like them bound back clown punching bags.  Still I’ve learned a lot from him.

Tell me Waylon or Doug, what have you guys learned, or done, or tried doing lately?

If I’m doing it all wrong, why not offer some suggestions beyond fold up and go away?

I did not intend to be offensive or insult you.  Your work is accurate and intelligent, but because you hold a position so fervently, your contributions will not be accepted as objective or impartial.  The resources you provide, while substantial, are readily available to the public. Furthermore, the majority of traffic on this site are patrons of the same ideology.  “Preaching to the choir” as it were.  Although, we share the same values, the majority of posters will lunge for your throat if you disagree with them or present an idea that challenges their perspective.  Personally, when I weigh the risk/rewards for attempting to introduce new ideas or even participating in discussion here, being attacked by my own people outweighs what little reward there is in generally being ignored.  Because even if you do manage to avoid attack, people are so self-important they will likely not even attempt to read your post.
I do not mean to discourage you; you should not listen to my pessimism.  I generally lead a positive and proactive life, but this forum has been a real disappointment for me.  I have met many “Mike Yohe"s; the reason that they “stand their ground” is because they lack the intellectual capacity to change their mind or see past their own ego and self-importance. 
  To address your final question, I am a civil engineering student; I got this far because I set high expectations for myself and I love learning.  I apologize for any pretentious language, but I am working my butt off as a full-time student, a father to three boys, a husband, and I maintain a full time job.

 Signature 

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2017 09:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24
WaylonCash - 29 December 2017 08:35 PM

  To address your final question, I am a civil engineering student; I got this far because I set high expectations for myself and I love learning.  I apologize for any pretentious language, but I am working my butt off as a full-time student, a father to three boys, a husband, and I maintain a full time job.

Fair enough to all that.

But, when everyone shuts down, where does that leave us?

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2