Global cooling

mac · Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject:

For Chandler. Here is an interesting paper, from 2011, analyzing sea levels and concluding there is no acceleration of rise rates. Dean and Houston are both heavyweights in the coastal engineering field, and are both politically conservative. They are good engineers. http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

I retained a degree of scepticism on accelerated sea level rise for a period of time because we weren't seeing it in the San Francisco gauge. But I think the new data by NASA is more comprehensive and shows the trend--as well as how it varies geographically. The default number that Dean and Houston use is 0.15 meter, or about 6" for the next 100 years. That's lower than the trend in sea level in San Francisco without acceleration, so I'm dubious.

By the way, much of the sea level prior to about 1950 had nothing to do with climate change or global warming, it is a continuation of the warming from the end of the last ice age. It was very rapid (SLR) until about 8,000 years, and has continued since that, albeit at very diminished rates--sea level rose over 300 feet between 20,000 and 8,000 years before present.

The latest work, completed after the Dean and Houston paper, shows (and quantifies) the freshwater melting from land and ocean based glaciers.

If you want to see a detailed explanation of what factors contribute the changes in sea level, with research much newer than Dean and Houston, check this out: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

nw30 · Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:49 pm Post subject:

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

Science, including math and physics, is just another arbitrary belief system, valid only to its supporters and not in any inherently real sense. It's just like political preferences, favorite foods, religion, etc.; the only reality is what an individual believes. i.e., belief establishes fact.

Or so maybe half the population even in the advanced world -- especially those educated recently in the U.S. -- seem to think.

"Lunar eclipses are caused by the earth's shadow", for example, is just the White Man's silly explanation for what every good Indian knows is caused by The Gods, according to one highly articulate Indian college graduate who publicly disputed the shadow nonsense in particular and science in general. In another case, a college senior WSing student refused to believe that WSing, even the direction clouds or a pall of smoke moved, had anything to do with physics in general or the wind in particular. "It'll all just random happenstance; there's no order in the universe."

"Then how did man get to the moon?"

"He got there only if you believe he got there."

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

'Lies, damned lies, and statistics.'

As I've said before, the safest form of travel, as defined by deaths per million miles, is a one man one way suicide journey to Mars.

The question some of us ask is, just who are they with their heads buried in the sand, and eyes tight shut? Are they those who accept without question peer reviewed, ( by FALLIBLE fellow humans) statistics, and project them into the future? How many times have they (the global warming lobby) now been wrong? Or are they those who realise how hysterically the human race can react to perceived threats, and question such 'certainties'?

Has Googling removed peoples ability to actually think for themselves? Some so called 'experts' (no less infallible, of course) in human behaviour now think that is so.

mat-ty · Joined: 07 Jul 2007 Posts: 7850

How old's the earth? 4.5 billion years.
How many years of reliable weather data do we have? maybe 150 years.

mac · Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:21 am Post subject:

How to begin? People sitting at their computers--with little idea of the science behind their ability to rant--take on science. NW clearly has no understanding of the scientific process, and GT seems to doubt peer review. Only a deeply paranoid person would make this astonishingly cynical claim:

nw30 · Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:10 pm Post subject:

mac, you can begin by telling us what you really think.
[If you are a scientist, that means that you are completely irreproachable, blameless of anything that goes wrong, have no desire of financial gain for yourself or your family, an acolyte to the cause. They are completely special, unlike anyone else, or any other professional.]

Hea, guess what, they are just regular humans that put their pants on one leg at a time, just like Hillary (had to throw that one in there), and their shit stinks as bad as anyone else's. They go home at night and have an adult beverage, maybe get a buzz, and pay their bills. Then, just like everybody else, they think about upward mobility, and in their case, where that next grant is going to come from.

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Depends what you mean by 'doubting peer review.'

Peer review is the opinion of fellow 'experts' based on available evidence (knowledge) at that time. If that evidence (knowledge) is incomplete, or incorrect, the conclusion will be in error.

All past pronouncements of IPCC and the concensus were peer reviewed, yet, in sufficient cases were clearlky incorrect.

Scientific knowledge, peer reviewed a few hundred years ago, concluded that the earth was at the centre of the solar system, and indeed, the known universe at that time. Did peer review make that right!

Equally, nowadays, if the selected peer review 'experts' are of Nail Ponders choosing, he is able to accept that the earth (and whole universe presumably) is a mere few thousand years old.

Palpable nonsense and, I agree, a failure of reason (education) over religious dogma. Such has no place in this discussion!

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

First eggs were good, then they were bad, then they were good again. Coffee was good, then bad, then good again. Fat was absolutely, unequivocally, no-doubt-in-any-educated-person's-mind bad for you.........settled science!.........until it was good for you.

Open minded people realize that science evolves as more information becomes available and as theories are tested by the harsh glare of reality. Scientists in the field of diet have dramatically revised their opinions when armed with better data. Much more information has become available on global warming, as focus upon it has intensified. Predictions have fallen by the wayside. Yet those with closed minds continue to sneer at those who, for years, and very sensibly, have looked at the track record of climate science and are skeptical of the settled nature of this science.