Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute would appear to disagree with you as well as the NOAA.
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-sea-level-...
Snippet:
Sea level is rising, says Chris Piecuch, a physical oceanographer and sea-level scientist at WHOI. Not only that, it’s rising faster over time.
Do you have something to counter this?
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-sea-level-...
Snippet:
Sea level is rising, says Chris Piecuch, a physical oceanographer and sea-level scientist at WHOI. Not only that, it’s rising faster over time.
Do you have something to counter this?
mko9 said:
I think you are mistaken. No one that I saw said sea levels were stable. The rate of sea level rise is stable, as in there is no increase in the rate of change, despite higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2.
Fair point, although he’s still wrong as pointed out already. He’s also said it’s going up and down in different parts of the UK. Still wrong. He keeps spamming the politics thread with misinformation and falsely claiming the scientific and moral high ground whilst also patronising/gaslighting those that do actually follow the data/science. He reminds me of Dr Gary Novak. If you've not heard of him and really want to go down the rabbit hole then this site is for you...
https://nov79.com/scrs.html
https://nov79.com/scrs.html
Gadgetmac said:
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute would appear to disagree with you as well as the NOAA.
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-sea-level-...
Snippet:
Sea level is rising, says Chris Piecuch, a physical oceanographer and sea-level scientist at WHOI. Not only that, it’s rising faster over time.
Do you have something to counter this?
Sure, from NOAA: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend...https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-sea-level-...
Snippet:
Sea level is rising, says Chris Piecuch, a physical oceanographer and sea-level scientist at WHOI. Not only that, it’s rising faster over time.
Do you have something to counter this?
The tide gauge at Battery park in NYC is the longest running location in the US, going back to the early 1800s.
Their world page is kind of interesting, too: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend... Lots of areas, particularly in the far north, where sea levels are actually dropping drastically - Alaska, Canada, and Norway. I didn't count arrows, because there are a lot of them. But it looks like about 2/3 of the world's sensor locations are in the green. Most of that yellow on the US East Coast is actually land subsidence, not direct sea level rise. You can drill down to look at individual locations. Seems like NOAA thinks sea level rise is pretty stable.
That article from Woods Hole doesn't actually say anything, although they do at least cite their sources.
mko9 said:
Sure, from NOAA: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend...
The tide gauge at Battery park in NYC is the longest running location in the US, going back to the early 1800s.
Their world page is kind of interesting, too: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend... Lots of areas, particularly in the far north, where sea levels are actually dropping drastically - Alaska, Canada, and Norway. I didn't count arrows, because there are a lot of them. But it looks like about 2/3 of the world's sensor locations are in the green. Most of that yellow on the US East Coast is actually land subsidence, not direct sea level rise. You can drill down to look at individual locations. Seems like NOAA thinks sea level rise is pretty stable.
That article from Woods Hole doesn't actually say anything, although they do at least cite their sources.
You do realise why sea levels are dropping relative to land in Alaska, Canada and Norway etc don't you?The tide gauge at Battery park in NYC is the longest running location in the US, going back to the early 1800s.
Their world page is kind of interesting, too: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrend... Lots of areas, particularly in the far north, where sea levels are actually dropping drastically - Alaska, Canada, and Norway. I didn't count arrows, because there are a lot of them. But it looks like about 2/3 of the world's sensor locations are in the green. Most of that yellow on the US East Coast is actually land subsidence, not direct sea level rise. You can drill down to look at individual locations. Seems like NOAA thinks sea level rise is pretty stable.
That article from Woods Hole doesn't actually say anything, although they do at least cite their sources.
Rather than looking at the simple long-term regression analysis for a few sites why don't you look at their overall analysis?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
or
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/
Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 10th February 10:48
Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 10th February 10:50
Yeah, why would I look at dozens or hundreds of charts of individual sensors that all show a basically straight line for as far back as each sensor's records go? You can look at the data right there, as easily as I can. Not sure why any long term regression analysis is required. I guess because the actual data doesn't show there is a problem.
mko9 said:
Yeah, why would I look at dozens or hundreds of charts of individual sensors that all show a basically straight line for as far back as each sensor's records go? You can look at the data right there, as easily as I can. Not sure why any long term regression analysis is required. I guess because the actual data doesn't show there is a problem.
You haven't understood what I was getting at. The straight lines are simply showing the long term trend over the whole length of the record. They're not designed to investigate any changes in trend within the record. To see if there is an acceleration or deceleration in sea level change in the record you need to do the latter rather than the former by reviewing rates of change within the records (ie you sub-divide the data and analyse the rates of change within each sub-division). You also need to look at all of the data not just individual sites and probably also need to take into account satellite altimetry etc as well. The actual data do show there is a problem and that is both that sea level is rising overall and that it is accelerating.Lotus 50 said:
mko9 said:
Yeah, why would I look at dozens or hundreds of charts of individual sensors that all show a basically straight line for as far back as each sensor's records go? You can look at the data right there, as easily as I can. Not sure why any long term regression analysis is required. I guess because the actual data doesn't show there is a problem.
You haven't understood what I was getting at. The straight lines are simply showing the long term trend over the whole length of the record. They're not designed to investigate any changes in trend within the record. To see if there is an acceleration or deceleration in sea level change in the record you need to do the latter rather than the former by reviewing rates of change within the records (ie you sub-divide the data and analyse the rates of change within each sub-division). You also need to look at all of the data not just individual sites and probably also need to take into account satellite altimetry etc as well. The actual data do show there is a problem and that is both that sea level is rising overall and that it is accelerating.durbster said:
Lotus 50 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Jeez you need to vaccinate yourself against 'stupid' before you enter the CC Politics thread. 
The ironic thing is debunking their claims is a very effective method of education for me. 
For example, TB's tendency to give his posts credibility by referencing real science has been really handy because it gives you names of people you can get in touch with, and I've found they're often happy to chat.
The Great Barrier Reef has personal meaning to me but I only really have basic, bullet point knowledge about it, so I saw it as an opportunity to educate myself.
I'm sure you guys know this stuff already but I was sent this video from The Economist by Dr Hennige, the author of the paper on the 400 year coral record that tb cited, which is an accessible explainer of the risks from ocean acidification.
For example, TB's tendency to give his posts credibility by referencing real science has been really handy because it gives you names of people you can get in touch with, and I've found they're often happy to chat.
The Great Barrier Reef has personal meaning to me but I only really have basic, bullet point knowledge about it, so I saw it as an opportunity to educate myself.
I'm sure you guys know this stuff already but I was sent this video from The Economist by Dr Hennige, the author of the paper on the 400 year coral record that tb cited, which is an accessible explainer of the risks from ocean acidification.
I've contacted climate scientists (and others) who've published papers many times and posted their replies on both this thread and the politics thread along with their email addresses which are almost always publicly available and I've usually found they are usually more than happy to talk about their work and findings.
Deniers NEVER do this, for obvious reasons.
Thanks for the you tube video, I'll catch it later this weekend.
Deniers NEVER do this, for obvious reasons.
Thanks for the you tube video, I'll catch it later this weekend.
Facts delivered by sources you disagree with do not become untrue because of their source. Trying playing the ball instead of the man. And, since it is the politics thread we are talking about, pay attention to what the other side is saying too. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
mko9 said:
Facts delivered by sources you disagree with do not become untrue because of their source. Trying playing the ball instead of the man. And, since it is the politics thread we are talking about, pay attention to what the other side is saying too.
You're "pay attention" remark is quite funny being as how how you've completely missed the point of my post. It was to do with who was spreading the Heartlands gospel and how the source isn't immediately obvious because it's in the small print at the end of the article. The not uncommon tactic of promoting the oil industry's message surreptitiously. This comes as no surprise to those of us who've followed the thread and in particular the 'deniers guru' for any length of time.
mko9 said:
...pay attention to what the other side is saying too. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
No it usually doesn't. For instance I can think of at least 3 regular posters on that thread that believe that there's no actual warming of the earth at all when all of the scientific data suggests otherwise. There is no "in between". They are simply wrong.
Gadgetmac said:
You're "pay attention" remark is quite funny being as how how you've completely missed the point of my post.
Seemed like the point of your post was to completely disregard anything said by the Heartland Institute, simply because they are the source of the information. Doesn't matter how big or small the font with their name is.Gadgetmac said:
No it usually doesn't. For instance I can think of at least 3 regular posters on that thread that believe that there's no actual warming of the earth at all when all of the scientific data suggests otherwise.
There is no "in between". They are simply wrong.
It doesn't matter what other people commenting in the thread believe. If you are unwilling to understand all aspects of the debate before you make up you mind, then you are likely just as wrong as they are, just in a different way.There is no "in between". They are simply wrong.
mko9 said:
Gadgetmac said:
You're "pay attention" remark is quite funny being as how how you've completely missed the point of my post.
Seemed like the point of your post was to completely disregard anything said by the Heartland Institute, simply because they are the source of the information. Doesn't matter how big or small the font with their name is.
Having said that and as you bring it up the Heartland Institute is a lobby group for the oil industry. They were once a lobby group for the tobacco industry vigorously defending smoking against accusations that it caused health issues.
Its president once claimed that health concerns regarding cigarette smoking were overblown and worth ignoring.
Unfortunately for him science has proven otherwise and now it's his Institute that's "worth ignoring".
mko9 said:
Gadgetmac said:
No it usually doesn't. For instance I can think of at least 3 regular posters on that thread that believe that there's no actual warming of the earth at all when all of the scientific data suggests otherwise.
There is no "in between". They are simply wrong.
It doesn't matter what other people commenting in the thread believe. If you are unwilling to understand all aspects of the debate before you make up you mind, then you are likely just as wrong as they are, just in a different way.There is no "in between". They are simply wrong.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Monday 13th February 08:31
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff