The Inaccuracy of Alarmist Climate Projections

[longview]

I clearly said that it was my understanding that that current rate of sea rise is projected to increase. If you can show me proof that the scientific community has reversed this stance, I'll be happy to take a look at it.

Here is your quote from post #94,

FWIW, if sea level rises stuck to only 3-4 mm/year, I'd be happy with that. But it is my understanding that that is not where the trend is headed.

No mention of the Scientific community. Also the high projected levels are based on the worse case scenarios,
which even the authors admit are unlikely to happen.
As of yet, there is almost zero evidence of a relationship between CO2 and sea levels.
If anything the sea level rise appears to be slowing down, not speeding up.

 

[Phys251]

Here is your quote from post #94,

No mention of the Scientific community. Also the high projected levels are based on the worse case scenarios,
which even the authors admit are unlikely to happen.
As of yet, there is almost zero evidence of a relationship between CO2 and sea levels.
If anything the sea level rise appears to be slowing down, not speeding up.

You are not addressing my concern, which I do not know how I could have made clearer. Show me where and why the scientific community has changed its consensus on the conclusion--not the numerical value, but the conclusion--that sea levels are projected to rise, and that rate of rise is going up.

 

[longview]

You are not addressing my concern, which I do not know how I could have made clearer. Show me where and why the scientific community has changed its consensus on the conclusion--not the numerical value, but the conclusion--that sea levels are projected to rise, and that rate of rise is going up.

Show me an example where the rate of the rise is increasing?
I know there are a few, but the vast majority are sticking to the existing trend.
Do you understand that to go from 1 foot a century (3 mm per year)
to the high end predictions of 6.5 feet in 83 years, (22.9 mm per year),
requires quite a bit of slope change?
New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Chapter 2: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storms - Horton - 2015 - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - Wiley Online Library

Sea level rise is projected to accelerate as the century progresses and could reach as high as 75 inches by 2100 under the high estimate (90th percentile).

Once again, look at NOAA's map,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
the 15 to 21 mm per year category is grey, do you see any grey arrows?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are not addressing my concern, which I do not know how I could have made clearer. Show me where and why the scientific community has changed its consensus on the conclusion--not the numerical value, but the conclusion--that sea levels are projected to rise, and that rate of rise is going up.

Maybe this will help:

 

[Phys251]

Maybe this will help:

View attachment 67220484

Holy crap, dude, those are contrived charts that it would take me less than two minutes to throw together in Excel. They are telling me absolutely nothing of interest.

At least you named them what they deserved to be named--deleteme.jpg.

 

[Phys251]

Show me an example where the rate of the rise is increasing?

Stop right there. I am not going to play this little game. The scientific consensus exists, it is real, it is not fake news.

If you wish to challenge that consensus, then the burden is on you. The scientific consensus is the default position.

I know there are a few, but the vast majority are sticking to the existing trend.
Do you understand that to go from 1 foot a century (3 mm per year)
to the high end predictions of 6.5 feet in 83 years, (22.9 mm per year),
requires quite a bit of slope change?
New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Chapter 2: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storms - Horton - 2015 - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - Wiley Online Library

I'm confident in my abilities to understand mathematical rates of change, longview. I'm also confident in scientists' conclusions of how that rate of change of sea level rise should, overall, increase over the next few decades.

Once again, look at NOAA's map,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
the 15 to 21 mm per year category is grey, do you see any grey arrows?

NOAA's oceans map? Am I reading this correctly that those are the current rates of sea level rises?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Holy crap, dude, those are contrived charts that it would take me less than two minutes to throw together in Excel. They are telling me absolutely nothing of interest.

At least you named them what they deserved to be named--deleteme.jpg.

LOL...

Yes, it took me maybe 3 minutes.

There is no indication that the rise is accelerating except by taking short segments of the regular cyclical activity on the normal trend. Since I said that before, I though you didn't understand such things.

 

[longview]

Stop right there. I am not going to play this little game. The scientific consensus exists, it is real, it is not fake news.

If you wish to challenge that consensus, then the burden is on you. The scientific consensus is the default position.



I'm confident in my abilities to understand mathematical rates of change, longview. I'm also confident in scientists' conclusions of how that rate of change of sea level rise should, overall, increase over the next few decades.



NOAA's oceans map? Am I reading this correctly that those are the current rates of sea level rises?

The graphs of the current sea level measurements would reveal any change in slope that has been going on since 1993.
There is a scientific consensus that the earth has warmed up and that Human activity may be involved.
I am not sure that such a scientific consensus exists that the sea level raise will rapidly accelerate.
The empirical data we have is that while the CO2 levels have increased quickly, and evening temperatures have increased,
there is little correlation that any of that is affecting the rate of sea level rise.
The claim is that the satellites record a higher rate of rise than the tide gauges, but they actually
are incapable of making the same measurement. (and the satellites are about 30 times less accurate than the tide gauges.)
In the end the only place where sea level matters, is where it meets the shore, I.E. where the tide gauges measure.
The only real change in trend in recent years, is that the northern US and France seem to have a slight drop in sea levels since about 2010.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Stop right there. I am not going to play this little game. The scientific consensus exists, it is real, it is not fake news.

You and the rest of the warmers are the ones playing games.

Read the papers. Not what the lying pundits claim the papers mean.

 

[Phys251]

LOL...

Yes, it took me maybe 3 minutes.

There is no indication that the rise is accelerating except by taking short segments of the regular cyclical activity on the normal trend. Since I said that before, I though you didn't understand such things.

HAHAHAHAHA you think I don't know how to read a chart! Hahahahahahaha...

 

[Lord of Planar]

HAHAHAHAHA you think I don't know how to read a chart! Hahahahahahaha...

Whatever.

I didn't post a similar chart till those several minutes ago.

 

[Phys251]

The graphs of the current sea level measurements would reveal any change in slope that has been going on since 1993.
There is a scientific consensus that the earth has warmed up and that Human activity may be involved.

Nope, that's not what the scientific consensus says. You got one key word of that wrong.

I am not sure that such a scientific consensus exists that the sea level raise will rapidly accelerate.

Then let me help you.

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.[23]"

'The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."'

The empirical data we have is that while the CO2 levels have increased quickly, and evening temperatures have increased,
there is little correlation that any of that is affecting the rate of sea level rise.
The claim is that the satellites record a higher rate of rise than the tide gauges, but they actually
are incapable of making the same measurement. (and the satellites are about 30 times less accurate than the tide gauges.)
In the end the only place where sea level matters, is where it meets the shore, I.E. where the tide gauges measure.
The only real change in trend in recent years, is that the northern US and France seem to have a slight drop in sea levels since about 2010.

Really? You're only going to consider sea level rises through 2010, and no future projections? You are aware that there are time lags between rising CO2 rates, rising global temperatures, and rising sea levels, correct?

 

[Phys251]

Whatever.

I didn't post a similar chart till those several minutes ago.

That was your decision to challenge my ability to read charts. Not mine.

Now I await from you clear proof that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong and that you somehow know better than all the environmental scientists combined.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That was your decision to challenge my ability to read charts. Not mine.

Now I await from you clear proof that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong and that you somehow know better than all the environmental scientists combined.

I wasn't challenging your ability to read charts. I was providing a chart to see, uncluttered for the other several factors.

 

[longview]

HAHAHAHAHA you think I don't know how to read a chart! Hahahahahahaha...

Fine, read this chart from New York's Battery park.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

In order for that trend to change from the 150 year trend of .93 feet per century,
to the predicted 6.5 feet in the next 83 years,(7.8 feet per century),
the slope is going to have to increase, a lot!
Yet when we look at the chart the only recent change is a slight downward trend since 2010.
The papers them selves state that the maximum predicted rise is unlikely to happen as it would require
contributions from both Greenland and Antarctica, and that combination is unlikely.

 

[Phys251]

I wasn't challenging your ability to read charts. I was providing a chart to see, uncluttered for the other several factors.

Very interesting that you ignored my second sentence. So I will state it again so that you may clearly see it: I await from you clear proof that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong and that you somehow know better than all the environmental scientists combined.

 

[longview]

Very interesting that you ignored my second sentence. So I will state it again so that you may clearly see it: I await from you clear proof that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong and that you somehow know better than all the environmental scientists combined.

Please cite where all the environmental scientists combined have stated that the sea level will accelerate to many times the current rate?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Very interesting that you ignored my second sentence. So I will state it again so that you may clearly see it: I await from you clear proof that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong and that you somehow know better than all the environmental scientists combined.

The consensus you claim to be scientific consensus, is not. The pundits lie about what the papers, polls, etc. actually say.

I'm waiting to see a real scientific consensus.

 

[Phys251]

Fine, read this chart from New York's Battery park.

In order for that trend to change from the 150 year trend of .93 feet per century,
to the predicted 6.5 feet in the next 83 years,(7.8 feet per century),
the slope is going to have to increase, a lot!
Yet when we look at the chart the only recent change is a slight downward trend since 2010.
The papers them selves state that the maximum predicted rise is unlikely to happen as it would require
contributions from both Greenland and Antarctica, and that combination is unlikely.

The chart doesn't show up in your post, but when I click on it, it does. Anyway...did you look at the legend of that chart? Did you look at the very first word in the legend? "Linear." Your argument assumes not just continued linearity, but continued linearity with the same slope. What you're doing here is the classic flaw of trying to turn an interpolation into an extrapolation. Or in layperson's terms, you're assuming that the current trend will continue with an insignificantly small change. Can you back that up with non-cherry-picked sources?

 

[Phys251]

The consensus you claim to be scientific consensus, is not. The pundits lie about what the papers, polls, etc. actually say.

Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm waiting to see a real scientific consensus.

No you're not. You're willfully denying the evidence right in front of you. Classic denialism--you cherry-pick the facts that suit the narrative that you want and throw the rest away.

You have yet to produce a shred of evidence in our back-and-forth that can withstand any kind of scrutiny.

 

[finebead]

I think I'll stick with Penn's judgment over yours. The claim that "their principles fail to add any value" is an unsupported assertion. As for Green and (especially) Armstrong's professional credibility, you only make yourself look silly denying it. And finally, your prattle about "the basic rule of writing" is puerile.

All kinds of studies that get published are wrong. The fact that it merely "got published" is not an indication that it is correct.

According to two Harvard professors and their collaborators, a widely reported study released last year that said more than half of all psychology studies cannot be replicated is itself wrong.

Study that undercut psych research got it wrong | Harvard Gazette

Some universities require professors to archive their papers in the university open access repository, effectively archiving them. There is no indication that they are reviewed or that it confers agreement by the university:

[FONT=&quot]Open Access Policy - a procedure used by some universities and funding agencies which requires that authors assign some rights (though not full copyright) of their scholarship to the university or funding agency which in turn can distribute it open access.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The University of Pennsylvania has endorsed a Statement of Principles on Open Access[/FONT]

Open Access Policies - Open Access Resources - Guides at Penn Libraries

The article has been critiqued by others beside me, and I have posted those links before.


Green and Armstrong make themselves look silly generating a list of over 150 rules, that nobody will pay much attention to as they add little to no value, especially to highly competent scientists who have spent a career as researchers.

They also make themselves look silly critiquing one chapter of a large study, then saying they did not do thus and so, when it is stated in a different section of the report, which is a specific criticism of their paper that I have shown earlier.

And they make themselves look silly criticizing the IPCC report for being poorly written, when they ignore one of the most basic rules of report writing, that of presenting evidence to support your finding. Please write us a soliloquy on why you think that rule is not important! I'll wait.

Everyone knows this is basic to the writing process, and for you to attempt to denigrate this basic dictum only shows how deep in denial you are. But you can't merely say it and dodge the truth. You must find a reputable writing rules publication that states that it is not necessary to support conclusions in a report with facts, evidence or at least a plausible line of reasoning.

[h=1]Report writing[/h]

Report writing is an essential skill in many disciplines. Master it now at university and writing reports in the workplace will be easier. A report aims to inform and sometimes to persuade. They should be written as clearly and succinctly as possible, with evidence about a topic, problem or situation.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/studying/study-support/academic-skills/report-writing
​

 

[Lord of Planar]

Prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have before. I'm not insane, so I am not going to repeat the same dissection of the consensus material I did some time back, and expect different results from the faithful of the dogma.

How many papers did you read regarding the consensus, or do you just read what the pundits say?

No you're not. You're willfully denying the evidence right in front of you. Classic denialism--you cherry-pick the facts that suit the narrative that you want and throw the rest away.

You have yet to produce a shred of evidence in our back-and-forth that can withstand any kind of scrutiny.

The evidence in fromt of me tells me the reporting of the truth, is in serious error.

There is not a single paper or poll to the scientific community that supports the 97% contention that antropogenic warming is most of the warming.

I have read them Have you?

If you believe I am wrong, then like link the full study or poll text for us all to read.

 

[longview]

Nope, that's not what the scientific consensus says. You got one key word of that wrong.



Then let me help you.

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.[23]"

'The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."'



Really? You're only going to consider sea level rises through 2010, and no future projections? You are aware that there are time lags between rising CO2 rates, rising global temperatures, and rising sea levels, correct?

The consensus on warming does not transfer to sea level.
Let's look at you numbers compared to the alarmist projections.
Your numbers are 7 to 30.8 inches, which is really a slight slowdown to some acceleration.
(3mm per year would be 9 inches by 2100, the 30.8 inches would be a rise of 9.4 mm per year or triple the current rate.)
The compares to the alarmist position of 75 inches by 2100, or even 138 inches posted by an error in Scientific American.

 

[Phys251]

I have before. I'm not insane, so I am not going to repeat the same dissection of the consensus material I did some time back, and expect different results from the faithful of the dogma.

How many papers did you read regarding the consensus, or do you just read what the pundits say?

Stop. Stop with the snide rhetoric. You, and I, are not climate experts. It is our jobs as laypeople to listen to what people who actually know what they're talking about. Not the other way around.

The evidence in fromt of me tells me the reporting of the truth, is in serious error.

There is not a single paper or poll to the scientific community that supports the 97% contention that antropogenic warming is most of the warming.

I have read them Have you?

If you believe I am wrong, then like link the full study or poll text for us all to read.

If you're so confident in your conclusions, then let's see some proof. No more rhetoric. I want to see clear and convincing evidence of your positions.

 

[longview]

The chart doesn't show up in your post, but when I click on it, it does. Anyway...did you look at the legend of that chart? Did you look at the very first word in the legend? "Linear." Your argument assumes not just continued linearity, but continued linearity with the same slope. What you're doing here is the classic flaw of trying to turn an interpolation into an extrapolation. Or in layperson's terms, you're assuming that the current trend will continue with an insignificantly small change. Can you back that up with non-cherry-picked sources?

What is wrong with a linear chart for sea level?
CO2's energy imbalance is a natural log curve, but sea level is a simple linear rise or fall.
Boston, has the same tail.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
As do many places in England, that you need to go the PSMSL to see.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer.
The sea level is simply not raising like they predicted.
And those sinking islands out in t Pacific, not a lot of change.
Pacific Sea Level Monitoring Project