Miami Dade County resource page. About a year ago, Mom and Dad committed themselves to Hollywood Beach FL by buying the condo they had been renting. So I just got back from visiting them and checking out the area. It is very nice and only about a block off the Broad walk / Ocean. Though almost too warm and humid for a winter adapted guy like me. :-)
After touring down there I was curious how sea level rise would impact them. I mean they had told me that during the King Tides some of the areas go under water already. Thankfully it looks like their neighborhood appears to be pretty safe. At least much better than many of the neighborhoods that are closer to Miami.
It will be interesting to see how they adapt to deal with the looming problem. It looked like the new sky scraper condos and hotels are bringing in a LOT of fill to raise their ground floor significantly. My friend joked that maybe this will become the Venice of the USA...
123 comments:
I love Hollywood, but it's days are numbered.
--Hiram
Per the forecast... It will be around for a long time yet...
It's not where you want to take a thirty year mortgage. Rising waters are affecting low lying coastal areas of Florida now. Much as I love Florida, it's a difficult place to live.
--Hiram
As we enter the political season, we are being told more and more how awful Minnesota is by people despite having the choice to live anywhere, chose to live here. Who indeed returned to this state after having lived elsewhere for years. They imply, chose us and we will turn Minnesota into another Florida, another Alabama. We will turn Minnesota into a northern Texas with it's unreliable, market based power grid, and it's bounties on impudent pregnant girls. And the weird thing is, they might succeed, at least with regard to the bounties.
--Hiram
You definitely are in a negative mood... Hopefully things look up for you !!!
It's the other guys who are saying how awful Minnesota is. And we do lack an ocean. But the places these folks present to us as an example are places they wouldn't want to live themselves. They are places that they chose not to live themselves, and for very good reason.
--Hiram
Oh come now...
You often complain about our failing country...
I keep wondering why you do not move to Canada?
Or maybe California?
Our political system is failing, but not necessarily our country. Speaking for myself, I have it rather nice. That's why I am not moving to Canada. It is in fact, why I wonder why people who seem to hate Minnesota choose to live here. I have spent considerable amount of time elsewhere, Florida mainly. I love it there. But what I love about it isn't reproducible here. Despite it's many charms, Lake Minnetonka isn't an ocean. I have had a lot of friends in Florida, but in recent years, most of them have had to move.
--Hiram
Something I like to remind myself and other people is that while he was awarded the White House because of certain legal technicalities, Donald Trump lost two presidential elections. Given the chance to choose him, Americans chose someone else. This gives me hope for the future. It reassures me that with all that's going on, Americans are basically a decent people. It's a reason to continue to live here, and not move to Canada.
--Hiram
This is puzzling... "most of them have had to move" Most people choose to move...
Good to hear your optimism showing.
And yes I am amazed that people from the Far Left and Far Right choose to live in MN or the USA, since folks in both groups seem to spend a lot of time complaining about our great State and Country.
"most of them have had to move" Most people choose to move..
The people I know simply couldn't afford to live there. Housing prices were out of sight, or very often they needed jobs with health care benefits. Florida is very much like a third world country where people live and work off the books.
--Hiram
"Since it has been well established in multiple IPCC reports that the human impact on climate has never been observed, only modeled,..."
This looks like an opinion piece you would like.
And a different summary
And the report summary itself
A. The Current State of the Climate
A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.
Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have
occurred.
A.2 The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state
of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many
thousands of years.
A.3 Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in
every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as
heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their
attribution to human influence, has strengthened since the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
A.4 Improved knowledge of climate processes, paleoclimate evidence and the response of the
climate system to increasing radiative forcing gives a best estimate of equilibrium climate
sensitivity of 3°C, with a narrower range compared to AR5.
Here we go again. Any "inconvenient truth" that does not agree with you is an "opinion," regardless of irrefutable evidence or even fundamental logic that supports it. I suppose if you want to believe lies, you can do that.
As for "unprecedented," go visit the Noatak National Preserve sometime.
Source please?
"Since it has been well established in multiple IPCC reports that the human impact on climate has never been observed, only modeled,..."
Maybe something from 10 years ago?
The current IPCC clearly disputes your claim.
Maybe I had better visit sooner than later.
"With more than 6 million acres of designated wilderness, this landscape is a shifting mosaic of seasons and life that form the rich environments of the Noatak Wilderness. Deep winters envelop the landscape into folds of snow and ice and summers release their energy in a flourish of activity. Wildlife creatively adapts to the dramatic changes in season by hibernating, growing extra fur, or even changing color from summer brown to winter white, like the ptarmigan, ermine, and Alaska hare. Plants find resourceful ways to thrive in this harsh climate, forming as dwarfed ground willows and lupines, and low growing mosses and lichens.
In many ways, this place is much the same as it was thousands of years ago. Now, as our world is beginning to experience dramatic and widespread change, this wilderness is at a crossroads. Encroaching development and climate change threaten to dramatically alter this environment but also present a unique opportunity to preserve the exceptional wilderness character of this vast and diverse wilderness."
So when are you going to start presenting this?
"regardless of irrefutable evidence or even fundamental logic that supports it."
When are you going to start SEEING it? You read the IPCC "summary for policymakers" written by politicians, but ignore the underlying reports by actual scientists (not to mention actual scientists and real data). You read a "source" about Noatak, but you haven't SEEN it, where the historic high-tide lines climb far up the beach, indicating much higher sea levels in history. Maybe you should read up on the Mendenhall Glacier, too. I don't have to; I've been there.
You continue to claim that what YOU READ should trump what I SAW with my own eyes. Why do I remain unconvinced?
Well here is the whole 2913 page report.
Please convince us with your "irrefutable evidence or even fundamental logic".
And no... "I saw something that I perceived to support my beliefs" does not count as evidence or logic of any sort.
I saw something that confirms my other knowledge. That is proof enough for everybody except you. And you continue to deny the very clear evidence from your own "sources." Like this: "The climate models used by the IPCC and NOAA to “compute” the human impact on climate have already been invalidated ... the latest IPCC report, called AR6, which acknowledges the point. It also admits that one likely reason is that the models are overestimating the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and that the models are overestimating warming relative to observations in both the atmosphere and the oceans. Since 2000, as data from EM-DAT shows, climate-related natural disasters are down overall. Extreme weather events, wildfires, landslides, and droughts were all less common in 2019 than they had been in 2000. The number of annual floods peaked over 200 around 2006 and has never since attained that level again. The climate, in fact, is becoming milder as it warms, with fewer extremes and therefore fewer severe storms."
You refuse to be convinced by your own sources; I don't even need to quote raw data or "skeptical" well-renowned scientists. Simple logic says we cannot predict the future, but if we simply extrapolate the temperature trends of the "industrial age" we do not have a problem. NOTHING, except the models, says otherwise. Except You. Why you prefer alarmist pronouncements over the actual real data I will never understand, other than a totally closed mind. That you deny what I know as absolute fact I can understand. Why you continue to deny what you /should/ know as fact defies logic.
Where was that quote in my source? Page #?
Or is that someone cherry picking from the 2913 page document again?
If emissions were still at 1900 levels or increasing at a slight linear rate, you may have a point... Unfortunately they have been increasing at a geometric rate along with the population of the world... Therefore rate of heating is also increasing.
It comes from the "opinion piece I might like," and it's right up front. I deliberately omitted Christie and McKittrick as the source of the "invalidation" because I knew you would simply dismiss these eminently qualified and peer-reviewed climate scientists out of hand, even though they are absolutely correct. The IPCC has lowered its estimate of ECS to 3.0 +/- 1.5. This means that meeting the Paris Climate Accords is well within the range of probabilities! It also means that the IPCC is finally bringing its "sensitivity to CO2" [used in the models] closer to (but still considerably higher than) the many researchers who compute the ECS from NOAA data or from fundamental physics.
Then there is this: "A more appropriate measure of climate sensitivity is TCR, or the transient climate response, or sensitivity. TCR can be seen less than 100 years after the CO2 increase, the IPCC claims this value likely lies between 1° and 2.5°C/2xCO2; their model computed average is 1.8°C/2xCO2 (IPCC, 2013, p. 818)." So, the IPCC specifically says that if total atmospheric CO2 doubles, temperatures will rise 1.8° over the next 100 years. That's not even a problem, let alone a crisis.
And you have made two fundamental errors, just in one post above. First, and I was very surprised to learn this, the 2913-page document is still the "summary for policymakers" written by politicians. It consists largely of assertions not necessarily supported by the actual science and research cited. It's kind of like your "sources" that are either equivocal or prove the opposite. The second is that you claim CO2 is increasing "at a geometric rate." Who cares, if CO2 is not the driver of global temperatures? And furthermore, do you have any evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels are the major factor in total CO2? You keep starting at the conclusion and then cannot show how you "got there." Something you should have learned in second grade math.
An Yep. They are affiliated with quack Spencer.
Can't wait to see what the future brings. :-)
And / or maybe it is that they rely too much on satellite data.
And what is the alternative for showing the actual global temperature record? Surface data? When we know that 70% of US ground stations are not placed according to requirements, being near asphalt parking lots, etc.? And that coverage is spotty, and some data are "thrown out" every time? And that there are constant "adjustments" made all the time, all in the same direction of making the past cooler and the present hotter? Sorry, but Satellite data is the true global measurement. AND, they are used by NOAA and NASA as such!
And you are still arguing AGAINST your own sources, which clearly show that temperatures are NOT rising at "catastrophic" or "dangerous" rates. You continue to insist, against all evidence, that fossil fuels control global temperatures. And WITHOUT offering a viable alternative, I might add.
When you get your hands full of straws, will you ever quit grasping? Your cite above illustrates dramatically the GIGO principle of the climate models. A year or two ago, those models predicted somewhere between a slight cooling and over 8 degrees of temperature rise. The average of those models was higher than observations at the 95% confidence level. AND "the average of errors is still an error."
You have one thing absolutely right. We need to "wait and see," because our "tools" for predicting the future are pretty much proven worthless. We don't even know if we NEED to "do something," or if we CAN do something, or what that something might be, or when we might need to do it, if ever. How about we save the $20B or so the US government spends on "fighting Climate Change" every year and set that aside for something useful?
So your "irrefutable evidence / even fundamental logic" is that you do not think the forecasts are accurate enough?
I think I will stick with the experts.
Why satellite data only is inadequate
What about satellite data?
Now what do the other sources show?
And NOAA's Update regarding 2021
Haven't you just proved my multiple points?
--CO2 continues to increase, but your sources say last year was the SIXTH warmest? Is CO2 really driving temperatures?
--If you look at the map, do you notice the huge areas categorized as above, normal, or lower? This is ONE thermometer standing for hundreds of square miles of Earth, and without any notion of accuracy! It's a form of cherry-picking, to use your word.
--Looking at the WMO article, it says temperatures have risen 1.1 degrees over 150 years, or about 0.75 degrees per century-- HALF the lower bound of Paris. Looking at the accompanying chart, and considering only the "rapid" increase since 1960 you find about 1.7 degrees per century, VERY closely matching the 1.8 degrees the IPCC predicts in some cases or within the range of probability of all the models, and STILL below the 2.0 degree target of Paris.
--That the satellites are "less accurate" than surface measurements is because we don't question the thermometer data, even though as previously noted, they "disagree" all over the globe, or the many "corrections" made to them. Who do you think puts these satellites up? Climate skeptics?
--Even the classification is suspect. "sixth warmest"? By how much? By how much difference from the previous year, and what does that say about the trend? How much of it may be simple natural variability? Obviously temperatures, however measured, go up and down a great deal, month to month and year to year. Maybe it has nothing to do with CO2?
I may have found your problem:
"So your "irrefutable evidence / even fundamental logic" is that you do not think the forecasts are accurate enough?"
If I forecast that the winner of the horse race will be one of the 8 horses in the race, is that accurate enough for you to place a multi-trillion dollar bet? If the models predict somewhere between 0 and 8 degrees rise 100 years from now (when we can't get tomorrow's forecast right), is that "accurate enough" for you?
"I think I will stick with the experts." And I will stick with what I can observe from the known data, from looking out the window, from visiting Noatak and Matanuska and Glacier Bay and Point Barrow and etc. Plus i have Miss Cleo on standby. I'm an expert in computer modelling and know enough math (2 classes short of a minor) to be able to read a graph. Stick with me.
They seem to track and report the changes in great detail... Not sure where you were looking?
Global average temperature datasets from NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, and meteorological offices of the U.K. and Japan, show substantial agreement concerning the progress and extent of global warming: all pairwise correlations exceed 98%.
Yes, that surprises me that the temperature record "correlates" with the temperature record. It does NOT correlate with fossil fuel use, and does NOT in any way indicate a coming climate "crisis." Yet the "experts" tell us there is, in spite of their own data. How can you square that with any known logic? Are they lying, or just very poor scientists?
I will need to put together a post with pictures for you.
My simplest assumptions:
- it took awhile before the increase in fossil fuel usage started to impact the atmosphere.
- there was a lot of air in the atmosphere to change / absorb particles
- but once that concentration hit a threshold, the heat in exceeded the heat out
- then the Earth's ice, water, etc delayed the heating further
- and now things are speeding up as the concentration grows and the ice melts...
Meaning that the rate of heating will keep increasing.
Don't bother. All you have /ever/ had are ASSUMPTIONS, that fossil fuel use drives global warming and you just do not have any clear scientific evidence of that. You CAN see warming in the temperature record; it is quite clear. What is equally clear is that the rate of warming is NOT increasing to the point where we should be concerned about it, nor is the actual warming coming anywhere near the "crisis" the models predict. Go beyond that, and do the actual math on "manmade warming" (INCLUDING the IPCC and EPA) and it is clear you have been laboring under a serious delusion. Sure, you can look around and see "evidence" of "warming," but look closely and you see that Earth was warmer in the past, and there is NO evidence that the cause is anything but natural. That is an ASSUMPTION.
On topic, yes, parts of Miami are sinking and the water is coming in. But the Pacific islands that were supposed to be underwater by now are actually growing. Since Al Gore predicted 20 FEET of sea level rise we have had a bit over 2 INCHES. Adaptation is what you do when you cannot prevent something, and you see it in Miami. Good for them. They're not building those hotels of renewable bamboo, or powering them with windmills, just raising them a bit.
I will let you argue with MIT...
As for Islands, definitely worth studying
I don't NEED to "argue with MIT" because they haven't SAID anything worth arguing with. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more effective than water vapor (which is 20 times more prevalent), and less effective (by 28 times) than methane (which is 200 times LESS abundant), but we all KNEW that! Or should have. Everything else is just a non-quantified /assumption/ about CO2's actual effect on the planetary climate.
Yes, MIT, we know all about the greenhouse effect. Now, how about discussing, with your vaunted scientific and mathematical knowledge, this cockamamie scientific hypothesis called CAGW?
Well that seems simple
Anthropogenic Global Warming
As for "Catastrophic"...
Results will likely vary depending on where people live and what they can afford.
The poor and young will likely suffer most, which is ironic since they did not create the problem. :-(
But you will be dead when warming and National Debt become disastrous...
As I have said before... Yours was the most self serving generation...
So, Al Gore's badly-discredited chart of CO2, plus "we can't explain it any other way" while not saying how MUCH warming is occurring "anthropogenically"? It's bootstrapping.
"Post hoc (a shortened form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc) is a logical fallacy in which one event is said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier." Often said as "correlation is not causation" and, even if it were (which it is not), the size of the effect matters greatly.
Your concern for the poor is touching. Maybe we should ask India and China to stop their economic development and switch over to wind and solar? Leave their people in absolute poverty and misery so that we can "help" them meet our more ambitious CO2 targets? Please, God, save me from those who want to save me. "Self serving" is the greatest way to organize an economy. The opposite is totalitarian socialism, whose tools start with the Big Lie.
You do like to live in the past and reference non-scientists.
A Cautionary Concept
Okay,you are right. The very best societies are those organized around "=enlightened= self-interest." But this must lead immediately to the conclusion that those societies most capable of enlightenment/ altruism are those who have achieved a substantial level of wealth. So for rich nations to try to "save" poor nations from an eventual 1 or 2° of warming, which we may be unable to prevent anyway, by denying them the many immediate benefits – food, clothing, shelter, health and happiness – of a stronger economy is simply NOT the moral high ground.
I DO reference scientists, including the ones you supposedly believe, yet you cling to those who provide no proof of their assertions or, if they offer [supposedly] supporting data, you ignore it. Which are you going to believe, the doomsayers or the data?
Your ego is very impressive...
Looking down on all of these organizations and their scientists?
Oh well...
Why are you so unquestioning? Some "expert" tells you something, and then either offers no scientific evidence whatsoever, or those statements run counter to known fact, or the evidence they DO offer contradicts what they are saying. Go back and look at the NOAA/NASA data again. It disproves almost everything they have been saying and so again, the ONLY evidence we have about a coming "climate crisis" is the models, and they are so inaccurate as to be worthless for the purposes of radical public policy.
It's actually OK to believe as you do about CAGW, but you should not be promoting radically expensive, ineffective and unnecessary policy "solutions" that affect all of us.
You really do not read very closely...
I read very carefully, but I'm a bit of a skeptic when I find something that runs contrary to what I know. It is well known, at least by me, that the problem in parts of Miami is land subsidence as much or more than it is sea level rise. It is the opposite of the problem of the Pacific islands, which are GROWING despite predictions and despite a slowly expanding ocean. To attribute any localized effect to AGW is simply not correct. We can get a global number from satellites, and it is not rising at any significant clip. People are still buying beachfront property, and it will be FAR cheaper to adapt, over the next hundred years, than to prevent the seas from rising. There is a lot of King Canute in the Climatista movement.
Well the good news is that Miami Dade county does not have you as their City Planner. :-)
But at least this time you used the correct acronym. :-O
Fun with Fact Checking :-)
They don't need me. If they don't put their building up on pilings or stilts or just high ground, they're stupid and not ADAPTING to the totally natural rise in sea levels over the years. But if they worry about the crystal balls and chicken bones the "sicentists" [sic] use to predict the unforeseeable future, then /nothing/ gets built. Or unless some dumb government official believes that nonsense and prohibits it. With whom do you identify? The smart developer or the stupid government official?
A smart developer just needs a wealthy naïve denier like you to sell the property...
Hopefully us tax payers do not choose to bail them out when they flood.
You would need a smart developer AND a dumb buyer. I wonder who sold Obama his multi-million-dollar beachfront property? Is he that dumb, or does he, like most everybody, simply and for good reason, not believe your apocalyptic predictions?
Article today concerned that a beautiful trail in Acadia National Park was wiped out by a heavy rain "due to Climate Change." So should we choose to condemn 7 billion people to freezing in the dark, or should we just move the **# trail?
Unless you have a topographic map, I do not know if Obama was sucker.
Many Leftist alarmists do claim "climate change" consequences that are not...
Just as many Rightists claim illegal immigration consequences that are not...
The joy of our polarized irrational country.
Maybe some real data will help, if compared to the "theoretical" problem that so concerns you.
sea level
A rough extrapolation of the actual data says about 8 inches of rise over 100 years. Surely something that can be adapted to-- one more course of concrete block will do it.
Maybe we should look at this as an explanation:
RIP C.S
You wonder why I keep challenging you to believe only what you can prove of your own direct or derived knowledge? Common sense requires judgement about whom you will believe, based on the rationality of their information and how it comports with the other information you have. Once again I offer evidence that CAGW is a chimera, a "moose in the fog" that simply does not exist, suitable only for scaring small children (and foolish adults) into doing something really stupid.
A 30 year old prediction. Really?
Here is something newer
From here
And if the warming rate is increasing... So will the ocean rise rate until everything is melted.
And let's not forget that water expands as warmed.
"water expands as it warms" Oh, yes, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Add to that that warm water holds less CO2 than cold water does. And warm water creates more clouds. Thus Mother Nature controls the global climate, with LOTS of variation regionally. Once more I repeat: the ONLY evidence of manmade climate change are the computer models. Predictions made from the basic science (CO2 causes warming, warming causes SLR) have been proven wrong time and time again, and predictions from the models have so far proven equally useless and wrong.
If you would just make one fundamental distinction, between Global Warming and ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming, we could discuss the massive difference between Adaptation to, versus Prevention of, possible future scenarios.
No, if you can not acknowledge that burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels increases the concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere... You are too deeply in denial to be considered rational.
The upside is that you give me a reason to keep learning more about AGW.
The other upside is that the most deeply in denial and averse to change are dying off rather quickly.
I acknowledge that "trillions of tons" of fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2. So what?
Even if, for the sake of argument, I believed that such was a significant factor in global warming, you still have two fundamental flaws in your argument:
1) There is no evidence in the temperature record to suggest that whatever warming is occurring is a "crisis" over the near term, and
2) Whatever solutions you might propose to this supposed problem are economically, socially, and technologically impossible.
Would you consider asking that all of us adapt? Maybe build our Miami condos 8" higher? (BTW, there is this: "Climate Central, a research group funded by the government during the Obama administration, projects the Obamas’ new mansion to be well underwater in its 'Extreme Scenario 2100' model.") I doubt think Obama believes it. Neither do I. Wait and see IS the right answer, here. And keep working on the thorium battery.
Actually we had better raise them 3 feet and then Miami will be the Venice of the USA.
I am not thinking short term or of myself like yourself. I am thinking about the life of my future grand children.
Wind, Solar, Batteries, etc are progressing pretty well.
Hopefully new even better technologies will be developed, but further delays in implementation can not be tolerated. And much the world citizens understand that.
Just an FYI. It looks like Obamas place will be built about 15' above sea level per this piece's addendum.
Actually, I am thinking "short term," say 40 years or maybe the lifetime of my children. I can't possibly justify doing something stupid RIGHT NOW, as the fanatics insist, that would jeopardize their futures. Even the Google engineers concluded that, if the "perfect" power technology existed today, and it does not, it wouldn't make economic sense to fully deploy it for up to 40 years. And racing to deploy the current "carbon free" technologies is stupid because they are economically, socially and technologically impossible. Give it 20 years. We'll have lithium fusion, or something else, by then, and won't have to use 19th century technology.
And I am NOT thinking of myself. I am thinking of some 7 billion people, the overwhelming majority of whom would ABSOLUTELY trade reliable electricity today for a couple of degrees less warming 100 years from now. There are two billion in India and China alone, and what are they doing? Are you going to force them to stop improving their standard of living?
Comparing Google satellite images with the topographic map, it appears the Obamas are living at about 8 feet above MSL. If the current trend in MSL continues, they will lose all of their property within 1 foot of the sea (maybe 10%), by 2120. If the doom-saying modelers are right, the whole house will become an underwater reef.
The nice thing about all this? The sea will not rise 20 feet next week, or in Obama's lifetime (and maybe not in a millennium), it will creep up slowly, allowing the new owner (Sasha?) to adapt, sell out, move.... It is only Obama's hype that looks like hypocrisy. The data says he's made a good investment, at half the original asking price. Obama obviously believes the data and not the hype. Why can't you?
Well that is why each country gets to make their choices.
The NOAA info said about 3 ft +/- 1 ft by 2100, not sure where you are getting your data.
Maybe their topographic map was really old... :-)
From the Miami Design Page...
"For planning purposes, the county relies upon the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact. By 2040, sea levels are expected to be 10 to 17 inches higher than 2000 levels."
So 28" to 36" by 2100 seems likely if the heating rate continues to climb..
Not sure where you are getting YOUR information. My NOAA data clearly says MSL continues at its historic pace of about 3mm rise per year. Your SFRCCC says it is between 63 and 107 mm/year, and that sea levels must ALREADY have risen between 5 and 8-1/2 inches since 2000. Has it? And notice this prediction is only 20 years out, but it still has a 70% uncertainty? Pretty much either a WAG or a SWAG, take your pick.
The location you showed for Obama's house is way off. Satellite imaging puts it much closer to the ocean, in a beautiful little swale about 8' above the sea. If he really trusted what his own government "experts" were saying he would never have purchased it, nor would he be building another beachfront home in Hawaii, steps from the supposedly rapidly-rising ocean. Maybe he just thinks he has a short life expectancy?
And I have no idea where you get this "28 to 36 degrees by 2100" nonsense. You can't find any evidence of that in the observed temperature record, and if you DID, it would not prove that there was anything puny humans could do to prevent it. Same two fundamental flaws in your argument. You keep letting hype get ahead of your science.
And you may find this helpful:
“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” ― Yogi Berra
I think you should read more carefully.
Miami Dade Site Sea Level Project Summary
Regional Predictions
Where did you get this quote? "28 to 36 degrees by 2100"
Gee, I don't know. What I read from your last cite was EXACTLY what I said it was.
And the "28 to 36" came from YOU just four posts ago. You really need to keep up with your own argument, especially when it turns out to prove my point and not yours.
My text...
"So 28" to 36" by 2100 seems likely if the heating rate continues to climb.."
Your error filled text... and rant...
"And I have no idea where you get this "28 to 36 degrees by 2100" nonsense. You can't find any evidence of that in the observed temperature record, and if you DID, it would not prove that there was anything puny humans could do to prevent it. Same two fundamental flaws in your argument. You keep letting hype get ahead of your science."
Or do you have a hard time acknowledging when you were WRONG / made a MISTAKE. :-)
Seven important words
OK, give me a source for this: "So 28" to 36" by 2100 seems likely if the heating rate continues to climb.." Then explain to me how that alters anything I said about that being nonsense. Even a more careful reading, noting the strange punctuation, is nonsense. Really, is nonsense the best basis for your unyielding conviction?
Let's practice together...
John,
"I was obviously wrong and I apologize for putting quotes around words you never wrote. Please forgive me..."
Sincerely Jerry
Page 9 and 10 here is one place
Page 15 or 20 from here.
Maybe that is confusing image 15 of 22, or page #20.
You are trying to confuse me. I tell you what your source says, you repost the same source, and I point out that it says the same thing that I said about it the first time. I simply do not trust your source, because it is ridiculous! Has the sea level risen 8 inches since 2020? That is what they predicted so if it didn't happen, we should simply dismiss this prediction and fall back on the official NOAA record, which says MSL is about 1/20 or less of what your source says. You keep worrying about some unknowable future, when you can't even accept the current reality. How about believing a real climate scientist? as it is
My source is NOAA... I am pretty sure they know the historical change.
That guy is a geologist who studies glaciers. And he sure missed the boat that cooling was coming... :-O
"Humlum is a member of the Norwegian climate change denialist organization Climate Realists (Klimarealistene) [2]. He is active in Norwegian and Danish climate politics, arguing that current climate change is mainly a natural phenomenon.[1] Together with Jan-Erik Solheim and Kjel Stordahl, he published the article "Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change" in Global and Planetary Change in 2011. The article argues that changes in the sun's and moon's influence on the earth may explain most of the historical and current climate change. The theory in the article was opposed by several scientists.[5][6] He predicted in 2013 that the climate would most likely become colder in the coming 10–15 years.[7]"
Here is what the sources say. Using 2000 as the zero point
2000 0.0
2020 +3" Rate .15"/yr
2040 +13" Rate .65"/yr
2070 +37" Rate 1.2"/yr
2120 +88" Rate 1.8"/yr
So, you have a "source" that knows exactly what the sea level will be 100 years from now? Who is it, Miss Cleo? Your number for 2020 is REAL DATA, and it exactly matches the measurements AND the long-term sea level trend defined by "your source," NOAA. It is by far the lowest trend of any, and the others are ridiculously high, pure speculation. There isn't enough salt in the ocean to make those claims believable.
Heh. I knew when I posted it that the first thing you would do was try to discredit a renowned Climate Scientist, simply because all of his knowledge disagrees with YOU. Notice that he makes several claims, just as many of your "sources" do. The difference is that his are backed by ACTUAL DATA, much of which I have seen, from reputable sources like NASA, NOAA, Hadley, the EPA and IPCC. You are somehow immune to the reality of the moment, preferring nightmarish future predictions that drive us to do stupid stuff.
"The theory in the article was opposed by several scientists.[5][6] He predicted in 2013 that the climate would most likely become colder in the coming 10–15 years.[7]"
I would imagine those other scientists are among those scrambling to explain the 10-year "pause" in warming? Not a total pause or cooling, but certainly far less cooling than the models predicted. To quote one of those scientists, "We can't explain that, and it's a shame that we can't." Yes, because it means your predictions are Fercockt, Worth exactly bupkes. Why do you believe them, and fret over them? They are contradicted by reality.
Actually they had a range of +/-40%. I was just lazy and posted the averages.
Here are the lower end predictions.
2000 0.0
2020 +3" Rate .15"/yr
2040 +8" Rate .25"/yr
2070 +18" Rate .33"/yr
2120 +44" Rate .52"/yr
And about that supposed pause
This is an interesting if dated review of your expert's work. The comments are interesting also.
"...thanks to natural variability, volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, the rate of average global surface warming from 1998-2012 was slower than it had been for two to three decades leading up to it." Isn't that what I just said?
Your WAGs about future sea level trends are therefore highly implausible, assuming one must assign any credence to them whatsoever. On what are these idle speculations based? It can't be science, and defies math.
Please remember that those are not my numbers...
They are NOAA's numbers and predictions.
Well at least the Dept of Defense is preparing for reality, even if you keep denying it.
Looking at what you cherry picked out of the source...
Do you also agree with the next few paragraphs?
"How much slower depends on the fine print: which global temperature dataset you look at, whether it includes the Arctic, and the exact time periods you compare. Regardless, the big picture of long-term global warming remained unchanged.
Those who deny the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming turned the slowdown into a slogan: “Global warming stopped in 1998.” In scientific journals and assessment reports, climate experts described the episode as a “pause” or “hiatus” in the previous decades’ rapid warming: they knew it wouldn’t last.
Not only was 1998-2012 the warmest 15-year period on record at the time, but greenhouse gases continued to climb to new record highs, and other climate indicators continued to show the impacts of long-term, global-scale warming: subsurface ocean heating, global sea level rise, the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and record-low Arctic sea ice extent."
It always amazes me when I read your sources. Yes, I agree with the next paragraph, which says what the IPCC (and Judith Curry) essentially says, which is "the long term prediction of climate is impossible." That is also the immediately obvious conclusion by viewing the "precision" of the climate model predictions, i.e. 4 degrees +/- 4 degrees. Close enough?
Notice that the immediate next sentence changes the discussion from "global warming" to "HUMAN-CAUSED global warming"? Followed by derision of the many learned scientists looking at the actual data? It's pure hokum.
And then come the bald-faced lies, or shall we be charitable and say, "unfounded assertions." All based on the false premise that humans MUST be the cause of it.
Once more, will you accept the current reality, or insist upon the fantasy that doom is coming, and it's all our fault? Prove to me you can predict the future, because all the other acolytes of the Great Church of Global Warming have guessed wrong hundreds of times, and they are apparently still at it.
Oh well... Have a good weekend !!!
I will. I don't have to worry about the climate, or fret that I am destroying it.
Denial is a wonderful state of mind... :-)
Then you should be ecstatic.
Jerry, Sorry but I accidentally deleted your comment when cleaning our some unwelcome "AD" comments. Please rewrite if you wish, I do not have an "undelete" button. Sorry.
On further reflection, denial takes two forms. To quote Prof. Harold Hill, "Well, either you're closing your eyes To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are unaware of the caliber of disaster indicated By the presence of a pool table in your community."
The second kind-- unintentional or intentional unawareness-- can keep you sane and happy. I refer to it as "a problem for which I do not have the bandwidth" so it doesn't matter what it is. But the other kind, where you actually engage with someone who brings you facts you "do not wish to acknowledge" creates a very painful cognitive dissidence. It explains why liberals, and those who cling to liberal shibboleths and deny reality, are never happy. Their self-worth is built upon believing the lie and they can't let go.
Jerry,
You do understand that most people here see this describing you. Don't you?
"Their self-worth is built upon believing the lie and they can't let go."
The vast majority of experts agree that man's massive use of fossil fuels is the primary driver for the increasing rate of climate change... And for some reason you can not or will not except that simple reality.
Maybe you are correct that your pride has you stuck. I hope you get better.
Typical liberal response-- "most people agree with me." It leads me to the alternate form of your quote, which is, "97% of scientists agree, the DATA is wrong." I'm sorry, but I just have trouble with statements containing so many unsubstantiated assertions, including "vast majority", "experts", "agree", "massive use", "primary driver", "increasing rate", and "climate change" (not "global warming"). ALL of them, mind you, simply belied by the actual data which (INCLUDING your cite), as stated above, "must be wrong."
And here is why: The “fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” replication fallacy
I am not interested in what most people think regarding this complicated topic.
I am interested in what the experts at NOAA, NASA and the top Universities have proven.
Please feel free to keep thinking you are smarter and more qualified.
"have proven"????? Get a grip, man! Your most recent article, including all those "experts" starts right off with the chart that clearly DISPROVES everything they are saying! That chart clearly says that temp rise over 60 years is about 0.8 degrees, or 1.3 degrees/century, well BELOW the (arbitrary) lower limit of the "Paris Accords." And there is ZERO evidence that fossil fuels have anything to do with it! Correlation is not causation. It's all cant, log-rolling, and generally self-serving. Who are you gonna believe, your "experts" or their own data??
Data is just data...
The interpretation of the data is what turns it into useful information.
Yes, I will believe the interpretation made by NOAA scientists over the interpretation made by "Jerry".
Where as you seem very self confident that you are smarter than them...
How would saying that you had been incorrect impact your sense of self worth?
It is an interesting question.
"Their self-worth is built upon believing the lie and they can't let go."
Personally I hope they and I am wrong...
Alright, say my 5 years of college mathematics do not entitle me to at least an opinion about what a linear fit of the data before us would tell us. What mathematical wizardry can you muster that would support the outlandish claims of the "experts"? Show your work.
My "self-worth," BTW, has nothing to do with it; I'm dealing with facts. All these statements by experts, THOSE are conclusions drawn from the data, and obviously subject to their various biases, "professional standing" and "expert status" included. I just look at the data.
If you are trying to apply a linear fit to data that is obviously NOT linear... That is likely your big problem...
"Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to NOAA's 2020 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate.
Based on NOAA's global analysis, the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2005, and 7 of the 10 have occurred just since 2014. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time."
Human population growth has not been linear...
The human use of fossil fuels has not been linear...
But if all you have is a hammer... I suppose everything looks like a nail to you.
Well, yes, you can certainly quibble with my mathematical curve fit, so how about you consider NOAA's OWN math? "1880-2022 trend is +0.77 degrees C/Century" Get that? 0.77, not 0.8 as I said, not 1.5 nor 2 as Paris commands, and certainly not 8 as some extremists suggest, but 0.77. I was off, but only in the second decimal place.
Now sure, if you want to cherry-pick the historic record (inaccurate as it is by things like UHI) to just short, recent periods (remembering that "climate" is defined in minimum 30-year increments) like alarmists do, then yes, let's go with THAT linear fit. It says (according to you, I assume quoting NOAA) the trend is 1.8 degrees per century, STILL under the Paris targets! But the last week has been very cold, here. What "trend" are we going to worry about?
Oh, and trying to do a linear fit on sinusoidal data doesn't work well, either, but it is the best we have. We cannot predict the future, and therefore we cannot PREVENT it from happening. According to the best NOAA science, we don't need to.
I think you need to go back to math class
Request denied. If you are willing to disbelieve your OWN SOURCES, just because they roughly agree with me, then any knowledge I may have or could acquire will NOT benefit you. Apparently, in your world, 0.77 = 8.0. Correct your error and get back to me.
Actually my source said...
""Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to NOAA's 2020 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate."
Yes, it says that, and the DATA says that, so why do you not also say that neither indicates a FUTURE crisis? Both would indicate a trend to a "global temperature" within Paris targets, 100 years hence. I will also suggest that you look at data starting in 2005 and, though short of a "climate" by a few years, shows a much LOWER trend. You can estimate it yourself from the NOAA data here:
NOAA temp anomaly
How would you determine / define a "future crisis"?
Is this ocean height change a "future crisis"?
Here are the lower end predictions.
2000 0.0
2020 +3" Rate .15"/yr
2040 +8" Rate .25"/yr
2070 +18" Rate .33"/yr
2120 +44" Rate .52"/yr
So my source says...
"ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate"
Your graph of the last 17 years looks like the rate of temperature change has increased even more. So of course they can predict the future.
If NASA/NOAA can predict the future, then why doesn't THEIR OWN DATA back up those projections? Everything their data supports says we are already on track to meet the (arbitrary) Paris targets. Where is the "future crisis" prediction, in the DATA?
And your crystal ball must be better than mine, to look at that massively random data over the last 17 years, what some have called a "pause," and see any discernible trend at all. I'm very curious to see the mathematics behind your "curve fit." You keep telling me you see something that I cannot see in the available data. Show your work.
If NOAA can not convince you... I certainly can not...
As you said of yourself...
"Their self-worth is built upon believing the lie and they can't let go."
Your ability to deny the obvious is truly dazzling. I AGREE with NOAA; there is ZERO proof of a coming climate catastrophe to be seen. And even if there was (and mind you, just SAYING it doesn't make it so), there is no evidence that we can prevent it.
Unfortunately you can not have it both ways... Since NOAA says.
"At Least Two Feet of Sea Level Rise by 2100
and Reducing Emissions Now Can Lower Future Risk"
The only one denying NOAA position and warning is you. I accept that they are correct.
You are failing to distinguish raw speculation-- SWAGS or "Scientific Wild-Assed Guesses"-- from the known facts, or even from extrapolation of known data. What NASA SAYS about the FUTURE is largely irrelevant, because any fool can be a doomsayer, like the bearded "prophet" roaming the streets with a sandwich sign saying "the world ends tomorrow"... every day. There is ZERO factual evidence of a climate catastrophe in 2100 because there cannot be; that future has not happened yet. You are still falling for "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history." I'm sorry if that conflicts with your religious beliefs.
"The only one denying NOAA position and warning is you. I accept that they are correct."
Not true. I am saying these statements from NOAA are BS. There is ZERO proof of either part of that statement, and quite the opposite is easily shown. I do NOT deny the NOAA data, which DISPROVES what they are saying, to the degree such idle speculation can be. I deny the lie; you deny the factual data. I'm sorry if that conflicts with your religious beliefs.
So what you are saying is that you trust your interpretation of NOAA's data more than theirs.
And that you deny the warning from NOAA's scientific experts and liken them to a homeless guy carrying a "The End is Near" Sign...
Because you believe you are smarter than them. Not because you have any proof that they are wrong. You definitely do have a massive ego. :-)
Wrong again. I believe NOAA's own interpretation of their own data. Now will YOU believe NOAA, or do you know more than they do?
So you agree with...
"At Least Two Feet of Sea Level Rise by 2100
and Reducing Emissions Now Can Lower Future Risk"
Wrong for the third time. I agree that the NOAA's stated temperature trend from 1860 is 0.77 degrees/century and that the temperature trend from 1960 is roughly 1.8 degrees/century, neither of which exceeds the Paris targets. Both NOAA statements, confirmed by actual data, make lies out of your quote. Do you agree with lies?
That is not MY quote.
That is what the experts at NOAA believe will happen if the green house gas levels and rate of warming continue to rise.
I see nothing changing in the system to argue against their prediction. Hopefully something does.
"I see nothing..." Thank you, Sergeant Schultz. It is not necessary for "something to change" to argue against their prediction. Every predictive tool we have says there is no problem like that they allege.
"The experts at NOAA BELIEVE..." Quite possibly true, but their VERY OWN DATA strongly contradicts what they believe. They maybe believe in God, too, but like that belief, they have ZERO evidence for it. Neither do you. You are relying on the "holy word" of a bunch of bought and paid-for "scientists" getting rich from "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history."
I prefer to deal in known facts and actual data, as NOAA provides, rather than some crystal-ball-gazing doomsayers.
There is no doom in their statement...
Just an acknowledgment that people who live near the ocean may have to move in land...
And that is the price they will pay for the choices we humans have made.
As I said... I hope they are wrong, but I do not think they are.
Post a Comment