Florence shows that atmospheric water vapor dwarfs human emissions of trace gas CO2.
To put some perspective on the scale of water vapor and trace gas CO2 in our atmosphere, let’s compare the two in terms of rainfall from Hurricane Florence alone over the Carolinas and surrounding area.
Surely with man’s fossil fuel profligacy, the emitted CO2 must by far outweigh the water vapor associated with a single storm.
18 trillion gallons of rain
According to hurricane expert Dr. Ryan Maue, some 18 trillion gallons of water vapor could fall as rain from Hurricane Florence over the Carolinas’ region:
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1040467582120337408
To better imagine the scale of this, that’s roughly 2400 one-gallon milk jugs for every man, woman and child on the planet.
70 billion metric tonnes
18 trillion gallons is roughly 70 trillion kg of water mass, which is 70 billion metric tonnes of water vapor in the atmosphere which will end up getting dumped on a few states over a few days by Florence.
Double the weight of human CO2 emissions in one year
How does this compare to human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere?
Globally and ANNUALLY, man emits about 36 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. That means the water vapor falling as rain over the Carolinas’ region from Florence is double the weight of CO2 man emits into the atmosphere in an entire YEAR.
Human CO2 amounts pales in comparison to the daily global water vapor variations the planet sees. Clearly water vapor dwarfs CO2 in the atmosphere. Claiming that CO2 is the main driver is as silly as claiming President Trump is complicit in creating Florence.
Ehm, what? Why would you compare the amount of rainfall to the amount of CO2 that humans emit into the atmosphere? Next up: comparing the mass the Sun converts to energy per second to the amount of CO2?
Hello captain obvious!
Not understanding the mechanisms and the observational evidence that is overwhelming is silly … also not recognizing how bad Trump is as a President, that’s silly too.
So, to sum up what you were trying to say: the rainfall of one storm has a higher a higher mass than the CO2 humans emit, thus the CO2 can’t be the main driver of the current climate change. And this doesn’t sound silly to you at all, Pierre? 😉
I only appear silly to you because you’re way out in la la land. You obviously don’t understand the highly complex mechanisms that are still long from being understood. You believe it’s flat out simple with one trace gas deciding everything. Sorry Seb, but your notions are just stupid, stupid, stupid. You obviously just lap up everything the media pours into the dish in front of you. Questioning is science, and not lapping up fantasies.
[-snip, Sorry at this forum I get the final word. Not interested in arguing with a cement wall. You have to get over the arrogance of believing you’re always right. I’m open to a vast array of opinions, but not the silly, unscientific, extreme alarmist ones. -PG]
That’s a fitting reply …
Simple solution.
DNCWTRT
Or if preferred
DNFTT
Don’t take it so hard. In general Kenneth and I have given you an open forum here for you to express yourself, which is far more than what many alarmist sites or the BBC allows. Just keep the snotty attitude here in line.
Oh, no biggy. I am rather amused. Do you really think that I am believing one trace gas decides everything and that I am the one just believing anything certain sources are saying? I think you guys should consider that you imagine this to be a bit too simple and check your sources more thoroughly … don’t take it too hard.
No, not everything. But have you not stated that you believe 100% of the warming since 1950 is due to greenhouse gas emissions from humans?
You essentially just repeat the same stuff we read from blogs like skepticalscience and realclimate. Even some of your “analogies” are similar…like the time you compared CO2 to cyanide (or was it arsenic?) in trying to establish quantities are immaterial, or just how deadly even trace gases like CO2 can be.
That is the case and yes I have brought up that statement that is backed by many climate scientists and many peer-reviewed papers. Like it or not, but that is pretty much what has been going on in the last few decades.
You do probably agree that it is warming either because the Sun is emitting more energy towards us or our planet’s composition changed in a way that allows heat to accumulate. Now what causes such an imbalance? Cloud cover change? Surely … what causes cloud cover change? And here we enter Kenneth land of cosmic rays … if you think the CO2 story sounds like a fairy tale, then you can imagine what cosmic rays influencing the climate in this way sound to the rest of us. Or hey, it’s all the gravito-thermal wonder effect that totally works on every planet/moon with an atmosphere, right?
Nope, it’s an enhanced greenhouse effect caused by – surprise – more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Like this, this, this and this
So multiple people saying the same thing doesn’t tell you that they might be correct, but makes you suspicious that they are all in on the same “hoax”? Hmm …
And you think that is equally silly as converting the accumulation of heart into a Hiroshima bomb count, right? Well, I am curious then … what do you think about comparing human CO2 emissions and the accumulation of those emissions to the rainfall of a hurricane? Care to elaborate?
It is a good analogy for showing how limited pseudoskeptic thinking can be. Of course, downplaying the role of CO2 by trying to establish that it’s just a itsy bitsy tiny change in a trace gas and trying to make people believe that such a small change couldn’t possibly do anything, is just another move out of the disinformer playbook.
Anyways, the majority of articles here are repeats of what is written elsewhere. Are you saying that you guys are just “lapping up” what others come up with and repeat it here without even a hint of scepticism? Is that it? 😉
But have you not stated that you believe 100% of the warming since 1950 is due to greenhouse gas emissions from humans?
And there are “many climate scientists and many peer-reviewed papers” that say humans do not exert fundamental control of the heating and cooling of the Earth by burning more or less fossil fuels, and thus they are not responsible for 100% of climate changes, as you believe.
How odd. Once again, none of your links show the strong effects of cloud radiative forcing that dwarf the tiny (just 0.2 W m-2/decade with +22 ppm) alleged effects of CO2, as shown here, in Ogurtsov et al., 2012:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Solar-Forcing-of-Global-Temperatures-1983-to-2001-vs.-CO2-Ogurtsov-2012.jpg
So do you believe humans cause the cloud cover to increase or decrease with our CO2 emissions? I ask because decadal-scale cloud cover decreased during the 1980s to 2000s, but it increased during the 1950s to 1970s. CO2 emissions rose during both periods. So how did it cause a decadal-scale increase on the one hand (cooling the Earth’s oceans) but a decrease on the other (warming the Earth’s oceans)?
For the umpteenth time, I don’t use the term “hoax”. And as far as “multiple people saying the same thing” telling me they “might be correct”, I am a skeptic. I don’t just assume people who believe that humans control the Earth’s ocean temperatures (and melt glaciers and intensify hurricane winds…) are correct because they come in “multiples” on online blogs.
Water vapor, a greenhouse gas, is being compared to CO2, a greenhouse gas. And the abundance of water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere completely dwarfs that of CO2.
Curtin, 2012
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/761473/
“We show that a comprehensive analysis results in relegating [CO2] to insignificance as a determinant of climate change, and that atmospheric water vapour arising almost exclusively from nonhuman sources is by far the largest source of radiative forcing and temperature change. … The failure of the regression to reveal any contribution of changes in [GHG] to changes in Gistemp’s GMT anomalies is obvious both from Figure 1 and from Table 2, which shows total statistical insignificance because with t 0.05, the critical values are not attained. These results validate the null hypothesis from Hegerl et al. that there is no discernible and statistically significant causation of global temperature change attributable to the radiative forcing from anthropogenic changes in noncondensing GHGs. … [O]nly the [H2O] variable is statistically significant, accounting for more than 90 per cent of the changes in mean maximum temperature over the period 1960–2006. … [H2O] accounts for more than 90 per cent of temperature change near where C. D. Keeling began his measurements of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back in 1958.
“[W]ater vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas because it absorbs strongly in the infra-red region of the light spectrum, first demonstrated by Tyndall (1861), despite the conventional view that because the water vapor content of the atmosphere will increase in response to warmer temperatures, water vapor is only a feedback that merely amplifies the climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. In reality, the [H2O] variable in the NOAA’s database proves to be a remarkably powerful determinant of climate variability over the period from 1960 to 2006 not only at Barrow but across all USA, as it is always highly statistically significant at better than the 95% level of confidence for both annual mean minimum and maximum annual temperatures. This is hardly surprising, if only because in reality, as Tans has noted, “global annual evaporation equals ~500,000 billion metric tons. Compare that to fossil CO2 emissions of ~8.5 billion ton C/year,” and even the total level of [CO2] is only 827 billion tonnes of carbon equivalent. It would seem to be a case of the tail wagging the dog if the additions to [CO2] from human burning of hydrocarbon fuels have raised global temperatures enough (just 0.0125°C p.a. [per year] since 1950) to generate annual evaporation of 500,000 billion tonnes of [H2O].”
Nope, there aren’t … there a few prominent climate disinformers who happen to have a PhD, but it’s mostly old retired folks living out their c-word fantasies.
Do you really think they are missing from those forcing graphs/diagrams?
Kenneth, you’ve asked this question before and apparently don’t remember the reply. Cloud cover is a feedback loop … not of the CO2 concentration, but fueled by humidity and temperature. What you are trying to do in this paragraph is super weird and only indicates you don’t understand the mechansism (as noted before). Why do you think you can argue against something you don’t understand? I mean, you can – obviously – but it doesn’t look good.
You are no skeptic, you automatically assume the opposite is true and support anything that confirms this bias of yours. It also is not about the usage of the word “hoax” … it’s about what you imply.
No, that is not the case. Rainfall gets compared to human CO2 emissions. If you don’t recognize why this is problematic, you are part of the problem.
Poor EVIDENCE-FREE seb
.. yet another round of DESPERATION, DENIAL and distortion from the poor little troll.
You know you have NO EVIDENCE of humans affecting climate in any way whatsoever..
…. so stop your juvenile headless chook ranting and trolling.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Do you at least recognize the irony of you repeating this over and over without posting any “evidence” yourself? Or is this also completely lost on you like so many other things?
Poor seb, STILL the headless chook routine.
So HILARIOUS
So PREDICTABLE.
Its YOUR fairy-tale, seb.. and you cannot support it with any science whatsoever.
You KNOW you have ZERO-EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 causes any warming..
stop running away from the FACTS , seb.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
“and check your sources more thoroughly “
You have ZERO sources of evidence for enhanced CO2 causing anything but enhanced plant growth.
You are totally unable to put forward evidence supporting your comments.
Any sources you have cited on anything else have been checked and found pretty much devoid of actual science.
All you do is unthinkingly chant the anti-science BS AGW mantra from your masters, because you are INCAPABLE of doing anything else.
Yep, because you live in another universe … one where science is anti-science and whatever you are making up is the actual science. It’s fun to watch you do this, but that doesn’t make your claims magically become true, spike55.
Don’t accuse others of “mantra chanting” when that is all you do! It’s almost as if you know what you are doing and try to accuse others of doing exactly the same thing in a vain attempt at trolling them.
roflmao
Yet another DESPERATE evidence free rant from seb-troll.
Let’s see you produce some actual real empirical science to back up your rantings about CO2 warming
You have been given ample opportunity, but remain totally and absolutely DEVOID.. and empty abyss.
We are waiting.. and waiting… zzzzzz.
two quotes from seb…
“Do you really think that I am believing one trace gas decides everything”
“thus the CO2 can’t be the main driver of the current climate change” (as weak sarcasm)
you poor little fella, your brain suffers from a massive cognitive dissonance..
.. or more correctly, non-functionality, seb
you can’t keep your fairy-tale story straight.
Sorry little child, but CO2 atmospheric trace gas DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING, and is not a DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE in any way whatsoever.
Nope, over here everything makes sense and is based on the actual laws of physics and working math. What you do is constructing a world that doesn’t exist … get over it and start with a basic course at your local university. You’ll be surprised …
… or it is all trolling and you would not be surprised. In that case, it is nice playing with you. You never disappoint, but I hope others can see through your act as well 😉
Sorry seb-troll,
Your laws of “fantasy fizzics” are not those of REALITY.
They are not backed by any actual science, just ranting
You are incapable of producing anything to back up CO2 causing warming.. because it doesn’t
You have ZERO comprehend of energy transfer and structural analysis.. how things ACTUALLY WORK… you think it is just “magic”
Sorry little child, but CO2 atmospheric trace gas DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING, and is not a DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE in any way whatsoever.
Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to the contrary?
” but I hope others can see through your act as well”.
They can CERTAINLY see through your farce.
If it weren’t for your deep-seated arrogance supported by your unbelievable ignorance, it would be obvious to you that everyone considers you a LAUGHING STOCK of a brain-hosed AGW troll, with very limited scientific comprehension and very little real education.
See Yonason, spike55 replies like these just beg for a reply to correct him and feed the troll he is. Sometimes I just can’t resist. This guy is who destroys your comment section, but you keep him for the entertainment I guess … because it’s fun to have AGW proponents endure these barrages of insults from him 😉
WRONG AGAIN seb.
Stop your mindless cackling.
You are the TROLL here, and you KNOW it.
Stop being such a DECEITFUL LIAR, especially to yourself.
Grow up and face what you really are..
.. and be very ashamed.
“Not understanding the mechanisms and the observational evidence “
ROFLMAO
Your FANTASY mechanisms that you are UNABLE to describe with any scientific or rational backing
And your TOTAL LACK OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for CO2 doing anything except enhancing plant growth.
ouch.. my sides hurt from LAUGHING so much at your brain-hosed ineptitude.
And poor seb.. a mental disease called TDS..
Trump has done more to MAGA than any President in history. Get over it.
You want BAD, look at what Murky has done to Germany with here wind and solar energy crap.!
“thus the CO2 can’t be the main driver of the current climate change”
There is ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 is a climate driver in any way whatsoever.
Any measurable effect is indistinguishable from ZERO
If you have any evidence otherwise..
THEN PRODUCE IT.
“also not recognizing how bad Trump is as a President, that’s silly too.”
The greatest thing about The Donald is his knack of getting the resistance” to go ballistic. The liberal elite are so eager to make the Administration look bad that reporters have stopped thinking and checking the stories. Example: Curtaingate – New York Times / Nikki Haley / $52,701 customized and mechanized curtains.
Oops!
Whatever it is that you think is “bad” about the President is overwhelmed by the entertainment value — like poking a stick into a hornet’s nest.
I don’t get it John, how is it entertaining to have such a person in such a position? Trump is objectively bad, that’s not just liberals saying it is so. And no, it’s not only the way he talks and what he writes on Twitter …
What I really don’t get is that any small thing this guy did would have made Republicans to insta-impeach Trump if he were a Democrat. But if this kind of stuff happens on their side everything is cool. The rest of the world just hopes this guys lack of understanding and misbehavior will not throw as back too far and that the economy is resilient enough for him not being able to completely tank it.
Do pseudoskeptics exist who think Trump is dangerous? Or are you all fullfilling the clichee?
“Trump is objectively bad”
WRONG !!!
He has done MORE to make America functional than anyone for a long time, and that is against a whord of far-left media and leftist suckophants in congress.
There is one heck of a lot of Obama type crap that he has to somehow undo.
The rest of the world needs to wake up to the damage being done by bigoted leftist ideology and agendas.
Rather amusing to read a German citizen argue with an Australian citizen about the badness or goodness of a U.S. politician. These political debates can never be won or lost.
I wish we had a Trump type person somewhere at the top, with REALISTIC policies, instead of the only major parties being mid-left (Liberals) far-left (Labor) and looni-toon ultra green-left (greens), all intent on bring the country to its knees with wacky leftist agendas.
Trump may be a bit of a leftist tease at time.. ok .. all of the time. 😉
But he is doing the very best for the American people, who he genuinely cares for.
Obama, and his far-left socialist cadre, cared for anyone BUT the American people.
His advances for America have been incredible against the political back-drop and media sliming.
Paris farce.. gone or ignored.
Anti-CO2 agenda being broken down bit by bit.
Consumer confidence highest in 18 years
Manufacturer confidence at a 20-year high
Youth unemployment lowest in 52 years
Black and Hispanic Unemployment rates hit record low in April
US homebuilding permits soar to highest level since 2007
US Oil Production tops 10 Million barrels a Day, First Time Since 1970
…
Other countries can only WISH they had that sort of record.
Another one…
Recovery Is Finally Trickling Down to Least-Educated Workers. seb, move to America..
.. you might just get a worthwhile job !!
Keeping with “poking a stick into a hornet’s nest”, it isn’t the stick-poker that is entertaining.
The antics of those such as Maxine Waters, Charles Schumer, Gov. Brown, Jr. are interesting. Brown is having a train built that makes no sense, and now wants to launch a rocket with a satellite that has no purpose. He needs that like he needs a second left hand.
On the surface these things are hilarious.
In a serious moment one needs to consider the opportunity cost. The wasted alternative is not funny.
Note. When I click on post, I get thrown to the top of the page, and nothing seems to happen for hours. Maybe in the morning the comment will appear.
That’s because it’s sent into moderation or spam. It happens to everyone. The spam folder may accumulate dozens of junk ads in a matter of hours.
President Trump has done 3 things of major significance.
Both good.
1 Shown the emperor has no clothes by pulling out of the Paris
2 Stopped using the EPA as an unaccountable arm of enforcement
3 Called out China for unfair trading and intellectual theft.
What’s not to like😁?
Turns out the hurricane wasn’t as bad as a lot of the-screaming would lead one to expect. I’m sorry a few people lost their lives, and it shows the danger of large old trees precariously near homes in a storm.
Maybe communities will consider regrading streets and run-offs for better water drainage. That would go a long way to mitigate flooding
What kind of run-off will remove 18 trillion tonnes of water pouring down in just a few days?
Over what area Seb. Or is simple arithmetic a problem?
TedM,
John found source for 18 Trillion Gallons not tonnes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2018/09/16/florence-forecast-dangerous-flooding-expand-into-western-north-carolina-southwest-virginia/
The first problem not arithmetic …
TedM, over the area that is mentioned in the post above …
SebH needs understand difference of Gallons and Tonnes of water.
Does he?
One aspect not mentioned is how much water vapor was dumped into the Oceans prior to hitting land. This is just a look at the rainfall for one storm on land. No mention of the week or so of rain and storms to make it to land fall. Hard to measure that amount of water vapor removed from the atmosphere over the entire life of the Hurricane let alone all the other rainfall and storms around the world on any given day.
Where do you think this water vapor comes from? Do you think it is a coincidence that those storms form over the oceans?
You mean the ocean that has warmed by 0.08ºC in 60 years, seb ??
Nothing unusual about Florence.. except the absolutely comedic HYPE.
REAL informations destroys that HYPE.
“The returns are now coming in and it now appears that Florence might end up being the most overblow fake news media circus in history.
Wilmington, NC was definitely in the eyewall when Florence made landfall. Highest sustained wind was 66 mph and peak gust was 92 mph. Rainfall as of 5 PM totalled 3.64″.
Myrtle Beach near the center of the storm at 5 PM had a highest sustained wind of 43 mph and a peak gust of 59 mph. Rainfall also 3.64″
Florence, SC along I-95 in NE South Carolina had highest sustained winds of 43 mph and a peak gust of 54 mph. At total of .24″ of rain.
Hatteras, NC on the Outer Banks had highest sustained wind of 41 mph and a peak wind of 53 mph. A stupendous total of .15″ rainfall.
Lumberton, NC inland in SE North Carolina had sustained winds of 43 mph
and peak gust of 62 mph. Rainfall total of 1.64″.
Does not exactly sound like the catastrophic 140 mph winds and the 40″ rainfalls that were predicted!
Inland flooding is still possible, as it has been with every slow moving tropical system since the beginning of time.”
FACTS and DATA, seb.
Maybe try it some day to support your fantasy of CO2 warming.
Troll attempt or a genuine misunderstanding? Which is it?
So for you a storm that got weaker before landfall is a sign that CO2 doesn’t cause warming?
P.S.: Here is a timeline with wind speeds:
http://www.wrdw.com/content/news/HURRICANE-FLORENCE–A-timeline-of-forecasts-492866731.html … where is your source for those “FACTS and DATA”?
Only 0.08ºC ocean warming seb-troll.
GET OVER IT !
Florence, tropical depression… get it right for once in your miserable trolling, seb.
There is absolutely ZERO-EVIDENCE of any human influence on Tropical depression Florence.
There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that there is any CO2 warming, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
Not a sign ANYWHERE.
Lots of rain, because of NATURAL jet stream blocking, not good.
But not even a LYING TROLL like you can link et stream wobbles to anthropogenic anything, except in your most deprave hallucinogenic delusions.
Your mindless anti-science fact-free FANTASIES have to stop. !!
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Florence passed directly over a NDBC station JMPN7 at landfall.
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=jmpn7
Maximum sustained winds in the leading eyewall reached 52 knots.
The maximum sustained winds in the trailing eyewall reached 56 knots.
Saffir-Simpson category 1 threshold is 64 knots.
MEASURED FACTS, seb
And seriously ??? going to a sports radio station for facts.????
Notice that even they call it Tropical Depression Florence.
You have NO EVIDENCE of atmospheric CO2 warming anything, anywhere, anytime, seb-troll
Another attempt at irony, spike55?
FACTS and DATA.
You don’t have any, seb.
That is why you are perpetually WRONG… on basically everything.
Care to counter the actual REAL MEASUREMENTS from the above link, seb?
Or just give us another mindless cackle.
F.Y.I.
OK, Pierre. Time to assess the damage of allowing an activist troll so much access to your site, and freedom to stalk your good readers.
David Anfinrud asks a legitimate question. The only answer he has so far is a snarky one from the pest that adds nothing to anyone’s knowledge base. I wouldn’t blame David if he were to think it was more trouble than it’s worth to compete with the Antifa-like goon. Actually, I’m beginning to feel that way, myself. And that’s probably just what the chatbot wants, and what you are allowing him to get away with.
Recently I was going over some of my previous posts a year or two ago, and it is quite clear that many of those who used to make valuable contributions to your blog prior to his arrival aren’t seen here anymore, or if they are, it’s a rare event.
Now, it occurs to me to take a look at who is contributing their thoughts on your recent articles. Looking at this most recent…
Total posts so far to this article = 24 (as I write this)
Total posts by the nuisance pest = 10
That’s 42% of all posts to this article, not one of them contributing anything of value.
Others posting…
Yourself – 2
B&T – 1
Kenneth – 2
spike55 – 4
John F. Hultquist – 1
Brian G Valentine – 1
TedM – 1
David Anfinrud – 1
offsite links – 1
The lion’s share has gone to the loud mouth with nothing to say.
=========================================
Now, let’s look at the 6 previous articles. What proportion of the posts are those of the pest.
1/12
13/45
7/23
14/43
5/17
3/10
——
43/150
That’s 29% of all posts to the 6 articles preceding this one. Adding in the most recent gives 30% of all posts to 7 articles (53/174). And never once adding anything of value, just snark and taunting, insult, evasion, deceit, logical fallacy and general all around annoyance.
I can’t be sure, but I think the extent of his hectoring may be taking it’s toll, which I’m convinced is his sole purpose in being here.
All for now. Gotta go. See you in a while.
My opinion:
SebastianH is like the opposing team that the Harlem Globetrotters face off against. He’s a prop in the sense that he provides the service of representing the views of the CO2-causes-100%-of-climate-change believers, including all of their most common shenanigans and obfuscations and perpetual intellectual dishonesty. And considering he and his kind are consistently and thoroughly trounced* whenever he tries to “argue” his points in the comments, SebastianH exposes himself and those like him for what they do…and are.
* For example: New Arctic Study Finds Spring Sea Ice Melted 2 Months Earlier Than Today During Roman, Medieval Times
@Kenneth
As long as you don’t lose readership due to the presence of someone as nasty as he is. The Opposition to the Globetrotters (or the Magicians, who I once saw perform at a local high school) is never obnoxious, and are usually a talented team in their own right. SebH has all the negatives, but none of the positives – an occasional pleasure to see him lose, but no fun to have around.
I just put that out there for consideration of whether enduring him as much as you do is worth it, i.e., is it doing more good or more harm to the readership. That’s all.
I understand your points.
I wish he didn’t resort to dishonesty and purposeful misrepresentation of others’ views, but having an example of the “best” the other side has to offer — and having that “best” be feeble at best — is, to me, worth it.
We’ve had a lot of those on his side leave too. sod, for example, used to comment all the time.
seb is basically just a WASTE OF TIME and SPACE.
That is his only purpose for being here.
He KNOWS he cannot support the AGW scam with any real evidential science, so just keeps blathering LIES and DECEIT and MINDLESS MANTRA.
Its just a very JUVENILE form of attention-seeking to put some mindless purpose in his lonely pathetic life.
Personally, I think Pierre would be doing him a great kindness is telling his to remove himself.
He may actually then have to find something worthwhile to do with his miserable existence.
This is pure gold, Kenneth. you think yourself as being the Harlem Globetrotters in this discussion?
You think you are “winning”? It’s you guys who expose your level of understanding every now and then in a very revealing manner. Any argument that comes from that “knowledge base” (as Yonason put it) can only be flawed.
I have to endure this all the time here, I am sorry if I sometimes make this error myself. The trolling from some individuals here does work sometimes.
I am certainly not the best and I am certainly on no “other side”. Your perception of this is deeply flawed, Kenneth. The “best” will never attempt to comment here after witnessing how stubborn you guys are. Some managed to comment here over time, bu quickly realize it is a waste of time. You are no Globetrotters, you are pigeons playing chess. That’s how you guys are viewed from not the “other side”, but from outside your bubble.
@Yonason:
my reply count is high because of the way you guys comment. It’s one vs. many. I can try to comment to multiple commenters in one reply in the future if you think that is more effective. Also it is troll attempts like the one from spike55 in this very subthread that try to get a reply from me. That is what “never once adding anything of value, just snark and taunting, insult, evasion, deceit, logical fallacy and general all around annoyance.” looks like.
No, not of myself. The belief that humans exert fundamental control over ocean temperatures, glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities just by affecting the 0.01% change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 100 years…is like the Harlem Globetrotter opponent — easy to undermine and/or look silly. That’s how your beliefs are viewed here. We offer substance, scientific papers, evidence, observations. You offer models, presuppositions, and beliefs. The former are like the Harlem Globetrotters. The latter are like their opponents. They get pummeled routinely.
“after witnessing how stubborn you guys are”
roflmao.
You mean in accepting your FAIRY-TALE EVIDENCE-FREE mantra.
OMG you are so full of yourself, arrogance personified.
You have ZERO substance
You have ZERO evidence
You can’t even start to attempt to present any science backing the farce of atmospheric CO2 warming
No seb, we are NOT GULLIBLE TWITS like you are.
Your mindless anti-science rhetoric means less than NOTHING.
It is never going to persuade anyone of anything except that you are an inept fool.
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE!!
Answer the questions, instead of the continual headless chook EVASIONS and attempted DISTRACTIONS.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
“It’s you guys who expose your level of understanding “
roflmao.. another pathetic troll attempt.
You expose you NEAR ZERO level of understanding in basically every topic you have ever tried to troll on.
You have PROVEN to be grossly anti-fact and negative-knowledge, and DETERMINED to stay that way.
Your logic is totally irrational and based on a weird mix of fantasy, anti-science, and attention-seeking.
You have shown that your understanding of science, maths, physics, biology, etc etc etc, are basically at remedial junior high level.
“I am certainly not the best “
Basically you are one of the MOST INEFFECTIVE AGW apologist/troll I’ve ever seen.
In the whole time you have ranted and raved here, you have not persuade anyone of anything except that you are a gullible brain-washed twit.
Your approach shows just how BLINDED the AGW apostles are to rational thought and reality of scientific data.
You present NO EVIDENCE to back up your baseless anti-science opinions.
You just keep sliming and slithering to avoid answering basic questions.. Its HILARIOUS 🙂
And yet you fail miserably every time you try … why? Because you don’t understand the mechanism you are arguing against.
And that my paper throwing friend is what is wrong with this community. You guys live in a imaginary world and you find stuff that confirms what you believe. There is no overwhelming body of science supporting a skeptic view, especially not if you get the basics wrong so often and highlight junk science papers now and then.
And for the 100th+ time, it’s not a belief, it’s science. You are the ones believing …
You certainly offer scientific papers, but you lack substance and understanding.
Your fear of models again … everything is a model. And no, no presuppositions and beliefs on this side. That’s a thing your bubble does. Heavily. And insults. Just look at the comments spike55 posted in between.
Again, your level of imagination is amazing. That is certainly not what is happening here and elsewhere in climate science. Climate science is a regular basketball team and you guys are sitting in the audience screaming at the players thinking you know to play the game better then them. That’s how the rest of us views the pseudoskeptic community …
I don’t think you understand what “it’s science” really means.
In real science, once a hypothesis is formulated, scientists are required to devise methods to demonstrate that their hypothesis is false. In other words, the hypothesis must be falsifiable – a working null hypothesis. If the hypothesis survives exhaustive falsification attempts (a painstakingly slow process), then – and only then – that hypothesis might possibly be deemed worthy enough to be elevated to a theory.
In climate science, a hypothesis is formed (i.e., human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, warming the ocean, raising sea levels, intensifying hurricanes…), and then instead of seeking ways to falsify that hypothesis, adherents seek evidence that might support that hypothesis while they simultaneously suppress or marginalize evidence that might support the falsifying null hypothesis (i.e., the modern climate changes fall well within the range of what can or has been caused naturally). This confirmation-bias/evidence-suppression process is primarily accomplished with computer modeling.
—–
“When we finally come to the ‘not due to known natural causes alone’ [the IPCC attribution statement] the same expert judgment drops to 90% confidence and below the level necessary to confirm the hypothesis, which, in any case, is also not based on real-world data that can be subject to statistical treatment and normal scientific derivation of confidence levels.”
“We have to conclude that there is no reliable scientific evidence to support the conclusions that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are even partly responsible for the recent warming. To do so, a null hypothesis ‘that there is nothing unusual or unnatural in the recent temperature rise of the last fifty years’ would have to be falsified at a greater than 95% level of confidence by real-world data. It has not been. Indeed, there is no evidence from the IPCC’s work that a null hypothesis was actually constructed in the first place. And this would explain the lack of effort at gathering data that would test such a model.”
“The actual path chosen has been via theoretical models based upon prior assumptions and which are not testable by traditional scientific methods. Moreover, as we have seen, the real-world data points to a greater role for natural causes than is attributed in the IPCC models.”
Peter Taylor (2009), Chill, pg. 207
Tell us all about this fantasy mechanism, seb, we need a laugh.
With scientific evidence, of course. (lol.. as if)
You have FAILED UTTERLY on every previous attempt.
This secret mechanism of yours is a load of nonsense GARBAGE, an hallucinogenic anti-science fabrication.
You can cackle incessantly, as long as you like, does NOT make it true.
You say it is science, not just brain-hosed cult “belief”..
.. then PRESENT THAT SCIENCE
You have FAILED UTTERLY so far.
We are STILL waiting for the science that shows atmospheric CO2 causes warming
Surly you have some in the bottom of your TROLL-HOLE, if you just keep on digging deep enough into that fetid sewer.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Nope, that is not what is happening. That is purely your imagination.
Also, Flat Earthers argue the same way and don’t accept any evidence or observation that disagrees with their views claiming that it’s all models or faked anyway. That should make you think about your position, but apparently it doesn’t.
That is the null hypothesis of CO2 does cause warming? Maybe you should rethink what authors you choose to believe 😉
It’s from a book. Anyone can write a book. Even climate disinformers. From a book review site:
And what does Peter Taylor writes in his autobiography?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shivas-Rainbow-Peter-Taylor/dp/0954706404
This guy is a fraud and has nothing to do with climate science, but you choose to believe in what he writes about it anyway. Why?
Excellent rebuttal, SebastianH. Highly substantive.
I own the book. The reviewer you cite obviously has never read it, as he misrepresents what Taylor has written.
So instead of actually addressing the substance of what the quote from the book says, you decided to look for ways to attack the author…so you can call him a “fraud”.
ROFLMAO
Yet another HEADLESS CHOOK seb distraction post
You KNOW that you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing any empirical evidence, so you run around cackling and ranting like a demented rooster.
Try again, seb..
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Nope, I just don’t put any weight on stuff people who admit they aren’t scientists write in some book. Especially when they are wrong …
You know, what being skeptical should be about. Not gathering quotes that support whatever you think might be going on.
Oh and regarding the substance. Would you agree that in order for guns being responsible for deaths the null hypothesis that there is nothing unusual in the variations of recent deaths needs to be falsified? No? So why do you think it is logical that one needs to show what your author claims in order to determine that human emissions are responsible. It doesn’t make sense at all.
So why do you so routinely cite from John Cook’s blog? John Cook writes this about himself: “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self-employed cartoonist”
I neither comprehend what this question means (“guns being responsible for deaths”?) nor do I see how guns and the null hypothesis/falsifiability are connected. Nor, I admit, do I really care. Your “analogies” are perpetually preposterous.
Uha, we pivot away from Mr. Taylor to a different person … I wonder why. Multiple reasons:
1) it is verifiable (links to papers)
2) John Cook is not the only author on that “blog”
3) Mr. Cook is currently a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He has a PhD albeit not in climate science.
You’ve tried to discredit something written on a blog before and didn’t correct it (as far as I remember) when I pointed out it was written by a climate scientist with a PhD. What is your qualification exactly to be able to write about climate science? 😉
Anyway, this was about Peter Taylor and you blindly believing what this guy writes despite a shady appearence. Why aren’t you skeptical when it comes to sources like him?
That is exactly the point! Not connected.
How is the hypothesis “anthropogenic greenhouse gases are even partly responsible for the recent warming” connected to a null hypothesis “that there is nothing unusual or unnatural in the recent temperature rise of the last fifty years”. Hint: it’s not connected!
One doesn’t need a PhD to notice this 😉
I actually have no problem reading or citing material written by non-scientists or those who don’t have an educational background in the field of climatology. The reason why I brought this up is because it was you who decided to attack Peter Taylor, an environmentalist and renewable energy advocate* who owns an honorary degree in the natural sciences and who is “a member of the Institute of Biology and is a Certified Biologist, a former member of the International Union of Radioecologists, the International Society for Radiation Protection and the British Ecological Society. He is currently a member of the Royal Anthropological Institute….”, as a “fraud” by showing us that you could cite someone who had not read his book but who nonetheless wrote a critical review of it, mischaracterizing his views.
Instead of addressing what Peter Taylor actually wrote, you called him a name. And then you expect me to take you seriously when I point out that you routinely cite John Cook’s blog, which has mostly non-scientists and/or non-climate scientists as contributors/writers. Instead, most of the writers are in the computer science field and/or journalism and blogging. Which is fine. Non-scientists and journalists can be well-informed too.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
We know the reason why you decided to attack Peter Taylor as a “fraud” without having any idea about his training or background. It’s because he wrote something you didn’t like. So you thought you could discredit what he wrote by discrediting him personally. Had he written something you did like, like Rob Painting did (“an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor”) for Skeptical Science, you would not have attacked his credentials.
*“In the lead up to his work on climate change, Taylor had been engaged at government level to develop strategies for the integration of renewable energy into countryside policy on community and biodiversity. Between 2000 and 2003, he was appointed to the UK National Advisory Group of the Community Renewables Initiative – a joint Countryside Agency and Department of Trade and Industry task-force on community scale renewable energy. To aid this work he set up the design consultancy Ethos, which combined science expertise from Terramarès with graphic design and the use of computer virtual reality for visualising change and integrating development in the countryside.”
Have you read his book, SebastianH? On what grounds do you call him a “fraud”? What is fraudulent about him other than he doesn’t happen to believe what you do?
Other than Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who I point out has a degree in math, you will be hard-pressed to find an instance in which I have made a point to criticize those who write about climate science based on their academic or educational credentials (or lack thereof). I was pointing out that John Cook has also written “I am not a scientist” in response to your claim that Peter Taylor is a “fraud” for having also written “I am not a scientist’. Try to be a little more consistent when resorting to name-calling and when you are employing the ad hominem logical fallacy.
I think that most of us agree with you Yonosan .
The structure of these discussions is usually a basis of reviewed articles from scientific journals which,if studied, would take some time to digest. But Seb always, immediately, starts off the threads by discussing the info without having read them and never submits any original research of his own, except handouts from the renewables industries or cr*p from Democratic party supporters.
it takes time to counter these childish, and often uncivilised personal, comments and the impulse and momentum to pursue the scientific data is lost.
When you consider the sheer number of journal articles mentioned here each month it amounts to a valuable library resource and it is dispiriting that it cannot be studied and discussed in a professional and adult manner.
That’s probably the most irritating aspect of this.
My sentiments, as well, mikewaite.
I always read the articles and try to read into the papers presented here if they aren’t paywalled. I am not a researcher, I can’t present research of my own. I am also not your science nanny that points you towards research. I am just pointing out that the amount of cherry picking and highlighting junk science paired with flawed understanding of what you guys argue against, is no good.
Right … I am part of the hoax. Only right-wing information or (if you are from the US) Republican information is the truth and Trump can be believed over everything. Are you that kind of guy?
… doesn’t exist here. This blog exists because it tries to tell a story and that is not one of science and data. The authors think it is and Kenneth does a good job at finding papers that he thinks support a skeptic viewpoint (again, without being skeptic towards those papers), but if someone starts to converse the true intent becomes clear pretty fast.
I guess you aren’t aware that what is presented here is not the state of climate science. It’s the biased view of two bloggers. It’s a bubble view.
Today’s article contains references to six peer-reviewed scientific papers all saying the same thing: the Earth’s coasts (including marshes and wetlands) are expanding, and sea level rise is not as threatening as the models and alarmist headlines suggest. These conclusions were derived from measurements/observations. In what way is this not about “science and data”?
New Study: Sea Level Rise Doesn’t ‘Spell Doom’ – Little To No Loss Of Coastal Wetlands Projected By 2100
“highlighting junk science paired with flawed understanding “
Yep, seb-troll, your posts definitely highlight YOUR junk science, or zero science in most cases, and YOUR massively flawed fantasy understanding of basically everything.
“one of science and data.”
TOTAL LACK of science and data is YOUR mode of operation, seb-troll
You know that you are INCAPABLE of mounting a coherent scientific explanation for anything your rant about, but you keep blathering anyway.
Your warped anti-science is based on LIES and deliberate mis-direction and distraction, evasion of the most basic fallacies of the AGW scam.
You are not pointing out ANYTHING except that your are nothing but a USELESS tool built from the AGW scam/cult brain-washing
Your true intent is very obvious in every one of your CONTENT-FREE posts.
That of a serial PEST and a low-level TROLL.
Oh it is science and data, but somehow you managed to use them to argue that “sea level rise is not as threatening as the models and alarmist headlines suggest”. Even you must be aware of countless observations and papers and yes, models that tell a different story. It’s like those tobacco companies who tried to find those few studies that declared that under certain circumstances smoking cigarettes is not a health problem against the overwhelming evidence that this is generally not the case. This is how blogs like these are viewed from the outside.
Spike55, just don’t behave like you want to be someone who gets blocked by everyone on Twitter. That would be a welcomed change … your comments are unreadable without breaking into laughter.
Perhaps you could share what this “different story” is that trumps the satellite observation that more land area and coasts and beaches across the globe are growing than shrinking. Could you enlighten us as to why growing land area, including marshes and wetlands, is a very bad thing?
Yes, I’m aware that there are scientific papers that say things that are alarmist. James Hansen and co-authors of his papers claims the Arctic will be 30 degrees C warmer early next century because of our fossil fuel emissions, and that sea levels could rise by 10 feet by 2065 because Antarctica will rapidly melt. Should I believe him? Do you believe him? If not, why?
No, satellite observation that shows coasts and shorelines and beaches and marshes/wetlands have been expanding “all over the world” in recent decades are nothing like cigarettes and tobacco companies. Your analogies are preposterously irrelevant. I assume this is intentional — a means to veer off onto the tangential so as to distract from having to address these satellite observations undermining your beliefs in the catastrophic consequences of CO2 concentration changes.
I really couldn’t care any less than I do that you think this blog is comparable to tobacco company advocacy. Your attempts to smear us (rather than present that which is actually substantive) is failing miserably.
Sea level rise has been constant for well over a century. It is only a risk to those who are incapable of addressing a rise of less than 2-3 mm/year, anything else is just an anti-science fantasy.
and as the MEASUREMENTS show, land are is actually INCREASING.
An again the SLIMY link to smoking, a subject which is totally irrelevant.
Gees you keep digging into the sewer, don’t you seb.
And we really don’t give too hoots about how your little band of AGW cultist and apologists view us, because we know that you are EVIDENCE FREE, and live in your own little brain-washed fantasy world.
And WTF does twitter have to do with anything.
You are the troll, the serial pest, and your juvenile attempts at pretending otherwise are a JOKE.
You know that you are INCAPABLE of mounting a coherent scientific explanation for anything your rant about, but you keep blathering anyway.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Come on seb.. give us more headless chook evasions.. its hilarious. 🙂
The sea level rises, yet your story is that some coasts are expanding and therefor it is not a problem, somehow mitigating what sea level rise does.
Here is a presentation containing a world map where new land and new water exists now compared to the past (from the first author in your article):
https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/0/f/5/797828bb-9632-4e07-94ac-84ab36fb3a2e_4-gennadii-NMDC-Donchyts-AquaMonitor.pdf
Do you see the worlds coasts covered in green (new land)?
Yeah right … the Hansen thing. You always ignore the conditions that need to be met for those projections into the future. So let’s better not talk about it veering off the topic …
They are usually spot on. Your aversion to analogies is weird.
What? They don’t. Your interpretation skills are really something …
You are doing a good job of representing the state of the pseudoskeptic community yourself. No need to smear you guys on top of what you bring up in articles and comments. Pseudoscience everywhere and everyone pointing that out is automatically a dishonest person or a believer or trying to smear you. Seriously, get out of your bubble! Learn how the mechanisms you argue against work and then come up with more than stuff you repeat from known disinformers.
No, it’s not a “story”. They’re called satellite observations. And these satellite observations, or measurements, show that between 1985 and 2015, coasts “all across the world” have been expanding. More land area is above sea level today than in the 1980s. Sea level rise isn’t occurring rapidly enough to keep up with natural geological processes that more directly determine relative sea level changes.
Land subsidence and coastal erosion is a problem for coastal communities. New Orleans, for example, is sinking into the ocean. Sea level rise isn’t nearly the problem there that sinking land is. Neither land subsidence or accretion is related to climate change…not to mention CO2 concentrations.
Here are the numerical results from satellite observations:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
“Earth’s surface [the globe as a whole] gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years [1985-2015], including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100
Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
“…distract from having to address these satellite observations undermining your beliefs in the catastrophic consequences of CO2 concentration changes.”
So are you denying that the Earth gained more coastal land area than it lost to water? Apparently so. What does “the coasts are growing all over the world” mean to you?
No, the dishonesty comes into play when you purposefully misrepresent what has been written in your own words while making sure that what you write has little to no resemblance to what has actually been written so that you can “slay” your made-up straw man argument. That’s what you do. The believer part comes in when you do things like deny that satellite observations show that coasts are growing all over the world…as you’re doing here.
I just can’t think of anything to say to this that wouldn’t cross the line I’ve set for myself.
SebastianH’s purposeful misrepresentations (i.e., dishonest statements) have been snipped.
The story is not the satellite observations, the story is what you are making up this would mean. As if that would mitigate sea level rise as a problem.
Similar to when you claimed [snip – purposeful misrepresentation]
It’s what you interpret data to be that is troublesome, not the data itself.
And here are these observation visualized as an easy to use website:
http://aqua-monitor.appspot.com/
Maybe you can find a pattern with those green areas at coasts.
What the hell? You still don’t get it. You still think [snip – purposeful misrepresentation]
No, I am not saying that coasts aren’t growing. Why do you even get that impression? You haven’t interpreted the “They don’t” part as me saying coasts don’t grow, have you? Again, context is important. What part of your comment did i reply that to?
I have acknowledged that sea level rise is a problem in the regions of the world where the land is sinking, but the subsidence itself is more the problem in these regions than the sea water addition. For example, sea level rise is very high (4-5 mm/yr) in large regions of the tropical Pacific, and yet these same areas where rates exceed the global average (1.3 mm/yr during 1958-2014) the coasts of islands are nonetheless still growing.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract
“The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013).”
In the regions where uplift or accretion is occurring, sea level rise is not a problem. Overall, across the world, there is more land area above sea level today than in the mid-1980s, meaning that sea level rise, though occurring and problematic in some places, is not the alarming problem it’s made out to be by the alarmists.
Here are the numerical results from satellite observations:
“Earth’s surface [the globe as a whole] gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years [1985-2015], including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”
No, from that distance above the Earth, it would be nearly impossible to detect the net land area increase across the world’s coasts as a whole by looking at that image. That’s why we have to rely on what the internal numbers identified by satellite observation say:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100
Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
“Learn how the mechanisms you argue against work”
You mean the FANTASY secret seb mechanism that you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing one tiny little bit of empirical evidence for ????
The one you have been TOTALLY INCAPABLE of describing in any scientifically rational way ???
That mechanism ?
Your little fairy-tail mechanism ????
We are still waiting for this science-fantasy mechanism to be revealed, (with supporting evidence, of course)
Waiting, waiting… zzzzzzzᶻᶻᶻᶻᶻᶻᶻᶻᶻ
This is just unbelievable. So despite the sea level is rising everything is fine and where it becomes a problem it’s the fault of the land sinking. Is that really what you are claiming here?
Yeah, you don’t need to repeat this as if it would add anything. More land above sea level today, we got it! You haven’t looked at that website, have you? It becomes clear very fast what kind of coast lines added land in the recent decades.
Nope, you haven’t. That website is not an image of Earth from a distance. I am increasingly feeling like I am talking to my ignorant grandpa here …
That website is Google Earth with an overlay of the Donchyts et al data, just like the info box on the left (over there: http://aqua-monitor.appspot.com/) says. You can zoom in very close and seach for places. You can even switch to a dynamic mode and change the start and end date for the visualisation. It’s not that hard to use.
That website literally IS what the satellites observed!
Sorry, I now lost all faith in your ability to parse any data or text. It’s a hopeless case :/
In many regions of the world (about half to 2/3rds of the world’s tide gauges — see Beenstock et al. [2014] below), sea levels are either stable or declining. Sea level rise is occurring only in some regions. And even in the areas where it is occurring, the sea levels aren’t rising fast enough to compete with the natural geological processes (subsidence/erosion vs. uplift/accretion) that are driving the coast and shoreline changes. Unfortunately for those who like to imagine sea level rise catastrophism, more coastal land area is above sea level today than there was 30 years ago according to satellite observation.
—
Beenstock et al., 2014
“We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”
—
Land subsidence is the primary driver of wetland and coastal land area losses. Sea level rise contributes to the losses, but relatively much less so. For example, the land is sinking on the Louisiana coast (274 measurements) at an average rate of -9 mm/yr. This is indeed a problem. In 100 years, at this pace, New Orleans will be underwater. But it will mostly be due to the land sinking, not sea level rise.
—
Nienhuis et al., 2017
“Coastal Louisiana has experienced catastrophic rates of wetland loss over the past century, equivalent in area to the state of Delaware. Land subsidence in the absence of rapid accretion is one of the key drivers of wetland loss. Accurate subsidence data should therefore form the basis for estimates of and adaptations to Louisiana’s future. Recently, Jankowski et al. (2017) determined subsidence rates at 274 sites along the Louisiana coast. Based on these data we present a new subsidence map and calculate that, on average, coastal Louisiana is subsiding at 9 ± 1 mm yr−1.”
—
My oversight. I didn’t look closely enough to see that it’s interactive and we can zoom in. And when I do, sure enough, it shows that the coasts are growing “all over the world”, which is apparently a “surprise” to the scientists who made these satellite observations available. Are you surprised more coastal land area is above sea level today than there was 30 years ago considering that sea level rise was supposed to be submerging the Earth’s coasts?
—
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100
Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
—
What is your interpretation of these data (+13,600 sq km more coastal land area gained than lost to sea water since 1985) and the scientists who say “the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world” if it’s your opinion that this is not reflected on that interactive map?
“So despite the sea level is rising everything is fine “
at 2 -3 mm/year, WOW, SCARY… time to PANIC… lol !!!
Imperceptible changes from actual sea level rise, basically everywhere.
Coastal land prices soaring.
Even in Miami, photos from the early 1900s show little difference from today.
Coastlines actually GROWING !
Deltas, where many people live, will grow with any sea level rise.
Yes, if the current very slow rate of sea level rise does continue, there will EVENTUALLY be some places that will have to respond and move or rebuild somewhat, can’t fight NATURE without a lot of money..
.. but there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that the slight, pretty much constant NATURAL sea level rise has any human cause whatsoever.
Certainly NOTHING to do with the small percentage (around 15%, according to peer reviewed science) of human produced CO2, because, as seb well knows, all that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does is enhance plant growth.
“That website literally IS what the satellites observed!”
And it shows LAND AREA INCREASING.
Well done seb, maybe, just maybe, you are open to actual learning and facts afterall. !!
That paper tries to establish that tide gauges are quasi-randomly distributed and therefore the sea level rise that includes reconstructed figures would be biased. They do that while satellite measurements are available and while being from the Department of Economics (1 author is from the Geography field). Hmm …
Their paper gets cited in this paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-015-0024-4 (Recent Progress in Understanding and Projecting Regional and Global Mean Sea Level Change, Clark et al)
Those authors have nothing good to say about the paper’s content.
I’ll repeat from elsewhere. Look at the damn aqua monitor map and tell me what type of coast sees land area added? You should be easily able to see a pattern.
You keep repeating the phrase “more coastal land area above sea level today” over and over as if it is something you just found out and are now imaging does something to belittle sea level rise. Painting a picture of sea level rise being no problem, because hey, coastal land areas are growing!
Again, look at the aqua monitor data and tell me what types of coast you sea that are covered in green? So no, it is not surprising that those areas grow. River deltas and sandbanks always have done that. The surprise is that until now not much land was lost to sea level rise … if you really can call it a surprise. It’s not like the majority of coasts are flat and 10+ centimeters average rise would do submerge those coasts.
I’ll let you get off on your new found mantra now … have a good night.
Yes, the pattern is that “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
What does “the coasts are growing all over the world” mean to you, SebastianH? Scientists are surprised by this. They thought the coasts would start to retreat due to sea level rise. But the coasts haven’t been retreating as expected during the last 30 years. This is good news, isn’t it?
No, I’ve been writing about this since 2016, or since these satellite observations were first reported.
Sea level rise is happening in some regions of the globe…and stable or falling in others. Satellite observations that show “coasts are growing all over the world”. I’m not imagining anything.
As I’ve written several times now, sea level rise is indeed a problem in the regions of the world where land subsidence is occurring, as the latter is the determinative factor in whether coasts are submerged by sea water or if they rise due to accretion/uplift. Sea level rise contributes to the problem if subsidence is occurring (such as along the coasts of Louisiana). So I have not written that sea level rise is “no problem”. No pictures need to be painted. Satellite observations are sufficient.
Deltas will rise with sea level.
What TINY sea level rise there is is TOTALLY NATURAL,
There is NO EVIDENCE of any human caused component.
It CANNOT be from the beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2, because CO2 DOES NOT and CAN NOT warm the oceans (by 0.08ºC in 60 years)
No amount of yelping, ranting and carrying-on will effect the NATURAL rise of sea levels at their basically steady rate of around 1.5 – 3mm/year
If humans felt they could not cope with or were PETRIFIED by such a SCARY small amount of sea level rise, they would stop buying water front properties.
But they don’t. REALITY BITES..
The IRRATIONAL behaviour of the sea-level SCARERS really is passed being IDIOTIC.
Sebastian (if that is your name) – Sometimes I think you are a climate skeptic who visits skeptical blogs for the purpose of causing irritation. I have encountered a few of these, and have recognized the people behind it by their phrasing and their choice of words.
I really don’t see why you would believe any of the AGW nonsense when it is evident that the people behind it don’t believe it either – as demonstrated by the Climategate series of email exchanges.
AGW bears all the attributes of authentic junk science, including contradictory effects ascribed to the same cause. The idea does seem to give the weak minded some semblance of security, however, in the possibility that there is some degree of “control” over events that human capabilities have, throughout history, proven powerless to alter
You drank too much of the cool aid, Brian. Climate pseudoskepticism is nonsense as demonstrated all the time by the sheer lack of understanding and deliberate attempts at disinforming their followers.
WRONG AGAIN seb
Climate ALARMISM is NONSENSE.
As you have amply shown, it is completely unsupportable by any rational empirical science.
It is really just a whole putrid industry of LIES, DECEIT and anti-science misinformation
.. which is why you so desperately try to be a part of it. The fit is perfect.
But you will ALWAYS FAIL MISERABLY, because you haven’t got the slightest clue about real science, and you haven’t got the slightest bit of evidence to back up even the most simplistic LIE of the whole AGW scam… ie warming from atmospheric CO2
PROVE ME CORRECT, as I have been so far, by continuing to run around like a headless chook every time you are actually asked to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.
[…] No Tricks Zone – Florence shows that atmospheric water vapor dwarfs human emissions of trace g… […]
Gallons of water vapor? I quit reading at that point. If one is to compare gasses such as water vapor and CO2, a better unit to use would be moles. And then go on to explain what that means. Gallons just does not work.
The center of Florence is on the South Carolina coast. It will turn west. Will pull water vapor from the Gulf of Mexico. Then it turns north-west and it will meet with a cool jet stream. This will download the next huge amount of water from the atmosphere.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/i7enojspr0ux.png
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/ahpnnggalxs1.png
The active Atlantic will also bring rainstorms to Europe.
The typhoon’s eye enters over China over Hong Kong.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/hh4oledfsnl6.png
You can see how water vapor is distributed over the Earth by the upper winds.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
In winter, in medium latitudes, the lack of water vapor in the upper troposphere means frost.
High geomagnetic activity increases the speed of the northern jet stream in the Atlantic and Pacific.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20180913.png
https://max.nwstatic.co.uk/gfsimages/gfs.20180916/00/00/hgt300.png
OT, DMI Arctic sea ice volume increase for last 5 days.
A bit later than usual due to WEATHER.
16 year mean low is 6.158 Mkm³
2018 low was 6.213 Mkm³
Has anyone seen the Arctic sea ice death spiral lately 😉
Seems it is very much a “thing of the past” 🙂
Actually, I probably calculated the average low point since 2003 the wrong way.
I just took the daily averages and found the lowest.
If you take the lowest for each year and average those, you get 5.872 Mkm³, so this year’s 6.213 Mkm³ is quite a bit higher than average.