Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Sea level rise due to thermal expansion has been gradual and consistent for some time. I have little doubt that's enough to cause problems in low lying barrier islands etc. on the East and Gulf Coasts. Any further development in those areas should be with the assumption that the thermal expansion will continue at least at the current rate.
Glacier loss has not been enough to move the needle on sea level rise. You need to melt significant parts of Greenland and Antarctica for that to happen. It's still anybody's guess how much temperature rise is needed.
I've never read anything about significant sea level rise during the Medieval or Roman warming periods. The article mentions research on exposed corals from 20-30 feet higher sea levels 125,000 years ago. I would view that as useful research, especially if there's any way to tie that period to a specific temperature range.
Glacier loss has not been enough to move the needle on sea level rise. You need to melt significant parts of Greenland and Antarctica for that to happen. It's still anybody's guess how much temperature rise is needed.
I've never read anything about significant sea level rise during the Medieval or Roman warming periods. The article mentions research on exposed corals from 20-30 feet higher sea levels 125,000 years ago. I would view that as useful research, especially if there's any way to tie that period to a specific temperature range.
Marc_C":2daneu62 said:
1. Relating flooded seaside roads and wastewater systems in the southeastern U.S. to climate change, despite a distinct lack of measurements (notice that there aren't any referenced in the article) and the fact that this has been happening for generations anyway;
2. Ascribing it to "the global warming created by human emissions (that has) caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand," despite the fact that the human cause has yet to be conclusively proven;
3. "The sea has crept up to the point that a high tide and a brisk wind are all it takes to send water pouring into streets and homes." -- anyone living in the southeastern U.S., including me in a previous lifetime, can tell you has been a fact of life as far as anyone can remember. Seriously...can they show that without "a brisk wind" this is happening now more than previously? Of course not -- because it isn't. I can tell you that in 1995, a "brisk wind" flooded the entire barrier island that I lived on with 4 feet of salt water. There wasn't a dry spot anywhere and I couldn't get off the island to report to my first day of work in a new job. Was that due to "global warming created by human emissions"? Of course it wasn't -- then, or now.
4. "In coastal regions, that compounds the damage from the increasingly heavy rains plaguing the country, like those that recently caused extensive flooding in Louisiana. Scientists say these rains are also a consequence of human greenhouse emissions." Really, what scientist did the author name? He didn't, because he couldn't. Ascribing any one weather event to a climatological phenomenon, regardless of the cause, is the first sign for the bullshit meter.
5. I've now given you two examples of where the article stated as if it was a conclusive fact that "human greenhouse emissions" are responsible for climate change. I'll give you that climate change is real; it has been for millions of years. The human cause has not been conclusively verified.
Seriously, need I go on? The author had an agenda, but made no effort to mask it or even find any semblance of editorial balance. That was off the bullshit scale, even for the NYT. It has to be one of the most transparent pieces of propaganda I've ever seen that dirt rag publish.
EMSC
Well-known member
Marc_C":2uz9sd2h said:
It would be nice to start with actual scientific evidence. Not hypothetical, partially informed at best, computer modelling. Extraordinary claims require scientifically provable extraordinary evidence; not generic guesstimates of unproven hypothesis or human emotional 'consensus'. Unfortunately we still sit a juncture where climate scientists still don't even know what it is that they don't know about the climate that even should be included in computer models, yet alone the detailed parameters required to be accurate in modelling.
Relax, Admin assured us that EPA Administrator Pruitt is on it!
Marc_C
Active member
This thread didn't age well at all. Time for some apologies.
https://gizmodo.com/exxonmobil-climate-change-predictions-1970s-1980s-1849980727
https://gizmodo.com/exxonmobil-climate-change-predictions-1970s-1980s-1849980727
This thread started in 2014, when temperatures had barely increased over the previous 11 years. Model projections diverged from reality by a factor of 3 or 4.
There were sharp increases in 2015 and 2016. Since then there's been variability but overall as of now the reality has not been too far off the models going back to the late 1990's, which was not the case in 2013 and 2014. The projections have also been toned down some from several years ago. On a global basis I'm inclined to believe them, and I support most of the policy prescriptions to cut emissions as I think it will take a long time to implement them far enough to have an impact.
While the models do a reasonable job in projecting global temperatures, regional projections and particularly cloud and precipitation projections are not that great, as mentioned in the link below.
The Exxon story this week is an update from the one in 2017.
Mainstream media still tries to attribute every extreme weather event to climate change, with the past month's weather in California being a recent example. Have we seen this level of flooding and/or Sierra snowfall before? Let's see: 1969, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1995, 1997, 2011, 2017 come to mind. There are some individual locations with precipitation records, but overall for the state it's not that different yet from the most of the years listed above.
1862 was on a completely different level. Last summer there was a paper, much hyped by NY Times, etc., that claimed 1862 now has 1 in 50 year probability vs. 1 in 200+ years historically. Cliff Mass deconstructed that study.
There were sharp increases in 2015 and 2016. Since then there's been variability but overall as of now the reality has not been too far off the models going back to the late 1990's, which was not the case in 2013 and 2014. The projections have also been toned down some from several years ago. On a global basis I'm inclined to believe them, and I support most of the policy prescriptions to cut emissions as I think it will take a long time to implement them far enough to have an impact.
While the models do a reasonable job in projecting global temperatures, regional projections and particularly cloud and precipitation projections are not that great, as mentioned in the link below.
The Exxon story this week is an update from the one in 2017.
Mainstream media still tries to attribute every extreme weather event to climate change, with the past month's weather in California being a recent example. Have we seen this level of flooding and/or Sierra snowfall before? Let's see: 1969, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1995, 1997, 2011, 2017 come to mind. There are some individual locations with precipitation records, but overall for the state it's not that different yet from the most of the years listed above.
1862 was on a completely different level. Last summer there was a paper, much hyped by NY Times, etc., that claimed 1862 now has 1 in 50 year probability vs. 1 in 200+ years historically. Cliff Mass deconstructed that study.
Last edited: