high water?

[walt]

On his 2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling... he says, “But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years.” Yes, but that would not be a climate measurement! There has been no downturn of temperatures on a 20 running average in the last 50 years

.

Off topic on the great lakes issue.. and once again hopefully everyone who post on climate change gives a reference because there is a lot of intentional deception going on (try fact checking what you hear on AM talk radio some time.. or if you bear your testimony about what you heard on am radio, we can fact check it here). The guy referenced above (Dr Roy Spencer) and that link was written around 2010 when CO2 levels were around 390 ppm. If you look at the UAH satellite plot which I have shown again below (which Roy Spencer is associated with), there was a "hiatus" in the warming trend from say 2000 to 2010 possibly caused by some natural cooling cycle. And of course the deniers were jumping on this and saying that the warming had stopped. But.. look what happened after 2010, take a look at the slope of the temperature increase.. it has a marked upward slope. This is the main denier folks satellite data so you cant say its fudged to show more warning than there really is.

In 2019.. Roy Spencer could no longer say things are cooling recently or that it has cooled in the last 10 years which might have sort of made sense in 2010.

Plot is from here (in keeping with always showing where some info came from) Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Natural climate cycles are of course important and modify the upward temp trend we are seeing. I can find some references that also say (as the post above) that the natural variations are small compared to our man made contributions. Please show a reference if you find something different..

I actually see very little correlation between those two graphs.

Yep.. that was actually the point. Temperatures have been rising and there is no correlation to satellite measured solar input. Some folks are still trying to blame the rising temperature anamoly on the sun.. but its very simple to find the satellite measured data which does not try and figure out what the power is after it has gone through the atmosphere. Change in the sun output does not correlate with change in global temp (but likley minor change with the 11 year sun spot cycle).

 

[walt]

On topic, here is a Scientific American article on the great lakes levels linked with climate change. Going from low to record high in six years I dont think concludes anything about climate change but some of the factors are discussed in article.

Climate Change Sends Great Lakes Water Levels Seesawing

Six years ago, lake levels were low, now lakeside communities face widespread flooding

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[JamesG161]

once again hopefully everyone who post on climate change gives a reference

Sorry Walt, we have done this before. Since I am a scientist, I am my own reference.
No more talk on Climate Change by me. I made an oops, by noting Climate models Assume Sun Influence was assumed to be constant. Which is true, but not on topic.

I was talking Sea Level Changes, since that was the 2 topics of this thread.
Bye...
Jim...

PS: @jssailem and I talked about how to handle Climate Change the Weather & Forecasting Forum. We decided to stop this politically charged subject.

 

[Hunter216]

Well if @jon hansen is correct all we really need to do is make peace with the Artesians and we’ll be OK

I for one have gained from this discussion as there are lots of points of view about what is going on and the science behind it, my horizons are a little broader even if I don’t exactly follow all the statistical theory!

I found myself considering the fact there is lots of data gathering/crunching occurring that wasn’t possible at the beginning of my lifespan. That gives me hope that people a lot smarter than me are on the case.

 

[jon hansen]

well i for one learned some things about the different lakes up here. on lake michigan/lake huron we have no water controls. the st. mary's river gives us water while the st. clair river drains some. the st. clair river only drops 5' flowing down to lake st. clair.
lake ontario is controled. the niagara river has a huge flow. note: driving old coal boats through the black rock lock in buffalo and down to the power plant down stream was wildly fun. lots of drift. it's a different game down on ontario. it's rain on our huge water basin up here verses evaporation. the more ice the less evaporation. the forecasts suggest above average percipitation with average ice coverage.
lots of parking lots could have no wake zones next summer

 

[walt]

Since I am a scientist, I am my own reference.

These discussions actually do stay scientific and are very interesting if everyone fact checks what they say and gives the reference. Then we can only argue with the reference.. not the poster. It only takes a second to use google and fact check yourself.. If you cant find someone who agrees, maybe you should re-evaluate what you think you know.

 

[Hunter216]

driving old coal boats through the black rock lock in buffalo and down to the power plant down stream was wildly fun. lots of drift.

Likely more art than science involved in that. Careful the tail doesn’t wag the dog stuff!!
My farming equivalent of that would be driving a smallish tractor towing a baler and two full wagons full of green hay. All good until you had to go downhill, around a bend and stop at the stop sign!!!

 

[Hunter216]

I found these provide an interesting perspective on the Great Lakes.

 

[TomY]

I found myself considering the fact there is lots of data gathering/crunching occurring that wasn’t possible at the beginning of my lifespan.

Case in point is the study of sea level rise you posted at the beginning. I believe the new data is the simple result that new technology allows a more accurate height of the ground above sea level (through GPS). Before, much of the data on the land height was less accurate.

 

[Hunter216]

Case in point is the study of sea level rise you posted at the beginning. I believe the new data is the simple result that new technology allows a more accurate height of the ground above sea level (through GPS). Before, much of the data on the land height was less accurate.

That is likely true. I’m not sure how that was done pre-tech era. I guess traditional surveying tools. There is some amazingly accurate architecture that is centuries old (pyramids etc) so I try to never underestimate the power of the human mind.

If you think of the timeline there are plenty of us that were here before TV. Now there are clouds of micro satellites circling above to provide internet. Using Google Earth to look at the chairs on my dock is amazing to me!

 

[dlochner]

These discussions actually do stay scientific and are very interesting if everyone fact checks what they say and gives the reference. Then we can only argue with the reference.. not the poster. It only takes a second to use google and fact check yourself.. If you cant find someone who agrees, maybe you should re-evaluate what you think you know.

In my postings I try to be as accurate as possible and do fact check my opinions before posting, unless it is something of which I am very confident and easily verified, like basic statistics.

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan of NY said it best, " You sir, are entitled to your own opinion, but not of your own facts."

It is the nature and essence of science that "facts" change as new knowledge and technology emerges. There was a time when the elements were fire, earth, water, and air. We don't believe that any more. Of course there are those who still believe the earth is flat and the moon landings was faked.

Let us continue to exercise our critical thinking skills and objectively evaluate the data before us.

 

[Rick486]

In my postings I try to be as accurate as possible and do fact check my opinions before posting, unless it is something of which I am very confident and easily verified, like basic statistics.

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan of NY said it best, " You sir, are entitled to your own opinion, but not of your own facts."

It is the nature and essence of science that "facts" change as new knowledge and technology emerges. There was a time when the elements were fire, earth, water, and air. We don't believe that any more. Of course there are those who still believe the earth is flat and the moon landings was faked.

Let us continue to exercise our critical thinking skills and objectively evaluate the data before us.

Dave:
You might want to be careful with phrases such as "....there are those who still believe the earth is flat and the moon landings was faked..". This could be interpreted as a scornful characterization of those who would argue the subject at hand from a different perspective. The Moynihan quote as well. The breadth and depth of the subject at hand permit many diverse, and valid, opinions and theories based upon the particular data under study. The data set is enormous and the science is broad in the development of these theories and models to fit the existing data and predict the future. Best to tread lightly here.

 

[dlochner]

Dave:
You might want to be careful with phrases such as "....there are those who still believe the earth is flat and the moon landings was faked..". This could be interpreted as a scornful characterization of those who would argue the subject at hand from a different perspective. The Moynihan quote as well. The breadth and depth of the subject at hand permit many diverse, and valid, opinions and theories based upon the particular data under study. The data set is enormous and the science is broad in the development of these theories and models to fit the existing data and predict the future. Best to tread lightly here.

There has been a societal tendency to create false equivalencies. While there can be different interpretations of some data, not all interpretations are equally well founded.

When I took my first neuropsych courses, the professor advised us that everything he was teaching would most likely be proven wrong in the next few years, the field was changing that fast.

A view that the world is flat or that the moon landings were faked do not deserve acknowledgement as a legitimate opinion. To give credence to such viewpoints (and many other such extreme viewpoints) is to deny the hard work that many talented and well educated scientists have conducted.

With regards to the underlying theme of this thread, i.e., climate change and its affect on sailing, a significant number of climatologists (95%) agree that the climate is changing and that human activity contributes to the change. That is a large consensus and I would be hard pressed to argue against their positions.

The counter argument might cite Galileo and Copernicus as examples of scientists who went against the flow and were branded as heretics and place the above cited Spencer in the same category. However, I like to think that we humans are considerably more sophisticated in our thinking than the Vatican was back in the 15th century. With respect to the flat earthers, I think the observations numerous astronauts dating back to Alan Shepard and John Glenn would invalidate their beliefs.

If my comments about using data and accepting the broad consensus of scientific opinion offend those who hold a minority view, I'm sorry you are offended, but I won't apologize, until you prove me wrong by rigorous scientific inquiry. As for the debate about the level of human contribution to climate change, be it 1% or 100%, I'll leave that debate to the academics.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

, a significant number of climatologists (95%) agree that the climate is changing and that human activity contributes to the change. That is a large consensus and I would be hard pressed to argue against their positions.

While it may be true that the climate is warming, there is no consensus on what, if any incremental anthropogenic climate effect exists. We have all read a myriad of predictions, none of which have occurred. That isn’t to say there is no effect but rather the scientific community has not reached consensus on how much we can or are exacerbating it.
And as we can’t or haven’t yet quantified human impact of the observable warming trend, the question remains valid as to what anthropogenic change we can affect. Or should try.

 

[Will Gilmore]

Temperatures have been rising and there is no correlation to satellite measured solar input. Some folks are still trying to blame the rising temperature anamoly on the sun.

Actually, that's the problem with the comparison of those two graphs.
I am not a denier of man's influence on the climate. I believe, without the need of real proof, that our activities as a densely populated global species who has fully industrialized our civilization, that, of course, we are changing the composition of the atmosphere, the oceans, and the reflective, refractive and electro-magnetic properties of our planet. It just makes sense that there would be an effect on the global weather patterns.
My objection is that the evidence of our influence, one way or another, is being misrepresented, misinterpreted and manipulated in order to make a point.
Those two charts together tell me there is no correlation between our activities as an industrialized people and the warming trend. Why? Because the central thesis of Global Warming is the incease of CO2 in our atmosphere that causes the Earth to retain more of the Sun's energy than previously. Therefore, a chart that proves Man's influence on the temperature of the Earth through a "greenhouse" gas should show a perfect correlation with the Sun's energy output. Instead, I see an inexplicable rise in the Earth's temperature with no cyclic relationship to the Sun's cycles and no cyclic relationship to any human activity that I'm aware of.
My conclusion is that the hype and the condemnation and the damnation of human caused global warming is coming from ignorance and fear instead of actual, reasonable and sound theory with good solid, well vetted data.

While I believe we should be concerned for the consequences of our industrial behavior and that it is just good conscientious respect for our world to reduce our industrial footprint on the planet, I'm sorry, I don't believe the loudest voices in this arguement. The exaggerated predictions have failed to manifest too many times. "Wolf" has been cried until I am now hard of hearing.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[walt]

We have all read a myriad of predictions, none of which have occurred.

Where exactly did you read this, I would find it interesting.. Do you mind giving details of the predictions and how they didnt occur.. (links would be very helpful)?? I missed reading this somehow.. IPCC predictions always have a wide range of predicted outcome but I dont think have ever not ballparked what did happen. You must have a link?

edit.. maybe we are going to see an Al Gore link now.. then you might be right.

 

[dlochner]

While it may be true that the climate is warming, there is no consensus on what, if any incremental anthropogenic climate effect exists. We have all read a myriad of predictions, none of which have occurred. That isn’t to say there is no effect but rather the scientific community has not reached consensus on how much we can or are exacerbating it.
And as we can’t or haven’t yet quantified human impact of the observable warming trend, the question remains valid as to what anthropogenic change we can affect. Or should try.

@Don S/V ILLusion I'm not following your logic and I don't think the assumptions you make are even close to accurate.

there is no consensus on what, if any incremental anthropogenic climate effect exists

I guess this depends on your interpretation of consensus. There is consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change, the degree to which human activity is affecting climate change depends on the model and the assumptions the model makes. It is not unusual for the there to be differing models with differing predictions. The models are dealing with complex interactions and it is challenging to account for all the variables and to make long term predictions. However, the models are consistent about general trends.

We have all read a myriad of predictions, none of which have occurred.

This is simply inaccurate. Melting glaciers, melting arctic and antarctic ice caps, warming oceans, changes in weather patterns, and sea level rise have been predicted and have been observed. These events and changes have been well documented in the media and scientific journals.

And as we can’t or haven’t yet quantified human impact of the observable warming trend, the question remains valid as to what anthropogenic change we can affect. Or should try.

This is simply an excuse to do nothing. There is strong consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change, does it matter whether human activity contributes 50% or 10% or 100%? The impact on our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren of climate change is significant and clearly apparent. It seems to me to be unconscionable to ignore the warnings and do nothing. By analogy, if your physician said, "Don, your cholesterol is too high and you run an increased risk of heart attack and stroke, you should change your diet and take this statin drug." Would you ignore the doctor's advice because he couldn't quantify the time and date of your death? Or because he couldn't say whether you would have a heart attack or a stroke?

As more data is collected and computational power is increased the models and predictions will become more accurate. Should we just sit around and wait for that day to come before taking action? Or should we begin acting to mitigate the damage to the planet that human activity causes? I think we should ask our children what they would like us to do.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

.

There is strong consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change, does it matter whether human activity contributes 50% or 10% or 100%?

Of course it does (matter if or how much human activity contributes). To state the obvious, if our contribution is negligible, anything we do is equally trivial. Similarly, if we contribute in some small way, we have only a limited ability to affect change.

Absent knowing how, how much and if anthropogenic climate change exists, we have no reason to limit human activity. To employ your metaphor, if you are going to die from lung cancer, it’s already too late to stop smoking. And no responsible person would invest billions without knowing the return on investment.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

Where exactly did you read this, I would find it interesting.. Do you mind giving details of the predictions and how they didnt occur.. (links would be very helpful)?? I missed reading this somehow.. IPCC predictions always have a wide range of predicted outcome but I dont think have ever not ballparked what did happen. You must have a link?

edit.. maybe we are going to see an Al Gore link now.. then you might be right.

The evidence is abundant, e.g., the prediction polar ice caps would disappear by 2000. That sea level would rise 3meters by 2010. We get treated to wild speculation disguised as scientific modeling, much of which has been shown to be based on biased data disguised as ‘evidence’. We can’t even predict to tomorrow’s weather with 100% certainty, never mind that decades in the future.

The climate is changing, of that we are certain. We have not yet attributed how much humans contribute to that change.

 

[danstanford]

The climate is changing, of that we are certain. We have not yet attributed how much humans contribute to that change.

I love this perspective and the way it allows us to examine things without an agenda. Of equal importance, if not greater, is the question of how much impact humans can have on the trajectory. Not doing our part every day is silly and filled with risk. Blaming and arguing are obfuscatory.