J
JasonSB
Guest
Why bother asking questions if you’re not going to read my responses?
I even included a colourful picture!
- Status
I even included a colourful picture!
J
JasonSB
Guest
Yet again pontificating on what is and is not possible without actually bothering to read what the paper said or knowing how the result was derived.
Which is precisely what it said, and which I earlier quoted:
I said:
Where on earth did your figures of 10 cm rise and 5 cm error margin come from? If you understate the rise enough and exaggerate the error enough then of course you can make it look silly, but then you’re simply begging the question.
J
JasonSB
Guest
I’m sorry but I’m having a hard time understanding why you think they are in conflict.JasonSB:
JasonSB:
I’m sorry.
I am uncertain which of you to believe.
The first quote was in response to you saying “So it is very important to know what and how and where these measurements were made.”. I agreed and gave an example where that information was not available, pointing out it would therefore be very difficult to use that data.
I assumed you would be reading the links I gave and would know that they didn’t use that data. The point of that example is that they didn’t just use any old data, they only used data that passed their QA checks. You can’t use the existance of bad records to discredit their results if they themselves eliminated those bad records up-front.
The other key point is that the records are brutally honest about the quality of the data. If they don’t know the exact location, they say so. If they don’t know what tidge gauge was used, they say so.
The second quote is in response to your bet that the data was used anyway! I go to the trouble of providing you with an example of data that fails the QA checks (let alone predates the reconstruction period anyway) and you somehow try to use it to support your thesis that they are using compromised data!
I never claimed that all tide gauges met the QA requirements for inclusion in Church’s mean sea level reconstructions, only that Church only used tide gauges that did. If all tide gauges met all the requirements then he wouldn’t have needed a QA check to weed out the bad ones.
You mean the one that agrees that not all tide gauge records are reliable and therefore cannot easily be used?
I never said that tectonic movement measurements were taken in the 1800s. I said that Church accounted for them, and I note that’s exactly what you say in the quote above. There is a difference.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Since you seem determined not to read the papers:
First, there’s the glacial isostatic adjustment, which I’ve mentioned many times now. This was done by using three different mathematical models of the earth’s crust and mantle (by different research groups) and how it responds to the gradual unloading of the crust as the glaciers melt. The RMS difference between the GMSL trends calculated using the three different GIA models was 0.09 mm/year, as I already mentioned, and well below the accuracy they are claiming. The models themselves have been validated in recent decades using GPS monitoring.
Secondly there is tectonic movement, which was accounted for in two ways.
The first is implicitly, in the way they constructed their GMSL record.
Bofore I explain that I should just mention that previous attempts basically just searched for reliable tide gauges with long records and effectively averaged them. So, for example, you might take Fremantle, Australia:
And Sydney, Australia:
Perhaps Dunedin, NZ:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/136.png
New York, USA:
Newlyn, UK:
And, if you have enough, the result should be quite accurate.
However, if you don’t have enough, and if the gauges are concentrated in areas with a systematic change (e.g. GIA), then you have a problem if you don’t correct for that systematic change:
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/images/PGR_Paulson07_small.jpg
Gauges located in pink and red areas — like the first three I showed above — are going to underestimate a rise in sea level because they, themselves, are rising (Fremantle rising at 0.25 mm/year, Sydney rising at 0.22 mm/year, Dunedin rising at 0.19 mm/year), whereas gauges in blue areas will tend to overstate a rise in sea level beause they, themselves, are sinking (New York at 0.88 mm/year, Newlyn at 0.40 mm/year).
Now, what Church effectively did was to characterise the relationship between each location on a 1 degree x 1 degree grid of the earth’s surface and the GMSL using the satellite data for the period where the satellite data exists. (Where there were multiple tide gauages within that grid the data for the tide gauges was first combined.)
Then they used that relationship with the historical tide gauge records to reconstruct GMSL. If you read the 2004 paper you can see how they assessed the accuracy of this technique. Provided that relationship remains relatively constant (including the rate of movement of the gauge itself) then this is actually a good way to capture the movement, and the technique that they used allows them to assess the accuracy of the result.
Of course the relationship derived from the satellite record isn’t going to be 100% perfect for the reconstruction period (as they explain and quantify in their paper), so the second method for accounting for the tectonic movements (and other effects) is to simply add it to the error estimate.
In other words, the error figures they quote are inflated because of things they aren’t able to completely characterise. If they did have GPS monitoring systems installed at all the tide gauges since 1870 then the error estimates for that period would not have been so big.
Remember these?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-2.gif
J
JasonSB
Guest
My favourite is classifying all weather gauges according to their siting conditions (like whether they are located beside a heat pump or not) and then actually checking to see whether that has introduced a bias into the global temperature reconstructions or whether the techniques that scientists came up with over 20 years ago for dealing with this problem actually work or not.
As Anthony Watts himself successfully proved, those bad stations have not biased the temperature record.
They’re good for publicity stunts but it turns out that science really does work and scientists aren’t so stupid that they think pumping hot air over a thermometer will have no effect.
Who could have guessed that when they claimed to have discovered a problem decades before Joe Public became aware of it and found techniques to adequately deal with it, there were not just blowing hot air, as it were, after all?
J
JasonSB
Guest
Correct. In fact, as I showed before, the sea levels have been rising for a long time now (still rising due to the end of the last ice age):
The first question is whether it is rising above and beyond what we would expect from the natural deglaciation process?
As you can see from the graph above, clearly the rate has accelerated during the last 100+ years compared to the thousand+ years before, and as Church’s 2006 paper showed, even during the instrumental record the rate has accelerated.
The second question is whether this rise is consistent with our expectations based on the theory, and clearly it is not:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
Sea level is rising twice as fast as anticipated. The good news is that we know why the projections are wrong — they only took into account thermal expansion because the rate of land ice melting and ocean inflow was deemed too uncertain to include in the projections. (I actually think that’s the wrong approach to take because by not including something you are stating that you are certain it is unimportant, but unfortunately the IPCC is very conservative by its very nature — it has to get countries like Saudi Arabia to sign off on the conclusions and they have proven to be very stubborn in the past.)
There is no evidence that they are extreme. In fact all of the evidence is that they are far too conservative.
As I’ve said before, if you want a simple, first-order approximation of what we can expect from CO2 levels as high as they are now, then look at what the world was like last time they were this high: “global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland”.
If you want to make an assessment based purely on empirical data then the closest we have is this very same planet 15 million years ago and it certainly isn’t a source of comfort to me. The science says it’s simply a matter of time before it all catches up with us, thanks to thermal inertia.
The attribution of a cause is the observation that the effect can be explained — and, indeed, was predicted — by that cause.
In other words, for it not to be caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, you would need to explain both (a) why those emissions aren’t having the effect that the science predicts, and (b) what is causing that exact same effect.
It’s like dropping a ball off the top of a building, observing it accelerate and hit the ground in exactly the same way as predicted by the theory of gravity, and then insisting that it’s not gravity but some mysterious, unexplained force that just happened to work in exactly the same way in this instance.
It may be true, but I prefer the more parsimonious explanation.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Of course. Who said there wasn’t? Certainly not the scientists.
In fact, the most reliable indication we have for what’s going to happen because of our greenhouse gas emissions is the observational evidence of what happened to the earth’s climate in the past when it wasn’t us.
This is no different to using bushfires sparked by lightning to deduce what will happen if an arsonist starts a fire in a forest.
Arguing that it’s not us causing the climate to change this time is like arguing the arsonist must be innocent because lightning has done it before while ignoring all the physics that explains what will happen if a fire is started regardless of who started it coupled with observational proof that there was no lightning and eyewitnesses who saw the arsonist start the fire.
The climate can’t help but change because we’ve changed the energy being absorbed. If the sun was to increase output — which it hasn’t in the past few decades — then it also would be contributing to global warming without in any way diminishing our impact.
Global warming is not an effect searching for a cause, it’s an effect that was predicted by taking into account the known physics of greenhouse gasses, and that prediction has been validated.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Then I misunderstood you in relation to that particular station but that only affects my comment in relation to 1840-1842.
Sigh…
I went to the trouble of locating the 2004 paper, “Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Sea Level Rise over the 1950–2000 Period”, so you could download it and read it precisely because that was the paper where they explained the method and QA procedures in detail. (The later papers, which I had previously found for you, assumed you had read the earlier paper and did not include as much detail.) That’s why I cited it to support my claim about the QA checks.
In the 2004 paper they used the method and the data they had at the time to reconstruct GMSL from 1950 to 2000, but I wasn’t citing it in relation to that. I had already provided links to the later papers with the extended reconstructions:
- The 2006 paper, “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise”, was the paper where they were able to show for the first time, using additional data, that there had been a statistically-significant acceleration in GMSL rise over the period from 1870 to 2004.
- The 2011 paper, “Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century”, has the latest data sets and updates the figures to 2009. It points you to the list of stations used in the reconstruction, the rates of subsidence used for each location, and the website where you can download the raw data they used so you can see for yourself whether your suspicions are correct.
J
JasonSB
Guest
What do you mean by “relatively recent”?
If you mean “50-60 years ago” then I would agree with you but I fail to see the connection to the discussion at hand. Continental drift was first hypothesised over 400 years ago. Plate tectonics is the explanation for that movement and is what is “only” 50 years old.
That’s ridiculous. Even without plate tectonics you can get movement. Why was that possibility considered “out there”? That would have been obvious because there would have been a systematic error applied to all of the observations.
Sounds like you need better surveyors.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Given how much I have talked about it, it would seem rather obvious that I do, wouldn’t it?
The real question is how it is dealt with.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Thanks, kimmielittle.
I was really getting worried that I would have to admit that my prediction was wrong and that, in fact, it was just going to be silently ignored.
I’m sorry I doubted you.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I’m sorry you don’t understand.
Your “prediction” fails
How so?
I didn’t dis the paper - I dissed your use /presentation of the paper as “evidence”. A huge difference.
I used continued scientific investigation. That striped away many of your claims, such as being peer-reviewed, an independent scientific study, somehow a Catholic view etc
sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110506093116.htm
We know:
It is a religious paper NOT a scientific paper
We can tell this by no citations to claims made within the paper. NONE
As a religious paper for guiding Catholic / Christians.
Contact was made to one of the Pontifical Academy of Science Members to present a Catholic / Christian response.
That person is P.J. Crutzen.
We know Mr Crutzen is the Lead author by his use of verbiage throughout. Such as the word “Anthropocene”. A word he has been trying to coin. economist.com/node/18741749
By Mr Crutzen’s definition “Anthropocene” equals “A Man Made World” Remember this ]
Being a “religious” response not a scientific paper ] one has to question:
Is it wise to sign your name to a religious response paper, as did Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo - when the lead Author is Atheist?
In fact Mr Crutzen seems to have radical associations with anti- Catholic / Christian beliefs.
He is a signer according to American Humanist Association, of Their Manifestos
americanhumanist.org/system/storage/63/238/HumanismandItsAspirations.pdf
The American Humanist Association has radical views of Catholicism / Christians.
examiner.com/atheism-in-national/atheist-idaho-billboard-vandalized-again
skepdic.com/atheistbus.html
Granted Mr Crutzen’s associations would not be cause to dismiss his Science - BUT this is NOT a Scientific Paper - It lacks any Citations for claims - and peer review in science isn’t done in a vacuum, as one here tries to insinuate.
Mr Crutzen, because of his chosen associations, AND this being a “Religious Call to Conscience” paper - FOR Catholics / Christians need not be my spiritual guide.
We know it was closed meetings with invited signatures of vested interests.
R. Pachauri ,For one, of India and IPCC fame. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
We are also told hikers took part / signed.
We can also see that Mr. Crutzen chose co writers of other papers in agreement with his views. by doing a little research ]…V. Ramanathan - Another co-lead comes to mind, but there are others.
This was indeed carried out / conceived in a Vacuum.
IMO The Pontifical Academy of Science gave an open door to Mr Crutzen and his mates. Allowing a misleading piece of propaganda to emerge.
Is this the first time the Pontifical Academy of Science failed Catholics?
On Genetic Modified Foods. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the pro-GM statement “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, issued a similar communique, adding that the PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf “cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See.”.
I gave results / links to back up my scientific investigation.
Your feeble attempt at dismissing what my scientific investigation resulted in by trying to claim your “prediction” was warranted - Well makes me laugh with tears.
Thank you for confirming my thoughts
I’ll take that as a yes.
And you are incorrect.
Sea level is not the same across the entire globe. One need look no further then the Panama Canal to prove that beyond doubt.
Perhaps you have a chart to indicate otherwise??
Apparently not.
Else you would realize there where no tectonic drift readings before they started measuring it.
Yet you are insisting they knew and accounted for it.
I read the paper you provided. Tectonics are not mentioned.
50 to 60 is very recent.
Perhaps you should be a surveyer. You seem to have such a grasp of it.
Of course, armchair quarterbacking is easy.
I quoted and left the citation to the paper in place.
‘Misunderstood’ seems a stretch.
There are other possibilities I believe more likely.
Again, I read that paper too.
The QA procedure did not at all specify exclusion of gauges whose location could not be determined properly.
J
JasonSB
Guest
My prediction was that you would “find a way to smear the scientists with no evidence that their work is actually wrong”.
What did you do? Well, I see you wrote a bunch of stuff about P.J. Crutzen who is apparently an atheist and a signer of the manifesto of American Humanist Association which apparently “has radical views of Catholicism / Christians”. Is that not an attempt to smear the lead author?
You even question the wisdom of Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo in signing a paper “when the lead Author is Atheist”.
Did you once attempt to actually demonstrate any error in the document?
No.
You made a whole bunch of claims about the provenance of the document, and a whole bunch of claims about the authors of the document, but not one single claim about the science in the document. Therefore my prediction was correct.
Well, apart from calling it a “misleading piece of propaganda”, you mostly tried to smear all those associated with it, even going so far as to fantasise about why it might have been “pulled”.
But what are you “dissing” me for?
In my first post on it I said:
“Two weeks ago the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences released a report on a workshop they conducted in relation to the observed retreat of mountain glaciers, its causes, and consesequences. The workshop consisted of glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists, mountaineers, and lawyers.”
That’s an indisputable fact.
I then introduced several verbatim quotes from the report with comments like:
"The report on their conclusions begins with a declaration: "
"In response to the claim that today’s climate change is entirely natural and not anthropogenic, the report states: "
"The report also states: "
"They urge societies to: "
I then concluded with:
“Of course, this is not a piece of the church’s key teachings and merely reflects the conclusions of the independent scientists involved, but it does raise the question — will the scientists selected by the Vatican to investigate this issue now be denigrated, too?”
So not only did I post nothing but quotations and accurate summaries of the report’s creation, I even clearly stated that “this is not a piece of the church’s key teachings and merely reflects the conclusions of the independent scientists involved”.
And for daring to mention a report published by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the Vatican’s website you accuse me of throwing “objectivity out the window” and throwing “garbage to promote [my] causes”! How dare someone mention an official publication on the Vatican’s website on a Catholic forum!!!
Why not contact the Vatican about the “garbage” on their website rather than attack someone who merely announced it?
Given the amount of ridiculous, confused, and easily-refuted rubbish that you have posted on this forum, “dissing” someone for quoting a report on the Vatican’s website seems hypocritical even for you.
If that’s what you think scientific investigation is then it’s no wonder you have such a low opinion of real science.
I said: “It is a peer review of the science by Ajai, L. Bengtsson, D. Breashears, P.J. Crutzen, S. Fuzzi, W. Haeberli, W.W. Immerzeel, G. Kaser, C. Kennel, A. Kulkarni, R. Pachauri, T. Painter, J. Rabassa, V. Ramanathan, A. Robock, C. Rubbia, L. Russell, M. Sánchez Sorondo, H.J. Schellnhuber, S. Sorooshian, T. F. Stocker, L.G. Thompson, O.B. Toon, and D. Zaelke — more peer review than most papers get.” That is absolutely correct. What do you think “peer review” is?
“this is not a piece of the church’s key teachings and merely reflects the conclusions of the independent scientists involved”
Are you suggesting that the scientists were lying when they signed their name to the report and that it didn’t really reflect their opinions, or are you suggesting that the scientists were not truly independent and the Vatican somehow instructed them on what they were “supposed” to find?
“this is not a piece of the church’s key teachings and merely reflects the conclusions of the independent scientists involved”
Your feeble attempt at dismissing what my scientific investigation resulted in by trying to claim your “prediction” was warranted - Well makes me laugh with tears.
A smear campaign is not science.Thank you for confirming my thoughts
I know this may come as a shock to you, given the sort of rubbish you normally swallow hook, line, and sinker, but if you want to discredit the report scientifically then you point out where the report is inconsistent with the scientific literature.
If you did that then it wouldn’t matter who wrote it or what their religious beliefs were. I judge scientists on the quality of their science and I judge reports like this by how accurately they represent the science.
You, apprently, judge the scientific work of a scientist based on what religion he believes in or whether he supports genetic modification of crops or not.
Ever heard of the term “non-sequitur”?
J
JasonSB
Guest
Why on earth would you do that?
Is “Why bother asking questions if you’re not going to read my responses? I even included a colourful picture!” not enough of a hint that you seem to have completely failed to understand what I said by virtue of the fact that you’re asking a question that’s already been answered?
Apparently not only is it too much to expect of you to actually read my responses, you’re not even looking at the pretty pictures.
Rather than go back and see what I was talking about, you apparently prefer to assume that I gave the answer you were hoping for so that you could then say:
You know you’re losing an argument when the only time you get to say that is when you assume the other person is saying the opposite of what they’ve already said.
Or even, perhaps, my earlier posts.
I did have a chart, yes. In colour. As I said. But of course it indicated exactly what I said and not what you were apparently hoping I said.
J
JasonSB
Guest
Yet, mysteriously, continental drift was hypothesised some 400 years before GPS was invented and the theory of plate tectonics was developed several decades before.
You seem to believe that until GPS was invented, nobody knew that the continents were in motion and roughly how fast they were going.
You also seem to believe that the continents accelerate so much over the time frames involved that readings made in the last two decades carry no information at all about how fast they were moving a hundred years ago.
And, finally, you seem to have completely missed my post explaining how they accounted for it.
Yes. I even explained how.
Then you need to read the 2004 paper again, as well as my explanation.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Where’ve you been for the last six months, JasonSB? I’ll have to start paying attention to this thread again now that you’ve made it interesting again.
- Status