Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Your source says: a meter to 1.4 meter rise, Monterey. Mine says ll.4 inches since 1860. See

Nonlinear trends and multi-year cycles in sea level records, JGR, 2005JC003229. Picture from (Moore, J.C., A. Grinsted and S. Jevrejeva. 2005. ...
copes.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Posters/2_7_Jevrejeva.pdf.

But, if you insist that the UN IPCC findings are not acceptable, I will go along with you, but remember you cannot pick and choose. Finding part of a "scientific" report erroneous puts the rest of it under suspicion.

You are apparently unable to comprehend posts other than your own, Massagat. Or original sources either, for that matter. I read Phil Jones original interview with the BBC

, whcih you apparently haven't, since you only cite the inaccurate skews that the denialist blogosphere retails, which are not at all what he said. What he said was that there may have been a Medieval Warm Period OR THERE MAY NOT--the evidence is insufficient as yet to tell and may be only localized. He did not say there was no statistical significance. He THE EVIDENCE JUST MISSED BEING STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL. There are all sorts of confidence levels, commonly 99%, 98%, 95%,90%, 60%, and 50%, but others as well. 95% is commonly taken as pretty much sealing the case. To just miss that level means it certainly was statitically significant, probably well above the 90% level, which means we're pretty sure it's the case, but it's a little less ironclad. In other words, those who say he said it was not statically significant are not significant themselves, but buffoons.

And may I interject here that while UEA lost their storage space and had to get rid of the few tons of paper and the probable thousands of computer tape reels (you ever seen those tape reels, Massagat? each one is huge and it;s at the point where it's hard to find something that can read them today), their data is in line with the still extant data from the other satellites and is indeed at the low end of stellite temperature readings. NASA's data, for example, tracks the Arctic too,which HADCRUT mostly did not, and NASA data shows higher temps than HadCrut.

FUTURE rise of a meter to 1.4, Massagat, NOT the rise from 1860 to now. Sheesh. Reading skills.

Note the IPCC Report below:

Scenario-specific projections are based on analysis of multiple runs by multiple climate models, using the various SRES Scenarios. "Low scenario" refers to B1, the most optimistic scenario family. "High scenario" refers to A1FI, the most pessimistic scenario family.

[edit] Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises (excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow[5])for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)

*************
Of course, Monterey Jack and Parados, you do realize, I hope, that these findings by the IPCC in 2007 were derived from computer models. The "scientists" fed in estimates based on data from various sources such as "temperature stations"( which, unfortunately, Dr. Jones of East Anglia says that some of the original data has been LOST) and have come up with a finding that sea levels will rise between 8-17 inches ( See A2 and A1B above) which gives a median of 12.5 inches. A2 and A1 B, are, obviously, the median Scenarios.

These data were, of course, the statistics that were used in the abortive meeting in Copenhagen, in which the Chinese and India told the Developed nations that they would not go along with a draconian reduction in CO2 until the developed nations( in the midst of a world wide recession, no less) cut back co2 severely.

But, if you wish to discredit IPCC, I will accept your positions. That would, of course, leave the world countries with no agreed body of findings with which to hammer out a climate agreement.

In the light of the scandals at East Anglia, a headquarters of the IPCC) it might be best for the globalwarmists to follow the motto of the Republican Senators---
Repeal and Replace.

No, Monterey Jack--rise since 1860 is crucial. Scientific studies( from peer group Journals )show that the rise in sea level since 1860 has been about one foot. The IPCC's scenarios( median findings) show the rise till 2100 to be about 12 inches.

As I have stated previously, if you and parados wish to negate the IPCC findings, I will accept your positions, but, then, what will the world use in its next climate negotiations?

Now, please pay attention:

Findings of sea level rise since 1860 to now--One foot sea level rise.

Major problems because of that rise-NONE

Findings from the IPCC of predicted sea level rise till 2100-About one foot.

As I told you before, the IPCC's middle figure of a foot is not in any sense a median figure. Their scenarios are based on a variety of possibledifferent future parameters, like CO2 emissions. Since by definition we can't tell what the world is going to do in terms of curtailing or increasing CO2 emissions, the IOPCC can only say, if you do X, the result will be Y, but if instead you do A the result will be B. The one foot rise is based on a CO2 reduction target that we almost certainly will not hit. At present it llooks like we're headed more toward the IPCC's maximum.
And as noted, you have to go with the data you have. New data will refine the analysis. New data shows that sea level rise is increasing faster than was obvious when the earlier research was done. That's science, your picture gets better as you do more work on it.. And the current research shows quite a bit more sea level rise with given temperature rises than before. Each IPCC report had more data to work with and more research. The certainties have increased, the error bars have gone down, and each successive one shows that things are speeding up more than the previous one thought. The direction has been the same thru all four reports, but the processes all seem to have picked up speed. If the IPCC has a fault it is that they have erred on the side of caution intheir reports. That is becoming a problem because nature does not seem to be being cautious.

And to repeat, you don't know what you're talking about about effects of sea level rise from 1860 to today. The base level is a foot higher, so storm surges are proportionately higher too, so they go farther inland, hit shoreside facilities harder because they pack more force, and cause more damage. Also storms that were classified as once in a century now may be many times in a century because their base is higher.

In Bangladesh alone, a million people a year have been displaced because of rising water levels. Around the world there have been ongoing efforts for decades to cope with rising sea levels and consequent innundation of coastal land, reducing land and beaches. Loss of coastal wetlands, salinization of coastal water supplies from rising water levels tainting coastal aquifers have all been problems in the last century.Levees, seawalls, breakwaters, sand and stone trucked in and revetments built--there have already been massive infrastructure changes. Loss of coastal barrier islands innundated and washed away by storms on a higher sea level base. Not to mention the fact that in the last everal decades there has been a huge increase in coastal development, coastal housing, and huge increases in the populations of the world's major cities, about a third of which lie within ten meters or less of sea level--that's why they're there in the first place, because the sea is there. You ever walked along the shoreline in any major coastal city and seen how close to sea level the city is, Massagatto? A bit more than a foot's rise and the Back Bay in Boston becomes a bay again, not tony expensive in-city condos.



When you say there has been no significant damage, Massagat, you mean that you haven't looked, not there has been none. I suggest you familiarize yourself with just a portion of the kinds of effects we can expect from a 1-foot rise, let alone a meter rise:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/

I know that the scenarios are based on "a variety of possible different future parameters"

You give little documentation for what you say.

l. Bjorn Lomborg, a famous researcher known throughout the world, wrote:

" In its 2007 report, the UN estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century"

2. You say that "a one foot rise is based on a C02 reduction target that we almost certainly will not hit" Really? Says who? Monterey Jack?

3. You say that "at present itlooks like we're headed more toward the IPCC's maximum". Says who? Monterey Jack? or Phil Jones of the infamous East Anglia scientific crowd who stated to the BBC that there has been NO significant rise in global temperature for the last fifteen years. I dare say that Jones, even given his propensity to tell fibs and lose his scientific data, knows far more than you do about the so-called global warming.

4. Bjorn Lomborg, in his book, "Cool It" , according to you who are, a famous scientist?. must also not know what he is talking about when he states that the new predictions of the IPCC( 2007) ARE LOWER than the "expectations from the 1990's of more than two feet and from the 1980's when the EPA projected a rise of more than six feet" (Lomborg-"Cool It" P. 61)


So, you are greatly in error when you say--"Things are speeding up more than one thought"

Do some reading before you show your massive ignorance again about what the IPCC has reported.

Of course, as I have said before, if you want to throw out all of the IPCC findings, I will go along with you except then the UN will have nothing to use in its next climate convention!

Monterey Jack--Can you rebut the fact that the sea level has risen at least a foot since 1860? If you can, please do it. If you cannot, please give the PROBLEMS which have occured because of the rising sea level.

You must, of course,show the dollar damage which has been caused by sea level rise caused by co2 emissions(you must prove that the co2 emissions have caused the sea level rise) and you must show that the sea level rise problems are much more damaging to our world than earthquakes and tsunamis. There is such a thing as a cost-benefit calculus in Economics, you know!!

Massagato says:

Read the damned original interview Massagato. What he says is almost the diametric opposite of this. He says there is global warming. Original sources, MG, not ones that spin the data as fast as gyroscopes.

We are headed toward the maximums because carbon emissions are increasing at the rates that lead toward the maximum temerature rises that the IPCC simulates. That's why. You're the one that keeps bitching about increased emissions in the developing world and noncompliance with Kyoto. What do you think that means but increased CO2? THINK a little, man.

I have answered all your carping, Massagato. Go back and read the las hour or so's posting. You have not rebutted a single thing I have said, but rather ignored everything. You are not debating ideas. You are ignoring ideas and ranting.

Massagato says:

This is a flatly loopy post. Of course I'm not rebutting the fact that sea level has risen a foot since 1860. It has.I explicitl;y deal with that fact, and the problems it has caused. Can't youu read? And what on earth does the cost of damage due to sea level rise have to do with costs from earthquakes and tsunamis? Why are you even saying they have to be compared? Sea level rise and earthquakes are independent phenomena. They BOTH have to be dealt with. The costs are independent and have to be dealt with as well. If there is no sea level rise from CO2 there will still be earthquakes and tsunamis to deal with. If there IS sealevel rise, there will still be earthquakes and \tsunamis to deal with. You deal with earthquakes among other things by building new buildings to be earthquake resistant, to flex rather than collapse. Youd do that no matter what else happens if you're in an earthquake zone, but of course if you're building in a place where sea level rises, you're a fool to build your earthquake-resistant builing somewhere where it'll be flooded as well.

You are the one who has ignored ideas. I have given chapter and versI have quoted from PRIMARY SOURCES. You have not. I have referenced books on "global warming". You have not. I have quoted the BBC's interview with Phil Jones, you have not.

You have not quoted Phil Jones. You have quoted the talking points of the denialist blogs who have totally misrepresented what he in fact said. During your latest enforced absence this was all gone into thoroughly. I have come far closer to representing what he said than you did.

Here. Read the original.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Ponder the fact that when he is talking about statistical significance he is talking SPECIFICALLY about statistical significance AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL, not what he is saying that it is certainly stastically significant at a somewhat lower level, due to the shortness of the data. Ponder the fact that he says the long-term trend for the last century or so has been statstically significantly the same for the four specified periods within it, and that he is 100% sure there is anthropogenic global warming.

I have read the interview. Have you?
try it!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html.

Exerpts from the article:

"The academic at the centre of the "Climategate: affair whose raw data is CRUCIAL to the theory of climate change has admitted that he has trouble "keeping track" of the information"

"The data is crucial to the famous "hockey stick graph" used by climate change advocates to support the theory "

"Professor Jones also CONCEDED the possiblity that the world was warmer in medieval times than now-suggesting that global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon"

"And he said that for the past 15 years there has no statistically significant warming althoughhe argued that this was a "blip" rather than the long term trend"

READ THE ARTICLE-MONTEREY JACK--This is an admission from a leading climate change advocate that there are huge problems with regard to the information allegedly used to come to certain conclusions.

I am sorry but I can find no evidence that your point below is true.

You wrote:

You're the one that keeps bitching about increased emissions in the developing world and noncompliance with Kyoto.

Please find any comment I made in which I "bitched" about increased emissions in the developing world or any comments in which I noted noncompliance with Kyoto.

I think you need a rest, MontereyJack. You are clearly becoming confused>

Yes, I read the article-- He said:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

YES, BUT ONLY JUST!!!!!!!

Jones also said:
I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.

I ACCEPT THAT SOME HAVE HAD THEIR TRUST IN SCIENCE SHAKEN!!

Now, why would he say such a thing?

Other than the fact that your link doesn't work, Massagato, I would suspect from the title in the URL that it is not in fact the interview but one of the clapped-up misinterpretations of it which are statistically stupid and cherry-pick PARTS of the whole answer. I have given you the link to the actual original interview. Read that. Than tell me if it's the same as your article, assuming you can make the link work.

AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL. If you leave that out, and if you don't know what that means and what"but only just"means statistically , as you apparently don't, and as whoever wrote your source doesn't, then you have no idea what he is saying. To repeat, you can compute any confidence level you want. 95% is taken as the usual standard for an open-and-shut case. What heis saying is that it just misses that standard, which means it is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT at a slightly lower level. He also says that with the long term series, rather than the shorter series, he is 100% sure of global warming.

Again, from your link, Monterey Jack-
U - Now, on to the fallout from "Climategate", as it has become known. You had a leading role in a part of the IPCC, Working Group I. Do you accept that credibility in the IPCC has been damaged - partly as a result of your actions? Does the IPCC need reform to gain public trust?

Some have said that the credibility in the IPCC has been damaged, partly due to the misleading and selective release of particular e-mails. I wish people would spend as much time reading my scientific papers as they do reading my e-mails. The IPCC does need to reassure people about the quality of its assessments.

******************************************************************

How nice of him--THE IPCC DOES NEED TO REASSURE PEOPLE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF ITS ASSESSMENTS.