Skepticism about Climate Change

[Farmer]

At least it's wise of you to admit that you don't know. However, the volumes I've written here are relatively small compared with the volumes written in the research papers and articles I've referred to and linked to, in this thread.

In my small volumes I've also expressed my personal view that governments and individuals are often very negligent when they allow the construction of inadequate dwellings and infrastructure in known flood plains and in areas subject to hurricanes, especially the governments who have full access to the historical record of such extreme weather events, and who set the standards of the building codes. You think that's saying 'nothing useful'? Dear me! 

There you go again.  So many words when all you had to say was "I just quote things that make me happy".  Yes, Ray.  We know.

[Alan Klein]

If you bang on the bottom of a container of water does the level of water rise and stay risen?

Apart from that, "Archimedes".

And this is why it's pointless having a discussion about science with you - you don't understand some of the most basic principles, let alone complex systems, but you think you do.  It's sad.

Thanks for your insulting comment.  I didn't realize you had a PhD in undersea earthquakes and plate tectonics.   I asked a question that has not been discussed anywhere in this thread that I could find.  Your "wise-ass" comment just shows how you don't treat science as science where there are always questions to be answered.  Rather you treat science as religion.  There is no room for heresy or new interpretation or any modifications.  So, off with my head because I dare to ask a question.

So it's really sad that you're so closed-minded.  Aditionally, you were wrong.  Plate tectonics can cause the sea bed to rise which causes the oceans to rise.

The Indian earthquake of 2004: "The raising of the sea floor significantly reduced the capacity of the Indian Ocean, producing a permanent rise in the global sea level by an estimated 0.1 millimetres (0.004 in)."

While this is a small amount especially since it was a huge earthquake, the fact is sea levels do change.  Since there are thousands of them occurring, how much of a cumulative change occurred over the last 100 years?  Did climatetologists include that data in their observations of sea level rises?  What are they? 

Additioanlly, underseas volcanoes also displace sea water raising ocean levels.  The Hawaiian Islands are an example of them.  And there are probably two miles of island beneath the surface.  Again, active volcanoes under the sea may not even be noticed from the surface.  Their outflow, gas, lava, and other elements never reach the surface until the land builds up closer to the surface.  There are huge amounts of magna being realease displace sea water and raising levels.  What effect have these volcanoes had to levels?  Have these been included in climatologist studies?  What are those changes? 

Neither of these two issues may turn out to have a major effect on rising sea levels.  However, they are certainly data points that should be explored to actually see what effect they do have.

Calling me ignorant just shows you're really devoid of scientific curiosity and you just repeat the climate change doctrine like a religious zealot. 

[Alan Klein]

Here's the Wiki article on the earthquake mentioned above.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami

[Farmer]

0.1mm from a massive event.  The same events can cause a decrease as the sea floor collapses.  Similar variations in movement.  In the grand scheme of things, it's well understood and demonstrated that earthquakes are not a factor in the general trend of rising seas.

But, again, since you don't actually understand science you read something that you think fits your narrative and latch onto it and claim it as proof.  Zealot.

[Alan Klein]

0.1mm from a massive event.  The same events can cause a decrease as the sea floor collapses.  Similar variations in movement.  In the grand scheme of things, it's well understood and demonstrated that earthquakes are not a factor in the general trend of rising seas.

But, again, since you don't actually understand science you read something that you think fits your narrative and latch onto it and claim it as proof.  Zealot.

You might be right that it equals out. That's fine.  But it was something I thought of and hadn't seen any comments on it in this thread so I raised the question.  Isn't that what's science is about?  Asking questions. So where is the data?  Have climate researchers done studies of these things and reported them.  Maybe they have.  But I haven't found them.  I only found that my suspicion was right, That tectonic plates can raise the sea floor raise sea levels.

Also, what about underground volcanoes.  Have their spewing lava underwater displace enough water that you can actually measure a rise in sea levels?  Where are the studies?  Were these things reviewed when climatologist claimed that the seas are rising only because on global warming effects? 

Can you provide links to answer these questions?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Also, what about underground volcanoes.  Have their spewing lava underwater displace enough water that you can actually measure a rise in sea levels?  Where are the studies?  Were these things reviewed when climatologist claimed that the seas are rising only because on global warming effects? 

Can you provide links to answer these questions?

I think you mean under sea volcanoes.  In this case, Google is your friend.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_eruption

[Alan Klein]

I think you mean under sea volcanoes.  In this case, Google is your friend.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_eruption

Yes, I meant undersea volcanoes.  It appears that Trump and I tend to gaffe a little. Well,  we've both lived in Queens. 

That's a good link.  Interestingly, it says 70-80% of volcano activity is underwater at mid-ocean ridges.  That means most aren't known about as their activity never gives any tell tale signs at the surface due to their depth.  It's like looking for that airliner that went down west of Australia a couple of years ago that they never found.

There's nothing in the article answering my questions though.  Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels?  How much?  Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming? 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There's nothing in the article answering my questions though.  Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels?  How much?  Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?

Alan, it's really simple. The rate of sea level rise is known pretty well. So when the most prominent sources of sea level rise identified in the IPCC reports, Land-ice/glacier meltwater, and thermal expansion, are subtracted from that known rate, there is not much left to be explained. Amongst others, tectonic effects are also mentioned, but they are more relevant to land level changes that need to be calibrated out of the tide gauge measurements.

Section 9.4 of the IPCC document link below explains, in scientific terms.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

There  are  four  major  climate-related  factors  that  could possibly  explain  a rise  in global  MSL  on  the  100-year  time 
scale.   These  are :
1)     thermal  expansion  of the oceans,
2)     glaciers  and  small  ice caps,
3)     the Greenland  ice sheet,  and 
4)     the  Antarctic  ice  sheet  (including  the  special  case  of  the West  Antarctic  ice  sheet)

In other sections of that document (e.g. section 9.4.7), it is explained what the difficulties are that affect the accuracy of the measurements.

Cheers,
Bart

[jeremyrh]

There's nothing in the article answering my questions though.  Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels?  How much?  Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?

My god - I do believe you're right - the world's geophysicists have forgotten that there are undersea volcanoes. Thank heavens Alan Klein is here to set us on the right road!!

[Alan Klein]

Alan, it's really simple. The rate of sea level rise is known pretty well. So when the most prominent sources of sea level rise identified in the IPCC reports, Land-ice/glacier meltwater, and thermal expansion, are subtracted from that known rate, there is not much left to be explained. Amongst others, tectonic effects are also mentioned, but they are more relevant to land level changes that need to be calibrated out of the tide gauge measurements.

Section 9.4 of the IPCC document link below explains, in scientific terms.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
In other sections of that document (e.g. section 9.4.7), it is explained what the difficulties are that affect the accuracy of the measurements.

Cheers,
Bart

The report acknowledge errors in the reading of levels.  That is stated on the same page 206 you copied is a statement, I copied below,  on the problems with measurements from the sea level instruments themselves due to changes in vertical land movements due to tectonic and other influences. 

Also, I couldn't find in the study, any measurements or estimates of how tectonic plate movements in mid-ocean where there are no instruments.  These movements cause vertical changes in the sea bed changing sea levels.  Also, undersea volcanos adding land mass displacing the ocean contribute to changes to the overall level of the oceans.  There are no instruments measuring these things at all as far as I know.  Certainly, the study did not report such measurements.  So the study that you provided, while informative, does not answer my questions.  These important changes are not included.  All the changes in levels are being blamed on global warming.  Tectonic changes to sea bed levels and volcano output displacing sea water are not addressed at all.  Did IPSS address these issue at all with actual studies and measurements? 

"Finally, perhaps the most important source of error stems from the difficulties involved in removing vertical land movements from the dataset In addition to the effects noted above, most mid-latitude stations located on continental margins are especially susceptible to effects from sedimentation, groundwater and oil extraction, and tectonic influences and could be undergoing general submergence, which, unless accounted for, could introduce a positive bias into any global MSL secular trend (Pirazzoli et al , 1987) In order to identify a globally-coherent trend that can be linked to changes in global climate, such effects have to be removed. The issue is how to do so.

In the future, the inherent ambiguity between land and ocean level changes in a tide gauge record will be solved by the use of advanced geodetic methods, but such data are not available for present analysis (Carter et al , 1989) In lieu of new geodetic data, one approach adopted by recent analyses has been to model explicitly the expected geology-induced MSL changes at each tide gauge site by the use of ancillary Holocene data (e g , molluscs, corals, peats Gornitz et al , 1982, Gornitz and Lebedeff, 1987) or by the use of geodynamic models of the Earth (Peltier and Tushingham, 1989, 1990) The other approach is simply to assemble a sufficiently broad geographical spread of records such that (it is hoped) the net contribution of land movements reduces to zero (Barnett 1983 1984 1988)"

[Alan Klein]

There's nothing in the article answering my questions though.  Have undersea volcano activity displaced water raising ocean levels?  How much?  Have these amounts been included in climatologist studies of global warming?

My god - I do believe you're right - the world's geophysicists have forgotten that there are undersea volcanoes. Thank heavens Alan Klein is here to set us on the right road!!

Typical liberal response.  When you can't show proof, you make fun of the questioner. "Show me the money!"

[Alan Klein]

Alan, it's really simple. The rate of sea level rise is known pretty well. So when the most prominent sources of sea level rise identified in the IPCC reports, Land-ice/glacier meltwater, and thermal expansion, are subtracted from that known rate, there is not much left to be explained. Amongst others, tectonic effects are also mentioned, but they are more relevant to land level changes that need to be calibrated out of the tide gauge measurements.

Section 9.4 of the IPCC document link below explains, in scientific terms.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
In other sections of that document (e.g. section 9.4.7), it is explained what the difficulties are that affect the accuracy of the measurements.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart:  I responded to the analysis in my previous post.  The thing that bothers me about "errors in the measurements" that are acknowledged in the study is the following.  That the study then just ignores the errors as if they don't exist and go on to blame global warming for measurements of sea levels that are not accurate.

How convenient. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The report acknowledge errors in the reading of levels.  That is stated on the same page 206 you copied is a statement, I copied below,  on the problems with measurements from the sea level instruments themselves due to changes in vertical land movements due to tectonic and other influences.

Alan, there are uncertainties involved in any such measurements, and the scientists are aware of them. When well quantifiable, they are used to correct/calibrate the tidal gauge measurements, and this information is averaged over decadal periods (as is customary in Climate studies).

Also, I couldn't find in the study, any measurements or estimates of how tectonic plate movements in mid-ocean where there are no instruments.

Again, when the observed rate of sea level rise is explained by the major known drivers, there is little left to explain.

Did IPSS address these issue at all with actual studies and measurements?

 

They are focusing on Climate Change. Plate tectonics is, as far as I know, not a major factor in Climate Change. The known tectonic/volcanic effects are also too small to make even a dent in the total volume of water, compared to the major contributors. Climate Change is also happening way too fast, compared to these slow geological processes.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart:  I responded to the analysis in my previous post.  The thing that bothers me about "errors in the measurements" that are acknowledged in the study is the following.  That the study then just ignores the errors as if they don't exist and go on to blame global warming for measurements of sea levels that are not accurate.

They do not ignore the uncertainties, they are used to correct the relative measurements, but there remain (known but not accurately quantifiable) uncertainties. By comparing such measurements at different locations, the global average rates are less uncertain, but not perfect. However, over the period of a decade, the trend becomes clear.

Instrumentation keeps improving, so the uncertainties will reduce over (more recent) time.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruptions have been around for centuries and have not led to the same measurable changes in sea level that we are experiencing with polar ice melting. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

 Slobodan’s theory of dinosaurs disappearance: their flatulence was becoming more frequent and/or more forceful, almost explosive. Until one day they spontaneously combusted. That’s it. I am now looking for a peer-review journal to publish it.

[Alan Klein]

Plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruptions have been around for centuries and have not led to the same measurable changes in sea level that we are experiencing with polar ice melting. 

You're assuming the plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruption changes have been the same from century to century.  Also, local changes where the measurement instruments are located have been changing more frequently and in larger amounts.  The article acknowledges they cannot know what effect these have.  So basically, they're saying let's ignore it anyway.

GIGO= Garbage In Garbage Out.  The biggest problem with computer simulations and analysis is that you don't input all the data.  Important stuff is not included often because it's just not known.  Some the results are wrong, partially wrong, and in many cases the prediction turns out to be opposite once the missing data is entered.  One has to scratch his head when he reads that the researcher in his own paper says he knows there are errors in the measurements but he can't assess how bad they are.  Why isn't the public told these things?  How many people actually read these reports like I just did?  One in a thousand?    Media doesn't tell us.  That's not right.  Responsible journalism should be giving us these clarifications so we can know ALL the facts not just the facts that "prove" a pre-conceived notion.   This is why there are many deniers.  Because they have the right hunch they're not being given all the facts.  That Global Warming and Climate Change is dressed up for political and economic effect to get people on board.  No one likes to be fooled. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You're assuming the plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruption changes have been the same from century to century.  Also, local changes where the measurement instruments are located have been changing more frequently and in larger amounts.  The article acknowledges they cannot know what effect these have.  So basically, they're saying let's ignore it anyway.

No, they're not. The local uncertainty is larger, but the global average still averages out the differences and multiple samples reduce the standard deviations. Improved new technology confirms the observed trends.


Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

No, they're not. The local uncertainty is larger, but the global average still averages out the differences and multiple samples reduce the standard deviations. Improved new technology confirms the observed trends.


Cheers,
Bart

Bart, YOU were the one who provided the original research study link we're discussing that indicates there are errors in the sea level readings due to vertical changes where the instruments are located.  Now you say above that  "Improved new technology confirms the observed trends." OK.  Please provide that confirmation.

[Alan Goldhammer]

You're assuming the plate tectonic shifting and undersea volcanic eruption changes have been the same from century to century.  Also, local changes where the measurement instruments are located have been changing more frequently and in larger amounts.  The article acknowledges they cannot know what effect these have.  So basically, they're saying let's ignore it anyway.

Tectonic shifting has been going on for a very long time.  there are lots of geophysical events that are measured over very long time periods.  John McPhee has written some very nice books on the topic that I read when they were excerpted in The New Yorker.  It's also worth remembering that the amount of water within the earth's geo- and atmos- pheres is virtually constant.  Release of water from frozen sources causes an increase in sea level.